Month: February 2021
This isn’t easy, but it’s worth the try
President Biden has decided to ignore the attack on US forces deployed in Erbil, Iraq earlier this week and proceed with talking to Iran about returning to the nuclear deal, at the invitation of European allies. This move entails political risk, as surely Republicans and others will criticize talking with people who are rocketing American troops. But the alternative is worse: making a strategic priority subject to tactical moves of uncertain origin. Tehran may have ordered the attack in Erbil, or it may have originated with an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) proxy anxious to prevent US return to the nuclear deal. Or maybe someone else did it.
The US has little other option at this point. Iran is moving rapidly now to enrich more uranium, transform it to metallic form, and block some International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. Tehran could be a good deal less than a year from being capable of making an atomic weapon. I doubt it will do so, as that would give others in the region unequivocal incentive to follow suit, and a nuclear Iran would be on a hair trigger alert with Israel every day of the week. But betting on the rationality of the IRGC and the Supreme Leader would be a serious mistake.
Four years of Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” on Iran have yielded nothing but evidence that economic sanctions won’t cause Tehran to re-enter nuclear negotiations in order to deepen and extend their nuclear commitments. Trump also failed to get Iran to expand the talks to discuss the missile and regional issues, as America’s Israeli and Gulf allies would like. It remains to be seen whether Biden’s approach will work better, but the main thing for the moment is to restore as much as possible of the status quo ante, that is the situation from before the Trump Administration’s ill-advised and poorly executed withdrawal from the Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action (JCPOA, aka Iran nuclear deal).
This will not be trivial. The know-how Iran has gained can’t be reversed without killing scientists, which the Israelis have been willing to do. But if they continue, Iran will itself withdraw from the JCPOA. The current Israeli government might be pleased with that, as it appears to want a good excuse to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. But their Gulf allies would quickly part company with that move. Their capitals all lie within striking distance of Tehran’s missiles, as do their oil tankers. The Abrahamic accords could quickly see the Gulf part ways with Israel as quickly as Ishmael and Isaac did.
The Biden Administration is entering a complex diplomatic maneuver. The Trump sanctions have unquestionably provided leverage, but history suggests you get what you want from sanctions not when you impose them but when you negotiate relief from them. That can be done gradually and in phases corresponding to Iranian moves. But some in Congress will be sniping at you from behind and some in Tehran will be trying to torpedo the effort with attacks on Americans throughout the Middle East. This isn’t easy, but it’s worth the try.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 19
– Fred Kaplan has more on Able Archer.
– Strat Prof Paula Thornhill says troops should be taught the Constitution,
-Fletcher prof says US has 3 conditions necessary for civil war.
–US seeks to restart talks with Iran.
-We’re still flying B-52s, but B1s are being retired.
– Army faces a common but painful trade-off: people [end strength] vs modernization.
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:
Development assistance has adapted to circumstances, but China looms
Friday February 12 Georgetown’s Walsh School of Foreign Service convened the Transatlantic Policy Symposium (TAPS), an annual conference organized by the graduate students of the BMW Center for German and European Studies. The conference brought together academics and professionals from around the world to discuss transatlantic cooperation and development assistance in the developing world. Speakers and their affiliations are listed below:
Speakers
Dr. Anne-Marie Gulde Wolf: Deputy Director for Asia and Pacific, International Monetary Fund
Eric Kite: Deputy Director, Caribbean Affairs, United States Agency for International Development
Helga Flores Trejo: Vice President, Global Public Affairs International Organizations, Bayer AG
Recent Changes in Development Assistance
Each of the three panelists elucidated key changes among their respective institutions with regards to development assistance. Kite explained that USAID traditionally engaged primarily in bilateral, state-to-state assistance programs. Over time, however, multilateral organizations have grown dramatically and now dwarf the size of USAID. The US government has correspondingly shifted its development assistance from bilateral to multilateral frameworks.
Gulde Wolf emphasized that the IMF has likewise changed its strategic focus over the years. While the IMF’s original mission consisted largely of short-term loans and financing, by the 1980s the IMF began to offer more long-term loans to low-income countries and increased its emphasis on capacity building and technical assistance, understanding that no amount of loans are sufficient if countries fail to also develop good economic policy. The IMF now has three major areas of interest
- emergency lending to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has provided assistance to 50 countries to date,
- developing sound macroeconomic policy to address global climate change,
- debt management and debt restructuring in low-income countries to address a long-term debt crisis that the pandemic has exacerbated.
Flores Trejo also noted several recent changes in the development sphere. She echoed the sentiments of Kite that development has become more cooperative and partner-based. To that end, the private sector–including NGOs, foundations, and corporations–has become increasingly involved in major development programs around the world. Development actors have begun to see their work more holistically, including linking development to foreign and defense policy, as well as an understanding that successful development requires a global approach. Uneven development will ultimately be counterproductive.
Partnership and Development Assistance
Given that development programming has become more holistic and more diverse, the panelists also reflected on the problems and promises of partnership across institutions.
Flores Trejo in particular reflected on the importance of governments cooperating and partnering with the private sector to implement development programs. She pointed to the most recent iteration of the Edelman Trust Barometer, which indicates a major decline in public trust for both the government and the media. Notably, however, companies and the private sector writ large have a higher degree of public trust than government, which can potentially bridge the credibility gap by partnering with the private sector to implement programming.
Kite similarly stressed the importance of cooperation for USAID. He emphasized that local actors in partner countries are crucial for both information gathering and implementation. However, he also argued that USAID has traditionally cooperated best with organizations and countries that have shared values. China, however, has posed a unique problem for the US as it has dramatically increased its own development assistance in direct opposition to the strategic interests of the US.
Gulde Wolf argued that the IMF has been uniquely successful at working collaboratively to address development issues. She attributed the organization’s success in this area in large part to the near universal membership of the IMF, which encourages broad partnership. Like Kite, she also believed that the emergence of China as a major development actor has presented challenges to the debtor-creditor relationship. However, she also clarified that the IMF has little ability to address these particular emerging challenges.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 18
– SecState Blinken talks with Europeans today about Iran.
– Joe and Bibi make nice.
– US & Japan agree on base payments.
– Administration considers special envoy for Horn of Africa.
– NYT sees limits on Biden’s China policy.
– Lawfare writer suggests ways to pressure Pakistan on Taliban.
– 1/3 of US troops said to avoid vaccine.
– Autumn of 1983 was dangerous time, closest US & USSR came to nuclear war other than Cuban missile crisis. WaPo reports on new declassifications. National Security Archive has the docs on Able Archer exercise.
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:
Turkey has always lain between East and West
On 11 February, 2021 the Wilson Center held an event to discuss a new book by Onur Isci, Turkey and the Soviet Union during World War II: Diplomacy, Discord and International Relations. This book is a reinterpretation of Turkish diplomacy in World War II (WWII) and Cold War era and details the deterioration of relations between Turkey and Russia. Co-panelists Suzy Hansen and James Ryan discuss the relevance to the way the West views Turkey today.
Speakers:
Christian F. Ostermann (moderator): Director, History and Public Policy Program, Wilson Center
Onur Isci: Assistant Professor, Bilkent University
Suzy Hansen: Author, New York Times
James Ryan: Assistant Director, Center for Near Eastern Studies, NYU
Turkey abandoned World War II neutrality
Onur Isci discussed Turkey’s role in World War II. Where other scholars have argued that Turkey played and exploited its neutral position, Isci argues otherwise, noting that Turkey pursued survival rather than strategic positioning. The downfall of Turkey’s relationship with Moscow came when Turkey targeted a Soviet reconnaissance plane that crashed in March 1943. Fear of an imminent Soviet threat emerged at the forefront of Turkish politics, shifting Turkey’s focus towards strengthened Transatlantic partnership.
In response to a question that Ryan posed to Isci, he noted that Turkey was constrained by their neutrality and they ultimately paid the price for it. By amplifying their fear of the Soviet Union they chose a path that was no longer neutral in order to position themselves more closely with the West.
Looking to the Past in Discussing the Present
Ryan emphasized that the idea that Turkey has a natural alliance with the West, particularly with the United States, is a myth. This can clearly be seen today and will influence how Turkey’s future political and diplomatic choices play out.
Many Americans view Turkey during the Cold War as an adamant and strong Western ally. Hansen agrees that this is not the case. A focus on Turkey’s historic relationship with Russia is pivotal to the understanding of modern day events. Isci suggests that the recent declassification of many documents has allowed scholars to gain access to government archives from the post-WWII and Cold War era, drastically shifting knowledge on Turkey and it’s foreign policy. The relationship between Turkey and Russia has been tumultuous at many points over the last century, but both countries have been cautious. Even at points when tensions have been at their peak, they have never gone to war.
Isci, Hansen and Ryan all argued that the history of Turkey is neither black nor white. Viewing Turkey as either pro-West or pro-Russia is a mistake that fails to recognize the nuances of Turkish history and its relationship with both the West and Russia.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 17
– FT says China is considering limiting rare earth exports to US. That could jeopardize F-35 program and other things, as CRS explains.
– FT also says Macron plans pullout from Sahel.
– NYT says Biden aides divided over Afghan policy.
– GMF sees tensions in Turkish-Iranian relations.
-DOD report finds evidence of white supremacists in US military.
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).
RSS - Posts
