Category: Nicolas Reeves
Dialogue, restricted speech, or infiltration?
A former terrorist and the NYPD officer responsible for his arrest spoke at CSIS Monday about strategies for countering violent extremism in today’s world. The Unmaking of Jihadism: The Current Effort to Combat Violent Extremism featured:
- Jesse Morton: Leader of Parallel Networks, former leader and co-founder of Revolution Muslim
- Mitch Silber: Former Director of Intelligence Analysis for the New York City Police Department
- Seth G. Jones: Harold Brown Chair and Director of the Transnational Threats Project at CSIS (Moderator).
Morton and Silber worked on opposite sides of the extremism/CVE divide. Morton said that his traumatic upbringing spawned resentment towards his family and the working class town he grew up in, and that radical Salafi Islam became the outlet through which he expressed this acrimony. The Salafi movement also gave him a community. Morton co-founded Revolution Muslim with his friend Youssef Al-Khattab, a fellow convert to Islam. Abdullah Al-Faisal, a Jamaican cleric who encouraged the killing of Americans, Jews, Hindus, and Christians in his teaching, became Revolution Muslim’s spiritual leader.
Revolution Muslim pioneered the use of Web 2.0 platforms to radicalize individuals without forcing them to travel to terrorist hotbeds around the world. This tactic, which has become a popular recruiting tool for ISIS, involves using social media video lectures to teach large audiences to teach about the militant brand of Salafism. Interested individuals are then contacted by group leaders through end-to-end encrypted messaging services such as Telegram. Morton stressed that Revolution Muslim’s success in evading US law enforcement came through its recognition that the Salafi ideology itself was powerful enough to radicalize individuals without Revolution Muslim having to specifically endorse violent extremism. The group thus remained within its First Amendment rights even though 15-20 terrorist plotters around the world traced their roots back to Revolution Muslim.
Silber furthered Morton’s point, emphasizing that the reason why Revolution Muslim survived in the US for four years was Morton’s exquisite knowledge of First Amendment case law. Morton “frequently danced on the First Amendment line” in his public statements, preventing the authorities from arresting him. Further, Revolution Muslim moved away from the top-down hierarchical approach espoused by Al-Qaeda, allowing individuals around the world to plan and execute their own plots. According to Silber, these factors revolutionized recruiting for terrorist groups around the world. Even Al-Qaeda began publishing an English-language magazine in 2010 that included articles such as “How to make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom.” The Islamic State takes this approach even further. In addition to publishing an English version of Dabiq, ISIS fully embraced Revolution Muslim’s decentralized, web-based strategy, allowing its ideology to continue spreading on the internet even as its territorial caliphate in Iraq and Syria has weakened.
It should come as no surprise that ISIS is in the midst of a resurgence in Iraq, despite Prime Minister Al-Abadi’s declaration of victory over the caliphate last December. Morton stressed that the ideologies associated with extremism always outlive the groups that embody them in a particular time period. ISIS technological prowess also allows it to shift from leaderless resistance back to a command/cadre model at any time, enabling the organization to regroup quickly despite frequent military defeats in recent years. According to Silber, ISIS’ fluidity poses a threat particularly for Europe. For instance, 370 Austrians have traveled to Syria and Iraq since ISIS’ establishment, some of whom have returned to Europe. Further, the threat of other terror organizations cannot be discounted, particularly as Al-Qaeda has reemerged as a “moderate” alternative for terrorists turned off by ISIS’ extreme brutality.
For future US counter-terrorism strategy to be effective, Morton believes that more attention must be paid to the internet’s power to sustain extremist ideologies. He does not believe, however, that restricting free speech on social media platforms is the solution. Social media represents a great outlet for people to voice their opinions, and more should be done to encourage dialogue between people with different views to foster the mutual understanding required to bring people from the poles to the center. To this end, Morton stressed that Islamist extremists and the far right need each other, since both ideologies rely on demonization of the other to survive.
Silber disagreed, arguing that updating social media terms of use agreements to restrict certain types of speech would significantly support CVE efforts. Further, Silber highlighted the valuable role human intelligence played in infiltrating Revolution Muslim and documenting its activities. For Silber, training local officers who possess the technical and linguistic ability to penetrate extremists’ digital networks is the model for the future.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks July 23 – 29
1. The Unmaking of Jihadism: The Current Effort to Combat Violent Extremism | Monday, July 23, 2018 | 11:00 am – 12:00 pm | CSIS | Register Here
Please join Mitch Silber (former Director of Intelligence Analysis for the New York City Police Department), Jesse Morton (the former leader and co-founder of Revolution Muslim for which he served time in prison), and Seth G. Jones (Harold Brown Chair and Director of the Transnational Threats Project at CSIS), as they discuss the ongoing effort to counter violent extremism in the United States and abroad. The discussion will surround the issues of returning foreign fighters, counter messaging, post-prison re-integration, and other efforts related to countering violent extremism. Jesse Morton and Mitch Silber now co-direct a Virginia-based nonprofit, named Parallel Networks, that focuses on the rehabilitation of radicalized individuals.
2. Verifying North Korean Denuclearization: Where Do We Go from Here? | Monday, July 23, 2018 | 1:30 pm – 4:45 pm | CSIS | Register Here
More than one month after the Singapore Summit, little headway has been made on denuclearization of North Korea. Many attribute the slow progress to disparate definitions of denuclearization on the part of the United States and North Korea. This conference brings together regional and technical experts to take stock of where we are on the four elements of the Singapore Summit and to examine the following questions: Why do the United States and North Korea have different definitions of denuclearization? Is CVID feasible? What are the appropriate standards for a verification protocol for North Korea’s denuclearization? What should be our goals in a denuclearization agreement? What are we willing to sacrifice in return? What does the road ahead look like?
WELCOMING REMARKS
Mr. H. Andrew Schwartz, Chief Communications Officer, CSIS
OPENING REMARKS
Dr. John Hamre, President and CEO, CSIS
SESSION I: Verification Standards for North Korean Denuclearization
Mr. Stephen Pomper, Program Director, United States, International Crisis Group
Ms. Rebecca Hersman, Director, Project on Nuclear Issues and Senior Adviser, International Security Program, CSIS
Mr. Richard Johnson, Senior Director Fuel Cycle and Verification, Nuclear Threat Initiative
Mr. William Tobey, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
SESSION II: Taking Stock: Where Do We Go from Here?
Mr. David Nakamura, Staff Writer, The Washington Post
Mr. Christopher Green, Senior Adviser, Korean Peninsula, International Crisis Group
General (Ret.) Walter “Skip” Sharp, Former Commander, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/United States Forces Korea
Dr. Sue Mi Terry, Senior Fellow, Korea Chair, CSIS
3. What to Expect from Pakistan’s Election? | Tuesday, July 24, 2018 | 10:30 am – 12:30 pm | The Wilson Center | Register Here
On July 25, Pakistan will hold an election that will constitute the country’s second consecutive peaceful transfer of power. The incumbent Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party, hit by corruption charges that have resulted in a 10-year jail sentence for former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, will try to fend off several opponents. They are led by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, headed by cricket star-turned-politician Imran Khan. What might recent Pakistani political developments—including Sharif’s sentencing, dozens of parliamentarians changing their political affiliations, and the emergence of several new religious political parties—portend for the election outcome? What role, if any, might Pakistan’s powerful military be playing in the election? What implications might the election’s possible outcomes have for the United States? This event will address these questions and more.
Speakers:
Mariam Mufti, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Waterloo (Canada)
Sahar Khan, Visiting Research Fellow, CATO Institute
Tamanna Salikuddin, Senior Expert, U.S. Institute of Peace, and Former Pakistan and Afghanistan Director, U.S. National Security Council
4. The Military-Industrial Component of the U.S.-India Partnership | Tuesday, July 24, 2018 | 12:15 pm – 2:00 pm | The Stimson Center | Register Here
Please join the Stimson South Asia program for a conversation with Air Marshal M. Matheswaran, the former Deputy Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff in the Indian Ministry of Defence, who will talk about the military-industrial component of the U.S.-India partnership. Joanna Spear, Associate Professor of International Affairs at the Elliott School, and Benjamin Schwartz, Head of the Aerospace and Defense Program at the U.S.-India Business Council, will serve as discussants. Sameer Lalwani of the Stimson Center will moderate.
5. Eighth Annual South China Sea Conference | Thursday, July 26, 2018 | 9:00 am – 4:45 pm | CSIS | Register Here
This full-day conference will provide opportunities for in-depth discussion and analysis of developments in the South China Sea over the past year and potential paths forward. The event will feature speakers from throughout the region, including claimant countries. Panels will address recent developments, legal and environmental issues, the strategic balance, and U.S. policy.
9:00 am: Morning Keynote
Representative Ted Yoho, Chair, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific Committee on Foreign Affairs
United States House of Representatives
9:45 am: Panel: State of Play in the South China Sea over the Past Year
Bill Hayton, Associate Fellow, Asia-Pacific Programme
Chatham House
Colin Willett, Asia Section Research Manager
Congressional Research Service
Sumathy Permal, Fellow and Head of Centre for Straits of Malacca
Maritime Institute of Malaysia
Feng Zhang, Fellow, Department of International Relations
ANU College of Asia and the Pacific
Moderator:
Amy Searight, Senior Adviser and Director, Southeast Asia Program
Center for Strategic and International Studies
11:15 am: Panel: Dispute Resolution in the South China Sea and Beyond
Commodore Lalit Kapur (Retired), Senior Fellow
Delhi Policy Group
Charles I-hsin Chen, Visiting Senior Fellow
Institute for Taiwan-America Studies
Bec Strating, Lecturer
La Trobe University
Thanh Hai Do, Senior Fellow
Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam
Moderator:
Gregory Poling, Director, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative; and Fellow, Southeast Asia Program
Center for Strategic and International Studies
12:30 pm: Lunch Served
1:15 pm: Lunch Keynote
The Honorable Randall G. Schriver, Assistant Secretary for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs
United States Department of Defense
2:00 pm: Panel: Environmental Issues in the South China Sea
Vo Si Tuan, Senior Scientist
Institute of Oceanography, Nha Trang
Carmen Ablan Lagman, Professor
De La Salle University
Rashid Sumaila, Director, Fisheries Economics Research Unit
University of British Columbia
Moderator:
Brian Harding, Deputy Director and Fellow, Southeast Asia Program
Center for Strategic and International Studies
3:30 pm: Panel: The Military Balance in the South China Sea
Collin Koh Swee Lean, Research Fellow, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
Nanyang Technological University
Hideshi Tokuchi, Distinguished Non-Resident Fellow
Sasakawa Peace Foundation USA
Richard Heydarian, Fellow
ADR-Stratbase Institute
Bonnie Glaser, Senior Advisor and Director, China Power Project
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Moderator:
Andrew Shearer, Senior Adviser on Asia Pacific Security and Director, Alliances and American Leadership Project
Center for Strategic and International Studies
6. Identifying – and Isolating – Jihadi-Salafists through their Ideology, Practices, and Methodology | Thursday, July 26, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm | The Heritage Foundation | Register Here
In order to win the war against the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, the United States must understand the enemy. Yet the problem of knowing the enemy has never been more acute, and the lack of consensus around this issue has never been more debilitating, for American foreign policy.
Without a clear vision of who the U.S. is fighting, the government and military will not be able to distinguish ordinary Muslims from the extraordinary extremists, will be incapable of devising effective strategies for military and political efforts, and will not know which allies can be safe partners and which need to be avoided for being too close to the extremists. While there are many reasons for a lack of understanding the enemy, one of the most important is a deep disagreement about the role that Islam plays in motivating al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
This event will explore the notion that while a marginal version of Islam is the driver of extremism, it is possible to distinguish the jihadi-salafists from the majority of Muslims. A close examination of the jihadi- salafists’ belief system and methodologies will help the U.S. and allied governments formulate strategies to stop their spread.
Speakers:
Dr. Mary Habeck, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Georgetown University, and American University
Zainab Al-Suwaij, Executive Director, American Islamic Congress
Moderator:
Robin Simcox, Margaret Thatcher Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
7. Faith and Fragile States: Political Stability and Religious Freedom | Friday, July 27, 2018 | 11:00 am – 2:30 pm | USIP | Register Here
Religion influences both peace and conflict worldwide. Violent extremism is often framed in religious terms, and religious discrimination continues to increase as both a driver and symptom of conflict. But, religion drives peace and coexistence as well and religious actors are essential for advancing religious freedom. Efforts to engage religious actors in countering violent extremism (CVE) and interfaith peacebuilding must take this dichotomy into account. Join the International Republican Institute, Search for Common Ground, and the U.S. Institute of Peace on July 27 for two panel discussions that explore the nexus of international religious freedom, CVE, and interfaith peacebuilding.
Opening Remarks
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Former U.S. Representative from Virginia
Tony Garrastazu, Senior Director, Center for Global Impact, International Republican Institute
Panel 1: Religious Engagement in CVE
Shaykh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, President, Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies
Humera Khan, President, Muflehun
Moderator: Nancy Lindborg, President, U.S. Institute of Peace
Panel 2: Interfaith Peacebuilding
Cardinal Onaiyekan, Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria
Mike Jobbins, Senior Director of Partnerships and Engagements, Search for Common Ground
Susan Hayward, Senior Advisor, Religion and Inclusive Societies, U.S. Institute of Peace
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The elephant in the room
Tuesday, Carl Gershman (President, National Endowment for Democracy (NED)), Andrew Wilson (Executive Director, Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE)), Daniel Twining (President, International Republican Institute (IRI)), Kenneth Wollack (President, National Democratic Institute (NDI)), and Shawna Bader-Blau (Executive Director, Solidarity Center) convened at CSIS to discuss “Promoting Democracy in Challenging Times.” Daniel Runde (Senior Vice President; William A. Schreyer Chair and Director, Project on Prosperity and Development, CSIS) moderated the panel.
In recent years, the world has experienced a democratic recession. Civil societies have suffered amidst authoritarian resurgences in countries that previously displayed shifts towards democracy. Established democracies have also endured setbacks amidst populist groundswells that enabled the rise of authoritarian-friendly leaders like Trump. From the outset, Runde made it clear that Trump’s recent cozying up to totalitarian leaders would not feature prominently in the discussion, imploring the panelists to “tell him something they are optimistic about” in their democracy promotion work.
With this in mind, Gershman opened by pointing out that NED was founded in the midst of Huntington’s third wave of democratization in the 1980’s. In this sense, the democratic backsliding of the last 12 years should be seen less as a permanent phenomenon and more as a temporary setback. Despite this challenging environment for democracy promotion, however, Gershman highlighted that NED enjoys unprecedented bipartisan congressional support. Abroad, recent democratic gains in The Gambia, Colombia, Malaysia, Armenia, and Tunisia reveal that democracy remains an appealing option worldwide. Gershman reminded the audience to never underestimate the power of the people, pointing to the January protests in Iran as evidence that citizens there are tired of their country’s “failed system.”
Bader-Blau said her organization’s efforts to stand in solidarity with workers around the world recently convinced the ILO to enshrine freedom from harassment at work as a human right. The Solidarity Center’s efforts have also led to the unionization of 200,000 garment workers in Bangladesh. Wilson highlighted CIPE’s recent progress in Bangladesh. The creation of the Bangladesh Women’s Chamber of Commerce with CIPE’s help allowed 10,000 women in that country to receive loans to start or expand their businesses. CIPE’s work has also encouraged international corporations to look beyond profits and place more importance on their role in society, particularly in the developing world.
For Twining, a major source of optimism lies in IRI’s work to strengthen governments in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and the Balkans. Beyond addressing the institutional vacuums that foment violent extremism, Twining revealed that this work also strengthens societies to prevent destabilizing refugee flows from occurring. Twining also emphasized IRI’s positive influence in Europe, where its efforts to expose foreign influence in domestic politics are helping to curb Russian disinformation campaigns in the region.
Wollack also chose to focus on the Middle East, highlighting positive developments in Jordan, Morocco, Lebanon, and Tunisia. For him, reforms among these Middle Eastern “liberalizers, reformers, and transformers” continually prove that they can handle economic and political problems better than autocrats. Another source of optimism is the fact that NED and its affiliates exist today, in contrast to 35 years ago, when no funds for democracy promotion existed in OECD countries.
The five panelists agreed that the work of democracy promotion matters because people, if given a realistic choice, will choose this system of government because they want to be free. After all, this is the premise upon which the NED and its four affiliates were founded during the Cold War. However, what happens when that choice is eroding in the United States, the country historically seen as the beacon of democracy?
The erosion of democratic norms in America has turned what Gershman described as a recession into a democratic crisis that severely erodes the credibility of the NED family of organizations abroad. President Trump counters and corrupts the efforts of NED and its affiliates every day, both outside and inside the United States. IRI’s efforts to counter Russian disinformation campaigns are undermined when the president attacks the free press. Things could get worse if Putin begins using force to pick off countries at the periphery of NATO with the confidence that mutual defense has become obsolete. Further, Trump’s performance in Helsinki raises the question of whether the US president has been co-opted by the very country that threatens these nations.
Wollack revealed that NDI was founded based on the principle that “if democratic politics fail, the entire democratic system is put in jeopardy.” This rings true today, though in a way that NDI’s founders would probably never have imagined. The democratic system’s legitimacy is threatened by our president, the elephant in the room. The NED organizations do not have the authority to act here at home, but an intervention is badly needed. Let’s hope that it comes through the power of the people this November.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Coup failure and civilian control
The SETA Foundation convened a panel yesterday discussing how the July 15, 2016 coup attempt has affected civil-military relations in Turkey. Panelists were:
- Sener Akturk, Associate Professor, Koç University Department of International Relations
- Edward Erickson, Scholar-in-Residence in the Clark Center for Global Engagement, State University of New York at Cortland
- Mark Perry, Author and Foreign Policy Analyst.
Kadir Ustun (Executive Director, The SETA Foundation at Washington DC) moderated the conversation.
Ustun underlined that the events of July 2016 were an attack on Turkey’s democracy. Erdogan’s leadership in the coup’s aftermath allowed the Turkish people to “reclaim their democratic institutions.” Akturk furthered this point, claiming that Turkey actually faced two assaults on its democracy, one from the “bolshevik” PKK in July 2015 and the other from Fethullah Gulen’s “Messianic cult” in July 2016.
Erdogan’s reforms, Akturk said, posed an existential threat to each group by eroding the credibility of their grievances with Turkish society. The creation of a government-sponsored Kurdish TV channel in 2009 significantly reduced the PKK claim that Erdogan marginalized the Kurds. The lifting of the headscarf ban for public employees in 2013 eroded the Gulen Movement’s argument that the government limited religious freedom of expression.
As a result, both groups resorted to violence to achieve their political objectives. Akturk emphasized that these groups, not Erdogan, represent the real threat to Turkey’s democracy. While Erdogan championed Morsi’s democratically-elected government in Egypt, Gulenists encouraged the coup that brought it down in 2013. Further, the PKK’s constitution reveals its Bolshevik-leaning tendencies, while the governing style of its Syrian affiliate, the PYD, betrays the PKK’s preference for totalitarianism.
Akturk also remarked that the attempted coup shifted the Turkish civilian-military balance firmly in favor of civilian oversight over the military. As a result of the coup attempt, the military became subordinate to civilian rule, forcing the Turkish armed forces to delink themselves from politics and occupy themselves only with fighting. Finally, Akturk revealed that any doubts surrounding Turkey’s military capability following Erdogan’s dismissal of 42% of its commanders after the coup were swiftly silenced with the success of Operation Euphrates Shield in the Fall of 2015.
Erickson argued that the coup failed because of a generational change in the military. The staunch Kemalists who held the office of Chief of the General Staff during Turkey’s coup-riddled 20th century had largely been replaced by younger officers by 2016. Many of these officers received their educations abroad or had served on NATO assignments, exposing them to the view that the military should not interfere with domestic politics. Further, many had witnessed the aftermath of the 1980 coup, which resulted in over 600,000 arrests. As a result, the coup failed. Instead of siding with the plotters, the Chief of the General Staff in 2016, Hulusi Akar, sided with Erdogan.
The significance of the coup for Turkey’s democracy, Erickson argued, is that it brought about Turkey’s second republic, which began with the adoption of the presidential system this year. Importantly, the presidential system brought about one of Samuel Huntington’s key elements of a functioning democracy: civilian control over the military. In Erickson’s view, while Turkey’s politics may swing towards authoritarianism in the short term under Erdogan, the establishment of the military as a force used purely for fighting represents a gain that will strengthen Turkey’s democracy in the long term.
In his remarks, Perry cautioned against using American standards to measure the legitimacy of Turkey’s military, and to instead appreciate that Turkey’s establishing civilian control over the military is a huge accomplishment. Perry claimed that Hulusi Akar’s decision to side with Erdogan during the coup reveals that “Turkey does not need coups anymore.” But the Turkish military still has a long way to go before it is viewed as a legitimate institution by all Turks. So long as not all elements of Turkish society feel represented by the Turkish armed forces, some Turks will continue to struggle to see it as a legitimate implementer of Turkish national interests abroad.
Caveat emptor: All of the panelists agreed that the failure of the attempted coup strengthened Turkey’s democracy by paving the way to firmer civilian control of the military. The panelists, however, chose to gloss over the reality that these gains will likely only become visible after Erdogan and his authoritarian agenda leave office.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Rebooting globalization
The American Enterprise Institute yesterday hosted a panel discussion entitled “Rethinking Globalization: How do we Rebuild Support?” to kickstart a joint project by AEI and Brookings about “Reconceptualizing Globalization.” The panelists were Jared Bernstein (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities), Daniel Drezner (Tufts University), Stephen Hadley (RiceHadleyGates), and Merit Janow (Columbia University). Neena Shenai (AEI) and Joshua Meltzer (Brookings) moderated the discussion.
Shenai highlighted the timeliness of the initiative and stressed the critical importance of understanding globalization’s flaws, which have led to the populist discontent that precipitated the rise of Trump and other leaders whose rhetoric and trade policies threaten the institutional foundations of the post- World War II international order. Shenai asked each of the panelists to identify key factors that have led to the current hostility towards globalization and to propose possible solutions to the issue.
Bernstein began by pointing out that the benefits of comparative advantage-based trade are such that the winners can compensate the losers and still come out ahead. But political realities in the US mean that this does not occur. Instead, the benefits of trade accrue to corporate leaders, who use their political capital to negotiate trade agreements that are advantageous to them, and not necessarily their workers. Thus, the benefits of globalization, a positive sum game, have remained with elites, causing widespread dissatisfaction among the working class, many of whom lose their livelihoods due to trade-associated job destruction.
Further, Bernstein pointed out that wages increased with productivity from the 1940’s until the 1980’s. Since then, wages have stagnated, even as productivity continued to increase. The globalization backlash arises from workers not being fairly compensated for the gains from trade. Globalization needs to be reset in favor of the worker. US workers should be better represented in trade negotiations, and US policymakers should give domestic manufacturers tax cuts. On a monetary policy level, the US should also take aim at currency manipulators.
Hadley traced the origins of current discontent with Western international institutions to the elites’ decision to ignore their deficiencies following the 2008 financial crisis. This refusal resulted in the Tea Party’s political success in 2010, as well as the rise of Trump in 2016. Internationally, US dominance of the Bretton Woods system led new economic powers, like China, to create their own banks, institutions, and trade alliances. The legitimacy of Bretton Woods is thus threatened by domestic pressures within countries in the US bloc, as well as by international pressures.
The solution to the problem, however, does not lie in the destruction that Trump has wrought on global institutions and US alliances since his election. Hadley believes that the US would be better served by reforming Bretton Woods to appease populist discontent, and adjusting these institutions’ leadership structure to better reflect the current, multipolar global political and economic landscape.
Janow agreed that international institutions are a major part of the globalization problem, using her time at the WTO as an example. She argued that the WTO is weak and ineffective. The international trade body should generate its own work program to address its deficiencies instead of relying on the activity of member nations to solve its shortcomings.
In spite of these, Janow emphasized that policymakers should place more weight on what gave birth to multilateralism in the first place as they evaluate its benefits and drawbacks. Global institutions have contributed immensely to world peace and security by significantly raising the cost of war and conflict between trading partners. Further, globalization has reduced the negative externalities associated with individual countries not thinking beyond bilateralism in their approach to international economics. The global system is doomed if people do not believe these basic points.
Drezner questioned whether a globalization backlash was even occurring. The narrative that the 2008 financial crisis inspired a populist groundswell against elite-promulgated globalism is not supported by public opinion polls. In fact, 70% of Americans have supported globalization over the past 10 years, while 75% of Americans favor preserving US alliances over getting better terms on a trade deal. Further, even if there is a backlash, Drezner believes that the domestic economic damage Trump’s aggressive trade policies will cause will provide a strong incentive to not vote anti-globalists into office in the future.
The Bottom Line: Globalization is flawed. Significant portions of the US population have been left behind by current US trade policies. But the bellicose approach president Trump is taking provides no cure. The post-World War II economic order should not be destroyed. It needs to be rebooted, with US workers gaining their fair share of the benefits.
PS: apropos
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
All eyes on Russia
On Friday, a large convoy of tanks and military vehicles flying Syrian and Russian flags arrived at the Nasib-Jaber crossing into Jordan, marking the return of regime control over Syria’s strategic southern border for the first time in five years. Hours later, Al Jazeera reported that opposition fighters agreed to a cease fire with Russian negotiators representing regime forces in Dera’a Province. The story is familiar. Rebel forces will give up their heavy weapons and civilians in Dera’a will return to living under Assad’s rule, while fighters who refuse to surrender are transported to the last remaining opposition strongholds: a small area of Idlib Province and a thin sliver of land east of the Golan Heights.
One key aspect, however, differentiates this cease fire from its predecessors in Homs, Aleppo, and Eastern Ghouta: Russian military police will administer the newly-recaptured areas in an attempt to encourage the 320,000 Syrians displaced by the offensive to return to their homes. While largely symbolic, continued Russian influence on the ground, even after fighting ceases, represents another step in Russia’s evolution from one of several powerful players to the key actor in the Syrian conflict. The message is clear: Moscow will control how this conflict ends. Past inaction indicates that the US cannot do anything about it.
This development is particularly troubling at a time when US president Trump is angling to score a big win with President Putin at their summit in Helsinki on July 16, with Ukraine and Syria at the top of the agenda. In an April 9 interview with the Washington Post, King Abdullah II of Jordan argued that isolating the two conflicts would not lead to any significant progress on either issue. Instead, he said, the US must deal with the Russians on Syria and Ukraine simultaneously and “horse-trade.”
The problem is that Trump does not have a horse to trade in either case, making prospects for Russian deescalation in Syria or Ukraine unlikely. On the Syrian front, Trump has already made his intentions clear. He wants to remove the 2,000 US special forces headquartered in At-Tanf as soon as possible. Withdrawal would open the door for Assad to take back eastern Syria, as the US represents the driving force behind the fragile alliance that holds the area.
Trump has already shown his cards. His attitude during the southern Syria offensive demonstrates that Trump will not stand in Putin’s way if push comes to shove in eastern Syria. Further, Trump’s behavior at the G7 summit, where he argued that Crimea rightfully belongs to Russia and argued for Putin to be allowed back into the group, indicates that US sanctions imposed against Russia in retaliation for the invasion of Ukraine could be up for negotiation, for little to nothing in return.
Trump has weakened his position in recent months at a time when Putin has significantly strengthened his. This means that the US delegation will go into Helsinki with barely any of what Trump, of all people, should know is necessary: leverage. Putin will likely get what he wants in Syria: US troop withdrawal. In exchange, Trump will get no more than vague pledges to curb human rights abuses in Syria as well as the Iranian presence. He may also get a nonbinding agreement to deescalate in Ukraine.
All parties will leave the summit satisfied; Trump will have his tweetable win, while Putin will solidify his status as kingmaker in Syria and Ukraine. This result will continue to erode US credibility on the Arab street. US popularity in the Arab world is at a nadir after “nation building” turned Iraq into a failed state, Assad’s chemical weapons use was met mostly with military silence, and Jerusalem was given to Israel on a platter. Betrayal in Syria will only further damage American interests in the region, which are already hanging by a thread.
RSS - Posts
