Stevenson’s army, September 21
Some things are clear and indisputable:
– President Trump spoke by phone with incoming Ukrainian President Zelensky on July 25.
– His private lawyer Rudy Giuliani has long been pressing Ukrainian officials to investigate activities of Joe Biden and his son Hunter in 2016.
– Someone submitted a whistleblower complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General on August12.
– US aid to Ukraine was not released until Sept 12, despite bipartisan pressure from Congress.
– Despite legal requirements for complaints to be shared with the intelligence committees, the administration has so far declined to do so.- It’s also worth noting that, despite Justice dept guidelines forbidding charging a sitting president with a crime, the Constitution lists “Bribery” as one of the justifications for impeachment.
What is unclear includes:
– What was said in the presidential phone conversation. Two unnamed sources are cited by the key media. WSJ, which says that Trump in that phone call said eight times that Zelensky should work with Giuliani on investigating Biden,also says Mr. Trump in the call didn’t mention a provision of U.S. aid to Ukraine, said this person, who didn’t believe Mr. Trump offered the Ukrainian president any quid pro quo for his cooperation on any investigation.
– How Congress can obtain the whistleblower complaint. Not all lawyers agree with Chairman Schiff.
While I deplore the administration’s stonewalling of this and many other requests for information, and I’m disgusted at the effort to use presidential national security authority for personal political gain, I doubt that the evidence of actual bribery will be clear and compelling, either on legal or political grounds.
In other news, the administration announced plans to send a fairly small contingent of military personnel to Saudi Arabia and UAE in response to the bombing of oil facilities. Trump called China “a threat to the world,” but labeled his trade war “a little spat” as he suggested no big deal would be made before the 2020 elections. Chinese officials also canceled their planned meetings with US farmers.
– CRS has an updated version of its report on Congress and Yemen.
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. If you want to get it directly, 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:
A bad rethink
The Trump Administration, according to a draft leaked document published by Josh Rogin, is contemplating a realignment of US foreign aid “for a new era of great power competition.” Josh sees little good in this idea. I beg to differ, even if I dissent from many of the document’s policy conclusions.
Let’s start with the basic proposition that a realignment is necessary. I think they’ve got that right. USAID is a poverty reduction/economic development agency without the necessary means. Its more or less $17 billion dollars spread around the world amounts to no more than a drop in the economic development bucket, especially if you subtract the amounts spent on humanitarian relief and health. Private money flows now vastly exceed foreign aid worldwide. The US government has little idea how to relieve poverty at home. The notion that it will do better in Bangladesh is unconvincing.
Nor is it clear that reducing poverty will serve US interests in defeating terrorism. The Trumpistas have got that right too. Terrorist recruitment depends on an intersection between local grievances and global ideology, but the local grievances are often unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the population. Terrorism isn’t about just jobs. Injustice, inequity, and bad governance drive terrorist recruitment, not poverty.
The White House is also correct in thinking that we have entered a period of great power rivalry. Russia, China, and Iran are challenging US hegemony in Europe, the Asia Pacific, and the Gulf. None are a match for US power, but Washington has great difficulty in using its military, diplomatic, political, informational, and economic levers in a coordinated way. That is easier for autocrats, especially if their purpose is mainly disruptive rather than constructive, as is the case for Moscow and Tehran (not so much so for Beijing however).
As with many of my students’ papers, the problem with the White House document lies in the connection between this correct analysis of the situation and the policy conclusions, which are ill-conceived . The White House wants foreign aid to go only to countries that support priority US foreign policy objectives. The idea is to use aid as leverage to convince foreigners to do what the US wants them to do.
But the funds available are insufficient for that purpose too. US non-humanitarian aid to Ethiopia before its recent turn toward democracy was on the order of $400 million per year. How much poverty reduction would that buy you in a country of 100 million people? It bought even less political influence with an authoritarian regime enjoying more or less 10% GDP growth.
Cutting aid to countries that don’t line up to support US priorities is far more likely to turn them against those priorities and towards the Russians and especially the Chinese, who are writing a lot of checks these days far bigger than what the US can afford. Here I agree with Josh. Aid conditionality of this sort is penny wise and pound foolish. It is likely to help America’s rivals.
That is also true of the document’s proposal to limit financing for multilateral development organizations. They have real money, an order of magnitude and more than the US can provide. They loan and spend it under tight multilateral scrutiny, often for major infrastructure projects that the US cannot afford. It would be a serious mistake to limit US influence in these institutions by cutting back on US contributions. I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that bilateral assistance is more effective than multilateral assistance, and I have a strong suspicion reality works the other way around.
So how should the US adjust its aid to enable it to compete more effectively with great power rivals? The heart of the matter is governance. Countries that are governed well in response to the needs of their citizens in inclusive ways are far more likely to prosper and support US objectives–and reject Russian and Chinese ones–than autocracies. Democratic states with vibrant civil societies will be resilient to shocks and resistant to Moscow and Beijing. The White House paper acknowledges this, but of course fails to square it with the Trump Administration’s effort to establish cozy relations with autocrats and wannabe autocrats, including Kim Jong-un, Mohammed bin Salman, Rodrigo Duterte, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and too many others.
US foreign assistance does need rethinking. But it has to be done by people not affiliated with this deeply corrupt and increasingly unaccountable American version of autocracy. Its distorted view of the world would reduce US influence and eviscerate its relations with a large part of the developing world, including many friendly states. Josh is right about that. America’s citizens should not allow it to happen.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 20
- Politico takes suggestions from a wide range of people and comes up with “99 ways to fix American politics.” Most of the suggestions are small bore, maybe helping on the margins. But the causes are much deeper, driven by demographics and partisan incentives and Supreme Court decisions that aren’t easily reversed.
- The fight between the administration and the House Intelligence Committee is over oversight powers. By law, an “urgent” whistleblower complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General is supposed to be shared with the intelligence committees. This hasn’t been done.
- Meanwhile two sources have told the Post and the Times that the matter involved President Trump and Ukraine. [The suspicion is that Trump promised the release of military aid to Ukraine, which was done last week, on condition that it take certain actions relating to Paul Manafort and the Biden family.]
On Iran, the Pentagon is bragging that it is giving the president military options. - The NYT wonders why the $150 billion in recent arms sales to Saudi Arabia didn’t guard against the oil facilities attacks.
- John Hannah, longtime Cheney hardliner, warns that US and Israel face conflicts over China.
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. If you want to get it directly, 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:
Peace Picks | September 23 – 27
1. How to Avoid the Arab Resource Curse | September 23, 2019 | 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM | Georgetown University-Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, 3700 O Street, N.W., 241 Intercultural Center (ICC), Washington, DC 20057, USA | Register Here
For over eighty years the Arab region has been deriving massive wealth from its natural resources. Nevertheless, its economic performance has been at the mercy of ebbs and flows of oil prices and its resources have been slowly depleting. The two critical questions are why and how Arab countries might escape the oil curse.
Institutions and Macroeconomic Policies in Resource-Rich Arab Economies focuses on the unique features of the Arab world to explain the disappointing outcomes of macroeconomic policy. It explores the interaction between oil and institutions to draw policy recommendations on how Arab countries can best exploit their oil revenues to avoid the resource curse. Case studies and contributions from experts provide an understanding of macroeconomic institutions (including their underlying rules, procedures and institutional arrangements) in oil-rich Arab economies and of their political economy environment, which has largely been overlooked in previous research.
The volume offers novel macroeconomic policy propositions for exchange rate regimes, fiscal policy and oil wealth distribution that is more consistent with macroeconomic stability and fiscal sustainability. These policy reforms, if implemented successfully, could go a long way in helping the resource-rich countries of the Arab region and elsewhere to avoid the oil curse.
Join CCAS for a book launch of the new volume, “Institutions and Macroeconomic Policies in Resource-rich Arab Economies,” featuring editors and contributing authors to the book.
Featuring
Joseph Sassoon (Discussion Chair) Professor, School of Foreign Service and History Department, Georgetown University
Ibrahim Elbadawi (Contributing Author) Minister of Finance and Economy, Republic of Sudan (joining via video call)
Shanta Devarajan (Contributing Author) Professor, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Hoda Selim (Volume Co-editor) Research Fellow, Economic Research Forum
Nada
Eissa (Discussant) Associate Professor,
McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University
2. A Climate of Concern: What Climate Change Means for Food Security and Political Stability in Africa | September 25, 2019 | 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Please join the CSIS Global
Food Security Project for a discussion with a panel of experts on the
relationship between climate change, political instability, and food security
using current events on the African continent as a lens. The emerging consensus
is that climate change poses significant national security
threats. However, specific linkages between climate change and
political instability are still opaque. As climate change reshapes the
agricultural landscape across Africa, there is concern that higher food prices
and falling yields will lead to widespread urban unrest and catalyze
participation in armed extremist movements.
Preceded by a keynote from Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), the discussion will
examine how climate change is interacting with demographic trends in Africa to
both heighten risks associated with agriculture in rural areas and those
associated with dependence on global markets in urban areas. Our panelists will
explore several issues such as how averting crisis in the face of climate
change and food insecurity will require:
- Better incorporation of agricultural production and food prices—both global and local—into risk assessments.
- Reinvestment in agricultural and transport infrastructure to reform global agricultural trade to make it more climate-resilient for consumers and producers in the developing world.
- Opportunities
to work with regional governments to develop more inclusive responses to manage
political and economic instability.
FEATURING
U.S. Senator (D-PA)
Vice President for Policy, U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP)
Director & Practice Head, Africa, Eurasia Group
Erin Sikorsky
Deputy Director, Strategic Futures Group, National Intelligence Council, Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Professor, Korbel School of
International Studies (University of Denver) & Director, Sié Chéou-Kang
Center for International Security and Diplomacy
3. Beyond the Brink: Escalation Dominance in the U.S.-China Trade War | September 25, 2019 | 2:30 PM – 5:00 PM | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
The U.S.-China trade war is unprecedented in size, scope, and importance. The potential economic costs of the conflict—and any decoupling it prompts—are enormous, not only to the United States and China but to the global economy. Nearly 18 months since escalation began, the path to resolution is still unclear.
In this event, senior experts will discuss the state of U.S.-China trade relations today and roll out a major CSIS report on escalation dynamics in economic conflict. The event will draw on game theory as well as observations of real-world escalation to help policymakers manage economic conflict with China.
Agenda:
Welcome
and Presentation of Findings
Matthew P. Goodman
Senior Vice President and Simon Chair in Political Economy, CSIS
Expert Panel Discussion
Scott Kennedy
Senior Adviser and Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics, CSIS
William Reinsch
Senior Adviser and Scholl Chair in International Business, CSIS
Claire Reade
Senior Counsel, Arnold & Porter
Stephanie Segal
Senior
Fellow, Simon Chair in Political Economy, CSIS
4. Syria Study Group Releases Final Report | September 26, 2019 | 2:30 PM – 4:30 PM | U.S. Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
Well into its ninth year, the conflict in Syria is a devastating humanitarian tragedy and a source of regional instability with serious implications for U.S. national security. Last year, Congress directed USIP to facilitate the bipartisan Syria Study Group (SSG) in order to examine the current state of the conflict and make recommendations on the military and diplomatic strategy of the United States going forward.
The release of the SSG’s final report follows months of extensive consultations across a broad range of stakeholders and experts, as well as travel to the region. It represents the consensus of all twelve Congressionally-appointed SSG members and offers a bipartisan roadmap for the way ahead.
Please join the Syria Study Group for a panel
discussion and presentation of the final report’s assessments and
recommendations. The event will include a keynote address from Senator Jeanne
Shaheen (D-NH), who spearheaded the creation of the bipartisan study group.
Stay tuned for additional speaker updates. The list of SSG members can be seen here.
5. The Future of Nuclear Arms Control | September 26, 2019 | 12:15 PM – 1:30 PM | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave NW | Register Here
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is pleased to invite you to a discussion on The Future of Nuclear Arms Control with Mrs. Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, and Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway, of The Elders.
Founded by Nelson Mandela, The Elders are a group of former heads of state and senior United Nations officials who work together for peace, justice and human rights. Robinson and Brundtland will present some of the key insights and recommendations for minimizing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons contained in the recent paper, Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.
Following the brief presentation, George Perkovich will lead a discussion with Robinson and Brundtland and then open the floor for dialogue with audience participants. A lite lunch will be served.
6. Governing in a Post-Conflict Country in Transition | September 27, 2019 | 10 AM | Johns Hopkins University – Kenney-Herter Auditorium 1740 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 | Register Here
Since 2011 and the fall of the Gaddafi regime in 2011, Libya has been going through a difficult and often violent transition. Mr. Serraj, the head of Libya’s Presidential Council and Prime Minister, who assumed office at the end of 2015, will share with us his experience in governing in such difficult post-conflict circumstances, the prospects for the future of Libya, and what the US and International Community can do to help.
Mr. Faiez Sarraj was born in Tripoli, Libya, in 1960. He currently serves as the President of the Presidential Council of Libya and the Prime Minister of the Government of National Accord.
Mr. Sarraj began his political career as a member of the National Dialogue Committee and he was elected to the House of Representatives for the District of Andalus in the city of Tripoli.
Mr. Sarraj had previously worked in the Libyan Social Security Fund, Department of Project Management. He served as a consultant in the Utilities Engineering Consultancy Office in Libya and worked in the private sector for an engineering project management firm. Moreover, Mr. Al-Sarraj worked as the chairman of the Housing Committee in the House of Representatives in Libya and was a member of the Energy Committee in the House of Representatives.
7. War Crimes in Syria: Identifying Perpetrators and Seeking Justice | September 27, 2019 | 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM | Middle East Institute, 1763 N Street NW Washington, District of Columbia 20036 | Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a joint panel with the Pro-Justice to launch the new book, Blacklist: Violations Committed by the Most Prominent Syrian Regime Figures and How to Bring Them to Justice.
Blacklist identifies and provides detailed information on nearly 100 individuals accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria over the past eight years. The book also sheds light on the crimes themselves and outlines potential political and judicial avenues available to bring the perpetrators to justice.
A panel of experts will delve into prospects for promoting transitional justice and accountability in Syria as part of any post-conflict scenario.
Speakers:
- Anne Barnard is a New York Times journalist who covers climate and environment for the Metro desk.
- Wael Sawah is the president and director of Pro-Justice.
- Charles Lister is a senior fellow and director of the Countering Terrorism and Extremism program at the Middle East Institute.
- Joyce Karam (moderator) is the Washington Correspondent for The National, a leading English daily based in Abu Dhabi, and an adjunct professor at George Washington University, school of Political Science.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Community empowerment > CVE
On September 18, the United States Institute of Peace hosted the RESOLVE Network 2019 Global Forum. This year, the topic of the forum was resetting priorities to address violent extremist threats. Several TED-style presentations and several panels were held throughout the day. Experts from around the world gathered to present their work and discuss the challenges extremist groups present.
The first of these panels was a discussion on non-state governance and “going local.” The discussants were Houda Abadi, the founder and Executive Director of Transformative Peace, Linda Bishai, a professorial lecturer at the GWU Elliot School of International Affairs, and Katherine Zimmerman, a research fellow at American Enterprise Institute. The panel was moderated by David Yang, the Vice President of the Applied Conflict Transformation Center at USIP.
Yang asked what going local meant for the panelists. Abadi responded by criticizing current counter extremist efforts as too focused on security operations over community building. She argued that ISIS still is in MENA, hyper localized and addressing grievances where a village’s government and Western powers could not. US countering violent extremism (CVE) strategy needs to shift from establishing counter narratives that attempt to combat radical jihadist views to creating counter offers to forge relationships with community members.
Zimmerman continued by discussing how communities have become fragile and violent extremist groups have filled a gap in governance. ISIS and other violent extremist organizations (VEOs) exchange predictable rule of law and a level of stability to a community for the ability to operate in their village.
Bishai suggested that the structural conditions that explain why locals turn to VEOs have been largely ignored and need to be thoroughly analyzed to create a strategy to counter them. Personnel working in these areas have a high rate of turnover and are unable to build trust with local community leaders. Abadi agreed and said the focus needs to be on empowering communities and not countering ideology. Metrics such as the number of extremists eradicated are not relevant. Understanding the mechanisms that turn people to these groups is need to establish long-term stability and counter VEOs.
Zimmerman said that going local is pivotal for CVE. Local nuances have been overlooked by Western practitioners in MENA and other regions. Western practitioners must understand the local context as well or better than VEOs to effectively counter the proliferation of radical ideology. Bishai suggested that vocabulary ought to be changed to community empowerment rather than CVE or other aggressive terminology. Locals feel as if they are considered an enemy to Westerners and not a partner in combating extremism. Abadi confirmed that sentiment and stated that in her field work, local people feel as if they are “lab rats” in an experiment for foreign entities to figure out what strategies work to counter extremists. The counter terrorism paradigm needs to end and move towards building communities from a hyper localized starting point.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No rush
Pristina’s Gazeta Express (Besnik Velija) asked me questions today. I replied:
Q: How do you see the decision of State Secretary to appoint Matt Palmer as a Special Envoy for Western Balkan and for the dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia?
A: I suppose it signals one more push to settle things, especially between Pristina and Belgrad.
Q: What are your expectations from Matt Palmer, as a Special Envoy ?
A: Matt is a good soul, but I’m not sure he brings the full weight of the United States to the table: military, economic, and political as well as diplomatic. We’ll have to wait and see.
Q: There is reporting saying that US wants a solution until next summer. Do you see latest moves from the US, as a hurry for reaching a final solution between Prishtina and Belgrade? If yes, can that be good for the whole process?
A: Yes, the Americans are in a hurry, but that doesn’t mean Pristina should be. First it needs to hold a good election and form a government that can take a widely supported position to the dialogue. Serbian parliamentary elections are due by April 2020, which means any negotiation this winter will include enormous pressure from Europe and the US for an agreement that President Vucic can sell as a victory to his electorate. I think Pristina should not be expected to negotiate during the pre-electoral period in Serbia.
Q: There was also a declaration from Bundestag member, Peter Beyer, that even EU should appoint a Special Envoy for Western Balkan and for Kosovo and Serbia dialogue. Do you see these moves as an effort to show who leads the European policy?
A: Once the Americans appointed a Special Envoy I suppose it was inevitable that Europe would want one too. I’d prefer that both the US and EU get a common policy before appointing special envoys, but that is not the way it is proceeding.
Q: Who should be the main mediator on dialogue, Brussels or Washington, or both? What about ideas to involve Russia? (ex US ambassador at Belgrade, Cameron Munter said that Russian Ambassador at Belgrade, Alexander Bocan-Harchenko, is an expert and he could help on the dialogue process).
A: Brussels has most of the leverage, but Washington support is vital, especially in pressuring Pristina. I don’t think the Russians will be helpful to the mediation in any way. Moscow favors Belgrade and does not want to see a solution that would allow Kosovo to proceed to NATO membership. It will also want a high price for UN membership: likely US acceptance of the annexation of Crimea and perhaps recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That will not help the negotiations.
Q: Senator Chris Murphy on a personal statement about the last visit in Kosovo, when he describe meeting with Kosovo politicians, said that they told on meeting at US embassy that they don’t know who to listen to, EU or USA , about the dialogue issue: “The leaders tell us that these days, the United States and Europe come to Pristina and give them different advice on how to break the impasse — they don’t know who to listen to. More fallout from the disastrous Trump foreign policy.”
A: Nothing good happens in the Balkans until Brussels and Washington speak in unison.
RSS - Posts
