US Secretary of Defense, General Jim Mattis, submitted his letter of resignation to President Trump yesterday. The resignation does not come as a surprise as it has been obvious that Mr. Trump and General Mattis did not agree on much. The resignation letter, however, was a very sharp rebuke to President Trump’s foreign policy of “America First” and Mattis’s disdain for the President is obvious, starting with the salutation which does not refer to President Trump, but rather to the President. Nor is there a complimentary close such as “Sincerely”.
“Dear Mr. President: I have been privileged to serve as our country’s 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.
I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department’s business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.
One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO’s 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.
Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model — gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions — to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.
My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.
Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department’s interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February. Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability within the Department.
I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.
“‘The 17-year-long struggle and sacrifices of thousands of our people finally yielded fruit,’ said a senior Taliban commander from Afghanistan’s Helmand province. ‘We proved it to the entire world that we defeated the self-proclaimed world’s lone super power.’
“’We are close to our destination,’ added the commander, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the group’s leadership had prohibited members from talking to the media about current events. He added that all field commanders had also been told to intensify training efforts to capture four strategic provinces in the run up to the next round of talks, which are expected in January.
“A Taliban leader in eastern Kunar province, Maulvi Sher Mohammad, said news of withdrawals should serve as a lesson to Americans.
“‘The U.S. people and particularly its rulers should think about what they achieved by invading Afghanistan and by causing so many losses to the citizens of Afghanistan and wasting their own resources on this long war,’ he said.”
The quotations are, no doubt, bravado. But they are also words that will give the soldiers supporting the Taliban greater will to continue their struggle. That outcome is hardly in the US interest, or in the interest of the current Afghani government.
US President Trump’s decision to pull US troops out of Syria has been greeted with shock by many members of his own party. All the evidence suggests that Mr. Trump did not consult with party members, members of his Administration, or with his advisors about the decision. Senator Corker (R-TN) said: “I’ve never seen a decision like this since I’ve been here in 12 years where nothing is communicated in advance, and all of a sudden this type of massive decision takes place.” Senator Sasse (R-NB) said: “The President’s generals have no idea where this weak decision came from: They believe the high-fiving winners today are Iran, ISIS, and Hezbollah. The losers are Israel, humanitarian victims, and U.S. intelligence gathering. A lot of American allies will be slaughtered if this retreat is implemented.” On the other hand, Russian President Putin praised the move as “correct.” More worryingly, Turkey threatened to “bury” Kurdish forces, the most effective and loyal US ally in Syria. One interesting fact is that Mr. Trump’s decision came a day after a telephone conversation with Turkish President Erdogan. The timing makes me suspect that a deal was made to persuade Turkey not to make further evidence available concerning the murder of Jamal Kashoggi, an incident that threatens Mr. Trump’s aspirations for a Saudi role in a Middle East peace process. But the decision also boosts Iran’s influence in the Middle East, an outcome that likely frightens Saudi Arabia. Finally, Mr. Trump’s rationale for pulling the troops out–that ISIS has been defeated–is likely not true.
North Korea issued a statement which suggests that the process of denuclearization pushed by the Trump Administration will never occur:
“When we talk about the Korean peninsula, it includes the territory of our republic and also the entire region of [South Korea] where the United States has placed its invasive force, including nuclear weapons. When we talk about the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, it means the removal of all sources of nuclear threat, not only from the South and North but also from areas neighboring the Korean peninsula.”
The statement calls into question the whole process of negotiations between the US and North Korea since it is highly unlikely that the US would ever agree to remove its troops from South Korea. Nor is it likely that South Korea and Japan would ever push for such a settlement. The Asia Times considers the statement to be the end of the process:
“Make no mistake: This is serious. It is not a simple disagreement over nomenclature. It makes starkly clear a divergence of opinion not only over what denuclearization is, but to whom it applies.”
It is difficult for me to imagine any move that the US could make to restart the negotiations under these terms. Perhaps South Korea can persuade the North to alter its stance, but the price for that change would be very high.
There is an effort in the US Senate to include language in the must-pass spending bills that would penalize individuals or corporations that support the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. In 2016 the United Nations passed a resolution which would identify companies that were operating in what the UN calls “Occupied Territories” (the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip). Israel does not consider these territories to be “occupied” (instead using the phrase “disputed” territories) and the US changed its long-standing (since 1967) policy of identifying those territories as “occupied” in 2017 when it dropped the phrase “Occupied Territories” from its State Department Human Rights Report on Israel.
But the international community disagrees with this position. The International Court of Justice articulated the international law on occupied territories in 2004:
“…under customary international law as reflected (…) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter “the Hague Regulations of 1907”), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.
The BDS movement is an attempt to persuade businesses not to invest in the Occupied Territories as a way of establishing the rights of Palestinians in those territories.
Everyone should decide whether or not to support the BDS movement. What I find very troubling is the attempt to make support for the movement illegal. According to Igor Derysh:
“The Intercept reported that 26 states, including New York, California and Texas, have legislation in place barring state contractors from supporting a boycott of Israel, while 13 other states have similar bills pending. Texas’ recently-passed law led to residents affected by Hurricane Harvey being forced to sign a pro-Israel pledge in order to get disaster relief funds. Earlier this year, Bahia Amawi, a speech pathologist for an Austin school district, lost her job for refusing to sign a pro-Israel oath as part of her new contract.
The oath required her to pledge that she “does not currently boycott Israel,” that she “will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract,” and that she shall refrain from any action “that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israeli or in an Israel-controlled territory.”
Peaceful political action should never be made illegal. I am certain that the Alabama state legislature would have loved to have made the boycott of the Montgomery bus system illegal and Rosa Parks would have defied the segregation laws in vain. Making peaceful political action illegal only legitimates the status quo.
US President Trump has ordered the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Syria after tweeting “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there.” Unfortunately, the decision was announced with very little detail so we do not know the pace of the withdrawal, what arrangements have been made with other partners in Syria, such as the Kurds and Israel, and whether residual, non-combat troops, will remain in the country. Reuters is reporting that:
“One U.S. official said Washington aimed to withdraw troops within 60 to 100 days and said the U.S. State Department was evacuating all its personnel in Syria within 24 hours.
“A second U.S. official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the U.S. military was planning for a full withdrawal but said the timing could be quicker than 60-100 days.”
The troops withdrawal does not necessarily imply a vacuum in the country since there are 5,200 US troops in neighboring Iraq and all air missions over Syria are conducted from the US military base in Qatar. But the political and psychological dimensions of the withdrawal are hard to measure. Certainly Russia, Turkey, and Iran will have significantly greater freedom of movement in Syria without having to worry about engaging US troops. Josh Rogin, a writer for the Washington Post, argues that the move undermines previous US statements on Syria:
“….there’s no doubt that as of Monday, James Jeffrey, the U.S. special representative for Syria engagement, was advertising a diametrically opposed strategy. In a presentation at the Atlantic Council in Washington, Jeffrey said the United States would stay in Syria until three goals are met: ensuring the lasting defeat of the Islamic State, rolling back Iranian influence and achieving a political solution to the crisis.
“’The strategy is to use these various levers, the lever of all these military forces running around … the fact that much of the territory and many of the more valuable resources such as oil and gas are not in the hands of the regime,’ to prevent the Assad regime, Russia and Iran from achieving total victory on their own terms, Jeffrey said.”
Indeed, at the end of his speech, Jeffrey said “I am confident the president is on board with this.” We will need to wait to assess how firm the President’s decision may be. Apparently President Trump consulted with virtually no one about the decision. When Republican Senators were informed of the decision, many of them, including Senators Cornyn and Graham, were outraged.
I have always opposed US troops in Syria and think that this decision may be a very good one. But everything really depends upon how the decision is implemented. If the withdrawal suggests indecision and incoherence, it could be a disaster.
The New York Times has published a story about 1,100 hacked emails from European diplomats which assess foreign policy issues in frank and undiplomatic language. The hacked emails were discovered by a computer security service, Area 1, which has published the details of how it discovered the emails (for those of you with computer expertise, the Area 1 report is filled with technical details ). According to the Times:
“Hackers infiltrated the European Union’s diplomatic communications network for years, downloading thousands of cables that reveal concerns about an unpredictable Trump administration and struggles to deal with Russia and China and the risk that Iran would revive its nuclear program.
“In one cable, European diplomats described a meeting between President Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Helsinki, Finland, as ‘successful (at least for Putin).’”
“No graduate-level comprehension of history or politics is necessary to perceive that these unfolding events in the three most important Western democracies, while unquestionably local or national in character, are not separate or disconnected. Throw in the slow-motion downward trajectory of Germany, with Angela Merkel on her way out and nationalism on the rise, and this process of decay clearly afflicts the four most important Western democracies.
“These disparate political crises are all manifestations of the same deeper phenomenon, which is amorphous and threatening and admittedly difficult to talk about. This could be called the crisis of democratic legitimacy, which has been creeping towards us from the periphery of the Western world for some time and just accelerated abruptly. We see it right now, playing out in the state capitols of Wisconsin and Michigan, in the streets of Paris, and in the pseudo-medieval rituals of the House of Commons.”
O’Hehir intimates that the deepening income inequality in these countries is responsible for this transformation. I think it is unquestionably the cause of it.
Simon Tisdall is an editorial writer for the Guardian and I especially like his analyses of world politics. He has an interesting take on the dispute between the US and China over the arrest of the CFO of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou. The US has managed to persuade other countries, notably Germany, to be suspicious of Huawei products, specifically its new 5G telephone. Tisdall considers the extra-territorial reach of US law on this matter to be out of date and inappropriate in today’s world, and China’s challenge to the US claims to be actually a challenge to US hegemony. More importantly, Tisdall considers both the US and China to be pursuing a fool’s game in this matter:
“There can be little doubt Meng is a highly symbolic victim of this global rivalry. Typically clueless, Trump gave the game away when he explicitly linked the possible dropping of the case against her to resolving the US-China trade war. Trump’s clumsy intervention – rapidly disavowed by his own justice department – left the US looking no better than Beijing. Both sides appear guilty of what amounts, in effect, to hostage-taking – not what the world expects from superpowers.”
Humility, however, has never been a strong point for world powers.
A US Senate report has detailed the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 US national election. There were two studies done: one by New Knowledgeand another by the University of Oxford. Much of the interference was done by a Russian entity called the Internet Research Agency (IRA) which conducted extraordinary misinformation campaigns, much of which targeted African-Americans. The interference was huge: “The new research also points to the previously underappreciated prominence of the IRA’s use of Instagram. It notes that IRA posts on the photo-sharing platform received 187 million engagements, which dwarfed the 76.5 million engagements that IRA posts received on Facebook.” The Russian effort was incredibly sophisticated and showed an uncanny understanding of American culture and politics. The effort shows that we need to have a more up-to-date understanding of war.
It appears as if Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban might be overplaying his hand in his attempt to turn Hungary into an “illiberal” democracy (whatever that means). Large protests have taken place after the Parliament passed a number of controversial laws, particularly one which gave employers the right to demand overtime from employees. The protests mimic somewhat the yellow vest protests in France in that there is no organized opposition or recognized leaders. But there does seem to be widespread support for the protests and there are a number of issues that the protesters are raising.
The US recently stepped up additional sanctions against individuals in North Korea for human rights abuses. In response, North Korea indicated that the sanctions have had, and will not have, any beneficial effects on the denuclearization negotiations. North Korea went further and threatened to return to “exchanges of fire”. The threat follows a statement by US President Trump that the US is in “no hurry” to pursue denculearization with North Korea. It appears as if the US is content with the testing pause by North Korea, but, in the absence of some reciprocal action by the US, it is not clear how long North Korea will adhere to the pause. Meanwhile, the US and South Korea have failed, after ten negotiating sessions, to agree on a cost sharing formula for US defense assistance. There seems to be little progress on many fronts in the Korean peninsula.
The UN Conference in Poland on climate change has finally ended and it produced a “rulebook” for gauging commitments to the Paris Accords. Many delegates had already left the conference by the end and there was dissatisfaction with the energy policies of the host government, Poland, for its heavy emphasis on coal for its primary energy source. The rulebook determines the specific scientific measures that will be used to gauge progress toward reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. That result is significant progress since many states had been using different metrics (such as per capita emissions as opposed to absolute totals) that generally overstated the commitment to emission declines. Now all states will be measured by the same yardsticks. But the conference did not make any progress on developing carbon credits to spur alternative energies nor did it come up with any stronger goals for enforcing the commitments for 2020. It is safe to say that the conference fell far short of what was necessary. Common Dreams quotes one of the scientists criticizing the outcome:
“‘Without immediate action, even the strongest rules will not get us anywhere,’ said Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International. ‘People expected action and that is what governments did not deliver. This is morally unacceptable and they must now carry with them the outrage of people and come to the UN Secretary General’s summit in 2019 with higher climate action targets.'”
The conference will meet again next year in Chile.
“Yet during the entire 200-year history of British rule in India, there was almost no increase in per capita income. In fact, during the last half of the 19th century – the heyday of British intervention – income in India collapsed by half. The average life expectancy of Indians dropped by a fifth from 1870 to 1920. Tens of millions died needlessly of policy-induced famine.
“Britain didn’t develop India. Quite the contrary – as Patnaik’s work makes clear – India developed Britain.”
The common argument that colonialism was beneficial to the colonies is profoundly wrong. But was there any reason to believe that powerful states would ever engage in altruistic behavior?
The British Raj
Global financial markets slumped today as data from China indicated that the world’s second largest economy was slowing down dramatically. The slowdown is rippling through many other economies, such as Japan and Germany, and suggests that the efforts by China to stimulate the economy through easier credit was not having much of an effects. There are many reasons for the slowdown and many analysts believe that the uncertainties associated with the trade disputes between the US and China is having a significant effect on investment decisions.
British Prime Minister Teresa May survived a vote of no confidence in Parliament, securing 63% of the votes of her Conservative party members. The vote gives May a year’s breathing space but was secured by her promise to not stand for re-election in the next scheduled election in 2022. The vote gives May another chance to negotiate with the European Commission about the terms of the British exit from the European Union even though the Commissioners had said that they were not willing to renegotiate. The vote did not clarify in the slightest degree what possible terms nor renegotiation exist, and suggest that no deal is likely before the scheduled departure date of 29 March 2019. The absence of a deal will be very unsettling for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary moved Hungary further away from a liberal democracy by getting Parliament to pass a new law creating a parallel judiciary system over which the executive will have the power of appointment. The new judiciary system will handle matters of corruption, electoral issues, and political protest. The move effectively neuters the existing judiciary system and prevents it from monitoring the actions of the executive. Another law was passed which gives employers the right to demand greater overtime hours from employees and was described by the opposition as a “slave law”. Orban’s Fidesz Party commands a two-thirds majority in the Parliament and can essentially change the constitution whenever it desires.
Russian President Putin regarded the fall of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. His ambition has been to restore Russia as a great power and the Pew Research Center has conducted a poll of 25 countries that indicates that he has been successful to a certain degree. According to the Center:
“The prevailing view in a new 25-country poll by Pew Research Center is that Russia plays a more important role in international affairs than it did a decade ago. But increased stature does not mean being better liked. The same survey finds that views of Putin and the Russian Federation are largely negative.”
It is an interesting result. Russia is regarded as more powerful but most people find Russia and President Putin to be not trustworthy.
The Pew Research Center also conducted a poll on how citizens of both countries regard each other and the results of that poll are widely divergent. The poll found that
“At a time of rising tensions between their countries, people in the United States and Germany express increasingly divergent views about the status of their decades-long partnership. They are divided not only on the overall state of the relationship, but also on future levels of cooperation, the importance they ascribe to each other on foreign policy and the efficacy of retaliatory tariffs.”
It is hard to interpret these results except to assume that one or the other citizenry is poorly informed for whatever reason. My own interpretation is that the US views are historically informed, but uninformed about current disagreements between the two countries. But it is a troubling result for two countries that genuinely need each other as a strong ally.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is a highly regarded as a arms control think tank. It has released its annual report on arms sales in the world which show that arms sales are growing substantially in the world:
“Sales of arms and military services by the world’s largest arms-producing and military services companies—the SIPRI Top 100—totalled $398.2 billion in 2017, according to new international arms industry data released today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
“The total for the SIPRI Top 100 in 2017 is 2.5 per cent higher than in 2016 and represents an increase of 44 per cent since 2002 (the first year for which comparable data is available; figures exclude China). This is the third consecutive year of growth in Top 100 arms sales.
A heated debate has erupted at the UN conference on climate change (COP24) taking place in Poland. The delegates were asked to “welcome” the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that was issued two months ago that gave the world about 12 years to limit greenhouse gases if temperatures were to be kept below 2°C. Four countries–Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US–have been pushing hard to change the word from “welcome” to “note”. The change may seem minor, but it would ease the pressure on various governments to take more effective action to limit greenhouse gases–the resolution would fall short of being an endorsement of the IPCC findings. There are still five days left in the conference, so we shall see if the majority of countries will stand up to these four countries.
British Prime Minister May has cancelled the vote on Brexit which was scheduled for tomorrow saying that “If we went ahead and held the vote tomorrow, the deal would be defeated by a significant margin.” There does not appear to be a Plan B and the whole Brexit scheme has been forced into limbo (although a decision has to be technically made by 29 March 2019). But the agreement forged between May and the European Commission had virtually no support:
“Opposition has hardened against the withdrawal agreement. The hard Brexiteers — those who want a clean break from the EU — see this document as potentially trapping the UK in a dependent relationship with the bloc indefinitely. Those who are pro-Europe, or ultimately want to Remain, view the deal as weakening the UK and leaving it in a much worse position economically and politically.”
There are many issues complicating a deal, but the main one seems to be over whether an agreement can be reached over the border between the Republic of Ireland (which is a member of the European Union) and Northern Ireland (which is part of Great Britain and would be outside the EU if a Brexit occurs). No one wants to see a “hard” border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland–the recent agreements between the two sides eliminating the border was purchased with a great deal of blood and political capital. No one has any idea what happens next: May resigns? A new referendum? An abrupt Brexit with no agreement?
China’s Belt and Road Initiative is incredibly ambitious, conjuring up the economic dynamism that the original Silk Road created in Eurasia. The original plans were drawn up when China’s economy was in high gear and when infrastructural financing in Eurasia was very small. The first phase of the Initiative is coming to a close and both China and the recipients of China’s aid are rethinking the whole enterprise. China’s economy is slowing down and less money is available given the high levels of government debt in China. And the recipients have soured on some of the terms of China’s aid, some of which was offered regardless of the ability to repay the loans. It remains to be seen if the Initiative will remain as robust in the future.
World Politics News 