Your Saturday video

President Trump this week reached a new low saying that he would take dirt on an electoral opponent from a foreign government. I found this video a particularly good treatment of the legal and moral issues this presidential commitment to collusion raises:

Tags :

20 years on

I spoke today at a conference in Pristina commenmorating the 20th anniversary of the NATO deployment in Kosovo. These were my speaking notes, but time restriction meant I started around point 11.

I underlined in addition that solid US/EU agreement is vital to getting things done in the Balkans. It does not exist for swapping people and territory on an ethnic basis, as the Americans have said they would entertain the idea but Germany and the UK have ruled it out.

  1. It is a pleasure to be back in Pristina, a city I have known since it was under Serb control.
  2. Whatever your preoccupations today—and I know they are many—let me assure you that this is a far more lively, free, interesting, youthful, and energetic place than it was in 1998.
  3. The Kosovo state that exists today is a product of an amazing, unlikely, and entirely unpredictable series of events. In addition to Kosovo’s own hard work, it involved
    • Albanian nonviolent and violent rebellion,
    • Serbian repression,
    • the dissolution of socialist Yugoslavia,
    • state collapse in Albania,
    • NATO intervention,
    • U.S. and EU support,
    • Russian weakness, and
    • ample international assistance and UN administration.
  4. Without one or another of these ingredients, it might never have occurred, and certainly not in the surprising way that it did.
  5. I underline this point for a reason: those who think they can predict the future of Kosovo, or of the region, are unlikely to be correct. That includes me.
  6. But I do think that we can hope to identify some factors that will either contribute to or detract from regional stability and sustainable peace.
  7. The Prespa agreement, for example, clearly improved regional stability, as it ended any prospect of partition there and opened the door to NATO membership for North Macedonia.
  8. I think normalization of relations between Pristina and Belgrade is the next important step towards sustainable peace.
  9. But like the Prespa agreement it needs to be done in a way that respects regional requirements, not only the desires of Belgrade and Pristina.
  10. This is one of many reasons why I believe all transfers of territory, except those technically required in the border demarcation process, need to be ruled out.
  11. Exchange of people and territory on an ethnic basis would not only demonstrate that neither Pristina nor Belgrade is able to treat all its citizens correctly. It would also destabilize Bosnia as well as Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Only President Putin could welcome such a move.
  12. Land swaps would even cast doubt on the future of the Serbs south of the Ibar River and of remaining Albanians in southern Serbia.
  13. None of us should want to take such risks.
  14. So what is the alternative?
  15. First, Kosovars need to be patient. Pristina’s leverage will increase as Belgrade approaches EU accession. To get a good deal, you need to be able and willing to walk away from a bad one.
  16. But you also need to be prepared to put something on the table that Belgrade finds attractive. I’ve made several suggestions: limits on the capabilities of the Kosovo army, enhanced protection for Serb sites south of the Ibar, implementation of an Association of Serb Municipalities consistent with the Kosovo Constitutional Court decision.
  17. You also need to get the Pristina/Belgrade dialogue restarted, because the Americans and Europeans want it and you need it.  
  18. Here I am going to offend, in a single sentence, both your President and your Prime Minister: you need to forget about ethnic territorial division and get rid of the tariffs on Serbian goods.
  19. To your President I say this: Vucic cannot give you what you want in southern Serbia and you cannot give him what he wants in northern Kosovo. Neither parliament nor a referendum in either country will approve such a deal.
  20. To your Prime Minister I say this: the tariffs have succeeded in getting you back into the dialogue, but now you should stand on the well-crafted Platform that the political parties have generated. The tariffs have served your purpose and need at least to be suspended.
  21. But you should expect something in return: the EU should implement the visa waiver and the Serbs should end their campaign against Kosovo membership in international organizations. CEFTA should open a serious discussion of Kosovo’s concerns with trade barriers in Serbia.
  22. A mini-package of that sort could restart the dialogue on a more realistic basis, which means ending the discussion of territory but beginning the process of demarcating the border.
  23. A final appeal: you are going to need the Americans to cut a deal with the Russians for your UN membership, a deal that may involve serious sacrifice on the part of Washington.
  24. The Americans will only be ready and willing if you can carry over the incredibly friendly spirit of these two days celebrating the NATO deployment in Kosovo to the dialogue.
  25. That is one more reason for ending talk of ethnic division and tariffs and thereby making sure that the Americans will be ready to do whatever is necessary to ensure your UN membership.  
Tags : , , , ,

Too big to fail or bail

On June 4 the American Enterprise Institute hosted a panel discussion titled “Europe’s Populist and Brexit Economic Challenge” moderated by Alex J. Pollock of the R Street Institute and featuring Lorenzi Forni (Prometeia Associazione), Vitor Gaspar (International Monetary Fund), Desmond Lachman (AEI) and Athanasios Orphanides (MIT). The panel discussion was centered around Italy’s rising populism and economic woes, with a short discussion about the possibility of a no-deal Brexit causing damage to the European economy.

Gaspar showed that only 24% Europeans polled believe in the political system at both the national level and at the European level, while 38% of people said neither works. Voter turnout in both national and European parliament elections is going down, while the share of votes going to populist parties has increased. The mainstream parties are losing votes. In 2019 there was almost a 50/50 split between votes for populist parties and those for establishment parties. With parliament more fragmented than ever, coalitions of at least 4 parties are needed to get a majority, which makes governing difficult. The 2014 and 2019 voter maps of Germany show virtually no change, while Italy’s map shifted solidly populist. “Support for populism in Western Europe is strongly correlated with exposure to the shocks of globalization,”Gaspar said. Europe needs risk-sharing mechanisms.

Orphanides sees Europe stuck between two competing narratives. The technocratic elite believes the EU has been an economic success in the past decade or two. Others think the prescriptions by the technocratic elite have not served the European population as a whole and have instead acted for the benefit of one or two member states. In the latter view, the mainstream parties of the past have to be kicked out of government and replaced by new parties that will serve the people better. 

Orphanides believes there is some truth in both narratives, but people presenting them fail to talk directly with each other, causing tension. “Europe is not a club of equals” he said, citing mismanagement of the euro crisis as the root of many present crises such as Brexit. Elites in Brussels and Frankfurt drive the agenda and have to acknowledge what has gone wrong. “Instead,” Orphanides said, “they are still in the denial phase.”

Moving on to Italy, Orphanides declared “the fact that the euro has been a disaster should be acknowledged.” Italy is a rich country and has been running a primary surplus for twenty years, so there is no reason for the Italian economy to be doing as poorly as it is. Lachman agreed a primary surplus is necessary but said the current 1% surplus is nowhere near sufficient and has to be closer to 3-4% to have a noticeable impact.

Forni disagreed, saying Italy joined the European Union because its public finances, inflation, and debt were out of control in the 1980s. You should not take averages when looking at Italy’s economy over the past twenty years. The 2008 financial crisis and the euro crisis in 2011 were damaging. Since 2013, things have gotten better and Italy has strengthened its position.

In Forni‘s view, Italian economic performance was poor because the productive structure of Italy in 1998, built on small, family-owned businesses with limited IT capabilities, was not ready for globalization. Add an aging population and brain drain, and it is easy to see why Italy suffered economically. Italy’s current debt is sustainable given no further crises the likes of 2008 or 2011, but Lachman cautioned that the Italian debt issue has to be addressed because Italy is ten times the size of Greece and bailing it out in a crisis would be a massive undertaking. “We might find ourselves in a situation in which Italy is too big to fail, but too big to bail” Lachman said. 

Forni then mentioned three things Italy needs to thrive in Europe: A debt target of 90% of GDP (Italy’s debt to GDP ratio was 132.20% in 2018), a plan of structural reforms to address issues of tax evasion and corruption, and an increase in risk-sharing at the European level. Safe assets, the European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS), and an increase in labor mobility could help reduce and share risks. 

Lachman noted he was pessimistic about Europe’s future for 4 reasons: 

  • Disappointing economic and political developments;
  • Fundamental flaws in the euro which he doesn’t believe can be fixed;
  • Major challenges in Italy and Brexit;
  • The limited room for policy maneuver in Europe.

Lachman also addressed the north-south economic divide in Europe, showing that Italy’s per capita income is lower now than it was twenty years ago while Germany’s has risen. Unemployment in the southern parts of Europe remains much higher than in the north. These differences cause political resentment between the north and the south which, combined with the weakened center in EU politics and the fragmentation of parliament, make reform difficult. “The euro is fundamentally flawed,” Lachman said. “A country with low productivity like Italy cannot survive in an economic policy straitjacket with a high productivity country like Germany.” A key issue is the lack of a European fiscal union. Germany requiring a balanced budget limits its expenditures in economic downturns, while Italy’s weak banking system and unsustainable finances hold it back. 

Lachman also mentioned Germany and the US trade war. “Germany has a highly export dependent economy” and cannot afford the resulting economic slowdown and falling exports. Adding a 25% tariff on German automobiles exported to the United States would be catastrophic.

On Brexit, Orphanides said a hard Brexit would be bad for the UK and the EU, but he accuses the EU of only negotiating deals that punish the UK for leaving instead of negotiating a win-win deal. To him the only light at the end of the tunnel is the possibility of stopping the clock on Brexit to keep negotiating or a second referendum. Lachman pointed out that both candidates to take over for Theresa May have talked about the UK leaving the EU on October 31 with or without a deal. 

Tags : , ,

Basra protests and the future of Iraq

June 6 the Middle East Institute hosted Akeet Abbas, professor at the American University of Iraq, Basma Alloush, advocacy and communications officer at the Norwegian Refugee Council USA, James “Mac” Skelton, director at the Institute of Regional and International Studies, and Bilal Wahab, fellow at The Washington Institute on Near East Policy for a panel on rising tension and unrest in Iraq in the wake of the 2018 Basra protests. Randa Slim, senior fellow and director of the Program on Conflict Resolution and Track II dialogues at the Middle East Institute moderated the discussion.

Skelton explained that the rhetoric of the Basra protestors was aimed at overturning the entire governance system. Protestors targeted not only government office buildings, but also political party offices. People felt that the traditional patronage system that operates through the party system has failed them because of rampant co-option of abundant resources (i.e. oil) in Basra. This vying for control is cyclical in nature between political parties. For example, currently the Hikma party “owns” the oil fields as well the Basra Oil Company (BOC), but before them it was the Dawa party.

According to Skelton, the resultant dynamic is “government dysfunction at every level.” So many actors capture the state that no project can be completed. Lack of electricity and clean water were among the rallying calls of protesters. Skelton also pointed to a closed network of jobs and opportunities as catalysts for the Basra protests.

Abbas explained that while protests were not a novel occurrence in Iraq, the 2018 protest in Basra was the first time that popular dissent gained traction within the Shia majority. Before Basra, the Shia elite did not take protests seriously, as it was easy to demonize Sunni fringe groups to retain legitimacy. The protests also called into question the effectiveness of the Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi, who was elected because of his promise to root out corruption in Iraq. Abdul-Mahdi’s perceived inability to deliver on his promises sparked a movement in Basra headed by the Sadrists, which other groups soon joined. Abbas predicted that political reform is not possible if the task is left to the current political elite in Iraq. Rather, reform can only come from either or external or internal pressure. Abbas believes that internal pressure in the form of protests is the catalyst for change, given that the United States has all but washed its hands of governance in Iraq.

Alloush focused on the water network in Basra, and the ways that resource shortage contributes to unrest. Water shortage in Iraq is a regional issue—dams built upstream by Syria, Turkey, and Iran limit water flowing into Iraq by 50%. Climate change, drought, and contamination of the Tigris and Euphrates further exacerbate the waster issue. Furthermore, poor water management practices in cities like Basra ensure that contamination increases, and that clean water is not distributed. Alloush also noted that loss of rural livelihoods contributed to a rise in migration of rural youth to urban areas, but they lack the skills to be competitive in an already saturated urban job market, adding to discontent.

Wahab echoed Skeleton’s statements regarding the ineffectiveness of sectarian patronage networks. They are able to provide money, employment, and legitimacy to their supporters, but they were not able to provide governance. Political parties cannot provide resources like water, electricity, and production. Rather, only cohesive government can provide these things. This lack of governance is why protests in Basra targeted all political parties. Abbas complimented this point, mentioning that even the Popular Mobilization Units, credited with the defeat of ISIS, was not spared from citizen dissatisfaction.

Skelton offered some insights about the future. First, he noted that the issues that sparked protests in Basra in 2018 have not been resolved. Second, he notes that the Sadrists who incited the 2018 Basra protests did not expect to garner so much popular support. The unexpected popularity of the protests illustrate how unpredictable social movements in Iraq are. While Skelton is certain future protests will occur, the extent to which they will spread remains to be seen.

Tags : ,

Flim Flam 101

President Trump’s threat of tariffs on Mexican imports to the US was never credible, as it would have devastated the US auto industry and American agriculture. It was a transparent bluff intended to raise the President’s personal visibility, as Senate minority leader Schumer said. Trump got nothing new in the one-page joint statement that resolved the “crisis.” The Mexicans had agreed months ago to the main provisions of the agreement he greeted as a “great deal.”

This is now a boringly familiar pattern. It was what Trump did with Canada and Mexico in renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, which produced a “United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement” (USMCA). Aside from being the worst acronym in the lexicon, USMCA is no more than NAFTA 2.0, a much-needed update of a decades-old agreement. No big triumph, and the Administration is having a hard time getting it approved in Congress.

Bluff is also what Trump with North Korea when he threatened military action and settled instead for a one-page “best efforts” pledge that fell short of previous Pyongyang commitments to denuclearize. There has been no significant progress since, despite a second failed summit in Hanoi, as Kim Jong-un has moved to shore up relations with Russia and China, neither of which has much reason to do favors for Trump. North Korea remains as much, if not more, of a threat to the US as in did in January 2017 at Trump’s inauguration.

The pattern was similar in soon forgotten Venezuela. Trump’s threats against President Maduro caused a temporary “crisis” but led nowhere. Maduro is still in power in Caracas while the American-backed interim president has failed to gain significant support in Venezuela’s armed forces. With no possibility of even a vague one-page statement in sight, Trump has moved on to other targets.

Iran is getting the typical Trump treatment. While deploying military assets to the Gulf and allowing National Security Adviser Bolton to talk tough, President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo have been begging for talks with Tehran. Pompeo has dropped his 12 preconditions. The President had never endorsed them. What the Administration wants now seems to be nothing more than an opportunity to sit at a table and berate Iran for building missiles and using proxies to project power in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Any statement from such “talks” would be no more substantive than Trump got out of Mexico.

The Iranians are no fools and could teach a Flim Flam 101 of their own. All their threats to close the Strait of Hormuz fall in this category, as their own ships pass there, as well as those of other nations delivering Iranian oil. The Iranians no doubt know that the Trump Administration is incapable of negotiating anything like the 159 pages of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aka Iran nuclear deal. If ever they agree to talk about missiles and the use of proxies, Tehran will no doubt ask for reciprocity: removal of US weapons from the Gulf and an end to US military support to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar.

Tehran knows those will be non-starters for the US. The only likely outcome of talks with the US would be an exchange of prisoners: Iranians held on criminal charges in the US for Americans (including Iranian Americans) held in Iran. Trump may decide that would be worth his while, as it would give him a much-needed boost on the international stage, where he is more pariah than hero. But I have my doubts he’ll be willing to pay the price for even that small gain: the Iranians will want relief from at least some of the sanctions that are tanking their economy.

Trump is a bad negotiator who follows a transparent pattern: threaten, cause crisis, settle for little, declare victory, take personal credit. It isn’t working. He has been unable to negotiate a single agreement worthy of presidential attention, and his threats are making other countries hedge their bets. The bullying with sanctions and tariffs is gaining nothing. It is instead undermining international confidence in the US and making other countries look elsewhere for leadership. Would you do business with a flim flam man who bullies?

Tags : , , , ,

Defeated, yet still a threat

June 5 the Middle East Institute hosted Ambassador James Jeffery, Special Envoy for the Coalition to Defeat ISIS and Special Representative for Syria Engagement, Edmund Fitton-Brown, coordinator for the United Nations Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team on ISIS, Al-Qaeda & Taliban, and Jessica Lambert-Gray, First Secretary for Counter-Terrorism and Extremism at the British Embassy for a conversation on countering terrorism in the Middle East. Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, moderated the panel.

Jeffery qualified the declaration of the Islamic State (ISIS)’s defeat. Although it should be lauded and the US-led coalition of over 80 countries praised for their efforts, the United States and other international forces ought to remain wary of ISIS affiliates and pockets of resistance in Syria and Iraq. The US will need to continue to arm and train Iraqi soldiers to fight ISIS resistance. The US will also continue to support the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), despite the recent withdrawal of close to 95% of US ground support in Syria. A small force of American troops and strategic personnel will remain to stabilize and secure the SDF-controlled areas along the Euphrates.

Jeffery touched on how broader political issues in the Middle East catalyzed the formation of ISIS. He pointed specifically to how the Assad regime, backed by Iran, lashed out against peaceful protesters in Syria in 2011, fomenting the unrest needed to strengthen ISIS.

Lambert-Gray echoed Jeffery’s statements, positing that while the caliphate is gone, the threat is not. Her analysis portends the rise of “Daesh (ISIS) 2.0” and “Al-Qaeda 3.0” if international forces do not maintain pressure on these groups in Iraq and Syria. She fears that both groups may be able to expand, evolve, and rise again.

Lambert-Gray notes that ISIS’s most concerning weapon is its ability to inspire extremism and terrorist attacks globally. The production of online propaganda has become key to the survival of ISIS during its current “hibernation.” Regarding the Al-Qaeda, Lambert-Gray argues that the threat had never actually subsided. Its Iran-based leadership is becoming increasingly powerful, but she declined to provide any further details, stating that her team is still researching the issue.

In an effort to reduce risks, the UK has banned travel to Syria and provides no diplomatic support to citizens who elect to travel without authorization. The UK is also trying to diminish the online presence of ISIS. Countering Daesh can only be achieved with strategic patience and by an unrelenting drain of their resources.

Fitton-Brown complemented Lambert-Gray’s comments, noting that the “Islamic State’s covert network is forming now in Syria as it did in Iraq in 2017.” He also fears that ISIS will be able to further spread its network through the ongoing refugee crisis at the border of Turkey. In Iraq the government is having trouble containing and trying detained IS fighters. With the prospect of extremism re-emerging in the Levant and possibly spreading into Turkey, Fitton-Brown identifies building inclusive governments for Sunni citizens as the key challenge for Iraq and Syria. Detaining, trying, and eventually releasing foreign ISIS fighters in Iraq and the possibility for further radicalization present additional challenges.

The key message from the panel is that extremism in the Levant still poses a serious threat , with the potential to generate unrest globally. Mitigation of extremist activity has seen modest success, but continued pressure is essential to ensure that groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda do not recover. Among the most dangerous and far-reaching tools that extremist groups can employ are online propaganda and recruiting campaigns.  

Tags : , , , , ,
Tweet