Best summit EVER!
Hard to write anything you haven’t already read about the Mueller indictment of 12 Russian officials for cyberattacks on the United States. This is the second shoe to drop. The first consisted of indictments for the social media campaign intended to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.
The President is now golfing to get ready to meet with “not my enemy” Vladimir Putin in Helsinki tomorrow. Trump intends to start the summit one-on-one, with only interpreters. That way he can say whatever he wants about what transpired, as the interpreters won’t leak. While he has said he would ask about interference in the US election, Trump has also repeated Putin’s earlier denials, indicating he believes them. I don’t know anyone else in Washington who does.
Trump is fresh from London meetings during which he offended the Queen, supported the Prime Minister’s leading rival, and claimed immigration was ruining both Europe and the US. That followed on a NATO summit at which he trashed America’s allies, then (falsely) pretended that they had yielded to his will on military spending. Today he even responded to a question about America’s worst enemy by saying the EU is a foe. This is Putin’s wet dream: the United States split from Europe and in particular from its militarily strongest ally.
Where and when does this nightmare end? Not in Helsinki, where Trump will likely serve up Syria on a silver platter, asking only that Moscow promise to get he Iranians out, or at least off the Israeli border. Putin will promise, the Americans will bail, but neither Russia nor Iran will feel any pressure to fulfill any commitment Putin has made. Their attacks on the agreed de-escalation zones in Syria, and Trump’s abandonment of the rebel forces in the south, tells you all you need to know about how Moscow, Damascus, and Washington are approaching Syria these days. Moscow and Damascus are trying to win. Washington doesn’t care about losing. Once the Americans are gone from Syria, Iran and Russia will be free to do as they like.
The only good news is that Trump might be boxed in on Ukraine. While he has personally expressed the view that Crimea should belong to Russia because people there speak Russian, the Administration and Congress seem solidly opposed to any compromise on Ukraine before withdrawal of Russian forces. Trump will have a hard time promising Putin relief from Ukraine-related sanctions if the Congress stands its ground. That said, any indication of indifference towards the Russian annexation of Crimea will be a big win for Putin, even if the sanctions remain in place for now.
Of course Trump will declare the Helsinki summit a great success, one much more successful than any previous meeting with an American president. People will be saying it was the best summit EVER!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks July 15 – 21
1. The Legacy of the July 15 Coup Attempt on Civil-Military and US-Turkey Relations | Monday, July 16, 2018 | 10:30 am – 3:30 pm | The SETA Foundation | Register Here
On July 15, 2016, the Turkish people demonstrated their commitment to democracy and civil rights by peacefully resisting and stopping an attempted coup by a faction within the Turkish Armed Forces. In the two years since, Turkey has changed its system of government and overhauled its military forces, reforms which have had marked effects on the nature of civil-military relations in Turkey. These changes will have significant impact on the future of the US-Turkey relations as well as the democratic development of the country.
On July 16, The SETA Foundation at Washington DC will host a conference on the anniversary of the July 15 coup attempt with a Keynote Address by Dr. Ravza Kavakci Kan, Deputy Chairperson of the AK Party. Two panel discussions will focus on the future of civil-military relations in Turkey and the changes in Turkey since the 2016 coup attempt will mean for the future of the US-Turkey security partnership, which has long been a strong bond between the two nations.
10:30 – 12:00 Panel I: The Future of Civil-Military Relations in Turkey
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
Moderated by Kadir Ustun, Executive Director, The SETA Foundation at Washington DC
12:00 – 1:00 Keynote Address by Dr. Ravza Kavakci Kan, Deputy Chairperson of the AK Party
1:00 – 1:30 Lunch
1:30 – 3:00 Panel II: The Future of the US-Turkey Security Partnership
Mark Kimmitt, Defense Consultant, MTK Defense Consultants
Richard Outzen, Senior US Army Advisor & Member of Policy Planning Staff, US Department of State
Kadir Ustun, Executive Director, The SETA Foundation at Washington DC
Moderated by Kilic B. Kanat, Research Director, The SETA Foundation at Washington DC
2. Second Anniversary of the July 15 Coup Attempt | Monday, July 16, 2018 | 11:00 am – 12:30 pm | Turkish Heritage Organization | Held at the United States Institute for Peace, Auditorium – 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
Please join THO and Bau International University on Monday, July 16, for an exclusive interview with Ret. General, Commander of the Turkish Land Forces, Salih Zeki Colak. This event will focus on the second anniversary of the July 15 coup attempt that took place in 2016.
Speakers:
Salih Zeri Colak – Retired General, Commander of the Turkish Land Forces
Dr. M. Hakan Yavuz – Professor of Political Science, University of Utah
Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Jr. – Chairman Emeritus, Stimson Center
3. JCPOA 2.0: Iran, Europe, Trump, and the Future of the Iran Deal | Monday, July 16, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm | National Iranian American Council | Capitol Visitor Center, Room SVC-210/212 | Register Here
Nearly two months have passed since President Trump exited from the Iran nuclear deal and announced the reimposition of nuclear-related sanctions on Iran. While major businesses have withdrawn from the Iranian market in the wake of the decision, the remaining parties to the accord have continued to engage in dialogue about how to keep the accord alive.
Speakers:
John Glaser – Director of Foreign Policy Studes, Cato Institute
Kelsey Davenport – Director for Nonproliferation Policy, Arms Control Association
Reza Marashi – Research Director, National Iranian American Council
Jamal Abdi – Vice President of Policy, National Iranian American Council
4. Are Americans Giving Up on Democracy? | Tuesday, July 17, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | New America | Register Here
How committed are Americans to the values, norms and processes of democracy itself? As non-democratic and illiberal movements take hold across the globe, and with democratic norms and voting rights under threat in the U.S., this question has gained urgency. Recently, two major studies of public attitudes, from the Democracy Fund’s Voter Study Group and from Pew Research Center, have delved deeply and rigorously into this question.
Please join us for a lunchtime conversation about the state of our democracy, what citizens want to see from their country, and how to move forward. Lee Drutman of New America and Jocelyn Kiley from Pew Research Center will present the key findings of the results, followed by a discussion involving journalists and academics who have watched the shifting ground of American democracy from different angles.
Speakers:
Lee Drutman – Senior Fellow, Political Reform, New America
Jocelyn Kiley – Associate Director, US Politics, Pew Research Center
Perry Bacon, Jr. – Political Writer, FiveThirtyEight
Vanessa Wiliamson – Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings Institution
Henry Olsen – Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
5. Supporting Democracy in Challenging Times | Tuesday, July 17, 2018 | 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
For more than three decades, the United States has provided bipartisan support to secure freedom, human rights and democratic governance for countries around the world through the work of the National Endowment for Democracy, along with its four core institutes, the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the Solidarity Center.
Over the past decade, the work of promoting democracy has been increasingly challenging amidst a phenomenon of democratic recession and resurgent authoritarianism, which is increasingly viewed by scholars as a new era of ideological and political contestation. Systemic corruption, deep inequality and injustice, and the failure of governments to address the needs of ordinary citizens breed political instability, terrorism, and massive flows of refugees – conditions that threaten our own security and well-being. Authoritarian leaders are capitalizing on these conditions and accelerating their efforts to penetrate and corrupt fragile states through aggressive political, economic, technological and cultural mechanisms with the goal of reaping political influence and acquiring strategic resources. Please join us at CSIS on July 17 as we host the heads of the NED, CIPE, IRI, NDI, and the Solidarity Center to discuss the new challenges in supporting democracy.
Speakers:
Carl Gershman – President, National Endowment for Democracy
Andrew Wilson – Executive Director, Center for International Private Enterprise
Daniel Twining – President, International Republican Institute
Kenneth Wollack – President, National Democratic Institute
Shawna Bader-Blau – Executive Director, Solidarity Center
Daniel F. Runde – William A. Schreyer Chair and Director, Project on Prosperity and Development, CSIS
6. Oil and Iran: How Renewed Sanctions Will Affect Iran and World Markets | Wednesday, July 18, 2018 | 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm | Atlantic Council | Register Here
In exiting the Iran nuclear deal, the Trump administration has vowed to drastically reduce Iran’s oil exports below figures reached during negotiations over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Administration officials have been traveling the globe urging importers of Iranian oil to cut purchases to zero by Nov. 4, the deadline for re-imposition of US secondary sanctions. The panel will discuss whether this goal is realistic and the impact the US campaign is having on global production and prices as well as on Iran.
Speakers:
Moderator: Barbara Slavin – Director, Future of Iran Initiative, Atlantic Council
Anna Borshchevskaya – Ira Weiner Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Amos J. Hochstein – Senior Vice President, Marketing, Tellurian Inc.
Robin Mills – CEO, Qamar Energy
Brian O’Toole – Non-resident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council
Sara Vakhshouri – Founder and President, SVB Energy International
7. From Washington to Brussels: A Discussion on the NATO 2018 Summit | Thursday, July 19, 2018 | 8:30 am – 9:15 am | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
Please join us on Thursday, July 19 for a timely conversation with Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), Co-Chairs of the Senate NATO Observer Group and members of the U.S. delegation to the July 11-12 NATO Summit, for post-summit analysis as well as a discussion of the vital role that bipartisan Congressional leadership plays in tackling transatlantic security challenges. Our speakers will share details about the specific role the newly constituted Senate NATO Observer Group will play in providing Congressional support for NATO and U.S. strategic interests in Europe.
8. No Friends, No Enemies? Trans-Atlantic Relations after Trump’s Europe Trip | Thursday, July 19, 2018 | 4:00 pm – 5:30 pm | Brookings Institution | Register Here
What is the state of the Atlantic alliance following the July NATO summit and the meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki? Where are relations heading between the Trump administration and the European Union, which Trump has claimed “was set up to take advantage” of the United States? What are the implications of the Trump administration’s protectionism for trans-Atlantic relations? Where do Brexit Britain and post-election Turkey fit in an evolving West? Under pressure from within and without, can the European Union forge a stronger independent foreign policy and preserve multilateralism and liberal order in a world where these concepts are under assault?
On July 19, the Center on the United States and Europe, in partnership with the Turkish Industry and Business Association (TÜSİAD), will host a panel discussion examining recent developments in Europe and trans-Atlantic relations, including the outcomes of Trump’s July trip to Brussels, London, and Helsinki. Following the discussion, the panelists will take questions from the audience.
Speakers:
Introduction: Bahadir Kaleagasi – CEO, TUSIAD
Moderator: Susan B. Glasser – Staff Writer, The New Yorker
Robert Kagan – Stephen & Barbara Friedman Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Kemal Kirişci – Senior Fellow, TUSIAD; Director, The Turkey Project, Brookings Institution
Angela Stent – Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Thomas Wright – Director, Center on the United States and Europe, Brookings Institution
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Putin’s pet
President Trump is on his way to a meeting Monday with Russian President Putin. Along the way, he is doing precisely what Putin most wishes for.
First Trump trashed NATO. That’s the alliance Putin loves to hate. Trump not only criticized the allies for failing to meet the 2024 2% target for defense spending, he also fired a salvo at Germany for importing gas from Russia. Sitting next to him when he did that at breakfast were Secretary of State Pompeo, Ambassdor to NATO Hutchison, and Chief of Staff Kelly. All looked stunned, but Kelly did not bother hiding his discomfort. The White House spokesperson put him in his place by claiming he was disappointed in the breakfast offerings.
Then last night, in an interview that became public while he was at dinner with Prime Minister May in London, Trump compounded the felony. He not only blasted his host for not favoring “hard” Brexit and allowing immigrants to damage the “fabric” of British society, but also attacked the mayor of London for being soft on terrorism. The racist tone of these remarks is apparent to anyone who listens. The “special relationship” between the US and UK hasn’t known a lower moment in the past 100 years.
Then this morning we read that Trump is preparing to cut a “deal” on Syria in which Putin promises something he can’t deliver: withdrawal of the Iranians and their proxies from Syria’s border with Israel. In return, the US would withdraw from Syria, something Trump has promised publicly he would do, leaving the Kurds to cut a deal with Assad. This is an idea Netanyahu is pushing, along with relieving Russia from US and European sanctions.
The next shoe to drop will be Ukraine. Trump believes Crimea rightfully belongs to Russia, since people speak Russian there. Never mind that many people throughout Ukraine speak Russian, as well as Ukrainian. He may accept the Russian annexation, thereby putting a big smile on Putin’s face and completing an extraordinary week for the Russian president: NATO undermined, the UK/US relationship weakened, Syria won, and Crimea absorbed. What else could go right?
The pattern is clear: Trump is Putin’s pet president doing precisely what Moscow wants. The only real question is why.
I have favored the view that money is the main reason. Trump’s real estate empire, about which he cares more than anything else, is heavily dependent on Russian investment and purchases of condos. Putin could turn off the flow of rubles in an instant. No wealthy Russian would buck the president, who gets to decide which oligarchs prosper and which don’t. Trump’s finances wouldn’t survive a month without Moscow’s support.
But it is also possible that Trump himself was recruited long ago. He hired people for his campaign who were Russian intelligence assets. Special Counsel Mueller has already indicted some of them. Trump’s visit to Moscow in the late 1980s, when it was still the capital of the Soviet Union, has raised questions. The Republican attempt yesterday in Congress to discredit the former chief of FBI counter-intelligence operations, Peter Strzok, suggests how desperate they are to stymie an investigation that has already gotten to one degree of separation from Trump.
But the Congress is also beginning to react appropriately to Trump’s surrender of American interests to Putin. It has passed a strong resolution in support of NATO and against concessions to Putin on Ukraine. Republican discomfort with Trump’s “national security” tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and the European Union is starting to show. The trade war with China is causing a lot of heartburn in the Middle West and other areas of the country the Republicans need to keep on their side.
But Putin is still making Trump sit and beg. He is Putin’s pet.
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.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Cause to celebrate
Why should you be pleased that NATO has invited Macedonia to join the Alliance? It’s a small country (2 million people) tucked away and landlocked on the Balkan peninsula without even much of a highway running through it. One quarter of its population is Albanian and 10% are all sorts of other things: Serbs, Croats, Vlachs and who knows what. It only declared independence in 1991 and has spent most of its existence squabbling with Greece, which claims Macedonia’s name exclusively for one of its provinces.
First and foremost, the NATO invitation will, one hopes, give both Macedonia and Greece the courage to end the squabbling. Skopje and Athens have negotiated an elaborate agreement that changes the official name (for all uses) to Republic of Northern Macedonia and resolves a host of contentious details concerning the country’s language, cultural history, textbooks, minorities, irredentist claims, economic cooperation….All that is needed is final approval in the two countries’ parliaments and in a referendum in Macedonia. That is a high water mark in a 25-year effort to resolve the issue.
Second, the invitation sends a strong signal in two directions:
- to the other countries in the Balkans who are not yet members of either NATO or the EU.
- to the Russians, who have been determined to slow if not block NATO expansion.
The signal to the rest of the Balkans is just this: if you have the political courage to take on and resolve tough issues, the trans-Atlantic institutions will hold their doors open to you. First NATO, then the EU. Solve your inter-ethnic issues and problems with your neighbors, reform your economies and political systems to reduce corruption and prevent state capture, and you will get a place at the table in the two most important alliances ever created.
To the Russians, the signal is just as clear: you may try to block NATO expansion and try to drive a wedge between Europe and the US, but you will not succeed. Even the relatively weak states in the Balkans will stand up to you. Macedonia has already expelled some of your intelligence agents trying to sow dissension from the “name” agreement. Montenegro last year, Macedonia this year. Maybe Kosovo the year after. Then only Serbia and Republika Srpska will stand between the Alliance and a Balkans whole and free. You can try to shore up your proxies, but they stand to gain more joining the West than continuing to bet on Vladimir Putin.
Third, NATO membership will add Macedonia’s small army and military capabilities to an Alliance that needs them. The Macedonians have already served years embedded in the Vermont National Guard in Afghanistan, where their commanding general thought they performed as well as US troops in combat. Who knows where they will be needed next, whether by NATO or the EU military structure? They are still short of the 2% of GDP goal NATO set for 2024, but their invitation gives Macedonia every incentive to reach it, sooner rather than later.
Of course in the scheme of things, “Northern Macedonia” in NATO is a small victory. It isn’t nearly as earthshaking as an American president who can’t find anything good to say about the Alliance while praising the Russian president who attacked the American electoral system. But it’s a good thing and something to celebrate.
RSS - Posts
