Month: January 2020
Stevenson’s army, January 27
The big Washington news today is the NYT report that John Bolton’s forthcoming memoir confirms that President Trump specifically linked Ukraine aid to investigations of the Bidens and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Analyzing a leak is like figuring out a murder mystery. First ask cui bono — who benefits? The answer: Bolton himself, since his book was due to be published March 17; also the House Managers of the impeachment trial, though they presumably did not have access to the manuscript; and the administration officials who believe that the president should be removed from office [people like Anonymous, who has always been vaguely cited as a “senior official”]. The Times story identifies who has copies of the manuscript:
drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.
Of course the publisher also has copies. While it could have been someone in the WH, my guess is it’s more likely to be a Bolton friend who supports impeachment. And he didn’t mind that it got reported.
Curiously, the Haberman-Schmidt story has no actual quotes from the manuscript, suggesting that they relied on descriptions or agreed not to use quotes. Another curiosity is that only a second NYT story, by impeachment reporter Noah Weiland, quantifies the sourcing, saying
Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account. This suggests that the original recipient of the leak got others to admit that they had seen it and confirmed the account. But what’s important is that many people knew and were willing to talk.
Despite the hype, in fact Bolton merely confirms — though at first hand — what his subordinates have already testified.
This morning, Peter Baker has an analysis.
In other news, SecState Pompeo is being properly chastised for mistreating an NPR reporter — and for poor management of State.
NYT has background on the development of the administration’s Arab-Israeli “peace plan,” which will be discussed with leading Israeli politicians this week.
Fred Kaplan reports on Congress’ truncated effort to understand presidential controls over nuclear weapons.
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:
Peace Picks | January 27- 31
Demolishing Democracy: How Annexationism is Bulldozing Israeli Institutions| January 27, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM | The Middle East Institute | Register Here
Around the world today, peoples are contending with the “democratic recession” and the rise of illiberalism. In Israel, these phenomena are inextricably linked to and driven by the occupation, settlements, and the quest for annexation.
At the outset of 2020, Israeli annexationists — egged on by fellow travelers in the Trump Administration and the U.S. Jewish and Evangelical communities — appear to be on the cusp of achieving their goal of formal annexation of the West Bank by Israel. The current situation did not arise overnight. Rather, it is the result of a decades-long drive to transform the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War into an integral part of sovereign Israel. This drive has inflicted serious damage on the institutions that comprise and are supposed to defend Israeli democracy.
Today, Israel’s democratic institutions are under ever-growing threat, including attacks and delegitimization from Israeli political leaders. With a final push to formal annexation looming, the integrity and viability of these institutions – and with them, the future of Israeli democracy – hang in the balance.
At this critical juncture, Yehuda and Debra will discuss how this happened, what it would take to change course, and what all of this means for Israel’s future and the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Speakers
Yehuda Shaul served in the IDF from 2001-2004 in the West Bank. He founded Breaking the Silence in 2004 with a group of fellow veterans.
Debra Shushan Director of Government Affairs at J Street.
Betrayed by an Ally: U.S. National Security in the Middle East | January 27, 2020 | 1:00 – 2:30 PM | Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies | Register Here
Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners have transferred American-made weapons to al Qaeda-linked fighters, hardline Salafi militias, and other factions waging war in the Middle East, putting U.S. national security interests in jeopardy.
Our expert panel will break down the variables surrounding this topic.
Speakers:
Joel Rubin: Jewish Outreach Director for the Bernie Sanders Presidential Campaign
Bassima Alghussein: CEO, Alghussein Global Strategies, Former White House Appointed Congressional Advisor
Jeff Stacey: Contributor to the New York Times
Edward P. Joseph: Broadcast and print commentator, US Foreign Policy Professional, U.S. Veteran
Economic Sanctions: Assessing their use and implications for U.S. Foreign Policy | January 27, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Brookings Institute | Register Here
In the nearly two decades since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has expanded its use of economic sanctions to address a broad range of national security and foreign policy objectives. Through the innovative use of financial penalties and greater integration in the global banking system, sanctions have become the go-to tool of economic warfare. They are widely applicable, scalable, and can be comprehensive or targeted. Yet, with Washington’s increasing reliance on these policy instruments, serious questions remain about their long-term effectiveness and their potential to produce unintended consequences.
For sanctions to achieve strategic objectives they must be adapted to a new era of geopolitical competition and coordinated with other forms of diplomacy. To help make sense of the design, implementation, and implications of sanctions, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host a panel of experts with a combined background in the use of sanctions in Latin America, Europe, North Korea, and the Middle East.
Bruce Jones, vice president and director of the Foreign Policy program, will kick off the event with introductory remarks. He will be followed by a panel discussion with Brookings Senior Fellows Suzanne Maloney, Jung Pak, Ted Piccone, and Tom Wright, moderated by Jim Goldgeier, Robert Bosch senior visiting fellow. The session will conclude with questions from the audience.
Speakers:
Bruce Jones Vice President and Director at Brookings Institute
Suzanne Maloney Deputy Director of the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institute
Jung H. Pak Senior Fellow at the SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea Studies at Brookings Institute
On the Horizon: What to Expect in 2020 Wilson Center Experts Weigh In| January 27, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 5:00 PM | The Wilson Center | Register Here
In a world marked by complexity, volatility, and a din of competing agendas, the Wilson Center is the nation’s indispensable resource for decoding today’s most pressing foreign policy challenges. Leveraging its global expertise and perspective, award-winning scholarship and analysis, and a fiercely nonpartisan spirit, the Center informs actionable ideas for policymakers across the political spectrum.
Join Wilson Center experts for a global roundup of what’s on the horizon in 2020—from Russia, to Asia, to the ongoing regional trade negotiations—and what economic, political, and security trends are emerging regionally and throughout the world.
Speakers:
Jane Harman Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
Cynthia J. Arnson Director, Latin American Program
Robert Daly Director, Kissinger Institute on China and the United States
Abraham Denmark Director, Asia Program
James Dickmeyer Acting Director, The Canada Institute
Jean H. Lee Director Hyundai Motor-Korea Foundation Center for Korean History and Public Policy
Robert S. Litwak Senior Vice President and Director of International Security Studies
Michael Morrow Senior Diplomatic Fellow
William E. Pomeranz Deputy Director, Kennan Institute
Matthew Rojansky Director, Kennan Institute
Michael Sfraga Director, Global Risk and Resilience Program and Director, Polar Institute
Duncan Wood Director, Mexico Institute
Russia in the Middle East at a Time of Growing Tensions: A View from Israel | January 28, 2020 | 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM | Woodrow Wilson Center | Register Here
As the targeted killing of Qassem Suleimani is reshaping power alignments in the Middle East, Russia is determined not to let its influence in the region weaken. From Russian weapons deliveries to Turkey and Iran, to the civilian nuclear reactor the Kremlin is helping Egypt build, to Vladimir Putin’s recent surprise visit to Syria: all of these are meant to send a message of the Kremlin’s intention to remain a player in the region. What are Russia’s strategic objectives in this moment of change? Is Russia looking to fill the power vacuum left by a weakening Iran? Two top Israeli analysts offer their perspectives.
Speakers
Major General (Res.) Amos Gilead Executive Director of the Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS), IDC Herzliya; Chairman of the IPS Annual Herzliya Conference Series
Ksenia Svetlova Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS), Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya
Middle East in 2020: A Challenge for World Peace? | January 29, 2020 | 11:00 PM – 12:30 PM | Turkish Heritage Organization | Register Here
Please join us for a timely panel to assess the recent security developments in the Middle East and implications for the world.
Speakers
Moderator, Isil Acehan Visiting Professor, George Mason University
Elena Pokalova Chair, College of International Security Affairs, National Defense University
James Carafano Vice President, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, E.W. Richardson Fellow, Heritage Foundation
The Future of Multilateral Peacebuilding | January 29, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
In an era of rapid technological change and fraying traditional alliances, the international order that has overseen one of the most peaceful periods in human history is facing unprecedented challenges. While member states grapple with the utility and relevance of the United Nations in the 21st century, global fragility, conflict, and violence continue to escalate—exacting an enormous human toll. The imperative for collective global action to resolve the world’s most intractable conflicts has never been greater.
In light of these trends, it’s critical that the community of actors committed to global peace and security take stock of the successes, challenges, and innovations in multilateral conflict prevention, mediation, and peacebuilding.
Join USIP, The Stimson Center, Alliance for Peacebuilding, and the United Nations Association of the National Capital Area for a timely discussion on the future of the multilateral system and the potential for practical, innovative reform with U.N. Undersecretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo, the highest-ranking American currently serving at the United Nations and the first woman to hold the position. As a precursor to the U.N.’s 75th anniversary in 2020, this event will consider how the U.N. has modernized its conflict prevention and management resources to address the changing nature of conflict; how reforms of the U.N.’s political and peacebuilding architecture have improved its effectiveness, as well as what steps are still needed; and what practical actions U.S. and international policymakers can take to support more durable multilateral peacebuilding efforts. Join the conversation with #DiCarloUSIP.
Speakers
Honorable Nancy Lindborg President and CEO U.S. Institute of Peace
Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo Undersecretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, United Nations
Ms. Victoria Holt Vice President, Stimson Center
Ambassador Jonathan Moore Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Ambassador Lynn Pascoe Board Member, United Nations Association of the National Capital Area; former UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs
Ms. Uzra Zeya President and CEO, Alliance for Peacebuilding
Ambassador George Moose Vice Chairman of the Board, U.S. Institute of Peace; Advisory Council Member, United Nations Association of the National Capital Area
Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula: Different Ways, Same Goal | January 31, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM | Stimson Center | Register Here
The issue of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula faces diverse challenges, as the US and North Korea are driven by their own strategic goals and perspectives on how to achieve them. Further complicating this issue are the different interpretations and policy solutions by South Korean and US experts. In this time of diplomatic impasse, join experts from the Stimson Center and Korea Nuclear Policy Society for this timely discussion on how to move forward in the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
Speakers
Jenny Town Stimson Fellow and the Managing Editor of Stimson’s 38 North
Sang Hyun Lee Senior Researcher at the Sejong Institute in South Korea, and serves as President of the Korea Nuclear Policy Society (KNPS).
Yong-Sup Han Former Vice President and Professor of the Korea National Defense University and a former director of the Research Institute of National Security Affairs.
Il Soon Hwang Chair Professor of Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST) and an Emeritus Professor in the School of Energy Systems Engineering at Seoul National University.
Clint Work Stimson Fellow, jointly appointed to its Security for a New Century program and 38 North
Humanitarian Aid to Venezuela: The Need for a Global Response | January 31, 2020 | 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
Compared to other countries in crisis such as Syria, South Sudan, and Myanmar, Venezuela receives significantly less humanitarian aid from the international community. Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis is yet to be a significant donor priority, despite levels of displacement that rival Syria’s (currently more than 15 percent of Venezuela’s entire population), and disease and hunger levels comparable to those found in sub-Saharan Africa.
This event will feature a high level keynote speech (to be announced). Following the keynote, a panel of CSIS experts will discuss the importance of humanitarian assistance from multiple angles, including the mitigation of destabilizing factors in the region, addressing increasing flows of refugees and forced migrants to other countries, the health implications of this ongoing crisis on the population, and the steps the international community can take to assist Venezuela.
Speakers
Moises Rendon Director, the Future of Venezuela Initiative and Fellow in the Americas Program
Katherine Bliss Senior Fellow, Global Health Policy Center
Erol Yayboke Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Project on Prosperity and Development
Jacob Kurtzer Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Humanitarian Agenda
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Honi soit qui mal y pense
President Trump tweeted this morning:
Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump · 2hShifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!
This tweet conveys several messages:
- As the lead House Manager in the impeachment trial, Adam Schiff is doing a great job and making the accused President very nervous.
- Trump is signaling to his followers that Schiff is a legitimate target not only for criticism but also for violence.
- The President himself is a very sick man who has done a lot of damage to the United States–he consistently accuses opponents of doing what he is doing.
Trump has reason to be nervous. A Fox News poll today confirmed a previous CNN result that puts the percentage of Americans favoring his removal from office at 50% or higher. The tide is beginning to turn.
The question is how fast and far it will go. The Senate Republicans are trying to race through the trial without calling witnesses, knowing that any testimony or even documentary evidence would weigh against the President. Senate Majority Leader McConnell wants to complete the process well before the February 4 State of the Union address. The Democrats would prefer to hold the cloud over the President until well after that, though they too have an interest in finishing the trial so that some of their number can campaign in the primaries.
The two-thirds majority required to convict Trump still seems far out of reach. But he would be severely weakened if enough Republicans were to join the Democratic minority to get 50% to vote for removal from office. So far, there is no sign that even one Republican will break ranks, but I wouldn’t necessarily expect them to signal in advance their willingness to buck the President. Once one moves in that direction, a few others may well join.
This week’s effort to distract attention from the impeachment trial will be announcement of the President’s “peace plan” for Israel and the Palestinians. It has no chance of success at all. The Palestinians long ago decided not to talk with the Administration’s envoys, who are intent on giving a green light to annexation of large portions of the West Bank. The Palestinians can expect nothing more than a few economic sweeteners, but no state of their own or equal rights within Israel. The Trump plan is a dead letter, but it serves his domestic political interests to appear for a few days a peacemaker. If nothing else, he can declare to his roaring supporters that he deserves the Nobel Prize.
Meanwhile the Democrats are getting ready for the Iowa caucuses February 3 and the New Hampshire primary February 11. Bernie Sanders is leading in polls, but it still looks as if there will be three or four viable candidacies after New Hampshire. Nevada and South Carolina follow, but it will likely be Super Tuesday March 3, when more than 15 primaries are held, before the situation really clarifies. Trump will no doubt have choice words for whoever is emerging as a potential challenger. Honi soit qui mal y pense
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria isn’t over
On October 6 last year President Trump and Turkish President Erdogan had a telephone call that altered US policy in Syria. The White House released a statement that the United States Armed Forces would not support or be involved in the Turkish operation into northern Syria. The US no longer deemed ISIS to have a territorial ‘Caliphate,’ leading the Administration to leave the area. This phone call resulted in the abandonment of a strong US ally, the Kurds in northeastern Syria, to face Turkey alone.
This policy shift served as the foundation of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy forum titled The New Status Quo in Northeast Syria: Humanitarian and Security Implications on January 23. The forum was composed of Gonul Tol, Founding Director of the Middle East Institute’s Turkish Studies Program, Wladimir van Wilgenburg, coauthor of the 2019 book, The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity, and Conflicts, and Dana Stroul, Kassen Fellow in The Washington Institute’s Geduld Program on Arab Politics.
SDF still functioning
Van Wilgenburg, who recently returned from a trip into northeastern Syria, utilized this map to illustrate the presence and role of geopolitical actors.
The yellow portion of the map is controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which continue to control significant territory. Having visited Syria post-October, he noted the increase of Russian vehicles on the roads, replacing American trucks. Overall, van Wilgenburg stated that the situation on the ground has not changed tremendously; however, the Kurds are scared of possible upcoming demographic changes due to Turkish plans for the creation of refugee resettlement camps in the region.
Van Wilgenburg emphasized that the biggest problem for the SDF is that they still lack recognition from Damascus and are not official participants in peace talks. The economy is much better than in the areas the Syrian government controls, particularly with regards to electricity and water services. While Assad isn’t willing to make concessions to recognizing SDF, he does understand that without the 80,000+ SDF fighters, there would be a huge vacuum, as Syrian forces are not large enough to maintain the SDF territory. SDF is in a weaker state than it was prior to October, but it is still functioning, as long as the cease-fire holds.
Erdogan is worried about his domestic support
Gonul focused on Erdogan’s foreign policy, which is connected directly to his domestic policies. While Turkey’s hope was to create a Turkey-controlled safe zone stretching all the way to the Iraqi border with the capacity to host 1-2 million Syrian refugees, that has not happened. The pocket of Turkish controlled-area is significantly smaller than Erdogan’s intentions.
According to Gonul, Erdogan has not been speaking about Syria as much on local news because the topic is closely tied to domestic Turkish politics and his own status. Turkey is hosting close to 4 million refugees from Syria. This weakens Erdogan, as anti-Kurdish sentiment is strong and blames Erdogan for allowing so many refugees in.
Turkish Kurds have captured a historic 13% of the vote and deprived Erdogan a parliamentary majority. With the Kurds supporting the Turkish opposition, President Erdogan lost local elections in March. Erdogan is trying to marginalize and criminalize the Kurdish opposition. Gonul suggested that Erdogan’s failure to meet his goals in Syria has led to his shift of attention to Libya.
Turkey has also not delivered on capturing Idlib, where there are tensions between Ankara and Moscow. Despite their fragile relationship, Erdogan will not act in Syria without a Russian “green light.” Between tensions with Russia and the United States, Turkey is squeezed in Syria. Gonul does not believe Erdogan will defy the United States in Syria, as the threat of sanctions could strain the already weak Turkish economy.
Why the US Government should care about Syria
Stroul brought the conversation to a more global and US-centric arena, highlighting the core findings from the Syria Study Group report in 2019. She emphasized that Syria is of interest to the US for multiple reasons, but mainly because it represents a geostrategic nexus of threats facing the US: terrorism, Iran and it’s power projection into the region, and Russia and Great Power competition. Stroul disagreed with the notion that the conflict is over, suggesting that it is only entering a new phase. Stroul emphasized that since the Trump/Erdogan phone call there is no longer the same trust between the SDF and the US. This will lead to major consequences in the region.
All three panelists emphasized that refugees are not going to return to Syria at present despite Erodgan’s plan. Van Wilgenburg added that most of the refugees in Turkey that Erdogan is referring to are actually from Aleppo and other more western cities in Syria. They will not want to be relocated to northeastern Syria.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 25
Happy Lunar New Year! Welcome to the year of the Rat.
The coronavirus epidemic prompts me to remind you of a congressional anomaly. In the Senate, health policy is set by a committee that also does education and labor issues. In the House, however, health laws are written by the Energy and Commerce Committee. Why? Because more than a century ago that panel had jurisdiction over “quarantine” laws and had created the Public Health Service to protect us from overseas illnesses. Over time it expanded its jurisdiction over all health laws except Medicare.
Another congressional item: in the House, often the only way the minority can influence bills is through a “motion to recommit.” Speaker Pelosi has already lost several such votes and wants to avoid another. So the war powers bills coming up next week are to be attached to a Senate-passed bill as amendments, thus preventing the MTR [Lesson: the rules matter.]
NYT reports that the Pentagon prevailed over Commerce in a fight about how restrictive to be on Huawei products.
NYT also reports that Mexico is being very helpful in enforcing Trump administration immigration policies.
There were more big demonstrations in Iraq calling for withdrawal of US forces. NYT notes how well orchestrated the demonstrators were, with most signs in English.
Yahoo news has a story of a chance to kill Suleimani that was rejected.
I read the Post in broadsheet, but a writer for Columbia Journalism Review reports what the paper does to maintain its huge lead over NYT online. Think about this as you read the news. Yes, you are being manipulated.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pompeo is a failure
Here is Secretary of State Pompeo in an interview with Mary Louise Kelly of NPR that demonstrates unequivocally his unfitness for office:
First he defends withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran nuclear deal), which has led inexorably to Iran acquiring more of the materials required for nuclear weapons. In self-defense, he simply asserts “we’ll stop them,” with no evidence whatsoever. That’s because there is none.
Then he declares himself happy with the Administration’s Ukraine policy, which he claims the State Department controls, and says he has defended every single State Department official. This despite the fact that he has not defended several officials who testified in Congress and that Rudy Giuliani was conducting Ukraine policy outside State Department channels.
In any event, listen to the end, since Kelly then reports on a subsequent conversation with the Secretary, in which he berates her for asking about Ukraine in ways that are simply unacceptable, even if unsurprising. No one should expect this Administration to show even minimal respect for a media professional. It prefers the hacks at Fox News who do its bidding.
Pompeo, again not surprisingly, also has bigoted views on Muslims and counts right-wing extremists among his greatest admirers. That may seem obscure or irrelevant to many Americans, but stop a moment to consider how the 1.8 billion Muslims on earth look at a country that has a bigot as Secretary of State.
The simple fact is that Pompeo is not qualified to lead American foreign policy, which is failing in the most important challenges he faces. In addition to precipitating Iran’s return to pursuit of nuclear weapons, the Administration is presiding over a stunning array of failures:
- North Korea continues to produce nuclear weapons and improve its missiles.
- Venezuela’s President Maduro continues in power.
- Russia continues to occupy a good slice of Ukraine.
- Iran and Russia are winning back control of Syria for President Assad.
- Iraqis are pushing back against the presence of US troops.
- The American “deal of the century” for Israel and Palestine stands no chance of acceptance by the Palestinians.
- The trade war with China has been suspended with few gains, in order to provide American farmers some relief before the 2020 election.
I could go on, but the overall picture is clear: “America First” foreign policy has failed, often because it has amounted to “America Alone.” Our major European allies (that’s now France and Germany, with the UK out of the European Union) are no longer cooperating voluntarily with the US. They can do better withholding cooperation and only giving in when they can get something in return from a transactional president. A few weaker reeds like Poland, Hungary, Italy as well as post-Brexit Britain may be more on board with this Administration, but mainly because of their own nationalist domestic politics. The sense of shared mission to make the world safer for democracy has evaporated. Its now every country for itself.
Lots of us, including me, thought Pompeo might be a relative success compared to his disastrous predecessor, Rex Tillerson. But succeeding as Secretary of State in an administration as wrong-headed about the world as this one just isn’t possible. It will take a decade or more to rebuild US influence in the world once Trump is out of office. Two decades or more if he wins a second term.
RSS - Posts
