Tag: Brexit
Peace Picks | October 26 – October 30, 2020
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. Elevating Humanitarian Action in Sudan’s Democratic Transition | October 27, 2020 | 10:30 – 11:30 AM EDT | CSIS | Register Here
On October 19, the White House announced it was taking steps to delist Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism (SST), clearing the way for increased international assistance and opportunities for development financing. Removing Sudan from the SST list is long overdue and comes at a pivotal moment for its nascent political transition. Prior to the Covid-19 crisis, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) estimated that 9.3 million people in Sudan would need humanitarian assistance in 2020. Now, months of heavy flooding have led to increased displacement, while high levels of inflation are making it increasingly difficult for people to purchase food and limiting the services humanitarian organizations can provide.
Sudan’s ongoing democratic transition has enabled increased humanitarian access for multilateral aid organizations, yet restrictions on NGOs remain, and prospects for enhanced access are uncertain. As peace negotiations and the democratic transition continue, political leaders in Sudan must ensure that meeting humanitarian needs remains at the forefront of their agenda.
In a follow-up to our recent commentary, this webinar will highlight the enduring humanitarian needs in Sudan and examine how Sudanese political actors can prioritize humanitarian needs during the state’s democratic transition. To help understand these issues, we will be joined by Dr. Suliman Baldo, Senior Advisor at The Sentry, and Hala Al-Karib, Regional Director at the Strategic Initiative for Women in the Horn of Africa.
Speakers:
Dr. Suliman Baldo: Senior Adviser, The Sentry
Hala Al-Karib: Regional Director, Strategic Initiative for Women in the Horn of Africa
2. Local Elections, National Implications: Ukraine at the Ballot Box | October 27, 2020 | 12:00 PM EDT | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Ukraine’s local elections on October 25 are highly contested and impossible to predict. Following President Zelenskyy’s landslide victory last year, he and his party have fallen in the polls, with approval ratings hovering below 35 percent. With deadlocked peace talks, a continued war in the Donbas, stalled reforms, and increased coronavirus cases devastating the economy, a 2019-style victory for Servant of the People is increasingly unlikely. The new electoral code, which bars independents from running in districts with more than 10,000 citizens, further complicates the picture.
Mykhaylo Shtekel, Odesa correspondent and Donbas reporter for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s (RFE/RL) Ukrainian Service, Nataliya Sedletska, editor-in-chief and host of RFE/RL’s “Schemes: Corruption in Detail”, Adrian Karatnycky, Eurasia Center senior fellow and managing partner at Myrmidon Group LLC, and Brian Mefford, Eurasia Center senior fellow and managing director at Wooden Horse Strategies LLC, will analyze the results and what they mean for Ukraine’s future. Melinda Haring, deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, moderates.
Speakers:
Mykhaylo Shtekel: Odesa correspondent and Donbas reporter for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s (RFE/RL) Ukrainian Service
Nataliya Sedletska: editor-in-chief and host of RFE/RL’s “Schemes: Corruption in Detail”
Adrian Karatnycky: Eurasia Center senior fellow; managing partner at Myrmidon Group LLC
Brian Mefford: Eurasia Center senior fellow; managing director at Wooden Horse Strategies LLC
Melinda Haring: Deputy Director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center
3. Election 2020: Driving Forces and Possible Outcomes | October 27, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:30 PM EDT | Brookings Institute | Register Here
As voters begin casting their ballots in the 2020 election, many issues still have the potential to transform the political landscape and determine the outcome of the presidential election, as well as congressional, gubernatorial, and statehouse races across the country. Voters go to the polls with several serious policy issues on their mind including an economy in recession, the COVID-19 pandemic, health care, race relations, social justice, women’s rights, and the future of the judiciary. These issues raise a number of questions that will determine the outcome of the election.
During a campaign season colored by the pandemic, will congressional leadership and the White House strike a deal for another round of economic stimulus before Election Day? And how will delays in a relief package affect House members and senators in tough reelection fights?
With a Supreme Court nomination in process that has the potential to shape the country for years, will Republican voters show up at the polls on election day to reward GOP Senate candidates like Lindsay Graham, Cory Gardner, and Joni Ernst for voting to confirm Amy Coney Barrett? Will Democratic backlash hurt those senators’ chances for reelection?
Long lines, postal delays, concerns about voter intimidation and suppression, and the possibility of contested elections have raised concerns about the integrity of the U.S. elections process. How will political leaders and courts respond when the influx of mail-in ballots might extend election day to several weeks? And will efforts to disrupt voting strike a chord with voters in affecting their drive to vote and their vote choice?
On October 27, one week before election day, Governance Studies at Brookings will host a webinar to discuss the driving forces and possible outcomes of the 2020 election. Expert panelists will offer their analysis on these and other pressing issues and answer questions from viewers.
Speakers:
John Hudak, moderator: Deputy Director – Center for Effective Public ManagementSenior Fellow – Governance Studies
William A. Galston: Ezra K. Zilkha Chair and Senior Fellow – Governance Studies
Sarah A. Binder: Senior Fellow – Governance Studies
Elaine Kamarck: Founding Director – Center for Effective Public ManagementSenior Fellow – Governance Studies
Rashawn Ray: David M. Rubenstein Fellow – Governance Studies
Vanessa Williamson: Senior Fellow – Governance StudiesSenior Fellow – Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center
4. Kyrgyzstan’s Unfinished “Revolution”: How the Upheaval from 2020 Is Different | October 28, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:30 AM EDT | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
For the third time in 15 years, protesters in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek have seized and set fire to the “White House,” the seat of parliament and presidential staff. The chaotic situation has toppled President Jeenbekov and is still rapidly evolving, with political actors jockeying for power. It’s a scene all too familiar to Kyrgyzstan, which since 2005 has experienced several cycles of protests and calls for advancing democracy followed by backsliding into authoritarianism. But this time around, even with all the familiar players and moves, there are also strong differences that are worth thorough assessment.
Join USIP for a discussion of the ongoing situation in Kyrgyzstan and its implications for peace and stability in Central Asia. The conversation will examine how organized crime, youth mobilization, social media, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have factored into the crisis. The discussion will also analyze how the United States and the region, including Kyrgyzstan’s Central Asian neighbors and Russia, are assessing and responding to the developments.
Speakers:
Scott Worden, welcoming remarks: Director, Afghanistan and Central Asia Programs, U.S Institute of Peace
Dr. Mariya Omelicheva: Professor of Strategy, National War College
Jonathan Henick: Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau for South & Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Dr. Andrew Kuchins: President, American University of Central Asia
Dr. Ivan Safranchuk: Leading Research Fellow, Institute for International Studies, MGIMO
Keneshbek Sainazarov: Central Asia Program Director, Search for Common Ground
Dr. Gavin Helf, moderator: Senior Expert, Asia Center, U.S. Institute of Peace
5. Women, Democracy, and Peace: A Conversation with First Lady of Afghanistan Rula Ghani and Former First Lady of the United States Laura Bush | October 28, 2020 | 8:00 AM EDT | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Afghanistan is entering a new phase, with ongoing talks offering an opportunity for peace and stability after years of conflict. As the government and the Taliban negotiate peace, questions remain regarding the future of gender equality and minority rights in the country. What will it take to ensure long-term security without compromising on the rights of women and minorities in Afghanistan? How do the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic impact the ability to sustain democratic institutions in the country?
Building upon their longstanding partnership to promote women’s rights in Afghanistan, the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center and the George W. Bush Institute invite you to join us on October 28 at 8:00 A.M. (EDT) / 4:30 P.M. (Kabul) for a virtual conversation with First Lady of Afghanistan Rula Ghani and former First Lady of the United States Laura Bush on these issues and to lend their insight into what will need to be done to ensure an equitable and inclusive peace.
Speakers:
H.E. Rula Ghani: First Lady of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
Mrs. Laura Bush: Former First Lady of the United States
6. Negotiating Peace: Lessons from the Western Balkans | October 28, 2020 | 11:30 AM – 12:30 PM EDT | Wilson Center | Register Here
25 years ago, the Dayton Peace Accords ended conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, violence continued in the Western Balkans, which led to the Kosovo War and the international mediation needed to end it. Even after the conflict stopped, Serbia and Kosovo struggle with their relations. Today, the Western Balkans remains turbulent. Join us as two experienced European negotiators discuss what lessons can be drawn from efforts to negotiate peace in the Balkans, both for the region and elsewhere.
Speakers:
The Right Honourable Catherine Ashton, Baroness of Upholland: Bank of America Chair, Global Europe Program; Former Vice President of the European Commission and former High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Carl Bildt: Former Prime Minister of Sweden; Former UN Special Envoy for the Balkans; Co-Chair, Dayton Peace Conference
Jane Harman: Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
7. The Implications of Brexit for Ireland: A Conversation with Irish Ambassador Daniel Mulhall | October 29, 2020 | 1:30 – 2:30 PM EDT | CSIS | Register Here
Please join us for a conversation with H.E. Daniel Mulhall, Ambassador of Ireland to the United States, about the implications of Brexit for Ireland. This discussion will be moderated by Bill Reinsch, CSIS Scholl Chair and Senior Adviser, and Heather Conley, Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic and Director of the Europe Program at CSIS.
With the deadline for reaching a trade agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom fast approaching, there is growing concern that new borders, customs procedures and tariffs may be imposed which will harm both the Irish and Northern Ireland economies. The UK government has moved forward with legislation, the Internal Market Bill, which allows the UK government to breach its legal agreement with the EU on Northern Ireland. The EU has recently initiated legal procedures against the UK for this legislation and prominent members of Congress have stated that the Internal Market Bill or anything else that jeopardizes the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, makes a future US-UK trade agreement impossible. U.S. Special Envoy to Northern Ireland, Mick Mulvaney, recently visited Dublin and Belfast to assess the impact of the Internal Market Bill. Irish Ambassador to the U.S., Ambassador Daniel Mulhall will present the Irish government’s perspective on the situation, on prospects for an acceptable resolution, and the economic and political implications if one does not appear.
Speakers:
H.E. Daniel Mulhall: Ambassador of Ireland to the United States
Heather Conley: Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic and Director of the Europe Program at CSIS
Bill Reinsch: CSIS Scholl Chair and Senior Adviser
8. The Good, Bad, and Ugly: How the World Sees the United States | October 29, 2020 | 9:00 – 9:50 AM EDT | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
Critics make a strong case that the United States has never been less respected or admired abroad than it is today. President Trump’s disruptive policies abroad and his mishandling of the pandemic at home have fundamentally undermined U.S. credibility in the eyes of both allies and adversaries in the short run, but will the damage last? And if Joe Biden wins in November, what will the world expect from U.S. leadership?
Join us as three veteran foreign correspondents, Christiane Amanpour, Steven Erlanger, and David Rennie, sit down with Aaron David Miller to discuss the United States and its role in the world.
Speakers:
Aaron David Miller: Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Christiane Amanpour: Chief International Anchor, CNN; Host, “Amanpour & Company”, PBS
Steven Erlanger: Chief Diplomatic Correspondent, Europe, The New York Times.
David Rennie: Beijing bureau chief, The Economist
9. Ten Years On: A Post-Arab Spring Middle East | October 29, 2020 | 2:00 -3:00 PM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The conditions that led to the 2011 Arab Spring protests continue to linger in the Middle East and North Africa. Widespread corruption, political repression, human rights abuses, and economic difficulties proliferate throughout the region, and have been complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Tunisia is often considered an Arab Spring success story, but despite a number of notable improvements since 2011, its fragile democratic transition has had little impact on the day-to-day lives of average Tunisians, and the economic realities that led to the 2011 uprising largely remain unchanged. In countries such as Syria, Yemen, and Libya, civil conflict and foreign intervention have worsened these crises without addressing the root causes of instability.
How have the Arab Spring protests changed the Middle East and affected regional stability over the past decade? What role does the United States play in the various crises throughout MENA and how does it affect American foreign policy goals?
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host its third event in a series to discuss the recently published briefing book, Election 2020: Challenges and Opportunities for US Policy in the Middle East. The briefs in this book offer policy insights from MEI scholars on key issues in the Middle East and serve as a contribution to the broader discussion about the challenges and opportunities for US policy in the region.
Speakers:
Nadwa Al-Dawsari: Non-resident Scholar, MEI
William Lawrence: Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, American University
Charles Lister: Senior fellow and director, Countering Terrorism and Extremism and Syria Programs, MEI
Mirette Mabrouk: Director and senior fellow, Egypt program, MEI
Ibrahim Al-Assil, moderator: Senior fellow, MEI
10. Strengthening Global Safeguards and Security in an Advanced Nuclear Age | October 29, 2020 | 1:00 PM EDT | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The Atlantic Council and Third Way are co-hosting a virtual event highlighting the potential global market for advanced nuclear technologies, and the important role safeguards and security must play in ensuring US reactors are ready to compete.
We are delighted to invite you to join our virtual event on the afternoon of Thursday, October 29th, 2020, from 1:00 – 2:30 p.m. EDT. Over the last five years there has been significant technological, financial, and policy progress toward developing and commercializing advanced nuclear reactors in the US. But we are not alone in this pursuit. China and Russia are both developing new reactor designs aggressively to capture the emerging market for advanced nuclear and the global influence that will come with it. It is in the best interest of the world for safety, proliferation, and climate reasons, that the US leads the way.
To maintain the United States’ global leadership, advanced nuclear reactors should not only provide affordable, zero-carbon power; they should provide it in a way that builds upon the nuclear security architecture developed over the last five decades. The US government and advanced nuclear developers could be in the position to enhance global nuclear security and safeguards as a new set of aspiring nuclear countries looks at deploying a new generation of nuclear reactors.
The event will feature keynote remarks by Dr. Brent Park, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation at the National Nuclear Security Administration. Immediately following his remarks, Third Way will present a first-of-a-kind international advanced nuclear map and global market analysis, and we will host a panel discussion on the critical role US clean energy innovation can play in reducing emissions in the US, addressing energy poverty around the world, and the challenges and opportunities presented by applying safeguards- and security-by-design to the next generation of nuclear energy technologies.
Speakers:
Keynote remarks
Dr. Brent Park: Deputy Administrator, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration
Panel Discussion
Laura Holgate, Ambassador (ret.): Vice President, Materials Risk Management, Nuclear Threat Initiative
Allison Johnston: Director, Office of International Nuclear Security,National Nuclear Security Administration
Christine King: Director, Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, Idaho National Laboratory
Kevin Veal: Director, Office of International Nuclear Safeguards, National Nuclear Security Administration
Jackie Kempfer, moderator: Senior Policy Adviser, Climate and Energy Program; Senior Fellow, Global Energy Center
Closing remarks
Dr. Jennifer Gordon: Managing Editor and Senior Fellow, Global Energy Center, Atlantic Council
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Optimism on Europe
With Brexit day around the corner on January 31, the Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) hosted a panel titled The Future of Europe: French and German Perspectives. The panel was a discussion between German Ambassador Emily Haber and French Ambassador Philippe Etienne, moderated by Rachel Ellehuus, the Deputy Director of the Europe Program at CSIS.
Despite the looming fate of Brexit, Haber was adamant to make numerous comments about the continued strength of the European Union and proclaimed that the European cause has actually become more popular. Haber noted that the European Union has always been at the crossroads, continually changing its narrative and sense of purpose. The construction and functionality of the European Coal and Steel Community was entirely different than the European Union of today, thus the Europe Union will be able to move on and reshape after the loss of the UK.
Over the past 11 years the EU has experienced multiple crises, including the euro crisis, the migration crisis, and Brexit. Haber argued that there exists a paradox in the effects of these crises, on the one hand they have led to a loss of confidence in the EU structure (sparking populist movements), while on the other they have strengthened governance structures. Haber emphasized that these structures create a protective barrier for the citizens, and it is these governance structures that will allow the EU member countries to combat larger issues of climate change and nuclearalization, for example.
Etienne emphasized that the France-Germany alliance is the backbone of the EU and is necessary for its functionality. He added that the most important characteristic of the EU is the will of the leaders and nations to achieve constructive compromises, not the actual member states.
Ellehuus inquired about the synergies and tensions that exist within the EU and the nation states’ agendas. Haber referenced the migration crisis as an exemplification of the confusion and possible tension between citizens, their governments, and the EU institutions. Due to the EU’s open borders policy, many governments wanted to discuss and solve the issue at the EU level rather than at their national level; however, this enraged many citizens as they felt their elected officials were not properly representing their desires.
Etienne added that the EU has an entire set of institutions, laws, and diplomatic processes that often make it confusing for citizens to comprehend and grasp its role. He accentuated that despite these confusions, the purpose of the EU is to protect its citizens and provide legitimacy to decision making processes. Both Etienne and Haber emphasized the benefits that the EU brings to the US as well as to its people. Ultimately, Etienne and Haber remained positive about the fate of the EU in this upcoming transition period.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Untied Kingdom
The UK parliament approved Prime Minister Johnson’s Brexit plan today, intended to implement the June 2016 referendum approved by less than 52% of those voting.
Formal withdrawal from the EU will happen on January 31. The immediate economic consequences are not dramatic. The UK will remain part of the European Union’s single market during a transition period that lasts until the end of next year, when Johnson has promised a free trade agreement with the EU will be in place. Ever since the 2016 referendum UK businesses have been adjusting to the prospect of Brexit, with mainly negative consequences for a private sector economy now headed towards recession. The BBC offers a good summary of what happens next.
But that is not where the beef is. Two swords already hang over the Brexit process: one is Scottish, the other is Irish. A third Welsh sword isn’t far behind.
Scotland voted to remain in the EU. Its pro-EU Scottish National Party won the vast majority of Scotland’s seats in the UK election earlier this month. Its leader has promised a new referendum on secession from the UK in 2020. The 2014 Scottish referendum, conducted before Brexit was on the horizon, failed but gathered almost 45% of the vote. The next one is likely to pass.
Northern Ireland also voted to remain in the EU. Johnson’s Brexit plan calls for customs checks between England and Northern Ireland, in order to allow Northern Ireland to avoid border checks with EU member Ireland. The Protestants of Northern Ireland aren’t ready to throw themselves into the arms of Dublin, but they are getting a big push in that direction. Most Catholics need no push. They would be glad to see a reunited Ireland.
Wales voted to leave the EU 52-48, but that was likely due mainly to English voters living in Wales. When the Welsh, who have revived their language in recent decades, begin to understand that their substantial EU benefits are drying up, who knows what will happen.
So the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is at risk. Boris Johnson knows this and is emphasizing that it is the United Kingdom that will leave the EU at the end of January. But he is going to have a hard time blocking the Scots from secession. He would have to offer a massive economic package in order to prevent it, and even then the Scots may decide they are more interested in maintaining their ties to Europe. Will Northern Ireland and Wales be far behind?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Little England
The Curator Emerita of the Smithsonian and I spent last week in London. You’d think we would have something interesting to say about the election and Brexit.
We don’t.
The fact is no one we spoke to mentioned the election or Brexit without prompting. When prompted, the people we were talking with made it clear they would not vote for Boris Johnson and opposed Brexit, but their preferences varied. This, in a nutshell, is a major reason for the Conservative landslide, which gave Prime Minister Johnson control of parliament. The Brexiteers remained overwhelmingly united within the Conservative fold, disappointing the Brexit Party. The anti-Brexit vote got split up among Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, Scottish Nationalists, and others. And Labour managed to put forward the worst candidate ever: manifesto thumping Jeremy Corbyn.
The most overt political voice we heard all week was a demonstration heading up Haymarket to Piccadilly Circus chanting “Boris Johnson is not our prime minister!” It was mostly younger people shouting with real passion, but not enough votes.
Others we spoke with just wanted it all over. They seemed tired of talking about it. Unlike Americans, whose daily conversation in the capital is all about Donald Trump, many in London seemed to want to ignore Boris Johnson. Life, and even politics, has so much more to offer.
That said, no one should underestimate the impact of what the Brits have done. I’ll be surprised if it takes their economy less than a generation to recover, as companies that once used the United Kingdom as their base for European operations are moving out, any trade deal with the EU will not be as advantageous as membership, and the UK’s government budget will need to expand to make up for the functions the EU used to perform and for the 4.5 billion-pound abatement the UK received in 2018 as a member state.
Perhaps just as significant: the Kingdom is unlikely to remain united. Both Northern Ireland and Scotland want to stay in the EU. Scotland is on track for a second referendum on secession, sooner rather than later. Northern Ireland is bound to be disappointed with whatever Brexit brings, as it will increase either the trade barriers with the rest of Ireland or with Britain.
Anyone who think the US will rush to the rescue with some fantastic deal on trade and investment is smoking our latest legalized substance. The UK has far less negotiating leverage without the rest of the EU than it will in a bilateral transaction.
What it boils down to is Little England, not the Global Britain the prime minister has promised.
I hasten to add that we spent a wonderful, even if rainy, day in Cambridge, where I had visited 55 years ago while hitchhiking around England and Wales. Great Saint Mary’s Church, which was open, and Trinity College Chapel, which was not, are reminders of how much England has endured and survived. Seeing The Backs again was a thrill, even in typical Cambridge weather:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 14 and 15
December 15
NBC says Trump plans to pull 4,000 US troops from Afghanistan.
NYT says US secretly expelled two Chinese officials for spying at SOCOM base.
NYT says Chinese believe they just won the trade war with the US.
What goes around comes around: a judge has invoked a law passed by GOP Congress to limit Obama against Trump.
Trump campaign briefs press on its plans. Looks pretty good for them.
Dartmouth prof doubts effectiveness of various campaign reforms. Note especially the data on term limits.the evidence is at best equivocal on the effects of term limits. Some studies find they would actually enhance the power of special interest groups. The problem is that incumbents who lack a reelection incentive can reduce the effort they devote to their jobs, becoming less attentive to their constituents and working less on the legislative process. The political scientists Alexander Fouirnaies and Andrew B. Hall, for instance, use data from 1995 to 2016 to show that legislators facing term limits sponsor fewer bills and miss more votes. This shift can increase the influence of outside forces such as interest groups and lobbyists, who will happily fill the vacuum in expertise and effort created by term-limited legislators. These dynamics played out in California after term limits were enacted in 1990 that restricted members of the Assembly to three terms (six years) and state senators to two terms (eight years). Observers found that these short limits scrambled the legislative process, discouraging legislators from acquiring experience while in office and creating constant turnover in leadership positions. Lobbyists, staffers and other unelected figures seemed to gain power as a result. In response, good-government groups endorsed Proposition 28, which passed in 2012, reducing lifetime limits to 12 years but allowing legislators to serve all of that time in one chamber.
Prof. Brands and others say Trump has abandoned the Carter Doctrine of protecting oil fields.
December 14
– British expat Andrew Sullivan says Boris Johnson won with “Trumpism without Trump.”
– I look at the electoral maps and conclude that more and more people voted their amygdala instead of their pocketbooks. Same trend in the US.
– WSJ says USMCA sets a model for future trade agreements. I agree.
– There’s pushback on the Post’s Afghanistan series, from a Dartmouth prof and Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings.
– WaPo notes winners and losers from first US China trade deal.
– NYT says Ukraine is looking for a US lobbyist. [They all do eventually.]
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:
Friday stock taking
It’s Friday, so let’s take a look at how effectively the Trump Administration has dealt with world and domestic events this week while it obsesses over impeachment:
- The North Koreans continue to launch increasingly capable ballistic missiles.
- While suffering from reimposed sanctions, Iran is defying the US and increasing uranium enrichment beyond the limits specified the nuclear deal the US withdrew from.
- The Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil production facilities has elicited no visible response from the US or Saudi Arabia, which is joining the United Arab Emirates in playing footsie with Iran.
- While failing to remove from Syria all the troops Trump said would be withdrawn, the US has allowed Turkey to take over a buffer zone along its border with Syria, leading to large-scale displacement of people there. Russia has also gained a foothold in northeastern Syria, as has the Assad regime.
- The trade war with China drags on, with the US trade deficit ballooning and Asian partners and allies doubting US commitments in the region.
- Venezuelan autocrat Maduro has survived despite American pressure, as has the Communist regime in Cuba and Evo Morales’ rule in Bolivia.
- In Europe, French President Macron is describing NATO as “brain dead” because of Trump’s lack of commitment to it and Trump’s pal UK Prime Minister Johnson is being forced into an election to try to confirm his Brexit plan, which Trump has supported.
- In the Balkans, the Administration has confused everyone with the appointment of two special envoys whose relationship to each other and to US policy is opaque.
- That’s all without even mentioning Ukraine, where State Department officials have confirmed that President Trump tried to extort an investigation of his political rivals from newly elected President Zelensky in exchange for Congressionally approved military aid.
The home front is even worse:
- A New York State Court has forced Trump into a $2 million settlement in which he has admitted improper and fraudulent use of his family foundation.
- Republicans lost the governorship in Kentucky and control of both houses of the Virginia assembly in off-year elections earlier this week. Congressional Republicans are nervous.
- President Trump’s personal lawyer affirmed that everything he did in Ukraine was to serve his client’s personal interests, a statement that confirms public assets were used for private purposes.
- The Attorney General, a stalwart defender of his boss, has declined to make a public statement supporting Trump’s claim that he did nothing wrong in his infamous phone call with President Zelensky.
- The House Democrats are piling up subpoenas that the White House is ignoring, heightening the likelihood that obstruction of Congressional oversight will be added to the impeachment charges and limiting the news to the sharp critiques of non-White House officials.
- The economy is slowing, especially in some “swing” districts vital to Trump’s hopes for a win in the electoral college in 2020, when he is sure to lose the popular vote once again, likely by a wider margin than in 2016.
I suppose it could get worse, and likely will. But it has been a long time since we’ve seen an American Administration in worse shape than this.
RSS - Posts
