Tag: NATO
Stevenson’s army December 5 and 6
December 6
– DIA has done a big unclassified report on Iran’s military power.
– A law firm has done a good summary of recent sanctions policy.
– FP says State is excluding officials from information on senior officials’ phone calls.
-David Ignatius says State blocked a contract to train Saudi intelligence.
December 5
Something’s going on. I don’t know whether there has been a genuine increase in the threat from Iran or whether the administration is creating a pretext for military action in the region. Here are the dots that seem to connect: US officials are now revealing that Iran has secretly moved short range ballistic missiles into Iraq. Despite public denials, Pentagon reporters hear that the military wants to send an additional 14,000 US troops to the Middle East [but no details on location or types]. SecState Pompeo had an urgently scheduled meeting with IsraeliPM Netanyahu, where the key topic was said to be Iran. Under Secretary Rood made an even more explicit warning of Iranian military action.
Meanwhile, a former senior intelligence official says Trump often disputes what IC briefers tell him.
Kim Jong-un also seems to be ratcheting up his threats to change policy at the New Year.
Reuters says Jared Kushner is now playing a big role in China trade talks.
NYT study says US cluster munitions have caused many US friendly fire deaths.
A Syracuse professor burns a straw man in a WSJ op-ed. He decries any value in the “interagency process” because the president is in charge of foreign policy. Of course the president is the ultimate authority. But wise and successful presidents over the years have used the process to vet and revise their policies, and to implement them. Many of Trump’s setbacks have come precisely because he acted impulsively or ignorance of contextual details. [See, I don’t only send things I agree with.]
As an example of this process internationally, look at the detailed official statement from the NATO summit.
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:
Stevenson’s army, November 28
Happy Thanksgiving. Why wait? There’s lots of interesting news today.
The president signed the Hong Kong bills. Here’s a summary. And the second bill also signed.
The Chinese reaction, according to Politico:— @HuXijin_GT, a
closely watched reporter for a state-controlled Chinese newspaper:
“Based what I know, out of respect for President Trump, the US and its
people, China is considering to put the drafters of the Hong Kong Human
Rights and Democracy Act on the no-entry list, barring them from
entering Chinese mainland, Hong Kong and Macao.”“Furious, China summons US ambassador over Hong Kong bills”:
“China reacted furiously Thursday to President Donald Trump’s signing
two bills aimed at supporting human rights in Hong Kong, summoning the
U.S. ambassador to protest and warning the move would undermine
cooperation with Washington. …
“Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng told U.S. Ambassador Terry Branstad that the move constituted ‘serious interference in China’s internal affairs and a serious violation of international law,’ a foreign ministry statement said.
Meanwhile, note how China has expanded its diplomatic capabilities.
The administration wants to cut US contributions to NATO
It gives jobs to dissenters
And I agree with CSIS argument against moving foreign economic policy outside the NSC.
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:
The nuclear race has begun
As Iran steps up its enrichment of uranium, the harbingers are clear:
- Turkish President Erdogan is asking questions out loud about why his country doesn’t have nuclear weapons,
- Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince is making it clear the Kingdom won’t be left far behind,
- Israel is lying low with its 100 or more warheads somewhere between ready and almost ready to launch, and
- North Korea is successfully resisting American pressure to give up its dozen or so nukes, making it clear to the whole world that Washington is a toothless tiger when it comes to nuclear nonproliferation.
The nightmare many of us feared in the 1970s and 1980s of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East has begun.
The trigger was President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (aka Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) and reimposition of sanctions have released Tehran from its obligations, which it is gradually and deliberately breaching. Turkey, which has long relied on the American nuclear umbrella and NATO, has cozied up to Russia–even purchasing its advanced air defense system–as relations with Washington worsened over how to deal with the Syrian Kurds. Erdogan has no doubt heard the talk about removing American nuclear weapons from Turkey and has drawn the obvious conclusion: if the American umbrella won’t protect you, get your own.
The Saudis increasingly view President Trump as unreliable, especially vis-a-vis Iran. They would be fools not to try to keep pace with the Turks in the race with Iran for nuclear weapons capability. What they can’t develop themselves, they’ll buy. The once prevalent and now quaint notion that no nuclear-savvy country would sell its crown jewels disappeared with Pakistani nuclear merchant A.Q. Khan. The Saudis can pay any price if need be.
The Middle East had gotten used to the Israeli nuclear capabilities, which have been regarded for decades as a deterrent for use only as a last resort. They play little roll in the balance of power beyond ensuring that Israel will continue to exist. The same cannot be assumed about Iranian, Turkish, and Saudi capabilities. Multi-sided games are much more complex than one- or two-sided ones. We can be thankful for the modus vivendi between nuclear India and nuclear Pakistan, but it is no harbinger for a four-sided nuclear standoff in the eastern Mediterranean. And the subcontinent’s standoff may not last forever, since at least Pakistan regards nuclear weapons as useful in warfighting, not just the last resort.
We have at least a few years, perhaps even a decade, before this race reaches some sort of equilibrium. In the meanwhile, the push and shove will be made all the more dramatic by US withdrawal from the Middle East. Its interests there have declined markedly with the development of advanced oil and gas recovery technology and the continued reduction of the US economy’s dependence on energy, especially in the form of hydrocarbons.
The big challenges for American diplomacy today are to slow the Middle East nuclear arms race and build some sort of regional security structure in which the Turks, Iranians, Saudis, and ultimately Israelis can work out their differences without resort to either the proxy wars they are already engaged in or the nuclear exchanges that will all-too-soon become possible. US withdrawal from its over-exposure in the Middle East is inevitable and desirable. But the risks are colossal. Diplomacy can reduce but likely not eliminate those risks.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | October 21 – October 25
U.S. Policy Priorities for Afghanistan: A Conversation with U.S. Representative Mike Waltz | October 21, 2019 | 3:00 PM – 4:00 PM | Middle East Institute, 1763 N Street NW, Washington, District of Columbia 2003 | Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host U.S. Representative (FL) Michael Waltz to address U.S. policy priorities for Afghanistan. In conversation with Dr. Marvin Weinbaum, director of Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies at MEI, Rep. Waltz will discuss the many complicated challenges facing Afghanistan, key regional challenges to consider, and policy prescriptions given the fallout of the deal with the Taliban.
Yemen and International Humanitarian Law: Briefing from UN Experts | October 21, 2019 | 2:30 PM – 4:00 PM | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036-2103 | Register Here
The conflict in Yemen has killed more than 90,000 Yemenis and put more than 20 million in need of humanitarian assistance. The UN Group of Eminent International and Regional Experts on Yemen (GEE) have just released a new report describing a “pervasive lack of accountability” for violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. How will the latest developments in the conflict, including the rift between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, affect the dire conditions in the country and the prospects for accountability?
Please join the Carnegie Middle East Program and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies for a briefing by the experts on their recent report. Chair Kamel Jendoubi as well as members Melissa Parke and Charles Garraway will present their findings. Yemeni human rights defender Radhya al-Mutawakel will add her perspective. Carnegie’s Michele Dunne will moderate the conversation.
This event is co-sponsored by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.
More in the Med: Revitalizing NATO’s Southern Strategy for an Era of Great Power Competition | October 22, 2019 | 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM | Atlantic Council Headquarters, 1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here
Over the last 5 years, NATO has made huge strides to defend and deter against Russia in Europe’s northeast – what NATO does best. But its work in Europe’s south – in the Mediterranean, Middle East, and Africa – continues to fall short. This is not only a missed opportunity to mitigate the real, and growing, challenges along NATO’s Mediterranean and Black Sea frontiers, such as instability, terrorism, and uncontrolled migration, together with a more aggressive Russia and rising China; neglecting the threats closest to home for southern allies also threatens the solidarity and cohesion among allies that are essential to transatlantic security in an era of intensifying great power competition.
To help reinvigorate NATO’s southern strategy for today’s environment, the Transatlantic Security Initiative is launching a new report, co-authored by Ambassador Alexander Vershbow and Lauren Speranza. The paper argues that NATO’s south is not just about projecting stability, but also defense, deterrence, and containment. It outlines specific recommendations for how to project stability better, make the south ‘the new east’ through an enhanced Southern presence, and bolster regional leadership – particularly from Italy, a key ally at the heart of NATO’s south.
Opening Remarks
Damon Wilson
Executive Vice President
Atlantic Council
Alessandro Profumo
Chief Executive Officer
Leonardo S.p.A.
Keynote Address
General James L. Jones, Jr., USMC (Ret.)
Executive Chairman Emeritus
Atlantic Council
Discussion
Ambassador Philip Reeker
Acting Assistant Secretary of European and Eurasian Affairs
US Department of State
Ambassador Alexander Vershbow
Distinguished Fellow, Transatlantic Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security
Atlantic Council
Ambassador Armando Varicchio
Ambassador
Embassy of Italy to the United States
Kirsten Fontenrose
Director, Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative
Atlantic Council
Moderator
Lauren Speranza
Deputy Director, Transatlantic Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security
Atlantic Council
Are Sanctions Working in Venezuela? | October 23, 2019 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM | CSIS Headquarters | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
As the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela continues to deteriorate, a debate has risen among policymakers as to whether or not sanctions may be worsening conditions for Venezuelan citizens.
While the United States, the Lima Group, the European Union, and other like-minded nations continue to increase pressure on the regime of Nicolás Maduro with diplomatic measures such as challenging his government’s legitimacy, the question remains as to whether sanctions are an effective measure for changing the behavior of the Venezuelan regime and pushing Maduro to step down. Despite external support by Russia, Cuba, China, and a few other countries, Maduro is more alienated on the world stage than ever before. However, stiff sanctions and diplomatic isolation have not yet convinced Maduro to negotiate his exit, as his regime has proven to be resilient and adaptable.
The expert panel will assess the efficacy
of sanctions, including what is and is not working, as well as implications for
U.S. foreign policy, the energy sector, and the impact on Venezuela’s
humanitarian crisis and its struggle for democracy.
Panel Discussion Featuring:
Eric B. Lorber, Director, Financial Integrity
Network
Elizabeth
Rosenberg, Senior Fellow and Director of the Energy, Economics,
and Security Program, Center for a New American Security
David
Smolansky, Coordinator of the OAS Working Group on Venezuelan
Migrants and Refugees; Former Mayor of El Hatillo, Venezuela
Francisco J.
Monaldi, Fellow, Latin American Energy Policy, Rice University
Moderated by:
Moises Rendon, Director, The Future of Venezuela Initiative; Fellow, CSIS Americas Program
The Navy in an era of great power competition | October 23, 2019 | 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM | Brookings Institution, Saul/Zilkha Room, 1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
America’s maritime forces are undergoing significant changes to address the realities of great power competition. Evolving technology, ongoing uncertainty about the budgetary and fiscal climate, and accelerating innovation by America’s competitors have forced the Navy and Marine Corps to adapt quickly and comprehensively to fulfill the vision laid out for them in the National Defense Strategy. Much work, though, remains to be done.
On October 23, the Brookings Institution will host Richard Spencer, the 76th secretary of the Navy, to discuss naval modernization, the budgetary environment, and the challenges posed by America’s great power rivals to America’s maritime forces. The keynote address will be followed by a discussion between Secretary Spencer and Michael E. O’Hanlon, a Senior Fellow at Foreign Policy.
Partners against crime: Fighting cartels and corruption in the Americas | October 25, 2019 | 9:00 AM – 11:00 AM | AEI, 1789 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Transnational organized crime is a threat that reaches throughout the Western Hemisphere in the form of drug cartels, gangs, guerrilla groups, and crooked officials. These groups destabilize governments, spread violence, and undermine economic development. The United States relies on vital regional cooperation and partnerships to combat this threat, yet these partnerships can be disrupted by political shifts, corruption, and a lack of institutional capacity.
Please join AEI for a conversation on transnational organized crime, corruption, and the importance of regional partnerships. Attorney General of El Salvador Raúl Melara will deliver opening remarks, followed by a panel discussion with leading experts.
Panelists:
Ryan Berg, AEI
Roberto Gil Zuarth, President of the Senate of Mexico (2015–16)
Celina Realuyo, William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, National Defense University
Moderator:
Juan José Daboub, AEI
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A Kurdish view of Turkey’s invasion
Yousif Ismael is the Director of Media and Policy at the Washington Kurdish Institute. Colin Tait is a Research Assistant at the Middle East Institute.
Colin Tait: What can we expect in the coming days in northeastern Syria with this invasion?
Yousif Ismael: It’s already started. It has already resulted into the death of two civilians and the injury of one. The airstrikes are intense and covering all the bordering towns between Syria, the Kurdish region, and Turkey. We expect a lot of internally displaced people from those areas to go south. We expect massacres and we say massacres because we have experience with the same groups and the same state with Turkey and the jihadists in Afrin in March of 2018. We expect disaster and unfortunately, there’s not a lot of ears to eat.
CT: Ankara right now claims that they just planned to establish a safe zone and peace corridor along the border. Do you expect that they will go further south?
YI: First of all, the peace corridor or whatever they call it is based on a war propaganda. This is not reality. Sometimes they claim to fight ISIS but there is no ISIS over there whatsoever. The Kurds secured that region and the Kurds have never shot a bullet against Turkey from that region. It’s safer than the bordering points that Turkey has with the opposition groups and with Assad elsewhere. So, this is just a war propaganda. They are talking about a safe zone of 30 kilometers deep that basically is the Kurdish region of Syria. What people need to understand is that the Turkish ambition is historical against the Kurds. They are against any Kurdish entity rising up. They did the same thing in Iraqi Kurdistan, but then there was an imposed no-fly zone against Saddam which helped the Kurds create the entity. The same thing with Syria, they’re fighting with Turkey. Inside Turkey, the Kurds of course are suffering since 1923 when the Turkish state was built. We are worried it is not going to be only that but the 30 kilometers is good enough for Turkey to destroy the Kurdish region.
CT: The US removal of troops has caused a lot of short-term disasters that are occurring in the region. What is the long-term blowback you think for the region as a whole as well as the damage to the relationship between the Kurds and United States?
YI: Now the Americans as people, as lawmakers, as media, and as think tanks have showed their true feelings, which is about supporting the Kurdish and avoiding massacres and genocide. It mostly itself is based on the humanitarian situation. We love and we appreciate what America has showed to us except President Trump. He is the only one who is convinced to allow Turkey to invade and commit massacres. In the short-term, the US doesn’t have good policy in Syria. They gave up the West during the Obama Administration and now, they’re giving up East to Turkey during the Trump Administration. The relationship will always be great between the two Nations. However, the Kurds right now are obligated to go to our enemies and the enemies of the US as well, which is Iran, the Assad regime, and Russia to get some source of some protection. It is a fight for survival.
To be fair and far from emotions, the Syrian regime and Russia also don’t offer much to the Kurds. They don’t give them any entity or any rights. But to surrender the entire region to Assad, which is basically going back to pre-2012, the Kurds were persecuted without citizenship and had no rights. We didn’t have many options.
Going back to the cooperation between the US and Kurds, the Kurds wanted to defend their land and not become refugees and stay in their homeland. And the only people to help them they were the US and the US-led Coalition which was great. The Kurds defended their land thanks to the US but also the Kurds fought with US on behalf of the world against terror organizations. It’s two sides of the argument here and we are very disappointed that this big threat to the national security of the US and elsewhere is not affecting the president’s decision making because ISIS is on the verge to come back. Al-Qaeda is only becoming stronger and nobody’s even talking about it. They even have schools. They have thousands of troops in Syria. Then we’re talking about Iran, yet we’ve given them another strategic part which affects the allies of the US.
CT: Going back to the Kurds and the US and Trump harming the relationship. Congress on both sides of the spectrum have said that they want to impose sanctions and push back on President Trump’s decision. Do you think sanctions are enough? And what can US policymakers do to backpedal and reverse this decision.
YI: Just a side note. The only bipartisan non-binding resolution that took place by the Senate was in January or December of last year when Trump wanted to withdraw. That was the only bipartisan movement. The Kurds united the two sides, the Democrats and Republicans. This same thing is repeating itself, which is amazing because national security should be a bipartisan issue. It should not be a Democratic or Republican. But yes, sanctions are not enough. There’s always a veto by the president and there are always ways to get away with it. Turkey got away with breaking the sanctions of the US against Iran. Turkey got away with buying Russian weapons. Turkey got away with helping the Venezuelan dictatorship by trading gold between Iran and Venezuela and this is all on record on a media publicly. I think that a good immediate solution is to shut down the skies on Turkey to stop these massacres against the Kurds. The Kurds then could figure out how to resist or just to survive better than allowing them to use the sky. A no-fly zone would be ideal and that should be the priority of Congress.
CT: I met with a former Syrian diplomat and he discussed how the Autonomous Administration of North Eastern Syria is the best model for the future of a stable Syria. What can be done to preserve this idea as Turkey starts to invade Northeastern Syria?
YI: The US built this multi-ethnic Kurdish majority and now Arab majority multi-ethnic force that defeated the most brutal organization of ISIS. After that, Kurds helped the other communities, with the help of the US DOD and Pentagon to be specific, to help these civilian councils to manage. This is a very secular decentralized system that is pro-human rights and women rights. They have a different vision and they’re not calling for independent Kurdistan. They want to remain in Syria.
It is a very good model to follow. The only way to preserve it is to stop Turkey because sooner or later, if this continues, Iran, Russia, and the Syrian regime will pounce at the towns because the Kurds cannot fight everyone and all the Kurds are asking for is peace and talks with Turkey.
Nobody wants war. Nobody wants to be killed. 11,000 YPG members have been killed and 22,000 injured as the SDF. This is affecting 200 thousand families. Look how many families are affected by this. The economy there is stable. All of these displaced people are in that region. Turkey is complaining about the refugees, but that region also has refugees. The Kurds were welcoming them even though they are under blockage of Syria, Turkey, and sometimes even by Iraq. It is not just a Kurdish problem. It is a Syrian problem.
CT: Can you talk about how the International Community aside from the United States can help with this crisis?
YI: To be fair, it is European responsibility even before the US to prevent this. Europe is closer to Turkey and the terrorists will eventually make their way to Europe before the United States. The Europeans should definitely do more, and I urge them and beg them and ask them to stop this invasion because this is not in their interest and not in Turkey’s interest, meaning the economy and the authoritarian regime of Turkey. This is having the Turkish soldiers ordered to go fight for something that is not his problem. This is something that is personal to Erdogan and his dictatorship ideology to resolve this Islamic Empire of Ottomans and this and that. It’s against the interest of everyone. I hope the Europeans will be serious and finally step up their game and prevent what is to happen in the coming days.
CT: What are you and other Kurdish organizations here in DC and around the country plan to do about this issue?
YI: We do our job as raising awareness. We defended the political, the culture, and the human rights of the Kurds in all parts. Today, Syrian Kurdistan is really in trouble and they’re facing massacres by Turkey. We will continue raising awareness, but we are again thankful for every voice from actors to think tanks to the media to lawmakers that they came up and spoke the truth and stood against the bad decision of President Trump.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Putin’s dream President
Rachel Maddow last night did a particularly good job documenting President Trump’s efforts to comply with President Putin’s fondest dreams:
Trump is not merely mouthing belief in Putin. He is doing things to please him. Odds are that Russian money is part of the reason. Let’s hope the various ongoing investigations, in particular of Deutsche Bank, clarify that in the next few months.
The dismantling of NATO efforts to defend Europe is particularly worrisome, as it won’t generate the same kind of domestic political backlash that canceling construction projects in Virginia will. It will also more directly weaken deterrence of Russian aggression, not only in Ukraine.
Trump may not be a Russian agent, but he is certainly doing as much as the Congress will allow to serve Putin’s (not necessarily Russia’s) interests. But Vladimir’s popularity is waning in Russia like Trump’s in America and Boris Johnson’s in Britain. It will be a happy day when all three are out of power.
RSS - Posts
