Category: Uncategorized
Yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore
Colleagues from the Bloomberg School of Public Health and I collaborated two years ago in considering as an ethical question how many refugees the US should accept for resettlement. President Obama had bumped the number up. President Trump slashed it. President Biden is going to move it up this year and aim to top Obama’s number next fiscal year. Such drastic changes belie what we found among most experts on the right and left: a consensus on the moral imperative and the need to maintain consistency even as they differed on the risks and benefits. We’ll discuss the findings and implications 12-1 pm March 5 on Zoom, so join us and register here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
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 15: earmarks edition
– NYT reports that the Taliban have encircled several Afghan cities.
– FT columnist says Bitcoin rise means reduced role and influence of the dollar.
– Military authors describe legal efforts to limit civilian casualties.
– Punchbowl explains return of earmarks:
Democrats are bringing earmarks back. And they’re trying to clean them up.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the new chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations panels, will announce in the coming weeks that Democrats will reinstate earmarks — also known as “member-directed spending” — in next fiscal year’s spending bills.
Democrats say they will be transparent and disclose the details of each earmark — who requested it, and which entity would get the money. Members cannot request earmarks for entities to which they have financial ties. And Congress will not allow earmarks for for-profit institutions, such as private companies. Earmarks will be limited to state and local governments and nonprofits that carry out quasi-government functions. There will be limits on how much of each spending bill can be allocated toward earmarks.
Some lawmakers, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), have been arguing for years that Congress should bring back earmarks. The idea is to give members of Congress a personal stake in spending bills.
Hoyer and other pro-earmark lawmakers also argue that no one knows the needs of a state or congressional district better than the people who represent them in Congress.
DeLauro, who publicly supported reinstating earmarks in her campaign for the Appropriations gavel, is expected to make a formal announcement as soon as next week, when Congress returns from the Presidents’ Day recess.
“Chair DeLauro has been clear that she supports Member-directed funding for community projects,” said Evan Hollander, communications director for the House Appropriations Committee, in a statement. “She is working through the details of a reformed process, and will share additional information with Members and the public in the coming weeks.”
“Chairman Leahy has been clear about his intent to restore congressionally directed spending in a transparent and accountable way as part Congress’ constitutional power of the purse,” said Jay Tilton, press secretary for the Senate Appropriations panel.
How will this impact D.C.? This is a big deal for a lot of reasons. This will rejuvenate a whole line of business for lobbying shops. Appropriations lobbying was once a very lucrative corner of the influence market — that will come back now.
Here’s a question worth pondering: will House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy allow his lawmakers to take earmarks, or will he use this as an opportunity to try to set Republicans apart? Rule 30 of the House GOP rules ban Republicans requesting earmarks. But there are many Republicans who will want to change that given the shifting politics.
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:
Fighting words have frightful consequences
The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump starts tomorrow. He is accused of inciting the January 6 attack on the Capitol. His lawyers are arguing two things:
- He can’t be convicted because he is no longer in office.
- As a citizen with constitutional rights, whatever he said before and on January 6 is entitled to protection as freedom of speech.
These arguments are nonsense.
He wouldn’t be impeachable if he were no longer in office, but preventing the trial and conviction would mean he can’t be held accountable for acts committed while in office and is therefore above the law. You can’t uphold an oath to protect the Constitution if you are prepared to put a former president beyond the law. Besides, there is a precedent for a trial after someone (a Secretary of War, not a president) left office.
Freedom of speech has its limits. Most notoriously you aren’t entitled to yell “fire” in a crowded theater if there is no fire. That is analogous to what Trump did before and on January 6: he lied about the election having been stolen and then told his supporters to march on the Capitol, a move not included in their demonstration permit, and fight to prevent the tabulation of the Electoral College results. The merits of the case are clear.
But the politics are just as clear: all but a handful of Republican Senators are committed to voting against conviction. They are both wedded to Trump as their party leader and fearful of any criticism from him that could hurt their prospects in primary elections. No one in Washington is currently expecting 17 Republicans, the number needed for a two-thirds vote to convict, to defy Trump.
This will look like a defeat for the Democrats, but I have to wonder about its longer-term impact. Sticking with Trump is causing prominent Republicans and thousands of rank-and-file members to leave the GOP. The numbers are less significant than the quality. President Biden is already more popular than Trump ever was while in office. If he were to remain anywhere near his current approval ratings, lots of Americans will not be feeling the usual need to punish the incumbent in 2022’s mid-term election. The argument is even stronger for 2024, provided Biden is successful in ending the epidemic and reviving the economy.
That’s a big if. But it would be hard to fault the Administration yet in its pursuit of these two top priorities. Vaccines are flowing more rapidly and masks are being required more widely. Plans for reopening schools are progressing. So, too, is the Congressional effort to approve a $1.9 trillion relief package, if necessary by avoiding the Senate filibuster (which would require 10 Republicans to side with the Democrats in approving the package). Biden talked unity at his Inauguration, and he clearly would prefer it, but he isn’t waiting for the Republicans to make nice.
That’s good negotiating strategy from the candidate who didn’t write The Art of the Deal. Republicans will come around if they see that the American people prefer what Biden is offering. It has to be big and effective to be convincing. Only if he can convince Republicans he’ll do it without their votes will at least some of them be prepared to vote with him. I’d expect some last-minute compromises–Biden has already indicated he is willing to delay doubling the minimum wage. That is likely wise, as unemployment is still high and needs to get down to its prior lows before the economy will be in a position to both pay and still continue to create jobs.
All this leaves foreign policy, the major concern of peacefare.net, playing second fiddle. But without recovery from the virus and the recession, America won’t be able to play the leadership role in the world that Biden aspires to. He has been skillful in making some quick moves–extending the strategic arms treaty with Russia and enabling humanitarian aid to continue to go to Yemen by canceling Trump’s last-minute designation of the Houthis as terrorists are savvy moves.
Biden is still in a stand-off with Iran over who returns first to compliance with the nuclear deal, but let’s hope he soon finds a formula for getting back in and once again putting Tehran at least a year from gaining nuclear weapons. There too Trump’s fighting words have had frightful consequences.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No need to reconcile with Trumpism, only defeat it
This is the best I’ve seen on the chronology of 1/6 events:
But this from The New Yorker is the best I’ve seen conveying the motives and impunity of the participants (sorry it won’t embed). The religiously motivated and overwhelmingly white male rioters felt entitled. Some of them came prepared to capture or kill members of Congress. There is no doubt what they would have done had they gotten hold of Nancy Pelosi. There is also no doubt who inspired their attack on The Capitol: President Trump and Senators Cruz and Hawley.
Less clear is how much coordination there was before the attack. Certainly the White House communicated with the demonstration organizers about his appearance at the Ellipse. The question is what the President understood about their intentions thereafter. Several members of Congress have reported on tours of The Capitol, which is closed to visitors during the Covid-19 epidemic, conducted the day before the riot. Those will have been organized by members of Congress or their staffs. There are also indications that some rioters knew the layout of the offices, though they appear not to have known about escape routes.
I would want much more clarity on these issues and others before any trial in the Senate. That and likely interference with President-elect Biden’s legislative agenda argue for a pause on delivering the impeachment to the upper house. Delay also has the virtue of leaving Trump in suspense, thereby preventing him from rousing his followers for another attack on The Capitol or another outrage for fear of generating a guilty verdict, reached with Republican support. There should be a trial, but there is no need for alacrity.
In the meanwhile, we are all anticipating Trump’s pardons for his family, his associates, and maybe himself, as well as anyone else who pays the right fixers and makes the right promises. But there is no requirement that pardons be publicized. So we may not learn about them before the Inauguration. There is not even a requirement that a pardon be written, though a verbal one with no supporting documentation wouldn’t likely stand up in court. Trump could however give signed notes to each person pardoned to produce only when they are indicted, months or even years later. A self-pardon is a manifest absurdity. You can’t “grant” yourself something. Doing so would be the epitome of corruption: abuse of public office for private gain.
Some are urging that Biden pardon Trump, claiming that reconciliation and bipartisanship would then be easier. I don’t buy that argument at all. Reconciliation is only possible with accountability. Bipartisanship is going to work with people who voted to certify the election results, not those who refused to do so. Biden should do nothing to reduce the growing split in the Republican Party, which has the potential to purge it of Trumpism, or at least to generate a new, truly conservative party that might cooperate with more moderate Democrats on issues like Covid-19, the economy, police brutality, and climate change.
The extremists who refused to certify votes knew full well that there was no widespread or systematic fraud in the election, evidence for which would have shown up by now. What they and the rioters were saying is that the votes of black and brown people in Democratic cities should not be counted. They filed dozens of law suits with that as the explicit objective. They were defending white privilege and power. Trumpism is, at its heart, racism. There is no need to reconcile with it, only defeat it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Biden needs to clean the Augean nuclear stables
Former IAEA nuclear inspector Pantelis Ikonomou writes:
US president-elect Biden assumes responsibility Wednesday facing an extraordinary reality: nuclear risks. Ahead even of climate change and disruptive technologies, nuclear weapons pose a vital challenge to world leaders. Shifting geopolitics have raised nuclear risks higher than ever before. Intent, accident, or miscalculation could lead to a nuclear apocalypse. According to the Atomic Scientists, the its Doomsday Clock is closer to midnight than at any time since1947: 100 seconds.
Biden, commander-in-chief of the world most powerful nuclear arsenal, is urgently called to overcome numerous legacies of his predecessor:
- Trump disliked arms control and multilateralism and considered treaties and international agreements unacceptable legal restraints on US freedom.
- Trump withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which eliminated an entire class of nuclear missiles in Europe.
- Trump’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review included deployment of new low-yield nuclear weapons, making the use of such mass destruction armaments more tempting.
- Trump announced non-extension of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between USA and Russia, set to expire in February 2021, due in part to Beijing’s refusal to join because of its disproportionately smaller nuclear arsenal.
- President Trump’s erratic behavior on 6 January 2021, inciting insurrection against his own country, points out the need for establishing procedures that limit a US president’s exclusive authority to order a nuclear strike.
In addition, two on-going nuclear sagas will challenge Biden’s courage and decisiveness right away:
Iran
Trump’s decision in 2018 to withdraw unilaterally from the 2015 nuclear deal shredded an achievement of 12 years of intense multilateral diplomacy and re-activated tensions with. The US withdrawal overturned all fundamental restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, damaging a proven approach to countering proliferation based on international monitoring and verification. The US neglected the authority and competence of the UN watchdog IAEA, undermined international confidence in the UN Security Council and in multilateral diplomacy, and jeopardized the global nuclear non-proliferation architecture.
Rejoining the 2015 Iran deal, as Biden pledged to do upon taking office, is complex and risky. Tehran, in reaction to the US withdrawal, is growing its uranium enrichment capacity in violation of the agreement. Moreover, its parliament voted to end IAEA inspections next month if the US does not lift key sanctions. The IAEA maintains that the Iran deal would not be implementable without amendments agreed by all parties involved. Israel, America’s top strategic ally in the region but an alleged nuclear proliferator, along with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf partners, keep urging Washington to refrain from any compromise with Tehran, while the EU says it will redouble efforts to save the nuclear agreement.
North Korea
Diplomatic efforts to solve the almost three decade-long North Korean nuclear issue have desolately failed. During Trump’s years, Washington oscillated between theatrical summits and hyperbolic threats, while Pyongyang continued to develop its long-range nuclear strike capability in secret. The option of forcing North Korea to nullify its nuclear capability is no longer realistic. Pyongyang has no other strategy available for deterring its decapitation.
Circumstances are not propitious
Continuation in the current course could lead to nuclear breakouts in the vulnerable regions of Middle East and East Asia. Biden, in his interview with The New York Times on 2 December 2020, recognized this grave likelihood by referring to ”Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and other countries” as potential nuclear proliferators.
The 2019 Munich Security Conference found that in seven major countries (France, Germany, USA, Japan, Canada, UK and Russia) when answering the question: “Which of the three countries—USA, Russia or China—do you consider as the biggest threat to your country?” citizens of France, Germany, Canada and Russia consider the US the greatest threat to their country while the Japanese consider the US as the second biggest threat by a small margin after China. America is perceived as presenting the biggest threat to peoples of almost all major world powers!
Biden’s upcoming challenges call to mind the myth of Hercules’ labor: cleaning the Augean stables.
RSS - Posts
