Diplomacy & Crisis News

President Donald Trump and Donald Trump, Jr.

The words above were spoken by former National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice in reference to Iraq’s purported possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) prior to the Iraq War. With the latest allegations against Donald Trump being labelled by some as Russiagate’s “smoking gun” occurring simultaneously with the U.S.’ nuclear standoff with North Korea, Russia, and China, Rice’s quote is actually much more relevant and truthful now than when it was originally uttered. Washington’s Russiagate obsession not only exacerbates its increasing isolation on the world stage, but also, more crucially, its increasing isolation from its own citizenry.

I’ve Seen This Movie Before 

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany to discuss a whole range of issues. Despite the exclusive nature of the meeting, Syria was apparently a priority issue as it was soon announced afterward that a Syrian ceasefire in the south of the country had been negotiated between the U.S. and Russia.

However, very shortly after this meeting, which ran for four times as long as originally scheduled, the latest allegations involving Donald Trump’s “collusion” with Russia during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election surfaced in the form of actions taken by his son, Donald Trump Jr.. Curiously, this is eerily reminiscent of an earlier Syrian ceasefire agreement negotiated by the previous U.S. administration and Russia which was undone by the mistaken U.S. bombing of Syrian military personnel.

“Why Should We Help You?”

Regarding North Korea, this state’s missile and nuclear tests continue to receive front page attention in the U.S., culminating in the recent North Korean ICBM test on the U.S.’ national holiday, the 4th of July. However, what receives far less attention is the perceived impact of the U.S.’ THAAD system on both Russia and China, both of whom may assist the U.S. on this issue only if it suits their own respective national interests.

With respect to Russian concerns, the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, and Syrian theaters of operation collectively represent more than enough opportunities for both the U.S. and Russia to miscalculate and underestimate each others’ resolve in dealing with vital national security interests and overlapping spheres of influence. However, none of these theaters rises to the nuclear level (yet). Conversely, merely the Russian perception that U.S. deployment of THAAD in South Korea will impact Russia’s ability to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons will more than likely just lead to Russia increasing its own first-strike nuclear capabilities in order to guarantee this deterrence capability for itself.

For China, the THAAD security dilemma is even more paramount than Russia’s as China’s known nuclear arsenal is much more limited than both Russia’s and the U.S.’. As with Russia, China is already in conflict with the U.S. on a range of issues and within differing geographical areas. These include, but are not limited to, the recent U.S. arms sale to Taiwan, continued U.S. “freedom of navigation” maneuvers in the South China Sea, tacit U.S. encouragement of Indian cross-border military incursions, U.S. admonishment of China on human rights and trafficking, and U.S. sanctions on Chinese banks and individuals accused by the U.S. of assisting North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

These tactics may be part of an increased high-pressure strategy by the U.S. to get China to assist it in resolving the North Korean Crisis. However, as a true “ally” (which Trump labelled China shortly after Mar-a-Lago), China’s inevitably going to ask the U.S., “What will China get in return from the U.S. as true allies who respect each other’s core interests?” China’s “double cancellation” proposal and insistence upon its “new model of great power relations” paradigm are both emblematic of this dilemma.

Fundamentally, the U.S. has no good coercive options with respect to North Korea, either in the form of a threatened military strike, or continued ineffective sanctions. Also, at this point, neither Russia nor China are in a powerful enough position to change North Korea’s calculus that nuclear weapons possession is the ultimate guarantor of regime survival. Bilateral negotiations between North Korea and the U.S. won’t work without some form of buy-in from China. Therefore, though difficult and time-consuming, the only viable option for the U.S. is to restart some form of the now-stalled Six Party Talks where the vital national interests of all concerned regional states are acknowledged. Without this, and without some form of regional economic engagement with Asia post-TPP, the U.S. risks further isolation in  Asia on this particular issue.

Revolution, The Other “R” Word

Domestically, Russiagate continues to insult the intelligence of many Americans. Due to a historical, isolationist strain in early American culture, many Americans to this day are far more cognizant of the domestic issues which directly impact their everyday lives, not international relations. Of course, this is changing everyday, but former President Clinton’s maxim of “It’s the economy, stupid.” still rings true today.

To suggest to large numbers of Americans residing outside Washington and between the U.S. coasts that somehow Russia reminded them of the importance of basic questions is quite…indigestible. These questions might include: “How am I going to put food on the table for my family and myself in this economy?”, “How am I going to pay off all this student debt while being underemployed in a stagnant economy?”,  “How am I going to ensure that life is better for my children than myself in this economy?”, and “How will I take care of my ageing parent(s) if I lose my job and my insurance in this economy?”

As with great power relations in geopolitics today, interests predominate in domestic affairs as well. While some in power may perceive it to be beneficial to use Russiagate as the bell from Pavlov’s dogs experiments, this utility is only temporary. Unless certain elements in Washington understand that by actually helping to answer their various constituents’ questions above, they serve their voters’ long-term interests as well as their own, then they will continue to erode their own actual power and legitimacy on a daily basis. As of this writing on Bastille Day, this is an important lesson to not only learn, but an even more important one not to forget.

The post “We Don’t Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud.” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’été de Politique étrangère (n°2/2017). Norbert Gaillard propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Joël Ruet, Des capitalismes non alignés. Les pays émergents, ou la nouvelle relation industrielle du monde (Éditions Raison d’agir, 2016, 224 pages).

Afin de mieux rejeter en bloc les idées périmées qui font de la Chine l’« atelier du monde » et de l’Inde le « bureau du monde », l’auteur avance plusieurs thèses séduisantes. La principale est que l’émergence accélère la globalisation. Les États émergents ont appris à innover non pas en proposant simplement de meilleurs produits mais en engageant des processus d’« hybridation créative » par lesquels la conception, la production et la distribution sont repensées dans le cadre de la globalisation. Du coup, les flux d’investissements, les exportations et les importations sont de plus en plus complexes et segmentés. Dans le même temps, le Nord et le Sud ont perdu de leur homogénéité économique. Cette « nouvelle » mondialisation aboutit à des situations impensables il y a encore deux décennies. Par exemple, c’est l’Indien Tata qui permet à l’Italien Fiat de développer sa propre voiture low cost grâce aux transferts technologiques obtenus de PME européennes. Ce sont aussi des cadres dirigeants occidentaux qui admettent ne pas savoir quels seront leurs concurrents à moyen terme.

Joël Ruet insiste également sur la spécificité de l’émergence dans chaque État anciennement en voie de développement. Il se refuse à parler de « BRIC » (Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine) et considère comme inopérant le concept de « capitalisme d’État ». On ne peut que lui donner raison quand on connaît l’histoire économique des divers États émergents. Le modèle chinois est un « socialisme de marché » piloté par le Parti communiste et la Sasac (State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission). Fin 2013, cette dernière contrôlait 113 entreprises dont les actifs représentaient 35 000 milliards de yuans. Au Brésil, l’État a posé les bases d’une industrialisation dès les années 1930 en lançant une politique de substitution aux importations. Par la suite, le pays est monté en gamme et a (sur-)exploité son potentiel agricole. Quant à l’Inde, elle surmonte un décollage tardif par des formes d’innovation très audacieuses.

Une troisième série d’arguments montre les multiples dynamiques d’investissement Sud-Sud. Le chinois Baosteel est associé au géant minier brésilien Vale. Les entreprises marocaines accroissent leur implantation en Afrique subsaharienne et deviennent de véritables sociétés multinationales. Les sommets Inde-Afrique et Chine-Afrique sont désormais des rendez-vous incontournables, tant pour les entrepreneurs que pour les diplomates.

Quoique passionnant, l’ouvrage de Joël Ruet n’est pas dénué de défauts. Le style parfois ampoulé est gênant. Sur le fond, l’analyse présente trois limites. Elle tend à caricaturer les travaux portant sur l’« ancienne » mondialisation sans jamais les citer. Or, il y a longtemps que les économistes ont abandonné aussi bien la théorie du rattrapage de Rostow que la croyance en une division internationale du travail. Ensuite, l’auteur néglige le rôle de la finance domestique dans le succès des États émergents. Enfin, même si l’on partage sa vision relativement optimiste, on s’étonne que les problèmes de gouvernance soient complètement éludés.

Norbert Gaillard

Pour vous abonner à Politique étrangère, cliquez ici.

Across Eastern Europe, Moscow and the transatlantic alliance are staging large-scale exercises to show they mean business

John Sullivan may have already won over Foggy Bottom, but Congress is another matter.

Kurdish leaders are trying to persuade the United States to broker a potentially explosive split between Erbil and Baghdad.

The United States slips behind France and the U.K. in this year’s soft-power ranking.

It’s the latest sign of a political crisis roiling the country.

If the meeting at Trump Tower feels to you like treason, that's probably because it may actually be espionage.

White House reluctantly certifies Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal, while hitting Tehran with fresh sanctions

From China to the Gulf to Europe, the world's power players are moving ahead without America.

Trump has no clear agenda or policies of his own, and in their absence he is simply trying to tear down Obama’s key domestic and foreign policy achievements, with little understanding or care for what might replace them.

Beijing's paranoia is about to kill the country's booming live-streaming sector — and it won't be the only victim.

A meeting with Donald Trump, Jr. has made a Russian attorney and an Azerbaijani pop star household names.

Best Defense is on summer hiatus. During this restful spell we offer re-runs from the past 12 months.

Donald Trump says Iran is a threat to the region, but his administration might be the real danger.

The more Iran’s economy is bolstered by large-scale Western business deals, the harder it will be for the United States to deploy sanctions effectively.

  With Adam Rawnsley Iran deal. After weeks of internal battles, President Trump agreed on Monday to certify that Iran is complying with an international nuclear agreement with Iran. Last year, dismantling the deal was one of the main themes of his winning presidential campaign. The deal calls for the administration to notify Congress every ...

Contrary to certain claims, any objective analysis comparing former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to Kurdish Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani illustrates that Kurdistan is not destined to be a failed state.

An article published in Newsweek claimed that an independent Kurdistan would be a failed state, stressing that disputes over water, borders and the existence of militias hinder the success of an independent Kurdistan. While I don’t try to minimize the difficulties that the Kurds face in solving water and border disputes as well as the obstacles posed by Turkish and Iranian opposition to Kurdish independence, the fact that they have these problems does not predetermine that Kurdistan will be a failed state. Indeed, the reality of life in Iraq under former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki versus life in Iraqi Kurdistan under Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani proves who truly will be the failed state.

Under the rule of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, Sunnis were tortured, raped, abused and even ethnically cleansed. Baghdad went from being 45% Sunni in 2003 to 25% Sunni at the end of 2007. As a result, former Baathists launched a bloody insurgency that included suicide bombings, car bombings, kidnappings and other terror attacks. This led to a civil war that left tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead. In an American attempt at damage control, the US sought to have the Awakening Movement, which consisted of Sunni insurgents, to point their guns at Al Qaeda instead of US troops. However, Maliki did not deliver on his promises to them, which left them bitter, unemployed and susceptible to further radicalization. As a result, the Iraqi Army became a largely Shia militia and this worked to undermine Iraqi unity.

After Obama became US President and vowed to end US involvement in Iraq, Maliki began a systematic campaign to destroy the Iraqi state and to replace it with his own personal political party. Professional generals were sacked and replaced with party loyalists. Corruption was also rampant. According to the New Yorker, almost 220 billion dollars had been allocated for some 6,000 projects yet little or no work was done on them. About 70 billion dollars were handed out in government loans that have as of yet to be repaid. In 2010, the Iraqi people were fed up with Maliki’s corruption and he lost the elections to a moderate, pro-western coalition encompassing all of Iraq’s major ethnic groups.

However, even though he no longer had the largest party in parliament, the Obama administration supported him staying in power in violation of the Iraqi Constitution. To make matters worse, Iran offered to start backing Maliki in exchange for control over several government ministries and this sealed him staying in power. As a result, Maliki was given the first shot at forming a coalition, got American forces to leave Iraq on unfavorable terms and remained in power until 2014, which had devastating consequences.

As a result of the 2010 elections, Sunni Arabs, who joined in a coalition together with Christians, Turkmen, Shia Arabs disgruntled with Maliki and Kurds, were outraged that after they had fought against Al Qaeda and won the elections, they could not have a Sunni Prime Minister. And when US forces withdrew and stopped reigning in on Maliki’s excesses, Iran filled the void and Maliki ordered the arrest of Sunni Vice President Tariq Al Hashemi, which alienated Sunnis even more. Hashemi was forced to flee the country and was sentenced to death in absentia. He is in exile to date.

But Hashemi was not the only victim for in no time at all, Maliki was using his security forces in order to go after all of his rivals. Tens of thousands of Sunnis were rounded up and were held in prison for years without a trial. According to Human Rights Watch, some of the Sunni prisoners were even massacred. It is indisputable that the US backing Maliki staying in power even after his electoral defeat significantly contributed to the rise of ISIS in Iraq for the Sunnis felt persecuted and lost hope in the political process. This led to their radicalization. Thanks to Maliki, Iraq is truly a failed state today and will remain so despite the eviction of ISIS from Mosul for the sectarian conflict and corruption Maliki nourished still have of yet to be resolved.

In contrast, the Kurdistan Regional Government was thriving during the same period of time. Kurdistan’s Prime Minister Nicharvan Barzani is the man who made the export of Kurdish oil to Turkey and Kurdish-Turkish rapprochement possible. In the beginning, when Barzani stated that he not only wanted to export Kurdish oil but to do it via Turkey, numerous people thought it was an unrealistic dream. But today, Iraqi Kurdistan is a major exporter of oil via Turkey and Barzani has a good working relationship with the Turks. Under his leadership, trade between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan amounted to $8 billion and a former foe of the Kurds was transformed into a business partner.

This happened for a number of reasons. For starters, Barzani prudently decided that he seeks to establish a state only in Iraqi Kurdistan. He does not seek Turkish territory. This helped to calm down the Turks. Secondly, Iraqi Kurdistan under his rule has much to offer the Turks. For example, the Kurdish oil industry has been so successful that numerous major companies like Exxon-Mobile and Chevron prefer to operate from the relatively safe Iraqi Kurdistan, even if it means they won’t be able to operate in Iraq. The fact that Barzani was able to ensure that his region of Iraq would remain the safest and would be free of sectarian strife helped to enable confidence in foreign investors including the Turks. And like everyone else, the Turks need oil and they prefer to obtain it by not operating in an area in the midst of a civil war.

In addition, Barzani’s development projects enriched the entire region and helped to build the foundations of a state, which the Kurds hope will be established after the referendum this fall. Barzani is also working in order to bring corruption to a halt and to bring back money that was wasted by the government. With the help of the UK, Germany and the US, he reformed the Peshmerga and is working to have a strong united army to protect the new state.

By building alliances, turning foes into business partners, ensuring safety for all, protecting minorities, avoiding sectarian strife, developing the region, fighting against corruption and uniting the Peshmerga, Barzani has demonstrated true leadership abilities. These qualities all demonstrate the marks of a statesman who knows how to deal with problems. If he has the will, determination and the skills, there is no reason why he won’t succeed, even if he faces numerous obstacles, such as Iran seeking to sabotage Kurdish independence, Turkish concerns over the referendum, border disputes, water issues, existence of militias, etc. So thus in conclusion, I think we should encourage the Kurds to continue to work hard to build a second Israel in the Middle East, who respects human rights, minority rights, women’s rights and gay rights. We should not predetermine that they will fail merely because they face real struggles.

The post Who will be the failed state, Iraq or Kurdistan? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Own report) - Berlin's austerity dictate, ruthlessly imposed on Athens, is suffering its first blowbacks, weakening German hegemony over the EU. The China Ocean Shipping Company's (COSCO) purchase of stakes in the Piraeus Port Authority, Athens had been forced to sell under pressure from Berlin and Brussels, is one example. COSCO, which had already acquired a small share in 2009, has been upgrading the port with investments in the three-digit millions. In the meantime, Piraeus has become Europe's eighth largest port and is among the top 40 worldwide. Greece, which economically has been completely ruined by the austerity dictates, is hoping for more Chinese investments - and is no longer willing to participate in the EU's routine official condemnation of China at the UN Human Rights Council. A similar development can be seen with Serbia. As part of its "Silk Road" initiative, China is planning to upgrade the rail line between Belgrade and Budapest. For the Serbian government, this offers hopes for a long term recovery. Brussels has now launched a probe into this project. According to experts, a policy based solely on austerity dictates and open pressure, as has been pursued by Berlin and the EU, can no longer be successful "in a multi-polar world."

The administration has resorted to slippery statements and obfuscations, but the truth is closing in around it.