Foreign Policy Blogs

Another day, another crisis. North Korea, despite the international community’s cautious optimism following the Trump-Kim summit, appears to be moving full steam ahead with its missile program, all while the last vestige of the Iranian Nuclear Deal is swept away by hawkish White House advisors calling for regime change. It has become alarmingly clear that, to the chagrin of all those unfortunate enough to be living on planet Earth, the role of nuclear weapons in the 21st century will be a prominent one. Through its presidential proclamations on twitter, the Trump administration has demonstrated its eagerness to open up avenues of conflict from horrific to traverse. Its actual policies, however, offer little comfort. On February 2nd, the Pentagon released its Nuclear Posture Review to little fanfare and, in doing so, announced its intention to give its nuclear arsenal a competitive edge in a new arms race with Russia and China. In a radical departure from the 2010 NPR, which concluded on the optimistic sub-chapter titled “Towards a World free of Nuclear Weapons,” the Trump-era NPR consistently compares arsenal sizes with that of its geopolitical rivals and startlingly calls for the first  increase in America’s nuclear capabilities since the Nixon administration. Viewed as a starting pistol, the NPR is the launch of a Trumpian missile–measuring contest that has reinvigorated the debate over the role of nuclear weapons in the world at a time of increasing instability.

When the first draft of the NPR was published by Huffington Post in January, response to the broadened nuclear response scope was so negative that the Doomsday Clock nauseously lurched 30 seconds closer to midnight. In its final form, the NPR seems to have scaled back some of the more troubling phrases like “supplementary low-yield weapons” or “enhance[d] deterrence,” the paper itself remains unnervingly vague on several matters.  

This macho march towards bigger arsenals risks normalizing what should be unthinkable. It is a radical shift not only in US policy, but it breaks with a global trend of non-proliferation and disarmament, best displayed by the tireless work of people like recent Nobel Laureate Beatrice Fihn of ICAN and Ambassador Jan Kickert, Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations, both of whom worked on the recent Nuclear Ban Treaty, which was passed by the United Nations in 2017.

Even worse, the NPR has encouraged some to consider weapons of mass destruction as a legitimate strategic option. Armchair-proponents of nuclear weapons are likely to laud the focus on the so-called realist perspective of the NPR, which in its first draft touts that its authors “view{s} the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” This adolescent nihilism ignores that policies that encourage increasing arsenal sizes and disproportionate responses actually shape the world into the terrifying form they are supposedly protecting us from. By making nuclear weapons a deployable option in a greater number of possible scenarios, the United States is increasing the likelihood of either nuclear war or the one-sided slaughter of foreign civilians, outcomes often glossed over by tacticians, amateur and professional alike. What this strategy fails to acknowledge is that both options are almost inconceivably horrible, and their implementation should only be considered in the direst of circumstances.

More serious discussions regarding nuclear policy frequently focus on the stability enabled by America’s superior military capabilities. Scholars like Daryl G. Press and Kier Lieber have credited the mild climate of the Cold War to Mutually Assured Destruction, which admittedly may be correct. So stable was the world under constant threat of total destruction, some academics have even taken to calling the period following WWII, ‘The Long Peace.’ To do so, however, ignores the many mishaps, miscommunications, and stand-offs between the 1950’s and the 1980’s that all potentially could have killed millions. In any case, yesterday’s balancing act does not guarantee stability today, and be it by accident or intention, the probability of a nuclear incident gradually increases to a certainty over time should more countries continue to create nuclear weapons. As the saying goes, we only have to be unlucky once.

Despite the posturing of the Trump administration, a nuclear arms race is one no else seems eager to run. Instability, braggadocio, and the ability to wipe out all life on Earth is a nitroglycerine mix, and by pursuing such a short-sighted policy, Donald Trump has finally delivered his followers back into their fetishized 1950’s. Just maybe not as advertised.

Adam J. Camiolo is the Director of Membership for the Foreign Policy Association. He currently oversees the FPA Associates program, as well as numerous lectures, conferences, and events in New York City. He also works on building strategic partnerships, various task forces, and research conducted by the FPA.

Mr. Camiolo has a Master’s degree in Public Administration with a concentration in International Economic Policy and Management/International Politics from the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University, as well as a BA in History from SUNY Geneseo.

The post On the Nuclear Posture Review appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

News about the 2018 World Cup in Russia will dominate sports headlines and television screens throughout the summer months as fans come out of the woodwork to support their nation’s soccer teams. And while the World Cup is a great way to unite people, it is important to think of the broader implications of this major international sporting event, and specifically, hosting it in one of the most politically controversial countries in the world. At the opening ceremony, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed Russia wanted to host the event due to the country’s adoration for the sport: “In our country, football is not just the most popular sport. People genuinely love football … We prepared responsibly for this major event and did our best so that fans, athletes and specialists could immerse themselves in the atmosphere of this magnificent football festival and, of course, enjoy their stay in Russia – open, hospitable, friendly Russia.”

The World Cup is a large public relations opportunity for Putin, as leaders around the world are forced to temporarily forget and minimize the actions of his administration while their countries participate in the sporting event organized by his country. Russia is currently embroiled in controversies ranging from continued backlash over their annexation of Crimea to their support of the Syrian government in the Syrian Civil War, and even more recently controversies relating to their alleged intervention in the United States’ 2016 elections. This thick fog of controversy has seemed to escape the minds of people around the world – which is exactly what the Putin administration would want. Events like these serve to help coerce the population into believing in the legitimacy of their governments and soccer players are sadly being used as pawns for propaganda. Infamous Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who was recently sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for human rights violations, was seen taking photos with Egyptian soccer star Mo Salah at Grozny stadium, while also giving the player a personal tour in front of the press. According to Rachel Denber from Human Rights Watch, “This is Kadyrov trying to capitalise on Chechnya being a team base to boost his own profile…it was 100 per cent predictable.”

Now, don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love the World Cup. I’ve spent the past two weeks watching every single game (go England!), and it’s been a great talking point for everybody in my town. International sporting events like these are always a fun experience for the citizens of the host nations and those cheering abroad. These events are also always an opportunity for leaders to gain public support which is particularly noticeable this year. I think it’s important to keep politics out of stadiums and kept in parliaments.

Dominic Floreno is a high school student and 1st prize winner of the FPA’s 2018 student essay/video competition. 

The post Politics and the World Cup appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Given the seemingly relentless flow of news over the last several months, a perception no doubt augmented by the whiplash nature of today’s 280-character policy making process, the recent events in Spain have generally been relegated to the sidelines of political and foreign affairs discussions. Impending trade wars, immigration crises on multiple continents, and a turbulent political climate for some of Spain’s own European neighbors all figure into the geopolitical outlook; it’s no surprise, then, that an internal shift in the Iberian nation’s politics has garnered relatively few headlines. Nevertheless, Spain’s new Prime Minister, the socialist Pedro Sanchez, finds himself in a unique position to assume a strong domestic and European leadership role. Despite a relatively weak government and lack of an electoral mandate coupled with an environment of growing international uncertainty, Sanchez has a chance to consolidate not only his government, but also Spain as a multicultural, humanitarian-minded, and modern European democracy.

Sanchez rose to the premiership on June 1, 2018 after a successful vote of no-confidence in parliament the previous day. The vote brought together a smattering of left-wing and regional parties and allowed the socialist Sanchez, whose PSOE (Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party) holds only 84 of the 350 total seats, to unseat longtime conservative leader Mariano Rajoy, whose PP (People’s Party) maintains a proportional majority with 134 seats. Undoubtedly,the downfall of the PP-led government came down to several domestic issues: most immediately, an enduring corruption scandal, cited as the principal cause for the censure vote of May 31, that Rajoy was ultimately unable to distance himself from; and, most importantly, the protracted, and often chaotic struggle over Catalan independence.

Understanding the importance of the Catalan situation is critical to seeing Sanchez’s, and Spain’s, path forward in Europe. For his part, the ousted prime minister Mariano Rajoy demonstrated a general antipathy towards Spanish regional autonomy, most notably spearheading a successful constitutional challenge to the Catalan New Statue of Autonomy in 2006. This particular case lasted four years in the courts, and the 2010 decision, although a relatively limited revision of the statue, notably stripped language referring to a “Catalan nation” from the document, sparking outrage and setting the stage for a series of referendums and heightened discord during Rajoy’s premiership, which began one year later in 2011.

Rajoy’s handling of the independentist movement has been less than harmonious: a hardline stance by the PP that has included the application of Article 155 of the Spanish constitution, effectively suspending Catalan autonomy and bringing the region under direct control of the national government in Madrid; and, most contentiously, the imprisonment of eight separatist leaders, charged with “rebellion,” and the hurried exile of the Catalan ex-president, Carles Puidgemont. The fate of these prisoners will likely influence the willingness of Catalan moderates to negotiate in good faith in the freshly awaited dialogue with the new government in Madrid. Notably, it was some of these moderates who helped catapult Sanchez to power in the censure vote, seeing in the rise of the socialist an opportunity to reset a political discourse that has become increasingly quarrelsome, not only nationally but also at home in Catalonia. As Spain continues its recovery from the devastating global financial crisis that was exacerbated by a sovereign debt crisis in 2012, regularizing the situation in Catalonia, which accounts for around a fifth of national GDP, will prove essential to continuing the economic rebound in the face of renewed pressures.

Economically speaking, the ousted Mariano Rajoy deserves much credit for the generally steady recovery since the downturn. Spain is in its fifth straight year of economic growth, the third straight with GDP growth over 3%; largely credited by observers to Rajoy and his conservatives’ unflinching commitment to a harsh austerity program that has helped stabilize the nation’s industries and recuperate a severely handicapped labor market (unemployment is hovering around 16%, up from the pre-crisis low of around 8.4% and down from the post-crisis high of 24%). While Catalonia looms large, Sanchez will also have to navigate the consequences of long-awaited tightening in monetary policy from the ECB, and the threat of an increasingly quarrelsome international trade environment on the economic front.

If Sanchez is able to guide Spain through these challenges, the most telling and pressing of which will be the Catalan situation, then he will be uniquely positioned to solidify Spain’s liberal multicultural democracy. Politically, despite the recent upheaval, Spain remains relatively stable in comparison to some of its European neighbors; notably Italy with the unusual alliance between the Five Star Movement and the right-wing League, and even Germany given the reemergence of a right-wing political force in the Alternative for Germany and the internal strife in Merkel’s coalition over immigration policy. Despite the emergence of two new national parties, center right Citizens and the far-left Podemos, Spain has been largely spared from the global populist resurgence. As a recent Economist piece states: “Crucially, Spain has no significant movement on the nationalist right, unlike Italy, France and many others, including Poland and Hungary. Indeed, tolerance of refugees and migrants has been an impressive feature of Spanish democracy.” As European leaders continue to clash over immigration policy, Spain, then, an autochthonal and multicultural nation, may be in a position to bridge the ideological gap over immigration in Europe, a duality coincidentally embodied by Germany and Italy as demonstrated at the “informal” immigration summit of European leaders this week.

Sanchez, then, in dealing with the Catalan issue and providing clear European leadership on immigration, will have an opportunity to consolidate his left-wing leadership after nearly a decade of conservative governance and to raise Spain’s profile as a European leader. To do this,Sanchez first must act decisively in the Catalan negotiations and take steps to ensure continued economic growth and political confidence domestically (a restructuring of regional financing and a political transparency law both find themselves on the socialists’ agenda). His success will no doubt depend on his ability to maneuver his fractured parliamentary coalition, a job not dissimilar to the task of creating a European consensus in today’s geopolitical conditions (specifically, an essential prerequisite to progress on immigration in the face of a potential humanitarian crisis). If Sanchez plays it right, a strong Spain and a stronger Europe will result and Spain’s conservatives will have much work to do if they hope to regain control; his, and his party’s ability, however, remain very much an unknown. As the summer continues to heat up, Spain’s future, and its place in Europe, will be at play.

Joe Greaney is a recent graduate of the College of the Holy Cross with a degree in Political Science and Spanish. Views expressed are his own. 

The post One To Watch: Spain’s new PM Pedro Sanchez appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Joseph Kabila (Photo from The Guardian)

Current Political Crisis

The Democratic Republic of Congo has been plagued with political instability ever since independence from Belgium in 1960. This instability has contributed greatly to widespread government corruption, due to limited mechanisms of accountability. In 2006, the first democratic elections were held in over four decades and Joseph Kabila, the son of former President Laurent-Désiré Kabila, was elected. After his five-year term had expired, he was reelected in 2011. Though there were widespread allegations of voter fraud, Joseph Kabila served a second term that officially ended in 2016. Congo’s constitution allows a president to serve for only two terms, which Kabila had completed. However, rather than organizing a free and fair election and preparing for a new administration, the Kabila administration postponed elections. The administration began to suppress political opposition groups and arrest prominent civil society leaders. This marked a clear shift to a new political landscape – reminiscent of a dictatorial regime. Kabila has maintained a stronghold on power, reaping the monetary benefits of Congo’s resources, while widespread poverty among the general population continues, promulgating food insecurity and high infant mortality.

Responses

Kabila’s abuse of power and disregard for the constitution has sparked large-scale protests, many of which have been spearheaded by youth activists. Thousands of Congolese citizens have been, and continue to be, active in protests in Goma, Kinshasa, Mbandaka and other cities in Congo. Youth activists have been instrumental in mobilizing civil society throughout the country. Groups like Lucha and Quatrieme Voix have both generated and sustained international attention regarding the human rights abuses being committed by the Kabila administration. Both Lucha and Quatrieme Voix are groups that have committed themselves to pro-democracy efforts and ensuring that youth are integral to the political dialogues that transpire in Congo. The Kabila administration has targeted high-profile leaders of these groups, allegedly detaining and torturing them.

Unfortunately, Kabila has been adamant to dismantle these protests using any means necessary. Security forces deployed by him have beaten, arrested, an even killed peaceful protestors. In 2017 alone, upwards of “300 opposition leaders and supporters, journalists, and human rights and pro-democracy activists were arrested and jailed”. Pressure from Western countries have prompted the release of some of the arrested individuals, but many are apparently still being held against their will. The exact number of people who have been detained since December 2016 is undetermined but has been estimated to be as high as 600. Over the past three years, Congolese security forces have killed over 300 people engaging in political protests. However, this has not deterred civil society from continuing to push for elections and accountability. The Catholic Church has also become involved in mobilizing the population, organizing protests in conjunction with the Lay Coordination Committee, a spiritual group. In response, security forces have attacked churches with tear gas and ammunition while civilians attended Mass.

The Kabila administration had originally stated that elections would be held at the end of 2017. This did not occur, however, and the administration blamed the delay on financial and logistical obstacles. Now, elections have been set for December 23, 2018, but it is unclear if Kabila will actually follow through with this plan. There is also speculation that he may add himself to the ballot, which would violate the constitution. With the upcoming elections quickly approaching, tensions continue to rise.

The political crisis in Congo has sparked multifaceted international responses. On March 27, 2018, the UN Security Council unanimously passed resolution 2409 extending MONUSCO’s mandate, the largest peacekeeping mission in the world involving approximately 20,600 personnel, with the aim of protecting civilians from violence arising from political turmoil. Furthermore, the United States has publically articulated its support for free and fair elections. On June 21, the US Department of State imposed visa bans and sanctions on high-level Congolese officials with prior ties to electoral corruption and fraud.

Promising Future

With half of the country’s population under the age of 24, there is a new generation of youth that are pushing for change in Congo. While the world often focuses on the wide-scale violence and human rights abuses occurring in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the heroism and resilience exhibited by everyday citizens is often overlooked. It is this heroism that almost inevitably will change the trajectory of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Youth activists in Congo should be supported in whatever ways possible so they can continue striving for transparency, accountability and self-determinism.

The post  Youth Activists Push for Political Accountability in The Democratic Republic of Congo appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

I first visited South Africa in 2008, when Thabo Mbeki was being outmaneuvered by Jacob Zuma, who forced out Mbeki and ascended to the presidency in spite of sexual assault and corruption charges. No one then understood how catastrophic Zuma’s eight years in power would be—but a report the other weekend demonstrates how he undermined critical democratic institutions, behaved as though he is not beholden to the law, and used the state to employ a Western accounting firm to create and spread fake news before the term was en vogue here. As President Trump forsakes allies and negotiates with North Korea, it is critical that we do not miss the forest for the trees, lest we find ourselves ten years from now, like many South Africans today, wondering why we did not stop him sooner.

Jacob Zuma, aided by KPMG, accused South Africa’s tax authority of politically motivated investigations and illegal spying as a precursor to asserting control of the tax authority and later the treasury. He waged a war on a government department to protect himself, his family, and his cronies and to hide illegal activity. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan briefly confirmed this week that the FBI did not illegally or inappropriately spy on the Trump campaign, only to talk back his statement under political pressure, as Trump continues to undermine the entirety of the FBI. Donald Trump, aided and abetted by the Republican Party, has led a public war against Mueller, so it should come as no surprise public approval of Mueller’s non-partisan investigation is at an all-time low, along partisan lines. Mueller is successfully identifying and prosecuting criminal acts; Trump is working to delegitimize our entire justice system in service of his personal interests.

Under South Africa’s post-Apartheid government, the number of people paying taxes quadrupled, surpassing even the United States for the rate of collection. The South African public did not know Zuma himself refused to pay taxes, but they resented endemic corruption while watching Zuma incapacitate the tax authority, driving down collection rates. Not only has Trump lauded tax avoidance like Zuma, but also the unfettered indulgences of Cabinet members Ben Carson and Scott Pruitt support the false narrative that such corruption is politics-as-usual, fostering cynicism about governance while the politically connected abuse power for personal gain. Endemic corruption of this nature undermines democracy at its core.

In perhaps the darkest of parallels, Zuma once mused to his tax commissioner, “Why must I go and answer questions in Parliament? Putin doesn’t go to Parliament to answer questions.” Trump’s admiration for Putin and Russia are well documented, as is his legal team’s argument for not answering the questions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Trump and his team argue they are above the law, with self-pardon power and the authority to end any investigation at any time. Trevor Noah’s early segment on Trump becoming our first African dictator is more prescient now than when it aired in October 2015, with Trump’s total disregard for transparency and democracy.

My first night back in the United States after I returned from South Africa included the infamous debate in which Donald Trump implicitly referenced the size of his genitals. Yes, that happened. Yes, he is President. Here’s the thing: I’m still optimistic about South Africa and its new President, Cyril Ramaphosa. I think he may be able to right the ship. But initial optimism has given way to recognition of the depth of the hole created by Zuma’s corrupt presidency (the currency has dropped more than 30 percent since the initial bounce after Zuma’s ouster). The question, then, is how deep of a hole will we let Trump dig us? Congressional Republicans have not exercised oversight, Trump may succeed in undermining Mueller’s investigation, and the Trump family continues to profit on executive decisions. How deep will we let him dig this hole before we reclaim our identity as the leading democratic nation on the planet?

Steven Leach is a conflict and development expert who lived and worked in sub-Saharan Africa for five years; he is also a Security Fellow with Truman National Security Project. Views expressed are his own.

The post On South Africa appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has reportedly expressed reservations about the family separation policy. (Photo: Department of Homeland Security)

This is the second of two parts.

The CHIP Model Applied to the Border

To understand the fate of children at the border, it may be necessary to examine what else was happening at the time. Trump’s campaign and presidency have focused on the issue of illegal immigration, in particular on what he sees as a need for a wall running the length of the Mexican border, but despite the unity of rhetoric his party is divided on the issue. Populist Republicans may worry about immigrants suppressing wages or may simply want to stop the flow of foreigners into the country. No doubt there are some who believe the specious arguments that a wall is required for national security (although few Republican national-security experts are among them). But other Republicans worry about the electoral implications of alienating the entire Hispanic population for a generation or more. Small-government Republicans don’t want to spend the money. Pro-business Republicans favor the availability of cheap labor and may foresee the danger of a shrinking working-age population as a constraint on future economic growth and tax revenues, problems that could be easily remedied with increased—not decreased—immigration. (Many of the latter prefer a “guest worker” program, or legalization without citizenship; in other words, temporary cheap labor that will never be in a position to demand higher wagers, climb the socio-economic ladder, or vote for Democrats.) These internal divisions have been significant. After a year and a half of unified Republican government and a host of unilateral executive actions, there has been no progress in Congress on the president’s top priority.

This has prompted Trump on occasion to try to forge a bipartisan compromise. This has involved proposals, for example, that couple money for the wall with renewal of DACA for people already in the country (but with restrictions on future immigration). But once again many Republicans don’t like making concessions to Democrats; concessions that increase the number of Democrats will often decrease the number of Republicans. Also, hard-line Republicans who are often Trump supporters lobby against such deals, which they view as an unprincipled sell-out. Republican leaders in the House, moreover, are generally reluctant to endorse deals that do not have the backing of a majority of their members. (After all, remaining a leader requires the support of a majority of your members.) Thus, the deals tend to fall apart, often revoked by the president who proposed them.

The fate of the latest legislative attempt in the House—involving a hard-line Republican bill and a so-called consensus bill that represents a compromise among some of the House Republican factions—is still unclear. Speaker Paul Ryan, who wanted to avoid a divisive vote on immigration, especially in an election year, allowed a vote on the two GOP bills solely as a way to avoid a vote on any proposal supported by Democrats. (Ryan’s agreement to hold the vote successfully cut off progress toward a “discharge petition” that was being pushed by Democrats and Republican moderates frustrated by the lack of action on immigration and that would have led to votes on four bills, including the two GOP bills. Discharge petitions, through which a majority of House members can force votes against the will of the leadership, are exceedingly rare since majority-party members rarely want to alienate the majority-party leaders.) This strategy, however, did not improve their chance of passage. When the hard-line bill was voted down (193-231) on June 21, the vote on the consensus bill, which also appeared to lack sufficient support, was postponed to the following week. Neither bill was ever expected to pass in the Senate, which had already rejected one similar to the consensus bill.

In the meantime, what did the administration do? It created a new crisis on the border by taking children away from their parents. The president was apparently willing to end it in return for concessions from the minority party—well, not for concessions exactly, since all-Republican bills were the only option, but for votes. While blaming his own policy on the Democrats, Trump suggested such a trade via Twitter: “Democrats can fix their forced family breakup at the Border by working with Republicans on new legislation, for a change!” and “The Democrats are forcing the breakup of families at the Border with their horrible and cruel legislative agenda. Any Immigration Bill MUST HAVE full funding for the Wall, end Catch & Release, Visa Lottery and Chain, and go to Merit Based Immigration.” Or, as Attorney General Sessions put it, “We do not want to separate parents from their children. You can be sure of that. If we build a wall, we pass some legislation, we close some loopholes, we won’t face these terrible choices.”

Strategy or Chaos?

Was this an actual strategy to create an artificial crisis in order to extract concessions for ending it? As is so often the case with Trump, it is hard to say. Many argue that this presidency is motivated more by spontaneous impulse than by planned intrigue, so perhaps we cannot exclude the possibility that the situation arose by chance—part of the ongoing flow of chaos that is the Trump administration—even if it does fit the CHIP model. Attorney General Sessions certainly appears to like the policy; he was nearly giddy while quoting a Bible verse in its defense. Presidential adviser (and former Sessions senatorial aide) Stephen Miller has always favored this approach as well. It seems unlikely that either of them would gladly give up Zero Tolerance as a bargaining chip. On the other hand, Secretary Nielsen has reportedly resisted the separation of families and at one point nearly resigned. Moreover, once it was initiated and became controversial, substantial groups, including Republican-leaning groups, denounced it, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, a dozen GOP senators, all living former first ladies, and behind the scenes the president’s wife and daughter. These factors favor discarding the policy, especially if Trump can be made to look the hero for resolving the crisis he manufactured and if it can be used to elicit votes from Democrats for a Trump “win.” Regardless of whether the policy was originally put forward as a bargaining chip, it was used that way when its unpopularity became manifest.

Resolution: Chaos and Deceit

The model failed. The House Republicans were—as in the case of Obamacare repeal—hopelessly divided and in some cases more interested in proving their purist bona fides than in actually legislating. Having been burned before, the Democrats were not interested in helping Trump out of his dilemma. Their experience of negotiating with Trump, the self-styled master of the art of the deal, had shown it to be a frustrating and dangerous game. Trump makes little effort to understand the issues under discussion, regardless of the topic; he appears incapable of thinking beyond the short term or of foreseeing the potential consequences of his actions; he cannot be trusted to carry out a commitment when he does make one; and his general behavior is such that Democratic constituents will resent any effort to accommodate him, even if it is justifiable. Instead, some Democrats (and some Republicans) proposed narrow legislation that would order the separation of families to cease, but Democratic leaders simply pointed out that the president created this problem and could stop it at any moment he chose.

Consequently, after days of insisting that he was helpless to act without legislation, Trump signed an executive order on June 20 undoing the policy of family separation but not the Zero Tolerance policy. As with the original Zero Tolerance decision, the new order was issued without guidelines for the people assigned to carry it out, sowing chaos. The Justice Department took it to mean that families were to be detained together. The Department of Homeland Security announced a suspension of referrals for prosecution in the case of adults with children, but it was initially unclear whether this was the department’s interpretation of the new order or the result of a lack of capacity to handle more children. The Defense Department was ordered to provide 20,000 beds on military bases, but it was unclear whether these were intended for children or whole families. A court was asked to revise the Flores settlement so that children could be detained with their parents beyond 20 days, but even the secretary of homeland security acknowledged that this was unlikely. (It is still possible for Congress to change the rules regarding how long children can be detained, even if its recent record of achievement is not encouraging.) Thus, the policy of family separation could be renewed in as little as thee weeks. Finally, the order made no mention of reuniting families that were already separated. The Trump administration appears to be infinitely better at creating chaos than it is at fixing it.

Trump personally responded to the chaos by doubling down on his demonization of illegal immigrants. He already had a history of denouncing members of the murderous MS-13 gang as “animals,” then using that to justify the deportation of illegal immigrants in general. On June 22 he met at the White House with the relatives of people who had been killed by illegal aliens. He has subsequently called for their expulsion without due process. Yet, while criminal elements can be found in any population, immigrants are statistically less likely than native-born Americans to commit crimes, and areas with large immigrant populations are less likely to be crime-ridden. (Illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than legal immigrants, but still less likely than native-born Americans.) According to a report commissioned by Trump, they even add more to government revenues than they cost. Moreover, in Fiscal Year 2017, MS-13 members constituted only 0.075 percent of immigrants detained (yes, that is 75 one-thousandths of 1 percent); inclusion of the rival Barrio 18 gang increased the share to 0.095 percent. In any event, ICE neither targets MS-13 members for deportation nor tracks how many it has deported.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that, for all the popular images of ever growing masses swarming across the Rio Grande, the number of people crossing the border each year is less than a third of what it was a decade ago. (The rate has tipped up in 2018 over 2017, but 2017 was the lowest since 1971.) Overall, the illegal-alien population in the United States peaked back in 2000 and then again in 2007, fell a bit after the crash of 2008, and then leveled off. As of 2014, about two-thirds of unauthorized immigrants had lived in the country for ten years or more and only about 14 percent had arrived in the past five years. The unauthorized Mexican population has actually declined as more leave than enter, although the number of Central Americans has increased. Over the long run, the Central Americans may well follow a similar pattern of decline. Thus, not only was the immediate crisis on the border artificially manufactured by the Trump administration, possibly in a failed attempt to get his way in Congress, but the larger issue of illegal immigration is largely based on greatly distorted facts concerning both the rate of entry and the criminality of the entrants. Yet we will be living with the consequences of Trump chaos for some time to come.

The post Children at the Border, Part 2: Failure, Chaos, and Deceit appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In an exclusive interview, Iraqi lawyer Ammar Al Hamadani stated: “I love and support the State of Israel as well as the Jewish people across the world. I congratulate both the American and Israeli governments for transferring the US Embassy to Israel’s eternal capital city of Jerusalem. In addition, I ask for the establishment of diplomatic relations and economic ties between Iraq and Israel, which would initiate with the opening of an Israeli Embassy in Baghdad and an Iraqi Embassy in Jerusalem.”

This is not the first time that Al Hamadani spoke out in favor of the Jewish community. Last year, in an interview he gave to Israel Hayom, he proclaimed that the expulsion of Iraq’s Jews and the seizure of their property was “unconstitutional and inhumane,” stressing with sadness that the laws that prompted the Iraqi Jewish community into exile remain in force today “despite the political change that took place in Iraq in 2003 and the enactment of a new Iraqi Constitution in 2005 in which we had some hope for change for Iraqi Jews in a democratic, federal and multi-cultural Iraq.”

During the interview, Al Hamadani emphasized that it is unlawful to strip any Iraqi of their citizenship for any reason and it is the right of “any Iraqi who has lost his citizenship for either political, racist or sectarian reasons to request the restoration of citizenship.” However, Al Hamadani noted that while the Iraqi Constitution permitted the restoration of Iraqi citizenship for those who lost it for the above reasons, Iraqi Jews were excluded: “Iraqi Jews remain depraved of justice under the new Iraq in such a crude violation of the constitution.”

Today, Al Hamadani is working to defend the rights of Jews in Iraq and the greater Middle East. In an exclusive interview, he stated: “I will not withdraw or retract my defense for the Jewish people and Israel despite the threats to my life by the Iranian militias in Iraq. I defend the human rights of the religious minorities in Iraq. My work is motivated by humanity and professionalism.” The Jews of Iraq indeed have suffered greatly. Salima Shachouda was a member of Baghdad’s ancient Jewish community who recently passed away. She once told me in an exclusive interview about all of the suffering that she endured during the Farhud pogrom, which was one of the many massacres implemented against Jews in the Arab world in the period leading up to Israel’s Independence: “During the Farhud, they came and killed everyone, making mass graves. They were the size of my house.”

Iraqi Jewish women’s suffering was immense during the Farhud. They would cut open the stomachs of pregnant women and rape young girls en masse. She noted that if a Jewish woman left her home without wearing an abaya (Islamic face covering), the masses in Iraq at that time interpreted it as an invitation to rape her. According to Shachouda, the Iraqi Arabs committed many atrocities against the Jewish people during this period of time including cutting off the leg of a child and playing with the amputated leg.

For many Iraqi Jews, the horrors of the Farhud pogrom and other instances of persecution that they experienced in the period leading up to their expulsion from the country are quite livid. The Jewish refugees from Arabic speaking countries remember the atrocities that they experienced as if it was yesterday for to date throughout the Arab world, the Jewish people are deprived of their legal and historical rights. In 1945, around a million Jews lived in the Arab world. Some of these Jewish communities pre-dated the existence of Islam itself. Between 1948 and 1972, around 850,000 Jews were compelled to flee these countries due to the existence of anti-Jewish pogroms, massacres and state-orchestrated oppression. Some countries like Iraq and Egypt literally expelled their Jewish community. The Jews from Arab countries had their property confiscated by the government. These refugees and their descendants were never compensated for their suffering.

According to Kurdish Jewish dissident Sherzad Mamsani, to date, Iraqi Kurdistan is the only region of Iraq where Jews can reclaim their stolen assets and property: “In April 2015, the Kurdish Parliament passed a piece of legislation where all of the lands and assets taken and confiscated by the Iraqi government in the name of sectarianism, religious violence and domestic politics can be returned to their rightful owners. For the past 70 years, this piece of legislation is the first time that we see this much veracity and equality shown to our religion and cause.”

However, he noted that the Iraqi authorities do not share the same mindset as the Kurdistan Regional Government: “To this day, this kind of legislation and law doesn’t exist in neither the Iraqi legal framework nor in the mindset of the people who lead the Iraqi government. They are not united and they are fighting among themselves about the differences between Sunnis and Shias. Therefore, it is a far-fetched idea that they will accept other religions as well. They have occupied all of the assets and the lands belonging to Jews, Christians, moderate Sunnis, Yezidis, Kakaes, Faylis and Zoroastrians.”

Nevertheless, a growing number of non-Kurdish Iraqis are increasingly sharing views that differ from the ruling Iraqi government when it comes to the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Not too long ago, Miss Iraq Sarah Idan visited Israel, where she proclaimed to Israel’s Channel 2 News: “I don’t think Iraq and Israel are enemies. I think that maybe the governments are enemies with each other. With the people, there are a lot of Iraqi people that don’t have a problem with Israelis and the Jewish people.”

In addition, the Jerusalem Post reported that the Israeli Foreign Ministry recently launched an “Israel in Iraqi Dialect” Facebook page after numerous followers on the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s Arabic Facebook page requested a page that was more geared towards an Iraqi audience. According to the report, Yonatan Gonen, who heads the Foreign Ministry’s Arabic branch on digital diplomacy, stated: “We are seeing an openness and an understanding that Israel is an established fact” in countries like Iraq, Morocco and even some of the Persian Gulf countries.

According to Levana Zamir, the head of the Central Organization of Jews from Arab and Islamic countries, many Arabs today recognize that expelling the Jews from the Muslim world was a mistake: “In Egypt, Amin Al Mahdi, an Egyptian journalist, wrote a book titled The Other Opinion. The book was translated into Hebrew. He said that when Egypt is a democratic country, we will have peace. He cried in his book that Nasser expelled the Jews. He said only Egypt lost by it. Now after Al Mahdi, we have other people saying the same thing. Maged Farag said all of this on the Egyptian TV. He came to Israel for an art exhibition.”

Zamir stated that an Egyptian Jewish painter had an exhibition on what Egypt looked like based on her memories of her life in the country before the Jews were expelled. Farag originally invited her to Egypt to display her artwork in his country club but when Mubarak fell, his country club was bombed and the country was not safe so she had her exhibition in Jerusalem instead: “We were all there, all of the Jews from Egypt. We came with two buses. Magid Farad met my grandchildren and we continued by Facebook. Once he was back in Egypt, the TV wanted to interview him and asked him how he could do such a thing. They accused him of normalizing Israel. He said, look, we have normalization between the governments, so why not the people? It’s time to finish all of these wars. He is very courageous. We all applauded him.” According to Zamir, peace will only come to the Middle East when Arabs like Ammar Al Hamadani, Amin Al Mahdi and Magid Farad speak out against the injustices experienced by the Jews in the Arab world.

Zamir is a strong advocate of establishing an international fund to compensate both Jewish and Palestinian refugees who were compelled to flee their homes either during or following Israel’s War of Independence: “We have to do what Bill Clinton said. I have $21.5 billion from Europe, Japan, the US and Ehud Barak will add to this fund. We will give compensation but no right of return, not for us and not for them.” She noted that Jews cannot live in Arab countries today as churches and even mosques are getting blown up, so it is only fair that both sides receive compensation without a right of return.

Zamir believes that establishing a fund like this is a tool for peace for it will give the Jewish refugees from Arab countries the peace of mind that they deserve. At the same time, she believes that it can help foster a solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by removing grievances held by both sides. Therefore, Zamir argues that such a fund should be established irrespective of the status of negotiations for it will remove a major stumbling block for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She thinks that this international fund should be pursued for it is our best hope of reducing tensions between both sides and encouraging a more peaceful tomorrow.

However, David Bedein, who heads the Center for Near East Policy Research and Israel Resource News Agency, stressed that a process needs to be introduced to ensure that the money that goes to help Palestinian refugees is used for its intended purposes given that the Palestinian Authority and its officials have pocketed foreign aid for themselves or used it to pay the salaries of terrorists imprisoned inside Israeli jails. He feels that it is critical that any money that is given as part of such an international fund is only used to compensate Jewish refugees from Arab countries and to help Palestinian refugees build homes, start businesses to finance themselves, educate their children, provide health care, etc.

However, while Zamir argues for an international fund to compensate refugees and Bedein warns about the importance of adding safeguards for such a fund, David Dangoor, the Vice President of the World Organization of Jews from Iraq, stressed in an article that he wrote in the Jerusalem Post that dialogue between Iraqis and Israelis as well as Jews and Muslims is badly needed for a brighter future: “Greater interaction can only be beneficial for greater harmony, understanding and acceptance in our region and beyond.”

The post Iraqi lawyer calls for establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has quoted a Bible verse, which merely says to obey the law, to justify taking children from their parents. (Photo: U.S. Department of Justice)

This is the first of two parts.

Has the Donald Trump administration instituted a practice of using children as hostages in Congressional negotiations? In April the administration introduced an extraordinary policy of separating children from their families in the case of people crossing the border illegally and, apparently, in the case of some legal entrants as well. The reasons given for doing this have varied. Attorney General Jeff Sessions told us it was a conscious policy intended to deter people from even trying to cross the border. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen asserted that there was no such policy at all. After its unpopularity was highlighted, Trump declared that it had been forced on the administration by a law passed by Democrats. The latter argument suggests that the Trump administration had given up on even trying to make sense. This was a matter of discretion. And, by the way, the administration had been talking about intentionally separating children from parents as a deterrent for over a year.

Technically, the new policy—known as Zero Tolerance—was to subject adults crossing the border illegally to criminal prosecution, of which family separation is merely a foreseeable—and intended—consequence. Presumably, this is why Nielsen believed she could argue that there was no new policy of family separation; criminal prosecution was the new policy. The new Zero Tolerance approach was consistent with the law, but it was in no sense required by the law. Crossing the border without authorization is a federal misdemeanor (only reentry after deportation being a felony). Previous administrations, including Trump’s until April, dealt with it in a civil procedure. The typical sentence in such cases is time served, a $10 fine, and immediate removal. Criminal prosecution requires detention in a federal facility. Under a 1997 consent decree known as the Flores settlement (from the case Flores v. Reno), children cannot be kept in detention for more than 20 days. That is the root of the dilemma.

Since the children cannot be detained for long, previous administrations have released detained families and told them to come back when their court hearing is scheduled, which can be after a considerable time. The Trump administration and its supporters refer to this as “catch and release” and assert that, once released, none of those people will ever come back. Having anticipated that outcome, they apparently conclude that it must be true. Otherwise, by “none” they must mean 99.8 percent. According to NPR’s John Burnett, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials recently told him that “99.8 percent of participants enrolled in alternatives to detention successfully make it to immigration court.” (Alternatives to detention may include electronic ankle monitors and periodic check-ins with ICE, telephone check-ins with electronic voice recognition, or a mobile phone app called SmartLINK.) This is the basis on which the Trump administration detains thousands of people, separates their children from them, transfers the children to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), and then transports those children to other states with no provision made for how they are to be reunited (because the ORR system was not designed for small children, toddlers, and infants taken from their parents).

It should be noted that, despite the rhetoric, the administration was still not prosecuting all immigration violations. As former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade has pointed out, the Justice Department prosecutes roughly 70,000 cases a year, including about 20,000 immigration offenses. Prosecuting all immigration offenses would raise the total to 300,000, which would overwhelm the department’s capacity even if it were to drop all other cases. The rest were still being “caught and released.” Nevertheless, the number of people detained for prosecution has risen sharply.

Why was this happening? It may be that the administration created a needless crisis precisely so that it could offer to end it as a “concession” in return for concessions from Democrats in Congress.

The CHIP Model

A possible model for this can be seen in last year’s controversy regarding of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). CHIP was created in the 1990s by the Clinton administration and a Republican Congress. It has not been a center of controversy; unlike the Affordable Care Act, Republicans had not made an issue of repealing it. Nevertheless, it was allowed to expire at the end of September 2017. Little action would have been required to renew it, but Congress’s Republican leaders claimed they were simply too busy to attend to it. Many pundits and commentators were left confused.

To understand the fate of CHIP, it is necessary to examine what else was happening at that time. Congress had returned from its summer recess with a large agenda of unattended items that had to be addressed by September 30. These included funding for emergency hurricane relief, appropriations to keep the government running in the fiscal year starting October 1, and a vote to raise the debt ceiling. In particular, the need to raise the debt ceiling was—as repeatedly in the past—indisputably necessary but politically hazardous because many voters interpret such votes as fiscally irresponsible, a view that Republicans have done much to encourage. (In actuality, they merely authorize the government to make payments to which it has already obligated itself through the appropriations process.) Congressional leaders would need at least some Democratic votes on the appropriations and debt questions because some Republicans, as a matter of principle, refuse to vote for spending or for anything related to debt regardless of the circumstances.

Trump, in one of his more effective moments as president, bypassed the Republican leadership and made a deal directly with Democrats for votes to fund hurricane relief and to postpone the appropriations (by means of a continuing resolution) and debt ceiling decisions until December 8. Republican leaders were irate, although unwilling to contradict the president in public. Not only had they been left out of the negotiations, but the outcome would require them to take unpopular votes in September and then again in December. (They had wanted to push the debt ceiling decision, in particular, past the 2018 midterm elections.) Moreover, they would need to win Democratic votes again in December, and the Democrats would demand concessions. Compromising with Democrats—and giving them leverage over Republicans in decision making—is always unpopular these days, especially within the House Republican caucus.

At about the same time, perhaps to appease his Republican colleagues, Trump revoked President Barack Obama’s executive order authorizing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that allowed people who had been brought into the country illegally as children to remain and acquire work permits. DACA was popular among Democrats but not among Republicans. (Although Republicans insisted that Obama’s original DACA executive order was unconstitutional, it’s Trump’s order revoking it that has been held up by the courts.)

So, what did the Republicans in Congress do? They allowed CHIP to expire, creating a new, unrelated crisis in which concern, while widespread, was especially strong among Democratic constituents. A few months later, they magnanimously agreed to renew CHIP in a deal that effectively killed a Democratic demand to renew DACA in the form of legislation. It appears that the whole situation had been invented solely so it could be given away as a “concession” in return for real concessions from the other side.

Continued in Children at the Border, Part 2: Failure, Chaos, and Deceit

The post Children at the Border, Part 1: Hostage Taking as Bargaining Tactic appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In an exclusive interview, Shipan Kumer Basu, the President of the World Hindu Struggle Committee, has claimed that for the Bangladeshi government, there is a direct link between the murder of Bangladeshi opposition figures as well as minorities and the promotion of Islam: “As soon as the month of Ramadan began, the Bangladeshi law enforcement agencies started to murder people in the name of abolishing the drug business. They targeted most of the opposition leaders and critics of the government. Since Sheikh Hasina is desperate to come back to power in this way, more people will be killed. The people of the country are very concerned and angry in this dire situation. Moreover, many believe that ISIS stands behind the killing of intellectuals in Bangladesh and that Sheikh Hasina is sponsoring them with looted bank money.”

Basu claimed that so far, three intellectuals have been killed: Shahjahan Bachchu, Suman Zahid and another unidentified intellectual: “People are not leaving home. The atmosphere is not festive like the season demands. As a result, the prices have increased. The government’s corruption and the murder of Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and other indigenous people continues unabated. Nobody is getting justice. The oppression of the minorities is increasing in Bangladesh. There are more and more cases of homes getting vandalized, temples being attacked, crematoriums being seized, different shops being closed down, the forcible conversion of Hindu girls, rape, sexual harassment, etc. Sadly, most of the government leaders are involved with these horrific incidents.”

“I have heard rumors that a crematorium belonging to Hindus was leased among the local Awami League leaders,” Basu stated. “1,326 Hindu students of two upzilas of Noakhali district have not yet received textbooks. The home of Rabindranath Gosh, founder and president of Bangladesh Minority Watch, was attacked and demolished by an assailant recently. Hindu lawyers are also not safe in Bangladesh, especially if they work to advance human rights.”

“Recently, two Hindu lawyers have been harassed,” Basu noted. “One of the victims is Samir Chowdhury. According to his daughter, he has been framed for a crime that he did not commit by the government merely in order to impede his work to advance human rights. In addition, a land grabber recently occupied the homes of Hindu families in Mymenshingh. And even though 20 million Hindus still live in Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina recently placed a Muslim in charge of the Hindu Welfare Trust, which impedes the rights of Hindus in Bangladesh in the same way that having a Muslim school principle in Iranian Jewish schools serves a similar purpose.”

According to the Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, there has been a spike in attacks upon minorities in Bangladesh and that these incidents are frequently followed by the seizure of Hindu lands, the Dhaka Tribune reported: “Local governments and police often fail to investigate violent attacks that accompany land grabs because their colleagues are implicated.” Basu alleged that such behavior by the Bangladeshi government is religiously motivated.

Basu claimed that the Bangladeshi government is doing everything to advance political Islam in Bangladesh to the detriment of minority religions: “Awami League Organizing Secretary Khalid Mahmoud Chowdhury reported that no one has playing a significant role in promoting political Islam in Bangladesh without the Awami League. He claimed that the Awami League serves Islam and politics in the name of BNP-Jamaat Islam. They have corrupted Islam via terror in the name of religion. In this way, they want to introduce Islamic rule in Bangladesh. Proof of this is the fact that the 300-seat parliament refuses to give the responsibility of a full minister to a single Hindu.”

While General Secretary of the Awami League Obaidul Quder claimed that his political party is the best friend of the Hindu people, Basu claims the reality is the opposite of what he claims: “How many Hindu women have been raped under the rule of the current government? Can anyone tell me? A helpless Hindu minority woman and her infant daughter were recently raped by Awami League leaders in the Kishorgonj district of Bangladesh. The police filed a hassle case instead of a rape case against the accused. Is this an example of the Awami League’s friendship with the Hindu people?”

The post Hindu dissident: “Bangladeshi government supports killing in the name of political Islam” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

During the opening statement of the 38th session of the Human Rights Council held in Geneva on June 18th, the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein condemned the Trump Administration’s decision to separate children from their parents at the United States (US)-Mexico border. “The thought that any State would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable,” Mr. Al-Hussein said.

On June 5th, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights called the practice of separating children from their families “a serious violation of the rights of the child.” The statement also noted that the US is “the only country in the world not to have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.” The statement called on the US “to immediately halt the practice of separating families and stop criminalizing what should at most be an administrative offence – that of irregular entry or stay in the US.”

In his public remarks in Geneva, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights referenced the American Academy of Pediatrics Statement Opposing Separation of Children and Parents at the Border. In their statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics confirmed that the trauma of family separation “can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a child’s brain architecture and affecting his or her short- and long-term health…. [and] can carry lifelong consequences for children.”

Other medical and health-focused organizations, including American Psychiatric Association and Physicians for Human Rights, have issued similar calls for the Administration to cease unwarranted separation of children from their parents. The American Psychological Association stated that “the administration’s policy of separating children from their families as they attempt to cross into the United States without documentation is not only needless and cruel, it threatens the mental and physical health of both the children and their caregivers.”

Disagreement with the Trump Administration’s policy is not limited to health organizations. Many US-based civil society groups have called on the government to refrain from separating vulnerable children from their parents. On June 1st, several faith-based organizations wrote an open letter to President Trump “to protect the unity of families” and work to “ensure each individual asylum seeker is afforded due process”. The Women’s Refugee Commission, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, and many other prominent organizations in the US have also denounced the policy.

In the meantime, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Trump Administration to stop the practice. The ACLU is currently awaiting a decision as to whether the judge will issue a nationwide preliminary injunction to halt the separation of families going forward.

The post UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein Condemns Separation of Children from their Parents at US Southern Border appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

It has been a full year since a quartet of Arab countries – the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt – tried to silence Al Jazeera as part of their subsequent 13 arbitrary demands: demands that specifically included shutting down our news network, Al Jazeera.

This particular demand is absurd, given that Al Jazeera has endured as one of the only beacons for free press in the region, maintaining a level of award-winning journalism unattainable by the region’s state-controlled media outlets.

If you want to understand the eagerness these Arab leaders have for shutting down Al Jazeera, you need only to understand how most of media works in the Middle East. Truth drowns beneath the preservation of these crowns. While many Arab leaders parade a vision of modernization in the West, they brutally crack down on dissenters in their country and those they claim are in their “backyards.” They shut down news media outlets seeking to curtail any hint of criticism or opposition, seeking a return to the pre-Al Jazeera period of sycophantic parroting of the party line.

When Al Jazeera first came on the scene over two decades ago, our network broke the stranglehold on state propaganda and gave a platform for independent news, opposing views and untold stories in the region, following what true journalism teaches – to bring all points of view to a story and let audiences decide for themselves. Our uncompromising pursuit of the truth and raw reality on the ground has made Al Jazeera loved by its audiences, but hated by many governments.

Al Jazeera has refused to be silenced, not only continuing to deliver breaking news across the globe but also standing with our media brothers and sisters across the globe in demanding press freedom for all, using the #DemandPressFreedom to sustain global momentum on these efforts. In collaboration with press freedom organizations and initiatives, we continue to demand the release of Reuters journalists in Myanmar as well as those incarcerated in Egypt, Mexico, Afghanistan among others, including our very own Mahmoud Hussein, who has been held in solitary confinement in an Egyptian prison for 534 days. He has yet to be formally charged.

While Al Jazeera remains blocked in the quartet countries, with heavy fines and possible imprisonment for those accessing the channel through VPN, other governments and interest groups seek to impose regulations to curtail press freedom. However, this has been the case since we first broke the status quo back in 1996. Since then, our journalists have been threatened, imprisoned, tortured, and killed, our offices have been bombed, our signals have been blocked, our websites hacked, and our social media accounts taken down. But we have endured and will continue to endure.

In the midst of the call to close us down, a 2017 report by US News and World Report, in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School noted that Al Jazeera operates in one of the most media free environments in the region and “…has gone on to become one of the most popular channels in the Middle East.” This year alone, Al Jazeera journalists have won Peabody awards and accolades at the New York International Television and Film Festival and the United Nations, among other institutions. In the past the network has won several hundred journalism awards including an International Emmy.

Shutting down independent free media because it does not tow the government line is uncivilized, backwards, and oppressive. At a time when more dialogue is so desperately needed across the world, to be voiceless is to be powerless. But that is what some of the most powerful leaders in the world are attempting to do right now; silence the media, silence the people.

If we’ve learned anything in all our triumphs and tribulations, it is that you cannot silence the people for long. You cannot take away their experiences, dreams, stories and opinions. They will be heard and we will continue to be a messenger for them.

As we mark a year since the Arab quartet demanded we be shut down and silenced, we celebrate another year of courageous journalism and a steadfast commitment to press freedom in the region and across the globe.

Abdulla Al Najjar is the Executive Director of Global Brand and Communications at Al Jazeera Media Network.

The post You Cannot Silence Al Jazeera appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un take a stroll during their June 12th Singapore summit. Photo courtesy of Kevin Lim/The Strait Times/Handout/Getty Images

As Washington is currently full of armchair quarterbacking in the wake of the historic Trump-Kim summit in Singapore, perhaps a more unorthodox and pragmatic, less idealogical quarterback was what was needed to finally move the ball (back) up the field of U.S.-DPRK relations.

Despite the warm smiles and gestures proffered during the recent, historic Singapore summit between the U.S. and the DPRK, there remains an air of continuing mistrust between the two states. This is because both states have been at this very same juncture before, only to have progress stymied because of mistrust and deception on both sides. A key component of previous difficulties had been the hesitancy of previous U.S. presidents in granting a diplomatic audience to the DPRK in the first place in the belief that solely being able to meet with the U.S. president is a concession in and of itself and that the DPRK should be grateful that its stature would be raised accordingly.

Another key component of previous difficulties has been the notion of reciprocity, or more accurately, the perceived lack thereof. Previous U.S. administrations have held firm to the belief that the DPRK must agree to a complete, verifiable, irreversable denuclearization (CVID) of the Korean Peninsula first before any true negotiations with the U.S. could start. Or, to re-phrase it, “Surrender first, then we’ll talk.”

Because of domestic backlash, even this stance has been walked back post-summit to that of the U.S. demanding that CVID of only the DPRK (as opposed to the entire Korean Peninsula, which would include U.S. nuclear weaponry) must be done before sanctions are totally lifted and U.S.-ROK military exercises are totally halted. Despite the previous U.S. insistence that withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Korean peninsula is not a negotiating point and would be a matter of joint discussion with the ROK, some media pundits and politicians are trying to use the fear of even this remote possibility, in the wake of President Trump’s surprise statement regarding U.S.-ROK military exercises, as further ammunition in their quest to discredit the president, and thereby sabotage negotiations.

What’s still not clear is the extent to which the president is proposing halting U.S.-ROK joint military exercises. What is clear, however, is that previous negotiating tactics with the DPRK clearly were not working and a drastic change in approach was necessary. The extent to which the president’s method was influenced by China’s “double freeze” proposal or his own instincts will be a subject of further debate. What’s also clear is that serious diplomacy is much more preferable than simply walking up to the DMZ in a cute bomber jacket and looking through binoculars at the very adversary you should be talking to. Also, ignoring your adversary’s sister at the Winter Olympics doesn’t win you any points with anyone…anywhere.

To cut to the chase, no one actually knows Trump’s strategy, or if he even has one or not. This is not only confined to the DPRK issue, but also encompasses U.S.-China trade, U.S.-EU relations, Syria, and much, much more! Anyone in Washington (or elsewhere) claiming they have a bead on the president because they’ve read Trump: The Art of the Deal is disengenous. As many times as Trump has shifted his thinking over the course of a week (or day), surely perhaps his thinking has shifted slightly over the course of the last generation, as the book was originally published over 30 years ago. The year 1987 can not even hold a candle to today’s increasingly frenetic multipolar world. This is one of the reasons why the DPRK held talks with China, the ROK, and Russia, before deciding to “raise its stature” by then holding direct talks with the U.S..

In Ronan Farrow’s War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence, the author decries the steady atrophying of the U.S.’ diplomatic game over the course of several U.S. administrations. The reasons are multiple, ranging from still-unfilled vacancies of the upper management echelons at the State Department, to the gradual assumption by the military and intelligence community of roles formerly performed by State. The book posits that this is by presidential design, but if so, still lacks concrete answers as to exactly why. 

Whether it’s an attempt by Trump to further marginalize professional expertise in favor of asserting a more dominant role for himself in U.S. foreign policy formulation is anybody’s guess. Perhaps it’s an attempt to clean out schlerotic, Cold War thinking (“The Blob”) in favor of a new approach. If so, then this new dynamic, out-of-the-box thinking is desperately needed on other issues as well. The possible upcoming summit with Russian President Putin comes to mind, especially in the wake of Trump’s recent comments regarding Crimea. Let’s hope that “The Blob” heeds the advice of one analyst who recently stated, “A summit is not a wrestling match”. Very wise. Very wise indeed.

The post More Bold, Risk-Assuming, Presidential Pragmatism on DPRK Needed appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“Oh Charlie Brownnnnn…” Year after year, Lucy tricks Charlie Brown to kick a football she inevitably pulls away. Each time it’s a new creative argument. Lucy promises the world and the temptation is so great that Charlie Brown overlooks history and everything else except kicking that ball. Drawn in, surely this time Lucy will hold the ball as promised and Charlie Brown will kick it to the moon. Unlikely.

Allured by the objectively noble prospect of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, America is paying less attention to the real threat in the Western Pacific. While nuclear weapons are an existential threat, North Korea is neither going to denuclearize nor use their warheads. To do either would be disastrous for them. As talks with North Korea commenced this week, America must resist being distracted by the dream of a nuclear-free Korea and remember the preeminent security threat of the next century is Chinese supremacy in the South China Sea.

North Korea is what economists call a rational actor: they act in their own self-interest. Their foremost goal is to perpetuate the Kim regime and North Korea will always act based on that objective. If Mr. Kim launched a nuclear attack, the response would be cataclysmic and would surely end his rule. Conversely, if he denuclearized, he would give up all the international leverage he has to stay in power. Mr. Kim is therefore very unlikely to give up his nuclear deterrent, but by engaging in talks with America he earns legitimacy and propaganda without concession. We’ve been here before.

However, the far greater threat is China’s imminent dominance of the South China Sea (SCS). China is challenging the international system built by America and its allies. For the first time in decades, a new economically viable alternative to the liberal world order is spreading. From thieving American commercial and military secrets to recruiting scientists, China is rapidly closing the technological gap with America and energizing its military and economy. With its One-Belt-One-Road initiative, China is investing in dual-use foreign infrastructure across a third of the world’s GDP at a rate up to 2-3 trillion dollars per year – 12 times the size of America’s Marshall Plan. Using unprecedented cash that the United States simply can’t match, China is luring nations into their sphere of influence.

Furthermore, Chinese investment comes without rules and lectures on human rights or democratic ideals, attracting authoritarian-leaning governments. China’s goal is to surpass the United States economy and become the world’s dominant military power by 2050, starting in the SCS. Carrying 60 percent of the world’s seaborne trade and the link between the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, the SCS is a global choke point and the economic lifeline for many of the world’s nations. By establishing control there, China is using economic and military force to intimidate and coerce regional nations into obedience. If America doesn’t address China’s growing power over the SCS, it risks sacrificing the current international order for one much less favorable to freedom and democracy.

The centerpiece of America’s strategy to counter China’s weight in the Western Pacific was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP wasn’t just a free trade agreement, but an alliance, an evolution of NATO, designed for the region. Without it, Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS) are an important stop-gap, but they will not roll-back Chinese fortification of the SCS. Similarly, military exercises and trade sanctions only have limited use. An effective strategy must draw the regional nations into American geopolitical orbit based on free and open political and economic governance. Being the global leader requires America to be a reliable partner and advocate for the democratic institutions its worked so hard to create. By living up to its principles, America can unite the regional and democratic nations through political and economic alliances, like the G7, to resist the spread of the illiberal order.

Each year that I flew missions in the SCS I saw the threat rings in my jet, drawn around Chinese claims and fortifications, expand and multiply. Soon, the US military won’t be able to operate there at all without being targeted by Chinese defenses. The allure of a historic political achievement—the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula—is powerful precisely because it makes the world safer. But sadly, it’s an illusion and a distraction that is taking our attention away from what China is doing right now.

LT Peter Devine is a Navy F/A-18 pilot, he recently returned from the Western Pacific and teaches economics at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis. He is a member of Truman National Security Project’s Defense Council. The views expressed are his own and not representative of the Navy, the Naval Academy, or Truman National Security Project.

The post Oh Charlie Brown… Insights on North Korea appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Heads of state attend the G7 summit in La Malbaie, Canada( Leon Neal/Getty Images)

The leaders of the 7-largest global economies gathered on the beautiful bank of Quebec’s St. Lawrence river to acknowledge their commitment to resolve dire global issues according to “our shared values of freedom, democracy, (and) the rule of law.” The world has turned more or less into a shooting venue for a Spaghetti Western film as both leftist and rightist anarchists have fed the trolls of the Trumpian unilateralism. In response, the militia of the Free World under Canada’s leadership, the new “good cop”, fights to bring our global community together.

The product of the summit, the Charlevoix Communique, which was signed by the G7 leaders on June 9th (but allegedly rejected by the ugly cop a few days later) lays out the group’s governance plans to collaboratively remedy major global problems through a number of documented consensuses. The Charlevoix Commitment on Equality and Economic Growth endorses enabling marginalized individuals, especially women, to fully participate in the global economy by removing the barriers of inequality and poverty, and taking a more holistic view of measuring economic progress alternatively to GDP to reflect today’s complex economic landscape. Reflecting the group’s thematic emphasis on gender equality, the Charlevoix Declaration on Quality Education for Girls, Adolescent Girls and Women in Developing Countries further prioritizes the group’s investment plans to improve the quality education that women and girls in developing countries deserve. A meaningful consensus has also been reached to address governance issues in Artificial Intelligence (AI), climate change, and collective security. The Charlevoix Common Vision for the Future of Artificial Intelligence commits the group to create a suitable policy environment for the development of a human-centric AI that “fosters economic growth, societal trust, gender equality and inclusion.” The G7 Ocean Plastics Charter recognizes the importance of managing plastics in a sustainable way to protect the environment. Lastly, in the aim of building a more peaceful world, the Charlevoix Commitment on Defending Democracy from Foreign Threats agrees to be resolute in fixing the recent malfunctions of our democratic institutions caused by authoritarian chicaneries.

Unfortunately, the 44th G7 summit – which could have been highlighted for its maternalistic institutional visions for the future if it hadn’t been disconcerted by the pre-summit clash in Whistler between the six finance ministers and the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin – ended up revealing the deepening schisms between order-defying transactionalism and globally shared values. President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs of 10% on aluminum and 25% on steel on Canada, EU, and Mexico under the phony national security rationale (which came into effect on June 1st) forced the allies to choose the most natural strategic response in an uncertain transactional climate – tit-for-tat. They retaliated with punitive measures on U.S. exports to fight against what President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, labelled as “protectionism, pure and simple.” The new trade war remained a hot issue during the summit. The six frustrated leaders admonished President Trump to reconsider the importance of preserving shared global values during the meeting, but the president was too preoccupied with his upcoming historic meeting with Kim Jong-un that is ought to be perceived by the public as “a scene from a sci-fi movie.” It is expected that the started trade war will escalate; the allies impacted by the trade war might increase the intensity of punitive retaliation by strategically targeting the economy of the president’s electoral base.

President Trump is getting more and more familiar with his new authoritarian friends, embellishing America’s national façade with the morally nonchalant Trumpian unilateralism; it is now easy to think of the U.S. as a greedy profit-maximizer who would conduct business even with rogue countries as long as it guarantees its leader’s political survival. Some argue in defense of such transactional tribalism that nostalgia towards the pre-Trump liberal order is harmfully ahistorical and even mythical; therefore, the world should rather adapt to the new reality. However, such defense ignores many costly effects of the (Trumpian) unilateralism-induced anarchic global order on the U.S., especially in the upcoming multipolar world. After all, the world will soon enter a new era of systems competition and the U.S., with its debilitating soft-powered value network, will nevertheless need to get prepared to compete efficiently against other superpowers, especially the neoliberal China. On the one hand, the anarchic order will let the Spaghetti Bowl Effect prevail; the weakened legitimacy of the WTO will foster regionalization over globalization, increasing weak states’ politico-economic dependency on the regional hegemon. On the other hand, the U.S.’s Trumpian mis-abuse of its politico-economic power which emanates from its global hub position might in turn weaken the brokerage capacity of its middle-power allies. In sum, the anarchic order is rather harmful to the U.S.’ national interests since the U.S. will lose the positive externalities generating from the network of the post-war system that once helped the good cop to successfully compete against Soviet Union, the most pivotal one of which was the internalized functioning of the consumer-sovereignty-based “invisible hands” of America’s allies’ brokerage power.

The post G6+1 Sworn to Protect the Law-Ruled World from “Tribal Anarchism” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Not long ago the international community was celebrating the end of the Sochi Olympics in Russia. This was before Russia’s involvement in the Middle East, before the conflict in Crimea as well as before the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight over a contested part of the Ukraine. The beginning of Russia’s added military involvement started soon after Sochi, and there has been little analysis of Russia beyond tying it to the last Presidential elections, in the United States.

International sporting events seem to have a different perspective inside Russia as opposed to that of the rest of Europe. While the FIFA World Cup is often a time to set aside differences and promote fair play on the pitch, Russian based international events also seem to focus Russians in on themselves in addition to providing the world with a positive image of the host nation as well. Sochi was a successful games, but also set a very different tone outside of Russia as opposed to inside of Russia. Negative perspectives on Russian society during the last Winter Games outside of Russia allowed nationalist movements to set Russians apart from the rest of Europe, playing on historical divisions between Russia and the West. Since then, divisions have been amplified by actions by Russian politicians as well as European policy that drove a wedge further between neighbours. What must be understood is that international events can be used as a tool of self-promotion by the government, but can also be focused on in a way that pushes moderates in Russia closer to their government if international media uses such events to criticize Russian culture.

A post Sochi approach to Russian policy during international events should have made it clear that any conflict with Russia should be addressed by an absence in international activities where Russia is hosting the event. A severe fault by Russia’s government should likely be met with a clear response to their government, even if it costs a spot for a national team in the World Cup. If all teams accept to participate in the tournament, policy is best left to when the event ends. An appreciation for the hosts during the event should reflect an appreciation of their people, not necessarily their government, until the games conclude and relations can return to one focusing on government policies. A positive games is good policy, as politics should always be left off the pitch.

The post Russia’s World Cup Foreign Policy appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The new Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir, has indicated that he will reverse significant gains made by China under the outgoing Prime Minister, Najib Razak. In response, China has called on Dr. Mahathir to honour bilateral agreements and investments. How might the change in government impact these agreements, Chinese investments, and bilateral ties between China and Malaysia?

A political earthquake shook Malaysia after the general elections earlier this month when over 60 years of Barisan Nasional (BN) – the longest ruling political coalition in history – rule finally came to an end. Galvanised by the presence and support of Dr. Mahathir, the erstwhile leader of BN and former mentor to the incumbent Prime Minister Najib Razak, Malaysia’s opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan (PH) stormed to a resounding victory in the national elections.

The election results also served as an indictment of BN’s stewardship under Najib Razak’s tenure. The 1Malaysia Development Board (1MBD) scandal was particularly harmful to BN, and revealed that Najib Razak and his wife had embezzled over USD1 billion from an economic development fund. Likewise, BN did a poor job allaying public concerns over unusually high levels of Chinese investment in the country.

These concerns included fears that the government would not be able to repay Chinese loans that it had been guaranteed by the Malaysian government. Malaysians were well aware that Sri Lanka had to surrender control of a major port to Chinese state-owned enterprises after the island nation was unable to repay the debts incurred in the port’s construction. With China similarly involved in important national infrastructure projects such as the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) and several other ports to the tune of USD100 billion, Dr. Mahathir spoke for the average Malaysian when he remarked that the country was being “sold” piecemeal to China.

Additionally, the average Malaysian has been sidelined by China in such projects. China has opted to export its own resources and labour instead of subcontracting out such requirements to local companies. With China having already acquired a reputation in places as far afield as the Philippines and Ghana for such behaviour, Malaysian companies justifiably fear that it would presage future competition with the Chinese – and that they will not be competing on an equal footing, as the Chinese complete projects better and faster than them.

The East Coast Rail Line. When complete, this rail infrastructure would allow a large amount of freight to bypass Singapore and the Straights of Malacca (Map source: Malaysia’s Land Public Transport Comission).

While Dr. Mahathir was able to play on such fears in order to win the elections, it would be incorrect to say that Chinese involvement has entirely been to Malaysia’s detriment. Chinese investments in these projects have indisputably contributed to Malaysia’s national development, and helped shore up a flagging economy that would have otherwise taken a battering from falling oil prices and the 1MDB scandal.

As such, these infrastructure projects may be necessary in order to future-proof Malaysia’s economy. Malaysia is touted as an invaluable link in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – at the expense of Malaysia’s long-time neighbour, Singapore. While Singapore’s diplomatic run-ins with China have been speculated to underpin this decision, the fact remains that critical shipping routes bound for China have to pass by Singapore, located at the tip of the West Malaysian peninsula. Through infrastructure projects such as the ECRL, the Kuantan port and the Kuala Linggi port, China therefore aims to shorten and secure shipping routes headed its way.

For Malaysia, the combined effect of the three projects would provide a portage route for nearly 53 million tonnes of cargo instead of taking the long way around the West Malaysian peninsula via ship. 80,000 jobs from the ECRL alone would be created for Malaysians. Further – and contrary to what voters may have thought – local firms are expected to play a part in the ECRL’s construction as well. The icing on the cake is an industrial training programme for Malaysian students that is designed to tie in with the ongoing construction work.

Dr. Mahathir’s election rhetoric may therefore prove to be nothing more than the ordinary course of business in politics, as he recently promised to uphold Malaysia’s end of its various bargains with China. With that said, however, ties are unlikely to be affected even as Dr. Mahathir attempts to “renegotiate” their terms. Under Najib Razak’s tenure, bilateral ties with China reached an all-time high. The sheer volume of Chinese investment in Malaysia appears to have secured ties for the time being.

With political and economic ties with China locked in for the foreseeable future, it is up to Dr. Mahathir to do better than Najib Razak by going back on his words – and convincing an uneasy Malaysia that it will be to their benefit.

This article was first published on Global Risk Insights and was written by Nicholas Leong.

The post Chinese-Malaysian ties after the election appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The lebanese flag floating over the palace of Beiteddine.

Having postponed elections twice, Lebanon now has a new parliament after nine years. The results of the elections raise questions about the internal and external issues that threaten Lebanon’s stability and prosperity.  

News headlines announced the victory of Hezbollah in the Lebanese elections. They warned of Iran’s enhanced presence in the country since its Lebanese proxy had won big. Although the winners were not the West’s preferred parties, the extent of Hezbollah’s win was exaggerated by foreign media.

These claims are based on the 2009 election groupings which pitted the March 14 and the March 8 coalitions against one another. March 14 was a Western, especially U.S.-backed, grouping of parties, while March 8 was backed by Iran and included Hezbollah. In the previous elections, March 14 took a majority of seats in parliament which alleviated Western fears of Iranian interference. However, these groupings are no longer part of the Lebanese political scene today and the past couple of years marked a shift in political alliances. Civil war enemies and parties that belonged to the two coalitions banded together to elect President Michel Aoun in 2016.

In the May elections Hezbollah won 13 of 128 seats, one more than in 2009, but the group of parties that used to belong to the March 8 coalition took a majority in parliament this time around. Notably, the biggest “win” for the Shia party was taking away Sunni seats from its rival, PM Saad Hariri’s Future Movement, which lost almost a third of its seats in parliament. Its losses in Beirut especially to pro-Hezbollah Sunni candidates, fueled the victorious calls of the Hezbollah leadership.

The new electoral law introduced proportional representation, which prompted parties to form alliances. Some were along the lines of the March 8 and March 14 divide, but there were new alignments that mirrored alliances that had formed in recent years, and some that were purely tactical in certain regions. One such alliance is the Free Patriotic Movement’s alliance with the Future Movement in support of PM Saad Hariri, which manifested itself in electoral lists in some constituencies. However, FPM is considered to be an ally of Hezbollah’s and their 22 seats in parliament count towards the latter “winning more than half the seats.” Therefore, these elections have shown how convoluted political alliances can be in Lebanon and that it is too simplistic to draw lines between party groupings in the same manner as in 2009.

Painting the elections as a Hezbollah victory has deep repercussions on the image of Lebanon abroad. It feeds into a campaign of fear mongering regarding Iran’s geopolitical influence. This affects tensions in the region, especially with Israel. In fact, it created an opening for Israel’s education minister to announce that Lebanon was equivalent to Hezbollah, which justifies its policy to hold the entire country responsible for Hezbollah’s actions. In the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel, the latter targeted Hezbollah strongholds and did not focus on other Lebanese regions. Thus, these words signal the willingness of Israel to target the entire country indiscriminately in case of renewed conflict.

These elections, in addition to inflaming foreign public opinion, brought to the surface Lebanon’s glaring problems. The results exhibited the strength of patronage networks and nepotism in the country. The fair nature of the voting process was questionable at best since the Lebanese Association for Democratic Elections recorded more than 7,000 violations.  Despite the presence of alternatives this time around, very few changes were made to the standing of deeply-rooted parties and families in parliament.

Various civil society-backed individuals and new parties joined together to form electoral lists under the name Koullouna Watani, in addition, independent candidates banded with more established parties to join lists. However, only one Koullouna Watani candidate made it through, while another who was announced as winner had her seat revoked, which caused activist protests in Beirut. Voter turnout was about 49 percent with cynicism running through the community about the possibility of change, which materialized as a self-fulfilling prophecy due to the lack of support for new faces that set themselves apart from established parties.

The dangers of the static nature of politicians’ presence in Lebanon are the depth of corruption and patronage that are bleeding the country dry. Debt is already at a staggering $90 billion, or 150% of GDP, while basic infrastructure is suffering. To promote macroeconomic stability, a recent IMF mission statement stressed the importance of stabilizing debt, managing public investment, and enhancing the anti-corruption regulatory framework.

This election had the potential to add some new groupings to a parliament that is already ten years old, but aside from some shuffling and seat exchanges between parties, nothing much has changed. Furthermore, Nabih Berri got re-elected as Speaker of Parliament, a position he has held since 1992, and Saad Hariri returned as PM for a third term and is tasked with forming a new government. Despite the hopes that these elections might shake up the Lebanese political scene, the established political elite have further strengthened their grip over the country.

The coming government must address the dire economic situation, especially since Lebanon is looking at a new era with the discovery of oil and gas near its shore. In February, the government made a deal with an international consortium made up of French Total, Russian Novatek, and Italian Eni to start exploratory offshore drilling. This new industry has the potential to boost the Lebanese economy and send it into a path of faster development.

Nonetheless, this newfound wealth of natural resources comes with its own complications. Israel has escalated its threats amid the talks leading to the contract claiming that the drilling would be in areas owned by the state. But despite the provocations, the deal went through. It will be interesting to see whether the wealth will trickle down to the popular level through projects for sustainable economic growth, or whether it will get tangled up in the nets of power struggles and patronage networks.

This article first ran on Global Risk Insights and was written by Myriam Maalouf.

The post National cynicism and foreign outcry overshadow Lebanese elections appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Chinese President Xi Jinping welcomes U.S. President Donald Trump to Beijing. Photo courtesy of Reuters.

Any kind of security or economic paradigm in Asia which does not include China is doomed to failure. Structures which have failed to take into account the interests of a region’s dominant, or near-dominant, power have failed both in the recent, and not-so-recent past.

From the German perspective, World War II was practically preordained based on its treatment at Versailles post-World War I.  The excessive reparations demanded of it further depressed its postwar economy, which was itself a contributing factor to the rise of fascism and eventual rearmament of Germany in relatively short order. It wasn’t until Germany was defeated again (and partitioned) that it received economic assistance through the Marshall Plan.

In more modern times, the failure to include Russia and its interests in any post-Cold War security architecture on the European continent has led directly to today’s Ukraine Crisis. This idea of a more inclusive arrangement, acknowledging Russia’s legitimate security interests in Europe was voiced most recently by Russian President Putin, but actually goes back further to former Russian President Yeltsin’s original hope for Russian membership within NATO itself. Additionally, for acknowledging “losing” the Cold War, an economically devastated Russia, circa the 1990s, expected massive financial assistance from the West, akin to the above-mentioned Marshall Plan.

Disappointingly, this assistance never materialized. However, economics was just as important a factor as security concerns in the Ukraine Crisis as one of the causes was Ukraine’s economic alignment. Disagreement over whether the EU or the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) offered the best path forward for Ukraine led Ukraine’s leaders to play both sides off against one another. A Russian solution for Ukraine to potentially be part of both blocks was jettisoned by the EU due to the exclusive nature of its own proposition, leading to Ukraine’s refusal of the EU solution, the Euromaidan Revolution, and thus the current crisis.

The TPP was originally designed to exclude China, the leading trading partner of most states in its region. In its modified form even after the U.S.’ departure, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), or “TPP-11”, still follows this model, to its own detriment. Currently, China has argued for keeping its own economy open to the world even as the U.S. becomes more protectionist in nature. The case can not even be made by the U.S. that the CPTPP is a community of states based on shared liberal values, like democracy, therefore China’s exclusion is logical, as Vietnam is still a CPTPP member. The current G-7 meeting in Canada deftly illustrates how trading groups based on shared values, and not reality, can quickly become anachronistic.

India is currently being wooed by the U.S. in its efforts to balance China in Asia. However, the U.S.’ current use of the term “Indo-Pacific” over “Asia-Pacific” is not enough to make India forget its own historically non-aligned stance and overriding desire for strategic autonomy. Of course, India has its own issues with China, ranging from the Doklam Crisis last year, to continuing concerns over the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Apparently, however, India has decided that any kind of Indo-Pacific paradigm must not exclude or target states like (but especially) China, which may or may not share similar democratic values with India or the U.S.. India has referred to the “Indo-Pacific” as a geographic concept, not a strategic one.

This Indian standpoint complicates U.S. wishes to enlist it, Japan, and Australia into a “Diamond of Democracies” (Japan’s original term) targeting China. This renamed “Quad” forms the core of the U.S.’ Indo-Pacific strategy to address regional issues, such as securing freedom of navigation rights in the South China Sea. Some have even called for Taiwan to be included in this grouping. Further complications arise from India’s desire to import energy from Iran and weaponry from Russia as both states are currently under U.S. sanctions. The U.S. strategy to further marginalize China within its own region by recruiting the U.K. and France as potential FONOP partners reeks of historial amnesia as these states are still lumped together by Asian nations with others such as Spain, Portugal, and The Netherlands as former colonial powers. Lastly, the move is highly risky as it might invite even further Russian naval maneuvers in the region as a show of support for China.

Lastly, depite both Indian and U.S. reassurances at the recent IISS Shangri-La Dialogue of ASEAN centrality in any Indo-Pacific paradigm, ASEAN is still hesitant to sign up to anything which would excessively marginalize China, the largest trading partner for many of its members. Yes, many Southeast Asian states still desire security from the U.S., while simultaneously continuing trading linkages with China. While, like Ukraine, ASEAN is leveraging its geographic position to gain maximum dividends from all outside parties (Japan, Russia, and India, too), it draws the line at membership in any structure or paradigm where it would explicitly be asked to choose between China and the U.S.. Therefore, as the linkages between trade and security become ever more complex in the future, more inclusive groupings such as China’s RCEP and India’s SAGAR, though not perfect, may offer a better chance of success in the long-term.

The post Any Indo-Pacific Paradigm Must Include China to Work appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

May was a tough month for Taiwan’s international presence. The troubles began on 1 May when the Dominican Republic ended its alliance with Taipei in favor of Beijing, then doubled on 26 May as Burkina Faso followed suit. Despite its successful self-governance, the Chinese-claimed territory struggles to maintain international support and acknowledgement as an independent country. Beijing’s ‘dollar diplomacy’ will continue to chip away at Taipei’s legitimacy, leveraging smaller impoverished nations in an effort to solidify and justify its influence over the Taiwan Strait.

China’s charm offensive highlights a growing mistrust of the changing political climate in Taiwan. Tsai Ing-wen made local history in 2016 when she and her Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won the Taiwanese presidential election, ousting the Kuomintang majority for the first time since 1950. Her pro-independence tendencies worried Beijing. Tsai’s unwillingness to affirm the 1992 Consensus—an agreement that there is one China, but along two different interpretations— threatens a long-held status quo and an already-shaky bilateral relationship. When she directly called Donald Trump to congratulate him on his US election victory later that year, Beijing grew even more concerned that she was shoring up international support and preparing for a push for Taiwanese sovereignty. As the Tsai administration continues to build its relations with the US, its mainland counterpart grows suspicious.

Beijing consistently sends belligerent warnings in the form of increased air force drills and naval exercises in the Taiwan Strait, but has also taken more subtle efforts to maintain the status quo in the region. The government has cracked down on foreign firms operating in China such as Delta Airlines, Zara, and Marriot that refer to Taiwan as a separate country. Companies that list Taiwan separately on online surveys or exclude the island from Chinese maps have faced strong criticism, heavy fines, and even temporary suspension of the offending website. Tensions ramped up again when China opened four new flight routes near Taiwanese airspace without any consultation or approval from the Tsai administration, which responded by refusing to acknowledge the almost 200 flights and forcing their cancellation before the Lunar New Year, the region’s highest travel season.

Beijing’s soft power offensive against Taiwanese legitimacy includes buying support from impoverished nations. Countries allied to Taiwan are enticed with soft loans (meaning that they pay below market-rate interest or even no interest at all), multimillion-dollar donations, and long-term investment projects that bring much-needed development. Offers have included a scholarship program for Caribbean students to study in China, a USD 250 million children’s hospital to Trinidad and Tobago, a USD 600 million highway to connect the Jamaican islands, and even a USD 60 million cricket stadium in Antigua and Barbuda. Most importantly, the cash comes with no strings attached—China provides exorbitant financial support in exchange for simply switching diplomatic alliances.

Impoverished nations willingly play along because they have no other choice. Countries receive notoriously flawed aid packages from typical lenders such as the US, which re-instated the “Global Gag Rule” that prevents the use of foreign aid to inform about or provide abortions, and the World Bank, whose austerity measures have continued to cripple the Greek economy. China’s simple request to recognize its sovereignty over Taiwan offers a far more bearable solution, and countries openly acknowledge and accept the help.

Grenada’s nutmeg crisis clearly highlights the power and convenience of dollar diplomacy. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan caused over USD 900 million in damages and leveled the country’s nutmeg crops—a main export that needed approximately five years to fully recover. When then-ally Taiwan offered a disappointing USD 4.7 million in emergency funds, Prime Minister Keith Mitchell flew to Beijing to strike a better deal in aid and development and, in return,renounce Grenada’s ties to Taipei in favor of the mainland. Chinese foreign direct investment in Grenada has since leapt from USD 4 million in 2006 to USD 14.5 million in 2013. China successfully flexed its philanthropic muscles while simultaneously leading another diplomatic ally away from Taiwan.

In a more recent case, the Dominican Republic openly admitted that its decision to switch alliances was financially driven. Legal advisor to the president Flavio Dario Espinal acknowledged the valuable relationship between Taiwan and the Dominican Republic, but also admitted that “the socioeconomic reality” forced his country to reconsider its allegiances. Taiwan’s recent accusations shed more light on Espinal’s vague explanation: according to an official from the Taiwan Foreign Ministry, China offered a package of up to USD 3.1 billion that included low-interest loans, financial aid, and investments for a freeway, infrastructural projects, and a natural gas power plant. While details of Burkina Faso’s impending aid remain undisclosed, Foreign Minister Alpha Barry confirmed that a Chinese delegation would soon travel to the country to plan development packages.

Tsai struggles to compete with China’s massive spending power. Although she openlycriticized China for buying her diplomatic allies out from under her, she has few options. When Haiti threatened to end its bilateral relationship in early June, Tsai quickly caved and offered USD 150 million in loans to help the Caribbean nation recover from the 2010 earthquake. With only 18 countries left supporting Taiwan, including only one in Europe and one on the African continent, the Tsai administration may find itself forced to dole out larger, unaffordable aid packages. Furthermore, as the Tsai administration and its pro-independence narrative directly caused China’s increased diplomatic push, the DPP could lose voter confidence and suffer defeat in the next Taiwanese elections in favor of yet another pro-status quo party and president.

Taiwan is highly likely to more closely ally itself with the US, but the Trump administration’s dedication is questionable. Washington has indeed pushed for increased communication between high level officials with the Taiwan Travel Act and called for improved military capabilities to counter China with the US National Defense Authorization Act. However, the US’ relationship with China is too crucial for the Trump administration to take any truly aggressive action in the name of the small island nation. While the Taiwan Strait may see increased military presence in the form of China’s so-called “routine” exercises, Taiwanese jets monitoring the situation, or the US’ Freedom of Navigation missions, escalated encounters are still highly unlikely.

China is likely to continue an aggressive philanthropic campaign, whittling away at Taiwan’s allies, and a few countries already seem receptive. The Vatican, the sole diplomatic ally to Taiwan in Europe, has seen an unsteady but potentially pivotal shift in relations with the notoriously atheist Chinese Communist Party. eSwatini, formerly Swaziland, recentlyreaffirmed its decades-long bilateral relationship with Taiwan and declared no interest in switching allegiances to China despite heavy courting. However, as the sole remaining country on the African continent that supports Taiwan, eSwatini could face new pressure not only from China, but from its own neighbors as well. If the push for a Pan-African association gains more momentum and the union forges formal ties with China, the continent’s number one trading partner, eSwatini could find itself pushed into—or out of an alliance. As China doles out more generous aid packages and outshines Taiwan’s diplomatic efforts, the Tsai administration will have to find new ways to establish itself on the international stage.

This article was first published on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Kiana Mendoza .

The post Buying friends through dollar diplomacy appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Bryan Lanza (CNN via Media Matters).

Sanctioned Chinese telecommunications company ZTE has hired former Donald Trump campaign aide Bryan Lanza and his firm, Mercury Public Affairs, to lobby the U.S. government on its behalf. ZTE is paying Mercury $75,000 per month for its services through Washington DC law firm Hogan Lovells, according to a filing with the U.S. Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Lanza is a managing director with Mercuty’s DC office and “a leading Republican strategist with extensive experience in political campaigns, policy and media relations.”

The hire suspiciously coincides with Trump’s unexpected “flip-flop” on a U.S. components ban against the Chinese telecommunications giant for violating sanctions against Iran and North Korea. News of the hire further fuels suspicions that Trump may be making such decisions on the basis of his own and his associates’ business interests rather than on the basis of U.S. national security interests.

Shenzhen-based ZTE (Zhongxing Telecommunication Equipment Corporation, 中兴通讯股份有限公司 or 中兴通讯) has been noted for its close ties to the Chinese government and for the possibility that its smartphones and other devices might be used for surveillance or espionage. In 2016, Chinese-authored spyware was found on Chinese-made smartphones including phones manufactured by ZTE. Trump’s concessions to ZTE prompted “bipartisan rebuke” and accusations of “putting China first and letting sanction-breakers off the hook.”

ZTE’s Shenzhen headquarters (ZTE)

“Obviously the Chinese government and ZTE want something from the U.S. government,” Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform programs at the Campaign Legal Center, told Lachlan Markay at the Daily Beast. “One way of getting what they want is hiring well-connected former staffers [like Bryan Lanza] as lobbyists.” Fisher continued: “Foreign entities hiring politically-connected lobbyists who have just come through the revolving door is fairly standard practice…, but this administration presents all sorts of new opportunities for influence-peddling.”

“The hiring of Bryan Lanza, a former campaign consultant for Donald Trump shows how companies seek – and obtain – influence with the fickle U.S. president,” observes Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post. “The contract is for three months, but it already seems to have borne fruit, possibly thanks to Lanza’s reported close relationship with the White House.”

“The deal signed with Lanza echoes recent disclosures of influence-peddling associated with Trump’s lawyer and personal fixer Michael Cohen,” writes Oliver Willis at Shareblue. “What would have been a departure from the norm, even for Washington, is simply how things work under Trump and his cronies. And the sudden reversal on sanctions for ZTE shows they aren’t even trying to be subtle about it.”

Mercury Public Affairs has an extensive history of registered foreign lobbying work, as indicated by its numerous filings with the Justice Department as required under FARA. This includes current registered lobbying work by Bryan Lanza on behalf of Russian energy company EN+ Group, controlled by sanctioned oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a close associate of both Russian president Vladimir Putin and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Lanza’s work for EN+ Group is aimed at gaining relief from U.S. sanctions, and appears to be within the law if not particularly respectable.

In October 2017, however, Mercury was identified as one of two unnamed firms (with Podesta Group) that performed unregistered lobbying work for pro-Russian interests in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s grand jury indictment of Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates. Mercury’s failure to register this work as required under FARA could place the firm in significant legal jeopardy.

ZTE’s DC legal representative, Hogan Lovells, also has an extensive “China Desk,” a special “area of focus” for foreign clients dealing with inconvenient U.S. sanctions, and an eye on “the Chinese market” as a target for “robust growth” in 2018. Former Donald Trump lawyer Ty Cobb was a partner at Hogan Lovells until he left the firm to join the Trump legal team in July 2017. Perhaps Beijing and Donald Trump’s Washington aren’t so far apart after all.

Trump’s campaign promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington doesn’t seem to be panning out, as Sarah Westwood and Sara Murray observe at CNN regarding Bryan Lanza’s lobbying work for big-spending foreign interests that may be at odds with the national interests of the United States: “In fact, Trump has presided over the expansion of a new generation of influence peddlers who have used their actual or perceived proximity to the President to line their pockets.”

Trump’s concessions to ZTE suspiciously coincide also with recent news that the Chinese government will provide $500 million in financing for a Trump-branded resort in Indonesia and has granted Ivanka Trump new Chinese trademarks potentially worth millions of dollars. Under the Trump administration, even America’s national security seems to be for sale to the highest bidder.

The post China’s ZTE Hires Former Trump Aide to Lobby U.S. Government appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.