Tag: North Korea
Foreign policy is also made by omission
Secretary of State Blinken outlined Biden Administration foreign policy yesterday. Here is the short version:
- End the pandemic
- Rebuild the economy
- Protect democracy
- Treat immigrants humanely but reduce incentives for migration
- Revitalize relations with friends
- Slow climate change
- Lead in hi tech
- Manage the rise of China
All of this is to be done with two things in mind: benefiting Americans and mobilizing other countries to carry part of the burden.
Tony is also at pains to underline that all these foreign policy issues have important domestic dimensions and that diplomacy will come before military action. The former is not new and underlay Trump’s “America First” slogan, especially on trade issues. The latter isn’t new either, but it is diametrically the opposite of what Trump was inclined to do. He thought cruise missiles and drones could get the US out of Syria without any need for talking with anyone. He tried talks with the Taliban, but did not wait for them to succeed before withdrawing half the troops.
It’s hard for me to quarrel with much of what Tony said. But there are things missing, as Tony acknowledges. Often in international affairs, as in domestic politics, what is not said is as significant as what is said.
Apart from the mention of China and some other geopolitical threats (Russia, Iran North Korea), there is no mention at all of specific regions and little of specific countries. My friends in the Middle East and the Balkans should take note. You are not going to get all the attention you crave. This is a major change from the traditional diplomatic “tour d’horizon” and suggests a shift from the State Department’s traditional emphasis on bilateral relations, as represented in its “geographic” bureaus and accentuated in the transactional Trump Administration, to “transnational” issues represented in State’s “functional” bureaus.
Among the “transnational” issues, one important one is omitted: nuclear non-proliferation. This may reflect a realistic recognition that with respect at least to North Korea and perhaps even Iran the cat is out of the bag: we are not going to be able to convince them to give up their nuclear ambitions entirely. It may also reflect a desire to leave room for some of our friends and allies to respond in kind. We’ve long exercised a tacit double standard with respect to Israel’s nuclear weapons. We might be willing to do so for other countries like Japan or South Korea whose neighbors threaten them with nukes. Trump famously uttered this heresy out loud, but his departure doesn’t make the issue evaporate. Confidence in the American nuclear umbrella fades as Pyongyang acquires the capacity to nuke Los Angeles.
Of course the urgent in foreign policy often comes before the merely important. Tony knows he won’t be able to ignore Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the Palestinians, democratic backsliding in the Balkans, the coup in Burma, or the agreed withdrawal from Afghanistan, which the Administration needs to either confirm or postpone. This Administration’s minds and hearts are in the right place. But that does not guarantee success. They face a challenging global environment, not least from all the omissions.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 26
– Biden administration strikes Iranian-backed militias in Syria.
– Biden talks to Saudi king
– Axios says administration in no rush to change Western Sahara policy..
– Pew reports public opinion on Biden foreign policy challenges.
– David Ignatius comments on Egypt policy.
– Josh Rogin urges action on North Korea policy.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to 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:
Stevenson’s army, December 19
Atlantic Council has a China strategy.
CNAS has ideas for economic statecraft.
WSJ laments loss of social trust among Americans.
Stimson Center says DPRK may be building nuclear components.
WSJ says its economy is near collapse.
Pompeo openly blames Russia for cyber attacks [which still seem to me to be espionage rather than “act of 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 plan to 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:
Stevenson’s army, December 10
– Defense One says Trump people at DOD are looking to cut support to CIA.
– WSJ says Japan is building missiles capable of hitting North Korea.
– NYT notes how CJCS ADM Mullen named several black officers to top positions, including Gen. Austin.
– Politico tells of personality clash in 1950s that Kerry appointment might repeat.
– GOP House members are trying to recruit Senators to challenge electoral votes for Biden. CRS paper [see p 6] tells how Congress counts the votes.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to 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:
Peace Picks | October 19 – 23
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. New START and the Future of US-Russia Arms Control | October 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EDT | Wilson Center | Register Here
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) is the last strategic nuclear arms control agreement still in force between the United States and Russia. It will expire in less than 4 months unless extended, and negotiations to that end are now underway. On October 19, Lynn Rusten and Feodor Voitolovsky will join us for a conversation on the American and Russian perspectives on the future of New START and the changing technological and security landscape that will shape the next five years of arms control.
Speakers:
Lynn Rusten: Vice President, Global Nuclear Policy Program, Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)
Feodor Voitolovsky: Head of Section, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of World Economy and International Relations of Russian Academy of Sciences
Matthew Rojansky, moderator: Director, Kennan Institute
2. RESOLVE Network 2020 Global Forum: Violent Extremism in 2020 and Beyond | October 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:15 AM EDT | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
The year 2020 has ushered in rapid and significant shifts in existing threats to global security. From the COVID-19 pandemic to climate change and longstanding violent conflict, the pressures facing our current global system are increasingly complex and all-encompassing. Among these, violent extremism remains a significant challenge—shifting as actors adapt and take advantage of ongoing and emerging global shocks and sources of instability.
How has the violent extremism landscape changed in the five years since the “fall” of ISIS? How has rising global instability, populism, and disinformation altered violent extremist operations and ideologies, and vice versa? What challenges do we face in addressing violent extremism in the new threat landscape? Can we apply any lessons from past experiences to address emerging threats and dynamics in 2020 and beyond?
Please join the RESOLVE Network and USIP for a discussion about these challenges and more during part one of RESOLVE’s fifth annual Global Forum series. Convened virtually, the forum will bring together leading experts and researchers for thought-provoking conversations on evolving trends and dynamics in the violent extremist landscape.
Speakers:
Dr. Mary Beth Altier: Clinical Associate Professor, Center for Global Affairs, New York University
Dr. Amarnath Amarasingam: Assistant Professor, School of Religion, Queen’s University, member of the RESOLVE Research Advisory Council
Dr. Colin P. Clarke: Senior Research Fellow, The Soufan Center, member of the RESOLVE Research Advisory Council
3. Amid Multiple Crises, a Divided Nation | October 19, 2020 | 1:00 – 2:30 PM EDT | Brookings Institute | Register Here
In the wake of over 210,000 deaths from the coronavirus, massive unemployment, protests over racial justice, the death of a U.S. Supreme Court justice, and unprecedented wildfires in multiple western states, questions remain about who will turn out to vote and what will drive them to the polls. Now, a new and extensive national survey of more than 2,500 Americans reveals a great deal about the public’s views of the presidential candidates and their attitudes toward pressing issues such as health care, the economy, racial justice, immigration, the changing demographics of the nation, climate change, and the fairness and reliability of the elections themselves.
On October 19, Governance Studies at Brookings and PRRI will host the release of PRRI’s eleventh annual American Values Survey (AVS). A panel of experts will discuss the survey results and what they reveal about Americans’ attitudes toward a variety of issues that are sure to shape the outcome of this presidential election. The survey also highlights the impact of media consumption on attitudes, long-term trends in partisan and religious affiliation, and how these changes have produced two starkly contrasting visions for the nation.
Speakers:
E.J. Dionne, Jr., moderator: W. Averell Harriman Chair and Senior Fellow – Governance Studies
William A. Galston, moderator: Ezra K. Zilkha Chair and Senior Fellow – Governance Studies
Karlyn Bowman: Senior Fellow – American Enterprise Institute
Andra Gillespie: Associate Professor of Political Science; Director, James Weldon Johnson Institute – Emory University
Robert P. Jones: CEO and Founder – PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute)
4. Cross-Strait Seminar Series: Taiwan and the future of US-China strategic competition | October 19, 2020 | 1:00 PM EDT | The Atlantic Council | Register Here
As US-China relations continue to deteriorate in the era of COVID-19, the role of Taiwan has received increasing attention from both Washington and Beijing. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has made reunification with Taiwan, peaceful or otherwise, a key objective of his extended tenure, and has overseen a ratcheting up of military exercises, influence operations, and other pressures across the Taiwan Strait in recent years. Meanwhile, the United States has taken a series of concrete steps to demonstrate renewed commitment to its relationship with Taiwan, including recently issuing a joint declaration on 5G security, launching a new bilateral economic dialogue, and sending Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex M. Azar II and Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Keith Krach – the two highest-profile visits from US officials to Taiwan since 1979.
These major developments raise a number of key questions about Taiwan’s role in the future of US-China strategic competition. What is the long-term vision and strategic goals of the US-Taiwan relations? Where does Taiwan fit into the US Indo-Pacific strategy? Likewise, how do US relations fit into the second Tsai administration’s vision for foreign and economic policy? How are recent developments in US-Taiwan relations shaping cross-strait geopolitics, and how the US and Taiwan can work with other US allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific approaching engagement with Taiwan in light of ongoing developments? What should be Taiwan’s role in a broader network of global democracies on key strategic issues such as 5G, global supply chains, maritime security, defense technology, and countering influence operations? Ultimately, what will the decade ahead hold for the Taiwan Strait as one of greatest geopolitical flashpoints in US-China relations?
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Asia Security Initiative, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, for a public panel discussion on the changing role of Taiwan amid US-China strategic competition.
Speakers:
Mr. Michael Mazza: Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Mr. Dexter Tiff Roberts: Nonresident Senior Fellow, Asia Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Mr. Randall G. Schriver: Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Affairs; Chairman, Project 2049
Ms. Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, moderator: China Reporter, Axios
5. A Fragmented Society: the Internal Dynamics of Libya’s Conflict | October 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:30 AM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
While most discussions about the Libyan crisis revolve around geopolitics and international interference, internal divisions within Libya’s civil society and political institutions have also played a fundamental role in destabilizing the country since the fall of Moamar Gaddafi in 2012. Governance in Libya is fragmented with very few truly national actors. It also continues to lack political institutions that are seen by all Libyans as legitimate. The ongoing conflict consists of many contending local and tribal players, including spoilers who have demonstrated opposition to either peace or reconciliation except on the basis of total victory by their group.
What are the major obstacles to stabilization? How can Libya approach the establishment of political institutions? In what ways can the international community support a Libyan-led peace process? The Middle East Institute, the Regional Program Political Dialogue South Mediterranean of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and the Policy Center for the New South are pleased to jointly host a group of experts to discuss these questions and more in a closed roundtable format.
Speakers:
Youness Abouyoub: Director, Governance and State-Building Division for the MENA Region, United Nations; former senior political advisor to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General to Libya
Emadeddin Badi: Nonresident senior fellow, Atlantic Council
Virginie Collombier: Research fellow, European University Institute
Mohamed Dorda: Co-Founder, Libya Desk
Mohamed Eljarh: Co-Founder, Libya Outlook for Research and Consulting
Mary Fitzgerald: Independent researcher
Amanda Kadlec: Founder and director, Evolve Governance
Karim Mezran: Resident senior fellow, Atlantic Council
Tarik Mgerisi: Policy fellow, North Africa and Middle East Programme, European Council on Foreign Relations
Amal Obeidi: Associate professor of Comparative Politics, Department of Political Science; faculty of Economics, University of Benghazi, Libya
Jason Pack: Nonresident scholar, Middle East Institute; founder, Libya-Analysis LLC
Jonathan Winer: Nonresident scholar, Middle East Institute; former United States Special Envoy for Libya
Len Ishmael, moderator: Senior Fellow, Policy Center for the New South
6. Iran and North Korea: Proliferation and Regional Challenges for the Next Administration | October 20, 2020 | 3:00 – 4:00 PM EDT | Brookings Institute | Register Here
Among the numerous and varied foreign policy challenges facing the next administration will be the nuclear proliferation and regional security threats posed by Iran and North Korea. The next administration will need to consider how to build international and domestic support for addressing those threats, whether and when to engage those regimes diplomatically, and the balance between pressure and diplomacy in pursuing U.S. policy objectives.
On Tuesday, October 20, the Foreign Policy program at Brookings will host an online discussion with experts who previously served as Defense and State Department officials, nuclear negotiators, and intelligence community officers.
Speakers:
Suzanne Maloney, moderator: Vice President and Director – Foreign Policy
Jung H. Pak: SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea StudiesSenior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies
Robert Einhorn: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative
Matthew Kroenig: Professor – Georgetown UniversityDeputy Director of The Scowcroft Center – Atlantic Council
Eric Edelman: Roger Hertog Distinguished Practitioner-in-Residence – School of Advanced International Studies
7. Women Transforming Peace: Celebrating 20 Years of UNSCR 1325 and Beyond | October 20, 2020 | 9:30 – 11:00 AM EDT | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
Twenty years ago, the U.N. Security Council sparked a global policy revolution when it recognized, for the first time, the unique experiences of women and girls in violent conflict. Resolution 1325, otherwise known as the Women, Peace, and Security agenda, laid a foundation for governments and civil society to place women at the center of peace processes—not only as victims, but as essential builders of peace. However, despite national action plans and legislation in 84 countries, women remain undervalued in peacebuilding and underrepresented in peace processes. Policymakers and practitioners must look beyond this policy framework first established two decades ago to achieve women’s meaningful participation in peace and security moving forward.
Join USIP and the U.S. Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace and Security to mark the 20th anniversary of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325. The discussion will look at how countries are expanding on the Women, Peace and Security agenda by adopting feminist foreign and development policies—and how civil society organizations have invested in masculinities programming as a complementary approach. These and other frameworks may prove more effective in advancing gender equality in peace and security, especially in light of the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.
Ambassador Jacqueline O’Neill: Ambassador for Women, Peace and Security, Government of Canada
Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins: Founder and President, Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation & Member of U.S. CSWG
Rita M. Lopidia: 2020 USIP Women Building Peace Award Recipient & Executive Director and Co-Founder, Eve Organization for Women Development, South Sudan and Uganda
Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, MBE: Founder and CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) & U.S. CSWG Member
Anthony Keedi: Masculinities Technical Advisor, ABAAD: Resource Center for Gender Equality, Lebanon
Kathleen Kuehnast, moderator: Director, Gender Policy and Strategy, U.S. Institute of Peace
8. How Crimea’s Tatars are Fighting Occupation and Displacement | October 20, 2020 | 10:00 AM EDT | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Crimea’s indigenous Tatar population has faced persecution and adversity for generations. Today, as Crimea is held under Russian occupation, new hardships have forced Crimean Tatars to make their voices heard. When Kremlin forces illegally seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, Moscow began rapidly moving hundreds of thousands of Russians to the territory, instituted discriminatory laws that targeted the predominately Muslim Tatars, and displaced approximately one-sixth of the almost 300,000 Tatars in Ukraine.
One of the biggest challenges for Crimean Tatars now is the documentation of violence and rights violations against those living under Russian occupation—a police state, where affiliation with religious groups and the reporting of abuse leads to numerous Tatars being imprisoned by authorities. Crimean Tatars are fighting to be heard—is anyone listening? How can Kyiv and the international community step in to support this marginalized and targeted ethnic minority? How are Crimean Tatars standing against their occupiers?
Speakers:
Ayla Bakkalli: US representative, executive member, World Congress of Crimean Tatars. representative of the Crimean Tatars at the United Nations
Rustem Umerov: member of parliament in the Verkhovna Rada
Terrell Jermaine Starr (moderator): Eurasia Center fellow; senior reporter at The Root
9. Conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia: Scope and Implications | October 21, 2020 | 9:30 – 10:30 AM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has entered its fourth week. The scope of the war has not been limited to the boundaries of the combat zone, resulting in human loss and destruction of civil infrastructure. The region’s important network of energy infrastructure, including oil and gas pipelines, are not immune to this latest round of fighting. The military confrontation is taking place in proximity to the critical energy infrastructure that connects the Caspian basin with the European markets. Can the fighting cause disruption to oil and gas flows to the West? What could potential disruption mean for global markets? Can the Southern Gas Corridor be prevented from being launched by the end of this year as had been planned? What are the interests of regional stakeholders such as Turkey, Georgia, Russia, Iran and others that are either energy exporters, consumers or transit nations for Caspian hydrocarbons. And finally, what are the interests of the United States in this conflict and its impact on the energy markets?
Speakers:
Rauf Mammadov: Scholar, MEI
Mamuka Tsereteli: Nonresident scholar, Frontier Europe Initiative, MEI
Alex Vatanka: Senior fellow and director, Iran program, MEI
10. Tackling the Pandemic in Situations of Fragility, Conflict, and Violence | October 23, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EDT | CSIS | Register Here
Fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV) pose critical development challenges. By 2030, up to two-thirds of the world’s extreme poor will live in fragile and conflict-affected countries, threatening efforts to end extreme poverty and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In recent years we have seen more violent conflicts globally than at any time in the past 30 years, and 79.5 million people have been forcibly displaced by conflict and violence worldwide. FCV therefore has a significant destabilizing impact, and takes a huge toll on human capital, creating vicious cycles that reduce people’s lifetime productivity, earnings and socioeconomic mobility. The Covid-19 crisis has exacerbated these challenges and caused significant health and economic harm to those living in FCV settings, threatening to further hinder stability and progress over the longer-term. This event will address how the international community can work together to (1) mitigate the impact of the pandemic on existing drivers of fragility and conflict through enhanced stabilization efforts, (2) support the most vulnerable, (3) better coordinate bilateral and multilateral responses to Covid-19 in fragile contexts, and (4) rebuild societies and economies post pandemic.
Speakers:
Stephanie Hammond: Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability and Humanitarian Affairs
Franck Bousquet: Senior Director of the World Bank’s Fragility, Conflict, & Violence Group
James (Jim) A. Schear: Adjunct Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Any functioning adult would be better
We can never know exactly what Hillary Clinton would have done had she won 3.5 years ago, but let us count the ways the United States could have been better off if just about any normal functioning adult–Republican or Democratic–had become president:
- Well over 150,000 Americans would not have succumbed to Covid19, the epidemic would have receded faster, the economy would have reopened months faster and far safer, the US would be leading the world’s economic recovery instead of dragging it down, and the US debt would be trillions less.
- Millions of now unemployed people would have jobs, and no one would risk losing the health insurance and coverage for preexisting conditions available under Obamacare.
- The Paris Climate Accord would be more effective in limiting greenhouse gases that have contributed to this summer’s record number and intensity of storms in the Atlantic and the unprecedented wildfires in California, causing many billions of dollars of losses.
- The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership might have been concluded, with real advantages for US producers rather than the marginal replacement for NAFTA and the trade war with China that has damaged US agriculture, manufacturers, and consumers.
- Iran would still be a year from having enough fissile material to make a nuclear weapon and negotiation of the follow-on to the nuclear deal would be in progress, including on missiles and regional issues.
- The Voting Rights Act might have been revived in response to the Black Lives Matter protests, along with legislation curbing police abuse, and there would be no discussion of imaginary anarchy in American cities or use of the military against peaceful protests.
- The US would still have the confidence and support of its European allies and China would still be observing the agreement it reached with the Obama administration on commercial hacking.
- Russia would be showing some respect instead of owning the President of the United States, whom it only needs to quote to make its points.
- There would still be hope for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine and a possibility of curbing the North Korean nuclear program, which has instead inaugurated a missile possibly capable of hitting the US with multiple nuclear warheads.
Of course lots of things would not likely be different: we might still be outside the Trans Pacific Partnership looking in, Maduro might still be president of Argentina, Syria, Yemen, and Libya would still be catastrophic, and the Saudi Crown Prince might still have ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, though MbS would not have been shielded from accountability by the US President.
The United States would be in a far stronger position under any functioning adult, Democratic or Republican, than it is under the false flag of “Make America Great Again.” For anyone interested in foreign policy, that is all you really need to know while filling out your ballot at home and popping it into the mail, provided the US Postal Service doesn’t follow President Trump’s instructions to ensure it doesn’t arrive on time.
RSS - Posts
