Month: February 2020
Normalizing impunity
President Trump has launched an all-out assault on judicial independence. In just the last few days, he has publicly attacked the prosecutors and judge in the case against his friend Roger Stone, tweeted his own control over the judicial system, and pardoned a few mostly white white collar criminals. Attorney General Barr has also reportedly intervened to end several investigations related to the President, including one focused on the President’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Empathy is not the President’s strong point. He is not doing this because he thinks the people involved are innocent or even unjustly accused and convicted, though that is what he asserts. This is an attack on the justice system intended to normalize impunity, especially for the kinds of crimes his own coterie and he himself commit. Anyone who still thinks he won’t pardon Roger Stone and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is closing their eyes to the obvious: Trump is preparing the ground for those pardons and likely also one for himself, issued just before leaving office. He is also warning prosecutors that they should not bother with new cases against him or his friends.
His adversaries are another matter. Former Vice President Joe Biden is still in the crosshairs, despite his dramatic decline in the polls. Bernie Sanders is leading and will no doubt soon be the subject of Senate or Justice Department investigations, as will the fast rising former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Whoever rises to the top in the campaign for the Democratic nomination can expect the same treatment. Impunity for the President and his friends will be temporary if Trump loses in November.
Two thousand former Justice Department employees have signed on to a letter protesting what is going on and calling for the Attorney General’s resignation. There are rumors of rebellion among current employees in the Justice Department, and Federal judges are holding an emergency meeting to discuss the situation. But I doubt much will result. Trump is extremely sensitive to criticism, but his response to it is to attack his critics. Barr’s only achievement at the Justice Department is protecting the President, and his only complaint has been that the President’s tweets make that harder to do. Neither of these men can be expected to back down. Both will redouble their efforts.
There is not much that can be done about this. The pardon power is unlimited. The Justice Department’s supposed independence in criminal matters is more traditional than statutory. The courts are independent, but respect for their decisions and independence is not obligatory. A president can say pretty much what he wants about judges, prosecutors, indictees, and jury forepeople. Past presidents have generally avoided saying anything or getting themselves involved in individual cases. This one thinks he can get away with it.
The one avenue open to prosecutors that the president doesn’t control is the states. Their prosecutors and courts can pursue criminals without seeking or getting permission from the Federal government, except in cases where the Feds claim doing so could endanger their own investigations. That claim has been asserted in cases against some of Trump’s pals. I trust state prosecutors will not easily yield in the future, as it is clear enough that those assertions in this Administration are intended to protect criminality, not pursue it.
The world is watching this extraordinary attack on the rule of law. No American diplomat will be able to recite her talking points about corruption and abuse of power without a quiet giggle, and occasionally a big guffaw, from whoever she is trying to convince to pursue white collar criminals. The example America sets is vital to its diplomatic standing. President Trump’s normalization of impunity will be copied in many countries around the world. Putin, Duterte, Netanyahu, Orban and other would-be autocrats will be admiring the gall.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Yesterday’s cold, today’s warmth
Kosovo’s Ambassador to the United States, Vlora Citaku, has published this personal reflection on her country’s 12th birthday on her Facebook page (republished here with her concurrence):
It was a cold February and I had a secret.
I distinctly remember that cold February day. All of us remember it. It was frigid, but the heat in the atmosphere could already be felt for a few days. I was even more tense than the air itself, because I had a secret that I could not share with anyone. Not even my closest family members.
I was leading part of the processes that were related to the Declaration of Independence but no one was to know about these processes. The press conference for international media had to be prepared, but no one was to know what the conference was being called for. The security preparations had to be made, but not even the police were to know what they would be protecting, and when they would be protecting it.
I had a big secret in my heart, and sometimes I would chuckle to myself because of the news that warmed my heart. The “Newborn” monument was being prepared, but no one was to know when we would give birth to the newborn.
We had reason to be joyful, and even more reason to be prepared for the worst. Serbia was ruled by a nationalist with a nefarious agenda. There were warnings of possible violence and electricity shutdowns. The verbal aggression had reached its peak.
Nonetheless, it was clear that we would not prolong the process since every other avenue, from the negotiations in Vienna to the visits of the troika (Ishinger, Wisner, and Borcan Haracenko) had been exhausted. The enemies of independence had nowhere left to run. There will be independence – said the wise [former Finnish] President Ahtisaari – but it will be supervised until it is proven that minorities and the whole society will be better off and have more power because of the creation of the state, not less.
As an MP, I knew that I would be one of the elected representatives of the people (not the provisional self-governance institutions) who would declare independence. We would complete the statehood of our nation. The Declaration of Independence had to be written in secret, with calligraphy that was noticeably rushed at the end, because the entire population of Kosovo was in a rush. We could not withstand another minute of
delay for that which was pursued for an entire century.
Since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, since the time of Isa Boletini, since the time of my ancestor Shote Galica, since the time of Shaban Polluza, since the time of the partizans who fought Nazism but were betrayed by the Communist Party. Since the time of the establishment of the University of Prishtina, since the time of dissidents, incarcerations, and false hopes. Since my time as a member of the “generation of the
republic” who were left without schools, poisoned, and ignored by Europe.
We could not withstand another minuted, since the time of our armed resistance, the time of the soldiers whom I followed step by step as a translator for the largest international media, the time when we faced genocide against civilians perpetrated by the century-old occupier.
It was cold on that February day, colder than ever. But I had a secret in my heart that warmed my soul.
To be completely frank, I cried just as much as I laughed on that day. Precisely because of the life that we lived, the sacrifice of my mother and father, the sacrifice of my friends. The sacrifice of the elders and that of the most vulnerable.
These are the feelings that I remember today, 12 years later. Though climate change has not doubt made February warmer and snowless, my feelings resurface just the same when I remember how we became a country and how steep a price we paid for our right to exist as such. A century of pain.
However, as the saying goes – no pain, no gain.
And gain we did, much more than many other oppressed peoples. We won our Declaration of Independence, and the declaration was recognized by the world’s biggest democracies.
It was recognized with a new map in an elementary school by Sarkozy of France, the France of the revolution that brought about human rights as a fundamental concept. It was recognized by the Italy of humanist renaissance that placed the human at the center of the universe. It was recognized by Germany, the global example of rebirth after the catastrophe of the Second World War. It was recognized by the United Kingdom. And it
was recognized by the United States of America, to whom we will always be indebted.
A few years ago, an American diplomat confessed to me that it was not only Hashim Thaci who had to be convinced to delay the declaration of independence by a few months, from the end of 2007 to 2008. His resistance was great, but it was matched by that of President Bush who told his diplomats “I have promised independence to a people, and independence I will deliver”.
Twelve years later I reckon, many things could have been done better. The expectations of people that we would instantly become Switzerland, and everything would improve, that we would have jobs and wealth, were broken by the burdens of transition.
However, the same burdens broke many peoples across all of Eastern Europe after the fall of communism. Unfortunately, not rarely, and even criminally, not everyone had the same opportunities for growth in our new country. The solidarity, love, and boundless happiness we had for each other did not last forever.
Nevertheless, love must not be replaced by hatred. Independence is final, and will never be called into question. I am saddened to hear when some still doubt this. When some deny it. When they disrespect our flag. But today, I will not write for them.
It was cold on February 17th, 2008. But it was also the warmest day in a century.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|February 17-23
Understanding China’s Economic Slowdown: Countering Belt and Road and Beijing’s Plans to Dominate Global Innovation| February 18, 2020 | 11:30 AM – 1:30 PM | Hudson Institute | Register Here
Amid a time of open challenges to the United States for strategic and economic leadership in the Indo-Pacific by General Secretary Xi Jinping, China’s economic growth is at its slowest pace since 1992. Through the development of political and economic plans such as the Belt and Road Initiative and Made in China 2025, China is attempting to set global development standards while simultaneously increasing other nations’ dependence on China’s technologies and its financial and developmental practices.
What is the significance of the Chinese economic slowdown and its implication for the U.S. and its allies? How can we accurately assess Chinese strengths and weaknesses, and how do we more effectively counter Beijing’s policies and actions that undermine U.S. and allied interests?
Join Hudson Institute for a conversation with experts on what China’s attempts to redefine development standards and practices means for the United States in the era of great power competition. The event will draw on John Lee’s recent report, China’s Economic Slowdown: Root Causes, Beijing’s Response and Strategic Implications for the U.S. and Allies and his upcoming report, Ambition and Overreach: Countering One Belt One Road and Beijing’s Plans to Dominate Global Innovation.
Speakers:
Patrick Cronin: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Thomas Duesterberg: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Nicholas Lardy: Anthony M. Solomon Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute
John Lee: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
——————————————————————————————————————–
Censorship and Self-Censorship in Russia| February 18, 2020 | 3:30 PM – 5:00 PM | Wilson Center | Register Here
State control on information and media and aggressive pressure on journalists seeking to maintain their independence are critical elements of the modern Russian state. Although the Russian constitution has an article expressly prohibiting censorship, in reality censorship is a constant factor in the life of the Russian media. Censorship is carried out both directly and indirectly by state pressure and through self-censorship by journalists. In partnership with IREX, the Kennan Institute will host three well-known Russian publicists, analysts, and commentators, Konstantin Sonin, Konstantin Eggert, and Gleb Cherkasov, to discuss censorship and self-censorship in Russia and its role in Russian society.
Speakers:
Konstantin Sonin: John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy
Konstantin Eggert: Independent journalist, political analysts and communication consultant
Gleb Cherkasov: Journalist; Former Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Kommersant
Sergey Parkhomenko: Senior Advisor, Jounalist, “Echo of Moscow” Radio; Former Editor-in-Chief, Itogi, Vokrug Sveta
——————————————————————————————————————–
Ending Our Endless War in Afghanistan: Washington Perspectives on a U.S.-Taliban Agreement| February 18, 2020 | 4:00 PM – 5:15 PM | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
After over a year of intensive talks, press reports indicate that an official agreement between the U.S. and Taliban is imminent. The agreement reportedly begins with an immediate reduction in violence by all sides, followed by the signing of a U.S.-Taliban agreement. This would lead to intra-Afghan peace negotiations, accompanied by a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops. Implementing and verifying each step in this process will require meticulous diplomacy, but this reported agreement could mark a major turning point in the effort to end the war in Afghanistan.
Speakers:
The Honorable Stephen J. Hadley: Chair, Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace; former National Security Advisor
The Honorable Michele Flournoy: Co-Founder and Managing Partner, WestExec Advisors
Ambassador Douglas Lute: Senior Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to NATO
Ambassador Richard Olson: Senior Advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace; former U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Scott Smith: Senior Advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace
——————————————————————————————————————–
Conservative Nationalism in the Age of Trump| February 20, 2020 | 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM | Carnegie Endowment | Register Here
The driving force of nationalism within the Republican party is squarely in the spotlight, with the U.S. 2020 elections in sight and questions of how the United States will approach diplomatic, economic, and military issues in the balance. In his new book, Age of Iron: On Conservative Nationalism, Colin Dueck examines the strengths and weaknesses of President Trump’s foreign policy and the overarching role of conservative nationalism in the past, present, and future of U.S. foreign policy. He will be joined in conversation by Danielle Pletka and Richard Fontaine, with Carnegie’s Ashley J. Tellis as moderator.
Speakers:
Colin Dueck is a professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and a non-resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
Richard Fontaine is the chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).
Danielle Pletka is a senior fellow in foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where she focuses on U.S. foreign policy generally and the Middle East specifically.
Ashley J. Tellis holds the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs and is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international security and U.S. foreign and defense policy with a special focus on Asia and the Indian subcontinent.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Bridging strategies: Infrastructure efforts in Southeast Asia in an era of great power competition| February 20, 2020 | 12:00 PM | Atlantic Council | Register Here
As the geographical heart of the Indo-Pacific, Southeast Asia will play a critical role in determining the region’s political, military, and economic trajectory for decades to come. As a rapidly growing region home to more than 655 million people, Southeast Asia has become a priority destination for US and Japanese infrastructure investment in the Indo-Pacific, as well as Chinese infrastructure efforts under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
How do these regional infrastructure projects fit into intensifying strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific? Are the new G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure compatible or competitive with China’s BRI? How can the US, Japan, and other likeminded allies and partners best operationalize these principles in the region? Ultimately, what are the geopolitical and security implications of the evolving infrastructure investment landscape across the Indo-Pacific?
The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world. The Center honors General Brent Scowcroft’s legacy of service and embodies his ethos of nonpartisan commitment to the cause of security, support for US leadership in cooperation with allies and partners, and dedication to the mentorship of the next generation of leaders.
Speakers:
Mr. Bart W. Edes: Representative of the North American Office, Asian Development Bank
Mr. Jonathan Hillman: Senior Fellow, Simon Chair in Political Economy, and Director, Reconnecting Asia Project, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mr. Makoto Lyori: Visiting Fellow, Asia Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Dr. Miyeon Oh: Asia Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Ms. Shannon Tiezzi: Editor-in-Chief, The Diplomat
——————————————————————————————————————–
The Impact of the Conflict on Human Rights in Syria| February 20, 2020 | 4:30 PM – 6:00 PM | Johns Hopkins University | Register Here
The Commissioners of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (Chair Professor Paulo Pinheiro, Commissioner Karen Abuzayd and Commissioner Hanny Megally) will discuss recent conflict dynamics in Syria and their impact on the human rights situation. In this context, the Commission will discuss their recently published report on child rights violations.
Speakers:
Paulo Sergio Pinheiro: A Chairman of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria
Karen Koning Abuzayd: A Commissioner of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria
Hanny Megally: A senior fellow at the New York University Center on International Cooperation
——————————————————————————————————————–
The Crisis in Syria’s Idlib| February 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:00 PM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Nearly 600,000 people have been displaced in northwestern Syria in the last two months, in what is now the biggest humanitarian crisis in nine years of war. The brutal military assault being conducted by the Syrian government, Russia and Iran shows no signs of abating and has in recent weeks sparked direct and deadly clashes between Syrian and Turkish troops. Hospitals and schools continue to be struck from the air, IDP camps have reached capacity and humanitarian agencies are warning of an impending humanitarian disaster.
Since the Syrian government and its allies began an offensive on Idlib in the Spring of 2019, approximately 25% of the opposition-controlled territory has fallen – roughly 75% still remains. Amid this ongoing crisis and unprecedented levels of civilian displacement and human suffering, the international community appears to have been rendered powerless. The Middle East Institute is pleased to host a panel discussion on the situation in Idlib, in order to discuss the nature of the crisis and the international response; the geopolitical dynamics at play; concerns over terrorism; and what possible paths might exist to resolve the situation.
Speakers:
Zaher Sahloul: President and Founder, MedGlobal
Elizabeth Tsurkov: Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute
Charles Lister: Senior Fellow and Director of the Countering Terrorism and Extremism Program, MEI
Alexander Marquardt: Senior national correspondent, CNN
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 17
But first, George Washington, on this day celebrating his birth (but on a Monday to be convenient)
U.S. Senate Standing Order 65 requires the reading of the Farewell Address on this day. You can read it here. GW took suggestions from Hamilton and Madison for it.
Dan Drezner says China dominated discussion at the Munich Security Conference. He suggests China is the new USSR, an adversary to rally the North Atlantic community.
WSJ says new US rule may limit Chinese access to chip-making technology
NYT says tech companies are fighting back..
NYT also has revealing story of life under the quarantines.
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:
Kosovo age 12
VoA’s Milan Nesic asked some questions on the 12th anniversary of Kosovo independence. I replied:
Q: Is Kosovo on a steady path of becoming a fully functional independent state?
A: No state’s path is steady, but Kosovo has just recently formed a democratically mandated government on the basis of free and fair election results. The media is mostly free. The Constitutional Court has demonstrated its independence repeatedly. It has a lively civil society and strong opposition. The economy has grown well, especially considering the slow growth in the EU. I don’t know many countries that have done a lot better in their first 12 years.
Q: What are the main obstacles?
A: Kosovo faces active efforts to undermine its institutions and constitution by its largest and most powerful neighbor, Serbia. Serbia’s anti-recognition campaign and its efforts to maintain political control over the Serbs who live in Kosovo are serious obstacles.
Kosovo suffers from the perception of high levels of corruption, which is a problem throughout the Balkans. Government procurement and nepotism seem to be the main problems. I expect the new government to crack down as best it can, if only to eliminate privileges that its competition established during its years in power.
Q: Is this the year in which Kosovo will become a member of the UN, Interpol, and UNESCO, or that process is still under great deal of uncertainties?
A: Still highly uncertain I would say, due to Serbia’s and Russia’s opposition. Interpol and UNESCO can be done in an hour if Serbia agrees. I think it should. The UN is a tougher goal, because quite apart from Belgrade, Moscow will try to extract a high price from the Americans, which Washington won’t want to pay.
Q: Are Kosovo and Serbia any closer to concluding an agreement by Kurti’s appointment as the prime minister?
A: Prime Minister Kurti has made it clear he will insist on reciprocity in relations with Serbia. I don’t think Belgrade is ready for that, even if I think Kurti is right to insist on it. I don’t expect any big move before the Serbian parliamentary election in April.
Q: Will Thaci be left out as a participant in the future negotiations?
A: He is trying hard to remain in the game by playing up the air transport agreement Special Envoy Grenell dreamed up, but the Constitutional Court has determined that negotiations with Belgrade are the responsibility of the Government, not the Parliament or the Presidency. Thaci is in his last year as President, with a government in power that includes his most vigorous opponents. He is not in a strong position.
PS: I should add another comment since the news this morning includes President Thaci signing transportation agreements with Serbia about which the Kosovo Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament have declared their ignorance. This strikes me as extra-constitutional behavior that reflects poorly on both the Americans involved and the President.
This interview has also been published in Serbian, or whatever you want to call the region’s main Slavic language.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Kinship and insurgency
Christopher Merriman, a second year student at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, writes:
At a February 12, 2020 talk hosted by the SAIS African Studies department, Assistant Professor of Political Science at George Washington University Janet Lewis proposed a theory that networks of ethnic kinship in Uganda help rebel groups expand from upstart organizations into viable groups.
Lewis’ research looks at 16 incipient rebel groups that have operated in Uganda since 1986. Her research question asks, “What factors enabled four of these groups to become ‘viable’ while the other 12 failed?” Lewis defines a rebel group as “viable” if it reaches a “minimal threshold of threatening the authority of the central government.” This threshold includes being based in the target country for more than 3 months and having at least 100 troops.
Lewis’ study found that the four rebel groups that became viable operated in ethnically homogeneous areas. Meanwhile, all of the 12 groups that failed to become viable operated in ethnically heterogeneous areas. Ethnic homogeneity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a rebel group to become viable. Not all groups from homogeneous areas became viable but viable groups all came from homogeneous regions.
Lewis grounds her argument in the precondition that incipient rebel groups are vulnerable to civilians telling the government of their existence. Rebel groups depend on civilians to keep their secrets. They are more likely to keep quiet if they have a favorable impression of the rebel group or think that the group will likely become “viable.”
According to Lewis, kinship networks in ethnically homogeneous regions facilitate the spread of positive information about the rebel groups. Members of ethnically-based kinship networks in homogeneous societies are much more likely to pass along information than groups of different ethnicities living in heterogeneous societies. Lewis conducted a study of two villages in Uganda that found that news traveled eight times more widely in a homogeneous village than in a heterogeneous one. These kinship networks will not necessarily spread “good news” about the rebel groups. However, kinship networks are necessary in order to spread favorable views of the rebel groups that prevent civilians from reporting the rebel group to the government. Kinship networks represent a necessary but not sufficient condition for a rebel group to become viable.
Lewis also found that the grievances of rebel groups are sometimes fueled by government responses to initial violence. Local grievances are often cited as a major reason for the formation of rebel groups or insurgencies and for their subsequent success. However, Lewis finds that rebel groups sometimes initiate violence, and only then gain grievances against the government due to government reprisals. She cited this as a reason for studying all rebel groups early on in their formation, not just those who become viable to the point that they become well-known.
Lewis does not consider group ideology a major factor in her analysis. In my view, this as a shortcoming of her model. For example, she compared two groups (one that became viable and one that did not) and argued that the main difference between the two was operating in a homogeneous/heterogeneous area. However, one group was fighting to return deposed president Milton Obote to power. Surely, this affected how the local people viewed this rebel group.
There are currently no rebel groups operating in Uganda. Lewis attributed this largely to the reign of president Yoweri Museveni, who himself started as a rebel. According to Lewis, Museveni understands the importance of controlling the flow of information. As a result, he has installed a “deeply penetrative civilian intelligence network.” Every village in Uganda has a security representative. As a result, no one bothers trying to start a rebel group anymore.
Museveni has been able to maintain security in Uganda by controlling access to information to the point that he can prevent incipient rebel groups from forming in the first place. Lewis, however, noted the negative side of this penetration. Uganda is a very repressive country with few civil liberties or viable opposition parties.
RSS - Posts
