Diplomacy & Crisis News

At this year’s Foreign Policy Association Lecture on Conflict Prevention Richard G. Lugar, former Republican senator from Indiana, discussed the issues revolving around the United States’ global leadership. Could Donald Trump’s “America First” isolationism, professed during his electoral campaign, decrease the U.S.’ role in the world, and ultimately its security?

Since World War II the United States has been an essential factor in preventing conflict in different parts of the world. In Europe, U.S. security guarantees and its commitment to the NATO alliance has offered stability to the continent for over 70 years.

Consequences of Trump’s foreign policy

America’s leadership has been for decades an issue that support by both Democrats and Republicans. The Trump administration seems intended on reducing U.S. footprint globally, at the risk of lessening Washington’s ability to prevent conflicts.

Indeed, Senator Lugar argued that: “The people of the United States and most countries of the world will become poorer and will have to endure more frequent conflict. Solutions to threats that impact us all, including climate change, extreme poverty and hunger, communicable diseases, nuclear proliferation, cyberwarfare, and terrorism will be almost impossible to solve.”

Trump’s foreign policy goals, at times simplistic or reactive, do little to increase the welfare of U.S. citizens. The current administration has conducted a series of ad hoc policy decisions and failed to promote existing alliances and America’s leadership within international institutions.

The use of military power characterized by the recent missile strikes in Syria not only went against Trump campaign platform but also demonstrated the administration’s preference for the use of force over diplomatic action. Senator Lugar acknowledged the necessity of a military as a deterrent against aggression but also pointed out its weaknesses: “we cannot bomb our way to security”.

Trade

On trade, Trump has been declaring that America has been taken advantage of by other countries. The loss of jobs, particularly in manufacturing, has been mostly caused by innovation in mechanization and information technology.

After accepting that industry jobs are not likely to return anytime soon, the main challenge remains to deal with these economic dislocations. Senator Lugar stresses the importance of helping retrain workers and connect them to new jobs rather than attempting to isolate a nation from international trade competition.

Immigration

On immigration, Trump’s administration policies “have been designed for ostentatious symbolism rather than for maximizing U.S. security… wasting both American resources and international good will” contended Senator Lugar.

Senator Lugar offered an example of the adverse effects of recent policies decision. Discussing the ban on entrants to the U.S. from Muslim countries, Lugar judged the policy “the most obvious recruitment tool against the United States since Abu Ghraib.” The senator went on to say that: “The ban has been a steep net loss to U.S. national security.”

Alliances network, stability and development

Trump has created ambiguity about America’s commitment to its European NATO allies. Although it is fair and important to demand greater contributions from some Allied countries, the U.S. should assert its commitment to NATO Article V if the event of a conflict with any of the NATO countries.

This pledge to defend any country member of the alliance has been the main deterrent against the breakout of another major war in Western Europe. In addition, The US navy has ensured freedom of navigation and the respect of international waters around the world.

Senator Lugar concluded by noting some of the positive effects of U.S. involvement had in global stability and development:

“We have helped to rehabilitate enemies like Germany and Japan, and we initiated co-operative threat reduction to help the former Soviet Union protect and destroy the very nuclear arsenal that was once pointed at us. We have helped countries such as South Korea move from extreme poverty to impressive prosperity through our assistance and protection.”

Full transcript of lecture: Andrew Carnegie Distinguished Lecture on Conflict Prevention with Senator Richard G. Lugar

Are you interested in attending the Foreign Policy Association’s next lecture?

What: Foreign influence operations and counterintelligence
Who: William Evanina, Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center and Charles McGonigal, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Counterintelligence Division for the New York Field Office
When: Tuesday, May 9, 6pm to 8pm
Where: Baruch College
William and Anita Newman Conference Center, Room 750 Baruch College Library
151 E 25th Street
New York, NY

Please click here for more information.

The post Isolationism and its Consequences for Conflict Prevention appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro de printemps de Politique étrangère (n°1/2017). Norbert Gaillard propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Yanis Varoufakis, Et les faibles subissent ce qu’ils doivent ? (Les Liens qui Libèrent, 2016, 448 pages).

Yanis Varoufakis, économiste et ministre grec des Finances du gouvernement Tsipras de janvier à juillet 2015, expose ici sa vision de l’Europe et dit tout le mal qu’il pense de l’architecture actuelle de la zone euro.

Si l’auteur consacre le premier tiers du livre à étudier les faiblesses du système monétaire de Bretton Woods, en vigueur de 1944 à 1971, c’est pour mieux illustrer le cœur de son argument : la zone euro n’est qu’une sorte de « Bretton Woods européen », condamnée à s’effondrer car reposant sur des parités fixes rigides, sans aucun mécanisme de recyclage des excédents. La crise que l’Europe traverse depuis 2009 n’aurait donc rien d’une guerre entre cigales méditerranéennes et fourmis germano-nordiques.

Les chapitres consacrés aux vices de conception de la zone euro sont certainement les plus pertinents. Jacques Delors avait compris qu’il fallait une dette et une politique d’investissement communes pour compléter l’Union économique et monétaire (UEM). Non sans cynisme, François Mitterrand lui avait répondu qu’une union politique devait fatalement suivre. Pronostic erroné, et pour cause : depuis l’avènement de la ve République, les élites françaises ont régulièrement cherché à museler l’Allemagne en s’appropriant sa crédibilité monétaire, ce qui a contraint la France à devenir le premier État européen à se soumettre à l’austérité en 1982. La suite était dès lors écrite : l’euro allait inexorablement creuser le fossé entre économies excédentaires et déficitaires. Au passage, on se délectera de l’hommage rendu à Margaret Thatcher, seule dirigeante selon l’auteur à avoir compris la logique centrifuge et apolitique de l’UEM.

Au fil des pages, cependant, le malaise s’installe. La germanophobie de l’auteur transparaît de plus en plus. La mise en place de la zone euro s’apparenterait à la constitution de l’Allemagne prussienne. L’actuel président de la Bundesbank, Jens Weidmann, se moquerait de la cohésion de l’union monétaire, tandis que Wolfgang Schaüble, à la tête des finances allemandes depuis 2009, entendrait contrôler les budgets des États membres. Les références aux souffrances subies par le peuple grec au cours de l’occupation nazie pullulent, et les technocraties de Bruxelles et de Francfort sont mêmes qualifiées de « force d’occupation ».

Par ailleurs, on ne peut que déplorer les contradictions de l’auteur et ses analyses très partiales. Il admet à juste titre que l’entrée de son pays dans la zone euro était une erreur historique, et pressent qu’un « Grexit » serait une catastrophe. Il semble néanmoins exonérer ses prédécesseurs de leurs responsabilités. Pourtant, ce sont eux qui ont voulu à tout prix adopter la monnaie unique, puis qui ont été incapables de réformer le système fiscal grec et d’atteindre l’équilibre budgétaire alors que la croissance du PIB dépassait en moyenne 4 % entre 2001 et 2007. Lorsqu’il dénonce la dictature des règles technocratiques, il se garde bien de préciser que si les critères de Maastricht avaient été scrupuleusement respectés à la fin des années 1990, les pays périphériques n’auraient pas été admis dans l’UEM, ce qui leur aurait évité la pire crise économique de l’après-guerre.

En dépit de ses défauts, l’ouvrage est digne d’intérêt, et plusieurs de ses propositions destinées à remodeler l’architecture européenne méritent d’être examinées.

Norbert Gaillard

Pour vous abonner à Politique étrangère, cliquez ici.

(Own report) - Berlin's favorite candidate took the lead in the first round in Sunday's French presidential elections. According to the latest predictions, Emmanuel Macron won with 23.4 percent of the votes, followed by Marine Le Pen of the Front National with 22.6. Macron is expected to win the May 7 runoffs. Initially, the German government had banked on and openly promoted the conservative candidate François Fillon. However, after his approval ratings significantly dropped in the polls, due to the scandal over high payments to his wife as his parliamentary assistant, Berlin was forced to turn to Macron. Like Fillon, Macron is considered "Germany-compatible" by a German think tank, whereas all other candidates are viewed as unsuitable for "constructive cooperation" because of their criticism of the EU and/or of NATO. Recently, Germany's Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble ostentatiously recommended voting for Macron. Berlin's interference on behalf of Macron shows once again that German domination of the EU does not stop at national borders, and - according to a well-known EU observer - surpasses by far Russia's feeble meddling in France.

Building resilience for the world&#39s most vulnerable people by reducing poverty, promoting shared prosperity, enhancing food security, and sustaining peace in crisis-affected situations will be the focus of a new partnership framework agreed by the United Nations and World Bank.

Environmental and climate literacy is the engine not only for creating green voters and advancing environmental and climate laws and policies but also for accelerating green technologies and jobs, the United Nations is emphasizing on Mother Earth Day.

The United Nations has welcomed the release and return to their country of 26 Qatari nationals abducted in Muthanna governorate, Iraq, in December 2015.

Noting that a key trigger common to nearly all conflicts is the element of fragility – fragility of States, of institutions, or of societies – United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has called for increasing investments in preventative measures that address the problem of fragility before it turns into conflict.

The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Central Africa was relieved to learn that Cameroon President Paul Biya instructed that full internet services be restored in the North-West and South-West Regions of Cameroon.

As the drought intensifies in south and north-eastern Somalia, the United Nations emergency food relief agency today airlifted to Mogadishu enough high-energy biscuits to assist 31,000 people for three days.

New data published by the United Nations health agency has revealed that a vast majority of the estimated 325 million people living with chronic hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C virus infection lack access to life-saving testing and treatment, placing them at a great risk of chronic liver disease, cancer, and even death.

A United Nations human rights expert has urged Cuba to consider introducing new legislation to ensure that everyone who falls victim to trafficking in persons can be identified and helped, and the authorities can take action against offenders.

The increase in reading and writing proficiency among women is a result of the significant up tic in their enrolment and completion of primary education over the last five decades, even as overall funding for adult literacy has remained low, a recently-launched study by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has found.

The United Nations refugee agency is shipping tents, mosquito nets and other essential relief items to Angola, where some 9,000 refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) have fled this month alone.

Noting increases in number of migrants, including children, attempting to reach European shores using the Central Mediterranean route, and consequent rise in number of deaths, the United Nations Children&#39s Fund has called for safe and legal pathways for those who are fleeing conflict, poverty and depravation.

Secretary-General António Guterres today launched an initiative to boost efficiency of United Nations planes and flights, as it was revealed that the Organization spent close to $750 million from 2015 to 2016 on air assets in its peacekeeping and political missions.

Speaking to journalists after a meeting of the Humanitarian Taskforce (HTF), Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations Special Envoy for Syria, stated that the horrific attack on a convoy of evacuees this past weekend had impacted everyone at today’s talks.

By Shehab Al-Makahleh

This week, the Turks cast their votes in a historic constitutional referendum which appears to have granted controversial President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a significant expansion of executive power. Notably, a “yes” vote would eliminate the post of the Prime Minister, which formerly served as a balance to presidential authority. As official votes are counted, exit polls indicate that Erdogan’s “yes” campaign leads at 51.3%, with approximately 600,000 votes still to be tallied. But with such a slim victory, Turkey faces a complicated cluster of problems likely to reignite fissures between the Turkish government and several domestic parties which oppose Erdogan’s plans. Although the media is quickly hailing the referendum as a victory for the “yes” campaign, the final votes hold the potential to tip the scales back towards a “no”.

The “Yes” vote would essentially transform Turkey’s parliamentary system into an executive presidential system. Many of the campaign’s opponents, overwhelmingly including residents of Turkey’s three largest cities – Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir – fear that concentrating too much power in the hands of a man already disparaged by many in the West as an autocrat, an unreliable partner, and a man with pretensions to acting as a neo-Ottoman sultan bodes poorly for Turkish stability.

While most have focused on the outcomes of a ‘yes’ victory, few analysts have looked at the effects on Erdogan’s future – and that of the Turkish state – if the final votes tip the polls towards the ‘No’ option. So, let us consider both outcomes in turn.

The ‘Yes’ vote would lead to the concentration of power into the hand of one man via the removal of the Prime Minister. The campaign was led by the president himself ― who effectively rules the country through a deliberate misreading of the nation’s constitution ― and claimed that the proposed changes would bring stability to the country. Although stability is desperately needed in Turkey, many fear that the changes would only ensure that the current president can rule indefinitely. For those who fight for Western-style democracy, this would be a nail in the coffin for the hope that Erdogan’s slide towards authoritarian rule could be reversed.

Moreover, a ‘yes’ vote would have serious geostrategic implications for Turkey and the region. Situated on the crossroads between Europe and Asia, Turkey shares land borders with several Arab states and Iran as well as a maritime border with Russia at the strategically important Black Sea. Most analysts are concerned that the “Yes” vote will push Turkey further away from the West, Russia, and longstanding regional allies, inevitably leading to problems for Erdogan himself.

Since the Arab Spring, Turkey’s relationship with its Arab neighbors has been precarious at best. Culminating with the overt and covert support for various ‘rebels’, Turkey has been found to have supported terrorist groups in Syria including the Islamic State. While Turkey’s meddling was formerly only felt in the Syrian north, where it remains locked in conflict with Kurdish forces, Erdogan’s expansionist ambitions grew to include the Persian Gulf and even Africa with establishment of new Turkish military bases in Qatar and Somalia. Such military adventurism quickly raised the alert in some Gulf Arab states; the UAE, for example, saw such move as direct competition to its own regional power and influence, and has strongly opposed Turkey’s ambitious expansion. Given the referendum’s result, this trend shows no sign of slowing.

With the celebrated EU-Turkey agreement on refugees in 2016, diplomatic relations with Europe temporarily appeared to be on the upswing. However, after a year of internal dissent and terrorist attacks involving immigrants, the EU changed its tune toward Turkey and Erdogan has returned the favor. Just days before the referendum, the Turkish President stated that relations with the EU were at an all-time low. Internally, rabid anti-EU rhetoric became an effective tool for collecting popular support ahead of referendum.

While a notable cooling began during the Obama administration, US–Turkish relations also took a nosedive following the attempted coup d’etat in Turkey last July. Erdogan openly accused the United States of orchestrating the attempt, while Russia reaped the credited for warning the President – and potentially saving his hide. To this day, the Turkish government continues to insist that America extradite Erdogan’s main opponent, the Pennsylvania-based Fethullah Gulen, whom he considers the coup mastermind. Inside Turkey the counter-coup purge from the military, civil service, and universities continues unabated and runs in parallel with the crackdown on Kurds, journalists, dissidents and other opposition figures. Erdogan’s grab for power would create further complications in an already shaky relationship.

Although Russian-Turkish ties have warmed significantly since the 2015 Turkish downing of a Russian fighter jet, as evidenced by Russia’s role in warning Erdogan of the coup attempt against him in July, their support for opposing sides in the Syrian civil war create a minefield of challenges for a closer diplomatic relationship. Since the coup attempt, a landslide of internal troubles has plagued Erdogan, including a series of terrorist attacks hitting the country’s two major cities, the capital Ankara and the cosmopolitan Istanbul, and the assassination of Russia’s Ambassador to Turkey last December. The recent intensification of Turkish military actions against the Kurds, which have led to an escalation of activity in Syria, will certainly not help this dynamic.

The ‘No’ vote would deliver a short-term blow to Erdogan and push him to seek other avenues to establish stability and further his interests in the country, perhaps through compromise with political figures such as former President Abdullah Gul and former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, two key figures from his own ruling AKP party who have grown more distant from Erdogan over time. Further, the ‘No’ vote would help reduce public resentment against the President and ensure that Erdogan does not meet the fate of his neighbors, such as Assad or Hosni Mubarak, in the longer run. Indeed, he would be well advised, should he fail to reach compromise and stabilize the country, to seek a suitable successor rather than seek to remain in office interminably and invite a future Turkish Spring. Such an uprising would hardly be a surprise in the face of growing social, political and economic issues.

Shehab al Makahleh, a Jordanian political analyst and director of Geostrategic Media Middle East.

The post Why a ‘No’ Win at Referendum is the Best Option for Erdogan appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

 

The thaw in U.S.-Russia relations hit a snag this week when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson received a chilly reception in Moscow after President Trump ordered a missile attack on a Syrian military airbase. Trump had campaigned on putting “America First” and avoiding military entanglements abroad—a stance Russia welcomed. But the President’s position, took an abrupt turn after Bashar al-Assad reportedly deployed chemical weapons against defenseless civilians, in what seems to be Trump’s first exposure to how “God’s children” suffer under Assad. Relations with Russia, however, may be the least of Trump’s problems if U.S. involvement in Syria escalates.

Trump’s pivot from isolationism to interventionism while staying the course on his paranoid and miserly approach to immigrants and refugees reveals the fundamental incoherence of his worldview. What had seemed a stunted, transactional form of realpolitik has turned out to be nothing more than improvisation and reflex, and the President’s actions may very well commit the U.S. to a path for which we are ill-equipped in light of how other administration policies damage our credibility and chances for success.

For instance, the U.S. would need the help of local interpreters to succeed in Syria. We relied heavily on local interpreters In Iraq and Afghanistan, where they proved essential to carrying out military operations. These locals possess a deep understanding of local dialects and politics, which newcomers cannot readily learn. The average pay for a locally hired linguist is as low as $15,000 per year—a paltry sum, considering the grave risks to life, limb, and loved ones inherent in collaborating with U.S. forces.

To augment this pittance, the Obama administration leveraged the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, which uses U.S. residency to entice support from local nationals with critical-needs linguistic skills. But only about 20 percent of applications are approved, and many applications languish, leaving thousands in limbo—and in grave danger of reprisal.

Worsening the situation is the Trump Administration’s revised order on immigration, which has halted the visa and refugee programs for at least 120 days, sending a message to local linguists that an anemic paycheck is all the compensation they can expect from the U.S. The SIV program’s years-long backlog only reinforces that impression. Therefore, if events in Syria continue to escalate and require additional U.S. troops, there will emerge a disastrous inability to attract local linguists to share their talents that are so necessary for success.

Local informants also stand as human-intelligence assets who are vital to successful military intervention. We depend on these trusted local informants to give credible information on everything from opposition troop movements to ground assessments of civilian casualties. And again, with collaborators facing death and worse, proper incentives are essential.

Informants are typically compensated with U.S. currency in an amount commensurate with the value of their information. But money does not adequately offset the risks involved.

By contrast, visas and legal immigration status provide powerful incentive for local informants wishing to escape dangers at home. But Trump’s well-publicized immigration policies erect near-insurmountable hurdles to Syrian citizens trying to obtain visas, leaving us without a proverbial carrot for would-be informants and linguists who otherwise face extreme risks and negligible rewards for providing information and helping our troops abroad. This, in turn, hinders our military’s ability to procure accurate, real-time intelligence at a speed useful in fast-paced military operations.

Moreover, our forces also need to collaborate with local allied groups in order to have any hope of navigating the complex local and geopolitical landscape that will greet them. But current U.S. immigration policies complicate our ability to garner allied support and cooperation by choking off key incentives for potential collaborators.

For instance, the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) is among the most effective anti-Assad forces in Syria, but it is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, making aid to anyone affiliated with the PKK illegal. Similar complications arise with organizations such as the Al-Nusra Front, the Muslim Brotherhood, and militias reportedly affiliated with Iran. Despite their affiliations, not all members are true believers or hardliners, and their knowledge of the theater is a valuable asset for U.S. forces, providing “force multiplier” effects during ground operations. But Trump’s immigration policies remove our only bargaining chip to attract combatants out of such organizations in favor of U.S.-backed militias: the promise of visas and legal-resident status in the U.S.

Finally, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also made clear the necessity of support from prominent figures within rival local factions. In Syria, most such organizations are riven with splinter sects and offshoots that frustrate military planning and post-operational civil recovery. And so courting local leaders in Syria’s fractured political environment can potentially solve many thorny problems, including curbing Russian interference and resolving the tension between the desire to “de-Baathify” post-conflict institutions and the need to provide stable government services.

But the administration’s dim view of refugees and other immigrants from predominantly Muslim nations makes these tasks all the more daunting by undermining U.S. credibility with Syrian opposition leaders, who will therefore tend to cynically view the U.S. only as a means to oust Assad, not as a credible ally willing to make a long-term investment in a better quality of life for Syrians. Cooperation with Americans under those conditions can serve only to undermine amenable leaders’ credibility with their own constituents.

In essence, current U.S. policy under Trump makes military intervention more difficult and more dangerous. Raising America’s drawbridge to immigrants and refugees does our military no favors, considering how these policies deplete scarce reserves of goodwill and credibility—vital assets with local human assets in war. The President’s incoherent approach to these interrelated issues represents a serious battlefield liability. We are charting a bumpy course, and we can expect to repeat the worst of our missteps from the last decade and a half of war—and some new missteps besides.

Jesse Medlong is a Navy veteran, an international lawyer, and a member of the Truman National Security Project’s Defense Council. Logan Goldstein is a former Army infantry officer who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan and currently works as a private military contractor and consultant. Views expressed are their own.

The post Trump’s Pivot from Isolationism to Interventionism? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The ground-breaking, United Nations-backed International Finance Facility for Education is vital to ensure that half of the world’s children don’t miss out on the basic schooling needed to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Strongly condemning the 15 April ballistic-missile launch conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the United Nations Security Council today demanded that the country immediately cease further actions in violation of the UN body’s relevant resolutions and comply fully with its obligations under these resolutions.