Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
Four more years is four too many
It’s a sad day for America. Not only has Donald Trump re-entered the White House. His wealthy buddies are no longer hiding their allegiances. Elon Musk is not only supporting Alternative für Deutschland. He is copying a salute most Germans still remember with shame.
Off to the expected scams
Trump’s first moves are against immigrants and in favor of the fossil fuel industry. Ignoring the 14th amendment, he is trying to deprive people born in the US of citizenship it provides. He has also blocked asylum seekers. Raids that will round up legal as well as illegal immigrants are imminent. Trump wants to get rid of Biden’s efforts to slow global warming and accelerate oil, gas, and coal production. He is withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, which allows Washington to define its own measures to prevent climate change. He has also ordered withdrawal from the World Health Organization.
Trump is also promising Tik Tok relief from a law that provides for no possibility of relief from the president. He is pardoning 1500 criminals, most of whom attacked the Capitol violently on January 6, 2021. The Trump family has launched a crypto “memecoin” that has already put billions in his pockets. It will implode, like other such frauds, plundering late-comer investors. Trump’s threatened 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico February 1 will cause a major trade war. That will jack up inflation and impoverish many people in the Western Hemisphere.
Don’t lose sight of the baseline
Biden is leaving office with an extraordinary record of achievement. Federal and state prosecutors, including in deep red states, have found no reason to prosecute any Biden Administration political appointees. None have resigned in scandal. Biden pardoned his family not because they had done something wrong but because he rightfully feared Trumped-up charges against them. Trump’s nominee for FBI Director has promised such revenge. Note he did not pardon himself.
The economic stats at the end of 2024 are these:
- Unemployment 4.1% (12/24)
- GDP growth 3.0% (IV 24)
- Inflation 2.9% (2024)
- Budget deficit $2T (2024)
- Stock market (DJ) 43k, more or less
What are the odds that Trump will beat all these benchmarks? Close to zero. Three of them? Not much higher. We’ll have to wait and see.
Here are just a few other Biden claims:
—Strongest economy in the world —Nearly 16 million new jobs, a record —Wages up —Inflation coming down —Racial wealth gap lowest in 20 years —Historic infrastructure investments —Lower prescription drug costs —Record health insurance coverage —Most significant climate law ever —First major gun safety law in 30 years —First Black woman on Supreme Court —Help for 1 million veterans exposed to toxins —Violent crime rate at 50-year low —Border crossings lower than when Trump left office
Foreign policy
I fault Biden for his sloppy handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal and his failure to rein in Israel in Gaza. That undermined his claim that America stands up for democracy. He responded reasonably well and quickly to the fall of Assad in Syria. With Iran, Biden failed to revive the nuclear agreement. That has left a big challenge for Trump. But if Biden had succeeded, Trump would have withdrawn again.
Biden was great reunifying and rallying NATO to support for Ukraine. Fearful of provoking war between the US and Russia, however, Biden was too hesitant in providing long-range weapons. I hope Trump will give Kyiv all it needs to win. In the Balkans, Biden’s knowledgeable minions were miserably unsuccessful.
Biden was good on China, Taiwan, India, and Asia in general. But he couldn’t refocus more attention there due to events in the Middle East. We’ll have to see if Trump does better.
Next four years
Half the country did not think this was enough. They disliked Kamala Harris, an articulate, experienced, competent, Black and Indian woman. She had been a successful prosecutor and a senator. They thought they would do better with a convicted felon, womanizer, racist, and flim-flam man. I’ll be interested to hear what they have to say after four more years of his bombast.
PS: Let me be clear: four more yours is four too many. But the last thing I would want is to see the Vice President in the Oval Office. He is arguably worse.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Beyond ceasefire, what can really happen?
The Gaza ceasefire went into effect today, after a few hours delay. Reports are that humanitarian supplies are entering. Hamas and Israel are arranging or exchange of hostages and prisoners. This phase is to last 6 weeks, after which a more permanent cessation of hostilities is to commence. What are the prospects for a longer agreement?
The next phase
Secretary of State Blinken helpfully outlined the Biden Administration’s plans for phase 2 at the Atlantic Council last week:
We believe that the Palestinian Authority should invite international partners to help establish and run an interim administration with responsibility for key civil sectors in Gaza, like banking, water, energy, health, civil coordination with Israel. The international community would provide funding, technical support, and oversight. The interim administration would include Palestinians from Gaza and representatives from the PA—selected following meaningful consultation with communities in Gaza—and would hand over complete responsibility to a fully reformed PA administration as soon as it’s feasible.
The administrators would operate in close cooperation with a senior UN official, who should oversee the international stabilization and recovery effort.
An interim security mission would be made up of members of partner nation security forces and vetted Palestinian personnel. Its responsibilities would include creating a secure environment for humanitarian and reconstruction efforts and ensuring border security, which is crucial to preventing smuggling that could allow Hamas to rebuild its military capacity. We would stand up a new initiative to train, to equip, to vet a PA-led security force for Gaza to focus on law and order and gradually take over for the interim security mission.
These arrangements would be enshrined in a UN Security Council resolution.
Some of our partners have already expressed their willingness to contribute troops and police for such a mission—but if, and only if, it is agreed that Gaza and the West Bank are reunified under a reformed PA as part of a pathway to an independent Palestinian state.
This depicts a fairly conventional late 1990s style “integrated” intervention. The UN Security Council authorized interim administrations like this in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995), East Timor (1999), and Kosovo (1999). They were not brilliantly successful, but they markedly improved the situation in all three places. Blinken omits one essential ingredient for success: executive authority. The UNSC will need to empower the interim authorities to issue laws, arrest people, and use force to protect civilians.
One new wrinkle here is the Palestinians, who are divided politically and geographically. Palestinian Authority (PA) President Abbas has already declared its readiness to take on its assigned role. I don’t know anyone who would agree with that proposition, as he has done little to reform it. Besides, it is going to have trouble gaining traction in territory ruled by Hamas for almost two decades. Hamas has said it is prepared to give up its governance role. But at least some of the remaining Hamas militants are going to make sure the PA has a hard time.
Other new wrinkles
I see little prospect that the current Israeli government will accept what Blinken proposes. Netanyahu will not want the ceasefire to last past 6 weeks. That would mark the beginning of the end for him. His right-wing coalition partners had a hard time accepting the ceasefire. They will not accept an international administration whose mandate includes eventual creation of a Palestinian state. In addition, if the war ends or his government collapses, Netanyahu will have to face prosecution and elections. He doesn’t want that.
It will not be possible to start up an international administration without Israeli cooperation. Neighbors are vital factors in determining the success or failure of post-war stabilization and reconstruction. Arab Gulf states won’t agree to contribute troops, police, and money without Israeli approval.
What remains of Hamas will also oppose the next phase, which threatens to end its rule permanently. After 6 weeks of recuperation and attempts to re-arm, extremists in Hamas will try to derail the process. It will only take an attack or two on innocent Israelis to restart the war.
The final new wrinkle
If ever we get to the next phase, it will be in the Trump Administration. In his first term, Trump gave the Israelis 100% support. He abandoned support for the two-state solution and moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. He accepted annexation of the Golan Heights and West Bank settlements as legal. His negotiators put forward a peace plan that paid little attention to the Palestinian goal of statehood.
Trump is reputed to have played a key role in getting the ceasefire. But he did that by threatening Hamas, not the Israelis. Blinken in his remarks at the Atlantic Council suggested that
Israelis must abandon the myth that they can carry out de-facto annexation without cost and consequence to Israel’s democracy, to its standing, to its security.
Trump isn’t going to tell them that. It will happen only if Israelis go to the polls and elect a government committed to Israeli democracy. That is what Netanyahu and his right-wing allies will try to prevent. If they succeed, the war will go on.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A stronger American still fumbles
President Biden made a farewell appearance at the State Department yesterday. As a former Foreign Service officer, I’m of course delighted that he did this. It is especially important and timely because the Department now faces Donald Trump’s threat of loyalty tests and mass firings.
Biden’s understandably directed his remarks at justifying what his Administration has done on foreign policy. So how did he really do?
The bar was low
Certainly Biden can justifiably claim to have strengthened America’s alliances. The bar was low. Both in Europe and Asia the first Trump Administration had raised doubts. Allies could not depend on Washington’s commitment to fulfill its mutual defense obligations. Biden’s claim that compared to four years ago America is stronger because of renewed and expanded alliances is true. He is also correct in claiming he has not gone to war to make it happen.
The extraordinary strength of the American economy is an important dimension of this strength. Voters decided the election in part on the issue of inflation. But the Fed has largely tamed that and growth has been strong throughout. Manufacturing is booming, including vital semi-conductor production. Investment in non-carbon energy sources has soared. The defense industrial based is expanding.
Biden is also correct in asserting that America’s antagonists are worse off. Russia has failed to take Ukraine because of the US effort to gather support for Kyiv. Iran and its allies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria are weaker. Only the Houthis in Yemen are arguably stronger than four years ago.
China is facing serious domestic economic and demographic challenges. But I don’t know why Biden claims it will never surpass the US. On a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, it already has, though obviously per capita GDP in China remains much lower.
Some claims gloss over big problems
Biden is rightly proud that there is no longer war in Afghanistan, but he glosses over the chaotic withdrawal. He also doesn’t mention the failure of the Taliban to keep its commitments.
He vaunts progress on climate change, but without acknowledging that the goal of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees centigrade will not be met.
Biden talks about infrastructure in Africa. But not about its turn away from democracy, civil wars in Sudan and Ethiopia, and the unresolved conflict in Libya.
He urges that Iran never be allowed to “fire” a nuclear weapon. That is a significant retreat from the position that Iran should never be allowed to have one.
Biden mentions the impending Hamas/Israel ceasefire. But he says nothing about Israel’s criminal conduct of the war in Gaza. Nor does he blame Israel’s right-wing government for the long delay in reaching a deal.
Biden’s legacy
At the end, Biden seeks to bequeath three priorities to Trump: artificial intelligence, climate change, and democracy. He no doubt knows that Trump isn’t going to take the advice on climate or democracy. He might on artificial intelligence, as his Silicon Valley tycoons will want him to.
Sad to say, Biden’s legacy will lie in other areas. Fearful of nuclear conflict with Russia, he failed to give Ukraine all the support it needs to defeat Russia. He was reluctant to rein in Israel for more than a year of the Gaza war. He failed to stop or reverse the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. America is stronger than it was four years ago, but it has not always used that strength to good advantage.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No free country without free women
Forty-two year old Ahmed al Sharaa is the leader of Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS). That makes him the de facto main power in Syria today. HTS led the successful assault on Syrian government-controlled territory that ended in the surprising fall of President Bashar al Assad.
Early indications
The question is how al Sharaa will use his power. We have some early indications. He has tried to reach out to the Syrian Kurds and other minorities. He has sought to reassure them that HTS intends to build an inclusive regime. But he has also appointed an interim government that HTS itself dominates. The ministers are the ministers of Idlib Province’s Syrian Salvation Government. It has ruled in Idlib for the last several years. The Health Minister is al Sharaa’s HTS-affiliated brother, who is a physician.
Al Sharaa’s political origins lie in Al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq. The Americans imprisoned him there from 2006 to 2011. He established Jabhat al Nusra (JN) in Syria in 2012 with AQ support but broke with AQ in 2016. In 2017, JN rebranded to HTS, which established primacy in the parts of Idlib Assad did not control.
So al Sharaa is no cure all. His political pedigree is extremist. He was less draconian in Idlib than the Islamic State, but he was autocratic and jihadist. He applied what he called Sharia. Women and minorities were not treated equally with HTS-loyal men. His nom de guerre was Abu Mohammed al Jolani, that is father of Mohammed from Golan. Though born in Riyadh, his parents were from the Golan Heights, now in Israeli hands. He says the second Palestinian intifada radicalized him.
Current pressures inside Syria
Inside Syria, al Sharaa faces pressure from HTS cadres to reward them and to rule the way they would like. His coalition includes even more extremist forces. Its ideology is Islamist. Many of the fighters will have little use for minorities or women. They won’t bother with democracy. They will want an extreme version of Sharia that privileges men and their strict interpretation of Islam.
But al Sharaa also faces pressure from relatively liberal Syrians. Many of them want a secular regime based on equal rights, including for women and minorities. Pro-secular demonstrations have already occurred in Damascus. And al Sharaa has appointed a woman (for women’s affairs) to the interim government to respond to public pressure.
International pressures
The US, Europeans, UN, Turkiye, Arab Gulf states and others have united to call for an “inclusive” government in Syria. By this they mean one that includes minorities and women. Western governments are far less concerned about democracy than at times in the past. Islamist-governed Turkiye will want to clone something like its own semi-democratic system. Saudi Arabia and the UAE can live with that, even if they suppress pluralism and political Islam at home.
International leverage comes from two main sources. The first is al Sharaa’s need to get the Western countries to lift sanctions. That would allow international financing to flow. The second is Syria’s need for aid of all sorts. Once sanctions are lifted, the main lever will be aid flows, especially from the IMF and the World Bank. They have far greater resources available than those from individual governments.
Western governments are acutely aware of the Taliban precedent. The Taliban made all sorts of promises, but once in charge of Afghanistan they relapsed to extreme Islamism. Girls no longer go to school and they prohibit women from speaking and singing. No one in the West, or even in the Gulf, wants to finance that.
Triangulating
Whatever his own views, al Sharaa is a good triangulator. He is aware of the different pressures and looks for ways to respond, albeit only partially, to all of them. He has forsworn any new wars (read: with Israel) and has welcomed many different opposition forces to Damascus. Al Sharaa has met with foreign diplomats, including the Americans. He pledges himself to a unified and free Syria. He says he wants to implement UN Security Council resolution 2254, which calls for elections in 18 months. The Americans can depend on him to fight the Islamic State, which is more rival to HTS than ally.
But at some point there will be contradictions that he will need to resolve. The interim government is in place only until March 1. It is not clear how or with what it will be replaced. Nor is it clear how the new constitution al Sharaa has promised will be written and by whom. HTS has closed Syria’s courts. They will need to re-open under new management. Where will that come from? What laws will it apply? How will accountability be handled? What will be done to restore and ensure property rights? How will the health and education systems be reformed?
These would be difficult issues for any governance transition. They will need decisions that displease one constituency or another. It is not yet clear what kind of Syria will result. It could be a free and inclusive state. Or an autocracy like the previous one but with a different family in charge. Or Syria could break apart into warring fiefdoms. Al Sharaa won’t be able to decide, but his decisions will influence the outcome. Let’s hope he is wise beyond his 42 years.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Grenell’s special missions
President Trump has announced that Ric Grenell will be Presidential Envoy for Special Missions.
Ric, he says, “will work in some of the hottest spots around the World, including Venezuela and North Korea.” To my knowledge, this is a new job definition. In the past, presidents have often named special envoys for specific issues, not for “special missions” in general.
What he did in the past
Grenell was notorious in the first Trump Administration for mucking up several tasks. As Ambassador in Berlin he had a terrible relationship with the Germans. Without discussing the issues in private, he slammed German companies publicly for doing business with Iran and Russia. As a special envoy, Grenell tried to negotiate partition of Kosovo, transferring its Serb-majority northern municipalities to Serbia. That effort failed. He then spent several months as a highly partisan but interim Director of National Intelligence. In that job, he declassified documents he thought would embarrass Democrats.
Openly gay well before that was widely acceptable in the US, Grenell has been politically labile. He has worked for Mitt Romney, criticized Donald Trump, and lobbied for Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orban. He did not register with the Justice Department after signing a contract with Orban.
Venezuela and North Korea
President Trump in his first term notably failed in diplomacy with Caracas and Pyongyang. He recognized opposition candidate Juan Guaido as the rightful President of Venezuela. He even introduced him as such during a State of the Union address. But he failed to make it stick. President Biden is in a similar situation now. The US recognizes opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez as the winner of the July presidential election. But Nicolas Maduro remains in power.
The first Trump Administration likewise failed in its effort to reach an agreement with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Trump tried both threats and flattery to get Pyongyang to give up nuclear weapons, to no avail. North Korea is a de facto nuclear power with about 50 nuclear weapons. It also now has the fissile material needed to build at least another 50. The Biden Administration has not made any progress on the nuclear issue. It has also been unable to prevent Pyongyang from helping Russia with missiles and other conventional weapons.
So Grenell is taking on at least two difficult portfolios. Venezuela might be the easier, as Maduro appears weak and vulnerable. He allowed an election in which he was soundly defeated but claimed victory and refused to leave office. Kim Jong Un has not made that mistake. But even apparently strong regimes can be brittle and fall, as we have seen these last two weeks in Syria.
Good luck!
Good luck and timing are important factors in diplomacy. It’s possible Grenell will not fail this time around. I wish him good luck. America would be better off if Maduro concedes the presidency in Venezuela and Kim Jong Un surrenders nuclear capabilities.
The Balkans will be fortunate if Grenell stays busy with Venezuela and North Korea. He came close to precipitating disaster there in the first Trump Administration. Since 2021, Grenell has been involved with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner in hospitality investments in Serbia and Albania. It would be a gross abuse for him to get involved now in the Balkans. But in an Administration that doesn’t know what “conflict of interest” means, it could happen. Kosovo and Bosnia would be the victims.
Ukraine should also count itself lucky that it was not named as a “special mission”:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Will Syria stay together or fragment?
One of the threats to Syria now that Assad has fallen is fragmentation. In my experience, all Syrians say they want to preserve the country and its borders. But the conflicts among them and with neighboring countries can foil that goal and lead to partition.
The pieces of the puzzle
Syria’s population is mixed. Ninety per cent of its population is Arab. The rest is mainly Kurdish and Turkmen. More than 70% of Syrians are Sunni Muslim. But there are also various denominations of Christians as well as Alawites, Druze, Ismailis, Shiites and others. Damascus was thoroughly mixed. Several concentrations of Kurds were found along the northern border with Turkey, along with Turkmen and Arabs. The Alawite “homeland” was in the western, Mediterranean provinces of Tartous and Latakis. But they were a plurality and not a majority there. More Sunnis have sought refuge there, as under Bashar al Assad, an Alawite, those provinces were relatively safe.
The war is superimposing on this hodge-podge an additional dimension: military control of territory. Hayat Tahrir al Sham, the leader of the uprising, will control much of Idlib, Aleppo, Hama, and Homs. Turkey and its surrogates will control most of the northern border. They are trying to push Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) east of the Euphrates, an area the SDF already dominates. Other opposition forces will be in charge of the south and the Jordanian border. The Druze have long maintained their insular community in Suwayda. It is unclear who will dominate Damascus. The southerners are arriving there first, but it is hard to picture HTS settling for second fiddle there.
There are no clear pre-existing regional lines along which Syria might fragment, except for the provincial boundaries. But those do not generally correspond to ethnic or religious divisions. The pieces of the puzzle do not fit together. They overlap and melt into each other.
The divisive forces
That would be a good reason to avoid fragmentation. Homogenization of ethnic groups on specific territory would require an enormous amount of ethnic “cleansing.” Ordinary Syrians don’t want that. But there will be forces at work that might make it happen.
The Turkmen/Kurdish conflict has already removed a lot of Kurds from Afrin in the northwest and border areas farther east. Ankara backs the Turkmen and wants to prevent Kurdish access to Türkiye. This is because the Syrian Kurds have supported Kurdish rebels inside Türkiye. The Kurds have built their own governing institutions in eastern Syria. They might seek independence if they get an unsatisfactory political outcome at the end of the war.
The Alawites of Tartous and Latakia are dreading revenge from the rest of Syria for mistreatment under the Assad dictatorship. They could try to set up their own statelet, perhaps even attaching it to Lebanon. They could also try to chase the Sunni Arab population out, while importing as many Alawites as possible from Damascus. Many there served the Assad regime and will want out.
The unifying forces
Syria’s neighbors won’t want a breakup. Türkiye has the most clout because of its presence in Syria and support for HTS. Ankara will oppose even autonomy for the Kurds. Jordan and Iraq have less clout, but they won’t want fragmentation either. Nor will Russia and Iran, which supported Assad and are big losers due to his fall. Ditto Israel and the United States, which would fear radicalization of any rump Syria if its Kurds or Alawites secede. Israel doesn’t want a jihadist entity on its northern border.
HTS and other opposition forces will also resist fragmentation. They want to govern all of Syria, not a part of it. HTS has moderated its attitude toward non-Arab and non-Sunni Muslims. It has also tried to minimize revenge and has emphasized continuity of the Syrian state. But HTS is an authoritarian movement, not a democratic one. It remains to be seen how it will behave in practice.
The obvious solutions
The obvious solution is decentralization. Devolving authority to provincial and municipal institutions offers minorities opportunities to govern themselves, or strongly influence how they are governed. The Alawites and Kurds might be satisfied with decentralization, provided they also get reasonable representation at the national level. The Kurds already have their own institutions. Some non-Kurdish opposition areas in Syria have used local councils for governance since the 2011 uprising against Assad.
There are also power-sharing arrangements that can assuage minority concerns at the national level and lower levels. Quotas in parliament, reserved positions in the state hierarchy, and qualified majority voting in parliament or local councils. I’m not an enthusiast for these, as they often entrench ethnic warlords, but sometimes they prove necessary.
Syrians may invent mechanisms I haven’t considered. In any event it is they who should decide. The country will need a new constitution, then in due course elections. The existing road map for Syria’s political process is UN Security Council resolution 2254, which Assad stymied. HTS and the rest of the opposition can revive it and gain international support by doing so.
RSS - Posts
