Tag: North Korea
No smear
Read Bill Taylor. His opening statement in the House yesterday illustrates vividly why it is so important to have a professional, disciplined, and honest Foreign Service.
Bill, who was my colleague at the US Institute of Peace 10 years ago, testifies to the existence of a communications channel from President Trump to Ukrainian President Zelensky that was demanding investigations of the 2016 election and of Joe Biden’s son in exchange for freeing up military assistance and allowing Zelensky a visit to the White House. The crux of the matter is this, in Bill’s words:
The irregular policy channel was running contrary to goals of longstanding U.S. policy.
Informal channels are common and often useful in diplomacy. Bill was lucky he even knew about this one. Often they bypass the official Chief of Mission entirely. Trump is entitled to use his friends to convey messages to a foreign head of state if he likes.
But in this case the informal channel really was irregular, because it was conveying messages inconsistent with US law and policy. The Congress had provided the military assistance and the various departments of government whose assent was required had given it. Stated US policy was support for Ukraine. If Trump wanted to add conditions, he needed to tell his own Administration as well as the Congress and inform the embassy.
He failed to do that, since he knew the backlash would be gigantic. He preferred instead to use his personal lawyer and a campaign contributor now ambassador to the European Union. Rudy Giuliani and Gordon Sondland could be relied on to do Trump’s personal bidding, no matter how wrong-headed. Under instructions from the President, they were trying to use US aid to extract results that would be personally and politically beneficial to himself. Bill memorably described this as “crazy,” but it is far worse that that. It is a corrupt abuse of power.
Now the President and his minions are claiming Bill’s testimony is a “smear” because there was no quid pro quo. This is classic Trump: accusing others of doing what he is doing to them and claiming that the facts are somehow different because he says they are. Bill should wear the accusations against him with pride: he did has done the right thing and demonstrated how an honest civil servant can penetrate the fog of lies and abuse of power that surround this president.
There is more to come. Defense official Laura Cooper is talking with the House today. No doubt many intelligence officials, civil servants, and Foreign Service officers will, following Bill’s example, find the courage to speak out. There will be plenty of high crimes and misdemeanors to sort through. The big question is when Speaker Pelosi will decide that the House has enough to impeach: before the end of the year, as many are speculating, or closer to the 2020 election?
Trump has now betrayed American interests in Ukraine, Syria (by yanking US troops without proper preparation), North Korea (by ignoring missile launches), and even Saudi Arabia, where he has failed to respond to the attack on its oil production facilities. In all four places he has created openings that Russian President Putin is exploiting. There were good reasons why Putin intervened in the 2016 election in favor of Trump, who is both strikingly incompetent and beholden to Russian financing.
That is no smear. It is the sad and apparent truth.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Sickening
Today’s announcement of a unilateral withdrawal of US forces from northeastern Syria in response to Turkey’s request is the worst of many possible worlds: Ankara will take over the border area, much of which is predominantly Kurdish, precipitating a fight with the PYD Syrian Kurds, ending the Kurdish effort against the remnants of the Islamic State, and enabling the Syrian government to reassert its control over the natural and agricultural resources of the northeast, most of which do not lie along the border.
President Erdogan sought the American withdrawal, though he may be surprised if it is complete. I will be too. The US should be maintaining some counterterrorism forces in northeastern Syria. They could be nominally covert rather than overt. Or they could be maintained over the border in Iraq. The ability to strike quickly and accurately is important. But President Trump needs to be able to brag that he has ended at least one Middle East war and withdrawn American troops, so what is desirable in terms of national security may give way to what is politically convenient.
Turkey will now take on the brunt of the fight against the Islamic State as well as against the Syrian Kurdish forces that support the PKK insurgency inside Turkey. Ankara also intends to move large numbers of Syrian refugees (millions is the stated number) back into a part of Syria where few of them lived before. Whole cities will need to be built. This is a big increase in Turkish burdens. It remains to be seen how well Ankara does. Economic pressures will make it doubly difficult.
The Syrian Kurdish forces will presumably flee south, into territory that is mostly Arab, and turn to Damascus for protection. President Assad used Syrian Kurds against Turkey for many years and will support their efforts to promote insurgency against the Turkish presence in northern Syria. This will put the Russians in an awkward spot, as Moscow wants to maintain good relations with both Ankara and Damascus, but President Putin has proven skilled at that game so far. Iran will be happy to see Turkey discomforted.
The US withdrawal will in principle create an opportunity to improve Washington’s relations with Ankara, but the Turkish purchase of Russian air defenses and the consequent American refusal to sell F35 airplanes to Turkey remain as serious obstacles. It is difficult to see how that knot will get untied, though Erdogan is skilled at backing up when he sees a real need to do so. President Trump would likely give in easily on the F35s, but there Congress plays a decisive role.
A negotiated US withdrawal might have avoided many of the difficulties that will now arise. But President Trump is proving inept at negotiations. The North Koreans have denounced their talks with the US over last weekend as “sickening.” So too is the decision to unilaterally withdraw from Syria.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 7
President Trump, following a conversation with Turkish President
Erdogan, announced withdrawal of remaining US forces in Syria,
reportedly against the advice of many advisers. Here’s WaPo’s story, and NYT’s.
Talks with North Korea broke down quickly this weekend. DPRK made blistering comments.
FP says Wagner Group of Russian mercenaries have been sidelined, but others remain.
Head of SouthCom says hundreds are in Venezuela. BTW, Venezuela will be the topic of our simulated SFRC hearing on Oct 23/24.
Kentucky favored by Transportation. No surprise.
Timothy Garton Ash has a good summary of Eastern Europe 30 years after the fall of the wall.
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, September 30 and October 1
I had trouble posting from home yesterday, so here are Charlie Stevenson’s news summaries for today and yesterday:
October 1
Happy New Year! [FY2020]
US News argues that the military have increasing dominance over DOD civilians. I share those concerns.
FP has a review of two new memoirs, by Samantha Power and Susan Rice.
Picking up on John Bolton’s sharp criticism of North Korea policy, John Gans notes the parallels with Al Haig, fired by Reagan.
September 30
Why did special envoy Volker resign? Politico has some background.
Will Trump actually block Chinese from Wall Street?
Double standard? Why does NYTimes seem to care more about hiding identity of a leaker than of a whistleblower who followed the law?
Is it that easy to hack US voting machines? The scary report.
How to mitigate the effects of tariffs? Sen. Cotton has another deviously clever idea.
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:
Find a way out
It would be hard to add much to what others have written justifying impeachment of President Trump. Certainly any Democratic president doing what Trump has done would have long ago been impeached, including by the current Democratic-controlled House. The only serious argument against impeachment is the Republican-majority Senate’s unwillingness to convict and remove him from office. That argument can be countered: without impeachment, Trump will be able to run in 2020 claiming (convincingly only to his die-hard supporters) that even the Democrats have not found anything he did that was wrong.
Underlying many of Trump’s impeachable offenses is one big one: he has erased the line between public and private interest. The usual American definition of corruption is use of public office for private gain. If you erase the line between public and private interest, nothing is corrupt: you can use government funds to have military air crews, security people, and White House staff stay at hotels you own. You can favor diplomats and business people who patronize your resorts. You can play inordinate amounts of golf on government time, you can give classified information to foreigners you regard as friends, and of course you can pressure a foreign government to investigate already debunked allegations against your likely opponent in the next election.
Trump has no concept of the public interest. He is all about himself. This is the essence of his character: narcissism. Morality, principles, norms, standards, and procedures are all irrelevant. Facts are what he determines them to be. Global warming isn’t happening. A hurricane headed up the East Coast of the US will hit Alabama. Relationships are what he says they are. He is in love with Kim Jong-un, who is good because he sends Trump nice letters despite the blatant cruelty of his ferociously dictatorial regime. Good people are people who are good to Trump. One day that is John Bolton. Bad people are people Trump doesn’t like. A few weeks later that is again John Bolton.
Right now Trump is focused on Iran. He shows no sign of understanding that he caused the current crisis with Iran by withdrawing from the nuclear deal. Iran is bad. So maximum pressure, mainly through sanctions, is justified, even if they affect food and medicine, even if America’s European allies won’t join in, and even if the result is a devastatingly accurate missile attack on Saudi oil production facilities. The failure of the US to live up to its obligations, undertaken by a previous president, doesn’t matter to Trump. He doesn’t like that previous president and is unconcerned with moral standing or legality.
What counts is only what Trump defines as reality: the Iranians are bad and the nuclear deal is bad, though he is hard put to identify why except that it expires. So he withdrew, making the constraints on Iran expire even faster than they would have under the deal. Only W’s invasion of Iraq comes close to hurting American standing in the world and international interests as much as withdrawal from the nuclear deal. Trump doesn’t care about American standing and interests but only about his own personal gratification. The crowds at his rallies roar approval, and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Salman concur, when Trump denounces the nuclear deal. That’s enough.
I’d much rather see Trump impeached for his failed approach to Iran than for a dumb phone call implying a cut off of Congressionally appropriated funds if Ukraine doesn’t do as asked. But impeachment for mishandling Iran isn’t likely, so next best would be an exit from the escalatory spiral with Tehran. The Iranians are still offering a way out: “permanent for permanent” as Foreign Minister Rouhani puts it: permanent lifting of sanctions in 2023 by the US Congress in exchange for a permanent bar on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, written into law. Jason Rezaian. who knows Iran far better than I do, thinks something much more modest is all that can be done: lifting of sanctions that affect food and medicine in return for freeing of US prisoners in Iran.
Whichever: the important thing is to find a way out. The Trump Administration is about to enter an intense period of investigation with impeachment all but certain. The risks that domestic political pressure will incentivize a desperate president to do stupid things are going to be very high. The important thing is to find a way out of the escalatory spiral with Iran so that doesn’t happen.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Bolton and Trump unleashed
John Bolton and Donald Trump were always an odd couple: the one a consistent hawkish interventionist and bureaucratic operator in mustachioed professorial guise, the other an erratic big-talking little-stick narcissistic braggart. They found common cause on withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) maximum pressure against Iran, thus trading the 10-year delay in Tehran’s ability to build a nuclear weapons for less than one year, but as soon as the President started looking for negotiated settlements with Tehran, Pyongyang, and the Taliban, Bolton resorted to undermining Trump’s efforts. Ironically, Bolton was fired only a few days after he won his battle against the Afghanistan agreement.
Zal Khalilzad was trying to do the right thing: exchange the withdrawal of US troops Trump wants before the November 2020 election in exchange for Taliban promises
a) to negotiate a political settlement with the Kabul government and
b) not to harbor international terrorists.
The reported deal involved withdrawal only to the number of Americans in Afghanistan at the end of the Obama Administration, and the Taliban promises would have been hard to enforce. But it was a start.
Bolton didn’t want the withdrawal at all. But that’s not what blew up the agreement. It was Trump: he apparently decided he wanted a meeting with the Taliban at Camp David, with the president himself trying for a better deal in the role of closer. This was a terrible idea, in particular a few days before 9/11. The Taliban however never agreed to come to the US, so Trump cancelled the non-existent meeting, supposedly because of the death of an American soldier. That isn’t credible, since more than a dozen Americans died during Zal’s negotiations without any dramatic American reaction. Negotiating in the absence of a ceasefire is always a dubious proposition.
Poor Zal is left holding the bag. We’ll know when he abandons hope: he’ll resign. In the meanwhile, Afghan President Ghani, who is competing in a presidential election September 27, is breathing a sigh of relief–he wants the US troops to stay–and Bolton has the satisfaction of watching the US re-escalate the air war, even as he looks for a tell-all book deal and a cushy spot in the private sector. Unleashed, he will also no doubt become a cheer leader for military action against Iran and support for Israel’s annexations.
The President is also unleashed. He is desperate for some sort of international triumph before the election only 14 months hence. The Chinese are holding their own in the tariff war, the Middle East “deal of the century” has evaporated, the North Koreans are thumbing their noses, and Iran is demanding sanctions relief in exchange for deigning to talk with Washington. Trump is left with little alternative in Afghanistan but escalation and unilateral withdrawal, unless Zal succeeds in putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Everyone wants to know how US foreign policy will change as a result of Bolton’s firing. I focus mainly on the Balkans and the Middle East. On the latter, it is clear enough that Trump will back the Jewish state to the hilt, no matter who the next national security adviser is. He will also likely try to complete the US withdrawal from Syria, over Pentagon objections. He’ll continue to support the war in Yemen, unless the UAE and Saudi Arabia fall out so catastrophically that there is nothing left to support.
The Balkans is a bit harder to predict, as the Administration has been less than clear about its approach. Bolton was open to a land swap between Serbia and Kosovo that would have destabilized the entire region, likely killing two Clinton birds with one stone: rump Kosovo might have become the eastern province of Albania and Bosnia might have descended into chaos as Republika Srpska tried to secede. But there is no guarantee Bolton’s successor won’t take a similar approach. Ethnonationalists of a feather flock together. An American serving a white nationalist president is always going to give Balkan nationalists a hearing.
Here is the podcast I did with Mark Goldberg shortly after writing this piece.
RSS - Posts
