Not indictable is the new white
The President is not indictable for obstruction of justice because his guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor did the Special Counsel find evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia. President Trump and his fans are touting these claims of his recently appointed Attorney General as proof that media coverage has been biased and even that the investigation itself was illegal. There is far less evidence of either of those claims than the conclusions the Attorney General came to.
Trump’s signal accomplishment in American life is to lower standards in many different spheres. Elected as a member of the political party that always claimed to want to rein in government spending, Trump has accelerated the accumulation of US debt to over $1 trillion per year. His deregulation of many industries amounts to lowering standards for everything from cars and power plants to light bulbs. His refusal to make his tax returns public and his hesitation to fire abusive cabinet members has lowered ethical standards throughout the US government. In the military sphere, the lowering of criteria for the use of drones has led to a marked increase in collateral deaths of civilians, causing the Administration to end announcement of casualty figures.
We should have expected this. Trump did the same in his business and private life. He has notoriously low standards for his treatment of women: he not only brags about his physical abuse of them but pays hush money to conceal his flings. None of his three marriages have been successful. His commercial products and real estate developments are more glitzy than quality. As a casino magnate, he became more expert in bankruptcy than in enterprise. He falsified financial statements to get loans and insurance reimbursements. He used a charitable foundation for his own private purposes. He refused to rent apartments to black people, imported immigrants rather than higher US citizens, and allowed undocumented workers to staff his golf clubs.
In foreign policy, Trump has befriended unreliable dictators and scorned well-tested allies. He withdrew from the Iran deal that imposed tight restrictions on Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and accepted a watered-down version of a denuclearization pledge from North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. Trump has accepted Russian President Putin’s simple denial of interference in the US election over the ample evidence the US intelligence and law enforcement communities have produced. He likewise prefers to believe unsubstantiated Saudi denials of Mohammed bin Salman’s involvement in ordering the murder of Jamal Khashoggi rather than the intelligence community’s conclusions. On climate change, the President prefers the advice of ideologues to that of serious scientists.
The flim-flam extends also to Special Counsel Mueller’s report. Attorney General Barr is stalling on publishing its contents, hoping that the interval will provide enough time and opportunity for him and the White House to convince Americans that their version of the report is accurate. This will certainly work with Republicans, who remain not only loyal but enthusiastic about a president who lies blatantly every day. It won’t work with Democrats, who are determined to rid the country of the flim-flam man as soon as they can. The key question is independent voters: will they tire of this embarrassment, or will they decide we need to do better?
The issue is likely to be decided only on November 3, 2020, when Americans again go to the polls. Impeachment isn’t likely unless some new malfeasance appears on the political horizon. Trump will run again, because once out of office he will be subject to criminal prosecution in New York for his financial abuses. The Democrats will need to produce not only a sterling candidate, but one who can win by more than the 3 million votes Hillary Clinton beat Trump by, because his support is ideally distributed to gain votes in the Electoral College even if he loses the popular vote. The big factor in determining the popular vote margin will be the economy: if it is still expanding, even more slowly, in November next year Trump has far better chances than if, as most economists are anticipating, the economy falls into recession.
In the meanwhile, we’ll need to live with lowered standards. Trump’s 40% support is solid. Non-indictable is the new white.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Neutrality of sorts
The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) hosted a discussion on March 11 about how Pakistan navigates the Saudi Arabia-Iran rivalry, with Alex Vatanka, Senior Fellow at Middle East Institute. He was joined by Ankit Panda, Senior Editor at The Diplomat and Karen Young, Resident Scholar at American Enterprise Institute.
Panda spoke about the competition of Saudi Arabia and Iran in South Asia, mainly in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan has historically sought to play a neutral role in the Saudi-Iranian conflict. It remained neutral in the Saudi-led Decisive Storm campaign against the Houthis in Yemen. The 5000 troops Pakistan sent to Saudi Arabia were intended to protect the Kingdom’s borders, not to get involved in Yemen’s war. In a bid to avoid heightened tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran following the Saudi Arabia’s execution of prominent Shia Sheikh, Nimr Al-Nimr, Pakistan tried to mediate between the two countries. While its neutrality has been successful so far, it will not prevent Pakistan, if forced to pick sides, from supporting Saudi Arabia over Iran, which was unhappy with Pakistan joining the Islamic Military Counterterrorism coalition (MCTC) led by Saudi Arabia.
Looking at the relationship from an economic perspective, Young claims that Saudi Mohammed bin Salman (MBS)’s visit to South Asia targeted mainly India and China, not only Pakistan. In Islamabad, he had two goals:
- to strengthen military relations and build a regional anti-terrorism coalition;
- to gain access to nuclear technology.
Pakistan exports light weapons to Saudi Arabia and benefits from a Saudi loan of $3 billion for oil and gas supplies. More than two million workers from Pakistan and Bangladesh live in Saudi Arabia. Before his visit to Islamabad, Saudi MBS released 200 Pakistani prisoners.
Vatanka gave an overview of Iran’s perspective on the MBS visit to Pakistan. Pakistan’s neutral position since the eighties between Saudi Arabia and Iran is calculated to avoid fighting with the Arabs against Iran. Islamabad does not criticize what Iran is doing in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen or object to its recruitment of fighters from its population, which is 20% Shia. From the Iranian perspective, MBS’s visit entailed animosity towards Iran. But it produced more noise than substantial results. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran can not do much to help Pakistan in terms of arms, money, or foreign policy. Tehran and Islamabad have talked for twenty-five years about their pipeline connection, which is yet to be completed.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Balkans in perspective
I did this interview for Al Jazeera Balkan March 1. How and why they waited until March 19 to publish it I don’t know, but it means I have little recall of what I said. I hope it is still current:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Empowered decentralization
The Brookings Institution held a panel discussion March 12 about a city-based strategy for rebuilding Libya, with Jeffrey Feltman, Fellow in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, Alice Hunt Friend, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Frederic Wehrey, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Karim Mezran, Senior Fellow at the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and Federica Saini Fasanotti, Senior Fellow in the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence. The report outlining the city-based strategy is “Empowered decentralization: A city-based strategy for rebuilding Libya.”
The report recommends focusing the country’s economic, political and security activity on its major cities, with the return of US permanent presence in Libya.
Wehrey asserted that General Khalifa Haftar has gained ground in Libya, extending his control over oil and water sources. In addition, on territory and population still out of his control some armed groups and political actors have declared themselves with him, while other militias are still negotiating. Haftar also provides cash and protection for some towns and municipalities in the south, but clashes among different armed groups still flare up and militias still hold sway in some places. Haftar’s meeting at the end of February in Abu Dhabi with Fayez Al Sarraj (chair of the officially recognized Presidential Council) was an important step forward, but ordinary Libyans are upset with the UAE’s role in deciding their country’s future. Reconciliation among elites is important, but so too is grassroots involvement in the political process.
Mezran emphasized that the main goal of the Libyan revolution is to ensure dignity, freedom, human rights, and a pluralist political system. In most cities, local authorities have handled the security situation. The UN has to understand local dynamics and help to strengthen their work. This work at the local level needs to be inserted in a national framework to create a decentralized state, not establishing merely a state of cities and villages. Just as Libya was supported by the US and the UN to get independence, international guidance is still very much needed today. The US can play a key role in settling the conflict.
Feltman made clear that any agreement among the Libyan elite needs to have grassroots support. The Abu Dhabi meeting was a promising start for a top-down agreement. Long-standing political proposals such as reform of the presidency council, unification of the institutions, setting up a new government, and holding elections were on the table. Polls show that the Libyan people expect to choose their own leaders through elections, but Feltman cautions that elections alone do not create a democracy.
Fassanotti spoke about the tribal and ethnic differences that are still present in Libya. Most of the people reside in big cities, but people in the desert have not changed and desert culture is still influential and widespread. The idea of federalism can be a solution for a democratic Libya in the future. The type of federalism Fassanotti contemplates for Libya is similar to that of Germany and Switzerland, with a strong center able to govern the state. For the time being, a city-based model might be more viable as the state is still in the process of reconstructing itself.
Friend stated that the primary security institution in Libya is the militias, who are extremely variable in their size, shape, power, and territory, along with ideological commitment and economic leverage. Although there is a government-organized security institution, national security provision is lacking. Control over security provision in Libya is thus a major source of political power. General Haftar and the National Libyan Army have consolidated most of the territory but not all of it. Since security is a major issue, decentralization of politics and power remain a challenge. The presence of ISIS, though a minor issue for Libyans, is a major concern for the US that might incentivize more US involvement in Libya in the future.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks March 18-22
1. Women Leading Nonviolent Movements | Friday, March 22, 2019 | 9:30 am – 11:30pm | United States Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20037| Register Here |
Women’s leadership in nonviolent movements creates opportunities for new and diverse tactics and often ensures a diversity of participation, increasing a movement’s power. But, women also face specific challenges, such as balancing their activism with their roles at home and the workplace, their vulnerability to sexual abuse, and challenging perceptions of powerlessness.
To celebrate National Women’s History Month, the U.S. Institute of Peace and the 2020 One Woman, One Vote Festival will host an intergenerational discussion among women nonviolent activists. To strengthen future nonviolent movements, leaders must learn from the past challenges and successes. Women leaders from Libya, Syria, Uganda, Afghanistan, the U.S. and Venezuela will speak from their experiences as activists for social change on the challenges they faced as women and how they organize to overcome them.
This event will be moderated by Marie Berry, University of Denver, Kathleen Kuehnast, Director of Gender Policy and Strategy at the U.S. Institute of Peace, Maria Stephan, Director of Nonviolent Action at the U.S. Institute of Peace
Agenda
speakers:
Scovia Arinaitwe, Team Leader, Rhizing Women Uganda
Palwasha Hassan, Afghan Women’s Educational Center
Mariam Jalabi, Founding Member, Syrian Nonviolence Movement
Zahra’ Langhi, Co-Founder and CEO, Libyan Women’s Platform for Peace
Isabella Picón, Founding Member, LaboCiudadano – Venezuela
Judy Richardson, Producer of “Eyes on the Prize”
2. The Future of Nuclear Arms Control | Wednesday, March 20, 2019 | 12:30 am – 2:00pm | Stimson Center |1211 Connecticut Ave NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20036| Register Here |
The Trump administration and the Kremlin have given notice of intent to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. New START may be next on the chopping block. Even if New START can be extended, what steps might usefully follow? Are numerical constraints still feasible? Stimson is convening a series of brainstorming sessions on our nuclear future and how best to shape it.
Panelists
Ambassador Linton Brooks, Distinguished research fellow at the National Defense
University
Dr. Kristin Ven Bruusgaard, MacArthur Nuclear Security Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.
Dr. Brad Roberts, Director of the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
Heather Hurlburt, Director of the New America Foundation’s New Models of Policy Change project.
Moderator:
Michael Krepon, Co-founder of the Stimson Center.
3. Religious authority in the Middle East: Implications for U.S. policy The Future of Nuclear Arms Control | Tuesday, March 19, 2019 | 12:30 am – 2:00pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace|1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103| Register Here |
In a project supported by the Henry R. Luce Foundation, this study maps religious authority and the channels of influence between religious actors in the region and broader populations using a 12-country public opinion survey throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The survey data provides a snapshot of religious authority in various contexts, supplemented by fieldwork that examines specific mechanisms that build and maintain religious authority.
The Baker Institute Center for the Middle East and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace present a daylong conference during which leading Middle East and North Africa experts discuss the implications of the study’s findings.
Conference Agenda
8:00 – 9:00 a.m.
Registration & Breakfast
9:00 – 9:10 a.m.
Welcome
Sarah Yerkes
9:10 – 9:20 a.m.
Introduction
A.Kadir Yildirim
9:20 – 10:00 a.m.
Keynote Address
Shaun Casey
10:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Panel I: The State, Religious Authority, and Legitimacy
Chair:
Nathan Brown
Panelists:
Courtney Freer, Annelle Sheline, Scott Williamson
11:00 – 11:10 a.m.
Break
11:10 a.m. – 12:25 p.m.
Panel II: Non-state Religious Actors and Authority
Chair:
Sarah Yerkes
Panelists:
Sharan Grewal, Mirjam Künkler, Tarek Masoud, Yusuf Sarfati
12:25 – 1:00 p.m.
Lunch
1:00 – 2:00 p.m.
Keynote Address
Peter Mandaville
2:00 p.m.
Closing Remarks
A.Kadir Yildirim
4. Geopolitics, Energy Security, and the US-Japan Alliance | Wednesday, March 20, 2019 | 11:00 am – 12:30pm | Atlantic Council Headquarters|1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005| Register Here |
Japan’s newest strategic energy plan promises to address long-running domestic structural issues in the context of broader shifts in global trends. If successful, the new strategy will deliver significant improvements in efficiency, emissions, cost, and self-sufficiency by 2030, and again by 2050. However, during a period of rapid change in the Indo-Pacific, how will geopolitical currents shape Japan’s goals, methods, and ultimate outcomes? How will developments in global energy markets and shifting regional security calculations shape Japan’s future? How is Japan going to diversify its portfolio, both in terms of suppliers and sources, to meet its enhanced demands for energy security? Given that Japan still relies heavily on the Middle East, what role can US-Japan cooperation play? Ultimately, how do these all of these questions fit into the broader strategic picture taking shape in the region?
Agenda
Speakers:
Prof. Jun Arima, Professor of Energy & Environmental Policy
Mr. Shoichi Itoh, Manager and Senior Analyst
Ms. Jane Nakano, Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program
Mr. Alan Yu, Senior Fellow and Director, International Climate Policy
Moderator
Dr. Miyeon Oh, Director and Senior Fellow, Asia Security Initiative
5. The aftermath of president Bolsonaro’s visit to Washington and prospect of economic reform| Wednesday, March 20, 2019 | 2:30 am – 5:00pm | The Wilson Center |1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027 | Register Here |
President Jair Bolsonaro will make his first official visit to Washington as president from March 17-19, as the government looks to fulfill its promise of strengthening relations with the United States. Yet the most promising area of bilateral dialogue—economic and commercial relations, including greater U.S. investment in Brazil—will depend heavily on the new government’s capacity to deliver much-needed reforms at home, particularly the approval of meaningful pension reform in the Brazilian National Congress. Talk of a looming China-U.S. trade rapprochement could also create challenges during the presidential visit, not only for the new Brazilian government’s pro-Western agenda, but also because Brazil emerged as one of the largest beneficiaries of the China-U.S. trade dispute.
AGENDA
Panel I: The View from the IMF: Boom, Bust, and the Road to Recovery in Brazil
Antonio Spilimbergo, Assistant Director, Western Hemisphere Department at the IMF and Mission Chief for Brazil
Krishna Srinivasan, Deputy Director, Western Hemisphere Department at the IMF
Moderator: Anna Prusa, Associate, Brazil Institute
Panel II: Assessment of President Bolsonaro’s Visit to Washington and the Political Environment Back Home
Roberto Simon, Senior Director of Policy, Council of the Americas
Nicholas Zimmerman, Consultant, Macro Advisory Partners
Thiago de Aragão, Partner and Director of Intelligence, Arko Advice
Mauricio Moura, Founder and CEO, IDEIA Big Data
Moderator: Paulo Sotero, Director, Brazil Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Enabler in chief
Here is President Trump, on the day a white supremacist killed at least 49 Muslims in New Zealand, denying that right-wing extremism is a serious threat:
This is appalling. Right-wing extremism is responsible for 73% of the terrorist murders in the US over the past decade and for all 50 of them in 2018. This, not the women and children exercising their legal rights by seeking asylum at the southern border, is a crisis worthy of presidential attention.
Why does Trump refuse to acknowledge right-wing extremism as a threat? Odds are he regards white supremacists as among his strongest supporters. The New Zealand shooter was unequivocal. Calling immigrants “invaders” as the President does, the shooter said he supports Trump as ” a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.” In his pro forma denunciation of the attack, Trump said nothing to disown this avowal, or to denounce the white identity politics that motivate it.
New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern justifiably needled Trump about this on a phone call, telling the President the US could provide support by joining her message of “sympathy and love for all Muslim communities.” Trump has certainly not done that and never will. He advocated a ban on Muslims entering the US and only gave up on it when the Supreme Court told him he had to:
Even today, his travel ban is preventing people from some Muslim countries from entering the US.
Let’s also recall Trump’s reaction to the Fascist-inspired white supremacists demonstrating in Charlottesville against Jews in August 2017:
The simple fact is that we’ve got a racist, Islamophobe president who sees nothing wrong with white supremacy and right-wing extremism. His close relationships with Jewish lawyers and his Jewish son-in-law have done nothing to reduce Trump’s sympathy with extremists. Contact with Jews is not necessarily a hindrance to anti-Semitism: one of Mussolini’s favorite mistresses was Jewish.
Trump is enabling extremism. This will no doubt lead to further death and destruction. Stay tuned for much worse.
RSS - Posts
