Tag: Israel/Palestine
Peace Picks September 17 – 23
1. China’s Role in Myanmar’s Internal Conflicts | Monday, September 17, 2018 | 11:00 am – 12:30 pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
As China becomes more assertive internationally, it has begun to encounter conflict and instability in fragile states worldwide. Nowhere is this truer than in Myanmar, where China is a key actor in the peace process and has come to the defense of the government over the Rohingya crisis in Rakhine State. Assessing China’s role in and perspectives toward Myanmar’s internal conflicts can offer important insights into conflict dynamics inside the country and help inform potential U.S. peace support policies.
For six months this year, USIP convened a group of 13 senior experts to examine China’s involvement in Myanmar’s internal conflicts—particularly those in Rakhine, Kachin, and Shan states—and peace process. Join USIP on September 17 for a discussion with the group’s co-chairs on the main findings of their report, which is the first in USIP’s China Senior Study Group series examining China’s influence on conflict dynamics around the world.
Speakers
Nancy Lindborg, opening remarks
President, U.S. Institute of Peace
Ambassador Derek Mitchell
President, National Democratic Institute
Co-chair, USIP China-Myanmar Senior Study Group
Daniel Twining
President, International Republican Institute
Co-chair, USIP China-Myanmar Senior Study Group
David Steinberg
Distinguished Professor of Asian Studies Emeritus, Georgetown University
Member, USIP China-Myanmar Senior Study Group
Jennifer Staats, moderator
Director, East and Southeast Asia Programs, U.S. Institute of Peace
Executive Director, USIP China Senior Study Groups Series
2. Food Insecurity as a Security Challenge | Monday, September 17, 2018 | 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Please join the Center for Strategic and International Studies for a Smart Women, Smart Power conversation with Ambassador (ret.) Ertharin Cousin, former executive director of the World Food Programme. She will discuss global food insecurity and hunger and the role they play in other security issues, including violent extremism.
Ambassador Cousin served as executive director of the World Food Programme from 2012 to 2017. It’s the world’s largest humanitarian organization, with 14,000 staff who aid some 80 million people in 75 countries. She previously served as the U.S. ambassador to the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture in Rome.
Prior to her global work on food security, Ambassador Cousin was executive vice president and chief operating officer of America’s Second Harvest, which is now known as Feeding America, a confederation of more than 200 U.S. foodbanks that serve more than 50 million meals annually.
She currently serves as the Payne Distinguished Lecturer and Visiting Fellow at the Center on Food Security and Environment and the Center on Democracy, Development and Rule of Law at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. She is also a Distinguished Fellow of Global Agriculture at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Ambassador Cousin is a Chicago native and holds degrees from the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Georgia School of Law. She was named one of TIME’s “100 Most Influential People,” and Foreign Policy magazine’s “500 Most Powerful People on the Planet.” She has also been named to the Forbes “100 Most Powerful Women” list and as the Fortune “Most Powerful Woman in Food and Drink.”
Featuring:
3. One State/ Two States: Pathways for the Israeli-Palestinian Dispute | Tuesday, September 18, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
U.S. policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is shifting rapidly. After the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference brought Israelis and Palestinians together in direct negotiations for the first time, an international consensus emerged that the eventual solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would involve the creation of a Palestinian state existing in peace and security with the state of Israel. But an actual agreement has proved elusive. Today, the idea of a two-state solution is under serious challenge due to political shifts in the Israeli and Palestinian camps, changes on the ground, and changes in the US stance. Do we need new ideas based on the emerging one-state reality? Or do we need new determination and political will behind a two-state solution?
Please join the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy for a discussion of their latest report on future pathways for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Edward P. Djereijian of the Baker Institute and Marwan Muasher from the Carnegie Endowment will present their findings of their report. An expert panel discussion will follow.
A light lunch will be served from 12:00 to 12:30 p.m. The presentation and panel discussion will begin at 12:30 p.m.
EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN
Edward P. Djerejian is the director of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and the former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Syria.
MARWAN MUASHER
Marwan Muasher is vice president for studies at Carnegie, where he oversees research in Washington and Beirut on the Middle East.
NATHAN J. BROWN
Nathan J. Brown is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University and a nonresident senior fellow with the Carnegie Middle East Program.
ZAHA HASSAN
Zaha Hassan is a visiting fellow with the Carnegie Middle East Program and human rights lawyer.
GILEAD SHER
Gilead Sher is a former Israeli senior peace negotiator and chief of staff to Prime Minister Ehud Barak. He heads the Center for Applied Negotiations (CAN) of the Institute for National Security Studies.
JOYCE KARAM
Joyce Karam is the Washington correspondent for The National.
4. RESOLVE Network 2018: Innovative Approaches to Understanding Violent Extremism | Thursday, September 20, 2018 | 9:00 am – 5:00 pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, Dc 20037 | Register Her
The threat of violent extremism is evolving. However, significant knowledge gaps continue to pose obstacles to those seeking to prevent and address it. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace and the RESOLVE Network for the Third Annual RESOLVE Network Global Forum on September 20 to explore new research angles and approaches for prevention and intervention of violent extremism in policy and practice.
As the territorial hold by violent extremist organizations diminishes, new problems are emerging as these groups evolve and others seek to manipulate governance and security vacuums to spread their warped mission to new populations and locations. To effectively address dynamic global trends, policymakers and practitioners require a holistic understanding of the nature of violent extremism at both the global and local level.
This forum will build from the RESOLVE Network’s previous efforts to meet the needs of policymakers and practitioners to better address the significant gaps in research, evidence, and data on drivers of violent extremism and conflict. The forum will convene RESOLVE’s partner organizations, international researchers, practitioners, and policymakers for thought-provoking TED Talk style presentations and salon-style discussions in addition to engaging breakout discussions, presenting an opportunity to learn from experts from across the globe and contribute your own knowledge and expertise to the discussion. Join the conversation on Twitter with #RESOLVEForum.
Agenda
8:30am – 9:00am: Informal RESOLVE Stakeholder Meet and Greet
9:00am – 9:20am: Welcome & Introductory Remarks
- Ms. Nancy Lindborg, President, U.S. Institute of Peace, @nancylindborg
- Ms. Leanne Erdberg, Director of CVE, U.S. Institute of Peace
9:20am – 10:30am – Session 1: Individual and Social Conduits of Violent Extremism – TED-Talk Style Presentations
- Radicalization & Reintegration: Mr. Jesse Morton, Parallel Networks, @_JesseMorton
- Neuroscience & Conflict: Mr. Michael Niconchuk, Beyond Conflict, @mcniconchuk
- Social Media & New Threats: Ms. Julia Ebner, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, @julie_renbe
- Historical Grievances & Data: Dr. Chris Meserole, Brookings Institute, @chrismeserole
10:30am – 11:30am: Breakout Discussions
11:30am – 1:30pm – Morning Salon: Secularism in the Lake Chad Basin
- Dr. Ousmanou Adama, RESOLVE Network Research Fellow – Cameroon
- Dr. Brandon Kendhammer, RESOLVE Network Principal Investigator – Cameroon
- Dr. Remadji Hoinathy, RESOLVE Network Research Fellow – Chad
- Dr. Daniel Eizenga, RESOLVE Network Principal Investigator – Chad
- Dr. Medinat Adeola Abdulazeez, RESOLVE Network Research Fellow – Nigeria
- Dr. Abdoulaye Sounaye, RESOLVE Network Principal Investigator – Nigeria
- Moderator: Dr. Jacob Udo-Udo Jacob
12:30pm – 1:30pm: Lunch
1:30pm – 2:45pm – Session 2: From Complex Systems to Meaningful Interventions – TED-Talk Style Presentations
- Role of Traditional Media: Dr. Emma Heywood, University of Sheffield, @emmaheywood7
- Everyday Peace Indicators: Dr. Pamina Firchow, George Mason University, @everydaypeacein
- Comedy & Creative Communications: Mr. Pryank Mathur, Mythos Labs, @PriyankSMathur
- Nonviolent Action: Dr. Maria J. Stephan, U.S. Institute of Peace, @MariaJStephan
2:45pm – 3:45pm: Breakout Discussion
3:45pm – 5:00pm – Afternoon Salon: Practical Applications of Research to Policy and Practice
5:00pm: Closing Remarks & Reception – Mr. Pete Marocco, Deputy Assistant Secretary and Senior Bureau Official for the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO)
5. China, America, and the New Competitive Space | Thursday, September 20, 2018 | 9:30 am – 11:00 am | New America | 740 15th St NW #900 Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here
Keynote remarks:
Honorable Randy Schriver
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs
Panel discussion to follow on natural resources, innovation, and cultural and economic power, featuring:
- Nancy Sung, Senior Science Advisor, National Science Foundation;
- David Rank, Senior Advisor to the Cohen Group and former Deputy Chief of Mission, U.S. Embassy Beijing;
- Andrew Gulley, Mineral Economist at the United States Geological Survey; and
- Leon Clarke, Senior Scientist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute.
Breakfast will be served.
6. The Liberal International Order: Past, Present, and Future | Thursday, September 20, 2018 | 11:00 am – 12:15 pm | CATO Institute | 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 | Register Here
Recent political tumult and the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency have driven anxious commentators to lament the collapse of a post-1945 liberal world order. Invoking the supposed institution building and multilateralism of the last 70 years, the order’s defenders urge U.S. leaders to restore a battered tradition, uphold economic and security commitments, and promote liberal values. Others caution that nostalgia has obscured our understanding of the old order’s hard edges and its shortcomings, and has forestalled a serious assessment of the changes that will be needed going forward.
Panelists will discuss the core principles of the liberal international order — both as those principles have been professed by its defenders and as they have been practiced by U.S. and world leaders. They will also consider the present and future of the liberal order. What revisions, if any, are necessary? Should U.S. leaders embrace the old liberal international order and reaffirm American leadership within that order? Or is it time to reassess U.S. grand strategy and bring U.S. goals in line with modern-day realities? Join us for an important and timely discussion.
Featuring Patrick Porter, Professor of International Security and Strategy, University of Birmingham and Senior Associate Fellow, Royal United Services Institute; Michael Mazarr, Senior Political Scientist, RAND Corporation; Jake Sullivan, Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Co-chair, National Security Action; moderated by Christopher Preble, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, Cato Institute.
7. U.S. – Japan Cooperation Strategic Island Defense | Friday, September 21, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | Hudson Institute | 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
China’s rising military capabilities and increased assertiveness in the East China Sea pose a challenge to the Japanese Ryukyu Islands and by extension the United States, which maintains a strategic military presence on the largest island of Okinawa. Along with the islands of Taiwan and the Philippines, the Ryukyu Islands represents a geographic chokepoint for China’s naval and civilian activities. As a strategic impediment to China’s power projection, the island chain has been a major focal point of Beijing’s recent military modernization and expansion.
In their recent report U.S.-Japan Strategic and Operational Cooperation on Remote Island Defense, General James Conway USMC (Ret) and Hudson Senior Fellows Seth Cropsey and Jun Isomura lay out recommendations for how the United States and Japan can strengthen their operational and strategic cooperation in defense of the Ryukyus.
Please join Hudson Institute on September 21 for a discussion of the report, the importance of joint U.S.-Japanese defense of Japan’s southwest islands, and the broader significance of the bilateral security relationship between the two countries for the region.
Speakers
General James T. Conway Speaker
Fmr. Commandant, USMC (Ret)
Seth Cropsey Speaker
Senior Fellow and Director, Center for American Seapower
Jun Isomura Speaker
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
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?
RSS - Posts
