Diplomacy & Crisis News

Critics charge top U.S. diplomat with giving the green light to perpetrators of mass atrocities.

The French president got in hot water for noting the continent's dysfunction. But nothing he said was false.

With no ties to terrorist groups, the motive for the attack remains unknown.

The proposed bill slashes more than half a billion dollars, or almost half of U.S. funding for the organization.

As the Trump administration heads toward a showdown with Pyongyang, Vladimir Putin sees strategic advantage to be gained.

Democracy protesters thought they were shielded by the justice system — until Beijing turned it against them.

President Donald J. Trump grins widely with the Russians in private.

 

Did the Trump campaign collude with Russia? Did Russia’s action require collusion? And if not, might the Russians have had ulterior motives for the many open and clandestine meetings that occurred between Russia’s representatives and those of the campaign?

As the U.S. Intelligence Community announced last winter, Russian intelligence agencies actively interfered in the U.S. electoral process in 2016 to the advantage of Donald Trump. The impact of this interference on the outcome is difficult to determine. Some are quick to point out that Russia did not successfully tamper with the actual voting or vote-counting processes, which of course is a good thing. Harder to assess is the impact of various Russia-generated scandals on voters’ perceptions and attitudes, whether Russia’s actions changed people’s minds or made certain groups of voters more or less likely to turn out on Election Day.

While the fact of outside interference is a central issue, much of the debate has focused on whether the Trump campaign actively colluded with that interference. Trump and his associates—evidently, and perhaps understandably, focused on the consequences for themselves—seem to see the issue solely in terms of an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of his presidency. I do not mean to belittle the issue of collusion, it is indeed important, but we should not forget that the fact of interference is in itself a vital issue worthy of serious investigation regardless of whether collusion occurred.

In a sense, the most important collusion came not from the Trump campaign, but from the press and the pundits, which took every morsel of banality or gossip that was dished out by Russian hackers and treated it as a scandal revealed. As Joshua Foust, a former intelligence analyst, noted after reviewing the hacked DNC emails: “Moreover, these leaks don’t actually serve any public interest: they aren’t exposing corruption or illegal conduct. They are just gossip: who secretly hates whom, can-you-believe-this-brainstorm, stuff like that.” The biggest “scandal” to come out of the DNC hack was a couple of dirty tricks proposed by angry staffers (talking outside their areas of responsibility) that were never acted upon; and this was presented as proof that the primary-electoral process was rigged.

With regard to collusion by the Trump team, what seems most striking is that most of the Russians’ actions did not really require anyone’s cooperation (beyond that of the media).* The Russians stole emails and other documents from the DNC, DCCC, and Podesta archives; they gave them to WikiLeaks; no help needed, thank you. Yet we do have some evidence that (a) at least some Trump people were willing, even eager, to collude and (b) that a number of meetings were held between several Trump people and several Russian nationals who either worked for the Russian government or had past connections with it.

Regarding the eagerness, some Trump campaign aides—central ones, such as Michael Flynn, and peripheral one, such as Carter Page—were known to have pro-Russian sympathies. In July 2016, Trump, who generally spoke favorably of Russia while denying that it was helping him, publically called on the Russians to find and release Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails. (A Trump aide later said it was a joke.) Beyond that, we have Donald Trump, Jr.’s email chain from June 2016 in which he responded “if it’s what you say I love it” when offered “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary,” which was being provided as “part of Russia and its government’s support of Mr. Trump.” We also have the less direct evidence from Peter W. Smith, a Republican donor, fund-raiser, and activist, who claimed a close connection to Trump’s foreign policy adviser Michael Flynn, knew a lot of inside information about the Trump campaign, and established an independent corporation to support the Trump campaign from the outside. Smith actively sought Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails, which he assumed the Russians must have hacked and would make available if asked. He hired his own hackers to make the connection with the Russians. It should be noted, though, that we do not know for sure that Smith’s activities were authorized by the Trump campaign. The fact that Smith was seeking a connection with Russia as late as September 2016 does not support the notion that the campaign had already been colluding with Russia since at least June (unless Smith was not considered important enough to tell and was acting on his own, which is certainly possible). So, it is clear that at least some Trump people were willing to collude, but we still lack solid evidence that actual collusion occurred.

If collusion was not necessary, then why did so many Russians hold personal meetings with so many Trump associates? Why would they expose themselves in this way? It is certainly possible that active collusion with a campaign might make the interference more effective, or that letting Trump know how much help Russia had provided (and how compromised his campaign had become) might make him more willing to do Russia favors in the future. These would in fact be consistent with past Russian intelligence practices. Yet I would like to offer an alternative possibility. The Russians might have been purposely planting seeds of suspicion in order to sow chaos and discord in U.S. politics after the election.

Remember that, according to the U.S. Intelligence Community’s assessment, the Russians’ original purpose was “to undermine faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.” Only with time were their goals seen as expanding to include “a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”** Now this preference for Trump could mean that they liked him, which seems to be the conclusion drawn by Trump (who appears to see personal relationships as the be-all and end-all of international politics). It could also simply be a function of the fact that he was the alternative to Clinton, whom Putin clearly did not like. Finally, depending on your view of Trump, his victory could be seen as a means for achieving the original purpose: undermining American government, especially if his victory was compromised.

What do we mean by compromised? Is there evidence that the Russians sought to taint a possible Trump victory? On the one hand, you have the Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, constantly showing up at all sorts of public and private meetings with Trump associates, often with little evident reason for him to be there. As evidence of secret, or at least private, meetings emerges, however, we see much more.

• Ambassador Kislyak recommends that Jared Kushner meet with banker Sergei Gorkov. Presumably, he does not mention that the bank in question is under U.S. sanctions and that Gorkov’s résumé proudly lists the fact that he’s a graduate of the FSB (Secret Police and Intelligence) Academy.
• Ambassador Kislyak holds conversations with Michael Flynn—while Obama is still president and formulating sanctions against Russia—about undermining Obama’s policies toward Russia on a phone that the ambassador must know is bugged.
• Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov brings an “official photographer” who is also a photojournalist to a meeting with the president from which U.S. journalists have been excluded and then immediately publishes photos of Trump grinning widely with the Russians in private.
• The Russians have an email sent to Donald Trump, Jr., that openly says the Russian government supports the Trump campaign and wants to give it stolen documents that will incriminate Trump’s opponent. Who does that! It’s like James Bond knocking on the door and saying, “Excuse me, but I’m from British intelligence and I’m here on a secret mission.” Even if their purpose was to test the campaign’s receptiveness to collusion, it seems they could have thought of something a little subtler, something that would have left less physical evidence of said collusion.

Then, when Trump wins the election, you might expect the Russians to support their new, powerful ally at the pinnacle of the U.S. government. What happens?

• Two days after the election, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov announces that Russian officials have been in contact with Trump’s immediate entourage throughout the campaign.
• When news of Kushner’s meeting with Gorkov emerges, Gorkov, contradicting Kushner, says they were discussing private business, implicating Kushner in a possible violation of U.S. law.
• When the meeting between Donald Trump, Jr., and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya becomes known, Veselnitskaya confirms Trump’s story that she did not offer him damaging information about Hillary Clinton, but then she adds, “It’s quite possible they were looking for such information. They wanted it so badly.”
• Rinat Akhmetshin, a former Soviet counterintelligence operative and current pro-Russian lobbyist in Washington, volunteers that he, too, was at the Veselnitskaya meeting and that she did offer the younger Trump information on Clinton.

If the Trump team was colluding with the Russians, the Russians do not appear to be very grateful. It is possible that the Russians are showing their dissatisfaction with Trump for his failure to lift sanctions or otherwise improve the state of U.S.-Russian relations, although Ryabkov’s statement preceded any opportunity Trump might have had to do that. I suppose it is also possible that the Russians have real dirt on Trump and that these little gestures are just reminders of what they could reveal if he does not come through soon. I posit the possibility, however, that their purpose all along has been to undermine the U.S. government, to sow chaos and discord, to inflame suspicions, to turn American against American, and to erode the United States’ capacity to do anything at all, either at home or abroad, regardless of whether the Trump team actually collaborated or not. If so, they certainly found the perfect instrument in Donald J. Trump.

*A recent article posits that Jared Kushner’s digital team may have given the Russians information on which constituencies to target when distributing false or damaging stories about Hillary Clinton during the late stages of the campaign. While possible, this is still not proven. Even if Kushner’s database was the only possible source of such information, Russian hackers have shown some ability to acquire information from databases without having to ask for it.

**Of course, it would also be in keeping with past Russian practice if they had a range of possible objectives—ranging from minimum to maximum goals—depending on the receptiveness of the environment encountered.

The post Trump and the Russians: Collusion or Sowing Discord? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

What if the French president actually likes him?

That thought occurred to me the other day whilst reading about Japanese operations during the war.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’été de Politique étrangère (n°2/2017). Christian Lequesne propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Laurent Fabius, 37 Quai d’Orsay. Diplomatie française 2012-2016 (Plon, 2016, 192 pages).

Comme la grande majorité des ministres des Affaires étrangères de la Ve République, Laurent Fabius ne connaît pas bien le Quai d’Orsay en y entrant. Il comprend cependant vite une chose : un ministre français des Affaires étrangères ne peut travailler convenablement que s’il ne subit pas l’interférence quotidienne de l’Élysée. Fabius parle du « contrat moral » passé entre François Hollande et lui-même. À la différence de certains de ses prédécesseurs, il n’a pas à souffrir d’un président le confinant au rôle de partenaire mineur et d’un entourage élyséen exagérément intrusif.

Laurent Fabius découvre avec intérêt les pratiques de la diplomatie contemporaine. La réunion de la COP21, fin 2015, suggère une série d’observations éclairantes. La diplomatie contemporaine doit traiter les questions de soft power : économie, environnement, droits de l’homme, et associer acteurs privés, ONG et représentants de la société civile. Fabius explique aussi comment une erreur formelle, ayant transformé dans la version anglaise de l’accord de Paris un should en un shall, dut être rectifiée à la dernière minute pour éviter un rejet américain.

Les négociations sur le programme nucléaire iranien et le dossier syrien font l’objet d’une narration précise. Sur la Syrie, la position de Fabius montre l’importance des valeurs en politique étrangère : les Al-Assad sont décrits comme des criminels avec lesquels le gouvernement français ne peut pas négocier. Fabius mentionne avec regret les refus britannique et américain d’engager, en août 2013, des frappes massives contre le régime, après que l’utilisation d’armes chimiques a été prouvée. On sent alors sa déception à l’égard d’Obama, Fabius y perçoit même un mépris du président américain à l’égard de la France. Ce qu’il ne dit pas, c’est combien cet épisode résume aussi l’héritage gaulliste en politique étrangère : celui d’une France qui prône des initiatives fortes en ne disposant pas des ressources suffisantes pour agir seule.

Si Fabius est déçu par Obama, il ne peut s’empêcher d’admirer la modernité du président américain. En revanche, il n’a ni admiration, ni confiance envers la Russie de Poutine. Ses propos sur son homologue Lavroff soulignent, une fois encore, l’importance portée à la différence des valeurs.

L’Europe constitue le chapitre le moins passionnant du livre. Fabius justifie son appel à voter « non » lors du référendum français de 2005. Il souligne une complicité forte avec son homologue allemand Steinmeier. En social-démocrate pragmatique, il considère qu’un refus français de ratifier le traité budgétaire de 2012 (que le candidat Hollande avait ­souhaité re­négocier pendant sa campagne) aurait été « catastrophique ». Pour le reste, Fabius exprime, comme beaucoup de politiques français, un scepticisme à l’égard de l’élargissement de l’Europe et prône une Europe à trois cercles (zone euro, Union européenne, grand marché). Mais il n’a guère de ­conviction profonde pour une Europe forte.

Son poids politique au sein du gouvernement permet à Fabius d’innover au Quai d’Orsay, en particulier en matière de diplomatie économique. Ce n’est pas lui qui fait de la diplomatie économique une pratique neuve des ambassadeurs. C’est lui, en revanche, qui en fait une priorité politique portée par un discours. Le livre permet d’en comprendre la raison. Un État est indépendant s’il dispose d’une économie qui fonctionne et rayonne. Rompant avec le primat du politique, le ministre considère que la politique étrangère est largement devenue la traduction de la réussite économique d’un État.

Écrit sans langue de bois excessive, ce témoignage illustre les convictions d’un politique français à la fois moderne dans sa découverte de la diplomatie, et qui ne déroge pas à certaines représentations françaises récurrentes, notamment à l’égard de la puissance américaine.

Christian Lequesne

Pour vous abonner à Politique étrangère, cliquez ici.

 

  With Adam Rawnsley Gulf hack. The hack of Qatari government Web sites earlier this year was carried out by the United Arab Emirates, and not Russia, as had initially been suspected. The revelation — which will likely only deepen the diplomatic row between Qatar and its Gulf neighbors — comes after Saudi Arabia, the ...

At this critical juncture and in this particular ‘do or die’ moment in Somali history, objective assessment of new trends has an existential significance. Early this year when the previous Somali President was voted out of the office in favor of a more popular one, the euphoria was so contagious, and expectation so high. Sadly, that was eclipsed by leadership strategic errors and vicious strings of terrorist attacks and targeted assassinations.

With over 30 such attacks since February, the belligerence, frequency and lethal accuracy have set a new precedent. Ironically this came at a time when the new government launched a controversial campaign of what many—especially in Mogadishu—considered selective disarmament, declared an “all-out war” against al-Shabaab and promised to eradicate them within two years.

Naturally, almost all fingers are pointed at the usual suspects, al-Shabaab. And it is hard to dispute when they themselves continue to claim responsibility, though sometimes through spokespersons that are barely known to the public. However, to accept that never-changing narrative that there is only one actor who solely benefits out of conditions of insecurity is to naively assume that all other clandestine armies, scores of shadowy experts and deadbeat ‘security’ gangs across Somalia are there for shark-fin-gazing in the Indian Ocean.  In addition, there are the domestic profiteers of chaos who in the past three decades been investing heavily to defend the status quo by any ruthless means necessary.

Dyslexic Priorities

Whatever the end result, no one can accuse the new government of not trying. The government has launched initiatives such as cleaning the city, attending public events to boost public morale, and conducting random office inspections to keep ministers and staff on their toes. While these are good initiatives, there are more critical issues waiting for the government’s full attention. On some of these issues the government has already taken ill-advised approaches.

After declaring war against al-Shabaab, a stealth enemy that is part of the social fabric, and promising to eradicate them “in two years” the government launched a controversial disarmament campaign that many interpreted as a defanging process of certain clans and interest groups. Launching such initiative before any attempt was made toward confidence-building or managing perception would only make genuine conciliation facilitated by current government dead on arrival.

The government also declared war against corruption without providing comprehensive definition or what constitutes ‘corruption’, and without pushing through the Parliament all anti-corruption laws and the establishment of an independent commission to fight corruption; especially when clouds of suspicions hover over certain government officials. In clear conflict of interest, some ministers (and MPs) own private security companies that compete for projects. Both the President and the Prime Minister stated publicly that they and all their ministers will declare their individual assets for transparent public scrutiny. Several months into office, officials are yet to make good on those promises.

They also aggressively expanded the selective taxation that targets the likes of fruit venders and Tuk Tuk or Bajaj drivers (3 wheeled taxis) while exempting the conglomerate businesses such as money remittances and phone and internet services.

Private Security Branding

In a clever marketing strategy that exploits consumer biases, major manufacturing companies of household products commonly have several competing brands of the same products side by side in super markets. They even hire different brand managers to advance one product against another, though profits generated from all those products ultimately go to the same owners.

The private mercenary industry clearly duplicated the same strategic marketing, and nowhere is that more apparent than in The Horn.

Horn of Africa is a tough and a high volatile neighborhood. It’s only second to the Middle East where it, in fact, shares many traits- natural resource wealth, historical grievances and suspicions, and leaders with myopic vision and gluttonous appetite for corruption. With Donald Trump being in the White House and UAE establishing its intelligence network and loyal militia in Somalia, the stage is set for a new theater of lucrative clandestine operations. The current volatile political and security landscape could not have been more ideal for Erik Prince, founder of the infamous Blackwater, and companies. If it did not exist, they would’ve invented it.

Erik Prince and companies’ clandestine operations in Somalia began in 2010 when Saracen International appeared in Mogadishu and in Puntland regional administration. However, with Blackwater’s record of crimes against humanity, a loaded name (Saracen), and a good number of their mercenaries being remnants of Apartheid era enforcers, it didn’t take long to attract UN and other human rights groups’ attention. So, Saracen turned into Sterling Corporate Services.

Against that backdrop, the Prince-led Frontier Services Group Limited (aka The Company) comes to the scene to provide “security, insurance and logistics services for companies operating in frontier markets”. So, is it not within the realm of rational skepticism to question the good-faith of any Mafia group offering business protection services, life insurance, and luxury burial/cremation package for a price that you cannot refuse?

Modified Hegemony

In recent decades, Ethiopia has secured itself certain level of authority that made her the de facto hegemon of The Horn. With IGAD being a political rubberstamp where Ethiopia sets the agenda, decides the when and why of every meeting and which one of her concocted initiative gets mandated, it was not that hard.

The good news is with current government, Somalia is no longer entirely obedient to the marching orders of its hegemonic master. Moreover, the Oromo and Amhara peaceful insurgency has on the one hand exposed the repressive tendencies of the Ethiopian government; on the other, the vulnerability of its ethnic federalism. So, Ethiopia was compelled to re-strategize for its own survival. It has settled—at least for now—to remain low profile and calibrate its previous ambition to directly control a good number, if not all, of Somalia’s coveted ports and other resources.

As the de facto custodian of Somalia security that can stabilize or destabilize at will is the guarantor in each of the DP World deals. They are set to make 19 percent in Berbera seaport deal, maybe much more lucrative deals in the Bossasso and Barawe.

The X-Factor

Recently the US has removed Mukhtar Robow out of its terrorist list. This, needless to say, placed Robow on a dangerous stage and under a lethal spotlight. Robow was an enigma. He was considered the man who always gave credence to the narrative that al-Shabaab is not a terrorist organization driven by Somali issues but an organization driven by global ambition that has 700 plus foreign fighters.

Robow was also one of the last high profile Shabaab leaders to be added to the terrorist list. He also had very close relationship with warlords from his region who were loyal to Ethiopia. Days after he was taken out of the list he became under Shabaab attack. Oddly, the Somali government sent its army to defend Robow against his comrades. But this might make clear sense if, in the coming months, Robow and company flee to Barawe and settle there.

Dollars and Dysfunction

The Somali government must muster the courage to call the current international community sponsored and lead counterterrorism and stabilization system what it is: a failed system with a high price tag. Any foreign-driven reconciliation project intended to simply clear the anchorages for lucrative but controversial commercial (and military base) seaport deals in Berbera, Boosaaso, and Barawe will in due course fail. Make no mistake, without effective institutions of checks and balances and political stability, ‘foreign investment’ is euphemism for predatory exploitation or looting.

The new government either failed to understand al-Shabaab for what it truly is: a symptom of a number of root causes such as lack of reconciliation and trust, inept leadership and lack of national vision, chronic reliance on foreign security and funding.

All eyes are on President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo. Somalia cannot afford another four years of sleepwalking into catastrophe- a reinvented web of political, social, economic and geopolitical problems. This nation direly needs a shock therapy.

Therefore, President Farmaajo must go to the Parliament to declare all foreign energy and security related agreements unilaterally signed by regional administrations as null and void. The current trajectory would not only keep Somalia in perpetual dependency but in perpetual violent conflicts.

On September 19th the UN General Assembly debates will open. President should articulate a new vision on that global platform and put pressure on the Security Council to convert AMISOM—minus frontline states and private securities—and other forces on the ground (US, UK, UAE, Turkey, etc.) into a U.N. peacekeeping mission. This may achieve three essential objectives: minimize the negative roles played by certain actors, control free flow of arms and centralize the command and control of all militaries on the ground. Equally important, it will sideline the frontline states and private military services.

The UN mission should last no longer than two years- a period long enough for a genuine, Somali-owned and sponsored reconciliation.

Wherever they operate, the latter abides to neither local nor international laws. They thrive in impunity and that is why they have a long atrocious record and that is why they constantly keep reinventing themselves.

Rest assured, in the court of public opinion, every bone they break and every person kill will be blamed on President Farmaajo, UAE and US for ‘ushering in’ these merchants of death and suicide deals.

Meanwhile, unless we change our thinking and attitude, things will remain the same or get worse. Streets will get cleaner for the next tragedy, and Somalia will remain the most attractive playground for zero-sum games, for quick riches, and for undermining political or geopolitical opponents. It is an ever-morphing dangerous environment where the hunter is being hunted.

 

The post Blackened Waters of Somalia appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Ibrahim Abdel Latif (Photo Credit: Dr. Marwa Abdel Lati)

In the United States and other free countries across the globe, any person who is born in that country is granted citizenship rights and basic human rights, such as access to healthcare. As the descendent of Sephardic Jewish refugees who fled the anti-Jewish violence that erupted in Greece in the period leading up to World War I, no one today in America would argue that I am not an American citizen but rather am a foreign Jewish refugee who should not receive equal access to medical treatment. However, the descendants of Palestinian refugees who live in Lebanon are not so fortunate.
The descendants of the Palestinian refugees who left their birth country during Israel’s War of Independence are still not granted Lebanese citizenship and basic human rights such as healthcare, despite the fact that all young Palestinians in Lebanon today were born and raised in the country for a couple of generations now. This reality has adversely affected the fate of Ibrahim Abdel Latif, a young man of Palestinian heritage in Lebanon who has been denied medical treatment merely because of where his grandparents came from.

In an exclusive interview with Dr. Marwa Abdel Latif, Ibrahim’s sister, she related that the plight of Palestinians in Lebanon is horrific and this reality adversely affects her brother: “My brother dropped a good paying job just so he can get hired at this new job of his to be legal and to qualify for some work compensation insurance as he struggled in previous companies to get health coverage and the pay is always much lower for Palestinians anyways than their Lebanese colleagues with similar qualifications. So to start with, my brother is a Palestinian and he knows that most Lebanese companies do not hire Palestinians as they are considered foreigners. Most companies have a rule for 10% foreigner, which includes all other nationalities other than Lebanese. So my brother finally qualified for insurance as the company he works with is very decent and good with Palestinians but that is a preference for the company rather than the country.”

Nevertheless, despite the fact that Ibrahim managed to get health insurance unlike most other Palestinians, when he was run over from behind by a truck and needed urgent medical treatment, the Lebanese hospitals did not want to help him unless he got 100% coverage and his health insurance plan only covered 40%: “Lebanese hospitals usually do not allow you in unless you pay upfront or you have connections. My family does not belong to any organization or religious groups or any political party as we were raised to act independently of any party to assure ourselves that we are not blinded by their morals. The insurance was refusing to pay because the hospital is expensive to their standards but we had no choice of the hospital as the Red Cross took him there as it was the closest to the location of the accident and the other hospitals refused to take him in unless he redid all the paperwork and pay the entire coverage.”

Ibrahim’s family attempted to get local Lebanese charities to help them due to their situation and all of them refused to help them: “My family tried to reach out to many organizations, who simply insulted my parents and sisters. After they heard they are Palestinian, they pretty much told them that there is no help here for Palestinians. Only Lebanese should have access. We tried to call news reporters and they said that they don’t focus on Palestinian issues. My family is half Lebanese and we are just really hurt. It feels like my own blood has turned against me. I am a proud Lebanese Palestinian and I feel for both nations but seriously, this should be about human decency.”

“Palestinians are completely isolated and treated like a disease,” she stressed. “I think this really needs to change.” Dr. Abdul Latif is American educated and married an American so she lives in the US but until this, she was quiet about these issues in order to respect her family: “My family is living there and they are always worried so I kept my mouth shut. But I am done with this. Enough is enough. Something has to change.”

Dr. Abdel Latif emphasized that what her brother has endured is a good glimpse of the daily struggles of Palestinians in Lebanon: “I feel bad for the Lebanese but it is still not ok. My brother was about to get kicked out of the hospital because the insurance was refusing to pay. My parents are elderly and my dad was stopping them from throwing him outside with opened wounds and lungs bleeding in a tube into a bottle.” Dr. Abdul Latif claimed that the hospitals in Lebanon discriminate against the poor so much that they would even throw out a Lebanese person in a similar condition but the Lebanese got one advantage that a Palestinian does not: “The Lebanese belong to parties and commonly a call from an official could save someone’s life. But I don’t even know how to fix all of this. The Palestinians in the camps try to donate whatever they have which is very little to help each other out.”

Dr. Abdel Latif emphasized that Ibrahim is one of the best guys she knows and she proclaimed that she is not merely saying this because he is her brother. She stressed that he is super intelligent and hard-working, overcoming numerous obstacles in a hostile atmosphere where many turn to radical Islam in order to make it where he is today as an electric assistant engineer. In an area where others turned to terrorism, he chose to try and make a humble living, never giving up hope in improving the plight of himself and his family through civil and humane means. The banks denied him the option of buying a home for he did not earn enough money but he still never gave up his strong work ethic and his aspirations: “I wanted to help him come here because he has experience and is hard-working and a good guy but I could not. It is too much.”

Dr. Abdel Latif started a GoFundMe campaign to help save her brother’s life. So far, she has raised about $5,000 but is still $10,000 short of what she needs to save his life. Due to the social media campaign she started and the fact she started to raise some of the money, the Lebanese started to treat her brother but she is still waiting for them to operate on him. She asks every person with a heart to donate in order to help save her brother’s life.

In order to help save Ibrahim’s life, click here!

The post Palestinian in Lebanon denied medical treatment due to his nationality appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’été de Politique étrangère (n°2/2017). Samy Cohen propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Itamar Rabinovitch, Yitzhak Rabin: Soldier, Leader, Statesman (Yale University Press, 2017, 376 pages).

Yitzhak Rabin n’était pas un personnage charismatique comme David Ben Gourion ou Menahem Begin. Il ne fut pas moins un visionnaire qui comprit dès 1992 qu’Israël ne pouvait pas continuer à dominer indéfiniment un autre peuple sans perdre son caractère démocratique. Il surprit : rien ne le prédestinait à prendre cette voie, lui le Sabra coriace, le vainqueur de la guerre des Six Jours, l’implacable ministre de la Défense qui réprima durement l’intifada de 1987. Il ouvrit courageusement une ère nouvelle pour son pays et le paya de sa vie, assassiné par un colon extrémiste le 4 novembre 1995.

À cet homme au destin peu ordinaire Itamar Rabinovich consacre une biographie tout en finesse et bien ­documentée. Et pour cause. Il fut proche de Rabin qui le nomma, en 1993, ambassadeur d’Israël à Washington et chef négociateur avec la Syrie d’Hafez Al-Assad. Rabinovich retrace le parcours de Rabin depuis sa naissance à Jérusalem en 1922 et son engagement dans la Haganah pendant la guerre d’indépendance, où il fut nommé à 26 ans chef de brigade. Cet officier timide accéda au poste de chef d’état-major en 1963, non sans difficultés d’ailleurs, ses rapports avec Ben Gourion et Golda Meir n’étant pas excellents. Les succès militaires remportés en juin 1967 lui valurent une immense estime des Israéliens. Il obtiendra le poste d’ambassadeur à Washington.

La démission de Golda Meir en 1974 le propulsa à la tête du gouvernement. Mais le bilan de cette première expérience de Premier ministre ne fut pas brillant. Il peina à s’imposer dans l’opinion et dans son parti. Rabinovich montre notamment son indécision face à la montée en puissance des colons religieux, qu’il exécrait pourtant. Les jeux de coalition politiques le placèrent à la tête du ministère de la Défense, où il officia plusieurs années, construisant sa réputation de « Monsieur sécurité ».

Le chapitre consacré aux accords d’Oslo, sans doute le plus important, révèle un Rabin « ambivalent par nature » et toujours méfiant à l’égard de Shimon Peres, son vieux rival. Un fait intéressant est rapporté : à l’origine, les accords intérimaires devaient être signés à la Maison-Blanche par les ministres des Affaires étrangères, et c’est notamment pour éviter que son rival ne récolte seul les lauriers de cette « percée » que Rabin décida de s’y rendre, au grand dam de Peres qui pensa un moment annuler sa participation à la cérémonie.

Itamar Rabinovich analyse en épilogue les séquelles de la mort violente de Rabin. Le Likoud, son chef Benyamin Netanyahou en tête, n’aura de cesse de minimiser son œuvre et de lui faire porter la responsabilité de l’attaque de l’Altalena, ce bateau qui en 1948 transportait des armes pour l’Irgoun. Ben Gourion avait ordonné de le couler pour éviter un phénomène de milices échappant au contrôle du pouvoir politique. L’unité chargée de cette tâche n’était autre que celle d’un jeune capitaine du nom de Rabin.

L’auteur tient à souligner, en conclusion, que Rabin n’était pas un « leader colombe », que son souci majeur était celui de la sécurité d’Israël, un objectif qui ne pouvait toutefois être atteint que par la paix. Certes, mais les grands « leaders colombes » de la gauche sioniste (comme Aryeh Eliav, Matti Peled, Uri Avnery, et bien d’autres) militaient depuis 1967 dans le même esprit. Paradoxalement c’est lui, et nul autre, que le camp de la paix a choisi comme icône.

Samy Cohen

Pour vous abonner à Politique étrangère, cliquez ici.

Amid rising terrorism and violent extremism in West Africa and the United Nations envoy for the region called on the Security Council to further support national and Regional efforts to combat this "serious threat", including strengthening the UN Integrated Strategy for the Sahel.

The humanitarian situation in Eritrea – which is quite isolated and off the media radars – is “on a positive trajectory” but international donors need to give malnourishment and food insecurity continued attention, a senior United Nations relief official today said.

Noting the challenges that continue to hamper sustained progress in combating cholera in Haiti, the United Nations General Assembly underscored the need to strengthen national health, sanitation and water systems on the island to promote the well-being of the population as well as contributing to Haiti&#39s sustainable development efforts.

Economic analysis by the United Nations over the past 70 years has proven to be accurate and can help countries navigate through a difficult current world economic situation and implement the new global development goals, an in-depth review of the analysis has found.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump meet at G20 Summit (Kremlin)

U.S. President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin July 7 on the sidelines of the Group of Twenty (G20) Summit in Hamburg, Germany. Intended to be a half-hour meeting, it went on for more than two hours. Present in addition to Trump and Putin were U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and two translators. There were no note-takers or foreign policy experts representing the U.S. side, and the U.S. appeared to have done little in the way of preparation for the meeting.

Russia was pleased with the outcome of the meeting, reporting that Trump appeared to accept Putin’s denial on meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. While the Trump administration insists that Trump did not believe Putin’s denial of election meddling, reviews of the meeting in the United States were not so good as in Russia. “The Russians just played the President,” former White House communications director and State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki writes at CNN, highlighting the lack of preparation and foreign policy expertise on the U.S. side. “It was predictable. And [Trump] let it happen.”

Putin is, of course, a former intelligence officer who has led Russia alternately as president and prime minister for 18 years, and Lavrov is a seasoned diplomat with decades of experience. Trump and Tillerson, on the other hand, are political neophytes who have been in government for less than six months.

“The Trump-Putin bromance is back on,” writes John Cassidy at The New Yorker, and Putin appears to be the alpha-bro in the relationship. As Cassidy observes, Putin “got what he wanted from the meeting: a commitment from the U.S. to move on from the [2016 U.S. presidential] election controversy and normalize relations”; while Trump “could claim that he had raised the question of Russian interference [in the election], even if he did so only in the most perfunctory of fashions.” What the U.S. got other than superficial cover for Trump remains unclear.

“Trump handed Putin a stunning victory,” writes Molly McKew at Politico, “From his speech in Poland to his two-hour summit [with Putin] in Hamburg, the president seemed determined to promote Russia’s dark and illiberal view of the world.” As Anne Applebaum and Jonathan Capehart likewise note at The Washington Post, Trump’s speech in Warsaw seemed to affirm the authoritarian nationalism of the right-wing Polish government that gave Trump a “fawning reception” with government-sponsored “rent-a-crowds” bussed in from across the country. In what must have been music to Putin’s authoritarian ears, Trump’s speech contained no mention of democracy or human rights.

Then in Hamburg, Trump shared a chuckle at the expense of American news reporters with Putin, who is strongly suspected of having journalists and other critics killed in Russia. “Are these the ones who insulted you?” Putin asked, gesturing thuggishly at the reporters with his thumb as they were being ushered out of the room. “These are the ones,” Trump replied, chuckling with Putin, “You’re right about that.” Perhaps Trump also thinks that Putin is right in how he deals with troublesome journalists and political opponents (Recall that Trump once praised the Chinese government’s deadly crackdown on China’s 1989 democracy movement at Tiananmen Square as a “show of strength,” and called the peaceful democracy movement itself a “riot.”).

“Are these the ones who insulted you?” (Kremlin)

“The Russian-American relationship is no longer about Russia or America…,” writes Anne Applebaum at The Washington Post, “It is driven, rather, by the personal interests of the two main players,” Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Applebaum notes that there were “no aides, no advisers, no experts” present at the meeting and “nothing prepared in advance” to represent the interests of the American people. “Both [Putin and Trump] got what they wanted,” however: “Bragging rights for Putin; a new friend for Trump. As for the rest of us — it doesn’t matter what we think. In this relationship, only two people matter.”

Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, had previously suggested as much when he said that there was “no specific agenda” for the meeting: “It’s really going to be whatever the president wants to talk about.” When have such important meetings between world leaders ever been about “whatever the president wants?” Just as the Russian presidency is all about Vladimir Putin, the U.S. presidency increasingly appears to be all about Donald Trump and his “absolute right” to do as he likes with the Russians or anyone else. No previous U.S. administration has spent as much time talking about the president’s “rights” and the president’s “unquestionable authority” as this administration has.

Despite the authoritarian tendencies Trump displays with his American critics, body language analysis indicated deference and supplication on Trump’s part with Putin and dominance on Putin’s part with Trump, clearly showing “who’s the boss” in the relationship between the two men. As Russia’s RT noted with pleasure, there was even a “House of Cards” moment, when Trump extended his hand to a haughty-looking Putin in a scene reminiscent of a meeting between fictional U.S. president Frank Underwood and Russian president Viktor Petrov in the Netflix series:

Putin-Trump House of Cards (Twitter)

If Trump hoped for a boost at home from his second overseas trip and first meeting with Putin as president, then he seems certain to be disappointed. If anything, the meeting with Putin has generated even greater suspicion regarding Trump’s strange fixation on cozying up with Russia.

The post Trump Confirms Authoritarian Bromance with Putin appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Underscoring the importance of information and communication technologies (ICT) in today&#39s world, the heads of over 20 United Nations agencies and offices have called for leveraging those technologies to &#8220fast forward&#8221 implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.