Tag: United States
Stevenson’s army, September 1
-US wants Philippine base close to Taiwan.
– Russia vetoes UNSC resolution on Mali.
– Carnegie analyst discusses impact of Niger coup.
– Russian oligarchs had US lobbyists.
– Trump Treasury official wants better interagency process for economic policy.
– LA Times sees conservative plan to take over US government.
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, August 30
– We talked in class about how the Constitution gives Congress the power over trade. The Atlantic notes the many ways Congress has abdicated its trade powers with emergency provisions which President Trump notably used.
– Dan Drezner analyzes the chapter on Biden and Afghanistan that I sent around yesterday.
– Thomas Edsall reviews research on small donors to political campaigns.
– New Yorker reviews rise of right-wing violence.
– WSJ says Saudis offer money to Palestinian Authority.
– Given the hurricane threatening Florida, remember that CRS has background reports on issues like FEMA assistance.
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, August 27
Just in time for class, articles on relevant issues: tribalism and trade.
-WSJ has data on the increased tribalism in US politics. [Earlier NYT’s Thomas Edsall discussed the rise of partisan hatred.]
-WaPo notes how Biden’s trade policies are closer to Trump’s than Obama’s.
For Congress there is a deeper legal problem: as CFR’s Inu Manak argues, Biden is re-defining Free Trade Agreements to get around details in the Inflation Reduction Act. [He has a long piece on this in FP.] CRS summarizes congressional power over trade deals.
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:
Yes, I was there and then is now
I wrote this piece for the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, but it has aged well so here it is again ten years later:
Eighteen years old in August 1963, I had spent the summer after high school graduation working in a factory, commuting by bike the five miles or so from where I was staying with a friend. I don’t remember my decision to go to the March, but I do remember my racist aunt calling my mother the night before and trying to get her to stop me. There would be violence, Aunt Betty was sure, and who knows what kind of trouble.
That appeal fell on deaf ears. My mother was a committed advocate of integration, which had been an issue for years in my hometown of New Rochelle, New York. My father, until he died in 1961, was an activist and successful opponent of “blockbusting”: the real estate agents’ practice of scaring whites to move by implying that the neighborhood was “turning,” thus fulfilling their own prophecy and collecting lots of commissions. A Federal court had found two years earlier that the Lincoln School half a mile from our house had been intentionally segregated and eventually ordered remedies. This, people, was hundreds of miles north of the Mason-Dixon line.
I was already dating a “Negro” girl, in the terminology of the time. That wasn’t common (nor was it common when we married five years later and remained married until today). I confess it had taken me years to work up the courage to ask her out. She was away that summer and did not go on the March. But surely the sense I had that the March was the right place to be was connected to my romantic interests, if only by worldview.
To get to Washington around 8 am in those days meant a 2 am rising in New Rochelle, no breakfast and a quick dash out of the house grabbing the brown paper lunch bag from the fridge. As the bus arrived in DC, I awakened to a strong fish smell. It was that brown paper bag. It wasn’t the one with my lunch. I don’t know what my family had for dinner, but I had little money in my pocket (no ATMs then) and was hungry much of the day.
We staged at Thomas Circle and marched from there singing and chanting to the Lincoln Memorial, where I found a good spot on the left of the reflecting pool under the trees. It was a happy but determined crowd. We knew the country was watching. We all dressed reasonably well, the “Negroes” better than the “whites” to look as respectable as possible. We knew there was an absolute need to avoid violence, but the issue never arose in my part of the march. There were just too many of us for anyone to tangle with. The racists, who were many in that day in Washington, stayed home.
Solidarity was the overwhelming feeling. The weather was beautiful and the mood was good, but this was no picnic. It was a determined and disciplined protest. “We Shall Overcome” was the anthem. The New York Times reporter who quoted me in Saturday’s paper asked whether I was surprised that celebrities like Peter, Paul and Mary and Bob Dylan sang. No, that was no surprise: they had been part of “the movement.” The answer, my friend, was blowing in the wind.
A word about the concept of race at the time of the March, which was clearly organized and led by Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph. In the terminology of the time, they were “Negroes,” not yet blacks or African Americans. The concept of “whites” is likewise an anachronism. I didn’t regard myself as part of a white majority then (nor do I really now). The majority then was WASP: white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. As a Jew whose grandparents immigrated from Russia and Russian-occupied Poland, I was in none of those three categories. I was a minority. The barriers to Jews (quotas in universities, prohibitions in clubs and limitations in employment) had only recently come down. The affinity of Jews for the civil rights movement was strong.
The March on Washington was important to us because it was a massive show of support to those who wanted to end segregation, which was more the rule than the exception. It was inconsistent with what the marchers understood as the founding creed: all men are created equal (the question of women was posed later). “Jobs and freedom” meant an end to discrimination on the basis of skin color in a society still based on racial separation. It was a radical proposition. I learned only this week that the even the police force in DC was still segregated, with no mixed patrols.
Segregation did not end during the March on Washington, as some would like to imagine. The struggle continued even more intensely after August 1963. The bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham came just two weeks or so later. James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Mickey Schwerner, who was the son of my high school biology teacher, were murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi the next June. I had wanted to spend the summer there but yielded to my mother’s entreaties and instead earned some much-needed cash doing research at Yale. New Haven was still mostly segregated, especially schools and housing. I imagine it still is to some extent.
I was sitting down in the street in Cambridge, Maryland in 1964 in support of people trying to end school and housing segregation in what was known then as the Delmarva peninsula (not the Eastern Shore). Delmarva was more akin to the deep South than the northeast when it came to segregation. The state-mobilized National Guard blocked our march there with fixed bayonets, wearing gas masks. The protest leadership decided not to test their will to use them. I’ve never regretted that.
Once MLK and RFK were murdered in 1968, the civil rights movement lost steam to the anti-Vietnam War movement. I got my first whiff of tear gas protesting at Fort Dix in 1969 and tested the patience of army officers at my physical in 1970. The civil rights movement ended prematurely, befuddled by weakened leadership and dissension within the black community (as it came to be called), some of which toyed with violence while others tried to move further in the direction of economic justice.
Another ten years of MLK leading the challenge to the American reality would have done a lot more good than the lionizing of him now. In housing, schooling and the economy the sharp divides between blacks and whites have not disappeared. Some have even widened. The mechanisms of segregation are no longer overt and direct, but they are effective and persistent. No one can hope to do what Bull Connor and George Wallace did once upon a time, but voter ID laws are just a more sophisticated version of a particular group’s desire to keep America in the hands of people who look, behave and vote like them.
Still, things have changed for the better. I can hope that the voter ID laws will mobilize massive minority participation in the states that pass them. I am pleased my children have had opportunities that would have been denied a generation earlier. My wife and I married in the year after the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s prohibition on interracial marriage, though we were unaware of the decision at the time. Today we travel the length and breadth of America without worrying about being lynched. And yes, President Obama embodies the ideals of August 28, 1963.
But we still need to make sure we treat all people as the equals they are. Then is now.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Lessons from the Wagnerian tragedy
While the odds of my saying anything new are minimal, it is difficult not to comment on the death yesterday of Yevgeny Prigozhin and his Wagner comrades. I think it is fair to assume it was murder. A plane accident would be just too convenient. And we’ll never know for sure, so why not assume the obvious?
What we don’t know and what the incident tells us
It is difficult to fathom why Prigozhin thought he could fly around Russia safely. Just a few days ago he put out a video purporting to show him in Africa. Might he have imagined that Putin would be fooled? Might he have believed that his good friend Vladimir would allow him to continue to live after attempting a coup? Had he tried to blackmail Putin into leaving him alone, by promising to have published incriminating material if he were to die? No one knows.
What we do know is that this incident confirms, once again, that Putin is a garden variety homicidal dictator. No one should have doubted that–the denefestrations and poisonings have been confirming it for decades. But it has political implications, both in Russia and in the United States.
Russians need to get brave
The implication in Russia is that Putin will never leave office voluntarily. He knows that peaceful retirement is not an option. He’ll try to stay in power as long as he can.
To get rid of him, Russians will need to be courageous. There is little sign of such courage so far, but it might be brewing beneath the surface. Whoever arranged for Prigozhin’s plane to come down could do the same for Putin’s. That will make him extra cautious and repressive. He has already tightened the screws on dissent, but will likely do more. Even much more.
Americans need to get smarter
Following Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson, there is a part of the Republican Party, and a fringe on the left, that has been inclined to accommodation with Putin. They would like less aid for Ukraine and more, echoing a Moscow troll line, for Hawaii, though of course the Republicans would never actually push aid in Hawaii’s direction.
Trump and Carlson may continue to shill for Putin. They are not just dumb but craven. But the filo-Russian faction on both left and right should now be as dead as Prigozhin.
There is no longer any alternative, if ever there was, for the West in Ukraine. Europe and the US need to give Ukraine everything it needs to defeat Russia and expel its forces from all Ukrainian territory. Putin’s defeat may not guarantee his fall, but if he manages to hold on to territory in Ukraine it will make his fall much less likely. His succesor may be worse for Russians, but defeat in Ukraine will make him and Russia weaker. That is what Americans need to aim for.
Accountability would be nice
I guffawed at the first news of Prigozhin’s accident. But it is not a laughing matter, even if he was a clownish war criminal. Dictators worldwide will be watching to see the consequences. Let’s hope Russians can somehow give Putin his just desserts.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Black Sox in Belgrade
This interview provoked a reaction, published originally in the Podgorica daily Pobjeda, from former Montenegrin Foreign Minister and Ambassador to the United States Miodrag Vlahović, who is now President of the Helsinki Commission in Podgorica. He has contribued previously to peacefare.net
Your Excellency, Dear Ambassador Hill,
Your last interview with “Voice of America” is full of wrong theses, incorrect and incorrect interpretations which, once again, confirm your policy of appeasing and pandering to Aleksandar Vučić, i.e. the official policy of Serbia, and seriously calls into question the motives and intentions behind such a position of yours and your public statements.
Your reluctance to publicly criticize the politics personified by Vučić in any way is taking the form of a caricature. It is fascinating that even in the last brutal threats and insults, which were sent, one after the other, to Montenegro and North Macedonia by the President of Serbia Vučić, then the Minister of Defense Vučević and, finally, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Dačić, you do not recognize anything controversial! For you, that is not an attempt to destabilize the region? What are the reasons for your attitude, which honestly surprises and worries all sincere American friends in Montenegro, but also in all other countries of the region?
If what three Serbian officials publicly said is not a problem, then neither is your repeated advocacy for the so-called “Open Balkans”, which three of the six Western Balkan countries never agreed to – and one of the two main promoters (i.e. Prime Minister Rama) recently clearly and definitively gave up – “is not in dispute”. That is why it’s amazing. Indeed, for what reason do you unnecessarily and futilely insist for months on that unregulated and imposed form of co-operation, which all our (and your) European friends and allies have clearly said was not compatible with the European agenda of the Western Balkans, not even with the Berlin Process itself? What is your interest in it? Obstructing the European integration of the Western Balkans, in order to satisfy the appetites of the nationalist politics of official Belgrade? That’s the goal?
What worries us the most in your interview is the statement that the policy that is now identified with you, having in mind everything you say and do (although Mr Escobar, Mr Grenell and one of your predecessors in Belgrade, Ambassador Montgomery, belong to the same “school of thought”) is good and correct, even if it doesn’t produce results?!
We must, with all due respect, correct you here. It is not true that such “Pax Americana” does not produce results in our region. The truth is quite different: the policy you promote causes very bad consequences. It destabilizes the Western Balkans. It creates and maintains crises and prevents some open issues and antagonisms from starting to be resolved, finally. Examples, we are sure, you know more and better than us, are there: the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the relationship between Serbia and Kosovo, and events and trends in our country, Montenegro. That is why your policy is deeply flawed. It threatens to completely compromise the decades-long positive and effecient engagement of the United States in our region.
We, in Montenegro, not only because of the process of restoration of our independence, will never forget the great friendly support and help that we continuously received from your country.
And for this reason, your policy of appeasing and yielding the regime of Aleksandar Vučić is wrong. And worse than that: it is doomed to fail.
This failure will cost Serbia itself dearly, as well as all its neighbors.
We will not, in this address, spend time and energy on analyzing whether and how much it is about your personal intervention and your preferences, and how much it is the politics of Washington. This, we are sure, is better understood and known in the State Department itself. Your colleagues and your superiors will be able to recognize how successful your publicly declared intention to “separate Serbia from Russia” can be and how much and for how long it could cost other countries in the Western Balkans. And how much it can affect the stability and security of the region as a whole.
It seems to us that it is also not true that “there are no results”: the consequences of your policy are exactly the opposite of those that you publicly project. Therefore, it is not a stagnation. It is a regression.
For us in Montenegro, but also for all democratic and pro-Western political forces in the Western Balkans, including, especially, our friends in Serbia, the statement that “you cannot compare Milošević and Vučić” is, to say the least, surprising. And offensive to all of us.
You cannot compare the head of a regime, who ended up in The Hague, with his Minister of Propaganda, who we remembered for his brutal attacks on the free media and for his warmongering and xenophobic statements, including those that it is necessary to “kill a hundred Bosniaks for every lost Serb”?! It is enough to remember the name and fate of Slavko Ćuruvija, whom Minister Vučić openly threatened…
Or, instead of unnecessarily reminding you about things that you know better than us, we should ask you: do you see similarities between the fate of Ivan Stambolić and that of Oliver Ivanović? This tragic coincidence is even greater and more tragic than the one between Vučić and Milošević. You don’t need to answer that question, of course. The obvious does not need an explanation.
In the end: there is also no need to explain to you, as an American, what this “Black Sox” from the title can be associated with. And you know that better than we do, too.
Your engagement in Belgrade and its consequences can actually make it unnecessary for us to send you the message that was sent when some were deeply disappointed with their sports and social role models and idols: “Tell us that’s not true!”
Therefore, you don’t need to make excuses for us. You should say and do what would confirm the reasons and principles by which the politics and diplomacy of the United States of America were recognized in our part of Europe.
We still hope that you are ready for such a change.
Best wishes and sinecere regards,
Miodrag Vlahović
Here is the Hill interview with VoA, courtesy of Googletranslate:
Voice of America: The President of Serbia, Mr. Vučić, met with the President of Ukraine, Mr. Zelensky, this morning and said that they had a “good and open conversation.” Last night, however, we heard the news reported by the Serbian media, referring to a Russian media outlet, that Vučić insisted that the joint declaration of the leaders of the Western Balkan countries from the summit in Athens did not contain a call for the introduction of sanctions against Russia. Do you see it as Vučić’s balancing act?
Hill: You will have to ask Mr. Vučić, but our position is very clear: everyone should join the sanctions against Russia, especially countries that aspire to join the EU. We think it’s the right thing to do. Many small countries have imposed sanctions even though it harms them, but they did it anyway because it is in their higher interest and in the interest of a larger group like the EU. We would like Serbia to do the same and for it to be part of its path towards the Euro-Atlantic system. When it comes to the meeting with Zelensky, I was extremely pleased when I saw that the Serbian and Ukrainian presidents sat down to talk. Serbia and Ukraine have a long history, they always got along well, had good relations, and that’s why I think it’s important that they met, exchanged opinions and talked about what the future brings. Because there will be changes, this war will not last forever and we will see how things will develop. But I believe that the past months were important for the people of Serbia to see what Russia is really like, and that Serbia should move west, towards Euro-Atlantic systems.
Voice of America: Speaking of Serbia’s approach to the West and Russia – the US recently imposed sanctions on the director of the Security and Intelligence Agency, Alexander Vulin, a man with close ties to Russia. Are you disappointed that he is still sitting as director of the Serbian secret police, as if nothing happened?
Hill: I don’t like that at the beginning of this conversation I have to talk about things on which we disagree with the Serbian authorities, but yes, we have a problem with him, with his determination, and our position is that he should be sanctioned. And I see that this attitude is not shared by the authorities in Serbia, but our attitude is very clear… Disappointment means that your expectations have not been met. I would say that I am a realist and I do my job, and my job is to promote the close ties between the USA and Serbia, as well as for the two countries to be on the same side.
Voice of America: Mr. Vučić often says that the sanctions were introduced only because of Vulin’s close ties with Russia and because Serbia did not impose sanctions on Moscow. And that the other allegations – about drug trafficking, arms and corruption, are secondary or unfounded. How about that?
Hill: I want to say that we imposed sanctions on Mr. Vulin only because of Mr. Vulin, and I think that in general we have maintained a good relationship. Sanctions are not against the institution, but against the individual. This is a process that happens in Washington, not in the embassy, but from what I understand it was a fair process, where different activities were taken into account and a decision was made… I assure you that the people who decide on this in Washington are working they carefully consider the evidence and make decisions based on it.
Voice of America: Several dozens of parliamentarians from the USA and European countries appealed in a letter to the West to change its policy towards Serbia, claiming that the current policy does not work and that the Western approach to Vučić is “soft” in the context of Kosovo. Do you consider your policy successful if you consider that the situation in Kosovo has escalated several times in the past year, that Serbia is not closer to the EU, that neither the Ohrid Agreement nor the European proposal on Kosovo are implemented? Where is the success?
Hill: First, you don’t make policy because it’s successful, but because it’s right. When we formulate policy, we weigh our interests and the idea of whether it is the right thing for our government to do. Of course we would like the Brussels dialogue to take place much faster, we support Mr. (Miroslav) Lajčak because we think that is the right approach. And we would like to see an agreement based on the formation of the Union of Serbian Municipalities, so that the Serbs in the north of Kosovo know what the rules of the game are and what their lives will look like, that is very important to us. We recognize Kosovo and we would like it to join international organizations because we think it is the best for Kosovo, but also for the stability of the region. That’s our policy, and I think it’s the right one regardless of whether it’s successful or not. The game is not over.
Voice of America: What do you say about the statements that Vučić is destabilizing the region? The Minister of Defense of Serbia recently said that North Macedonia and Montenegro could be “hit on the head” by the recognition of Kosovo, which some in Montenegro interpreted as a threat. Do you consider it an attempt to destabilize the region?
Hill: I don’t see it as an attempt to destabilize the region, and I certainly don’t think that Mr. Vucevic wanted to be understood that way. I would certainly like to see better relations between the Balkan countries and I think that the Open Balkans is a good step in that direction, as well as the Berlin process… I would like to see more support from other countries in the region, but also from the West where everyone understands that these countries must cooperate and that way they will be better partners or members of the EU.
Voice of America: In the 1990s, the West had a harsher approach towards Serbia. You also met Slobodan Milošević, now you are working with Vučić, can you compare them, to say who is easier to cooperate with?
Hill: I can’t compare them, they are very very different, and the time is different. And I can’t talk about the similarities and differences between the current president and someone like Milosevic, I’ll leave that to you and the historians.
Voice of America: The situation in Kosovo seems calmer than it has been in recent months. Did you find a common language with Mr. Kurti, the Prime Minister of Kosovo, to work on solving the problem together? I am asking you because you told us in an interview in June that you are not sure that Mr. Kurti is an American partner. Have you moved on from that point?
Hill: What I can tell you is that we are working closely with Serbia to solve the problem, we think it makes sense for Serbia and Serbian-American relations, and I will leave it to others to answer this question. My opinion is well known.
Voice of America: Do you think that the situation in Kosovo is more peaceful or do you think differently?
Hill: I’d say it’s August and a lot of people are on vacation, we’ll have to see how it goes in September. I believe that this is an issue that requires urgent resolution and that progress is needed. Although we now know what the “ingredients” are for a peaceful future – the formation of the ZSO, Kosovo’s access to international organizations, we know what we need to do, we just need to put the pieces together. It’s like a big puzzle that you put on the table and then put the pieces together.
Voice of America: Do you expect a crisis in September?
Hill: I can’t predict a crisis, but what I can see is a new attempt to solve the problems. Everyone had a chance to think during the summer and I hope we can improve. Serbia is the largest country in the Balkans, it has ambitions to get closer to the West, it has ambitious economic plans, Expo 27 is coming up, if I were Serbia I would like to solve the problem with Kosovo, to show that I still support the Serbian community in Kosovo, but, finally, to see what are the broader, strategic moves that need to be made to get closer to the West.
Voice of America: You recently tweeted a video that some saw as controversial because Mr. Željko Mitrović, the owner of TV Pink, appears in it. Pink was seen as a generator of violence because of reality shows that are violent, you can often see a dirty campaign against the opposition, it is about pro-government television. With the understanding that the American goal is to bring Serbia closer to the West, do you think that this should be done with the help of people who represent everything that America does not advocate?
Hill: I think your question assumes that the US ambassador here has a lot of tools in his hands and thinks “look, it would be easier if we recruited TV Pink into our process.” But that’s not how it works at all. Pink TV made a decision, not because of me, but because they think that the future of this country is in the West. It is up to them to decide how they present themselves to the viewers. If you are a foreign diplomat here, you assess how things are. And I have to tell you – one of the things that you don’t value much, and yet many in Serbia would raise that question – is honesty. What I’m looking at is what they actually do, what they say, what the news looks like to them, whether they’re looking for violence and whether they’re pro-Russian – speaking of violence. And what you see is television presenting arguments in favor of Serbia in the West. They recently sent a team to Ukraine, not only to visit Kiev, but you see Serbian journalists in the trenches with Ukrainian soldiers, reporting on the worst war in decades. I’m not here to judge, I’m not here to talk about what they did in the past, I’m just looking at what they’re doing now. And now they are presenting arguments that I think should be presented more often in Serbia – that Serbia is a country in the heart of Europe and that it should be part of the Euro-Atlantic structures.
Voice of America: Do you think this statement of yours will create the impression that you are defending TV Pink?
Hill: I don’t mean to defend anyone. I defend the idea that Serbia should look forward and I hope that others will see it that way. I’m not defending anyone, I’m just stating the facts. Do you want people to look forward, or keep looking back? I would like people to look forward.
RSS - Posts
