Tag: Mexico
The bad ideas keep on coming
Two weeks have brought us these, just on the foreign policy front:
- Proposed take over Greenland, Panama Canal, Canada, and now Gaza.
- Eviscerated the world’s largest humanitarian agency, recalling all its overseas staff.
- Reached bogus deals to postpone promised tariffs on Mexico and Canada
- Failed to reach a deal with China, which retaliates.
- Arrested thousands of legal immigrants and try to deport them.
Gaza
Trump’s idea is to make Gaza “the riviera of the Middle East.” That’s not the crazy part. I’ve been there (between the two Intifadas, around 1999). Gaza would make a very nice resort community on the Mediterranean. It has beautiful beaches and a flat approach to the seaside. It could accommodate a good sized airport and seaport. When I was there, its hotels were capable of serving Kosher as well as Halal food, shipped from Israel.
But to accomplish his developer’s goal, Trump wants to remove the 2 million or so Palestinians who call Gaza home. When they visit soon, Egyptian President Sisi and Jordanian King Abdullah will tell him what they think of the idea. Neither is willing to accept large numbers of Palestinians even temporarily. Both think their more or less autocratic regimes would not survive such an influx. Neither would want to exclude the possibility of a Palestinian state in the future.
A US takeover of Gaza would require tens of thousands of troops for at least a decade of occupation. Not to mention tens of thousands of contractors to clear unexploded ordnance, clear rubble, and start reconstruction. The cost would be many billions even before beginning to construct the resort.
US occupation of Gaza would also end hopes of a Palestinian state. Hamas and Hizbollah terrorists, Houthi drones, and Iranian missiles would target the Americans. Defense would be costly. The opportunity costs of putting that many American troops into a static position in the Middle East would be astronomical.
The other real estate propositions
Trump’s other real estate propositions are no better. Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the US by a margin of more than 10/1. Canadians feel about the same way. Panama isn’t going to give up the Canal, which is not run by the Chinese, as Trump claims.
In short, none of these things are happening because they are all the fantasies of a failed real estate tycoon. Trump has been successful in tacking his name onto other people’s buildings, not in developing his own projects. That isn’t going to change.
USAID
I am no fan of USAID, but yanking its overseas personnel and abruptly closing its life-saving programs is irresponsible. Folding the agency into the State Department is not necessarily a bad idea. Canada, the UK, and Australia have all incorporated their aid agencies into their foreign ministries. But it has to be done carefully and thoughtfully, which is definitely not what we are seeing right now.
Aid should come in two varieties. One is unconditional humanitarian assistance needed to relieve human suffering. Food, water, health, and shelter for victims of natural disasters, poverty, and oppressive governments belong in this category.
The other is assistance on building governmental and nongovernmental institutions where people are striving for more open and just societies. Even if their governments are oppressive, we should be willing to consider assistance that will improve the situation. This latter type of assistance really does belong in the State Department. The humanitarian relief part should be freestanding.
Mexico and Canada
Mexico and Canada handled the tariffs well. They threatened to retaliate, then offered Trump concessions that they had already made during the Biden Administration. Canada is beefing up its border controls. Mexico has already deployed more troops to its border with the US. Trump swallowed these non-concessions and declared victory. Mexico did even better, as it got Trump to agree to limit arms trafficking from the US into Mexico. That has been a perennial Mexican complaint. Now they get to complain when the US fails to follow through.
It remains to be seen what will happen in 30 days, when the postponement of the tariffs expires. My guess is not much. Maybe another empty concession or two. Then return to the free trade agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term in office. Trump will declare it a win.
As for immigration, Southwest Land Border Encounters were way down already in November and December 2024. Trump can declare victory, ignoring the fact this was accomplished under Biden/Harris.
China
The 10% tariff on Chinese imports to the US is far less than Trump has sometimes bruited. Beijing was ready. It responded with both tariffs on imports to China from the US and limits on exports of rare earth metals. It also launched an antitrust investigation of Google and labeled a couple of US companies unreliable. Those latter moves are not for now important, but they may indicate one direction of Chinese policy in the future.
Americans buy a lot from China, on the order of $500 billion per year. Without equally priced other sources for the goods, the tariffs mean a $50 billion hidden tax increase on US consumers. That’s still relatively small. Wait until Trump gets to his 100% tariff.
Immigration
So far, the majority of people arrested in Trump Administration sweeps of immigrants have not been criminals. This isn’t surprising. All Administrations, including Biden’s, have kept themselves arresting and deporting criminal immigrants. Now the Administration has exceeded the capacity of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities. So it is starting to release some detainees.
It is also flying hundreds on military planes out of the US to be repatriated. This is an expensive proposition. Someone will eventually tell the Defense Department to save its resources for a more useful purpose.
What could happen next?
Who knows. There is no lack of things we need to do. Trump can even be expected to stumble on a few.
Is there a better option for Iran than restoring maximum pressure? That is what the Administration is going to try to do. If that is preliminary to negotiations on both Iran’s regional malfeasance and its nuclear program, I’ll be for it.
The Administration seems headed for a tougher policy on Ukraine than many had thought possible. That’s good too, if it aims to end the Russian invasion and restore Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
But the ratio of good ideas like those to bad ones is unlikely to be high. The bad ideas keep coming because the President has so many of them.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 9
– Fred Kaplan says SecDef Austin should go. [I’m more concerned to know his medical condition. Presidents and certainly officials in the military chain of command for combat operations should not be afforded the same privacy regarding health as ordinary citizens.]
– Politico says Netanyahu is losing control.
– WSJ tells how Macron bungled French relations in Africa.
– NBC tells what AMLO wants from the US
– Intercept says CNN vets Mideast stories with Jerusalem bureau.
– SAIS prof Ed Joseph discusses Serbia’s election.
– Politico’s China Watcher backgrounds Taiwan’s coming elections
War on the rocks has good think pieces — on Iraq lessons for Gaza and on Army special operations forces.
—
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, with occasional videos of my choice. 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:
Stevenson’s army, December 14
– The Senate passed the NDAA; House plans 2/3 suspension of rules vote today.
– Hill reports McConnell-Hawley feud
– Agriculture and business interests disputed China committee proposals
– WSJ says US blocked shipment of rifles to Israel because of settlers
– NYT analyzes Israeli war cabinet
– Netanyahu reply to Biden — by WaPo, by NYT
– Fred Kaplan on GOP fight on Ukraine
– Long blast against NYT by its former editorial page editor
– Law profs analyze use of force against Mexican cartels
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, with occasional videos of my choice. 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:
Stevenson’s army, November 1
– WaPo says House GOP Israel bill will add $90 billion to the debt over 10 years.
– Yale prof warns against bombing Mexico
– Consistent with War Powers law and past precedent, Biden informed Congress of the recent US attacks in Iraq and Syria.
– I’ve often told the story that LBJ asked a prospective White House counsel if he was “a Yes lawyer or a No lawyer.” NYT says Trump would want only Yes lawyers in a new administration.
– SecState Blinken expects a “revitalized Palestinian Authority” will rule postwar Gaza.
Trade-offs [from D Brief]
Chinese-drone ban gains pace: Later today, bipartisan members of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party plan to introduce the American Security Drone Act of 2023, the latest attempt to stop the U.S. government from buying drones built in China and other countries labeled as national security threats. It follows several failed attempts to extend the current ban on DOD purchases of Chinese drones to the rest of the government, including a companion to a Senate bill that was re-introduced in February after failing to pass in 2021.
Here’s a case for such a ban, from former INDOPACOM ops director Mark Montgomery, now with FDD. Essentially, he argues at D1, Chinese-made drones could spy on U.S. citizens and infrastructure.
Here’s a case against it, from drone expert Faine Greenwood, writing at Foreign Policy. The FP piece is paywalled, but she limns it here: “There’s one big, fat problem: there is no non-Chinese consumer drone company that does what DJI does. Much less does it at such a low price-point, which is a vital consideration for the vast swaths of modern drone users who don’t have unlimited cash to throw around. And building a DJI-killer is a lot harder than you might assume: although a number of Western competitors tried to knock DJI off the pedestal over the last decade, they all failed…Eventually, they largely stopped trying. This is also why both Ukrainians and Russians are continuing to chew through vast quantities of DJI drones on the battlefield, despite massive misgivings about their reliance on Chinese tech.”
DOD’s current bans: The Pentagon stopped buying drones from China’s DJI in 2017, and most off-the-shelf drones in 2018; that same year, Congress generally but not totally forbade the military to buy any Chinese-made drones.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 3
– John Kelly tells the truth about Trump. WaPo analyzes.
– NYT describes evolution of GOP attack Mexico proposals.
-US sees corruption danger in Ukraine.
-WSJ sees Chinese gains in Arctic
– “Black Hawk Down” 30 years ago: Mark Bowden has new document; Andrew Exum sees a lesson learned
-Former GOP congressman has some regrets.
From Politico:
MATH IS HARD: Over the past month, we’ve seen some wildly different numbers about how much total aid Washington is giving Ukraine. The Center for Strategic and International Studies says it’s $135 billion, The Washington Post wrote over the weekend that it’s around $60 billion, POLITICO and others have written that it’s more than $100 billion.
That’s because the smaller number (currently $73 billion in aid) is often cited from the Kiel Institute, which tracks only funds that have been delivered directly to Ukraine, CSIS’ Cancian and the Council on Foreign Relations’ JONATHAN MASTERS told NatSec Daily. Higher estimations show the total Ukraine-related packages requested by the White House, which include funds for American forces, aid to NATO allies and other things that don’t appear in the Kiel database, they said.
“The divergence in dollar figures reported by various outlets likely muddles the debate to an extent, particularly when you’re talking about tens of billions,” Masters said, adding that he prefers the Kiel Institute’s data because it clearly compares U.S. aid to other countries’ assistance.
Neither figure is better or more accurate — it’s a matter of preference: “I think the appropriations total” — the higher figure — “is a better number because it captures all of the U.S. efforts as a result of the war in Ukraine,” he said.
Cancian recommended outlets and think tanks, if they use the larger number, describe it as something like “U.S. efforts as a result of the war in Ukraine” instead of “U.S. aid to Ukraine.” Masters also called on outlets and think tanks to be clearer in defining how they came to a number.
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, with occasional videos of my choice. 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:
Stevenson’s army, September 29
– The Senate went back to its old dress code. Good.
– House used its Holman rule to try to cut SecDef Austin’s pay to $1. Bad.
– DOD lists defense spending by state. It matters to Members.
– The Hill notes end of the trade consensus.
– Just Security has much harsher view of Menendez actions helping Egypt.
– WSJ says India’s spy agency does covert ops abroad.
– Former Marine doesn’t like GOP ideas about attacking Mexico.
– RAND scholar wants to avoid long Ukraine war.
– Steve Walt examines ethical issues in Ukraine war.
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, with occasional videos of my choice. 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
