Month: December 2019
The end is nigh 2019
Except for my 401k, the teens have not been a great decade. We’ve watched the Arab spring turn into the Arab civil wars, Russia reassert itself annexing Crimea and invading Ukraine, China increase its overt and covert challenges to the US, and North Korea defy American efforts to limit or eliminate its nuclear and missile programs. The US has initiated trade wars, withdrawn from international commitments (including the Paris climate change accord as well as the Iran nuclear deal and the intermediate nuclear forces agreement), and abandoned its support for democracy and rule of law, not only but importantly in Israel and Palestine.
Several of these developments could worsen in 2020. The Iran/US tit-for-tat is more likely to escalate than de-escalate. Some Arab civil wars like Yemen and Syria are burning out, but others are spreading beyond the Arab world, with Turkey intervening in Syria and Libya, Russia and Egypt in Libya, and Iran in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Russia is not advancing in Ukraine, but it seems disinclined to withdraw via the Minsk II agreement that would re-establish Ukraine’s control over its southeastern border with Russia and allow a significant degree of autonomy for Luhansk and Donetsk. China and the US have reached a limited and partial agreement on trade, but no more comprehensive accord is in sight. North Korea is bound to test more missiles, if not nuclear weapons.
US mistakes are especially concerning. The withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal has freed Iran to begin to violate its provisions, accelerating the date at which Tehran will have all the technology it needs to make nuclear weapons. Global warming is accelerating and the arms race with Russia is quickening. NATO is not brain dead, but US leadership of the alliance is more in doubt than ever before due to the President’s inability to recognize the real advantages a multilateral partnership gives to American power projection. American abandonment of even the pretense of evenhandedness in Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians has opened the door to extremist Jewish ambitions to annex the West Bank.
Only 11 months remain before the next US presidential election. It will focus mainly on domestic issues like the economy, health care, religion, and race. But there can be no doubt the United States is less well positioned internationally than it was in January 2017, when President Trump took office. The rest of the world increasingly regards the U.S. as a menace to peace and security, not its guarantor. Excessive reliance on military force and erratic decisionmaking have reduced American influence. Even the relatively strong economy, which has continued to grow at the pace established in the Obama administration and thereby reduced unemployment to historic lows, has not propped up American prestige, because of Trump’s trade wars. Enthusiasm for America is at a nadir in most of the world.
We can hope for better and toast the prospects this evening. But there is little reason to believe the United States is going to recover until it gets new leadership, not only in the White House but also in the Senate, where the new year will see some semblance of a “trial” of President Trump on self-evident impeachment charges. He tried to extort Ukraine into investigating a political rival for his personal benefit using US government resources and has withheld cooperation with the resulting investigation. But few if any Republican Senators seem ready to acknowledge the facts. I might hope Chief Justice Roberts will refuse to preside over a sham procedure and insist on testimony, but he has given no hint of that yet.
America is a great country. It has survived many mistakes. But whether it can get through the next year without doing itself irreversible harm is in doubt. It could “acquit” and re-elect a president most of the world regards as more of a threat to peace and security than Vladimir Putin. Or it could, against the odds, redeem itself and its role in the world with a conviction, a good election free of international interference, and inauguration of someone the world and most its citizens can respect. Take your choice, America.
And happy New Year!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 28-31
I was traveling over the weekend, so managed to miss some first-rate recommendations by Charlie Stevenson:
December 31
Forward: Protesters storm US embassy in Baghdad — in response to US airstrikes, as reported by WaPo and NYT stories.
– Likely changes in congressional representation after 2020 census.
– Chinese impact in Djibouti.
– Navy tries again to decommission carrier Truman and cut an air wing.
Backward: Sarah Binder reflects on Congress in 2019.
– FP lists top ten stories.
See you next year….
December 30
– NYT has long piece with previously unreported details of administration fights over Ukraine aid. OMB began working in June to halt aid; Trump met in late August with Pompeo, Esper & Bolton and rejected their unanimous advice to release aid.
-WaPo reveals backchannel of Giuliani & Cong. Pete Sessions negotiating with Maduro.
–US struck forces linked to Iran in Iraq & Syria in response to attacks in Kirkuk that wounded Americans. Here’s Reuters background.
– NYT explains al shabab’s strengths.
– Armed Services chairmen vow smaller NDAA next year. It was amazing to me how many foreign policy and non-defense matters were shoehorned into the bill. But, then, few other bills were debated in the Senate.
December 29
– NYT has long article documenting Trump administration’s demotion and disregard of scientific expertise.
-Newly released documents show how banker David Rockefeller maneuvered to help the shah of Iran.
-Hard to dispute:article calls Sen. McConnell the “most consequential US politician of the past decade.”
December 28
– NYT says Russia is ahead in hypersonic weapons.
– Congress is more assertive against Trump on foreign policy.
– Huawei is making nice in Europe and winning.
– Fed study says Trump tariffs backfired.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 27
– NYT has transcripts and videos of SEAL testimony about Chief Gallafgher’s war crimes.
– FP lists several largely overlooked news stories this year.
– The new axis of something: Russia, China & Iran have joint naval exercises.
– Cybercom brags of measures to counter Russian electoral interference.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 24
– NYT says US plans major drawdown from west Africa.
– Pro-foreign aid group lists details of budget agreement on function 150 spending.
– Administration has new cyber security R&D plan.
– Xi brings Abe and Moon together.
– BBC says ISIS is rebuilding in Iraq.
PS: Merry Christmas!
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 23
As we all know, little of significance ever happens between December 23 and January 2. But there are still interesting things to read.
-Did you know [I didn’t] that the OSS had a design bureau that had a major impact on postwar design of things like the UN logo, the WH Situation Room, and molded chairs?
– ProPublica analysis says poor software contributed to the USS McCain’s collision.
– More items buried in the NDAA are surfacing: a study about Djibouti required; withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty blocked.
– Case closed. Saudi courts sentence 5 underlings to death because of the Khashoggi murder. Senior officials exonerated.
– FP says the administration is planning to create a special envoy and task force for the Sahel.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Xi/Bismarck
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson, of Stevenson’s Army fame, distributed this comment today. While I disagree in general on industrial policy, which is a trap we should allow the Chinese to fall into, R&D and protection of intellectual property are certainly important.
Stimulated by a student paper which I hope will eventually be published, I see that there are valuable ways of thinking about US-Chinese relations that go beyond our current focus on things like “the Thucydides Trap” or “a new Cold War.” One of the flaws in these popular analogies is that they quickly lead inexorably to self-fulfilling prophecies, the ill-fitting anti-Soviet playbook, or even nuclear war.
Other ways of looking at the US-Chinese competition include rivalries in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. The most optimistic and least applicable analogy is the peaceful British-American transition detailed in Kori Schake’s Safe Passage. Another example is the British-French rivalry following the Seven Years’ War in 1763. French officials consciously adopted a policy to “enfeeble” the British, first by strengthening their continental alliances and then by trying to dismember the British empire, starting with support for the American rebels. That worked – until the costs of that global war and other domestic problems triggered a revolution in Paris.
I’m especially intrigued by a third example: the British-German rivalry in the several decades before the First World War. I was aware of the military arms race between the two countries but needed reminding of the much greater breadth of the competition. Three Princeton economists show how Germany sought to leap ahead of Britain by promoting national technologies, using financial tools, blunt tariffs, and even massive infrastructure projects like the Berlin-to-Baghdad railway, which would have ended Berlin’s reliance on the Suez Canal. [A German geographer coined the “silk road” term.]
Consciously or not, China already seems to be copying Bismarckian Germany’s multi-pronged approach, competing with America in trade, technology, finance, and infrastructure, as well as alliances and weaponry. I worry that the United States has been narrowly focused on military capabilities and espionage, while giving insufficient attention to other technology matters and broader diplomatic and economic relations. My takeaway is that we need a deliberate industrial policy including large government R&D expenditures and targeted technology trade measures.
RSS - Posts
