Month: February 2020
Retreat from Afghanistan
The United States has decided to retreat from Afghanistan, promising a complete withdrawal within 14 months if the Taliban keep their commitments, including to not allowing international terrorists to operate from territory they control. The agreement was signed Saturday in Doha.
This is a necessary, even if less than glorious, end to US participation in a war that has gone on far too long. Eighteen years after toppling the Taliban regime in the aftermath of 9/11, the diminishing returns are insufficient to keep the US committed, especially in an election year. America and its NATO allies are leaving the field to the Afghan government and its opponents, which will now be expected to negotiate a political settlement, after a major prisoner exchange.
Everything now depends on the intra-Afghan political settlement. Negotiations on this agreement are supposed to start on March 10. Will it protect the human rights many Afghans have come to enjoy? Will women be forced out of politics and girls out of school? Will minorities suffer as they did under the previous Taliban regime? Will the margins of freedom of speech and religion shrink? Will politics continue in the semi-democratic direction they have taken for two decades, or will a religious autocracy be restored, especially in the countryside from which it has never entirely disappeared.
There can be no doubting President Ashraf Ghani’s commitment to maintaining what he can of liberal, modern Afghanistan. But he will need to compromise with a potent insurgency that backs Taliban political demands. Few think the Taliban can overrun or seize Kabul, but they can certainly displace the Afghan security forces in many provinces and bring enormous pressure to bear on the capital once the Americans are gone. After the Soviets left, their guy lasted three years in power, but he eventually ended up tortured and hung from a “traffic control box.” I imagine Ghani, who literally wrote the book (or at least a very good book) on statebuilding, will not wait around for that to happen.
Are all the Americans really leaving? I doubt it. I suspect Washington has insisted on some remaining, covert presence for counter-terrorism forces. The Taliban, though religious extremists like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, unlike them do not have ambitions beyond Afghanistan. All three jihadist forces compete for the same political space inside Afghanistan, so it is not completely unreasonable to think the Taliban might secretly welcome the Americans doing their dirty work for them by killing their jihadi competitors.
Only time will tell whether the peace agreement with the Taliban will hold and some sort of political settlement among the Afghans will emerge. The Taliban have good reason to keep the peace during the American withdrawal, which is supposed to slow if they don’t. But they have little incentive to compromise with Ghani once the Americans are gone, unless the Afghan security forces do much better in fighting them than has so far been the case. US and UN sanctions on the Taliban are supposed to come off early in the process.
With this agreement, President Trump gets some bragging rights on foreign policy that he has lacked. Nothing else he has tried has worked: there is no nuclear or missile agreement with North Korea, Iran is not returning to the negotiating table despite “maximum pressure,” Venezuela is still in the hands of President Maduro, only Israel has welcomed the Middle East “deal of the century,” and the trade war with China has failed to produce progress on the main issues, even if a mutual but partial stand-down of tariffs has attenuated some of its worst impacts on Trump’s farming supporters. Trump needs this Afghanistan agreement more than the Taliban and gave up a lot to get it.
For the sake of the Afghans, let’s hope it holds.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Comeuppance
President Trump yesterday called the corona virus Covid-19 a Democratic hoax and bragged about a false number of (relatively few) cases that have occurred in the US. He claimed it was 16 when the actual number was four times that. And 24 hours later it is significantly higher. The cases are no longer linked to international travel but rather are being infected within American communities. This and the US government’s failure to provide adequate numbers of test kits quickly to state and local health officials make it likely we are nowhere near the peak.
No one would want thousands or even millions of Americans to be infected, but if it happens Donald Trump is in big political trouble. His minimizing of the problem combined with an inadequate response are going to be hard to hide, even from his most fervent supporters. He and his son Donald are trying to sell the notion that Democrats want the infections to spread to weaken his hold on power. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the line isn’t going to protect a culpable president.
Covid-19 will also highlight the health care issue in the presidential campaign. President Trump has interfered with and weakened Obamacare, which had decreased the number of uninsured Americans. Despite frequent promises to do so, the Republicans have proposed no serious alternative. Instead, they have gone to court trying to eliminate Obamacare entirely, including its popular provision of insurance for pre-existing conditions. You don’t have to be a Democrat to think increasing the number of uninsured just before an epidemic hits was a bad political move.
The economic impact is even more politically potent than the health impact. The stock market Trump was fond of boasting about has lost more than 10% in a week. The sharp sell-off is due to expectations of slower growth and uncertainty about how bad it could get. The “correction” has its own implications: it reduces the availability of capital and decreases demand, at least among those who own stock or have retirement plans invested in the market. There is now a pretty good chance for a sharp slowdown, if not a negative growth quarter or more.
The Trump Administration has gotten away with a lot of lying. The President himself has told many thousands of whoppers in his three years in office. But a corona virus epidemic is going to be hard to hide or to blame on his political opponents. Vice President Pence, put in charge of the government response this week, may be tapped as the fall guy. But the truth is Trump limited the initial response to clamping down on non-Americans entering the US, which was not the problem. If the corona virus turns out to be the President’s comeuppance, it will be richly deserved.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 28
– WaPo explains Trump administration disinvestment in pandemic capability in recent years.
– Putin or Erdogan? How will Trump choose on Syria?
-Huawei is looking for PR help in DC.
– Duterte says he doesn’t need US military.
– Shame! Shame! WSJ says many states have dropped parallel parking from their driver tests — because too many people were failing.
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:
Dodik is a liar
Delvin Kovač, Vijesti.ba journalist, asked questions. I replied:
A: Mr. Milorad Dodik accused you yesterday at the press conference by saying this: “Some guy named Serwer, or whatever his name is, has risen over there in Germany. A man who received big money from Muslims to satanize Serbs. He is a part of the US policymakers”. What is your answer to these Dodik’s accusations?
A: He is a liar: I don’t get any money from Muslims, I don’t satanize Serbs, and I am not part of US policymaking. [I’m also not in or from Germany, but I forgot to say that.]
Q: This is not the first time you get such accusations from him. In an interview to TANJUG last year (13. August 2019.), commenting on your statement given for Vijesti.ba (8. July 2019.), in which you said: “Bosnia can’t continue towards NATO if Dodik is unalterably opposed. It would be unwise to pretend differently. My sense is that he is not unalterably opposed but wants to show deference to his Moscow paymasters.” Dodik said: “He is an ordinary as*hole who gets money from the Muslims”. Why does he keep accusing you, even though you are not the only one Dodik is accusing.
A: Ask him. I think he is frightened of those he can’t control.
Q: Do you maybe have some special message for Mr. Dodik? What would it be?
A: Get out of the way and allow the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be well governed.
Q: What do you think is a solution to a current political deadlock in Bosnia and Herzegovina, since all state institutions are ineffective over the blockade by the Bosnian Serbs?
A: The constitution makes it possible for someone like Dodik to block the government. Either get rid of him or change the constitution.
Here is the interview in what I presume is Bosnian.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Iranian parliamentary “elections”
February 21 marked the 11th Iranian parliamentary election. The Wilson Center hosted an event After Parliamentary Elections: Iran’s Political Future on February 26 with a panel of scholars to interpret the aftermath . Robin Wright, a USIP-Wilson Center Distinguished Fellow served as the moderator, with panel participation from Ali Vaez, Iran Project Director at the International Crisis Group, Ariane Tabatabai, Visiting Assistant Professor at Georgetown University, and Kenneth Katzman, Specialist on Middle East Affairs at the Congressional Research Service.
Wright stated the facts that led it to be considered the “most rigged Iranian election in history”:
- 90 sitting members of parliament were disqualified for reelection,
- only 19 reformists won seats (down from 121 in the 2016 elections),
- conservatives and hardliners won 221 of the 290 seats, comprising 76% of parliament, compared to 29% in 2016.
- voter turnout was poor due to dissatisfaction with the government about the downing of the Ukrainian plane and the public health threat of coronavirus.
Significance of this Parliament
Vaez cautioned against interpreting these election results as unprecedented. In 2004, the Guardian Council used similar tactics to disqualify 80 members of the parliament and paved the road to Ahmadinejad’s election in 2005. Tabatabai noted that the hardline win comes at a time of lower voter turnout, illustrating the widening gap between the population and the regime.
Vaez speculates that the push for a government-selected parliament is due to the Supreme Leader’s desire to conduct structural reforms. It would be more challenging to introduce constitutional reforms with a parliament ideologically opposed.
Katzman emphasized that the regime is by no means on its back feet. Is continuing its aggressive, confident stance. He pointed to the steps officials took to fix the election as an example of their resounding confidence. He pointed to Lebanon and Iraq as examples where political protests have resulted in resignations and government concessions. This has not occurred in Iran despite popular dissatisfaction with the leadership.
Militarization of Politics
Tabatabai and Vaez both noted that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) made monumental gains in this election. The next speaker of the parliament could be a former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Tabatabai thinks the Guards aim centralize and reassert power. Katzman noted the increased ability for the IRGC to influence and project power in the region with more parliamentary support.
Vaez noted that Parliament, Majles, does not play a monumental role in foreign policy , but it can impeach members of the cabinet and withhold approval, leading to a lame duck presidency.
Presidential Elections : Impact of US Election on Iran
Vaez suggests that the election of a hardline president in 2021 depends mainly on two factors,
- The new elected Parliament’s performance and
- the 2020 elections in the United States.
If there is a US president whom the Iranian government believes it can negotiate with, Vaez doubts that Iran will elect someone like Ahmadinejad. The panelists emphasized the close knit nature of these two elections and the monumental global impacts they will have.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Big trouble
No one should minimize the health impact of COVID-19, the corona virus originating in Wuhan, China. It is spreading rapidly and will likely make a lot of people sick. The death rate is high–over 2%. It hits older people especially hard and kills younger people much less. President Trump’s effort to portray the virus as not so bad is deplorable.
That said, the impact is likely to depend on how the world reacts as much as on the virus itself. This is obviously true for public health measures: getting sick people isolated and treated correctly will surely lower the risks both to others and to them. The virus has already tested the Chinese and Iranian public health systems. While the initial Chinese reaction in Wuhan was inexcusably slow, WHO is praising China’s vigorous response since. In Iran, the response appears to have been much less effective. In both countries, the publics are unconvinced of their respective governments’ veracity. Health epidemics are going to prove a tough test for governments unused to telling the truth.
That applies to the US as well. President Trump has wisely delegated responsibility to Vice President Pence, whose credibility is far higher than his own. But Pence did not do well as Governor of Indiana in responding to HIV. Nor will he be free to do and say what he wants. His primary responsibilities will be to prevent the American experts Trump boasts about from saying anything to contradict the President and to take the rap if the virus spreads widely in the US. He can’t be fired, but he can be denied renomination.
There is also a risk of overreacting. In retrospect, it is clear that Washington and most of the rest of the world overreacted to 9/11, not only by grounding all aircraft immediately thereafter for longer than necessary but also by launching two wars that each have killed about as many Americans as the initial attacks, plus many thousands of Iraqis and Afghans. In the aftermath of dramatic events, officials want to err on the side of caution–there is no reward for taking additional risks. The World Bank has already cancelled a big conference in DC for next week, despite the absence of COVID-19 here. I suppose the reasoning was that people would be coming from abroad, but remote participation might well have reduced if not eliminated the risk they would have posed.
President Obama handled the Ebola outbreak well: he reacted quickly and did what was needed to keep it in Africa and deal with it there. It is already too late for containment in the current outbreak. The initial Chinese delay eliminated that possibility, and in any event Trump had already dismantled the White House apparatus set up for early reaction. Now we need to try to isolate those infected and ensure that we don’t overreact in ways that cause unjustifiable harm.
The damage to the stock market is already gigantic, though not necessarily irreversible: US markets have declined more than 10%. Only time will tell if that reflects weakening economic fundamentals, caused by disruption of supply chains as well as dampening demand, or is an overreaction. Certainly it illustrates that the United States has a great deal to lose from Chinese economic failure. Maybe a good deal more to lose than from Chinese success, which is vital to American industry and agriculture.
The virus is also having a political impact. Whatever WHO thinks, Chinese are complaining bitterly about their government’s response, and Iranians won’t be far behind. There is nothing wrong with that: citizens should expect their governments to protect public health and criticize them when they fail. But neither Iran nor China permits a serious challenge to their autocratic regimes. Excessive rigidity there could spawn dissent and even cause collapse.
The United States does allow a political alternative to come to power. That is potentially the silver lining. Kakistocracy is only tolerable if it doesn’t appear to matter. If the corona virus makes it clear that we can ill afford incompetence and mendacity, the Trump Administration could be in big trouble.
RSS - Posts
