Tag: European Union
Stevenson’s army, July 12
– The House takes up the NDAA this week, with over 1200 amendments filed.
– GOP resists Democratic proposals for increased aid to UN to counter China.
– Big LDP win foreshadows revisions to Japan’s constitution.
– US says Iran is shipping drones to Russia.
– Putin goes to Tehran for meetings including Turkey.
– WSJ says US is working to reform WTO.
– WaPo says ISIS planned attacks in Western Europe.
– NYT sees Ukraine war turning into test of stamina.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I 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:
No sword dancing on treacherous terrain
President Biden’s op/ed in the Washington Post previews his visit next week to the Middle East. He will stop in Jerusalem, the West Bank, Jeddah (for a regional Arab meeting), and Riyadh. The piece has two audiences: the domestic one and the international one, especially in the Middle East but also in Europe and the Far East.
What the Americans want
There are four salient issues for Biden’s domestic audience: the Iran nuclear deal, support for Israel, oil prices, and human rights. America is split on the Iran nuclear deal. Half support Biden’s desire to re-enter it. The other half want to continue the so far unsuccessful effort to sanction Iran into submission, with the possibility of military action if that fails. On support for Israel’s security, there is overwhelming support. But Americans increasingly want accountability for Israeli abuses against Palestinians. Biden avoids that subject in the op/ed.
Most Americans want lower oil prices. Saudi Arabia has been reluctant to increase production, partly in retaliation for Biden’s criticism of human rights practices in the Kingdom, particularly the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. That is not a dinnertime conversation topic in the US. But there are many informed voices calling for accountability beyond the minimum the Saudis have so far done.
What the world wants: nuclear deal and Iran’s regional power projection
The rest of the world has a somewhat different set of priorities: not only Iran’s nuclear program but also its regional power projection as well as oil prices. Beyond the US, there is little concern for Israel’s security or human rights, apart from the plight of the Palestinians.
Most of the world would like to see the Iran nuclear deal operating once again. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have not, despite the risks to them of war if Israel or the US seeks to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities. Biden should be aiming to understand their perspective better. My guess is they would be fine with re-entry into nuclear deal provided the US pushes back harder on Iran’s regional power projection.
That could mean doing more to weaken the Houthis in Yemen. It could also mean reducing Iran’s presence in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, where the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its proxies are major players. Strengthening the nascent regional air defense system (see video above) or even Saudi entry into the Ibrahimic accords are other possibilities.
What the world wants: oil prices and Palestinians
On oil prices, the Saudis may seek some assurances on the downside while the Americans push for increased production. Europe and the Far East will wish the Americans success. Russia, Iran, Iraq, and other major producers will want prices to remain above $100 per barrel. That is what they all need to balance their budgets. No American president can promise sustained high oil prices. But the US is now a net oil and gas exporter. A nod to stability in the oil market is not out of the question.
While Biden will visit the West Bank, he has so far done little more than restore aid to the Palestinians President Trump had zeroed out. The op/ed fails to mention the two-state solution or Israeli responsibility for human rights abuses against Palestinians. It doesn’t even mention the rumored intention to re-open the US consulate in Jerusalem. That had acted for decades before Trump as a de facto embassy to Palestine. We can only hope Biden will be more forthcoming on those issues during his trip.
Treacherous terrain
The Middle East is treacherous terrain for any American president. Trump blundered by sword dancing with the Saudis, both literally and figuratively. He also wrote the Israelis a blank check (including for their territorial ambitions) and ended support for the Palestinians. Biden won’t commit those mistakes. He will try to build on the Ibrahimic accords that Trump initiated, strengthen and unify Arab defenses against Iran, and reach some sort of accommodation on oil production and prices. Odds are the trip will not be a brilliant success, but the ambitions are at least more realistic than his predecessor’s.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Albania’s strange support for Serbia
Former Albanian government minister and member of parliament Genc Pollo writes:
The meeting of the EU leaders in Brussels on Thursday, 23 June, took place against the backdrop of Putin’s bloody aggressive war. They correctly showed solidarity with Ukraine, the current victim, and Moldova, the next potential one, by granting both the status of candidate for membership in the Union. But a wartime European Council should have dealt with closing ranks in front of the enemy.
The only wayward state within the EU orbit that has rejected the sanctions against Putin’s Russia and has reconfirmed its friendship with the aggressor has been Serbia. Belgrade has been negotiating EU membership for eight years and has closed several chapters. It is already treaty-bound to align itself with the EU’s foreign and security policy. But Serbia’s President Vučić has has failed to adopt any EU measures against Putin’s past transgressions.
Strangely there wasn’t much fuss about this in the Council meeting or in the preceding summit of EU leaders and their Western Balkans counterparts. In addition, Vučić got help from someone who wouldn’t generally be expected to be an ally: Albanian Prime Minister Rama.
Vučić first tried to deflect attention. He proposed to the Prime Ministers of Albania and North Macedonia to boycott the upcoming summit as there was little chance for them to get a date for the start of EU membership talks. This EU decision has been due for the last two years but is still blocked by a Bulgarian veto unrelated to the EU membership process. How such a boycott would have been helpful in resolving the problem remains a mystery. And why Serbia should propose such a course of action to her neighbors needs explaining.
Prime Minister Rama however was quick to announce that he would agree with the boycott. Such an unprecedented gesture became the talk of the day in the mainstream media. It continued to echo even after the boycott was called off the day after. Along with the Bulgarian veto it sharpened the sense of drama in Brussels and left little room to discuss the pressing issue of a possible fifth column in their midst.
In the Western Balkans summit, Rama both in his published speech and in the following press conference with Vučić, went to great lengths to justify the Serbian position towards Russia. Referring to distorted interpretations of historical and economic facts, Rama criticized the West for its pressure on Serbia.
Such a stance is a novelty in post-Communist Albania, where leaders, supported by public opinion, have always aligned themselves with the EU and the West in security matters. It comes in the wake of the controversial Open Balkans initiative championed by Belgrade and Tirana but disowned by the other states of the Western Balkans. The initiative is considered an “unhealthy competition to the EU integration” by European Commission officials but has received recently the rhetorical support of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Both Rama and Vučić have been consolidating their personal power over the last decade. dismantling constitutional checks, muzzling the media, and politicizing the state bureaucracy. Scandals of grand corruption and collusion with the underworld have abounded. The latest twist adds, at least for Albania, an additional concern. The re-energized political opposition in Tirana has been denouncing the suspect rapprochement with Belgrade, as they see it being done at the expense of Kosovo. There will be more on their plate for the weeks and months to come.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Iran is already at the nuclear threshold
This video is more than a year old:
Iran, which is now enriching uranium to at least 60%, is already a nuclear threshold state. There are no difficult technical obstacles that remain before enriching to weapons-grade material. Moving beyond that to fabricating a nuclear device is more difficult, but certainly not beyond Iranian capability. The question is: what difference does this make? The answer to that question depends on who you are. Israel, other regional states, the European Union, and the United States have distinct answers.
Israel apparently doesn’t care
Iran is significantly closer to nuclear weapons than when President Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal (aka Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA). This is in part because Israel urged the US to back out of the JCPOA and has done its best to prevent the US from re-entering it. The Israelis have preferred their own approach, which involves assassinations and attacks on nuclear infrastructure. But given the outcome so far, it appears they don’t care how much weapons-grade uranium the Iranians accumulate.
Why are the Israelis behaving this way? Is it because they are supremely confident of their ability to prevent weaponization of enriched uranium? Is it because their second-strike capability (from submarines) is thought to be a sufficient deterrent to an Iranian nuclear attack? Or is it because the Israelis believe American guarantees that Iran will never get nuclear weapons?
Whatever the reason, it is clear that Israel doesn’t really care about Iran accumulating weapons-grade uranium.
The region does, but what are they doing about it?
Major states in the region do care. Both Turkish President Erdogan and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman have said, more or less explicitly, that they will not be left wanting if Iran gets nuclear weapons. This is not how they have reacted to Israeli nuclear weapons, about which they complain readily but apparently do little. Neither country has used the decades since Israel became a nuclear power to mount serious nuclear weapons programs of their own, so far as is known. Instead, they have pleaded for a regional nuclear-free zone, which they know the Israelis won’t agree to.
Their reaction to Iran is rhetorically different. Riyadh and Ankara appear to see Iranian nuclear weapons as a threat to the regional power balance, one they need to counter. There are however still big questions about intentions and capability. Were Erdogan and MBS serious, or just rhetorical? Turkey has American nuclear weapons on its territory. Would Ankara risk losing those if it decides to go nuclear on its own? Does Turkey have the nuclear and high-explosive expertise required to enrich uranium or extract plutonium, as well as design a working nuclear weapon? Does Saudi Arabia? Has either obtained the needed materials, technology, and even weapons from Pakistan?
Egypt has been more circumspect than Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It has lived with Israeli nuclear weapons on its border for decades, apparently confident they won’t be used against a neighbor who has made peace, even if a cold one. American influence in Cairo is far greater than in Riyadh and Ankara, which is likely another factor in Egyptian reluctance to move in the direction of nuclear weapons.
Europe cares, but not in the same way as the United States and Russia
The European Union has exhausted itself in nuclear negotiations with Iran. This is not because of any threat to Europe from Iranian nuclear weapons. Most European states would like to normalize relations with Tehran. The unresolved nuclear issue makes that impossible. Hence the diplomatic efforts, first to negotiate the 2015 JCPOA and, after Trump left office, to revive it.
For the United States and Russia, the concern is nuclear proliferation, or to put it another way maintenance of their exclusive status as global nuclear powers. Both were unhappy with India and Pakistan getting nuclear weapons, but neither Delhi nor Islamabad has challenged the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the Perm 5), all of which are nuclear states. Instead they have accepted the subcontinent nuclear balance and avoided nuclear contests beyond South Asia. This is true even though India views its nuclear weapons as necessary to balance China more than Pakistan. But nuclear balance has not been a factor in outstanding border disputes between New Delhi and Beijing.
The Middle East is not South Asia
It is harder to picture easy adjustment to Iranian nuclear weapons in the Middle East, especially if the Turks and Saudis follow suit. In a Middle East with four nuclear powers, or even five if Egypt joins the party and six if you count Pakistan, a stable balance will be far more difficult to achieve than between two parties like Pakistan and India. A nuclear arms race in a region with few stabilizing institutions and lots of destabilizing conflicts will be extraordinarily difficult to contain.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Wishful thinking won’t end this war
I have a lot of respect for my SAIS colleague Chris Chivvis. He argues that Ukraine should start the reconstruction process as soon as possible (which the headline writer interpreted as “end the war” as soon as possible). To his credit, Chris admits that “…de facto acceptance of a divided Ukraine, even if not de jure, means a hostile, potentially disruptive Russia on the border.”
Rhetorically appealing
Chris’ argument is rhetorically appealing:
Ukraine wins by seizing the opportunity, while its still can, to immediately begin a massive, western-funded reconstruction effort that turbo-charges its political and economic integration into Europe, strengthens its security, and speeds it down the path toward a democratic future. Ukraine wins by demonstrating the extraordinary resilience of political and economic liberalism to the world and starting that process as soon as possible, not in five years when the country is destroyed and the world has moved on. Ukraine wins by stopping Russia from extinguishing its independence, which so far has been miraculously preserved, but remained at risk until the fighting stops. Ukraine wins by channeling the national energy that has been generated by the war into a better peace and a stronger, more prosperous nation.
Sounds great.
But it’s not realistic
If only all that were possible. The trouble is the enemy gets a vote. There will be no peace for Ukraine so long as Russia remains undefeated, an occupation power on Ukrainian territory. Moscow still controls several major ports and embargoes Ukrainian exports from the others.
If the war ends tomorrow, Moscow will use nonmilitary means to undermine Ukraine. Those will include cyber attacks, disinformation, economic manipulation, assassinations, terrorist incidents, violent demonstrations, support to organized crime and corruption, and a host of other measures I can’t yet imagine. But we have already seen all the ones I cite in the Balkans, Syria, and other places where Moscow has pretensions. Until it suffers a clear defeat, Russia will also use any letup in the Ukraine war to undermine Moldova (not a NATO member) and Poland (a NATO member. It will also raise the threat to the Baltic states as well as NATO aspirants Finland and Sweden. And it will intensify its destabilization efforts in the Balkans.
Western support will wane
I have no doubt President Zelensky would like to end the war as soon as possible. He has said as much from the first. He knows what Chris knows. The longer it goes on, the more politics in Europe and US will start to turn against Ukraine. Many of the West’s friends and enemies understand full well that democracies today find it hard to outlast autocracies. Support for Ukraine has so far held up well. But rising energy prices, more general inflation, a possible recession, and other domestic concerns will undermine support for Ukraine, which so far has held up well.
But the situation is not yet ripe
But now is not the time to throw in the towel and hope Moscow will leave Ukraine to its Western aspirations. The time to think about a negotiated end of the war is when Kiev and Moscow both think they can gain more at the negotiating table than by continuing the fight. That day has not yet come. Ending the fighting now is possible, but it won’t allow the kind of reconstruction and progress Chris wants. Wishful thinking and rhetorical appeal won’t end this war.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 15, afternoon edition
– Half of the people in each party now predict US will “cease to be a democracy”
– European opinion dividing over Ukraine.
– Having overestimated Russian military capabilities, US intelligence now wonders whether it understands Chinese military.
– Xi reaffirms support for Putin.Defense
– Marine Major urges rethinking US military manpower system.
– And an Air Force colonel suggests seeking air denial rather than air supremacy.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
