Month: August 2020
America is at stake
NPR posted this video today. Here is what I wrote on the 50th anniversary of the March, in 2013.
This morning we are hearing that a 17-year-old self-appointed vigilante has been arrested for the murder of two Black Lives Matter demonstrators Kenosha, Wisconsin Tuesday night. We are also hearing Vice President Pence claim that the election is about whether America remains America.
Pence is right. If he and Donald Trump are re-elected, the United States will continue to deteriorate due to coronavirus, police violence against minorities, and an economy that generates wealth for only the few. This Administration has been committed to mistreating Latinx immigrants, blocking resettlement of refugees who flee their home countries due to violence, depriving millions of Americans of health insurance, suppressing voting, advantaging the wealthy, and loading the courts with incompetent and extremist judges. An Administration that claims to be in favor of law and order has generated more felony convictions for the President’s friends and supporters than any previous presidency.
No one in America any longer admits to being a racist. The days of George Wallace declaring “segregation now, segregation forever” are over. Still, it is white supremacy that permeates today’s ruling party. The President has declared himself a “nationalist,” which his supporters rightly understood to mean “white nationalist.” He has welcomed the support of blatant white supremacists. Last night, speakers at the convention lauded the police who shot a black man seven times in the back in front of his children. They failed to mention the homicidal 17-year-old vigilante. Anyone with brain cells understands what they are thinking: killing black people is necessary to maintaining white people’s hold on power, otherwise known as law and order.
I am certain that most Americans today do not agree with that perspective. Trump will lose the popular vote November 3, likely by a far larger margin than he lost by in 2016, about 2.7 million votes. The main question in this election is whether the added weight the Electoral College gives to mostly white, less populated states will grant Trump the margin he needs to get re-elected, despite the votes of a majority of American citizens. Two out of three elections won by Republicans since 2000 were won with a minority of popular votes.
There is another question, as a lawyer friend points out. If Trump finds the day after the election that he risks losing in the Electoral College, he will try to prevent Republican-governed states that voted for Biden from reporting their election results. This could block Biden from a majority in the Electoral College. That would throw the election into the newly elected House of Representatives, where each state has only a single vote. Despite the Democratic majority there, a majority of state delegations are Republican now and may continue to be in the new Congress, even if the Democrats win big in many states. So Trump has two chances to foil the popular will even after the election: in the Electoral College, and if he succeeds there, and in the new House.
So yes, Pence is right. America that re-elects Donald Trump will not be the America of “all men are created equal.” It will be an America in which a mostly white minority governs over the objection of the majority. George Wallace would be happy. I will not be.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | August 24 – August 28, 2020
Notice: Due to recent public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- Gender Equality 100 Years After the 19th Amendment | August 24, 2020 | 2:00 – 4:00 PM EDT | Brookings Institution | Register Here
On August 26, 1920, the 19th amendment was adopted to the U.S. Constitution, granting some – though not all – American women the right to vote. 100 years later, relative equality at the ballot box has not been matched by equity in business, politics, the military, family life, and even retirement.
On August 24, as part of 19A: The Brookings Gender Equality Series, Brookings will host a webinar to examine the state of gender equality today and what needs to be done to achieve full equality for women in our society.
Tina Tchen, CEO of TIME’S UP Foundation and former executive director of the White House Council on Women and Girls will offer keynote remarks, followed by a conversation with Madeleine Albright, the first woman to serve as U.S. secretary of state. Susan Ware, who serves as the honorary women’s suffrage centennial historian at the Radcliffe Institute’s Schlesinger Library at Harvard, will provide a brief historical overview of the women’s suffrage movement. Then, Brookings experts Camille Busette, Elaine Kamarck, Isabel Sawhill, and Makada Henry-Nickie will convene a panel discussion to examine how gender equality has evolved since the amendment’s passage and what public reforms could address gender-based inequalities that persist today.
Speakers:
John R. Allen: President, Brookings Institution
Camille Busette: Senior Fellow, Economic Studies, Governance Studies, Metropolitan Policy Program
Tina Tchen: President & CEO, TIME’S UP Foundation
Madeleine Albright: Chair, Albright Stonebridge Group
Tamara Cofman Wittes: Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy
Susan Ware: Honorary Women’s Suffrage Centennial Historian, Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University
Makada Henry-Nickel: Fellow, Governance Studies
Isabel V. Sawhill: Senior Fellow, Economic Studies, Center on Children/Families, Future of the Middle Class Initiative
Elaine Kamarck: Founding Director, Center for Effective Public Management & Senior Fellow, Governance Studies - Prospects for Peace in Sudan: Insights From the Armed Movements & Analysts | August 25, 2020 | 11:00 AM EDT | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The transition to civilian rule in Sudan took place one year ago this month, and the success of that transition depends in part on the successful conclusion of an internal peace agreement between the new transitional government in Khartoum and the various armed movements across Sudan’s regions. Though progress has been made, several of the largest and most powerful groups remain outside the peace process, while many of the issues at the heart of Sudan’s difficult center-periphery dynamics have yet to be addressed. Issues of power-sharing, federalism, restitution, and the role of religion in the state all remain unresolved. Even as the talks approach a hoped-for conclusion, several of Sudan’s regions are at the same time experiencing an uptick in violence and instability, underscoring the urgency around achieving a durable peace.
Speakers:
General Abdelaziz al-Hilu: Chairman, Sudan People’s Liberation Movement – North
Dr. Gibril Ibrahim: Chairman, Justice & Equality Movement
Dr. Elshafie Khidiri: Sudanese Political Advisor & Commentator
Dr. Annette Weber: Senior Fellow, German Institute for International & Security Affairs
Mr. Cameron Hudson: Senior Fellow, Africa Center, Atlantic Council - A Conversation With Afghan Acting Foreign Minister Mohammed Haneef Atmar | August 27, 2020 | 9:00 – 10:00 AM EDT | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
Afghanistan’s peace process has faced hurdles—some familiar, some new—in recent months. There is increased hope that long-awaited negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Taliban will begin imminently. But despite recent momentum following the Eid cease-fire at the end of July and the Loya Jirga organized by President Ghani at the beginning of August, major barriers remain ahead of talks. The levels of violence against Afghan security forces and civilians remain at unsustainable levels, and continued disputes over prisoner releases may delay the process further.
The lead up to intra-Afghan talks has made it clear that a sustainable peace in Afghanistan will require intensive international and regional support, both during negotiations and following any political settlement. Afghanistan’s acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mohammed Haneef Atmar, has led Afghanistan’s efforts to consolidate international support for the peace process in Afghanistan—including diverse neighbors, regional powers, and supportive western nations.
Join USIP as we host Minister Atmar for a virtual discussion about the Afghanistan peace process as talks with the Taliban get set to begin. The foreign minister will speak about the Afghan government’s ongoing efforts for peace and stability, as well as the role of the regional and international community in supporting peace efforts.
Speakers:
Andrew Wilder (Moderator): Vice President, Asia Center, U.S. Institute of Peace
H.E. Mohammed Haneef Atmar: Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan - The Mental Health Costs of Displacement | August 27, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
In addition to economic and legal insecurity, many refugees and IDPs suffer from the immediate and long-term effects of PTSD and other mental health issues resulting from their experiences with conflict, displacement, and discrimination in their new environments. While government and NGO initiatives exist in Jordan, Iraq, and other host countries to promote mental health awareness and services in refugee communities, these resources are insufficient to address this dire need.
How can aid and development programs prioritize mental health as a key component of refugee support? What are the gaps in the regional mental health systems that must be bridged in order to serve refugee communities? What initiatives exist to empower refugee communities at the grassroots level to advocate for mental health services?
Speakers:
Amira Roess (Moderator): Non-Resident Scholar, Middle East Institute
Essam Daoud: Co-Founder & Director, Humanity Crew
Mohammad Abo-Hilal: Founder, Syria Bright Future - Palestine & the Arab World: A Relationship in Crisis? | August 27, 2020 | 4:00 – 5:15 PM AST | Brookings Institution | Register Here
For more than sixty years, the centrality of the Palestinian cause to the Arab world was without dispute, capturing the hearts and minds of people throughout the region and commanding the support of their governments. Today, however, this position has eroded and more Arab countries are pursuing enhanced relations with Israel despite its continued occupation and settlement of Palestine. This month, the United Arab Emirates announced it would establish official ties with Israel, and other countries are reportedly considering following suit. These developments beg the question: What has happened to Palestine’s place in the region and its relationships to regional allies?
The Brookings Doha Center invites you to attend a webinar on Palestine and the Arab world, which will consider the current state of relations and what it means for the Palestinian liberation movement today and in the future. The discussion will address questions such as: How and why have relations arrived at this point? How has Palestine’s diplomacy evolved and how adeptly has its leadership navigated the changing geopolitics of the region? What roles have been played by other countries—such as Egypt, Jordan, and the United States—and by the Palestinian diaspora? And what will the end of Oslo and the possibility of Israeli annexation mean for the region’s future?
Speakers:
Omar H. Rahman (Moderator): Visiting Fellow, Brookings Doha Center
Nour Odeh: Political Analyst & Public Diplomacy Consultant
Shibley Telhami: Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, U.S. Relations With the Arab World
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What to expect September 4
I’m getting questions about the September 4 meeting Ric Grenell has convened with Serbian President Vucic and Kosovo Prime Minister Hoti, allegedly to pursue economic agreements between them. Here are some of the Qs and As so far:
Marija Stojanovic of Daily Danas asked;
Q: What do you expect to be achieved at the upcoming between the Serbian President and Kosovo’s Prime Minister in Washington?
A: I’m really not sure. Maybe some more agreements to agree in the economic area, including on Trepca and Gazivoda. Or special economic zones along the boundary/border between Kosovo and Serbia. I doubt there can be agreement on the bigger political issues concerning normalization of relations, as Belgrade seems unwilling to recognize Kosovo as sovereign and independent and Pristina can accept nothing less. Prime Minister Hoti has a narrow margin in parliament and won’t want to risk an early election, which former Prime Minister Kurti is likely to win decisively.
Delvin Kovac of Vijesti.ba asked for my views on the push by Milorad Dodik, Serb member of the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to get Vucic to raise the status of Republika Srpska as part of the Washington talks:
Q: Mr. Dodik sees problems in everything: “Anti-Dayton behaviour of the high representatives,” international community, Constitutional Court…
A: When you see a problem with everyone else but not with yourself, maybe you have the wrong perspective.
Q: Mr. Dodik says that the “Western countries have double standards when it comes to the issue of the RS and Kosovo.”
A: It depends what your standard is. There is no strict parallel between the RS, which was created to secede, and Kosovo, which existed as a Federal unit within former Yugoslavia. RS is a permanent part of Bosnia and Herzegovina because that was the only way to end a war. Dodik should be thankful, in particular to the Americans: had the war continued for 10 more days RS would no longer exist. Kosovo is independent because separating it from Yugoslavia ensured war could not start again. In other words, if your standard is peace, the outcome in both places is reasonable.
Q: How do you think the Washington officials who will attend the meeting with Vučić and Hoti on September 4 will react to Vučić’s eventual mentioning of Republika Srpska during the talks about Kosvo?
A: You’ll have to ask them. If I were a US government official today, I would laugh, tell him he has done his duty, and move on to the next agenda item. Vucic would then be relieved, as RS independence would put him in a double bind: either recognizing and losing all prospect of EU membership, or not recognizing and losing Serb support. Vucic is quite happy to see RS making governance impossible in Bosnia, not in Serbia.
Veljko Nestorović of Dnevne novine Alo asked:
Q: Is it possible to get your comment on the news that President Trump could attend the meeting of representatives of Belgrade and Pristina in Washington? How do you look at it, and does that mean that a final agreement may be discussed?
A: Best to ask the White House. They are desperate for anything they can advertise as a foreign policy success. I doubt it will qualify as a “final” agreement, though of course that claim may be made. The President is a flim-flam man, and Grenell is worse.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump’s national insecurity
President Trump has made a big show of Tik Tok’s threat to US national security and is forcing its owner to sell the app to an American company. But its data collection on mostly American teenagers is not unusual or particularly threatening. It is not even clear that Tik Tok is worse than Facebook in kow-towing to Beijing’s political preferences.
So how is Donald Trump doing on real threats to American national security? Here are a few:
- The Russian offer of bounties to the Taliban to kill Americans: Trump is still denying the fact, even though his Secretary of State claims to have belatedly protested to the Russian Foreign minister.
- Russian efforts to affect the outcome of the November election: Trump appears to be helping more than hindering them, mainly by avoiding any effort to counter Moscow. The Russians are on his side, and he knows it.
- The North Korean nuclear and missile threat to the US: Kim Jong-un has told the Americans to forget about economic incentives to get him to give up nuclear weapons. There is no progress at all on limiting them or his missiles.
- The Iranian nuclear program: It is closer to having the materials and technology to build a nuclear weapon than it has ever been previously. Trump has begged the Iranians to come back to the negotiating table, which they refuse to do without sanctions relief that is far more likely in a Biden administration. Tehran will bide its time.
- Al Qaeda and the Islamic State: While the former has not had any recent spectacular successes lately and the latter has lost its territorial caliphate in Iraq and Syria, both are still active jihadist threats to the US. Al Qaeda has burrowed into a dozen or more states in one form or another. It is only a matter of time until they try again to hit the US.
- Taking down Venezuelan President Maduro: Admittedly its a stretch to say he is a threat to the US, but the Trump Administration views him as one. They have failed to displace him. Having failed Trump named the person in charge to handle the Iran failure as well. There is a kind of logic there, but not a productive one.
Where I would rate the Administration partly effective is in responding to China’s technological espionage, but in ways that are so clumsy and self-serving that most of the world is not supportive. Nor is it clear that Beijing is reducing its intellectual property theft.
In trying to block Huawei from selling 5G technology, the Administration has also had some modest successes, like the UK’s decision to roust out Huawei technology. But even the threat of not allowing connections to the US has not bullied many other countries into cutting Huawei off from their telecomms.
The sad fact is that the US is far weaker on the international scene than it was four years ago. President Trump has offended allies, taken little or ineffective action against adversaries, and failed to reduce or contain real threats. Making America great again internationally has meant making America less safe, less respected, and more vulnerable.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 23
– SAIS Prof Hal Brands argues that the Federalist papers lay out good ideas for a grand strategy.
-There’s a new, well-reviewed documentary about the US-promoted coup in Iran in 1953. Be on the lookout for it.
– I just saw, and highly recommend, a documentary about the failed Iranian hostage rescue mission in 1980, Desert One. It has interviews with Iranians, senior US officials, and several military participants. It doesn’t discuss the aftermath or lessons derived from that failure, the most significant of which was the military reform movement leading to the Goldwater-Nichols Act. [I was involved in the SASC briefings and hearings after Desert One and worked with many of the people who developed GNA.]
FYI, I’ll be away a few days and unable to read my favorite broadsheet newspapers, so unlikely to send much around.
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. 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:
Silence is also a message, of disloyalty
Donald Trump, who often sounds as if he can’t control the words coming out of his mouth, is strikingly silent on some things:
- the Kremlin’s poisoning of Alexei Navalny;
- Russian support to Belarus President Lukashenko’s falsification of election results;
- Russian bounties paid to Taliban fighters for killing Americans.
There is a common denominator here: Vladimir Putin, to whom Trump has been sending fawning letters for a long time. The Senate last week confirmed on a bipartisan basis that Putin sought to help Trump in the 2016 election. He is also trying now, the US intelligence community says.
So it is no surprise that Trump hesitates to speak up against Putin. Trump likes people who like him, as confirmed once again this week when he welcomed the support of the QAnon conspiracy theorists, whom the FBI characterizes as a domestic terrorism threat. Putin supports Trump, Trump doesn’t criticize Putin. QAnon support Trump, Trump doesn’t criticize QAnon.
But I doubt that is the whole story. Trump has also shown disloyalty to those who are loyal to him, claiming that he barely knows them once they get in trouble. Steve Bannon got a taste of Trump’s disloyalty when he was arrested this week for defrauding people who gave money for building a wall on the border. Trump and Don Jr. had welcomed this effort, but now the President says “”It’s a very sad thing by Mr. Bannon…I didn’t like that project. I thought it was a project being done for showboating reasons…I didn’t want a wall that was going to be an inferior wall.” Of course that won’t stop Trump from pardoning Bannon or commuting his sentence after conviction to prevent him from spilling the beans about Trump.
Trump has never to my knowledge said anything even remotely critical of Putin. The message he is sending by his silence is that Putin can do no wrong. The President of the United States will not call him out publicly (and there is no indication Trump has done it privately). Trump’s motives are obscure, but the likelihood is that Russian financing of his real estate is a major factor. Putin is enjoying his impunity. He has semi-successfully intervened not only in Ukraine but also in Syria and Libya. He is backing a notorious election fraud in Belarus. He is murdering opponents at home and abroad. He intervened in the 2016 US election and is doing it again in 2020.
It is true that under Congressional pressure the Trump Administration has levied sanctions on Russia, mainly for its invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea as well as malicious cyber activities and other malfeasances. But even the attempted murder by poisoning of a Russian defector in the UK did not arouse Trump to protest. Trump has said he would welcome foreign assistance in his election campaign, as he did in 2016, violating US law. And he has speculated about pardoning Edward Snowden, who sought refuge in Russia (and got it) after publishing American secrets without availing himself of normal channels of dissent or whistle-blower protection.
President Trump’s loyalties are all too clear. They are not to the United States. He has proven far more loyal to Moscow. That’s the message his silence sends.
RSS - Posts
