Month: April 2021
No first use of nuclear weapons
Pantelis Ikonomou, former IAEA inspector, writes:
Last week, the No-First-Use Act (NFU) was reintroduced in the US Senate to establish in law that the US policy is NOT to use nuclear weapons first in any conflict. This is a key initiative necessary to advance NFU policy in the US, in its nuclear allied countries (NATO, Japan. South Korea, and Australia), and ultimately in all other nuclear armed states.
President Obama, who had considered ruling out the first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict, eventually abandoned the idea. Allied countries maintained the option of first use of US nuclear weapons was needed for their protection. There was conern in the US that NFU would embolden Russia and China.
President Biden could now run into these same problems. Armed conflicts in the NATO vicinity have grown stronger. Strategic tensions between the US and the two nuclear powers, Russia and China, are escalating. There is no clarity about their policy on first use of nuclear weapons.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated “Our nuclear weapons doctrine does not provide for a pre-emptive strike…” however, “… we are prepared and will use nuclear weapons only when we know for certain that some potential aggressor is attacking Russia, our territory.”
Beijing in its White Defence Charter 2011 underlines the posture of maintaining a “minimum nuclear deterrent,” with the commitment of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, but without a detailed analysis of the term “minimum.”
The need for NFU nuclear doctrine is becoming more important than ever. Continuously modernized nuclear arsenals are getting more capable. They can wipe out humanity and civilization on the planet (more than once). The probability of nuclear Armageddon due to accident or miscalculation is dangerously increasing.
Unfortunately, global peace and mankind’s existence depend currently upon an irrational equilibrium, that of Mutually Assured Destruction. The deadlock of of nuclear deterrence ought now be obvious to all: sensible superpower leaders, their expert advisors, and the terrified world public.
There is no better moment for a great world power, such as the US, to take the leadership and steer the world towards the adoption of global NFU. Doing so would challenge the Russians and Chinese to clarify their doctrines, lower the risk of nuclear war, and pave the way for nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons, the most dangerous invention the world has ever seen, must be prevented from ever being used again. May the US Senate open the door to this way.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, April 22
– Centcom seeks carrier to cover Afghan withdrawal.
– Taliban spreadsheet lists allied violations of ceasefire.
– US gives Iran list of possible sanctions relief.
– DOD investigating possible Russian directed energy attacks on US troops.
-Trial balloon: NYT says Biden will label Armenian killings “genocide.”
– NYT has its tick-tock on refugee numbers snafu.
– WaPo details Kerrry’s work on climate. Says he flies commercial.
– House passes bill to limit Saudi arms sales.
– SFRC bill would give more details on executive agreements.
– Frank Hoffman analyzes 3 defense budget options.
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).
And then more:
– This is peak hearing season in Congress, and a good time to catch up on defense and foreign policy issues. For example, look at D Briefs column yesterday. You can also locate hearings at the regular LOC site.
– SFRC approved a bipartisan bill to counter China.
– Politico has State’s ambassadorial bid list along with an explanation: the countries not listed may be ones slated for political appointees.
The document is a snapshot and could change, of course. But if a country is not listed, it’s likely for one of two reasons: the post is currently occupied by a member of the Foreign Service and that person won’t rotate out until after 2022; or it’s being reserved for Biden to give to a campaign donor or another political ally.
– Chevron opposes Myanmar sanctions.
– Chad rebels prepared for war in Libya.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, April 21
– WaPo explains the State/HHS fight over refugees and Biden’s overruling Blinken on admissions.
– NYT says Biden has to choose between solar panels and punishing China for human rights violations.
– Centcom commander says fighting terrorists will be harder after Afghan withdrawal.
– US loses air superiority to drones.
– Russia is fighting ISIS in Syria.
– Chad president’s death raises many issues.
– Iran shaken by Israeli attacks.
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:
It’s not just random acts of cruelty
Even if I am far from celebrating, I share the prevailing view this evening that Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer, deserved the jury’s verdict : guilty of killing George Floyd unintentionally (second degree murder) and negligently (third degree murder) while acting dangerously (third degree manslaughter). I might even wonder if he wasn’t guilty of intentional killing, but I have seen no evidence of the premeditation or malice aforethought required for a first degree murder convictiton. I can make a good guess, but it is hard to prove what was going through Chauvin’s head as he squeezed the life out of George Floyd despite the protests and videos of bystanders.
This entirely justified verdict in no way ends the story of police abuse against Black people in America. Most police killings are the result of a split-second decision to fire a gun, not a prolonged act of blatantly negligent and dangerous violence. Yes, the thin blue line’s protection for Chauvin was broken in this trial, as the police chief and other colleagues testified against him. But that isn’t likely to happen even in the trial of the Chicago policeman who killed 13-year-old Adam Toledo fearing he had a gun when he wasn’t holding a gun. Or the Brooklyn Center policewoman who claims to have mistaken her gun for a Taser in killing 20-year-old Daunte Wright during a traffic stop. Those will be much more difficult cases to prosecute.
Even the Chauvin story is not yet complete, as he will appeal. The appeals will take many months, if not years. There is always the possibility a judge will overturn the conviction. No trial is without some decisions by the judge that can raise questions in a higher court. At every stage, Chauvin’s lawyers will seek to put George Floyd on trial. He tried to use a counterfeit bill. He was not healthy. He took drugs. He resisted arrest.
So the Chauvin verdict is at best the start of something, not the end of it. Chauvin will be battling for his freedom and maligning Floyd for a long time to come. He’ll get a lot of support from other police officers and their unions in doing so. While I might find it hard to fathom, some right-wing politicians may also come to his aid, hoping thereby to reinforce their “law and order” reputations, which are exclusively directed against minorities. Remember: Donald Trump suffered no political damage with the right after he advocated the death penalty for five men convicted of rape who turned out to be innocent of the charges. Racists will have no fear of taking up Chauvin’s cause.
Those who want to see something done about police abuses still have a high wall of doubt to climb. Won’t convicting police discourage them from taking vigorous action against miscreants? Don’t the police need to be ready to meet violence with violence? Won’t finding them guilty in court discourage good people from seeking police jobs? Don’t law-abiding citizens need to support the police in all but the most egregious cases? How can you question a split second decision to fire at someone who may otherwise kill a police officer?
Those are all real concerns. But what Americans need to understand is that police abuse is not just the occasional random act of cruelty or excess. It is standard practice that targets minorities, especially Black and LatinX people. Chauvin will be genuinely surprised that he was not only charged but convicted for something that happens every day. We are talking about discriminatory violence that only rarely strikes white privilege, mainly by mistake. Systemic racism is real racism. No single trial is going to end it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The UAE as peace brokers
In this episode of Battlegrounds, H.R. McMaster and Yousef Al Otaiba discuss the Abraham Accords, the threat from Iran, and great power competition in the Middle East. Speakers and their affiliations are listed below:
Yousef Al Otaiba: United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ambassador to the United States (US)
H. R. McMaster: Fouad and Michelle Ajami Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
The Abraham Accords and Normalization with Israel
The defining feature of the discussion between Ambassador Otaiba and McMaster was the rapidly evolving dynamics of both the Gulf and the Middle East writ large. Nowhere is that more true than with respect to Israel and the recently signed Abraham Accords. Otaiba in particular stressed that people in the region are tired of decades-long conflicts and are increasingly desirous of new approaches to old problems. One indication of how widespread this desire for change is is how quickly three countries followed the UAE’s lead in normalizing relations with Israel.
McMaster called attention to an op-ed penned by Otaiba prior to the Accords in which he argued that annexation would critically inhibit the ability of countries like the UAE to negotiate with Israel. Both agreed that the signal sent by the publication of this opinion piece–which was also published in Hebrew–served as an effective opening salvo of signaling that ultimately facilitated the negotiations that generated the Accords.
Iran, the Gulf, and Extremism
McMaster pointed to the name of the Accords themselves as an attempt to transcend the religious and sectarian divisions that have plagued the region in recent decades. He also pointed to Iran as an actor that has consistently complicated these aims. In particular, he identified Iran’s support of proxy actors in conflict, attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf, and the promotion of ideological justifications for sectarianism and theocracy as ways in which Iran has complicated the dynamics of peace processes in the region.
Otaiba also identified Iran’s support for violent extremists as a significant complicating factor in peace processes. Notably, he argued that it was not only the rise of Shia extremism at issue, but also the way in which Iran’s rhetoric has motivated Sunni extremism as well. Otaiba pointed to the UAE’s work to combat extremism as an important step in this regard. For example, the UAE invited the Pope to visit the country and developed a complex that included a synagogue, mosque, and church. By doing so, the country aims to challenge the perception among some that extremists are the true guardians of community and society.
The Future of the Region
Otaiba argued that the way in which Iranian rhetoric has reinforced Sunni extremism is indicative that the future of the region will not be defined by a Sunni-Shia fault line, but rather a debate over the role of religion in governance. This fault line will be divided, according to Otaiba, between those who believe in a separation between church and state–as he does–and those who believe that religion ought to be incorporated into governance.
McMaster and Otaiba also believed that the Biden administration will differentiate itself from the conciliatory approach to Iran that characterized the Obama administration. This difference in outlook is largely attributed to the Trump administration’s policy of maximum pressure, which has given this new administration a stronger hand with which to leverage more concessions out of Iran. While both were fairly optimistic that the Biden administration will maintain a strong line against Iran, Otaiba expressed some concern about the prospects of the administration’s push for peace and withdrawal in Afghanistan. The UAE has taken some steps away from this theater in recent years, diminishing its ability to leverage its role as a broker to achieve peace. While Otaiba expressed that the UAE was willing to accept the outcome of any agreement between the US, the Taliban, and the government, he also expressed disbelief that all three parties could come to a durable agreement.
To watch the event in full, please click here
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, April 20
– New Zealand doesn’t went to expand Five Eyes [as a student urged in a policy memo] or even to join Biden’s “alliance of democracies.”
– Ukraine worries about Russian military moves and leaks memo.
– USAF sends planes to Poland.
-FP says Philippines is releasing more details about China maritime activities.
– FP writers urge new hotlines for crisis management.
-NYT surveys new research showing deepening US sectarian divisions. The two parties have not only become more ideologically polarized — they have simultaneously sorted along racial, religious, educational, generational and geographic lines. Partisanship has become a “mega-identity.”
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
