Month: September 2021
Stevenson’s army, September 29
– WaPo has a bunch of pieces on the DOD testimony to the SASC on Tuesday. Here’s a link to the statements and hearing.
– Fred Kaplan analyzes the session.
– Politico notes questions being raised about AUKUS.
– More on Turkey’s defiance of US.
– Fiona Hill has new article in Foreign Affairs.
Politico Pro has this on solar tariffs:
SOLAR TARIFF PETITION GIVES BIDEN A CATCH-22: The Commerce Department must decide by Wednesday whether it will open an anti-circumvention investigation that could result in tariffs on solar panels from Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand.
The three nations are responsible for more than three-quarters of solar imports to the U.S. But American panel manufacturers say they only have that status because other importers reroute their solar components through those nations, in order to avoid anti-dumping and countervailing duties on China that have been in place since the Obama administration.
A third of solar projects at risk: If Commerce decides to extend the duties to the three Asian countries, solar project developers in the U.S. say it will force them to renegotiate prices or abandon projects altogether — hampering Biden’s goal to eliminate carbon emissions from electricity production by 2035. If the new duties on panels are approved, developers say, they could slash the rollout of solar projects in the U.S. by nearly a third over the next two years.
The new tariffs would be “absolute industry killers,” warned Ben Catt, CEO of Pine Gate Renewables, a North Carolina-based solar project developer. “If you were to put those tariffs on any of the projects we are doing right now, I just think the pricing structure gets thrown out the window.”
Climate “outside the scope”: Supporters of the tariff petition say that’s beside the point. If Commerce finds that importers are avoiding duties by rerouting their solar panels through the Southeast Asian nations, then by law the department must impose duties. Other concerns, like climate change, are “outside the scope of the case,” said Tim Brightbill, an international trade partner at Wiley Rein LLP, who is representing the petitioners.
Myriad trade issues: The tariff petition is just one of many trade challenges bedeviling the American solar sector. The Biden administration is also weighing whether to extend “Section 201” emergency safeguard duties that former President Donald Trump imposed on solar products from China, Taiwan and certain other suppliers in 2018. Those are currently set to expire in February, but petitioners want them renewed for four more years.
The administration is also considering new trade restrictions on solar panels and parts from the Xinjiang region, the center of human rights abuses in China that the U.S. has labelled a genocide. And American solar installers are also struggling with higher commodity prices and supply chain issues that are rippling through the economy.
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:
Reciprocity is right, and making it stick is vital
Kosovo in recent days has imposed on cars coming from Serbia a requirement to use Kosovo license plates. This mirrors a Serbian requirement that cars coming from Kosovo use Serbian plates. Serb residents of northern Kosovo are protesting by blocking roads. Kosovo police have so far not cleared them.
Reciprocity is correct from the Pristina perspective. It is a basic principle of relations between sovereign states. That is also precisely why Serbia rejects it. Belgrade regards Kosovo as Serbian sovereign territory. Reciprocity is not a principle that governs relations between a sovereign and part of its own territory, even if that part has its own goverrnment, police, and in this case security forces.
From my perspective, Kosovo is a sovereign state: its declaration of independence breached no international law, Serbia has recognized the validity of Kosovo’s constitution on its entire territory, and it has its own democratically validated parliament, prime minister, and president. Serbia does not contest this and claims the territory but not 90% of the people. But if Kosovo Albanians are not citizens of Serbia, then they must be citizens of something else, which is the Republic of Kosovo for all practical and legal purposes.
So demanding reciprocity is consistent with Kosovo’s sovereignty, but that doesn’t mean applying that principle to license plates is smart. Once you do that, you need to anticipate what Belgrade will do in response, like blocking the roads. If you can leave them blocked without any serious economic harm, or if you can clear them without creating a mess, you could come out on top, but only if Belgrade yields. You have to also think about what else Belgrade might do next: create trouble in the Serb communities south of Ibar, complain to the European Union and the Americans, or make a show of military force on its side of the border, which is what it has done in addition to the complaints. It doesn’t suffice to be right about reciprocity; you have to make it stick.
There are other areas where the principle of reciprocity might be invoked, perhaps with greater effect. Certainly Kosovo should ask of Serbia, which wants an Association of Serb-majority Municipalities in Kosovo, an Association of Albanian-majority municipalities in Serbia, with equivalent functions and powers. It could also ask for guaranteed Albanian seats in Serbia’s parliament, as 10 seats in Kosovo’s are reserved to Serbs. It was a mistake not to insist that the Specialist Chambers now prosecuting Kosovo Liberation Army leaders in The Hague also be able to prosecute crimes committed on the territory of Serbia, not just Kosovo.
But to do these things successfully, Pristina needs to line up unequivocal international support in Washington and Brussels. Both have instead adopted an attitude of impartiality. This is a mistake. Serbia is no long “sitting on two stools.” It has committed itself to Russia and China, which have reciprocated with arms and investment. The EU and US need to open their eyes and realize that the current geopolitical competition requires a much firmer commitment to pro-Western forces throughout the Balkans, not only in Kosovo but also in Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
President Biden, who has expressed unequivocal support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the countries of the Balkans, needs now to put his thumb of the scale in favor of democracy throughout the region. That will mean favoring some over others, rather than retreating to a “Europe whole and free” mantra that was appropriate for the unipolar moment but now faces concerted Russian troublemaking and Chinese influence-peddling throughout the continent. Serbia has made itself handmaiden to those efforts.
Kosovo is America’s most loyal friend in the region. It is time for Washington to recognize it as a strategic partner in countering Russian and Chinese influence and to support unequivocally its sovereign equality with Serbia. With that support, reciprocity will stick.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 27
I’ve been traveling and negligent about publishing Charlie’s daily take, but I’ll try to do better this week:
– Erdogan defends military purchases from Russia.
– Chinese unsettled by hostage release deal.
-US Supreme Court sees sharp drop in favorability.
– WSJ says US failed to build sustainable economy in Afghanistan.
– WaPo explains failure of Afghan security forces.
– Guardian profiles Jake Sullivan.
And while this is not a prediction, Steven Dennis of Bloomberg describes the way legislative fights often work out:
“How deals sometimes come together in Congress
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES TO BUDGET MODS IMMEDIATELY DIS NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES TO FRAMEWORK NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES”
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, September 22
– House takes up the NDAA today. Here’s the rule governing time and amendments.
– RollCall says congressional budgets flat but demand for services rising. Here’s the CMF study cited in article.
– FP says State plans big expansion of its “China desk.”
-As some argued in class, Time says Macron anger helps his reelection candidacy.
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, September 21
Charlie says this is a PM edition, but I didn’t get the AM. Sorry about that:
Dan Drezner has more about AUKUS, including how France had done to Japan, what the US has now done to France.
Profs Barno & Bensahel says the AVF [All Volunteer Force] needs to rethink.
Air Force secretary reveals info about new B21 and raises doubts about hypersonics.
SCMP sees big drop in Chinese FDI in US
WaPo lists areas of US-Chinese tech competition.
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:
The angel sings, but the devils are in the details
President Biden today gave his first speech to the United Nations outlining his foreign policy priorities and approach more clearly than he has so far. He aimed to restore trust in American leadership, not only in the aftermath of the Trump Administration but also in the wake of the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and controversy surrounding the deal to sell nuclear submarines to Australia that shocked and annoyed France.
The priorities were strikingly different from Trump’s:
- Ending the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Slowing climate change
- Encouraging respect for human rights
- Rebalancing geopolitcs
- A level playing field for trade
- Ensuring benefits, and limiting harm, from technology
- Countering terrorism
The first three items would not have appeared on any Trump Administration list. Numbers 4-7 would have, but with a distinctly America First (i.e. alone) spin.
Biden’s means are at least as different from Trump’s as his priorities. He favors diplomacy over war, multilateralism over unilateralism, and the power of America’s example at home over American intervention abroad.
In my book, this is all well and good, but then come the difficulties in applying these methods to actual issues. Encouraging booster shots to Americans is likely not the best way to end the COVID-19 epidemic, but exporting vaccines to poor countries exposes the Administration to criticism, so Biden is trying to split the difference by doing both. Slowing climate change is a grand idea, but can Biden get the legislation through Congress to meet his own goals for limits on American production of greenhouse gases. Encouraging respect for human rights is fine, but what do you do about Saudi Arabia, whose Crown Prince is thought culpable for the murder of a US-based journalist? Rebalancing geopolitics is fine, but what if selling nuclear submarines to Australia requires you to blind-side and offend your longest-standing ally?
And so on: a level playing field for trade is hard to achieve when a major competitor is using prison (or slave) labor to produce manufactured good. Responding to state-sponsored cyber attacks is proving a particularly difficult challenge. Facial-recognition technology, with all its defects, is spreading rapidly around the world even though it is prone to misidentification and other abuses. You may prefer a less military approach to counter-terrorism, but if there is a successful mass casualty attack in the US the military response will be dramatic. Never mind that 20 years of military responses have not been effective and have killed a lot of innocent non-combatants.
As for methods, there too there are problems. The State Department is a notoriously weak diplomatic instrument. Can it carry the weight of additional responsibilities? Diplomacy may be preferable to prevent Iran and North Korea from getting a nuclear weapons, but will Tehran agree? A two-state solution would be best, but how can we get there from here? Multilateralism is often preferable, but not always possible. One of my mentors used to quote President Carter (I think) saying multilaterally where we can, unilaterally when we must. But that judgment is not a simple one. America should be a shining “city on the hill,” as President Reagan hoped, but what then about the January 6 insurrection and the anti-voting legislation in more than two dozen states?
Biden’s angel sang well this morning at the UN. But the devils are in the details. It isn’t going to be easy to get those right in a divided country and a competitive, if not downright chaotic, global environment.
RSS - Posts
