Month: February 2019
Your Saturday videos
If, like me, you didn’t stay up for the State of the Union and the Democratic reply, it is worth 10 minutes to view what Stacey Abrams had to say:
But caveat emptor, fully one-third of the reactions on Youtube to this CNN video are thumbs’ down.
For those who might prefer Stephen Colbert, who gets fewer thumbs’ down, here is his “Restate of Our Union”:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Keeping rigor in a shallow environment
The Middle East Institute hosted a discussion on Thursday 30 about the role of think tanks in shaping Middle East policy, with Randa Slim, Senior Fellow and Director of Conflict Resolution at MEI. She was Joined by Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Paul Salem, President of Middle East Institute, Steven Kenney, Principal of Foresight Vector LLC, and Sami Atallah, Director of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies.
Katulis stated that Thinks Tanks are in an existential crisis; the weak and incoherent policy planning process inside the US government has affected the analysis they are doing. There is also a growing tendency towards advocacy as opposed to analysis, reflecting Trump’s disruptive style of politics and decision-making. This approach has created an incentive for many think tanks just to react to the latest decisions without examining more holistically what is going on. Katulis claims the sectarianism and tribalism that exist in the Middle East are also echoed in DC in the sense that think tanks tend not to bring together people with different views. Worse, the media has affected the way policy and politics are conducted, making scholars too reactive to events and statements coming out of the current Administration.
Slim mentioned that there is too much Track I dialogue and not enough emphasis on Track II. She stated that Track II diplomacy had become a growing field of study, to which MEI has devoted particular attention. The work done by Herbert Kelman on the Arab -Israeli conflict has fertilized this field in the Middle East. The Taif agreement for Lebanon was negotiated in a three-year Track II process that started before the official negotiations, subsequently producing an outcome that translated into Track I official negotiations. When there is no working policy process as in the current US administration, or when there are no relations between the antagonists in a conflict such as the Saudi-Iranian conflict, there is no Track I to hook to.
Reflecting on the role of thank tanks in the Middle East, Salem gave an overview of how the civil society organizations fuel of these research centers. They have had a significant impact in producing policy ideas and creating young leaders who are empowered, informed and moving into public space. Think tanks were part of the awakening and empowerment that led up to the Arab Spring. For Salem, that impact had two effects; it empowered civil society, but at the same time it drew government antagonism. In the US, it is challenging to impact the government due to the lack of a political process that is real, meaningful, and coherent. The same thing can be said about the resurgent authoritarian regimes in the Middle East inspired by China and Russia and encouraged by the current illiberal president Donald Trump.
Atallah described the political environment thinks tanks are operating in as not inclusive or transparent, leaving little chance for them to influence decisions. There is also a problem of financial sustainability. Think tanks need a long-term income stream to hire senior staff to deal with emerging issues. According to Atallah, through research, advocacy and conferences think tanks have been able to introduce key ideas and influence decision-making in Lebanon.
Kenney spoke about the few mainstream think tanks tjat are employing the methods of foresight in a concerted way, alongside the other research and analysis they have traditionally done. For Kenney, the rigor, comprehensiveness and objectivity of think tanks and the methodology behind them do not often get recognized. The misconception many have is that think tanks are the equivalent of looking into a crystal ball and trying to predict the future. Kenny clarified that think tanks explain why things are the way they are today and extrapolate forward from that.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Insincerity and mendacity
President Trump’s State of the Union address, delivered last night, was the opening salvo in his re-election campaign, as Mara Liasson put it on NPR this morning:
Trying to appear calm and “presidential,” Trump appealed for unity while doubling down on some of the most divisive issues in American politics: his proposed extension of the wall on the Mexican border, his appeal to the Democrats not to investigate his campaign and administration, and his attempt at rapprochement with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The calm delivery from the Teleprompter won’t last past his next tweet.
Some of what he said was downright scary: he suggested the US could have peace only if the investigations stop. The logic is all too clear: if the Democrats and Special Counsel pursue wrongdoing, the President might respond by taking the country to war. Is this what he intended? Impossible to tell, since he is anything but logical. But lots of leaders do go to war to distract from domestic difficulties, and Trump is a master of distraction. He also often says what others never vocalize. Was he threatening war as a response to domestic political challenges?
Trump doubled down on some other bad ideas: he vowed to stick with the tariff war against China, he pledged to outspend Russia in developing intermediate range nuclear forces, and he announced 3750 more troops will be sent to the southern border to meet a non-existent flood of illegal immigrants. The tariff war is clearly a violation of America’s World Trade Organization commitments, a nuclear arms race with Russia is not where America needs to go, and the use of the US Army to roll out barbed wire (it is prohibited from law enforcement functions) is one of the most expensive and useless ways to protect the border, apart from the border wall. There is no sign whatsoever that Trump has moderated his radical and unfounded approaches to trade, defense, and immigration.
Syria and Afghanistan, America’s two biggest wars at present, got short shrift. Trump reiterated his commitment to bringing the troops home from Syria without however any idea of what will happen after they leave. In Afghanistan, he referenced the negotiations with the Taliban but also gave little idea of the strategy for what happens after withdrawal. Trump is in effect declaring victory and getting out of both wars–the uproar such an approach would have caused were a Democratic president pursuing it would be deafening. The Senate has objected on a bipartisan basis to these announced withdrawals, but there is little indication Trump is listening.
The misstatements and abuses of facts were legion. The most egregious surround his claim of credit for the reasonably good state of the US economy. In fact, average monthly job growth has declined slightly from President Obama’s second term. Ditto his claim of credit for the increase in US oil and gas production, which started under Obama. He even boasted that there are more women in Congress than ever before but failed to note that they are mostly Democrats. The number of Republican women in Congress has actually declined.
For me, perhaps the iconic mendacity of this State of the Union is contained in this sentence:
If I had not been elected president of the United States, we would right now, in my opinion, be in a major war with North Korea.
There is of course no way of knowing how Hillary Clinton might have handled Pyongyang, but we do know that the only President who has loudly threatened war against North Korea is Donald Trump. And we also know that there is no sign whatsoever that Kim is giving up either his nuclear weapons or his intercontinental ballistic missiles, despite the blandishments Trump is offering. Trump failed to get anything substantial from Kim at, and since, their first meeting. So what is he doing? Scheduling another meeting late this month. Trump is a great flim flam salesman but a truly terrible negotiator.
Forty per cent of the American public is still fooled, even if the insincerity and mendacity are obvious.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
My State of the Union
My fellow Americans,
The state of our union is confused and uncertain. Our economic recovery is aging and shaky. The rich are getting a lot richer while American workers struggle. Government revenue is insufficient. Medicare and Social Security are at risk. The national debt is growing by leaps and bounds. Our future is mortgaged to the hilt.
We no longer have a clear idea of what we stand for or how to deal with the poverty, drug abuse, obesity, gender bias, and racism that infects much of our population. One of our major political parties has committed itself to voter suppression, sharply curtailing immigration, and courting white supremacists. A $25 billion wall on the Mexican border is their totem, despite its predictable ineffectiveness in blocking undocumented entries and drug trafficking.
Our institutions are not functioning well. The Justice Department and FBI are struggling to maintain their professionalism. The State Department has been eviscerated and marginalized. The courts are being politicized. Big parts of the Federal Government–Interior, EPA, HUD, Education, Commerce–are headed by people who oppose the missions Congress has given them. The Congress itself is polarized and only occasionally able to pass legislation on a bipartisan basis.
Abroad we have surrendered our leadership role. Withdrawals from the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate change agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty have signaled disdain for our friends, weakness to our enemies, and lack of confidence in our ability to cooperate with others to mutual advantage. It will be very difficult to convince anyone to enter into a future agreement with the United States, as we have proven unreliable and unpredictable. Our only friends abroad are the would-be autocrats of the world: Xi, Putin, Kim, Duterte, various Crown Princes, and Netanyahu.
We continue to rely excessively on military instruments to try to shape the world to our liking. Unwise threats of military intervention in Venezuela and an ill-considered declaration that we would use the American troops remaining in Iraq to counter Iran have cast long shadows on otherwise reasonable propositions. Precipitous withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan announced without laying the required diplomatic basis threaten to end in debacle. We are unable to calibrate the use of our superb military so that it serves the national interest.
Current American weakness comes at a moment of revived, if still far from existential, threat. Russia is challenging US hegemony in Europe and the Middle East. China is challenging US hegemony in the Asia Pacific and in global markets. We are unwilling, though perhaps not unable, to counter Moscow’s roguish behavior. Our response to China has precipitated a tariff war that is as harmful to the US economy as it is to the Chinese.
My fellow Americans, the pace and direction of our Union are speeding us to where we should not want to go. We need to stop the downward spiral before it becomes irreversible. We need to point ourselves in the direction of restoring American ideals. We need to once again show leadership on the international stage and willingness to sacrifice for the common good.
The sooner we do it, the better. The longer we wait, the harder it gets.
The state of our Union is bad. Let’s make it better.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Balkan regatta
I’m not a handicapper, but it seem to me the race for EU membership in the Balkans is shifting. Serbia is often referred to as the “frontrunner,” but it no longer really is, if it ever was. Macedonia has been a laggard, but that too is no longer the case. Kosovo is having a hard time keeping up, but that is in part due to an unreceptive EU. Bosnia and Herzegovina still occupies last place.
Serbia was arguably never really in first place, but by now it has certainly yielded to Montenegro, which has opened 32 chapters of the acquis communautaire required to become an EU member (and closed 3 of the 32). Serbia has opened 16 and closed 2. But Montenegro also has an easier path to EU membership, as it lacks many of the industries that Serbia needs to make comply with EU regulations. Montenegro also has a far freer press, whereas Serbia’s is under the government’s informal but still tight control. Both countries lack the fully independent and professional judiciary that will be necessary before accession. That is the long pole in the tent throughout the Balkans.
The big difference between Montenegro and Serbia lies in foreign policy. Montenegro, already a NATO member, is fully aligned with the EU on Russia. Serbia is not: it hosts a Russian “humanitarian” base and has refused to go along with sanctions against Moscow for its annexation of Crimea. Belgrade has no intention of seeking NATO membership. Serbian President Vucic recently gave President Putin a hero’s welcome in Belgrade, complete with paid crowds bused in from the provinces.
Skopje’s resolution of its “name” dispute with Athens has thrown the door to NATO wide open. Accession for “the Republic of North Macedonia” will follow as soon as ratifications are received from the 29 other members. The name change will also re-initiate Macedonia’s stalled EU accession process. As with Serbia and Montenegro, the long pole in the tent will be an independent and professional judiciary, but North Macedonia will likely make quick progress on other chapters.
Kosovo carries several burdens that the others don’t, even though all its legislation has been required to be EU-compatible since independence. Its stalled dialogue with Serbia needs to get restarted. Only after a fully normalized relationship can it hope to open accession talks, because of opposition from the EU’s five non-recognizing members. In addition, the EU sets a particularly high bar for Kosovo. This was apparent in its postponement of a visa waiver program even after Pristina had fully met many more requirements than any other country in the Balkans. Judicial professionalism and independence will also be a serious challenge in a country where personal relations count for a lot and institutional consolidation is still limited.
Still, Bosnia brings up the rear. It has been saddled with a coordination mechanism that gives both its entities, the Federation and Republika Srpska, as well as the ten Federation cantons and the Brcko District veto power over negotiation and implementation of the acquis. This is unworkable. Only when the Sarajevo government gets full authority to negotiate and implement the acquis will Bosnia be able to make serious progress on EU accession. NATO membership for Bosnia is ruled out for now by the leadership of Republika Srpska, which shares Belgrade’s antipathy for the Alliance as well as its affection for Russia and Putin.
So here is my sense of the regatta: Montenegro>Macedonia>Serbia>Kosovo>Bosnia. Serbia has slipped a couple of places, Macedonia is gaining, Kosovo is lagging in part because the EU wants it that way, and Bosnia is bringing up the rear.
Of course there are serious questions about the condition NATO and the EU will be in when any of these countries accede. Brexit, President Trump, and ethnic nationalist populism are real drags on the liberal democratic evolution of the former Yugoslav states, where ethnic nationalist populism in the 1990s became homicidal and even genocidal. But let there be no doubt that the accession processes are still the best thing going for the Balkans: they give people and governments there purpose and hope.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The not so Super Bowl
Today America consummates its love of football in a gigantic extravaganza called the Super Bowl. Unlike most of the country, I won’t be watching, wagering, drinking, or overeating.
I don’t like the Super Bowl, for many reasons:
- The game of football is a strange one, as it involves brief clashes between superhuman athletes protected by elaborate equipment followed by long intervals when nothing interesting is happening. Compare rugby, where the ball is almost constantly in play: “no pads, no helmets, just balls.”
- All that protection it turns out is pretty much useless. Professional football players are succumbing early and often to serious brain injuries. They also suffer many other serious ailments. The sport is deadly.
- But it is also appealing to minority youth, as most of the well-paid professional players are black. So we end up cheering minority athletes who are damaging their own health and well being for (mainly white) America’s amusement. Anything wrong with that?
- The National Football League that administers this murderous affair has succumbed to political pressure, cracking down on athletes who have tried to use their public exposure to protest racial abuse, mainly by America’s police departments.
- Much of American spends Super Bowl Sunday loafing, betting, and over-imbibing, so advertisers spend truly astronomical sums selling their wares to an insalubrious audience. The cleverness that once characterized Super Bowl ads has largely evaporated. Why bother when so many of the spectators are drunk?
The only real virtue I can think of for the Super Bowl is its instruction on Roman numerals, as that is how the annual event is labeled. This year is Super Bowl LIII. That’s fitting, since the event resembles the deadly gladiatorial contests of Ancient Rome.
No, I won’t be watching. I’m heading out to visit an aged cousin. That will be much more satisfying than watching 300-pound behemoths do deadly damage to each others’ bodies and brains while America adds to its unfortunate obesity and alcohol abuse. And there won’t be much traffic.
RSS - Posts
