Stevenson’s army, April 1
-Josh Rogin reports that NSC staff had numerous meetings on the coronavirus in Jan & Feb and recommended quick action, but met higher level resistance.
-NYT says WH economists warned of economic consequences of a pandemic in 2019, also ignored.
– Some British scientists also downplayed the problem.
-Despite Trump’s reluctance to invoke Defense Production Act as “nationalization,” Trump administration has already invoked it hundreds of thousands of times, both in defense contracts and FEMA.
– WaPo has graphic of president’s changing tune on the pandemic.
-US proposes power sharing plan in Venezuela.
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 misjudgment, not messaging
The media this morning is marveling at Donald Trump’s changed messaging. After months of downplaying the threat of Covid-19, he is saying he takes it seriously and always did. That is a lie: he has consistently opposed taking vigorous action against the virus fearing the impact on the US economy.
What allegedly changed his mind are the projections of deaths: somewhere between 100,000 and 240,000 in the best of cases, which is unlikely to materialize because many states have still not taken vigorous action to limit exposures and the projections are based on keeping vigorous measures in place until June 1. They are currently scheduled to expire at the end of April.
The issue here isn’t messaging. It is misjudgment. Trump thought the virus was going to disappear with the spring and told the country so. He also thought it wasn’t worse than the flu. And he thought blocking travel from China would protect the United States. All of these assumptions were false: it is not disappearing with warmer weather, it is far more transmissible than the flu apparently during a period when infected people show no symptoms, and the virus appeared quickly in the US even after travel from China was blocked.
Trump thought acknowledging the facts would hurt his re-election prospects. That may be true.
Let’s assume the strict “social distancing” measures last until June 15 or so, which is not an unreasonable time frame. Even then, few–including me–are going to want to go back to work unless others there are tested for Covid-19 on an almost daily basis. Tests will need to be cheap, fast, and universally available. They are nowhere near that now. But let’s say that problem is solved by the end of June.
This would mean the Conference Board’s “May reboot” of the economy is already overtaken by events. We’d be looking at either a summer rebound or a fall recovery, more than likely the latter. Either would mean 6% or so shrinkage of the economy in 2020 relative to 2019, and unemployment up to 15% in the third quarter of 2020. No president should want to compete for re-election with unemployment at that rate, especially if he is personally responsible for making it so.
Trump inherited an economy that was in good shape: it had grown about 2.4% per year under Obama since the recovery from the recession began in mid-2009. The growth rate in Trump’s first three years was about the same (2.5%), but the deficit was worsening rapidly due to the giant tax cut the Republicans gave corporations and the wealthy in his first year. Now the deficit is exploding due to new spending to meet the corona virus challenge, but interest rates are low so the full impact of the borrowing is not being felt.
Former Vice President Biden has the advantage of the Obama recovery to brag about, and Trump’s ineptitude in meeting the challenge of Covid-19 to criticize. But the Democrats haven’t been very successful yet in pinning the tail on the elephant. Polls show an uptick in Trump’s approval rating, up to 46%. That is low for an incumbent president, but high for Trump. Rallying around the flag may be the reason, but that is unlikely to persist through hundreds of thousands of deaths, continuing personal confinement, and a 15% unemployment rate.
We can be pretty much certain that Trump will lose the popular vote by even more than the 2.8 million or so votes in 2016. He has treated California, New York, New Jersey and other more populated Democratic-majority states with disdain before and throughout the epidemic. They will vote overwhelmingly against him. His base is concentrated in more rural, less populated states overweighted in the Electoral College. Covid-19 has not yet hit many of those states hard. What will happen to his votes then is anyone’s guess, as his base has remained intensely loyal so far.
An epidemic doesn’t lend itself to messaging. It’s all about getting it right. Trump got it wrong. I find it hard to imagine that there will be no punishment for that.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Gulf arms trade
While the US and Western Europe remain major suppliers in arms trade to Gulf states, other regional and global powers have strengthened their relationships with Gulf states as well. On March 25, the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington (AGSIW) hosted a panel discussion on “Gulf Security in a Multipolar World: New Defense Ties Reflect Competition for Influence.” The discussion featured five speakers:
Jon Alterman: Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Alexandra Kuimova: Research Assistant, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Shana Marshall: Associate Director at the Institute for Middle East Studies at the Elliott School of International Affairs
Bilal Saab: Senior Fellow and Director of the Defense and Security Program at the Middle East Institute
Pieter D. Wezeman: Senior Researcher, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Emma Soubrier: Visiting Scholar, the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, moderated
The West and the Gulf
Wezeman indicated that the US and Europe are major suppliers of weapons, training, technology, and manpower to Gulf states, especially to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Kuimova added that the US, the UK, France and Germany have increased their domination over the Gulf market from 2015 to 2019.
Saab emphasized that there is decreased regional confidence in US security commitment to its Gulf partners. He listed three major breakdowns in their partnership:
- Bush administration’s planning for a never executed attack on Iran
- Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran
- Trump administration’s assassination of Soleimani
The US never consulted on these major regional moves with its Gulf allies. But the US is desperate to sell arms to the Gulf, especially now that there is a power competition with Russia and China. Alterman believes nevertheless that the Gulf aims to maintain a close relationship with the US.
Intraregional Dynamics
Marshall stated that intraregional movement of arms has continued throughout Gulf history. The Gulf finances arms transfers from the US and Europe to non-Gulf monarchies and authoritarian republics, including Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. There have also been smuggling and proliferation. Additionally, regional production forms a basis for intraregional trade. The GCC aims for domestic production for itself and its regional allies, loosening the West’s grip on regional arms and capital transfers. It also broadens the GCC’s geopolitical influence by increasing political and commercial activities. Marshall concluded that having its own indigenous defense industry for arms sales and transfer is an integral part of effectuating Gulf foreign policy.
Wezeman thinks that the development of arms industry shows a state’s desire to be a regional power with strategic independence. It’s difficult to be a self-sufficient arms industry due to the inability to produce all materials and technologies. State indigenous arms industries have to depend on their allies to some extent.
Other players
Wezeman stated that China and Russia have entered the Gulf market by offering niche products. They may play a bigger role in the future. Kuimova indicated they are among the top ten arms exporters in the world and have increased their interests in the Gulf through security collaboration and economic cooperation, including arms trade and investment. Although Gulf states haven’t placed any orders for S-400 missile system or the Sukhoi Su-35 aircraft with Russia yet, the number of Gulf states that receive China’s arms supplies has increased. Kuimova attributed Gulf states’ arms requests from China and Russia to three reasons:
- The Gulf lacks the domestic technological basis needed to design and produce advanced weapons.
- Western suppliers limit their weapons sales to the Gulf for political and humanitarian reasons. Russia and China request few such conditions.
- Duplication of sources allows the Gulf to benefit from competition in terms of prices and conditions.
Alterman stated that China is trying to have comprehensive strategic partnerships with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, and Egypt. While Russia is not a desirable alternative partner to the US in the region, China can be a supplement to the US. He listed China’s motivations as follows:
- The Chinese need to secure energy from the Middle East independently of the US.
- American hegemony isn’t in China’s interests. China’s rising profile in the Middle East can draw US attention away from the Western Pacific and put a wedge between the US, Europe, and China.
He emphasized that China focuses more on business than security. How China-Middle East relations will develop still remains an open question.
Here’s the video for this panel discussion:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, March 31
– The British missed it, too. They had a pandemic wargame and ignored the results.
-WSJ says hidden Chinese lending threatens emerging markets.
– DOD wants more of its budget secret.
– Report says Xi flattered Trump into dropping “Wuhan virus”
The uphill fight to vote by mail.
WH has released a 5g strategy 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:
Bullying
Congressman Eliot Engel’s statement on Friday deserves the attention of Balkan-watchers:
“To say that the United States and Kosovo have a warm and close relationship would be understating the depth of our ties. The United States led the campaign to end Milosevic’s genocidal ethnic cleansing and has been the most powerful and consistent friend of the independent and sovereign Republic of Kosovo. I’ve visited Kosovo many times and can confidently say Americans do not receive a warmer welcome anywhere else around the world.
“I’ve been proud to be a partner of Kosovo governments led by a variety of political parties. I do not take sides on who should run Kosovo. That is a decision for the people of Kosovo. I will always work with whomever they choose.
“This is why I have been increasingly concerned with the heavy-handed tactics the Trump Administration is using with Prishtina. The State Department has long called for Kosovo to lift its tariffs on Serbia. But this Administration turned to economic penalties just a few short weeks after the Kurti government took office. Rather than letting a new government facing a pandemic staff its agencies and set up internal procedures, the U.S. contributed to a political crisis in Prishtina over the tariffs on Serbia.
“There are good reasons for Kosovo to lift tariffs, mostly that they are hurting Kosovo more than they are providing leverage to reach a peace deal with Serbia. Regardless, tariffs are a legitimate tool of a sovereign nation. As such, they’ve been imposed around the world by President Trump against friends and foes, alike, for economic and political reasons.
“Rather than using overbearing tactics with a friend which relies on our support, the United States should have patiently worked with the now-outgoing Kosovo government—as it sought to work with the previous Kosovo government—to improve policies which promote prosperity and a lasting peace. Strong-arming a small democracy is the act of a bully, not a mature partner. Regardless, I will continue to work with whatever government the people of Kosovo select now and in the future.
“Moreover, the pressure imposed on Prishtina for its tariffs is decidedly unbalanced. Serbian diplomats are transiting the globe pressing countries to derecognize Kosovo, and Serbia is deepening relations with Moscow and purchasing significant amounts of Russian weaponry. In fact, under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) passed by Congress in the aftermath of Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, these arms purchases require the Administration to impose sanctions on Serbia. Neither have we imposed those sanctions, nor have we energetically pressed Serbia to end its derecognition efforts.
“Something’s wrong with U.S. policy and we need to correct it. We should start with rebalancing our approaches toward Serbia and Kosovo. We should work with our European allies to treat both countries as independent and sovereign partners, applying consistent standards to both sides as we try to restart peace talks. When U.S. law says we should sanction Serbia due to its security ties with Russia, we should.
“Additionally, the U.S. should immediately restart its assistance through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). The MCC model is based on objective, data-driven indicators and a mutually agreed upon compact between the U.S. and the recipient country. Using this assistance as a bludgeon for actions not related to MCC or its mission twists the agency into just another transactional pressure tool—precisely what it was not intended to be.”
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
van der Stoel deadline extended
The Max van der Stoel Award is presented by the Government of the Netherlands every two years. It honours the memory of distinguished Dutch statesman and the first OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Max van der Stoel (seen here in Vukovar, Croatia). (OSCE) Photo details
THE HAGUE, 30 March 2020 – The deadline for receiving nominations for the Max van der Stoel Award 2020 has been extended to 30 April 2020. The award of 50,000 euros recognizes extraordinary and outstanding achievements in improving the position of national minorities in the OSCE participating States.
To propose a candidate, contact an OSCE field operation, a delegation to the OSCE or one of the OSCE institutions (the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the Representative on Freedom of the Media or the High Commissioner on National Minorities, as well as the OSCE Secretariat and OSCE Parliamentary Assembly) with the name of an individual, group or organization you wish to be considered for the award. Only the above-mentioned OSCE entities can nominate candidates. The OSCE entity you approach will therefore consider your submission and decide which of the proposed candidates to nominate.
“In order to ensure transparency, fair competition and inclusiveness, my office will nominate all qualified candidates whose application it receives. I encourage all other OSCE entities to do the same,” said OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) Lamberto Zannier.
The OSCE field operations, delegations and institutions should send their nominations directly to the office of the HCNM either via email (mvds@hcnm.org), through the online nomination form (maxvanderstoelaward.com) or by mail/diplomatic post to:
Max van der Stoel Award
Prinsessegracht 22
2514 AP The Hague
The Netherlands
After receiving all nominations, a special jury of distinguished experts of international repute, chaired by the High Commissioner, will choose the winner. The award will be presented at a ceremony in The Hague in November 2020.
For more information about the award read this factsheet.
Contacts
OSCE High Commissioner on National MinoritiesMedia contactOffice: +31 70 312 5503media@hcnm.org
RSS - Posts
