Month: January 2020
Worse than I thought
My initial reaction to the Administration’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan for settling Israel/Palestine issues was negative, but insufficiently so. The “peace” plan is far worse than I thought.
First, there is the map. President Trump claimed the Palestinian state would be contiguous. It is not. Even on the West Bank that isn’t true, and there are several enclaves in the Negev Desert completely separated from the main populated areas, not to mention an infeasible tunnel linking Gaza with the West Bank. Palestine would be like ink drops on a greater Israel:
Second, Israel would maintain overall security control of Palestine, or should we call it Palestan, as well as the Jordan River valley. De-militarization of Palestine I understand, and in principle Mahmoud Abbas has agreed. But that is different from allowing Israel to intervene whenever and wherever it wants, as it does today, in the West Bank (and presumably Gaza in the future). Nor do I understand why Israeli tanks are needed on the Jordan River: the Kingdom on the other side depends heavily on Israel for its security and isn’t going to attack. What is the purpose of holding on to the Jordan River valley? How defensible would it be if something were to happen, with Palestinians in the rear? If the purpose is border control, there is really no need for territorial control but only an Israeli presence at Palestinian border posts.
There is more, because the plan not only imposes unreasonable limits on Palestinian sovereignty but also gives Israel just about everything it has ever asked for: all of Jerusalem, all the main settlements on the West Bank constituting about 30% of the territory, and recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. No wonder Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted this plan out in public before the next Israeli election: it is a wet dream for the Greater Israel chauvinists.
The economic portion of the plan is mostly smoke and mirrors. Lots of OPM (other people’s money) going not just to the Palestinians but also to several Arab countries to buy their silence. The million jobs created is just aspirational. There is no real plan for that or other economic benefits.
Besides: nothing happens to implement this wretched deal until Hamas is gone from Gaza. I suppose that may happen some day, but there are no indications it will be soon. The plan is counterproductive to that end, as it provides a strong incentive to vote for more radical political forces.
The Israelis it should be noted get what they want right away. Trump has greenlighted the annexation of the West Bank settlements, which the Knesset intends to pass into law promptly. This is a real estate deal in which the land grab comes first, with vague promises of payment in the future, if the Palestinians behave themselves and accept a less than sovereign and independent state. That’s worse than I thought.
For those who may wonder what the Jewish community in the US is thinking, here is a video from J Street, which is closer to the majority liberal and conservative factions than the more often cited AIPAC:
PS: One reader reports that the video doesn’t work for him. If you are having trouble, it is also up on the J Street website.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 29
– President Trump unveiled his vision for Arab-Israeli peace. NYT says the Arab reaction was “muted.”
The only money figure I noted was “$50 billion” in “investment” in Palestinian territories, presumably only from Muslim nations. The Netanyahu government plans to seize the moment by annexing territories the Trump plan would allow.
– CNAS has a new report on how to deal with China, commissioned by Congress. It tracks the proposals by CFR and others. There seems to be a consensus on using foreign and domestic policies to compete vigorously with PRC.
– In class we’ll talk a lot about organizational cultures. There’s a new SOCOM report recognizing a need for some changes in its culture.
– Jim Lewis of CSIS analyzes the impact of the UK decision to use some Huawei products.
-FT warns that India and China are both facing stagflation.
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:
Economic sanctions work, but…
The continued use of US economic sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba was the focus for a Brookings panel, Economic Sanctions: Assessing their use and implications for U.S. foreign policy on January 27. Moderated by James Goldgeier, Robert Bosch Senior Visiting Fellow, the panel included Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow Center for Middle East Policy, Energy Security and Climate Initiative, Jung H. Pak, Senior Fellow Center for East Asia Policy Studies, and Ted Piccone, Nonresident Senior Fellow Security and Strategy.
Four Case Studies
Maloney believes the US uses sanctions in tandem with diplomacy with Iran, but usually is not joined by others. Two changes have occurred that altered the effectiveness of sanctions on Iran:
- After the 9/11 attacks, US sanctions became more targeted and were no longer only trade sanctions.
- The energy market has shifted with increased production outside the Persian Gulf.
US sanctions have not achieved their political goal of a dramatic reversal of core Iranian policy, but rather have only impacted the economy. Maloney argues that economic sanctions are effective in countries that already have dysfunctional economies, allowing the sanctions to compound structural problems.
Pak, an expert on North Korea, claims that the US only started piling on sanctions on North Korea since 2016, focused on sectors like seafood, iron, oil. The targeted sanctions of 2005 on Banco Delta Asia, which was helping facilitate North Korean illicit financing measures, led to serious economic problems. This sanction signaled to other banks and investment funds that doing business with North Korea was risky.
Piccone emphasizes that Cuba is an example of ineffective US sanctions, since they did not achieve their specified target of dislodging the Communist regime and removing Castro from power even if they were successful in stifling the economy. The US failed with Cuba sanctions to gain multilateral support. Due to the devastated economy, Cubans suffered and migrated: over 10% of the Cuban population lives outside Cuba, with the majority residing in the US.
Piccone contrasts Cuba sanctions with Venezuela, where the US shifted from targeted sanctions to sectoral ones, particularly on oil and gas. These sanctions amplified many of Venezuela’s existing economic problems. Sanctions effectiveness is closely tied to how dependent a country is on the US.
All panelists emphasized that even economically ‘successful’ sanctions can still be rendered ineffective if the political goals behind the sanctions are not realized.
Credibility is important
Maloney underlines the importance of sustaining credibility with regards to sanctions. Even before the May 2019 JCPOA withdrawal, Iran felt that the US was not upholding its side of the deal, as there continued to be new sanctions placed on the country.
All the panelists noted how muddled sanctions can be when the US makes exceptions for a program like the JCPOA, but maintains other sanctions related to support for terrorism and human rights violations. Maloney suggests that these remaining sanctions deter international banks and investors and reduce investment in Iran. The US withdrawal from the agreement undermined US credibility. Piccone adds that the inconsistencies between US administrations only further confuse the aims of sanctions, particularly in the case of Cuba.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No real deal
President Trump’s much-vaunted “deal of the century” landed with a thud today. Conceived and developed without input from the Palestinians, it gives Israel the territory it has sought in Golan, the West Bank, and Jerusalem in exchange for a $50 billion aid package and a supposedly contiguous Palestinian state.
There are lots of ambiguities, which I suppose will be resolved only once we study the 80-page text (not yet on the White House website):
- The President claimed in his announcement that Jerusalem will be undivided but also said there would be a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. That doesn’t make sense.
- He also said Palestinian territory would be “doubled,” which by my calculation suggests that at least 10% of the West Bank (and possibly much more) would be taken by Israel without land swaps.
- There would be a four-year period during which Israel would not encroach further on the West Bank, but it is not clear whether this would require prior Palestinian acceptance of the plan, which is not forthcoming.
- The President did not mention the Jordan River valley, but given his claim that Israel’s security would not be even marginally compromised it is likely the idea is for Israel to hold on to it.
- The plan is said to be “conceptual” and will now be elaborated further in a joint committee, which isn’t going to happen as the Palestinians won’t go along.
What happens now? Nothing much. Most of the Arab world seems to have shunned the announcement–the President mentioned only that the Omani, Bahraini, and Emirati (he said Emiratris) were present. That would mean most of the political heavy hitters, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, stayed away.
The main destinations for this peace plan are the political campaigns of President Trump–whose impeachment trial was ongoing while he made the announcement–and Prime Minister Netanyahu, who today was indicted on corruption charges (specifically fraud, breach of trust, and bribery). They are both hoping to get a bit of political boost out of the White House peace plan, which will likely be forgotten within days.
There is however a broader significance: the playing field has tilted against the West Bank Palestinians in recent years, in part because they have mostly abandoned violence against Israelis and internationals. It would be surprising if no one noticed how their cause has suffered from resorting to nonviolence.
Trump and Netanyahu are trying to supplant the “land for peace” formula that has prevailed in negotiations since 1967. They want “money for peace” instead. It should be no surprise that Trump views the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as requiring a real estate deal for its resolution. But then remember: Trump was no good at real estate and made most of his money franchising his name. Like so many of his deals, this one is a sales gimmick. There is no real deal.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump’s other diplomatic initiative
Veljko Nestorović of ALO! asked questions. I replied (the Serbian version is here):
Q: Following the agreement on the establishment of an airline between Belgrade and Pristina, and the announcement of the establishment and a railway line, does this indicate that the dialogue will be resumed soon?
A. I don’t see how the dialogue can resume before government formation in Pristina. It may be delayed longer than that, because Serbian elections are coming by May. I doubt it is in Kosovo’s interest to negotiate during an election campaign in Serbia.
Q: Who has first to give up, Pristina or Belgrade, to abolish taxes or stop the campaign to withdraw Kosovo’s recognition?
A: Those moves will have to be simultaneous.
Q: Have you changed your mind when it comes to Richard Grenell or have you maintained that his appointment as Special Envoy is bizarre?
A: I’m glad progress has been made on the air link and railroad, despite the limits on use of the air link by people like me who arrive in Kosovo without coming from Serbia. I still think the appointment strange, but I’m glad to give credit where it is due.
Q: In your opinion, is territorial exchange something that is definitely no longer on the table now?
A: It is a zombie idea that wanders the earth, seeking someone who will revive it. I won’t be surprised if it finds someone, but I don’t think it is a good or feasible idea. The main barrier is a fundamental diplomatic principle: reciprocity. Whatever Serbia gets in the north it will need to give the equivalent in the south, and vice versa for Kosovo. I don’t think either capital is ready for that.
Q: Do you think President Trump is anxious to find a quick solution for the Kosovo because of the November election, or does the US election not affect the Pristina-Belgrade dialogue?
A: There is no doubt the President is looking for any kind of success internationally that distracts attention from his impeachment and the trial in the Senate. There are few countries where domestic politics don’t have an impact on foreign policy.
Q: In your opinion, can Belgrade and Pristina come to an agreement, and in your opinion, what should it entail?
A: Yes, I do think an agreement is possible. It will have to entail Serbia’s acceptance in some form of Kosovo’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as exchange of diplomatic representatives at the ambassadorial level. It will also need ample provisions for protection of minorities and Serbian cultural and religious sites in Kosovo, with equivalent protection for minorities (including Albanians) in Serbia.
I should have added that there will need to be sweeteners from the international community: progress on EU membership for Serbia, at the very least the visa waiver and I hope candidacy for Kosovo, as well as a substantial economic aid package for both.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 28
–Britain won’t ban Huawei.
– Congress may punish such action.
– WSJ says Putin outfoxed US in Venezuela.
– NYT says Russia is outmaneuvering US in Africa, too.
– Israelis report US is building bases in Iraq close to Iran.
-House Democrats warm to resuming earmarks.
– FP calls O’Brien the anti-Bolton.
-Conservative Max Boot says Pompeo is worse than Tillerson.
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).
RSS - Posts
