Stevenson’s army, June 4
Reuters says Justice Dept will elevate ransomware investigations. [Good & right because these are criminal not military matters.]
Another proper assignment: Biden shifts Chinese investment oversight from Defense to Treasury.
NYT says autonomous lethal drone strike may have occurred in Libya.
Former Senate staffer urges filibuster reform.
How do people get their news? CJR has an interesting report.
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:
Border changes should be ruled out of bounds
In this interview with Radio Television Kosova (RTK) Wednesday, State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Matt Palmer had this exchange with an interviewer (start at 14:28 in the video):
Q: Is still alive idea for changing borders?
A: I don’t think that’s on the agenda. It’s not up to me to identify the redlines in this process. It’s up to the parties. The Kosovo side has been pretty clear about that issue.
This answer is unwise, counterproductive, and inconsistent with stated Biden Administration policy.
Unwise
The question of border changes in the Balkans has been thoroughly aired, including in discussions between Serbian President Vucic and former Kosovo President Thaci, not to mention in a raft of papers and nonpapers. Vucic and Thaci failed to come to an agreement: each wanted territory in the other’s country but wasn’t willing to give up the territory required to cut a deal. Leaving the door open to further discussion is foolish, because it has already been tried and failed. Putting the burden of killing the idea on Kosovo is unfair, as it absolves Serbia of responsibility, though it is true that no parliament in Kosovo, including the current one with a wider majority governing coalition than usual, could approve a “land swap,” which would also suffer a resounding defeat in a referendum.
Leaving the door open is also foolish because of the regional and international implications. Any change of Kosovo’s borders would lead to demands for changing Bosnia’s borders by secession of Republika Srpska (RS), the Serb-controlled 49% of its territory. How do we know? The de facto autocratic leader of the RS, Milorad Dodik, has promised it. In addition, Russian President Putin would demand the same for Russian-controlled portions of Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Every illiberal politician worldwide would feel free to unleash irredentist sentiments, which exist throughout Asia and Africa. There is no quicker way of killing the Biden Administration’s hopes for a revival of democracy than leaving the door open to border changes in the Balkans.
Counterproductive
The purpose of Matt’s trip to Kosovo and now Serbia is to display solidarity with the European Union in pursuing a Belgrade/Pristina dialogue that has been unproductive for the better part of a decade. The EU is now aiming to revive it. The lead EU negotiator, Miroslav Lajcak, has been firm in ruling out border changes, which several EU countries have indicated they will not accept, most notably Germany. Each EU member has a veto on this question, since accession of any new members requires all existing member states to agree. Solidarity with the EU requires clarity on this point, not a wishy-washy statement that leaves it up to Pristina. That approach is precisely what got the Trump Administration into several years of unproductive friction with the EU in the Western Balkans. If Washington really wants the dialogue to produce anything, it needs to be crystal clear in public and private that it will not accept border changes.
Inconsistent
Biden, both as candidate and president, has unequivocally supported the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the countries of the Western Balkans, including both Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is the right position for a liberal democrat who believes in liberal democracy, that is democracy based on individual rights of citizens protected by the rule of law.
The problem is that sincere liberal democrats are still few and far between at the leadership level in the Western Balkans. Ethnic nationalists dominate, especially in Serbia but also elsewhere. President Vucic and his minions have been touting what he calls a “Serbian home,” which is indistinguishable from the Greater Serbia whose pursuit led Slobodan Milosevic into four or five wars (depending on how you count). Prime Minister Kurti has sometimes aspired to a referendum in Kosovo on union with Albania. RS President Dodik has the same aspiration, for Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some Bosnian Croats share the aspiration for themselves.
None of these propositions is consistent with aspirations for EU membership and should be ruled out of bounds both by the EU and the US.
PS: In case anyone wonders whether the video above was a slip-up, here is Matt declining again the same day, during an appearance with Lajcak, to rule out landswaps and saying that it is not up to the EU or the US to identify the compromises but up to “the parties determine the contents of the talks” (start at 6:14, apologies for the sound quality):
PPS: Then in Belgrade, Matt led out change of borders for Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, but not for Kosovo:
The borders of BiH and North Macedonia are fixed. Nobody talks about changing he borders of BiH, nobody talks about changing the borders of North Macedonia. That’s out of the question.
When it comes to Kosovo, Matt puts the burden entirely on Pristina:
When it comes to borders and territories, I do not see this as an issue that Kosovo is ready to engage on.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The future of the “French initiative” in Lebanon
The Middle East Institute (MEI) May 25 and 26 hosted the first two days of their inaugural Lebanon Policy Conference. In collaboration with the American Task Force on Lebanon and LIFE, this two-part series looks to tackle the urgency and potential paths for Lebanon’s current political, financial, and humanitarian crises. On Wednesday May 26, MEI hosted three events: The Future of US Policy Toward Lebanon: A Conversation with Senator Tim Kaine and Ambassador David Hale, Breaking the Lebanese Political Logjam, and Lebanon Amid Evolving Regional and International Dynamics. On Thursday May 27, MEI hosted two events: The Future of the “French Initiative”: A Conversation with Ambassador Pierre Duquesne, and The Final Countdown: How to Manage Lebanon’s Transformational Economic Crisis and Avert Total Collapse.
What is the future of the “French initiative” and how has the role of French and European diplomacy evolved in recent months? Ambassador Pierre Duquesne’s keynote speech for The Future of the “French Initiative” emphasized the need for international collaboration and pressure in continuing to promote the French initiative towards political reform in Lebanon. The speakers were:
Ambassador Pierre Duquesne
Ambassador in charge of Coordinating International Support to Lebanon, French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs
Charbel Abou Charaf (Moderator)
Partner, White & Castle LLP; Member, LIFE Advocate
LIFE Advocate Program:
Charaf explained that LIFE Advocates was created with regards to the unprecedented existential crisis currently taking place in Lebanon. The program aims to channel LIFE’s significant collective expert resources and goodwill to influence economic policymaking in Lebanon and support economic and financial development.
Background on the French initiative in Lebanon
Duquesne began his keynote speech discussing the primary initiatives launched by France and President Macron following the August 4, 2020 port explosion. While Macron advocated a French initiative to kick-start discussions to form a government, there has been no movement on that front. At present, the French initiative has shifted from promoting the formation of a new government at any cost to promoting a government dedicated to reforms. However, each roadmap released by Macron has been postponed due to the Lebanese political class.
Duquesne cited four reasons why the French initiative is still relevant:
- to increase confidence within the Lebanese polity in its ability to create and sustain a functioning government;
- to push the political class to act by supporting public opinion, suggesting action in the short term, and pushing the international community to participate;
- to sustain French efforts that have taken place throughout Macron’s four years in office;
- to promote the implementation of an IMF program to push reforms forward and treat the current banking crisis.
In his statement, Duquesne emphasized the relevance of Lebanese development, drawing attention to the need for methods and reforms to remain current and applicable. The French initiative’s fight against corruption was indispensable, but it would not be sufficient to establish a new and stable governing body.
Hezbollah as a key obstacle
The Lebanese people and government, according to Duquesne, have always promoted the dissociation of Lebanon from regional crises. Duquesne argued that if the country does not engage in dynamic reform then it may be the object of confrontation by regional actors. He claimed dissociation is essential for reforms and reforms can promote dissociation. In his discussion of Hezbollah, he emphasized the need to distinguish between the military and political wings of Hezbollah, clarifying the condemned nature of the militant wing while remembering the party’s political power. It is impossible to ignore Hezbollah, and it is essential to interact politically with the group. This is not to promote support for the organization, however. As Senator Tim Kaine explained in his statements on the future of US foreign policy towards Lebanon, Duquesne reiterated the need for the international community to support the Lebanese Armed Forces.
Concluding thoughts:
Duquesne concluded his statement with a call to action towards the international community. He reminded viewers that France granted 86 million euros last year and 60 million euros this year towards reconstruction and relief efforts. However, he also warned of indifference, emphasizing the risk of fatigue that comes from extended political unrest without significant change. However, in a conclusion to his talk, Duquesne quoted President Macron stating “Je ne vous laisserai pas” (I will not abandon you), a statement by Macron to the Lebanese people. Duquesne reminded participants and viewers that the international community is needed in handling and finding solutions to the current crises facing Lebanon.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 3
– Middle East experts anticipate a new Israeli government.
-China experts wonder whether PRC can rebuild its soft power.
– Stanford scholar anticipates PRC move against Taiwan.
– UK experts worry about new military technologies.
-WaPo discusses the geriatric Senate.
– Think tank blasts US security assistance to Afghanistan.
And here, for your review, the budget documents for US international affairs programs.
PS: I’m told that the links don’t work. Try these:
Function 150 budget
Emerging technologies
Afghanistan security assistance
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I 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, June 2
Ransomware is big business. New Yorker explains how it works and how payments are negotiated.
Israel is asking for extra military aid.
Fred Kaplan lists the laws limiting military freedom of speech.
Bloomberg says Iran expects nuclear talks to continue in July.
Late addendum:
Summertime means more time to read books stacked in my study. Here’s another book worth checking out.
For me, the 1962 Cuban missile crisis was the two weeks of American crisis decision-making detailed by Graham Allison, Bobby Kennedy, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and Ted Sorensen. Now we have a superb account that includes what was happening in Moscow, and on the ground in Cuba.
Serhii Plokhy, a Ukrainian-American history professor at Harvard, has written Nuclear Folly. Instead of the typical story of smart decisions that avoided nuclear war, Plokhy says he wants to tell about the many mistakes that came close to making that catastrophe a reality. And there were many, at the strategic and operational levels.
Graham Allison explored the bureaucratic behaviors and missteps over U-2 flights that were foolishly cancelled when needed and carried out when they were quite provocative and Navy blockade rules that almost triggered a Soviet nuclear exchange. Plokhy shows the same for the Soviet military.
His basic conclusion is that Kennedy and Khrushchev deescalated the crisis because both feared nuclear war. Both overcame strong pressure to risk actual combat.
Plokhy also details Kennedy’s extraordinary efforts to keep secret the fact that he agreed to withdraw medium-range Jupiter missiles from Turkey as part of the deal. The media seized on the narrative that Kennedy won by being tough while Khrushchev backed down. In fact, there was a deal which gave important concessions to both.
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, June 1
– The tech press analyzes the Biden budget proposals for the Space Force and for cyber stuff.
– A former marine, now NYT reporter, returns to Afghanistan. And WSJ analyzes the Taliban today.
All the budget details are in the links at the side of this page.
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).
RSS - Posts
