Tag: Israel/Palestine
Diplomacy for drawdown
Marc Lynch, after describing well the security dilemmas and state fragility that are driving Middle East conflicts, concludes:
US hegemony in the Middle East will never be restored because the region has fundamentally changed. Moving beyond the wars and political failures that followed the Arab uprisings will not be easy. The damage is too deep.
The question is: should Americans worry about that? Marc doesn’t answer that question, but Steven Metz does.
American interests in the Middle East are usually defined along these lines:
- Countering international terrorism
- Ensuring oil and gas can flow without hindrance to world markets
- Supporting friends and allies
- Preventing nuclear proliferation
Steven essentially says the threat of international terrorism is overblown, US energy vulnerability is vastly reduced (“Petroleum will not be weaponized”), and US friends and allies can (mostly) take of themselves. He doesn’t deal with the proliferation issue, but he really doesn’t have to, because he is talking mainly about military commitments. Military action has never been a good option for dealing with nuclear proliferation, since it would provide a very strong incentive for acquiring nuclear weapons.
Steven’s conclusion: the US should withdraw its military from the Middle East and rely instead on “off-shore balancing” to ensure that no rival hegemon is able to control the region and intervene only in the event that one threatens US interests. The savings could be gigantic: RAND estimated that in 2008 12-15% of the Pentagon budget was spent to securing oil from the Persian Gulf.
Washing our hands of the Middle East is an attractive proposition. Unfortunately it is one that President Obama tried, without a great deal of success. President Trump is tempted in the same direction. But withdrawal has left the many of the vacuums that Marc describes so well, generating security dilemmas and military responses that have left Syria, Yemen, and Libya in ruins and erstwhile American friends like Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates at odds and hedging.
It is difficult to see how the United States can withdraw from the Middle East without a focused diplomatic effort to ensure that the region can restore a modicum of stability,or at least remove some of the drivers of instability. Offshore balancing won’t work if there is no balance but only chaos. The Trump Administration is said to be preparing for a Summit to restore some coherence to GCC next month. That makes sense: there will be no serious effort to counter Iran’s behavior in the region so long as Qatar is feuding with the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
But the Administration also needs to end its own feuding with Turkey and restore some balance to its policy on Palestine to make it more palatable to Sunni Arab friends. And it needs to reconsider its position on the Iran deal, which threatens to seriously undermine relations with Europe.
So yes, I agree that we should draw down, if not completely out, from the the Middle East. But there is a lot of diplomatic homework required to make that possible. And a very real possibility that the Administration will focus instead on countering Iran, leading it to increase rather than decrease its military commitments in the region.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks – August 6 – 13
1. Building the Bench for Inclusive U.S. Foreign Policy: Civil Society Leading by Example | Monday, August 6, 2018 | 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm | Open Society Foundations | Register Here
The Open Society Foundations, in collaboration with other partners, has supported research to better understand how civil society can drive inclusive innovation in foreign policy and national security. To this end, a new report, Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in the Foreign Policy Sector, demonstrates how think tanks and nongovernmental organizations can empower a diverse pool of experts to solve the world’s greatest challenges.
Civil society, as the core pool for expertise in government service, can address deficits in cultural, linguistic, and religious lived experiences to offer powerful insight and cultural competency for foreign policy. Experts will discuss best practices and recommendations for the field on how to draw from the United States’ tapestry of diverse communities to gain strategic contributions to diplomacy and national security outcomes.
Please join us for the Washington, D.C., launch of Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in the Foreign Policy Sector, in conversation with Vestige Strategies and the Truman National Security Project.
The panel discussion will be followed by a reception.
Speakers:
Moderator: Alex Johnson – Senior Policy Advisor for Europe and Eurasia, Open Society Foundations, Washington D.C.
Stefanie Brown James – Chief Executive Officer and Founding Partner, Vestige Strategies
Anthony Robinson – Director of Training and Public Engagement, Truman Center for National Policy and Truman National Security Project
2. Israel’s Nation-State Law: Consequences and Costs | Tuesday, August 7, 2018 | 10:00 am – 11:00 am | Wilson Center | Register Here
Last month, the Nation-State law enshrining the principle that Israel is the “national home of the Jewish people” became one of Israel’s Basic Laws, giving it a quasi-constitutional status. The new law, which polls indicate a majority of Israeli Jews support, has generated enormous controversy at home and abroad, alienating and angering Palestinian citizens of Israel and the Druze community with its focus on Jewish primacy.
What are the consequences of the new law for comity, politics and governance in Israel?
Join us as three veteran observers of Israel’s politics and policies discuss the new law and its consequences.
U.S. toll-free number: 888-942-8140
International call-in number: 1-517-308-9203
Participant passcode: 13304
Speakers:
Introduction: Jane Harman – Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
Moderator: Aaron David Miller – Vice President for New Initiatives and Middle East Program Director, Wilson Center
Ayman Odeh – Head of the Joint List, the third largest parliamentary group in the 20th Knesset
Anshel Pfeiffer – Correspondent, Haaretz; author, Bibi: The Turbulent Life and times of Benjamin Netanyahu
Shibley Telhami – Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland, College Park
3. Pakistan: After the Elections | Tuesday, August 7, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Hudson Institute | Register Here
Pakistan has spent almost half of its 70 years as a nation under military rule and the rest under a semi-authoritarian democracy. Since 2008, Pakistan has ostensibly had civilian rule with a peaceful transfer of power in 2013. Analysts are hopeful that Pakistan’s 2018 election on July 25 will continue this trend of democratization.
Elections do not make a democracy. Yet free, fair, and inclusive elections are one of the pillars of a democratic nation. Most observers and analysts, both within and outside the country, have raised concerns about the influence of Pakistan’s military intelligence establishment on the July 25 general election.
On August 7, Hudson Institute’s South and Central Asia Program will host a panel to discuss Pakistan’s 2018 elections. Panelists will include Professor C. Christine Fair, Provost’s Distinguished Associate Professor in the Peace and Security Studies Program at Georgetown University; Dr. Muhammad Taqi, a columnist for The Wire; and Ambassador Husain Haqqani, former Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States and director of South and Central Asia at Hudson Institute.
4. Pakistan Elections: What Now? | Wednesday, August 8, 2018 | 9:30 am – 11:00 am | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
Pakistan’s national elections on July 25 ushered in a new government, with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) party now set to head a new governing coalition and former cricket star Imran Khan expected to become prime minister. After a controversial campaign period, the incumbent Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)—whose former leader Nawaz Sharif was imprisoned just days before the elections—has alleged rigging, military manipulation, and media censorship. Several political parties have also challenged the results of the elections. Should the results stand, the PTI appears to have swept races around the country, and now faces the challenge of governing.
To discuss the outcome of the elections, the shape of the next government, and the complaints and challenges to the outcome, USIP will hold a conversation with senior representatives from Pakistan’s top three political parties (PTI, PML-N and the Pakistan Peoples Party) via Skype along with experts Daniel Markey, Kiran Pervez and Moeed Yusuf in Washington, D.C. The event will take place from 9:30am – 11:30am on Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Join the conversation on Twitter with #PkElectionsWhatNow.
Speakers:
Moderator: Moeed Yusuf – Associate Vice President, Asia Center, U.S. Institute of Peace
Syed Tariq Fatemi (via Skype) – Special Assistant to the Prime Minister
Daniel Markey – Senior Research Professor, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Kiran Pervez – South & Central Asia Regional Chair, U.S. Department of State
Shah Mahmood Qureshi (via Skype) – Vice Chairman, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf
Sherry Rehman (via Skype) – Leader of the Opposite of the Senate, Pakistan
5. U.S. Arms Transfer Policy – Shaping the Way Ahead | Wednesday, August 8, 2018 | 10:30 am – 12:30 pm | Center for International and Strategic Studies | Register Here
The Trump Administration released its new Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) policy and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) export policy in April 2018. It constitutes the first update to the CAT policy since January 2014.
Please join CSIS as we host a public event to discuss the Administration’s new CAT policy. The event will commence with keynote remarks by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Tina Kaidanow. Following these remarks, a moderated panel consisting of government, think tank, and industry experts will contextualize and discuss challenges in implementation, as well as opportunities presented for U.S. strategy and U.S. business as a result of this policy update.
Speakers:
Ambassador Tina Kaidanow – Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Alex Gray – Special Assistant to the President for the Defense Industrial Base, White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy
Laura Cressey – Deputy Director for Regional Security and Arms Transfers, U.S. Department of State
Jeff Abramson – Senior Fellow, Arms Control Association
Keith Webster – President, Defense and Aerospace Export Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Melissa Dalton – Deputy Director, International Security Program and Director, Cooperative Defense Project, CSIS
Dak Hardwick – Assistant Vice President, International Affairs, Aerospace Industries Association
Andrew Philip-Hunter – Director, Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group and Senior Fellow, International Security Program, CSIS
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What an embarrassment!
Israel’s new “basic” law shifts the country away from the liberal democratic ideals (as in “all men are created equal) of its mostly secular and Socialist Zionist founders. Instead, Israel is now an ethnic state, the homeland of the Jewish people committed mainly to their welfare and only secondarily to the welfare of the 20% or so of the country’s population that is not Jewish. The symbols of the state include not only the Star of David flag, a 19th century invention intended to be entirely secular, but also the seven-branch menorah looted from the second Temple by the Romans, an explicitly religious symbol. Arabic is no longer an official language and segregated all-Jewish communities will be encouraged. On top of the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem, this legislation deepens the already deep chasm between Israel and its Arab citizens.
This is inconsistent with the Five Books of Moses (Torah), whose most frequent injunction is to treat the stranger who lives among you the way you treat your own. It is inconsistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I don’t know how many other conventions Israel has signed. It is inconsistent with Israel’s security, which requires that its Arab citizens feel they have a stake in the state and do not turn in the direction of extremists.
But I don’t expect any of those arguments to win the day with those who rejoice at this awful legislation. Maybe though they will think twice if they consider what academic scholarship tells us about states that exclude part of their population.
The evidence is strong: they tend to fail. This is partly for economic reasons: essential ingredients ingredients for prosperity include accountability and responsiveness to all a state’s citizens, and their willing participation in an integrated economy. But it is partly also for political reasons: states that build inclusive civil society, avoid language segregation, and provide public goods to citizens regardless of ethnicity do better. Inclusion is the key to cohesion in states that emerge from civil war (which Israel did, 1948). Social capital is vital to peaceful, successful states.
External factors can also be important. It is going to be much harder for Israel’s Sunni Arab neighbors to deal cooperatively with an explicitly Jewish state than with a civil one that treats its Arab citizens as equals. Palestinians both inside Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza could be a vital link with the Arab world, but only if they are treated equally. It is also going to be much harder for Israel to find support in the US, where most people who identify as Jews are secular and liberal.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has led Israel in an ethnic nationalist direction that gratifies his more religious supporters and coalition partners, but it cannot be healthy in the long term. Even in the short term it leads in awful directions. Witness the spectacle of his embracing would be Hungarian autocrat and anti-Semite Viktor Orban. What an embarrassment!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Putin’s pet
President Trump is on his way to a meeting Monday with Russian President Putin. Along the way, he is doing precisely what Putin most wishes for.
First Trump trashed NATO. That’s the alliance Putin loves to hate. Trump not only criticized the allies for failing to meet the 2024 2% target for defense spending, he also fired a salvo at Germany for importing gas from Russia. Sitting next to him when he did that at breakfast were Secretary of State Pompeo, Ambassdor to NATO Hutchison, and Chief of Staff Kelly. All looked stunned, but Kelly did not bother hiding his discomfort. The White House spokesperson put him in his place by claiming he was disappointed in the breakfast offerings.
Then last night, in an interview that became public while he was at dinner with Prime Minister May in London, Trump compounded the felony. He not only blasted his host for not favoring “hard” Brexit and allowing immigrants to damage the “fabric” of British society, but also attacked the mayor of London for being soft on terrorism. The racist tone of these remarks is apparent to anyone who listens. The “special relationship” between the US and UK hasn’t known a lower moment in the past 100 years.
Then this morning we read that Trump is preparing to cut a “deal” on Syria in which Putin promises something he can’t deliver: withdrawal of the Iranians and their proxies from Syria’s border with Israel. In return, the US would withdraw from Syria, something Trump has promised publicly he would do, leaving the Kurds to cut a deal with Assad. This is an idea Netanyahu is pushing, along with relieving Russia from US and European sanctions.
The next shoe to drop will be Ukraine. Trump believes Crimea rightfully belongs to Russia, since people speak Russian there. Never mind that many people throughout Ukraine speak Russian, as well as Ukrainian. He may accept the Russian annexation, thereby putting a big smile on Putin’s face and completing an extraordinary week for the Russian president: NATO undermined, the UK/US relationship weakened, Syria won, and Crimea absorbed. What else could go right?
The pattern is clear: Trump is Putin’s pet president doing precisely what Moscow wants. The only real question is why.
I have favored the view that money is the main reason. Trump’s real estate empire, about which he cares more than anything else, is heavily dependent on Russian investment and purchases of condos. Putin could turn off the flow of rubles in an instant. No wealthy Russian would buck the president, who gets to decide which oligarchs prosper and which don’t. Trump’s finances wouldn’t survive a month without Moscow’s support.
But it is also possible that Trump himself was recruited long ago. He hired people for his campaign who were Russian intelligence assets. Special Counsel Mueller has already indicted some of them. Trump’s visit to Moscow in the late 1980s, when it was still the capital of the Soviet Union, has raised questions. The Republican attempt yesterday in Congress to discredit the former chief of FBI counter-intelligence operations, Peter Strzok, suggests how desperate they are to stymie an investigation that has already gotten to one degree of separation from Trump.
But the Congress is also beginning to react appropriately to Trump’s surrender of American interests to Putin. It has passed a strong resolution in support of NATO and against concessions to Putin on Ukraine. Republican discomfort with Trump’s “national security” tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and the European Union is starting to show. The trade war with China is causing a lot of heartburn in the Middle West and other areas of the country the Republicans need to keep on their side.
But Putin is still making Trump sit and beg. He is Putin’s pet.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This is not a loyal American
President Trump, noting that Putin is KGB, says he’s fine:
I might even end up having a good relationship [with Mr Putin], but they’re going ‘well, president Trump, be prepared, president Putin is KGB’, this and that…Do you know what? Putin’s fine, he’s fine, we’re all fine, we’re people. Will I be prepared? Totally prepared – I have been preparing for this stuff my whole life, they don’t say that.
Even the conservative Heritage Foundation, one of the organizations that helped assemble the list of his possible Supreme Court nominees, is warning that Trump is wrong:
Things to remember before
@realDonaldTrump travels to Europe: -Russia is the aggressor—Ukraine is the victim -Crimea belongs to Ukraine -NATO & US troops in Europe serve our national interests -Europeans must spend more on defense -Putin’s track record shows he can’t be trusted
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Pompeo is in Pyongyang, trying to turn a vague one-page statement from the Singapore summit into a serious plan for denuclearization of North Korea. That would require first an inventory of their nuclear and missile programs as well as years if not decades to dismantle them. There isn’t much chance it is really going to happen. Kim Jong-un is continuing to expand his missile and nuclear capacities, even as Trump was announcing that the danger has passed. There is no record of the North Koreans telling the truth about their strategic weapons, which they regard as guaranteeing the survival of their regime.
As if that were not enough, the US kicked off its trade war with China today, provoking the anticipated (and permitted under international rules) retaliation. So US exports to China now face more serious barriers, while the price of imports from China to American consumers will rise. Both moves hurt core Trump constituencies: agriculture and manufacturing. The trade war also means that China will not maintain strong sanctions on North Korea.
On the home front, the Administration will fail to meet a court-ordered deadline to reunite migrant children with their parents, as it appears to have no idea which children belong with which parents. Even when it succeeds, it hopes to hold even asylum-seeking parents and children together in prison, not free them pending court hearings (for which most asylum-seekers in fact do appear). To boot, EPA Administrator Pruitt has finally resigned. He faced 15 or so ethics investigations, most due to his use of public office for private gain. That is the textbook definition of corruption, though no doubt he’ll drag out the proceedings and eventually be pardoned.
While Trump addresses adoring crowds that cheer his bravado, the United States is declining rapidly in the world’s estimation, especially among America’s friends. Our European allies are girding themselves for the upcoming NATO summit, where Trump is expected to make it clear he has little regard for them (as he did at the recent G7 meeting). They in turn will do everything they can to maintain the nuclear deal with Iran, straining the Alliance further. Trump has abandoned America’s friends in southern Syria, putting Israel and Jordan at risk. His move of the US embassy to Jerusalem has effectively killed any hope of progress with the Palestinians for the foreseeable future.
Relative American power was bound to decline as other countries prosper and acquire more advanced technology. Trump is accelerating that process by abandoning allies, cozying up to adversaries, weakening America’s moral standing, and damaging America’s exporters as well raising prices for its consumers. The President has visited golf clubs more than 100 times while in office but has not once visited US troops in a war zone. What more evidence do we need that he is not a loyal American?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
American independence compromised
All you need to know on July 4, 2018 about American independence is that a bipartisan report confirms Russian interference in the 2016 US election. The Senate Intelligence Committee has confirmed the January 2017 intelligence community assessment that
- Moscow in 2016 escalated its long-standing effort to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order;
- Putin ordered an influence campaign that sought to support Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton;
- The campaign included cyber operations, in particular against the Democratic National Committee.
The Committee also suggested that assertions about Moscow-run propaganda in the assessment had not been appropriately updated from 2012 and that historical context on Russian efforts in the original intelligence assessment was thin, but that nevertheless the assessment was “sound.”
When this report was released, a 100% Republican (that’s unusual) Codel was in Moscow to meet with Foreign Minister Lavrov (President Putin let it be known he didn’t have time for them). Senator Shelby of Alabama told the Russians, without raising Russian interference in the election:
We don’t necessarily need to be adversaries.
True enough, in the abstract and at a friendly moment. But definitely not what you want to be saying on the day your colleagues in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, have concluded that we are in fact adversaries, because Russia saw fit to attack the United States.
Of course they had their reasons. They didn’t like Hillary, whom Putin blamed for fueling anti-government demonstrations in 2011 and 12. Trump in 2016 hired a Russian agent as his campaign manager. His real estate empire depends heavily on Russian money. Several of his foreign policy advisers were close to the Russians, including son-in-law Jared Kushner and future, if briefly, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
Collusion is not really the issue. There is no need to collude if you and your staff agree with the Russians on most things. Shelby wasn’t colluding, he was just kowtowing. Trump doesn’t really care if Putin was trying to undermine the liberal democratic order, because he is against it too. You might expect however a bit of embarrassment when it turns out the Russians have hacked your opponents and supported your candidate’s election.
Not from Trump, who plans to meet one-on-one to start his summit with Putin July 16. This is a big and dangerous moment. Mike McFaul, President Obama’s ambassador to Moscow, reminded us yesterday:
In last 2 weeks Trump has invited Russia to join G7, denied Russian interference in 2016 election, hinted at recognizing Crimean annexation, pulling out of Syria & reducing US troops in Germany. In return for these monumental concessions Trump has asked Putin to do…?
#Artofdeal
Trump is already turning over southern Syria to the Russians and Iranians, who are cooperating with the Syrian army in driving hundreds of thousands of people to take shelter near the borders with Israel and Jordan, causing these two American allies real concern. He can’t invite the Russians to rejoin the G7 without the other members agreeing, but the Pentagon is already studying withdrawal of US troops from Europe, which Trump claims is worse than China when it comes to trade. Just smaller, he said, though Europe’s economy is bigger than China’s.
The worst would be recognizing the annexation of Crimea, which would set off a string of partitions worldwide and help Putin to justify his occupation of parts of Georgia and Moldova. Kurt Volker, my very capable former colleague at SAIS who is now the point man for the Administration on the Ukraine, quoted the White House spokesperson saying this yesterday:
“We do not recognize Russia’s attempt to annex Crimea… And our Crimea sanctions against Russia will remain in place until
returns the peninsula to
.”
That’s really good. Now all he has to do is to make it stick in Helsinki, where Trump will be freelancing and trying to impress his paymaster and comrade.
Sad to say, American independence on this July 4 is compromised, at the top.
RSS - Posts
