Month: October 2020
This is amazing and appalling
While the debate last night may suggest a modest recovery of rationality, the United States is still going haywire, or at least a fraction of its population is. Even if you are not stunned to learn that half of Trump supporters believe his QAnon nonsense, you should be surprised that 18-20 per cent of Biden supporters either believe it or aren’t sure what to think.
There is absolutely no evidence for this child sex-trafficking allegation against Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or other top Democrats. There is a lot more circumstantial evidence that Donald Trump was a possible beneficiary of child sex-trafficking when he was paling around with Jeffrey Epstein, including photographs of him at parties where underage girls were procured. Do we really think Trump never took advantage, or that he never sought an underage sex partner? Remember: Trump has publicly expressed sympathy for Epstein’s accused procurer-in-chief, Ghislaine Maxwell.
So what is this all about? It may not appear to be about race, but I think it is. The overwhelming majority of people who believe this nonsense about Democrats involved in sex trafficking are white. What this QAnon trash talk does is express their loathing for Democrats, whom they view as people who no longer defend or protect whiteness. Race is supposed to convey privilege. It no longer does that as well as it once did, so someone must be responsible. Who better to blame than those who don’t stand up for racial superiority?
White supremacists are unavoidably status inconsistent in American society today. They think of themselves as superior but are not treated as much that way as they think justified. Nor can they demonstrate their superiority. People whose self-assumed status is inconsistent with their actual status report seeing a lot more UFOs. Why shouldn’t they also fantasize about who is responsible for sex trafficking?
What is to be done about people who believe fabricated conspiracies about their political enemies and view their own political leader as incorruptible even though his bona fides are in doubt? The temptation is to ignore them. It is not worth your while to argue with such nonsense. It is intended to offend, not to describe. It gives satisfaction to people who can’t look themselves in the mirror without seeing failure.
That approach is however problematic. Some non-trivial percentage of these people are armed, organized, and dangerous. Their leaders are telling them that the only way Trump can lose the election is by fraud. We’ve taken to calling their armed groups “militias.” They are not militias. They are armed gangs actively planning to interfere with the election, prevent votes from being tabulated, and even block Biden from being inaugurated. The proper term for politically motivated violence of this sort is terrorism. The biggest threats may be in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Oregon, but there is no telling where else they might strike.
So far, the FBI seems to be doing its job. The arrest and prosecution of one armed gang for plotting to kidnap Michigan’s governor is to be applauded. But how many more plots of this sort are there? And how many less dramatic efforts to intimidate voters, poll workers, journalists, and canvassers? We are allowing people who claim to believe Hillary Clinton is a sex trafficker to carry lethal weapons in public. How smart is that? It’s amazing, appalling, and dangerous.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 22
– Administration formally notified Congress of planned Taiwan arms sale.
– DNI in evening news conference said Iran and Russia have US voter files, Iran behind voter suppression emails.
– Intelligence budget figures [only 2 of them] were released yesterday. FAS has the multiyear record.
– WSJ sums up the Lighthizer record on trade.
– Menendez blasts Trump on foreign policy.
– NSA O’Brien defends administration China policy.
– HASC chairman doubts big defense cuts.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 21
– US & Russia seem close to a deal freezing weapons and extending New START.
– FP says some key issues remain unsettled.
– CNN says Russia is ready to test nuclear cruise missile.
Military Times says 181 veterans are running for Congress this year.
Administration declassifies partial war powers report.
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:
Trouble in the Gulf will require more than arms
Here are the speaking notes I used yesterday at the Third Annual Conference of the Gulf International Forum:
- The Gulf today is engulfed with multiple dimensions of conflict and instability.
- Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are still at odds with Qatar as well as with Turkey and Iran about leadership in the region and the role of political Islam in the Muslim world.
- The US is pursuing a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran that has repercussions throughout the Gulf and the Levant, especially Iran and Iraq.
- Iran is responding with “maximum resistance,” which includes continued support for the wars on their own people by Bashar al Assad and the Houthis as well as shifting Iranian foreign policy in the direction of Beijing and Moscow.
- Global warming, declining oil prices, youth bulges, sectarian resentments, and COVID-19 are challenging the ability of Gulf states to maintain their social contract: authoritarian stability and material prosperity in exchange for political quiescence.
US Interests and Disinterest in the Region - US priorities in the Gulf have shifted. Oil is far less important economically and politically than it once was, and America’s main terrorism threat is domestic, not international.
- Higher priority in Washington now goes to countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction and limiting the influence of rival powers in the Middle East.
- The problem for the United States is that none of its interests in the Gulf are well-served by coercion, but neither are they well-served by withdrawal, which hurts partners and allies, even giving them incentives to develop nuclear weapons, while opening new opportunities for rivals.
- Whoever is elected President next month, the US interest in reducing its commitment to the Gulf will continue, but it needs to be done without endangering friends and encouraging adversaries or unleashing a regional arms race.
- Biden and Trump should be expected to behave differently in pursuing US goals.
- President Trump is impatient and transactional. He will likely pull the plug on US troops in places not prepared to protect or pay for them (Iraq and Syria). The “Abrahamic” agreements are transactional: Israel gets recognition in exchange for its help in sustaining Gulf autocracies.
- Biden did not invent this idea, but he isn’t opposed to it.
- Where the candidates differ is on Palestine and on governance in the Arab world. Biden continues to favor a two-state outcome for Israel and Palestine, whereas Trump and his Israeli partners seek to eliminate any possibility of creating a viable Palestinian state.
- While safeguarding Israel’s security, Biden would push for a better deal for the Palestinians than the one Trump has offered. He would also be less tolerant of Gulf human rights abuses.
- Biden and Trump also differ on the value of the Iran nuclear deal, but it is important to recognize that they share the same goal: to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
- Trump’s approach is “maximum pressure,” mainly through unilateral sanctions but also including the threat of kinetic action. He aims to force Iran back to the negotiating table to negotiate a “better deal” that would include regional issues, missiles, and extending and expanding the nuclear agreement.
- Biden wants to negotiate with Iran on the same issues but is prepared to lift some sanctions to incentivize a return to the status quo ante: Iranian and US compliance with the nuclear deal. Whichever candidate wins, Iran is unlikely to change course before its June election, if then.
A Much-Needed Regional Security Framework
- Neither Trump nor Biden rules out war with Iran, which would be catastrophic for the Gulf states. Doha has the most to lose.
- But war is not an attractive proposition for Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Manama either. Israel and the Gulf states don’t want Iran to get nuclear weapons and will cooperate to prevent it, but the Arabs will not want to risk joining Israel and the US in an overt conventional war with Iran whose winner may be predictable but whose consequences could be catastrophic for the Gulf.
- President Trump has been a welcome figure in the Arab Gulf, especially in Saudi Arabia. He has shielded the Kingdom and its Crown Prince from accountability for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and continued the Obama Administration’s support for the Yemen war, despite growing bipartisan discomfort in the US.
- Because of his human rights commitments, Biden will be less favored in the Gulf. He will not be sword dancing in Riyadh or cheering the war in Yemen.
- But the differences should not obscure the similarities. The two candidates share the desire to reduce US commitments in the Gulf and the interest in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Several of their predecessors also had these goals and failed to achieve them.
- The reason is all too clear: the Americans have relied too heavily on coercion and too little on diplomacy.
- The United States has enormous destructive military, political, and economic power. But that alone cannot build what is needed: a regional security network that will reduce threat perceptions in all the Gulf states, Iran included, decrease incentives to develop nuclear weapons, and prevent encroachments by rival powers.
- This framework will require a stronger diplomatic nexus of mutual understanding, restraint, and respect. Continued low-intensity and gray zone conflict, or a real war, will make that much more difficult to achieve. The Gulf is not a military challenge, but rather a diplomatic one.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Still polarization, this time in support of Bosnia
I missed until now Biden and Harris statement on Bosnia and Herzegovina:
This may at first reading by the uninitiated sound a bit less polarized than the statement on Kosovo and Albania, but that it is not how it will be read in the Balkans. Some Serbs and Croats will resent his mention of genocide, his advocacy on behalf of the Sarajevo government during the war, his support for the NATO intervention that ended it, his support for sanctioning Bosnian Serb leader Dodik, and even his call for reform and reconciliation.
Bosnian Americans, in particular Bosniaks, are at their most concentrated in St. Louis, where they aren’t likely to help Biden much. Missouri is a lock for Trump. Others live mostly in Democratic cities and states, but there are some in Florida, which is a battleground state where even a few votes this way or that can matter a lot, as Bush and Gore discovered in 2000.
The last line in the the Biden/Harris statement is the most important. It is a firm rejection of Dodik’s secession ambition, the likes of which we haven’t heard from the Trump Administration. Biden is not going to be tempted by moving borders in the Balkans and will revert the US to its traditional position in favor of EU membership for all its states. Sounds right to me.
PS: A correspondent claims I undervalued the Bosnian American populations in Georgia and Iowa. That could make a difference in both states.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Polarization at home, polarization abroad
The Biden Harris campaign has released this on relations with Albania and Kosovo:
The statement speaks for itself, loud and clear. Many friends in Belgrade won’t like it, because they have enjoyed the Trump Administration’s tilt in their direction. Many Albanians in both Kosovo and Albania will be delighted, even though it adds little or nothing to what Biden has already been said on the most salient issue: the dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade.
Belgrade had already opted for open support of Donald Trump’s re-election. The leading opposition figure in Pristina, Albin Kurti, had already opted for open support of Joe Biden, though the government there is likely to remain circumspect. Albanians know they have gotten the short end of the stick in this Administration, but they don’t want to offend Donald Trump, for fear of the transactional consequences. That won’t prevent most of them from celebrating if Biden is elected.
The consequences inside the US electorate are marginal at best. The biggest Albanian community I know of is in New York City. It won’t make much difference there, since both the City and the State will vote overwhelmingly for Biden. Serbs may have a bigger impact, as there is a significant number in Ohio, which is a swing (or battleground) state. It has been tilting towards Trump (65% chance of his winning it, according to The Economist). But the bigger Serb populations in big cities like Chicago and Milwaukee are unlikely to have much impact in Illinois and Wisconsin respectively. Illinois is a lock for Biden and Wisconsin is leaning heavily his way.
It is unfortunate that Albanian Americans and Serb Americans are aligning themselves so clearly with Democrats and Republicans, but understandable in current circumstances. Our polarization at home naturally engenders polarization abroad. Long gone from Capitol Hill is Ohio Republican Senator Vojnovic, who managed more or less to straddle the Serb/Albanian divide, and soon to be gone (defeated in his primary) is New York Congressman Engel, who tried but is far more popular among Albanians than among Serbs.
President Trump is still occasionally expressing his disappointment at not getting a Nobel Peace Prize for the mostly useless agreement between Pristina and Belgrade that his minions negotiated in hopes of buttressing his campaign. I suppose he may reprise that silliness in Thursday night’s debate with Biden, when the President wants to focus on foreign policy in order to distract attention from the disastrous resurgence of Covid 19. If he does, Biden will know how to respond. He has forgotten far more about the Balkans than Trump has ever known.
RSS - Posts
