Stevenson’s army, June 14
– FP details administration efforts to kill Iran nuclear deal before the election.
– And it wants to undermine Missile Technology Control Regime in order to sell drones.
– Politico says Foreign Service is still disproportionately Ivy League
– Hudson has a good roundup on South Asia..
– NYT says GOP Senators have a common theme — bashing China.
– WSJ’s Michael Gordon surveys US civil-military tensions.
– Fred Kaplan critiques Trump West Point address.
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:
Stevenson’s army, June 11
– Gen. Milley apologizes for being part of photo op.
– Despite Trump’s veto threat, SASC votes to rename military bases.
– US general says Taliban hasn’t met peace conditions.
– No more Fort Trump.
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:
Bravo
Kosovo Prime Minister Hoti today presented his plans for dialogue with Belgrade at the Academy of Arts and Sciences in Pristina. I’ve been skeptical about the strength of his government due to its narrow majority and the process that led to its formation. But I’m prepared to welcome warmly what he said today:
The first principle is that the territorial integrity of the Republic of Kosovo is non-negotiable. The second principle is that the constitutional and state organization of Kosovo is non-negotiable. The third principle is that the agreement to be reached should comply with the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo….The dialogue process is aimed at mutual recognition…any agreement not ensuring the mutual recognition is non-sense. Not provisional mutual recognition resembling the models of East Germany and West Germany or other international models mentioned in various roundtables, but mutual recognition that immediately provides us a seat in UN and also recognition from five EU countries that have not recognized Kosovo yet.
The new prime minister also commented on the process, in particular who will lead the dialogue on behalf of Kosovo.
Dialogue will be chaired by the Prime Minister of the country. There have been various discussions in the recent weeks and months. I will not compete with other persons responsible at the institutional level, because my constitutional competencies are clear as to all issues, including the dialogue process, but in particular my competencies in the dialogue process have been confirmed in the judgment of the Constitutional Court.
The previous prime minister had wrestled with President Thaci on the issue of who would lead the dialogue, so this is a welcome clarification, assuming the President agrees.
The questions are whether Thaci will really step back from his long engagement with President Vucic in the dialogue, which has been mostly unproductive since 2013, and whether an agreement along the lines Hoti outlined is possible.
The proof will be in the pudding, but it is encouraging that Hoti is reaching out to political parties that are not part of his coalition as well as to civil society. With a margin of just one vote in parliament, he will need support from more or less an additional 20 parliamentarians to ensure 2/3 support of whatever comes out of the talks with Belgrade. That is the kind of margin he will need, along with support from a similar percentage of the population.
On the substance of an agreement with Belgrade, I am not seeing in President Vucic’s current stance any reason for hope. He told RFE/RL recently:
…if it’s just – let’s Serbs recognize the independence of Kosovo, let’s finish with that story, it will certainly not go that way.
But he is in a pre-electoral period. Things may change after the June 21 parliamentary election, though his Russian and Chinese friends will try to stiffen his resolve against recognizing Kosovo, each for their own reasons.
In the end, the biggest obstacle to agreement may be relations between the United States and the European Union. They are in a tug-of-war over which should convene the dialogue. The right solution is for them to do it as a cooperative enterprise, but the American negotiator is a notorious critic of the EU in general and Germany in particular while the Europeans have fielded two negotiators from countries that don’t recognize Kosovo. It doesn’t on the face of it look like a winning combination, but maybe President Trump’s hope for a Rose Garden ceremony before the November 3 American election will generate some momentum.
There is always the possibility of an agreement to agree in the future–something to give Trump bragging rights, which is all he really wants. That could be dressed up with a few economic bells and whistles as well an agreement not to prosecute war crimes–which is something on which Belgrade and Pristina sadly seem to agree. The Rose Garden has been used for unworthy announcements, including in the recent past.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Arab views on Israeli annexation
The Arab Center of Washington DC hosted an online discussion on June 2, 2020 that explored the implications of the recent announcement by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas that the PA will end all agreements and understandings signed with Israel and the United States. The discussion was moderated by Tamara Kharroub and featured six guest speakers:
Noura Erakat: Human Rights Attorney, Assistant Professor, Rutgers University
Leila Farsakh: Associate Professor and Chair, Political Science Department, University of Massachusetts Boston
Khalil E. Jahshan: Executive Director, Arab Center Washington DC
Rashid Khalidi: Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies, Columbia University, Co-Editor, Journal of Palestine Studies, President, Institute for Palestine Studies-USA
Nasser Al-Kidwa: Chairman of the Board of Directors, Yasser Arafat Foundation, former Palestinian Representative to the United Nations
Raef Zreik: Associate Professor of Law, Ono Academic College, Co-Director of Minerva Center for the Humanities, Tel Aviv University
Tamara Kharroub (Moderator): Assistant Executive Director and Senior Fellow, Arab Center Washington DC
Current Context
Kharroub highlighted that an Israeli Unity government between Prime Minister Netanyahu and former military chief Gantz was installed in May of 2020. One of the main policies agreed upon by these two parties is annexation of parts of the West Bank. In his coalition agreement with Gantz, Netanyahu was granted the right to proceed with the process of annexation as early as July 1. According to figures collated by the Israeli organization Peace Now, the West Bank is home to nearly 2.7 million Palestinians and 400,000 Israeli settlers. Although extending Israeli sovereignty into parts of the West Bank has been one of Netanyahu’s key campaign promises, Gantz has repeatedly spoken against unilateral annexation.
As a response to this development, PA President Mahmoud Abbas has announced that the PA will end all agreements and understandings with Israel and the United States. This comes following the Trump administration’s January 2020 Middle East Peace Plan that allows for Israeli annexation of settlements within the West Bank and Jordan Valley. To Kharroub, the increasing prospect of Israeli annexation raises various questions:
- Does the prospect of annexation constitute a real game changer in Israeli-Palestinian relations?
- Or, does the prospect of annexation merely signify the culmination of decades of expansionist Israeli policy and international impunity?
- What is the strategic economic and political importance of the proposed areas of annexation?
- The annexation of these territories violates international law. Thus, what are the legal implications?
To Khalidi, the Trump administration has gone beyond what any other American administration has done before. Notably, previous American administrations have allowed the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem while simultaneously maintaining the public face of opposition. Khalidi stresses that unlike previous administrations, the Trump administration has openly endorsed the annexation of Israeli settlements within the West Bank and Jordan Valley.
Likewise, Jahshan finds the Trump administration’s “Peace to Prosperity Plan” to be monumental in terms of the US role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Jahshan believes that this plan significantly differs from previous American attempts and lacks even the semblance of neutrality.
Contrasting perspectives
Al-Kidwa believes that the annexation of areas within the West Bank constitutes a threat to the present international order and accepted modes of state conduct. States possess a legal obligation in accordance with the Geneva conventions to confront settler colonialism. Palestinians must work to refine and redefine their relationship with Israel.
Zreik believes that it remains important to differentiate between the question of sovereignty and the application and enforcement of Israeli law and order. To Zreik, the question of sovereignty remains a question of international law, not local law. Although Israel enforces law and order in the Golan Heights, the international community recognizes sovereignty over the Golan Heights as belonging to Syria. Zreik states that the question of state sovereignty must be decided by the international legal system.
Legal Implications
Erakat states that the annexation of areas within the West Bank violates UN Security Council Resolution 242, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the UN Charter that provides for the territorial integrity of all people. To Erakat, although there remains an abundance of legal remedies, politics will determine whether Israel will be held legally accountable by the international community.
Political Implications
Farsakh highlights that Arab states have denounced the proposed Israeli annexation. Jordan in particular has remained steadfast in its opposition and has threatened to withdraw the Jordanian-Israeli Peace Accords. However, negative reactions by Arab states will not have much significance because of the high degree of dependence these states have on the United States and their economic relations with Israel. The European Union, Israel’s largest trading partner, has opposed the prospect of annexation and unilateral decision making.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 10
– WSJ says Trump wanted to fire SecDef Esper but was talked out of it by Hill allies and outside advisers.
– NYT says Bolsonaro threatens military coup in Brazil.
– Just Security article says DOD regs give command to Attorney General.
– Lawfare piece sees conflicting laws over control of out of state Guard units in DC.
– Here’s CRS list of military posts named after Confederates
– WSJ’s Gerry Seib notes polls showing distrust of opposing parties.
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:
Stevenson’s army, June 9
– Esper and Ryan are open to renaming military bases. Urging them on is Gen. David Petraeus.
– Erdogan says he has a deal with Trump on Libya.
– New bill would prevent Trump from using nuke against a hurricane.
–State Dept in DC reopening June 15.
-Reuters says senior officials blindsided by Germany troop withdrawal announcement.
– NDAA markups beginning despite few hearings.
– Prof. Edelman and others see China and Russia practicing “strategic corruption.”
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
