Foreign Policy Blogs

Brett Edkins and Dr. Brzezinski in Guilin, China.

By Brett Edkins

When I first met Zbigniew Brzezinski, he was 78 years old. I was a recent college graduate looking for a job.

It was 2006, and three decades after serving as Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Dr. Brzezinski was still a giant of American foreign policy. On every major issue, diplomats, scholars, and politicians sought his opinion and strategic guidance. His long opposition to the war in Iraq was now the mainstream consensus, and it made him a sudden and surprising darling of the political left.

Sitting in his office in a brown, tufted leather chair, Dr. Brzezinski quietly reviewed my resume and transcript. I did not think I would get the job as his research assistant, so I was not too anxious. I was just excited to be meeting someone so famous. Brzezinski paused. “What happened in biochemistry?” he asked. He sounded serious. I wasn’t sure what to say. How could I explain away that terrible grade? After what seemed like a long pause, Brzezinski grinned. He was ribbing me.

Thankfully, Brzezinski hired me despite my biochemistry grade, and for two years I had a front row seat to American foreign policy.

One of my first tasks was to accompany Dr. Brzezinski to a meeting with Democratic members of the House of Representatives. A black town car with tinted windows drove us to Capitol Hill. Addressing the group, Brzezinski outlined a simple four-point approach to ending the war in Iraq. Brzezinski had an uncanny ability to speak in self-contained, perfectly constructed paragraphs. After his remarks, a few congressmen asked me to send them a copy of Brzezinski’s speech. I told them, there was no speech, no prepared remarks.

Afterwards, Nancy Pelosi ushered Brzezinski out of the building, along with former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark, who also addressed the group. I found myself walking next to Albright and tried to make small talk. She worked for Brzezinski in the Carter White House and helped him write his memoirs, Power and Principle. Brzezinski, she told me, was the nicest boss she ever have. When they worked together, Albright never knew what to call herself, “assistant” or “research assistant,” so Brzezinski told her to use whatever title helped her get what she needed from other people. Albright said that quickly devolved into calling herself “Grand Empress of Diplomacy” or something similarly outrageous.

The next few weeks were spent editing Brzezinski’s new book, Second Chance, which assessed the foreign policies of Presidents H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush, and suggested that America had one last chance to restore its political credibility and reclaim the mantle of the world’s leading power. Brzezinski and I bickered (politely) throughout the editorial process, as I tried to make his dense, insightful prose lighter and more colloquial. Sometimes I won. Usually he won. But we both enjoyed the back-and-forth.

The book became a New York Times bestseller after Brzezinski appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I munched on M&M’s in the studio’s green room as Brzezinski and Stewart cracked jokes and talked about the book. Brzezinski leveled some harsh criticism on President Bush for squandering the global consensus after 9/11 on a war of choice in Iraq, and for his “Manichean paranoia”—his tendency to see the world in black and white, divided us from them, and using our assumed moral superiority as an excuse to justify immoral acts.

When Dr. Brzezinski was on your side, you could ask for no better spokesman. During the Bush years, he excoriated neoconservatives for advocating the ill-conceived and historically naïve war in Iraq. “You don’t change a region by injecting a foreign army and pulverizing a state and then saying that you are, in fact, nurturing democracy,” he once said. His sharp tongue warned against expanding the conflict into Iran, as some in the administration wanted.

In October 2007, Brzezinski and I traveled to China, along with his wife Emilie, a renowned sculptress known to her friends as Muska. The Chinese held Dr. Brzezinski in high regard for his role in normalizing diplomatic relations between our countries. When Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976, normalization was far from certain, despite the progress made under President Nixon. Brzezinski, however, was determined to make it happen. In 1978, over the objections of the State Department, he went to China to begin negotiations. By December, an agreement had been reached to establish full diplomatic ties, ending decades of estrangement and hostility and laying the foundation for what is arguably the most important bilateral relationship in the world today.

On our first full day in China, Brzezinski and I met with former President Jiang Zemin, instantly recognizable in his oversized black glasses. Jiang cheerfully told us about his exercise routine and weekly lessons in English and world history. He recounted the many Brzezinski books he had read. And he discussed Taiwan, the Iranian nuclear issue, and other global issues with Dr. Brzezinski. In the next ten days we met with the Chinese prime minister, defense minister, foreign minister, and dozens of other dignitaries and scholars.

Our Chinese hosts, mostly former military officials, took us on a whirlwind tour of the country. In Beijing, we visited the Forbidden City. Fourteen black-suited bodyguards circled Brzezinski at all times. In Guilin, we took a boat down the Li river. Our host offered us a snack of fried fishes on a stick. Quick on his toes, Dr. Brzezinski feigned a seafood allergy, and I got stuck scarfing down the little anchovies. In Zhengzhou, we toured a Buddhist temple and a provincial museum. Every night ended with a large dinner and toasts of highly-alcoholic baijiu. After one particularly extravagant ten-course meal, Brzezinski quipped, “How do you like my 1.3 billion friends?”

Meanwhile, back in the United States, the 2008 presidential campaign was heating up. In August 2007, Dr. Brzezinski became one of the first foreign policy heavyweights to endorse Barack Obama. Brzezinski even campaigned with Obama in Iowa in March 2008, introducing him for a major speech about the Iraq War, a conflict that both men opposed from the beginning.

He also used his sharp tongue to defend Obama from critics. In the midst of the Democratic nomination fight, Tucker Carlson, then of MSNBC, asked Brzezinski about Hillary Clinton’s claim that Obama had no foreign policy experience. Brzezinski let it rip: “Well I sort of don’t take that very seriously. She says she’s been to eighty countries and trips. My travel agent has been to a 150 countries and trips. That doesn’t make him qualified to be president.” Then he compared Clinton to Mamie Eisenhower. The Morning Joe crew roared with laughter, calling the critique “devastating.”

Dr. Brzezinski did not suffer fools or foolish arguments. He would listen politely, then calmly dismantle your argument until there was nothing left. As his research assistant, you had to present your work logically, carefully, and, above all, you had to be prepared for a tough cross examination.

This was excellent preparation for law school, which is where I went after my two-year stint with Dr. Brzezinski. Back when he hired me in 2006, I had a rudimentary understanding of foreign policy, but no framework for understanding the geopolitical implications or overall significance of events happening abroad. Brzezinski changed that, instilling in me a sense of realism and history.

For most, Zbigniew Brzezinski will be remembered as a foreign policy great—a man who helped end the Cold War, establish diplomatic ties with China, and negotiate peace between enemies in the Middle East. For me, he was an example to emulate, to strive for. He was also a genuinely fun person to work for. I will miss him.

 Brett Edkins is an attorney and a Forbes contributing writer living in New York City. He graduated from Yale Law School in 2011.

The post Remembering My Mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Moon Jae-in, The 19th President of the Republic of Korea. (flickr)

The Blue House’s new tenant, South Korea’s 19th President, Moon Jae-in, readily takes up his cudgels against South Korea’s ‘accumulated evils’, foregoing the tea time celebration for his overwhelming election victory.

The former senior presidential secretary for civil affairs under the Roh Moo-hyun administration unsurprisingly trounced the remaining four major candidates in the 19th presidential election. Moon overwhelmingly garnered 41% of the total votes, followed by Hong Jun-pyo (Liberal Korea Party) at 24% and Ahn Cheol-soo (People’s Party) with 21%. The conservative camp’s expert curmudgeon, Hong Jun-pyo’s impressive infighting remarkably clipped the fledgling wings of bland political amateur, Ahn Cheol-soo.

Yet his polarization strategy was not effective enough to stop swing voters’ dispersive dislodging to the scattered value niches on the political spectrum. A significant number of Korea’s non-Moon supporters cast their ballots to the major centrist right candidate, Yoo Seung-min (Bareun Party, 7%), and even to the major far-leftist candidate, Shim Sang-jung (Justice Party, 6%). This dispersive voting behavior is also attributable to the May 9 election’s 77% turnout rate, the highest in two decades.

Two weeks after his inauguration, Moon remains popular. A poll released on May 26th revealed that approximately 88% of the Korean people are confident that the liberal president will perform successfully. The record-breaking popularity trend also transferred to the new ruling party, the Democratic Party, challenger against the decade long conservative reign, which for the first time in its long opposition party career earned an approval rate higher than 50% at 51%.

Riding the tide of such a surge of public trust in the government, the new president’s focus is to dissolve the so-called ‘accumulated evils’, the corrupt and malfunctioning bureaucratic residues inherited from past military regimes’ strong statism.

The opening decisions of the “Moon Jae-in administration” (as it is officially titled) appear to have been strategically orchestrated. Some of the administration’s nominations regarding Blue House staff and the cabinet clearly conveys the message that the administration is determined to reform the two main origins of Korea’s ‘accumulated evils’: the supreme prosecutors’ office and family-owned conglomerates, or chaebols.

Corrupt precedents indicate that a number of politically greedy prosecutors at the supreme prosecutors’ office have parasitized presidential powers by neglecting their investigative neutrality in favor of the Blue House’s agendas.

The newly appointed Blue House Senior Civil Affairs Secretary, Cho Kuk, is a long devoted human rights activist and a progressive law professor with no bureaucratic background. Considering the fact that the position has generally been one of the last echelons for Korea’s prosecutors, Cho’s outsider stature is a foreboding overture that galvanizes future theatrics in the administration’s reformist campaign against the supreme prosecutors’ office.

Can the rookie with the blemish of having participated in socialist activities agreeably dismantle ossified bureaucratic mannerisms and pure-bloodism within the organization? The answer to this question will primarily be shaped by the ironically pure liberal elite’s un-value-laden rational calculation regarding the extent of reform.

The newly appointed Blue House Chief of Staff for Policy, Jang Hasung, is also a bureaucratic maverick. Nicknamed ‘chaebol (Korea’s family-owned conglomerates) sniper’, the progressive economics professor has been an ardent proponent of shareholder activism throughout his career with the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy. I

n Korea, chaebols’ owner-family-directed excessive abuse of corporate power over small shareholders has increasingly been a significant obstacle to economic democratization. For example, inter-affiliate overseas trading for the top 10 conglomerates have quintupled over the past four years, further establishing the already deeply embedded circular-shareholding corporate governance structure. Such moth-eaten and corrupt corporate governance culture has nevertheless been exonerated by the public, largely because amoral families are the main breadwinners of the export-oriented economy.

The Korean people are, however, unhappy with the cyclic recurrence of this mega-‘Gap-jil’, their indignation toward it exemplified by the glaring torch of the Candlelight Revolution. Undoubtedly, ordinary Korean people will find Jang’s appointment a refreshing move.

Despite the ongoing impasse in the National Assembly concerning approval of the nominees for its cabinet members, the Moon administration has thus far successfully embellished the façade of the Blue House with a ‘cool’ yet ‘humane’ liberal reformist image. The administration is overall younger, more gender-balanced, and more region-representative, compared to the former Park administration. Most importantly, in stark difference to the Park administration, the Moon administration prioritizes effective but less formalized communication with the Korean people in its endeavors to strengthen the country’s grassroots democracy.

Nonetheless, the administration faces an onerous political challenge in terms of continuously surfing the populist tide. The president needs to skillfully survive the tsunami of Korea’s unprecedented ‘parliamentalizing’ politics. The success of his ‘cooperative governance’ in collaboration with the leviathan opposition forces in the National Assembly will largely be determined by his capability to institutionally accommodate integration throughout the country.

With the regime’s unfloundering popularity, some scholars argue that the constitutional-reforms-oriented decentralization of presidential powers should be preceded by the party-reforms-oriented decentralization of party leadership. The assumption underlying this argument is that intra-party factional hegemonism is a major problem in Korean politics and as such, congressmen, independent of their party bosses’ influence, can better-serve the public’s diverse interests.

However, what must be remembered is that unless the degree of the demand-side innovation in public services (the degree of the public’s new and evolving civil participation, as well as the vitality of their social capital) is commensurable to such decentralization of party power, the society may encounter irrational adaptive problems if the polarization of presidential powers is accompanied by un-pluralistic populism.

The post The ‘Moon’ Drive: Fast, Furious, yet Deft appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

By Fred Johnston

In April, a clandestine meeting took place in New Zealand that included attendees from representatives of the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency plus the United Kingdom’s MI5 and MI6, amongst others. They were brought together to discuss and facilitate intelligence sharing between the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, colloquially known as the Five Eyes network.

These nations have been coming together since an alliance was established in 1946 through the UKUSA agreement, with the other three countries joining the collective over the following ten years. The partnership was established on mutual trust and potential advantages for each country, coming at a time when the looming threat of communism from the Soviet Union swept through sections of Asia during the Cold War.

During said period, the alliance paid dividends. In the 1970s, Anglo-American operations were essential in tracking Soviet submarines using a variety of means, while the United States relied heavily for decades on listening posts lying in former British imperial territories. Half the cost of running the Cypriot site was paid for by the US, demonstrating its significance in acquiring intelligence from the Middle East with this post.

The merits of a shared surveillance alliance are plain to see, though one could argue the future of Five Eyes could be jeopardy. In March, former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson claimed Britain’s intelligence agency, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had intercepted communications within Trump Tower during the 2016 Presidential election.

His evidence for such sensational claims? GCHQ Director Robert Hannigan had resigned three days after Trump’s inauguration. Hannigan said he was to care for his ill wife and elderly parents, but Johnson declared he “doesn’t believe in coincidences”. The real reason for the resignation, he surmised, was clear: The British government had been gathering intelligence on the Trump administration, and once Trump was made aware of this, Hannigan was forced to step down.

Unfortunately, this unproven claim became tangled in the echo chamber of the media—Johnson’s theory were soon picked up by Andrew Napolitano, a Trump confidant and pundit for Fox News. Two days later, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer cited Napolitano’s comments at a briefing, which evoked a forceful denial from their British allies.

One would think maintaining a positive relationship with like-minded, democratic allies with whom intelligence information has being shared for decades would be seen as a priority for the United States. Yet with the Trump administration demonstrating distrust for the UK in recent months, doubts grow around whether such arrangements will continue in the future.

Ties with traditional US allies have not only grown fractured with Britain. At the conclusion of bruising meetings with NATO and G7 countries, Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel remarked at an election rally, “The times in which we could completely depend on others are, to a certain extent, over. I’ve experienced that in the last few days. We Europeans truly have to take fate into our own hands.”

A not-so subtle commentary on the degeneration of Germany-US relations, which really began to slide with George W. Bush and Gerhard Schroeder’s split decision on the Iraq war in 2003. It also signals the level of diplomatic success experienced by Trump during these meetings—if the head of state of arguably Europe’s biggest economy is losing faith, it does not bode well for the US.

While Trump’s actions are a cause for concern on the diplomacy front, he has also made strong accusations against the intelligence community—his own, that is. In February, Trump took to Twitter with the following claim, “Information is being illegally given to the failing NY Times and Washington Post by the intelligence community (NSA & FBI). Just like Russia.”

This was in response to the resignation of national security advisor Michael Flynn over potentially illegal contacts with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 Presidential campaign. Whether or not the contact took place is a different matter of debate—Trump’s public comments toward the intelligence community undermines the work this industry has performed for many decades (in a Tweet, no less). If Trump treats his own reconnaissance agencies with such disregard, it would be understandable for other nations to be weary of sharing sensitive information with Donald at the helm.

When examining the US approach towards shared intelligence, one may assume there are doubts on the legitimacy and significance of such agreements. After all, this agreement was sought at the beginning of the Cold War; we no longer exist in a bipolar world of “us and them”, where the threat to Western society lying on the other side of the wall. Does Western society still require joint intelligence and security arrangements, like the Five Eyes network, or are such agreements obsolete?

Firstly, the current manifestations of Five Eyes’ traditional threats, demonstrating their prioritization of military and defense, is a worrying trend. Throughout history, access to the Mediterranean Sea had been crucial to Russia.

Earlier this year, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said the “Mediterranean region was the core of all essential dangers to Russia’s national interest”, which shows a reigniting of interest from Moscow. Along with Russia’s intervention in Syria, Five Eyes member countries must be concerned with Moscow’s military expansion intentions.

Meanwhile, China’s provocative military build-up, its assertive behavior in the South China Sea and its power of persuasion to garner political influence from states within the region should also be under close attention from Five Eyes.

A study by the RAND Corporation, titled “War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable” found that, “improvements in Chinese military capabilities mean that a war would not necessarily go the way US war planners plan it. Whereas a clear U.S. victory once seemed probable, it is increasingly likely that a conflict could involve inconclusive fighting with steep loses on both sides.”

Secondly, the alliance faces an ever-evolving threat from terrorism. Through groups such as al-Qaeda and more recently Islamic State, extremism has become harder to monitor and is increasingly prevalent in the societies of the Five Eyes and their partners. One study has found that ISIS publishes 38 unique pieces of content per day. This, along with the advent of social media to inspire and influence citizens in the West, has shown the pressure to disrupt would-be attackers has never been greater.

Finally, the recent Wannacry attacks shone a light on a growing problem in the technology sector—cyber crime. In the attacks, over 160,000 internet-connected computer systems were infected and forced the user to pay a $300 U.S. “ransom” in order to retrieve information from the affected system. Although reports showed the hackers made less than $100,000, a paltry sum when one considers the hysteria it caused, the cost of cyber crime on society is growing.

One study showed that by 2021, the damage of data, stolen money, theft of personal and financial data, amongst other acts, would cost up to $6 trillion. An eye-watering figure such as this should be the impetus for the majority of world leaders to take action on cyber crime, let alone the Five Eyes collective.

The Five Eyes surveillance network has served a great benefit to its member countries since its inception 70 years ago. With an inexperienced politician as Head of State in the U.S., the status quo of diplomacy and how to approach intelligence gathering have dramatically altered with his presence. His actions prove to undermine the intelligence community, not just in the US but also multilaterally.

In this day and age however, do we really need such integrated surveillance and intelligence operations? In one word—yes.

Fred is a Central Australian who works as a schoolteacher in Bogota, Colombia by day and aspiring social commentator by night. His interests mainly lay in social injustices carried out by those who have misplaced their moral compass—usually politicians and big business. You can follow him on Twitter @FreddyKuma.

The post Is The Five Eyes Network Still Relevant Today? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

By Col. Tomasz K. Kowalik and Dominik P. Jankowski

It all started with a military exercise in 2008. “Today, Georgia. Tomorrow, Ukraine. The day after, the Baltic states—and later perhaps the time will come for my country, Poland!” Those words were uttered 5 August 2008 by Poland’s late president, Lech Kaczyński, in the presence of five European heads of state who had come to Tbilisi in a gesture of solidarity with the just-invaded Georgia. Almost 10 years later, this statement anticipates Europe’s current security dilemma.

These days, pundits are increasingly speculating on what Russia’s next large-scale military exercise—code-named Zapad-2017—may bring. Will it be just another saber-rattling event that will once again lower the security threshold by adding uncertainty and unpredictability—and make us increasingly numb and desensitized to those large-scale exercises?

This time, will a Russian ally have to reluctantly accept the stationing of more foreign troops on its territory? Or will it lead to yet another Russian military incursion into a neighboring country? Which security Rubicon will be crossed this time?

Understanding Russia’s modus operandi in recent years, and what its large-scale military exercises are designed to accomplish, could offer answers and highlight areas that the international community should closely watch. It also indicates a way ahead for the West.

Train with a purpose

In the last decade, Russia has expanded its military capabilities through regular and specific exercises that have often involved offensive, aggressive and anti-Western scenarios. Such maneuvers enhanced troop readiness status and effectiveness, especially since Russian forces train as they fight.

Those drills also served concrete political and strategic communications purposes as a show of force and a narrative for the national leadership. They intimidate and threaten countries against whom the exercises were designed, but also, in some cases, they disguise military movements—helping Russia prepare and subsequently conduct real military operations.

Timing and geographic proximity are useful. In early August 2008, when Russian troops invaded Georgian territory, they surprised the rest of the world, which was following the Summer Olympics in Beijing. Russia’s 58th Army had just finished its Kavkaz-2008 military exercise, coincidentally occurring just ahead of the invasion (15-31 July) and located just north of the Georgian border.

Fast-forward five years to 2013. Russia re-introduced a military training concept known as the snap exercise. These occur with no-notice and often involve large numbers of troops. After putting into motion four such snap alerts in 2013, Russia conducted another such exercise from 26 February to 3 March 2014. That exercise engaged not only large numbers of airborne troops and transport planes but also long-range aircraft. Officially, the exercise also involved 1,200 amphibious combat vehicles, 880 battle tanks and 120 attack helicopters.

Yet there was more. Under the guise of that exercise, Russia deployed a large contingent of troops to Crimea and its vicinity. The next step was Crimea’s effective capture by troops which officially had taken part in a regular military exercise. The result was Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory.

Now comes 2017. Another large-scale Russian exercise is scheduled for September. Unlike previous snap exercises, Zapad (West) takes place every four years and is announced well in advance. It also encompasses several preparatory episodes and smaller exercises—some of them usually occur with no advance notice—and all of which culminate in these Russian-led multinational maneuvers.

This year’s exercise—set to take place both in Belarus and in western Russia (including the Kaliningrad oblast)—might be among the largest since 1991.

As a possible indicator of Zapad’s size, Russia has ordered more than 4,000 railcars to transport its troops. Based on this, up to two Russian armored/mechanized divisions (around 30,000 military personnel) could be deployed to Belarusian territory.

Along with troops already moved there, the anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) assets brought to Kaliningrad over the last few years, troops traditionally flown into the area during such exercises, and those stationed along Russia’s border with the Baltic states (numbering three new Russian divisions in the Western Military District), it’s clear that Russia can, if it so decides, easily exert significant pressure on its neighbors.

Thanks to this military build-up, all under the pretext of the Zapad exercise, Russia’s options are many. It could, with little or no warning, launch a limited or provocative hybrid operation (to see what happens), test responses on NATO’s eastern flank, or present a security threat to Ukraine where the Russo-Ukraine conflict remains in full swing.

What to watch

Considering this grim view, what are some significant indicators and warnings to watch for? Observers should pay attention to three elements regarding Zapad-2017.

The first is a military deception or maskirovka. Russia has learned to deceive the West by masking and disguising its movements effectively. It continues to hone this technique by mastering novel elements. A recent case in point was last year’s shipment of SS-26 Iskander-M missile launchers—under the guise of a logistics exercise—aboard a civilian cargo ship to Kaliningrad.

Here, Russia’s chronic lack of transparency in continually sending false messages while pretending to be open—essentially offering a mixture of lies and disinformation—aims to encourage the idea that it is actually benign and seeks a true partnership with the West. But the West should be able to distinguish empty gestures from real offers of military transparency.

The second area of concern is Russia’s inclination to train its troops in the use of its nuclear arsenal during these large-scale exercises. According to numerous media reports, during both Zapad-2009 and Zapad-2013, nuclear attacks on NATO member countries were allegedly considered—to the West’s amazement.

Imagine NATO troops training for a nuclear strike on Russian cities. Now consider the many tactical nuclear weapons in Russia’s arsenal and recent developments in doctrine that allow for an easy transition from conventional to nuclear warfare during military operations. Nuclear forces are a factor of consideration for Russia’s neighbors.

Add to that Russia’s obvious violation of the 1987 INF Treaty—which eliminated all short-range and intermediate-range nuclear and conventional missiles, as well as their launchers—and one could conclude that Russia has the potential to be on a collision course with the West.

In that context, Russia’s planned training of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear defense (CBRN) troops should be closely watched. If indeed large CBRN formations engage in such an exercise, it could imply that Russia is getting ready for a potential nuclear development.

The third and final element to monitor is Russia’s long-term military build-up and regional stability. How will Belarus—Russia’s only ally in the region—react and behave during the exercise?

On one hand, it provides a de facto Russian military forward presence, as some Russian units are already permanently stationed there. On the other hand, what if Russia suddenly decides not to leave Belarus with its military build-up after Zapad-2017? This not so improbable scenario might further destabilize the region’s already tense situation. What would NATO and the West do?

What now

In advance of the Zapad exercises, three things should be considered. First, we need to stay the course with the decisions taken at NATO’s Warsaw Summit and make sure the Alliance’s enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) is fully implemented, along with a Multinational Divisional HQ in Poland to better coordinate multinational efforts. The eFP—defensive in nature—should be properly trained and equipped to fulfill its mission of providing deterrence and defense in allied states.

NATO should also make sure the follow-on forces are more regularly exercised, including in a non-permissive environment. Moreover, NATO should keep working on a comprehensive strategy to counter Russia’s A2/AD systems. This should be closely linked with enhancing the NATO Defense Planning Process and investing in the right kinds of military capabilities that can defend alliance territory.

Second, we need better and more robust intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and situational awareness. NATO requires a proper reporting mechanism at the highest political and military levels to function across the alliance.

In essence, NATO members need a solid multinational tool to provide reliable, accurate, measured and sober analysis of intelligence and capabilities along the alliance’s eastern border from Norway in the north, via the Baltic states and the Suwałki gap, down to Romania and Turkey in the south. In today’s security environment, a well-functioning indicator and warning mechanism that can distinguish true posture and intentions from a maskirovka is crucial.

Third, reciprocal transparency is key in avoiding an uncontrollable military escalation or “spillover” effect. Russia frequently violates the provisions of the OSCE Vienna Document, which was designed to ensure transparency in military exercises. Russia often intentionally lowers the number of troops involved in its exercises or splits them—either by providing a small gap in time between events or holding them in different training areas simultaneously under joint command—with the goal of avoiding notification or observation thresholds. Let’s be blunt: essentially, the Russians are trying to dupe the West.

Finally, a growing lack of transparency on the Russian side, combined with an increase in Russian snap exercises (four in 2013, eight in 2014; 20 in 2015 and 11 in 2016) limits room to maneuver with a genuine dialogue and puts political pressure on Western decision-makers.

Since 2016, Poland, along with numerous allies, has strived to avoid situations in which a military incident or a snap exercise might unexpectedly spark armed conflict. Three Polish proposals are now on the table: modernization of the Vienna Document (Chapter III on risk reduction); reciprocal, advanced briefings in the NATO-Russia Council on one Allied and one Russian exercise (preferably Zapad-2017) this year; and voluntary briefings on national exercises in 2017 in the OSCE (Forum for Security Co-operation). Not surprisingly, we are still waiting for Russia to engage on a basis of reciprocity regarding any of these proposals.

Conclusion

Russian military exercises have become a dangerous tool, politically and militarily. The “train as you fight” approach—especially when nuclear attacks are an option—poses a serious threat to the West. It’s not enough that we be prepared to respond militarily. We must also be able to send clear unambiguous messages of unity, cohesion and readiness. As long as Zapad-2017 style exercises are a tool of coercion, no one can take regional stability for granted.

All in all, the West needs to send Russia an unequivocal message that it is ready to engage in confidence-building measures. At the same time we must verify Russia’s actions. We should undoubtedly make efforts to build reciprocal trust, but that will not come immediately.

Finally, Russia needs to understand that if it messes with the alliance, it will pay dearly.

All opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position or views of the institutions they represent. Col. Tomasz K. Kowalik, PhD, is director of the Military Foreign Affairs Department at the Polish Ministry of National Defense. Dominik P. Jankowski is head of the OSCE and Eastern Security Unit at the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

This article was originally published by Center for European Policy Analysis.

The post The Dangerous Tool of Russian Military Exercises appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In an exclusive interview, Syrian Kurdish leader Sherkoh Abbas explained a novel idea for promoting peace between Israel and the Arab world.

He argued that by establishing an independent Kurdistan, the Arab world will be forced to be more focused on the Iranian threat and Neo-Ottoman ambitions rather than thwarting an independent Kurdistan in order to save Iraq and Syria as independent Arab states and compromising with the Iranians and Turks on the Kurdish issue. This enables them to cooperate more with Israel.

In an exclusive interview, Syrian Kurdish leader Sherkoh Abbas introduced a novel idea for promoting peace between the State of Israel and the Arab world. The center of his idea revolves around the fact that both the Kurdish and Jewish peoples are outcasts in the Middle East, who are despised beyond logical reason. According to his arguments, the Arab countries will always unite with Turkey and Iran in order to thwart Kurdish independence in order to keep the Kurdistan regions of Iraq and Syria within these current Arab states and until recently, also to be against Israel.

In recent times, the Arab countries have warmed up to Israel, as demonstrated by Israel’s close relationship with Sisi’s government and Israeli Communication Minister Ayoob Kara’s meeting in Ecuador not too long ago. However, despite these positive developments, Abbas argued that Israel’s rapprochement with the Arab world rests on shaky grounds for he claimed that even if the Arab countries are wary of Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman ambitions and the Shia Crescent to the point that they are willing to cooperate with Israel, their desire to thwart Kurdish independence allows them to overcome their differences with the Turks and Iranians and to unite with their enemies, a reality which makes rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world more difficult.

“When I was in Syrian Kurdistan, most of the Arabs including the Syrian Opposition and the Syrian regime views Israel as a dagger in the heart of the Arab world from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic,” Abbas related.

“They view the Kurds as creating another Israel and would be another blow or dagger in the Arab heartland and the Kurds are Zionists in disguise. For the Arab world, the Kurds are 40 million strong and they don’t deserve a state but they want another Arab state.”

“They attack Sykes-Picot for creating artificial borders but then they defend it regarding the Kurds in order to thwart an independent Kurdistan. These borders were used to defend the colonial borders. Turkey wants to be a Khalifa or Sultan but that clashes with the Shia Crescent yet on Kurdistan, they agree and work together. The US and Sunni countries feel they can recruit them against Iran but it is a mistake for they will always make an agreement on the Kurdish issue. Thus, allowing the Kurds to be freed of the Arab nations of Iraq and Syria would pave the way down the road for the Arabs not to have a common interest with the Iranians and Turks to thwart Kurdish independence.”

“For me, it is ridiculous that we got no hope in Turkey or among Syrian Arab Sunnis or the Sunni Arab states. This shows you cannot rely on the Arab states. They will insist on a Palestinian state or getting the Golan back.”

According to Abbas, only the Kurds are Israel’s natural allies: “They can stop the Sunni challenge, Neo-Ottoman ambitions and Iran. They have positive political capital. Now is the time to work with them.”

In recent times, Abbas noted that Iran, Russia, Turkey and Syria started to spread conspiracy theories in order to undermine Kurdish gains once they started to work with the Americans and tried to delink from Assad and Russia: “Russia is painting a picture that the Kurds are colliding with ISIS.”

Abbas compared this to elements of the Syrian Opposition who accused Israel of cooperating with the Al Nusra Front: “They always invent conspiracies. Iran and Assad have some element and units called ISIS on demand that attack the minorities and Kurds in order to force them to cooperate with the regime. Also, they want to portray Sunnis or any rebels as ISIS terrorists to get Iran and Assad out of isolation and to make them more favorable and acceptable or better than the alternative. When Iraq started to take shape towards being divided and the same in Syria, they spread conspiracy theories or accusations. They say America and Israel are trying to divide Syria. This is what Turkey is spreading. Iran and Assad also.

“Now, also Russia portrays a gap between NATO and Turkey. Initially, they tried to see the Kurds as the victims and rightly so. Then, they felt uncomfortable after they witness the Kurds cooperating with the U.S. and so they are trying to derail the process of the Kurds getting gains in Syria and Iraq. The best way to counter this is to support an independent Kurdistan.”

Abbas argued that an independent Kurdistan won’t just block the establishment of a Neo-Ottoman Empire or the Shia Crescent or Iran aiding Hezbollah as well as other terror groups. He claimed that if the establishment of an independent Kurdistan in Syria and Iraq becomes a reality, the Arabs will view it as a loss for the Arab homeland but nevertheless, a fait accompli just like the State of Israel and this will make it easier for Israel to cooperate with the Arab countries.”

“Once an independent Kurdistan in the heartland of the Arab world is a fait accompli, he claimed that the Arabs will once again view Iran and Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman ambitions to be their number one threat, allowing Israel to face no obstacle in their rapprochement with the Arab world for without this being a reality, they can always forget their issues with Turkey and Iran in order to unite to thwart an independent Kurdistan. Without an independent Kurdistan coming into fruition, he stressed that they would have no reason to compromise.”

“Thwarting an independent Kurdistan will always keep them together no matter how many differences they got,” Abbas stressed. “Kurdistan has so much oil and water resources that they will never give up on. The Iranian Shah and Saddam Hussein made an agreement. Saddam essentially gave up territory to the Shah in order for the Kurds to stop being armed and the Kurds lost in the 1970s. He was willing to give up territory just so that they won’t give up their rights over Kurdistan.”

“They felt that giving territory to Iran is good to keep Kurdistan in the North. Turkey and Iran had many disagreements in recent weeks but what brings them to the table is the Kurdish glue. Everything else is minor compared to the Kurdish issue. But by having the Arab Kurds go their own way, then they will have to face the reality. They will only worry about Iran and the Neo-Ottoman Empire that can threaten the Saudi leadership. That will force them to reach out to the Kurds for they are the buffer that can stop those two countries from marching on them.”

He also argued that this in turn will enable the Arab countries to support peace with the State of Israel without any other interests distracting from it: “Furthermore, Kurdistan can be a new beginning in that part of the world besides Israel in promoting democracy and coexistence, a positive influence that can help many Muslims in that part of the world to adopt moderate Islam.”

The post Syrian Kurdish leader: “Peace is Obtainable by Supporting an Independent Kurdistan” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Art of the Deal?: Chinese president Xi Jinping and U.S. president Donald Trump.

Russia isn’t the Trump administration’s only foreign conflict of interest problem. President Donald Trump, his daughter/senior adviser Ivanka Trump, and son in-law/senior adviser Jared Kushner also have a growing China problem.

At a Beijing hotel on May 6, Jared Kushner’s sister Nicole Kushner Meyer appeared before a crowd of wealthy Chinese investors to pitch an investment scheme for a Kushner Companies luxury apartment complex in Jersey City, New Jersey known as “One Journal Square” that would help Chinese investors secure U.S. visas and green cards. Meyer repeated her pitch to investors in Shanghai on May 7, and planned to do so in other Chinese cities. Meyer highlighted her ties to the Trump administration through her brother Jared, raising concerns over conflicts of interest and drawing harsh criticism back home in the United States (Video: Bloomberg, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Reuters).

Negative media attention to the Kushners’ activities in China led to a half-apology from the Kushners and cancellation of further Kushner appearances in China, but doesn’t seem to have dampened Chinese enthusiasm for the Kushner “visa-for-sale” scheme. This is not the only time that conflict of interest questions have been raised regarding Trump-Kushner business ties with China.

A brochure for Jared Kushner’s sister Nicole’s event in Beijing read: “Invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States.” The visa scheme in question is the controversial EB-5 visa or “golden visa” program for wealthy investors (which has been called “the ‘crack cocaine‘ of real estate financing”), from which the extended Trump-Kushner real estate family has previously raised Chinese money, and which President Trump extended “without long-promised changes” the day before Nicole Kushner Meyer appeared in Beijing.

Nicole Kushner Meyer, in black, speaks at EB-5 investment pitch in Beijing, May 6 (ABBAO).

The Kushners’ partner in China is Beijing-based Qiaowai [Overseas] Group (侨外移民 or 侨外集团, QWOS). Other U.S. partners for the project include New Jersey private equity firm KABR Group and Florida-based EB-5 “shady broker” the U.S. Immigration Fund (USIF). Qiaowai CEO Ms. Ding Ying (丁颖, aka Vivian Ding) attended President Trump’s inauguration in January 2017 and reportedly met Trump and members of the Trump-Kushner family. Ding has touted her attendance at the inauguration for marketing purposes in Chinese media and and at Kushner events in China.

As veteran China reporter Bill Bishop observes, it appears that Ding “knows how to work American politicians” and how “to navigate the swamp to hawk EB-5s”: In April 2016 according to Chinese media, former New York mayor and Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani appeared with Ding and USIF chairman Nicholas Mastroianni II in Beijing to promote a Times Square EB-5 investment scheme. Giuliani appeared again with Ding and Mastroianni at a high-priced November 2016 EB-5 “forum and showcase” in Shanghai. Incidentally, Mastroianni also contributed $100,000 to Trump’s inauguration fund (See also New York Times).

Qiaowai CEO Ding Ying at Trump inauguration (ABBAO),

Rudy Giuliani and Ding Ying promote EB-5 scheme in China (QQ).

The Kushners were apparently not prepared to deal with U.S. media attention to their activities in China. Journalists from The New York Times and The Washington Post were forcibly removed from the event in Beijing, and reporters were barred from the event in Shanghai. Reporters in Beijing were told, “This is not the story we want.” Nicole Kushner Meyer hung up on a reporter from The Wall Street Journal when contacted by telephone in Shanghai.

Washington Post researcher Congcong Zhang wrote on Twitter that she was threatened for covering the Beijing event. “I was threatened, harassed and forced to delete recordings and photos of the Kushner family recruiting Chinese investors in U.S. Green cards,” said Zhang, adding that “People from the Chinese company that works with the Kushners on the investment visa surrounded me and grabbed my shoulder…. They tried to force me to leave, then grabbed my phone. I could only get it back if I agreed to delete all recordings and videos.”

Kushner investment pitch in Beijing, May 6 (Javier Hernandez via Twitter).

The Kushners’ activities in China have drawn harsh criticism from across the U.S. political spectrum. To many observers it appears that the extended Trump-Kushner family is treating the U.S. presidency as a business platform. Nor would this be the first time the Trump-Kushners have been accused of running the White House “like a family business.”

“It’s highly problematic,” Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told National Public Radio. “It appears that Jared Kushner’s family business is using his name and his official position to bring in investment.” Bookbinder and former Obama administration ethics adviser Norman Eisen wrote in The Washington Post that “this sales pitch is clearly unacceptable” and that “Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump should recuse themselves from China policy.”

Former George W. Bush administration ethics adviser Richard Painter called the Kushners’ actions in China “corruption, pure and simple,” an “abuse of power,” and “very, very close to solicitation of a bribe.” Painter also wrote on Twitter that incoming French president Emmanuel Macron “should ask that the Statue of Liberty be returned to France and replaced with a giant statue of Jared Kushner with his hand out.”

Kushner Companies has since half-apologized for name-dropping its White House connections to promote its investment scheme. “Ms. Meyer wanted to make clear that her brother had stepped away from the company in January and has nothing to do with this project,” said a Kushner Companies spokesperson, “Kushner Companies apologizes if that mention of her brother was in any way interpreted as an attempt to lure investors. That was not Ms. Meyer’s intention.”

Following extensive and embarrassing media coverage of its activities in China, Kushner Companies backed out of planned further appearances in Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Wuhan. According to Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, however, rich Chinese investors are more eager than ever to invest in the Kushners’ EB-5 scheme, and showed up in droves to the event in Shenzhen despite the Kushners’ absence. As Reuters reports, Qiaowai’s promotional materials have continued to tout its Trump-Kushner connections and to “guarantee” green cards for investors in violation of U.S. EB-5 rules.

Now U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is calling for an investigation into “potentially fraudulent statements and misrepresentations” by Kushner partners Qiaowai and USIF. In a May 25 letter to the Department of Homeland Security and the Securities and Exchange Commission, Grassley wrote that “a closer look” at Qiaowai and USIF is “clearly warranted, as reports suggest both companies have long employed questionable practices.” Additionally on June 1, Democratic members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees sent a letter to Kushner Companies requesting information on how it has used the EB-5 program and expressing concerns that Kushner Companies and its partners “may be seeking to benefit from the Kushner family’s connections to the White House.”

On June 5 it was further revealed that Kushner Companies is seeking a $250 million loan to pay off investors, including Chinese EB-5 investors, in a luxury Jersey City apartment tower known as “Trump Bay Street.” Major U.S. banks are hesitant to lend on the project due to its connection with Jared Kushner, the Trump administration, and the controversial EB-5 program, so unregulated lenders and foreign banks are likely to fill the void, potentially adding to the vast Trump-Kushner array of foreign conflict of interest problems.

As noted above, conflict of interest questions have previously been raised regarding Trump-Kushner business dealings with China. Trump Tower’s biggest commercial tenant is Chinese state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), which is due to renegotiate its lease during Trump’s term as president. Since his inauguration, Trump has won Chinese government approval for 38 new Trump trademarks in China; and Ivanka Trump’s clothing company won approval for three new trademarks in China on the day she and her family dined with Chinese president Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private Florida resort, in April.

All in the Family?: Trump-Kushner and Xi Jinping families at Mar-a-Lago (large).

Ivanka Trump has also come under fire for reported sweatshop conditions at factories in China where her company’s products are made. The recent arrest and disappearances of investigators looking into conditions at these factories in China prompted The Washington Post to ask, “Is China offering Ivanka Trump unseemly favors?”

If so, then it seems reasonable to ask what China might expect in return. Since former China-hawk Donald Trump’s inauguration as president, China has already secured Trump’s obeisance to Beijing’s “one-China policy” on Taiwan, Trump’s inaction on Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea, Trump’s silence on human rights, and Trump’s dictator-love for Xi Jinping. What more could China want?

The post Trump-Kushner China Dealings Raise Conflict of Interest Concerns appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Trying to militarize the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC – center left), Arab League (LAS – top left) and Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC – bottom left) through the IMAF poses a threat to the European Union

President Trump took the floor at the Arab Islamic American summit on May 21st. But it was also a summit of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT). With his official American support to this organization, Trump jeopardized the security of the European Union. Leaders and citizens of the EU should be alert to this risk.

Who are the IMAFT members?

The Arab Islamic American summit can be also labeled an ˮOIC Minus 2“ summit. Of all 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) assembling all Muslim countries of the world and countries with significant minorities, 55 were present—all except Iran and Syria.

The IMAFT Alliance was founded in December 2015 under the leadership of Saudi Arabia and is currently of 41 member states. Out of the 57 OIC members, 40 are members of IMAFT, in addition to Eritrea.

Membership of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

The core of IMAFT is made by 19 members of the Arab League (LAS) from Mauritania to Oman and from Lebanon to Comoros: Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Comoros, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon. All LAS members except Iraq, Syria and Algeria (though, leaders of Iraq and Algeria were present at the Riyadh summit).

It is good to note that three LAS members, Somalia, Djibouti and Comoros are ethnically non-Arab countries but they are “politically” Arab. For this reason they will be considered Arab for simplicity’s sake.

Membership of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT) and the League of Arab States (LAS)

There are also 6 Asian members of IMAFT: Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives and Malaysia. In addition to that, there are 16 Sub-Saharan African members: Senegal, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, Cote d’Ivoire, Mali, Burkina Faso, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Eritrea, Uganda and Gabon.

Four countries with a Shi’a government—Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Syria—are non-members of this Sunni alliance. However, Azerbaijan, together with Indonesia and Tajikistan, have been invited to become IMAFT members.

But why Trump’s participation at the summit could jeopardize the security of the European Union?

The military alliance as a security threat to the EU

Muslim states, especially  Arab states, possess a vast military arsenal. Saudi Arabia, with its population of 30 million, has the world’s fourth largest military spending right after the U.S., China and Russia. The Kingdom spends a third more than France or the UK, with a population of over 60 million, and two and a half times more than Brazil, a country of 200 million.

The United Arab Emirates, with a population of 6 million, are the 14th largest spender globally—their military spending is similar to Italy’s and slightly exceeds Turkey’s.

According to the World Bank, the 22 Arab League members had an overall military budget of USD 214 billion in 2015 corresponding to 8.2% of their combined GDP. For comparison, the military expenditure of the 27 EU members (except the UK) total USD 203 billion, which accounts for 1.4% of their GDP. After subtracting the three Arab non-members of IMAFT and adding the 22 non-Arab IMAFT members, the total military expenditure of the 41 member IMAFT was USD 222 billion in 2015, according to the World Bank and the EU Institute for Security Studies.

One should not forget that the statistics do not include all military expenditures. In Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey, the army is a major industrial and trade owner. Furthermore, the Egyptian military budget is boosted by not negligible direct U.S. subsidies.

The Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT) as compared with the European Union (EU)

The US President is helping build a military colossus on Europe’s southern border, whose military spending exceeds the military budget of the EU members. This alliance would include almost all southern neighbors of the EU, from Morocco to Turkey, including Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Palestine and Lebanon.

Realizing that the European Union is unable to defend itself against the expansionist policy of Russia with just one third of the EU military budget (USD 64 billion), the EU citizens do have serious reasons to be alarmed.

One must realize that many of the IMAFT members have combat-regular guerilla or regular forces. In the last two decades, they actively participated in the civil wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire or Sierra Leone, in military occupation of Western Sahara, war against Ethiopia, military campaign against Saddam in Iraq, the Houthi in Yemen, the Arab Spring in Egypt and Bahrain, Boko Haram in Nigeria or against the ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and Libya.

To make it even worse, countries like Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Oman or Kuwait buy exclusively the latest military technology —their military own more state-of-the-art weaponry than the EU members.

Officially, IMAFT is being built as an alliance to counter terror. However, some analyst title it a NATO-like alliance which evokes its potential durability. An organization that started its life with a military intervention in Yemen (instead of fight against terrorism), can easily turn to expansionist policies in the long run.

Let us consider the large Muslim minorities in the EU states, primarily in France (8%), the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany (6%), Austria and Sweden (5%), Denmark and Italy (4%), with a tendency for rapid growth due to high birth rates and immigration. The late Libyan dictator Qaddafi had threatened the Europeans that the Muslim minority in Europe would have been his future secret weapon against the “native” Europeans thanks to its birth rate.

Earlier this year, Europeans got evidence of the manipulation of minorities for political gains. During the Turkish referendum campaign, Turkey’s President Erdogan interfered unprecedentedly with the internal affairs of the EU states, gaining the vote of  the Turkish minority in Germany, helping him introduce a more illiberal regime at home. The late theoretician of nationalism Ernest Gellner had postulated that some diaspora communities tend to be more radicalized than the population in their countries of origin.

In connection with the migration crisis, IMAFT is becoming the second biggest threat to the Europeans, right after Russian assertiveness on their eastern border.

The military alliance as an economic challenge to the EU

Out of the total 13 members of the oil cartel OPEC which can influence global oil prices, 7 countries are also members of the IMAFT military alliance: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria and Gabon. These members exploit 20 of OPEC’s 33.5 million barrels daily, i.e. 59% of the OPEC production.

580 out of 1210 billion barrels of proven reserves is located in these 7 countries, making it 48% of the total OPEC reserves. Adding Iraq, IMAFT’s ally, the daily production of the alliance makes 71% of the OPEC production and its proven reserves correspond to 60% of the OPEC reserves.

Membership of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT) and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)

Russia and other OPEC countries are the two most important oil suppliers to the EU. A formal American support to IMAFT led by Saudi Arabia de-facto transforms OPEC to a military alliance. Europeans have an extensive experience with Russia using the oil and gas pipeline taps as its weapon. By militarization of OPEC, the European Union is getting two military rivals of its two most important suppliers.

Summary

The Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT), with an official American support, is becoming a second military bloc on the borders of the European Union. After Russian expansionism on its eastern border, IMAFT is a security and economic challenger to the EU on its southern border.

With Trump’s foreign policy so distinctly ignoring the security interests of Europe, the citizens and the leaders of the European Union should do everything to build own military capacities of the EU, such as anEuropean army directed by a European foreign policy, and an EU membership in NATO.

Double threat on the borders of the European Union: Russia and IMAFT

Links:

List of all 41 members of IMAFT: http://www.arabianow.org/saudi-arabia-leads-islamic-military-alliance/

Participants of the Arab Islamic American Summit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_Summit_2017

IMAFT and EU members military expenditures, according to the World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

Arab League members military expenditures, according to the EU Institute for Security Studies (EU ISS): http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Alert_27_Arab_military_spending.pdf

The share of the 15 states with the highest military expenditures, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI): http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2015/4/13/military-spending-spikes-in-middle-east-east-europe/jcr:content/mainpar/textimage/image.adapt.990.high.SIPRI_global_share_military_expenditure_041315.1429016026374.jpg

 

The post Trump Jeopardizes EU Security in Riyadh appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Women protest against local government corruption, arrest of opposition leader in Al-Hoceima, Morocco on June 3, 2017. (Photo: REUTERS/Youssef Boudlal)

The kingdom of Morocco is not known for political activism or protests. Certainly not when compared to the Arab Spring uprisings that led to regime change in several of its North African neighbors. Yet in the last 2 weeks the traditionally stable Morocco has seen the largest popular protests and government backlash since the 2011 Arab Spring.

At the time of Arab Spring, Morocco’s king ceded some power to the elected government after some protests cropped up demanding an expansion of democracy. However the move has been largely symbolic without any meaningful change—the king retained a large amount of power and influence. King Mohammed VI, in power since 1999, is part of the Muslim world longest-ruling royal family. In addition, since 2011 Moroccan police have cracked down on protests to limit unrest and prevent similar revolutions to those in Egypt and Tunisia.

Tensions between police and activists in the northern city of Al-Hoceima have resurfaced, and spread, in the last several weeks. An opposition group called Hirak had been gathering support in criticizing the Makhzen—the king’s governing authority in the region—since a local fisherman was killed after a dispute with police. On May 26th, after a preacher criticized Hirak leader Nasser Zefzafi, protesters gathered in the streets and clashed with police. Police also issued a warrant for Zefzafi’s arrest, amidst signs from local residents posing the question to them, “Are you a government or a gang?”

Violence ensued as police used force to break up protests. The next day, May 27, authorities arrested 20 people in Al-Hoceima, charging them with “threatening national security.” Zefzafi, a well-known activist aided by large group of supporters, fled the city before he could be arrested.

However Zefzafi was tracked down and detained a few days later. On June 2nd, protests erupted again in Al-Hoceima. This time “several thousand people” gathered in the city’s main square, chanting “we are all Zefzafi” and “the people demand prisoners be freed.” Police quickly surrounded the group in an attempt to limit the number of people with access to the gathering. In the nearby town of Imzouren police fired water cannon to disperse hundreds of protesters who clashed with security forces.

On June 4th, police acted to disperse a women’s protest organized by Hirak. In addition to showing outrage over Zefzafi’s arrest, the group demanded action to address Makhzen (local government) abuse and corruption as well as the need for more jobs and improvements to regional infrastructure. Once again police surrounded the protesters, and pushed the leader of the event away from her supporters. “We go to sleep in fear, and we wake up in fear,” said Fatima Alghloubzari, 54 who tried to join the protest on Saturday. “We never imagined our city would become like this.”

Several articles on these events pointed out how rare political unrest is in Morocco (and how police presence at protests is usually significant). Perhaps this explains why, as Patrick Markey of Reuters points out, “the unrest around Al-Hoceima and the Rif region is testing nerves in a kingdom that presents itself as a model for stability and steady reform, as well as a safe haven for foreign investment in a region widely torn by militant violence.” Even limited protest can be dangerous in a country used to very little.

It certainly makes sense why the regional government (and, by extension, the monarchy) would want to quash the Al-Hoceima protests as quickly as possible. The Arab Spring showed how quickly such shows of displeasure can spread. But cracking down could produce the opposite of the intended effect by drawing even more to the people’s cause. Zefzafi’s arrest likely generated more attention to his cause than a peaceful protest would.

It’s still too early to see where this recent unrest will lead, but in a country relied on to be a stabilizing regional force, the Hirak movement is worth paying attention to.

The post Arab Spring Sequel? Unrest Grows in Morocco appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Photo Credit: Mirza Ismail)

Yezidi leader Mirza Ismail describes how the situation is extremely dire for women and children on Mount Sinjar while the international community and global media outlets ignore it.

In recent days, media outlets across the world have been speaking about the ISIS massive car bomb near the German Embassy in Kabul, the ISIS car bomb outside an ice-cream shop in Baghdad, a priest who was kidnapped by ISIS in the Philippines and how Iraqi forces are confronting the ISIS-held neighborhoods in Western Mosul. However, there has been virtual silence regarding the present situation on Mount Sinjar.

According to Yazidi leader Mirza Ismail, the situation on Mount Sinjar has not improved since 2014. In fact, he claimed that the situation has even deteriorated. Nevertheless, he proclaimed: “The international media has not been covering the present situation on Mount Sinjar I think because the Yezidi fighting forces and the Shiite Popular Mobilization Force made the decision to start fighting against ISIS terrorism and to liberate the Yezidi region of Sinjar as well as the rest of Iraq from ISIS.” He claimed that if other groups were doing the fighting, they would have covered it.

New mass grave found on Mount Sinjar (Photo Credit: Mirza Ismail)

“For the last 7 days, the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces and the Yezidi fighters have taken control of all the Yezidi villages on the southern side of Mount Sinjar,” he related. “The Iraqi government has provided many Yezidi fighters with different types of weapons to defend the Yezidi region of Mount Sinjar. The Joint Forces have discovered several new Yezidi mass graves nearby every village on the southern side of the mountain. According to my colleagues, the numbers of mass-graves found in Yezidis’ villages south of Mount Sinjar are 10 so far.”

According to Ismail, the situation for Yezidi civilians on Mount Sinjar is still very dire:

“They lack everything that is needed for daily life, such as food, clean drinking water, doctors, healthcare, hospitals and education for the children. There is a lack of schools and teachers. There are a few tent schools for some children but not enough for all children there. In the villages north of the mountain, the children have difficulty getting to school because of the lack of transportation, as the government has not provided it. The children lack school supplies, good food, clean drinking water, winter clothing, health care, etc. Our organization and many others are trying to help the children the best that we can but the needs are larger than the capacity of NGOs. The conditions in the shelters are very bad as the civilians still cannot go back to their villages because many of the houses were destroyed by ISIS and booby-trapped, a reality that has killed many young Yezidis.”

Yezidi female fighter (Photo Credit: Mirza Ismail)

Ismail stressed that the plight of the Yezidi women is especially difficult for while most of Iraq has been liberated, most of the Yezidi women are still enslaved by ISIS:

“The Yezidis on Mount Sinjar believe most of their women and children were transferred outside of Iraq when ISIS saw they would be defeated. On the other hand, many Yezidi women have picked up arms and defended the region but they lack the proper training and weapons, which the Yezidis have been asking for a long time. Unfortunately, nobody has bothered to help yet. Sadly, the international community finds it very hard to give some arms to an ancient and indigenous Yezidi nation seeking self-defense and they find it much easier to sell high-tech weapons to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Islamic countries, who use them to kill innocents such as the Yezidis.”

Despite all of these recent developments, the United States, Israel, Canada and the international community at large has not responded to what is happening on Mount Sinjar. Ismail claims that this is for political reasons. Nevertheless, Ismail argues that even if it is not politically correct to say so, he believes that “the only solution for the Yezidis and Chaldo-Assyrian Christians to survive as a people with human dignity is to have an autonomous region in Sinjar and Nineveh under international protection” and he hopes that the international community will recognize this sooner rather than later.

The post Yezidi Leader: “The World Ignores the Plight of our People on Mount Sinjar” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The medium-range RSD-10 Pioneer (SS-20) missile system (RIA Novosti / Anton Denisov) / RIA Novosti

The United States recently test fired an Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system that intercepted and destroyed its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) target successfully.

The capability to destroy ICBMs had been the last major technological challenge since the Cold War. While this system seems successful at this stage, intercepting multiple ICBMs or one with multiple warheads still looks out of reach. Moscow has been surrounded by a ring of ABMs for some time; their effectiveness has never had to be tested since their deployment.

The strategy that prevented the exchange of ICBMs between the United States and the Soviet Union for decades was a slow progression of communications, dialogue and treaties that reduced the stockpile of nuclear arms. This dialogue also enabled the United States and the Soviet Union to humanize each other and tamp down on propaganda intended to solidify and embolden each side to fight to the last person.

This did not mean that a country’s resolve was reduced. Dialogue was taken from a position of strength, but also used the confidence each country’s population had in their resolve to come to a meeting of minds. With confidence came respect, and the Cold War fizzled away within the next generation.

As an ABM system can physically show the willingness of a country to defend itself, the perception of strength must also be present in order for a dialogue to be successful. The perception that a country can be disabled, obstructed or even controlled by a foreign power makes it seem that any actions in relation to their adversary will result in harm or oppression.

When it becomes possible to see adversaries as less human, it creates an environment of reactionary strategy, something the cold warriors were keen to measure, control and completely avoid. The perception of self-weakness and the feral reaction to achieve security can be more dangerous than many of the weapons systems themselves.

The reality is that the United States is able to defend the country from military and cyber threats, and has the capability to retaliate in if it is targeted, and most likely has in many cases.

The United States is not weak in this regard, and news coverage of anything to do with Russia seems to lack the perception of humanity in relating to a relatively strong adversary. The worst case scenario of a lack of introspective reporting on issue surrounding Russia could lead to a hot conflict, or a bias against Russians and Russian speaking people living in Western countries.

While it most likely will not lead to an exchange of ICBMs, the value of having an open dialogue even with an adversary has proven to be of value, and limiting the ability to re-establish a method of deterrence through communication is ignoring past successes for the sake of little gain.

Humanizing an adversary, even those who seek to cause harm is of more value than the best ABM system. A fictional show like The Americans may be more useful than many news reports in understanding how to approach adversaries in different ways, not for the sake of information, but in opening a communication channel and avoiding the kind of mistakes that could have have turned  the Cold War hot. Misunderstandings and actions that promote a feral response to defense are extremely dangerous with any adversary.

The post Actual and Perceived Defense of the Homeland appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

One of the country’s biggest Chinese celebrations/ (BBC/Lottie Davies)

This past week many Taiwanese flocked to their hometowns to celebrate the Chinese tradition of Duānwǔjié, or the Dragon Boat Festival.

The festival is held every year to commemorate the death of the Chinese poet and minister Qu Yuan (c. 340–278 BC), who chose to drown himself in a river rather than see his country invaded and conquered by the State of Qin.

During the Warring States period of the Zhou Dynasty, Minister Qu Yuan had warned against a Chu alliance with the Qin, the most powerful of the Warring States, and was subsequently banished for his beliefs. Legend has it villagers raced their boats to search for him and then threw rice into the water to distract the fish away from his body.

To honor his death, many Taiwanese eat zongzi, a glutinous rice stuffed with different fillings and wrapped in bamboo, which represents the rice thrown into the river.

Other Taiwanese were celebrating a less traditional occasion—a landmark ruling by a constitutional court, coming just days before the start of the festival, granting Taiwan’s same-sex couples the right to marry. The ruling is the first such in traditionally conservative Asia.

On the more socially conservative mainland, the ruling drew criticism. Xinhua, China’s state-run media agency, said the decision had “caused controversy”—despite China having a similar “equality before the law” provision in its own constitution.

The China Digital Times, which monitors mainland censorship, found state directives instructing: “News regarding ‘Taiwan becoming a legal area for same-sex marriage, raises sensitive political and social issues. Do not hype this story. Regarding terms such as constitution, Judicial Yuan, Legislative Yuan, President, etc., take note to use quotation marks. Make sure not to present Taiwan as a different political entity than the Chinese mainland.”

The ruling also prompted one Chinese academic to urge Taiwanese parents to move to China to protect their children from AIDS, according to Reuters.

The court decision is the latest example of a progressive Taiwan growing apart from a more restrictive mainland. Following eight years of relative calm, President Tsai Ing-Wen‘s entry into office in May 2016 strained cross-Strait relations—her election prompted Beijing to formally cut communication with Taiwan and to actively discourage mainland Chinese from visiting the island.

Tensions heightened noticeably following her phone call last December with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, marking the first time an American president or president-elect spoke publicly to a Taiwanese leader since the U.S. ended their formal diplomatic relationship in 1979. Yet with U.S. President Trump now seeking Beijing’s help in dealing with a recalcitrant North Korea, some China-watchers now believe Taiwan’s interest may be bargained away in a grand U.S. deal with Beijing.

Before Trump was elected, some 88% of Taiwanese believed their military was incapable of defending Taiwan from an attack by China, and more than 47% thought the U.S. would come to their rescue, according to the 2016 Taiwan National Security Survey (TNSS) conducted by the Election Study Center of National Chengchi University.

The TNSS survey also revealed almost 70% of Taiwanese agreed that Taiwan is already an independent nation and its name is the Republic of China (ROC), with no need to seek further independence. Nearly 83% supported a peace agreement with the mainland whereby Taipei will pledge not to seek independence and Beijing promises not to attack Taiwan.

True, Taiwan can take some solace from the current Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the three U.S.-PRC Communiqués (the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué, the 1979 Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations and the August 17, 1982 Joint Communiqué on Arms Sales to Taiwan) and President Ronald Reagan’s “Six Assurances”. Yet the TRA is not an tight, indisputable security pact and President Trump seemingly opposes military alliances with those who don’t spend heavily on their military.

According to a recent op-ed in the New York Times, Enoch Y. Wu, a former noncommissioned officer in the Taiwanese Army special forces, claims Taiwan’s active force is less than 200,000, having fallen from 400,000 in 1996, and that the nearly two million reservists are under equipped and need retraining.

Even if President Trump decides to come to Taiwan’s rescue in the event of an attack, he’ll need to convince his electorate. After lengthy U.S. military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, polls show consistent low levels of support for military intervention—only 28% of Americans would support the use of U.S. troops to defend Taiwan in a conflict with China.

The post Taiwan Turns Further Away from the Mainland appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

A painting commemorating the death of Qu Yuan

China’s Dragon Boat Festival came immediately the day after the U.S.’ own Memorial Day this year. Certainly, both these dates are occasions to reflect on the meaning of patriotism for both China and the U.S., respectively.

However, the Dragon Boat Festival’s origin combined with the recent passing of Zbigniew Brzezinski only serve to highlight the larger lesson of placing a state’s long-term strategic vision over incessant political infighting.

The Legacy of Qu Yuan

Today’s Dragon Boat Festival in China is said to commemorate the life and (especially) the death of Qu Yuan. Qu was a statesman and poet exemplar in the employ of the Kingdom of Chu during China’s Warring States Period. Reportedly, many of Qu’s fellow ministers at the Royal Court were jealous of his intellectual brilliance and subsequently slandered him. This led to his first exile by his king.

Luckily, Qu was eventually recalled from this initial exile to restart negotiations between Chu and fellow state Qi. These negotiations were seen as critical to Chu’s survival.

Unfortunately for Qu, he was soon after sent into his second and final exile due to incessant slandering on the part of Chu’s Prime Minister. During this time of reflection, Qu returned to his hometown and penned many of his now legendary poetic works, some specifically addressing Chu’s many problems. During this time, Qu learned of the capture of Chu’s capital by yet another rival state, Qin. Upon hearing of this, Qu reportedly waded into a river holding a heavy rock, thereby committing suicide.

According to legend, many of the villagers tried to save him by racing toward him in dragon boats. However, they were too late and it is said that Qu’s spirit told them to offer rice to the river’s fish to keep them away from his remains.

This story is quite old and many details of it are sketchy simply due to it taking place in antiquity. In Western lore, a rough analogy might be Socrates’ taking of hemlock. However, what is not in dispute is that the story has had quite an impact on many Chinese throughout the ages as to the true meaning of patriotism and self-sacrifice.

The Grand Chessboard Lives On

While the names of the states of Chu, Qi, and Qin may seem irrelevant and arcane to some, they are quite germane to geopolitics as it relates to relations between the U.S., China, and Russia today.

To this end, the world recently saw the untimely death of Zbigniew Brzezinski, former scholar and National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter. In essence, Brzezinski was not only able to adroitly grasp the growing rift in Sino-Russian relations during the Cold War, but also was successful in advising his king on how to exploit this situation.

Building upon the foundation which President Richard Nixon and his own National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger’s 1972 Beijing visit represented, Brzezinski articulated the necessity to Carter of strengthening U.S.-China ties based on shared interests (not values) in weakening the Former Soviet Union’s global position. This, in turn, led to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Soviets’ eventual withdrawal from the country and, arguably, the eventual dissolution of the Former Soviet Union itself, leaving the U.S. as the world’s sole superpower.

This story is not over, however, because the story of geopolitics itself is never truly over as the world never stops spinning. The U.S.’ brief moment of unipolarity following the end of the Cold War is now over as the country is in relative decline as other centers of power emerge (or re-emerge in the case of China) around the world. This has led, of course, to many differing points of view within the U.S. foreign policy establishment regarding the best way to relate to China (engagement vs. containment vs. “congagement”, etc.).

Slandering and Political Infighting is a Timeless Art

Sadly, slandering and associated partisanship is by no means a strictly ancient phenomenon relegated to the time of Qu Yuan. Today’s multipolar world and the quickening pace of globalization mirror both China’s Warring States and Japan’s own Sengoku Jidai periods. While many within Washington are still trying to decide if the Cold War with Russia is actually over, other states like China are moving forward with massive new initiatives like “One Belt, One Road“.

The mere perception of possible and actual U.S. withdrawal from global commitments (NATO, TPP, climate change and arms control treaties, etc.) without an overarching vision of how the U.S. intends to realize its foreign policy strategic goals have left allies, partners, and adversaries alike all reeling. This lack of strategic focus now, combined with interminable, unproductive, and scandalous accusations within Washington itself, has the potential in the long-term to leave the U.S. at the mercy of an even more unforgiving and vicious world in the future.

The post Qu Yuan, Zbigniew Brzezinski, & Why Strategy is Necessary for Survival appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In an exclusive interview, Sherkoh Abbas, the head of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, warns the US government of the dangers posed by supporting Saudi Arabia and Turkey. He argued that the Kurds are better allies for the Americans.

In an exclusive interview, Sherkoh Abbas, the head of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, stressed following Trump’s lavish welcome in Saudi Arabia that the United States should be wary of the Saudi government:

“They have to look in the mirror. Much of the extremism is caused by them. I hope that Trump will hold them accountable and not be fooled by nice words but judge them based on their actions. I think they will have a hard time. None of the leaders have been successful in pressuring them. Now is the time to weaken these regimes so that the extremism will stop. That is the only way to bring about peace and stability to the region.”

“Most of the leaders who met Trump in Saudi Arabia are tyrants, dictators,” he related. “None of these leaders were elected. Most of their people are unemployed yet they can cough up billions to make weapons to oppress people. They should spend money to make peoples’ lives better. Then you don’t have to buy weapons to oppress your people.

Furthermore, the Saudis won’t allow a woman to drive to save her dad. When you have a foreigner working there, you have no rights. You can be enslaved. Yet we call them allies and friends. If that person is horrible to his sister and wife, how can he be good to me? How can I trust that person? These guys are not allies. Its mutual interests. In the long run, you will regret making alliances with these regimes.”

Abbas emphasized that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom Trump has praised as an ally in the fight against terrorism and congratulated on winning the referendum, runs a country that cares more about oppressing the Kurds than suppressing radical extremism.

It has been reported that Turkey allegedly sent weapons to ISIS and traded in ISIS oil. Furthermore, numerous media outlets have noted that Turkey has permitted thousands of ISIS terrorists to smuggle across their border into Syria and have given medical assistance to ISIS terrorists.

Not too long ago, the Turkish entourage was recorded beating Kurdish and Armenian protesters in Washington, DC. In response to this action, Senator John McCain called for the Turkish Ambassador to be booted out of the US but Trump took zero action against Turkey for this.

Abbas responded to McCain’s response to this incident as follows: “We commend and salute Senator McCain for asking the administration to behave strongly towards the Turkish Ambassador. Unfortunately, the administration has not done so.”

Abbas stressed that Turkey always tries to portray the Kurds to be inhumane people but how the Turkish security forces treated those demonstrators exposed their true face:

“We saw their actions in front of world civilization in the heart of the free world’s capital city and what they did to peaceful people. Can you imagine what they are doing with their soldiers behind the scenes to the Kurds of Turkey? Are they slaughtering people? Killing people? In the past, some of their soldiers would cut off the heads of PKK people and then take pictures and display them as trophies. That is very similar to ISIS. It is horrifying that the administration in Washington, DC did not put those people in prison. Now, if they travel to Europe, Canada, etc., they think they can kill and get away with it. Is this the law of the jungle?”

According to Abbas, for Trump, it is all about making business deals and he claimed that Trump views those interests to be the first priority. He claimed that Trump speaks out about the evils of extremism but then he gave $110 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and made so many deals:

“It shows that business comes first. It should be that American values and Western values should not be compromised. Building up the Sunnis against the Shias will not appease them for eventually the Sunnis will turn on you. It is better to weaken the Sunnis and Shias and to support the Balochis, Kurds and others who are oppressed and have the same values as Americans. It is beneficial for your people and our people. Otherwise, you will only see tyranny and extremism.”

The post Syrian Kurdish dissident: “Beware of the Saudis and Turks” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Like many countries, China has long reverted to cash as a means to buy influence with other countries. An obvious example is the furtherance of Beijing’s “One China” policy, whereby China lavishes extensive economic aid in exchange for a country’s political allegiance to refuting Taiwan’s claim as an independent country and legitimate representative of China. According to AidData, countries which vote with China at the U.N. usually receive more aid than other countries.

To date, Beijing has successfully chipped away at Taipei’s claim, with just 21 countries recognizing the Republic of China’s government in Taiwan.

Yet beyond the obvious political motivations, Beijing is also keen to obtain the resources needed to fuel its still growing economy. But Beijing has recognized that getting the resources it needs out of resource-rich countries is not always easy, given these countries lack sufficient infrastructure such as roads, highways, ports, pipelines and railways. So China is offering to build that infrastructure, while creating more work for its construction, steel, cement, railway and machinery companies.

To fund the construction of infrastructure, China has established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), as part of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s vision in 2013 of restoring China as a global power under the “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI) or “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR). On May 14-15, President Xi hosted leaders from 29 countries in Beijing for the Belt and Road Forum, intended to push for the reestablishment of the ancient silk road trade routes through infrastructure investment.

The AIIB represents an effort by Beijing to use soft power to achieve geopolitical influence in Asia, as Jin Liqun, the Chinese president of the AIIB recently implied: “China needs to do something that can help it be recognized as a responsible leader.”

Following the launch of AIIB in January 2016, and with 57 countries signing on, a total of 13 projects have been approved. The latest approval came this month for a $160 million loan to help improve the transmission and distribution of electricity in Andhra Pradesh, India.

The AIIB has also approved power sector investments in other South Asian countries, including $165 million in loans to upgrade the electricity distribution and provide electricity to more than 2.5 million rural consumers in Bangladesh and $300 million for the Tarbela Hydroelectric Dam project in Pakistan. In South Asia, the AIIB has also approved loans of $100 million for a motorway in Pakistan and $60 million for a gas field and pipeline development in Bangladesh.

The AIIB’s approval of $400 million in loans for projects in Pakistan will certainly help cement relations with one of Beijing’s staunchest allies. The AIIB’s loans may go along way toward currying favor with Pakistanis – the overwhelming majority (some 80%) of whom hold a favorable view of China (the highest in Asia), according to a recent Pew Center Research survey.

Indonesians too, hold China in high regard, with some 60% having favorable opinions of China while being far less concerned over territorial disputes with China than other ASEAN nations like Vietnam and the Philippines. Certainly adding to China’s popularity with Indonesians will be AIIB’s $217 million participation in a $1.7 billion project to improve slums in Indonesia, providing access to clean water and sanitation.

Yet the goodwill expected by China will only follow if the projects are implemented on time, on budget and in accordance with environmental standards and social safeguards. Beijing ‘s track record in environmental protection throughout China leaves much to be desired, although authorities have recently taken measures to reduce high pollution levels. On this front, AIIB’s participation with lenders such as World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB) is advantageous, given the stricter of local or World Bank guidelines are often written into co-financing agreements.

With Beijing holding the majority (28%) of AIIB’s voting rights (India has 8%, Russia 6%), the bank has rightly been noted by some analysts as a deliberate political effort to pull Asian countries closer into China’s orbit. However, co-financings with the World Bank and ADB – who will be reluctant to give the new bank a lead role – will translate into a junior role for AIIB and help mitigate this concern.

Over the long run, as AIIB staff come up the learning curve, the AIIB will seek to increase its political influence on Asian nations by doing projects on its own and participating in fewer co-financings.

There is the danger that in so doing, the stricter environmental and social standards imposed by other developmental institutions may be set aside in the rush to quickly roll out major infrastructure projects and gain favor with host nations. If standards are relaxed, Asian host nations of AIIB projects may come to face the same problems China has experienced with its own infrastructure growth, including forced relocations, quality control problems and investment in wasteful “white elephants.”

Needless to say, other multilateral banks, such as the World Bank and the ADB, have been cited in the past for their association with environmentally harmful projects to corrupt governments. Despite this risk, the AIIB deserves a chance to offer a new alternative and prove itself to be a viable development finance institution. Asia needs the infrastructure necessary to grow – and China’s economy needs new opportunities for growth.

The post China’s Infrastructure Bank Makes Inroads in Asia appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

US Trade Representative Lighthizer: What’s My Line?

One of the consequences of the Trump Administration actions has been the decline of the “Bretton Woods” rationale underlying U.S. trade policy.

Under the impulse to “Make America Great Again” the plan is to extract concessions, country by country, wielding our economic power to reduce trade deficits. This drive overwhelms the orthodox view that trade agreements and multilateral structures served both American security by promoting growth abroad, and American prosperity by opening markets to U.S. exports.

How bilateral trade demands would cohere with other policy concerns has yet to be determined. The lack of definition was made clear in the President’s tweeting, on the one hand that he would give China better trade deals if they helped curb North Korean nuclear ambitions, and on the other that he wanted to renegotiate the U.S. – South Korea Free Trade Agreement. The revision of campaign calls to exit NAFTA, to a resolve to renegotiate it, suggests that even core campaign positions are not definitive.

Some might call this pragmatism. But if we try to use trade as a geopolitical chip, for instance to spur Chinese support against North Korea, inserting pure trade issues, e.g. calling China a currency manipulator, makes that chip unreliable. If our purpose is to extract bilateral trade concessions, our readiness to compromise or place demands for geopolitical reasons offers others a way to deflect our economic power.

The crossing of trade and security agendas suggests lack of clear goals. It risks making us neither feared nor trusted, either in trade or geopolitical negotiations.

To use Walter Russell Mead’s terms, the Trump administration is inherently Jacksonian, and its approach may or may not succeed. If that approach should fail, someone will need to fashion new stances. The Bretton Woods objective of precluding Fascism by increasing global prosperity addressed Wilsonian, Jacksonian, and Hamiltonian concerns. Our opposition to Communist claims fit that rationale, as did America’s domination of the Bretton Woods’ institutions.

But today the Bretton Woods’ rationale has been rejected by populists and leftists, with its strains noted by establishment thinkers as well. A new rationale will require a new synthesis of American sentiments and current world issues, and still project clarity in our priorities.

As opposing the Soviets and preventing new Fascisms proved a durable drive under Bretton Woods, we might be tempted now to set a doctrine of competition with China, as a stand-in for non-democratic rivals of the past. China is mounting an explicitly economics-driven challenge, touting its Silk Road project as heralding a “new type of international relations … with no confrontation and of friendship rather than alliance.” But geopolitical opposition through trade plays into their narrative, that our moral claims are a sham, and only compensate for our moral and material weakness.

Our fundamental purpose is not to oppose China, or necessarily to revive Bretton Woods. Our purpose is to validate America’s founding creed, that all persons have inherent rights including the pursuit of an undefined happiness, and that legitimate governments serve to secure those rights. Bretton Woods is useful only as it fits that purpose.

China’s influence is of concern only if we discredit our principle of individual rights. Such discredit diminishes any case against their ethos of top-down social discipline, already bolstered by their tangible successes.

America’s policies on trade and economics, as well as security, rights and law, and environment, need to cohere under our larger purpose. Only deliberate orientation to our national creed will demonstrate our intentions for global development, explain why we value trade and put limitations on it, and counter the narratives of our adversaries.

The post Trade Policy and Other Goals appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The referendum to leave the European Union was, despite what some Leavers such as Boris Johnson say, fought and decided on immigration. The issue dominated the discussion and became the focus point of the campaign with the phrase ‘pulling up the drawbridge’ being constantly used.

Yet while the argument about migrants and immigrants crossing the channel was debated several times, the issue of the Irish border was largely ignored. With Article 50 triggered, the problem of creating a new border in Ireland has been brought into sharp focus.

The border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland was a key battleground during the troubles. It was infamous for the long queues, army checkpoints, and terrorist attacks until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement brokered a peace deal. Since the agreement, Ireland has operated the border without trouble. Brexit is about to undo years of hard fought peace and create numerous problems between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

The British government and the EU have so far disagreed on nearly every aspect of the Brexit negotiations. Not returning to a hard boarder in Ireland is one of the few points they have found common ground. Yet despite the goodwill the practicality of the situation is raising many questions.

Several ideas have been banded about with Politico reporting that one ambitious idea is to create a virtual border where tariffs would be registered and paid online. While this would reduce the need to check paperwork it would be difficult to police without a customs check.

The other big issue would be immigration, the central topic of the referendum. The government doesn’t want Ireland to become a backdoor to the UK, yet it also doesn’t want to return to passport controls. The Irish Times stated that one solution that has been voiced is to create a hard border across the Irish Sea.

This would see border checkpoints appearing in ports such as Liverpool. While this would stop the flow of immigrants coming to mainland Britain it would turn Northern Ireland into a sort of neutral zone and create a number of legal problems. British citizens may also have to prove their citizenship to enter a part of the UK.

The cost of the border has yet to be measured. Reports show that prices are going to go up with the food industry taking a big hit. Currently the UK and Europe have the same food safety standards, yet once the UK leaves the EU these are likely to change as Britain opens its food market to the USA. Some experts have pointed to the trade agreement between Sweden and Norway as a possible example of how a trade route could continue unimpeded despite a EU border. However, Norway is part of the EEA and follows EU custom laws, something the British government has ruled out.

Northern Ireland isn’t the only border problem that Brexit has caused.

UK political experts believe that the relationship Gibraltar has with the EU will become a highly contested part of the negotiations. Like Northern Ireland, the border that will separate Gibraltar from the EU will cause numerous legal and trade problems.

The future of Ireland now lies in the hands of the negotiators. There will be no easy answer. Like the rest of Britain, Ireland can only wait and hope that they don’t return to the past.

The post Brexit and the Irish Border appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump join King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, and the President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, to participate in the inaugural opening of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology. (Official White House Photo / Shealah Craighead)

Donald Trump left Saudi Arabia on Monday still basking in the glow of the reception the House of Saud had put on for him. It’s easy to see why: from the moment he arrived in Riyadh, Trump was ushered past billboards plastered with his own tweets to the Ritz-Carlton, where an image of his face was projected onto the facade. Over the course of two days, the Saudis astutely sized up Trump and gave him a welcome tailor-made to appeal to his ego and self-perception.

The outcome was an unbridled success for the Gulf monarchy, not least because Trump himself came away congratulating himself on a diplomatic success. Considering the future president was taking to Twitter to castigate both Saudi Arabia the US-Saudi partnership less than three years ago, $110 billion in arms sales and other trade deals represent a stunning about-face for both sides.

Even more importantly for his hosts, Trump fully embraced the shared mistrust of Riyadh’s arch-rival Iran. In his Sunday speech, he accused Tehran (not without reason) of sponsoring sectarian violence across the region. Engaged in hybrid struggles against Iranian proxies in both Syria and Yemen, the Saudis were thrilled to have the US president so forcefully evince their own view of the region’s geopolitics. For all the fears prompted among the Saudi elites by Trump’s campaign rhetoric, his administration has turned out to be a welcome departure from Obama’s attempts to mend ties with Iran.

The glowing show of friendship evidently served its purpose, but the glamor also served to mask a shift in Saudi Arabia’s strategic priorities. Despite the symbolism of the “glowing orb” and the ceremony where Saudi Arabia’s King Salman awarded Trump his very own medal of honor, both Salman and his potential successors taken the advice offered by Lebanese professor Fawaz A. Gerges. Speaking a day before Trump arrived in Riyadh, Gerges said he hoped “that the Arab leaders, with all modesty, will not put most of their eggs in this basket. The basket of Donald Trump is full of holes.”

In fairness to Donald’s basket full of holes, that decision was taken well before he took office. With President Obama seen in both capitals as a begrudging ally, Riyadh began hedging its bets on American support years ago. The Kingdom has been looking to diversify both its native defense industries and its economic partnerships to wean itself off decades of dependence on the US. That kind of diplomatic diversification might have been unthinkable a decade ago, when ties between the House of Saud and the Bush family were so close whole books were written about them, but times have changed on both sides.

Like the rest of the world, the Saudis see much of their own future in East Asia. In March, Salman took on a major tour of Asia and visited Indonesia, Malaysia, and Japan before wrapping up his trip in China. These weren’t just courtesy visits, either. Japan is a major buyer of Saudi oil, and Softbank is a joint partner in the Saudi public investment fund that just hit the threshold of $93 billion in capital. In China, Xi Jinping joined Salman to sign $65 billion worth of trade deals covering energy, culture, education, and technology, but most critically defense.

At the same time, the Saudis have been busy shoring up other existing alliances. In April, it was Theresa May’s turn to come to Riyadh. Like the Saudis, May herself is in the market for new friends and economic openings. The British prime minister arrived on a key leg of her overseas visit after triggering Article 50, pushing the country’s largest Middle Eastern trading partner to assist her in expanding UK-Saudi relations while Brexit throws the UK’s role in the global economy into doubt.

Setting the stage for Trump a few weeks later, May offered her hosts exactly what they were looking for. She spoke highly of the government’s Vision 2030 plan to pursue wholesale privatization, and insisted London would be the perfect place to list the mother of all privatizations: the initial public offering of Saudi Aramco. The City of London is going to great lengths to keep itself in the running for the Aramco listing. Within the framework of the wider Gulf Cooperation Council, Britain’s closest Arab allies have met her halfway. Perhaps even further than halfway, since the Gulf states are putting together their own signature-ready agreement for May’s government to sign.

Ironically, this willingness to branch out is exactly what Trump advocated on the campaign trail. Trump the candidate constantly put all US partners, including NATO and the Gulf states, on notice that Washington would no longer be in the business of writing blank checks for friends without expecting anything in return. Of course, Trump’s brand of “fair” international relationships mostly consists of other countries paying what amounts to protection money for the privilege of hosting the US military or benefiting from security guarantees. The new president has never really troubled himself with the nuances of why these strategic partnerships are valuable or important to US foreign policy. Regardless, Saudi Arabi’s ability to call on multiple partners would represent a sea change in the US-Saudi partnership.

Saudi Arabia has benefited enormously from American assistance and protection, but that crutch impedes sound reasoning on the Saudi side and complicates life for US presidents who want to revisit the orthodoxy of antagonizing Iran. The Saudis might be thankful to see an American president share their desire to weaken a threat, but the shift in the sands is unmistakable. Arms for oil is no longer enough to justify the dynamics of the relationship. Besides, with someone as erratic as Donald Trump in the White House, the Saudis are right to wonder how long even that will last.

The post Donald Trump’s Arabian Nights appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Ramadan is a time of selfless devotion and a month of above-ordinary worship. It is time of taking a spiritual inventory and reflecting deeply on all matters of moral significance—what it means to be a Muslim, and where does one fit in this vast panoramic community that we know as ‘humanity’.

It is a month long spiritual marathon and a time to cleanse the heart and the mind from a yearlong consumption of spiritual pollution. More importantly, it is a time for practicing Muslims to celebrate the most radical ideas that Prophet Muhammad introduced to an anarchical, Godless society who practiced, among other atrocities, female infanticide.

Number thirty, killing a person unjustly is equivalent to killing all mankind. Life is a sacred blessing granted by the Creator, as such, no human-being is at liberty to unlawfully destroy it. Therefore those parents who ruthlessly buried their infant daughters out of shame are bound to face God’s judgement.

Twenty nine, with forbearance and patience all wounded hearts are mended, and all relationships are strengthened. Vengeance only perpetuates hate and bloodshed. So, forgive the one who transgresses against you; reach-out to the one who cuts you off; give to the one who deprives you or denies you your rights, and, difficult as it may be, forgive those who may have oppressed you.

Twenty eight, speak good or maintain silence. The tongue is the primary vehicle through which ideas, affirmations, and objections of life are conveyed. No other organ in the human body is capable of building more relationships or destroying them more than the human tongue.

Twenty seven, as in justice, kindness and compassion cannot be selective. Be kind, compassionate and fair, even to those who may seem ‘unworthy’.

Twenty six, side with justice even against your loved-ones or against your own self. One should not be blinded by any personal, tribal, or systemic biases set against the marginalized and the disenfranchised.

Twenty five, deal with others in the best manners and employ your best language. Nothing demonstrates your faith more than your character, nothing demonstrates your character more than your manners, and nothing confirms your good manners more than the sensitivity of your language.

Twenty four, one’s gratitude towards God is gauged by one’s gratitude towards other human-beings. From birth onward, each one of us has depended on the compassion and love of other human beings. The same while his or her is on their deathbeds. One’s gratitude is enhanced when one evaluates his or her blessings by looking at those who are less fortunate than them.

Twenty three, give utmost care to all that is entrusted to you. Be trustworthy to all people, including those of other faiths or no faith at all.

Twenty two, seek beneficial knowledge until you find yourself in the grave. Not all knowledge is beneficial and not all beneficial knowledge is spiritual.

Twenty one, control your emotions to avoid volcanoes of anger and tsunamis of wrath. The capacity to overcome anger is the most underestimated power that anyone could possess. He who can control such emotional storms is stronger than the rest.

Twenty, Divine blessings are rotational or function like a pendulum. What you possess today in terms of authority or fortune belongs to others tomorrow. No one, no nation, no race and no faith has exclusive right or claim to it.

Ninteen, whosoever is devoid of gentleness is devoid of all goodness. God grants with the gentle attitude what He would never grant with the harsh one. Even when it does not come naturally, one must take a gentle approach to all matters.

Eighteen, don’t cheat anyone because he cheated you. There are certain wrongs that you do not have the right to get even by doing the same onto the offender. Doing so will put one on a dangerous moral slippery slope.

Seventeen, dignity is found in humility. Above any person of knowledge there is another who is more knowledgeable. Likewise, above all rich person there is another, and above all those with authority, there is another who is more powerful. The best form of humility is the one intentioned to please God.

Sixteen, the legitimate leader of the people is the one who is their tireless servant. Leadership is not designating exclusive privileges and rights to the one whom authority is vested on.

Fifteen, without the right balance, nothing is sustainable. Life is a balancing act. Balance is essential to the spiritual and material well-being as well as all other things in life.

Fourteen, love for your brother that which you love for yourself. One must also hate for one’s brother that which one hates for oneself. Brotherhood is a multilayered concept that includes brotherhood in humanity.

Thirteen, the wealthiest among you is the one who is given contentment of the heart. True wealth is a spiritual state of mind. It is taming one’s greed and appreciating what God portioned for the individual.

Eleven, no one is racially superior to another so long as their essence is the same. All human-beings are children of Adam and Adam is made of dust.

Ten, no jihad is greater than one’s own struggle to overcome one’s evil tendencies. That process of self-purification to tame the elusive impulses of lust, envy, rage and such is the most difficult task to undertake.

Nine, tame your ego with deliberate deprivation. No selfish behavior should be promoted, especially when seeking access to power.

Eight, with right intentions all things fall in their right places. While worldly matters may be judged based on their results, in the spiritual realm all matters are judged based on their intentions.

Seven, faith is a lifeline that each one needs. It is the mechanism through which one navigates his or her way out of the darkness of spiritual ignorance. The highest level of faith is state of relentless God-consciousness and self-policing as each will be summoned before The Judge of all judges.

Six, stand with and empower the poor, the needy, and the oppressed. If one, due to circumstances, found oneself incapable, the least one could do is to provide moral support, or at least hate it in one’s heart.

Five, inquiry is the most effective cure for ignorance. When one does not have all the facts or is not sure, one should ask those who do know, regardless of their faith.

Four, in one capacity or another, each one of you is a leader. Each is a shepherd in a particular setting of life or another- family, community, work, etc. Each shall be judged based on how each discharges his or her responsibility.

Three, the best form of jihad is speaking truth to power. Never assist a tyrant, never capitulate to his oppression, and never trade bloody anarchy for repression.

Two, your neighbors have special rights upon you. Not only should they never be the target of your vices and evils, you should never go to bed bellyful while your neighbor is hungry. Your neighbors are those who live in forty houses in every direction.

One, there is only One Absolute Truth. It is The Truth that transcends all other truths. It is what all other truths stem out of or mimic. It is the Divine Litmus Test through which all proclaimed truths are authenticated. And that never-changing Truth is God. He created all things and set time in motion.

Though nowadays the ritualistic aspect of the month veils its more profound meaning, it is never too late to embrace Ramadan’s radically transformative power.

The post Radical Ideas Muslims Celebrate In Ramadan appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Middle East Policy Council (Washington, D.C.) forum with Ambassador Almouoallimi (second from left) and Lt Col. Alzahrani (third from right).

Many Americans think of Saudi Arabia as the world’s rich oil producer, the cradle of Islam, and the home of most of the September 11th hijackers, more than as a counterterrorism ally.

During his presidential campaign, Trump called Saudi prince and magnate Alwaleed bin Talal “dopey” and accused him of trying to control American politicians “with daddy’s money.”

Trump blamed the Saudis for the September 11th attacks, and said the Kingdom does not pay for the vital support it gets from the United States. But now, with a major arms deal in the in works and Trump’s imminent arrival, Saudi Arabia is promoting its counterterror efforts.

Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Abdullah Almouallimi, joined by the Ministry of Interior’s Lt. Col. Khalid Alzahrani, outlined in Washington the Kingdom’s approaches to terrorism.

They positioned Saudi Arabia as a victim of terrorism, and a critical partner in the global efforts to defeat it. Beginning with the 1979 attack on the Grand Mosque in Mecca, and specifically pointing to the 2004 deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Alzahrani said that Saudi Arabia had stopped 229 of 335 attempted terrorist attacks inside the country, mostly by suicide belts and bombings.

Efforts to combat terrorism, Almouallimi described, are part of a generation-long struggle. The keys are not military, but the winning of “hearts and minds.”

Changing the school curriculum, eliminating anti-Semitic rhetoric, emphasizing that terror is not dependent on race or religion, and rehabilitating and reintegrating former terrorists are keys to Saudi efforts to address the root causes of terrorism. To support this, Saudi Arabia contributed to the establishment of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Center in 2011.

In addition to these, Ambassador Almouallimi also emphasized that Saudi Arabia has been a strong partner in the war against Daesh.

Lt. Col. Khalid Alzahrani described Saudi efforts at security, ideology, and finance. It has boosted border security against weapons smuggling, increased training and equipment, and publicizes the names of those wanted for terror charges.

A Directorate of Ideology promotes civic duty, school reform, and other efforts. To counter terrorist financing networks, Saudi Arabia now regulates cash donations to non-profits and coordination with non-profits abroad.

Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Vatican ahead of a G-7 summit marks a distinct change from previous presidents’ first summits. It is unmistakably religious, of course. But it is also with three regimes that Trump has been critical of, and that have been critical of him.

The first months of his administration have been pocked with contentious immigration orders, uneven dialogue with allies, continuing questions over the campaign’s relationship with Russia, and careless, unpredictable messages more generally. The U.S. Department of Justice’s appointment of former FBI director Robert Mueller to investigate Russian ties will bring even further scrutiny.

But in the next several days, President Trump will have his best chance to show the world’s leaders, from Pope Francis to the Middle East to the G-7, that he is serious, thoughtful, and reliable – or that he is not.
An earlier version of this appeared in the Jerusalem Post.

The post Saudis Counterterrorism Efforts Ahead of Trump Visit appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Ottomans secured an alliance with Germany on 2 August 1914 with the aid of Enver Pasha and Austria-Hungary adhered to this alliance.

The modern state and democratic institutions  is the result of hundreds of years of development, often growing out of past conflict. While this path to producing modern functioning states is not perfect, unable to defend its citizens against injustice and brutality at times, it is a process that reflects the flaws of humanity.

Nationhood has arisen from this history. And whether that nation is a full legal entity with a seat in the United Nations, or simply a collection of groups that share a language and tradition, to deny or underestimate the existence of the identity of a people is to reduce the beliefs that have rooted them in humanity.

The death of empires is a lesson on how underestimating national identities can lead to unintended political change.

The end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire gave birth to many nation states now slowing joining the EU. Those same states are now in conflict with the EU over a reassertion of their national identity through policy challenges.

Statements promoting a dilution of identity for a greater good are was tore the Austro-Hungarian Empire apart. As national identities took over from the Imperial project, different cultures created institutions and geographic borders that could be administered and defended. While the Empire did not remove those borders, they put into question the role of cultural identities that would serve the Emperor.

When a declining empire faces a challenge, minority groups tend to suffer the most. This was the case of communities and families living at the end of the Ottoman Empire, often entirely removed or in some cases murdered. The effects of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire still resonates today in Armenian and Kurdish communities, and also contributing to the targeting of Yazidis and Christians in the Middle East in 2017.

The recent election in France and follow up actions by the EU require a re-reading of the identity crisis of the Austro-Hungarians as well as the Ottomans. Especially now considering that recent trends in Europe are intimately linked to both of those regions and their history.

Culture and identity may be able to be questioned during an election campaign, but has a nasty way of creeping back up when individuals feel that their culture and that of their family are being ill considered. Often it is those who lack an understanding of history, strong roots or a sense of self that challenge the ideas that created peaceful communities in many countries.

Those who have shared values often do not value the same roots, but value the ideas of having such roots. In politics in Europe, this idea should be reconsidered in an effort to reduce unintended political change.

The post The Lessons of Dead Empires appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.