At risk
President Trump, concerned about the stock market’s more than 20% falloff, is still minimizing the risk and pushing for aid to the travel industry (including his own hotels of course) as well as a payroll tax cut, which he hopes will bury the memory of his massive tax cut for the wealthy in 2017. Neither move will do much for the non-payroll poor, who either vote for or against him because he is a racist. There is no buying them off his poor opponents or his poor proponents. He knows it.
I suppose his economic moves might cheer the markets temporarily, but there is no way we don’t get a big slowdown and likely a contraction this quarter and into the next. The failure of the US government to act promptly against Covid-19, has condemned us all to self-quarantine. While the economy is digitalizing, face-to-face interaction is still indispenable to industries that handle physical stuff and important to others, like teaching international relations. Presidents Xi and Trump may want to purvey happy talk, but reality bites.
It’s biting me too. I’m scheduled to travel to San Antonio Sunday and Atlanta during the following week to visit with our grandchildren, whom I haven’t seen since Thanksgiving. I’m not really worried about protecting myself from the virus. Lots of sanitizer and surgical masks will do a decent job of that, with some residual risk. But if we happen to cross paths with an infected person and are advised to self-quarantine, we could end up stranded for a couple of weeks in one of the destinations or the other. As attractive as that might be for seeing the grandchildren, it won’t help me get my work done. Nor will housing a grandparent for an unexpectedly long period, sick or not, be easy on the kids. So we need to choose between taking the risk or canceling the trip. Ugh.
Many millions of people are now making similar decisions. The Italian government has made it for them: stay home except for work and emergencies it says. I won’t be surprised if we end up there, but the President is still thinking more about his re-election prospects than about the welfare of the American people. Fortunately, they get the final say. How anyone watching the bozotic performance of this Administration in responding to Covid-19 would want it back in office come November is beyond me. It would be fitting if the germophone fell to a virus. Trump is at risk.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, March 9
– DOD has 60 vacancies, about 1/3 of Senate-confirmed positions, and time is running short for filling them. And Politico says WH is resisting Esper nominees.
– Details of the Afghan deal are also missing — and the president even suggests Taliban may take over.
-Lawfare has a legal analysis of the deal.
– Numerous stories tell of the administration’s missed opportunities to deal with the coronavirus. Consider Dan Drezner and Peter Baker of NYT.
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. If you want to get it directly, 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:
Arm twisting
Pristina daily Koha Ditore published this interview over the weekend. Fitim Gashi asked questions; I replied:
>Below you can find the question for the interview that Agron mentioned to you.
Q: How do you see the historical role of the United States in the creation of the state of Kosovo and current politics?
A: The US was vital to the independence and sovereignty of Kosovo, which had the good fortune to fight its devastating war with Serbia during the unipolar moment when Washington could do almost anything it liked in the world without serious opposition. It was also a moment in which liberal democracy, based on human rights for all, was the dominant paradigm.
The situation today is quite different. Washington has been withdrawing from overseas commitments, the Trump Administration is an ethnic nationalist one, and Russia and China are challenging US hegemony in various parts of the world.
Q: What is the impact that the US has on political decision-making in Kosovo, and why is this impact so great?
A: Partly because of its leadership role in 1999 and thereafter, the US is still first among equals in the diplomatic sphere in Pristina. The impact is great because Kosovo remains heavily dependent on US military, diplomatic, and political support. It is also great because Kosovars want it that way. When I urge them to diversify their support, they reject the notion.
Q: How do you see the role of the United States in the final phase of the dialogue. Is there any attempt to get this process out of the hands of Brussels?
A: Trump has no use for the EU and Grenell as no use for Germany, which is the most important of the European countries from Kosovo’s perspective. That said, the EU and Germany have much bigger problems today than Kosovo, which they seem glad to leave to the Americans, who are desperate for some sort of diplomatic triumph in the leadup to November’s elections. My advice: keep Germany involved. It is today the strongest defender of the liberal democratic ideals on which Kosovo was founded.
Q: Who should mediate the dialogue and where should the agreement be signed?
A: I’d prefer to see the US and EU working together in tandem, since that is a formula that has consistently brought good results in the Balkans. I couldn’t care less where the agreement is signed. Does anyone remember where the Dayton agreements were signed? The Trump Administration has promised the White House Rose Garden. I would guess he will get his way if there is to be an agreement.
Q: What compromises can be delivered by the parties in the final agreement and can they be painful for Kosovo?
A: Kosovo should be willing to compromise on ensuring the safety and security of Serbs and Serb monuments and other property throughout Kosovo, consistent with its constitution. Serbia should be expected to offer whatever it gets on those issues to Albanians living in Serbia. That’s called reciprocity.
Diplomatic recognition of sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as exchange of representatives at the ambassadorial level should also be reciprocal. All the existing bilateral technical agreements should be implemented.
Q: Has US policy on Kosovo changed with the Trump administration? If so, in what sense?
A: Yes, it has changed. The Administration has made it clear in public it would accept a territorial and population exchange that previous Administrations ruled out. Grenell and Palmer are committed to that formula, even if it has been rejected on its merits by Pristina and Belgrade. I also think Washington has shifted from expecting a reciprocal agreement on tariffs and an end to the de-recognition campaign to insisting on unilateral concessions by Kosovo. It is easier for Washington to twist the arm of a friend than twist the arm of an adversary.
Q: Prime Minister Kurti’s plan for partial and conditional lifting of tax on goods from Serbia was rejected by the US Envoy for Dialogue, Richard Grenell. Can the prime minister face sanctions if his decision-making is not in line with the Trump administration’s stance?
A: I might not apply the word “sanctions,” but he should certainly expect to suffer a cold diplomatic shoulder and possibly more concrete consequences. Welcome to the world of sovereign states. Trump is particularly vindictive and Grenell will imitate him.
Q: There has been criticism that Kosovo’s leaders are making decisions under pressure. Is Kosovo ready to take its own decisions, not to be subject of any international pressure?
A: We are all subject to pressures. The key is to make good decisions even under pressure. I wouldn’t yield on anything vital before the American election in November.
Q: Should Kosovo hurry to dialogue and reach the agreement?
A: No. Kosovo has to be ready to walk away from a bad agreement, even one supported by the US, in order to get a good one.
Q: So far, Kosovo has suffered from a lack of consensus in dialogue with Serbia, this was also confirmed by recent actions, where the president was part of reaching some agreements, while Prime Minister Kurti appeared uninformed. How much can this approach affect Kosovo getting into a bad deal with Serbia?
A: Only unity saves the Serbs, and only unity will save the Kosovars. The Americans are exploiting political divisions in Kosovo and pressuring their friends because it is easier than pressuring their adversaries. My advice: don’t fall for it. Those who cave on issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity will not be remembered well.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | March 9 – 13
A Conversation on National Security with General Petraeus | March 9, 2020 | 2:00PM – 3:00 PM | Brookings Institute | Register Here
More than 18 years after the 9/11 attacks, the United States has shifted its focus to competition with near-peer great competitors while still deterring rogue states like Iran and North Korea. During the latter years of President Obama’s administration and the early years of President Trump’s — through the 2018 National Defense Strategy, in particular — the U.S. has placed China’s ascendance at the heart of national security policymaking. But ongoing challenges with Russia, Afghanistan, the broader Middle East, and the Korean peninsula will continue to demand U.S. attention and resources.
General David Petraeus — former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and commander of multinational forces in Iraq during the President George W. Bush-era surge — is a distinguished practitioner and analyst of national security. On March 9, he will join Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon in a wide-ranging conversation on the international security environment, the state of the armed forces, and the emerging threats facing the United States.
Africa Symposium 2020: Advancing Africa’s Governance, Peace, and Security | March 11, 2020 | 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM | Wilson Center | Register Here
Please join the Institute for Defense Analyses and the Wilson Center Africa Program on Wednesday, March 11 for the Africa Symposium 2020, “Advancing Africa’s Governance, Peace, and Security.” Access and download the full program agenda below.
In 2020 Africa embarks on its fourth decade of political and economic liberalization. Over the last 30 years, many nations of the continent have moved beyond reliance on military governments and controlled economies. Many have moved into the middle-income category, established norms for elections and political stability, and created institutions to manage conflicts.
But, with 54 countries, Africa’s progress is uneven. Africa embarks on the next decade with uncertainty over the democratic dividend and new challenges to peace and security. At the same time, there are new internal and international stakeholders that test the status quo and demand a share of Africa’s future. Each of these factors has implications for the U.S. government’s engagement with Africa and its strategic interests on the continent. Africa Symposium 2020 will reflect on the democratic dividend; Africa’s conflict management mechanisms; important stakeholders, such as women and youth; and Africa’s evolving international relations.
Speakers
Keynote Speaker: Major General Christopher E. Craige, U.S. Africa Command
Whitney Baird, Deputy Assistant Secretary for West Africa and Security Affairs, Bureau of African Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Pete Marocco, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs, Department of Defense
Lina Benabdallah, Assistant Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University
Jaimie Bleck, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame
Judd Devermont, Africa Program Director, Center for Strategic and Internatioonal Studies
E. Gyimah-Boadi, Co-founder and Executive Director, Afrobarometer
Sandra Pepera, Director, Gender, Women and Democracy, National Democratic Institute
Marc Sommers, Former Fellow, Independent Consultant,
Paul D. Williams, Global Fellow, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Elliot School of International Affairs, George Washington University
General Norton Schwartz, President and CEO, Institute for Defense Analyses
Monde Muyangwam, Africa Program Director
Magdalena Bajll, National Intelligence Manager for Africa
The Way Forward in Syria: Idlib, US Policy, and the Constitutional Process | March 11, 2020 | 9:00 AM – 1:00 PM | Arab Center Washington DC | Register Here
The Harmoon Center for Contemporary Studies (HCCS), the Syrian American Council (SAC), and Arab Center Washington DC (ACW) will convene a conference in Washington DC exploring the way forward in Syria. The conference will focus on updates on Idlib, the developing humanitarian and refugee crises, Turkey’s involvement, and US policy toward Syria.
9:00 AM: Keynote Address: Challenges for US Policy in Syria
Khalil E. Jahshan, Executive Directorm Arab Center Washington DC
Zaki Lababidi, President, Syrian American Council
Keynote Speaker, Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, US Special Representative for Syria Engagement and the Global Coalition
10:00 AM: The continuing Humanitarian Crisis and US Policy in Syria
Wa’el Alzayat, CEO, Emgage Foundation
Wendy Pearlman, Associate Professor of Political Science, Northwestern University
Zaher Sahloul, President of MedGlobal
Valerie Szybala, Independent Consultant and Former Executive Director of The Syrian Institute
Yaser Tabbara, Strategic and Legal Advisor and Co-Founder, the Syrian Forum
Marwa Daoudy (Chair), Assistant Professor, Center for Contemporary Arab Studies in the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
12:00 PM: Keynote Luncheon: US Policy Response to The Humanitarian Crisis in Syria
A Conversation with the United States National Security Advisor | March 11, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM | The Heritage Foundation | Register Here
The world is awash in security challenges. China’s rapid militarization; Russia’s attempts to intimidate NATO, at large, and the Baltic States, in particular, and its propping-up the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria; Iran’s consistent support to terrorist groups across the Middle East, sustained development of missile technologies now able to reach Europe, and use of nuclear blackmail to force Europe’s hand in supporting its nuclear ambitions; Nicolas Maduro’s death grip on Venezuela that threatens the complete collapse of the country and the spillover of instability into neighboring states in South and Central America; large swathes of Africa beset by violent Islamist radical groups…the list is long. The role of the President’s National Security Advisor, in part, is to coordinate the activities of the vast array of agencies that support understanding and responding to such a world. Leading the work of the National Security Council, and serving as the ‘honest broker’ for intelligence estimates and policy recommendations to the President, Robert O’Brien, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, must determine how best to ensure all relevant offices across the Executive Branch support the President’s efforts to ensure America’s security interests are addressed.
Please join us for a discussion with Robert O’Brien, a rare public opportunity to hear directly from him about his current work to streamline the National Security Council, make information coming to the President more focused and relevant, and the implementation of security decisions more timely and effective.
Speakers
Kim R. Holmes, Executive Vice President
Robert C. O’Brien, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Global Trends in the Rule of Law | March 11, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
As we enter a new decade, troubling developments around the rule of law continue to raise concerns for the future of fair and functioning societies. Since 2009, the World Justice Project (WJP) has documented these trends in its annual WJP Rule of Law Index, now covering 128 countries and jurisdictions in the new 2020 edition. Based on more than 130,000 household surveys and 4,000 legal practitioner and expert surveys worldwide,the 2020 Index provides citizens, governments, donors, businesses, and civil society organizations around the world with a comprehensive comparative analysis of countries’ adherence to universal rule of law principles.
Join USIP and the World Justice Project (WJP) as we delve into the findings from the WJP Rule of Law Index 2020. WJP’s chief research officer will review important insights and data trends from the report. This will be followed by a panel discussion on the underlying factors behind the results, as well as the policy implications for those invested in strengthening the rule of law.
Speakers
David Yang, Vice President, Applied Conflict Transformation,
U.S. Institute of Peace
William Hubbard, Chairman of the Board of Directors, World Justice
Project
Sanjay Pradhan, keynote, Chief Executive Officer, Open Government Partnership
Alejandro Ponce, report presentation, Chief Research Officer, World Justice Project
Elizabeth Andersen, Executive Director, World Justice Project
Maria Stephan, Director of Nonviolent Action, U.S. Institute of Peace
Margaret Lewis, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University
Philippe Leroux-Martin, moderator, Director for Governance, Justice and Security, U.S. Institute of Peace
U.S.- China Relations and Global Impact | March 12, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Turkish Heritage Organization | Register Here
Speakers
Louisa Greve, Director of Global Advocacy, Uyghur Human Rights Projects
Robert Ross, Professor of Political Science, Boston College Associate. John King Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, Harvard University
Sophie Richardson, China Director, Human Rights Watch
Robert Spalding, U.S. Air Force Brig. General (ret.)
Information, the internet, and democracy: Transatlantic challenges – European responses | March 12, 2020 | 3:00 PM | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The Atlantic Council welcomes H.E. Věra Jourová, European Commission Vice President for Values and Transparency, for a town hall conversation on “Information, the Internet, and Democracy: Transatlantic Challenges – European Responses.”
As the European Commission Vice President for Values and Transparency, Commissioner Jourová is responsible for ensuring that the European Union and its member states adhere to its Charter of Fundamental Rights, including in the online space. She plays a lead role in preparing the EU’s Democracy Action Plan and is also key in EU discussions about online content, privacy, and rule of law. Vice President Jourová provides opening remarks focused on some of the key challenges from rapidly evolving technology and what they could mean for citizens and for democratic processes and institutions across the Atlantic. She looks forward to a conversation with the audience about the EU’s plans to address these challenges.
Army Air and Missile Defense | March 13, 2020 | 9:30 – 11:45 am | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
Air and missile defense is one of the U.S. Army’s six modernization priorities. Major General Robert Rasch and Brigadier General Brian Gibson join CSIS to discuss what the Army has accomplished in this field, its priorities, and expected future developments. Following, a panel of experts will also discuss AMD developments and offense-defense integration.
Event Schedule
9:30-10:30: Conversation with Major General Robert Rasch, Army PEO for Missiles and Space, Brigadier General Brian Gibson, Director, Army Air and Missile Defense Cross-Functional Team, and Dr. Thomas Karako, Director, CSIS Missile Defense Project.
10:30-10:45: Coffee break
10:45-11:45: Panel discussion featuring Brian Green, Senior Associate (Non-resident), CSIS International Security Program, Barbara Treharne, Senior Analyst, Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization (JIAMDO), and RADM Arch Macy (USN, ret.), JIAMDO Director, 2008-2011.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, March 7
The Saudi crown prince has arrested his chief rivals and charged them with treason.
Pres. Trump has named Cong. Mark Meadows as his new chief of staff. [Not “acting”]
Coronavirus blame game: countries are blaming their rivals for the epidemic.
WaPo says CIA & NSA clashed over the purchased of a Swiss crypto machine company.
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. If you want to get it directly, 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:
Botched
The Trump Administration reaction to the corona virus outbreak is a classic case of government failure. The President has downplayed the risks from the first, hoping to limit damage to stock markets and the economy in the run-up to his re-election campaign. He is claiming anyone can get tested, which isn’t even close to being true. The number of test kits available at the end of the week was just 75,000, after the Vice President had promised one million.
Part of the problem lies at the Centers for Disease Control, which at the start of this debacle shipped test kits that did not work properly while barring others from providing them. No wonder its leadership tries to look on benevolently as the President lies blatantly:
The chronicle of the inconsistencies in US government messaging is getting biblical. No one should be surprised. It is hard to keep a straight story when you are not telling the truth. That is the trick to many police interrogations: get the suspect to contradict himself, then hammer away at the contradiction. Real infectious disease experts will stand up to that sort of interrogation. President Trump and Vice President Pence will not, because they have a tale to tell that aims at political results, not scientific ones. That’s why they’ve channeled all questioning to the White House.
There is still a great deal of uncertainty about Covid-19: when during the course of the disease is it contagious? can you be reinfected? how lethal is it? what is the best protection for the older people who are succumbing in higher percentages? will the virus attenuate as spring rolls around? But some things are already clear: stay off cruise boats and out of nursing homes. Our friend Toby Edelman had this to say yesterday on NPR about the latter:
The other advice we are getting also makes sense: wash your hands, don’t touch your face, self-quarantine if in doubt, avoid contact with people who are ill. But really we haven’t got much idea how much of this will work. It’s just common sense for any infectious disease.
What we do know is that Trump and his administration have botched their first real crisis. Unable to tell the truth, unable to fix things that go wrong, unable to listen to sound advice, they have instead politicized an epidemic and made it much worse than it might have been.
RSS - Posts
