Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘foreign policy’ Category

By Haviland Smith

February  4, 2020

If you look carefully and objectively at the world today, you may be able to perceive that we are approaching a crossroad. Some will even say that we are already in it. And just what is that? The people of this nation and the world are faced at this moment with a decision on what they want for the future. Do we want to continue our own fragile democracy as well as supporting other democratic movements abroad, or are we in the process of giving up on that and seeing the world sink into nationalism and populism?

Much is made of the post-World War II period and the Cold War when the two main competing ideologies were democracy and communism. Some saw it as horribly dangerous, particularly as they watched the hostile, nuclear armed competitors trying to manipulate uncommitted countries to their sides. And it probably was, but our worst fears were never realized. We and the Soviets somehow blundered through without major conflict.

What the Cold War provided to the world was relative security. There always seemed to be one or more superpowers present when things got really dangerous. Those superpowers tended to avoid their own conflicts and to suppress those of their so-called allies. In the Middle East, for example, despite the fact that the Sunni-Shia split had existed since the seventh century, it did not turn into today’s bitter armed conflicts until the end of the 20th century, as the Cold War became history.

Further, since the end of the Cold War, much of the world has seemed to approve globalism, which is the idea that freedom and human rights can be made available to all mankind. Proponents believe that the problems of humanity can best be resolved with democratic globalism.

What you can say about life under globalization is that it is likely to be less violent than life under populism which is a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. This is largely because globalization has tended to bring with it an increased respect among nations for the needs and goals of other countries, where populism and nationalism recognize the desires of individual countries and their citizens above those of the rest of the world.

Was it working? Perhaps, but what has happened is that elements around the world, both on the political right and left, have turned toward nationalism and populism. And this is not a phenomenon limited to the third world; it includes countries that until very recently have appeared to support global democratization, countries like Poland, Hungary, Brazil and the Philippines, to name only a few.  Some observers think it extends to North America and the British Isles as well. How else do you explain Brexit or America’s inclination to turn past friends and supporters into reluctant allies and critics?

President Trump has introduced us to what looks like the coming new political wave. He has identified, won over and is now supporting and supported by those 30 million Americans who really have not benefited from our interest in and support of globalization. It is very clear from the ongoing political scene that they will support him in just about anything he wants to do. In effect, Trump is a strong opponent of globalization and even stronger supporter of nationalism and populism. He has overturned many of the existing policies of past American governments and essentially told the world that the only thing that matters to him (and to America) is whether or not any given issue favors America.

You can’t really say that Trump’s positions on these issues have actually directly caused other nations to follow his policies, but his policies and positions have created an environment in which it is easier for that to happen. Trump openly supports some of the worst, least democratic world leaders. This is true of Egypt, North Korea, the Philippines, Russia, China, Egypt, Turkey, Brazil, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Poland, Libya and India, to name a few. He appears to love and respect authoritarian leaders who oppose or crush all opposition to their leadership. He has even gone so far as to praise some of the policies of Saddam Hussein and Benito Mussolini! What does that tell us about him and his hopes and goals for the future?

It is clear that millions of Americans have been short-changed under leaders pursuing globalization and that Trump represents a desirable alternative to them.  The problem, quite simply, is that even if that is true, Trump’s seeming preoccupation with authoritarian world leaders, their philosophies and policies and his inclination to emulate them pose a grave threat to our perpetually vulnerable democracy.

Read Full Post »

There is absolutely no way to explain much of what President Trump does nationally or internationally, largely because he changes his mind so often on so many things.   What can be said is that his actions are almost invariably consistent with the goals of Russia.  Equally, up until this moment, there is absolutely no way to know what the motivation for his policies truly is.

 

Some have speculated that he is motivated by his own personal economic goals.  He would like to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.  Others have speculated that his past dalliances in Moscow have compromised him and that he has been blackmailed into his current behaviors.  It is further speculated, given his clear admiration of and support for today’s worst world dictators, that his goal is to become one of their colleagues, changing this country forever.  He has, after all, spoken (jokingly?) of serving for an additional 16 years.

 

To be fair about this, let’s look at Trump without partisan political speculation.  What policies has he followed that have favored the Russians? In order to fully understand this, we have to have a reasonable assessment of Russian motivation in the world.  It is clear that Putin, a former committed KGB colonel, deeply mourns the death of the Soviet Union.  He has said a number of times that it was one of the greatest tragedies in history and that it is his wish that the USSR return to Russia.

 

So, what has Putin done that would support that goal?  Recognizing the ongoing power and influence of the United States in the world, he has done everything humanly possible to weaken the U.S. both internally and internationally.

 

Internally, he has interfered in our 2016 elections and continues to do so today. Whether it was his doing or not, Putin has an American President who has attempted and often succeeded in overturning just about everything his predecessor did to try to make this country a fairer, safer place.  One of the results of this policy is that it has further exacerbated the deep political divisions that exist in our country.  He has basically destroyed the effectiveness of much of the Federal Government.   The State Department, the Intelligence Community, and the regulatory agencies (particularly the Environmental Protection Agency) have all been denigrated and humiliated.  Critical substantive jobs requiring real expertise have been purposely left unoccupied or occupied by Trump sycophants. Top management jobs are often left “acting”, leaving true power to the President.

 

Internationally, he has treated European heads of state with distain and occasional rudeness.  He has spoken against the European Union. NATO and just about every other western originated international agreement.  He has shown his distrust for our involvement with international agreements by withdrawing from the Trans Pacific Partnership (PTT), The Paris Climate Accord, The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran nuclear agreement.  None of these moves have strengthened the United States and in the process of acting out his disdain for international cooperation, he has gone a long way toward removing us from our decades-long preeminence in international affairs and limiting our ability to positively influence world affairs.

 

One further clue to his motivation could be Trump’s admiration for and support of some of the world’s most conservative, autocratic leaders, starting with Russia’s Putin who clearly occupies a special place in Trump’s heart.  From there we go on to Kim Jung Un, the North Korean dictator, Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Xi Jinping of China, Abdel Fattah el-Sissi of Egypt, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, the Saudi Royal family and Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela.  In the past, Trump has even had kind words for Saddam Hussein.

 

Trump’s current crusade on behalf of his Russian friends appears to be the reinstatement of Russia in the G7.  Russia was expelled from that organization when it annexed the Crimea in 2014.  It is fascinating that just this week, Trump announced that he would not sign off on the $250 million in US military aid to the Ukraine, already approved by Congress, which was designed to help the Ukraine confront the Russian occupation.

 

Trump appears to be the only elected leader in the United States who thinks Russia can do no harm and who believes that Russia is a friend rather than the often hostile rival she has traditionally been.  Even without knowing why he takes that position, it can be said without equivocation, that is no position for any President of the United States to take, particularly a Republican.  He is not making the world a safer place in which to live, but he is certainly helping the Russians.

Read Full Post »

President Trump addressed our NATO allies in Brussels today, giving a speech that perfectly well could have been written by Vladimir Putin. Why Putin? Because it was brazenly inappropriate for the NATO venue and almost certainly was badly received by those allies and their constituents.Forget his boorish, egocentric behavior in abruptly and rudely shoving a fellow NATO member out of the way so he could move to the front of the assembling pack of dignitaries. Focus instead on what he actually said and did not say during his speech and on the likely effect that those words, or lack of words, would have on his fellow NATO presidents and their people.

The president hit hard on his view of the need for NATO members to tighten their immigration procedures. That is one of his ongoing complaints and one on which most Europeans disagree with him. It is an issue on which he has minor support around the world or even at home. It was hardly appropriate for that particular meeting of NATO heads of state.

In addition, he used the occasion to complain bitterly about the ongoing disinclination of many NATO member countries to pay their way, thus saddling the American taxpayer with expenses that should have been borne elsewhere. All of that is true and it is a theme that has been addressed by every American president since Harry Truman. This was a message well known to NATO and one which, under two of Trump’s predecessors, was beginning to have a positive impact resulting in rising contributions. His harping is not likely to help his cause.

In short, it was very much along the lines of ongoing Russian policy on Europe, NATO and the West.

What would have been appropriate for Trump to cover was a reiteration of America’s support to its fellow NATO members to accept and support the provisions of Article 5. That NATO provision commits every member to support any and all attacks against any of its fellow members. It was Article 5 that prompted the entire NATO membership to sign on with America after 9/11.

We are now at a moment in time when Russia is behaving very aggressively with most of the Western world, most emphatically including NATO’s European members. We have seen it in Ukraine and in Crimea. Additionally, the Russians have clearly been meddling in European elections. Here at home we have seen it in their covert meddling in our primary election process.

Under present circumstances, what our fellow NATO members wanted from the United States president was a clear, unequivocal statement that we still support NATO and adhere to the provisions of Article 5. They got neither.

What they got was a speech that never seemed to contradict Trump’ previous negative statements on NATO or the European Community. It never stated this new American administration’s commitment to NATO and the provisions of Article 5.

In short, it was very much along the lines of ongoing Russian policy on Europe, NATO and the West. It was almost entirely negative and non-supportive on those issues on which the NATO members wanted, needed and expected to hear — a strong reiteration of America’s past supportive policy.

America will find diminishing support for its leading role in NATO and the world, including in the counterterrorism arena, one of great importance and one of Trump’s favorites.

Just what Putin would have wanted if he had written the speech himself.

Read Full Post »

 Originally published in Vermont Digger

Successful bilateral foreign policy has historically required a level of predictability on both sides. Without that, both sides are running blind and disaster becomes far more likely.During the second presidential primary debate, candidate Donald Trump criticized Mike Pence for supporting the concept that the U.S. bomb the Syrian military if Russia and the Assad regime continued to strike civilians. Hillary Clinton had just called for a no-fly zone in Syria. Pence and Clinton wanted America to police violations of the international rules of warfare. Trump, by contrast, wished to ignore them and is explicitly on record as not favoring the world police role for America, which he has now undertaken in Syria.

The administration says the real issue is poison gas, but is poison gas so bad that by contrast it makes killing people by other means perfectly acceptable? Why has our new president not retaliated or even spoken against the killings by other means of the hundreds of thousands of Syrians, most emphatically including children, who have already perished in their civil war?

We have now been involved in a 16-year undeclared war in the Middle East which began with our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Americans have learned a great deal about the region during those years. Perhaps most importantly, we have learned that we are no longer admired and respected in the region. That change in attitude has come about primarily because of our military activities there and it follows that further military activity will only increase local hatred for us.

Where does the world stand when the American president is wildly unpredictable?

Our military presence there, even when we are clearly killing bad guys like the Taliban, al-Qaida and ISIS, has created a series of situations in which locals who once appreciated us have found it necessary to choose between us and our enemies. Far too often that choice has been dictated by the fact that the American forces are foreigners killing their countrymen.

We have learned that Syria is run by a minority (13 percent) Alawite (Shia) government and that the vast majority (75 percent) of Syrians are Sunni. We know that 85-90 percent of Muslims are Sunni, leaving the Shia in a tiny minority. We know there is no love lost between them and that they have a long history of conflict. What we are watching in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East are bits and pieces of that old conflict, now often in the form of civil conflict within “countries,” created a century and more ago by Western imperialist nations, that really can’t survive without relentless internal repression or massive external help.

Picture yourself as a Syrian Alawite (Shia). You are the Shia with your finger in the dike of Sunni repression. You would do anything to maintain the status quo in Syria. The largest Shia country in the region is Iran. Iran has the same concerns about its existence as the Alawites in Syria. They are under the gun from the Sunnis. The Iranians do not intend to see another Shia-run country go down the tubes, so they are supporting Syria both directly and through Hamas and Hezbollah, their surrogates in the Levant.

Additionally, Russia has historical geopolitical designs that have persuaded them to support the minority Alawites in every way possible. After all, Syria is the only country in the regions that has provided Russia with a naval base and that is and always has been a critical consideration for Russia.

What we now have here in America is an elected president who, between the campaign and his incumbency, has changed his position on just about every issue with the possible exceptions of wealth and power. It would appear that he has little understanding of, or is persuaded to overlook, the critically important realities in the Middle East.

As unpleasant as that may be for those of us who are disinterested in participating in another Middle East ground war, that is not the real issue. The real and infinitely more dangerous issue is that foreign policy over the millennia has required consistency and some level of predictability on the part of its participants. What probably saved America and the Soviet Union from nuclear annihilation during the Cold War was that each side was, in the main, predictable and thus relatively understandable to the other.

Where does the world stand when the American president is wildly unpredictable? How will he be read by countries like North Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran, Russia and others with actual and hoped for nuclear weapons? What will they do in such a new, completely changed environment?

What is said to have worked in business negotiations will not necessarily work in international relations.

Read Full Post »

Originally published in THE RUTLAND HERALD                      

 

Vladimir Putin is a Russian who understands Russian history. He is swayed only by his pragmatism and has a very precise picture of what he wants for Russia in the world today.

President Donald Trump has a sparse record on the policy level and can only be measured by his statements since the beginning of the primary campaign.

Keep in mind that Russia is still very much our enemy. The fascinating thing is that Putin’s stated goals seem to be almost completely in harmony with those of Trump. Precisely what are those goals?

NATO

If Putin could write his own ticket today he would want to see the end of NATO, which has been a thorn in the side of Russia since its inception in 1949.

Trump has called NATO “obsolete.” There is concern here and in Europe that Trump’s comments will not only undermine the European Union, but benefit Russia, which would prefer a weakened NATO and a strained Europe-U.S. alliance.

Trump, in his distaste for NATO, has made it abundantly clear that he opposes the membership of any of the former Soviet satellite countries in that organization. What this has done is strengthen right-wing political movements in those countries, movements that oppose the E.U. and NATO and their countries’ involvement with them.

EUROPEAN UNION

Putin will revel in Britain’s exit from the E.U. and in the chaos it causes. The political swing to the right resulting from the xenophobic European reaction to the refugee flow and the concomitant move away from European political cooperation is clearly approved by Putin. Such is the case in countries like Austria, Italy, Sweden, France, the Netherlands and Denmark.

Trump shows little love for the E.U., saying recently that he had a “very bad experience” in which “getting the approvals from Europe was very, very tough.” Trump seemed to be referring to an E.U. ruling against a wall he wanted to build at an Irish golf course he owns because it would endanger protected snails.

Trump has negatively dismissed the 28-member E.U. as a “vehicle for Germany.” European officials and analysts say the Trump administration seems to be trying to rewrite the terms of the U.S.-E.U. alliance in ways that are potentially destabilizing for Europe.

SYRIA

The flow of refugees from Syria, the rest of the Middle East and Africa to Europe does not bother Putin because that flow also further weakens the E.U. and, through that, NATO. That partly explains the continuing heavy involvement of Russia in the Syrian conflict.

Trump’s Syria strategy, as seen by Foreign Policy, would be a “disaster.” The president-elect wants to fight the Islamic State and to cease support to those fighting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The main effect of those policies, however, would be to eliminate the moderate opposition to the Assad regime, empower extremism and create chaos across the Middle East.

EAST EUROPE

The historical Russian preoccupation with border states like Estonia, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria, all of which are showing indications of dissatisfaction with E.U. involvement, is of critical interest to Russia today. One of the causes of that discontent, migration from the Middle East and Africa, is something the Russians would clearly like to foster.

US DOMESTIC

Putin would do everything possible to weaken the United States. He would love to see ethnic and religious divisions in the United States grow. He clearly revels in the dissent that now exists in our political system between Republicans and Democrats.

Given the first few days of his administration, it is clear that Trump wishes to continue the ideological and political divide that has plagued this country for far too long. His recent edicts on Muslims in the U.S. have provoked widespread, divisive demonstrations around the country. His moves in foreign policy have exacerbated the same national divisions.

US INTERNATIONAL

Putin would want to see America to withdraw from the world, particularly from areas like the Middle East where Russia has had unmet goals for centuries. He would do everything possible to see us lose our ability to affect events abroad.

“America First” — we all know that to be a cornerstone of Trump’s overall policy. What it means in terms of our foreign policy is that we will withdraw from the world. No longer will America be a dominant force, politically economically or militarily, in the international arena.

If you agree with Russian policies as reflected here, then there is no problem. If you do not, this administration’s policies are a real cause for worry.

Read Full Post »

Originally appeared in THE RUTLAND HERALD

The situation today in Israel/Palestine (the old British Mandate of Palestine) is dictated almost entirely by history, by demographic reality and by the fact that each of the parties involved seeks to control the entire area at the expense of the other.

Historically, the first documented instance of the name “Israel” dates to the 12th century B.C., although Jews previously had already been living for centuries in what is now Israel/Palestine. During the first two centuries A.D, the Romans expelled most of the Jews from the area and replaced Israel with the Roman province of Palestine. That was the beginning of the Jewish diaspora. After the third century A.D., the area became increasingly Christian. Following the seventh century, it was largely Muslim and remained so until the middle of the 20th century.

On Nov. 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a partition plan for the British Mandate. This plan established borders for new Arab and Jewish states, side by side, and created an area of Jerusalem that was to be administered by the United Nations.

The end of the British Mandate was set for midnight on May 14, 1948. That day, David Ben-Gurion, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared “the establishment of a Jewish state, to be known as the state of Israel.” That proclamation precipitated the departure or expulsion of almost three quarters of a million Palestinian Arabs from Israel, many of them ending up in refugee camps in the surrounding Arab countries. Tens of thousands of them and 1.5 million of their descendants remain in those camps today.

Since 1948, Israel and Palestine have both felt aggrieved. The Israelis feel that they have an historical and moral right to the area by dint of their past ownership in the centuries before Christ. The Palestinians believe that they were expelled from lands that were theirs because of their occupancy of those same lands after the death of Christ. The parties have gone to war over the issue on five occasions since the founding of Israel in 1948 and have seldom lived in any sort of peace.

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine illegal under international law, because the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 prohibits countries from moving their citizens into territories (the Palestinian occupied areas) occupied inawar. The U.N. Security Council, the U.N. General Assembly, the International Red Cross and the International Court of Justice have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies. Israel disagrees, saying the 1967 conflict was not a war.

Since 1948, the United States has vetoed dozens of anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian resolutions in the U.N. Security Council. The first time America has done anything different was when it abstained on the late December 2016 U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction, creating a maelstrom in Israel and inducing endless anti-Obama administration remarks from right-wing Israelis and their American supporters.

Israel has choices. It can occupy all of Israel/Palestine, as some Israeli voices are already recommending, and either expel, or leave the Palestinian Arabs (the numerical majority) as non-voting, non-citizens, thus voluntarily becoming an apartheid state. Or it can create a state that includes Palestinian Arabs (the majority) as voting citizens — voluntarily becoming a non-Jewish state. Finally, if it truly wishes to survive, it can agree to the creation of two separate states, Israel and Palestine.

The demographic realities of Israel/Palestine dictate that, under the current arrangement, in 2025, 48 percent of the future population residing there will be Jewish. That would drop to 46 percent by 2035. The Palestinians are reproducing at a rate far faster than the Israelis.

Absent a two-state solution, if Israel wants to remain democratic, it will be in the minority in its own country. If Israel chooses to remain Jewish, it will have to expel the Palestinians or go to an apartheid system. Neither of these solutions is acceptable. Israel is a democratic Jewish state and is internationally acceptable only as such. Given the reality of demographics, that can only be accomplished through a two-state solution with Israeli and Palestinian states side by side in peace.

Those who argue for the two-state solution, like Secretary of State John Kerry, are the best friends Israel has, whatever Mr. Netanyahu chooses to say. Those who argue against it, whether Israeli or foreign, are Israel’s worst enemies in the long run.

Read Full Post »

 

 

Fifty-one State Department officials have just signed an internal memo protesting U.S. policy in Syria, calling for targeted U.S. military strikes against the regime of Bashar al Assad and urging regime change as the only way to defeat ISIS.

 

The internal memo was sent throughout the “dissent channel” which is defined as “a serious policy channel reserved only for consideration of responsible dissenting and alternative views on substantive foreign policy issues that cannot be communicated in a full and timely manner through regular operating channels and procedures” and “which will not be subjected to reprisal, discipline action or unauthorized disclosure of its use”. It was established in the 1960s during the Vietnam War to ensure that senior leadership in the department would have access to alternative policy views on the war.

 

The views expressed by the U.S. officials in the cable amount to a scalding internal critique of a longstanding U.S. policy against taking sides in the Syrian war.

 

It is safe to say that our incredibly counterproductive military involvement in the Middle East during the past dozen years was a outgrowth of the powerful influence held by neoconservatives in the Bush administration.

 

It is equally safe to say that “liberal interventionist” ideology has played a role in foreign policy under the Obama administration.  Obama’s first Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton is widely described as “hawkish” in her foreign policy views and her administration has always contained liberal interventionists, many of whom have remained there after her departure from State and the arrival of Secretary Kerry.  They still play important roles in the formulation and conduct of foreign policy.

 

However different the origins of liberal interventionism may be from those of neoconservatism, the net result in foreign policy is not that different.  Both ideologies believe in the export of democracy and regime change, policies that have rightly come under attack here and abroad, given the negative results of our recent military activities in the Middle East.

 

So, the question is, are the State department “51” simply a continuation of our old notions of the export of democracy and regime change?

 

In all of this and regardless of the motivation behind the “dissent channel” memorandum, the only important question to be asked is, what would be the result?  That assumes we become more heavily involved militarily against the Assad regime which would be an act of war in itself.  What do we do about al Qaida’s Al Nusra front?  With Iran?  With the Russians? With the Chinese?  With the Saudis?  With the Iraqis?  Who is on our side?  Who is against us?

 

Assuming we can successfully engineer this regime change, whom do we then pick to run the country?  Do we pick the remaining Alawites with their Shia allies in Iraq and Iran?  Do we pick Sunni Syrians with their confessional ties to ISIS and Iraqi Sunnis?  Do we install the military?

 

Irrespective of what we do, how will the competing confessional groups in the broader region react?  How have they already reacted in Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Syria?  Does America really have a dog in this fight?

 

Whomever we pick under these circumstances, we will own the responsibility for the Syria of the future, a Syria that will always be contested by the ethnic and confessional forces that rule and roil the Middle East.

 

It is difficult to determine the precise motivation of these 51 co-signees in favor of military intervention.   However, regardless of that motivation, given our recent history in the region, it seems like a crazy, no-win thing for America to want to do.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »