Diplomacy & Crisis News

The Trump administration seems to believe that allies are meant to pay and obey. When it comes to Europe, this may pose a problem.

It’s eight o’clock in the morning and fifty-year-old Falmata Mboh Ali paddles her small dugout canoe to the shores of a tributary of Lake Chad in Bol, a small town 100 miles north of the capital of Chad, N’Djamena.

The corrupt establishment is dead; long live the corrupt establishment.

En accordant un soutien étriqué – 10 voix de différence –, le 25 octobre, au dialogue engagé par Madrid avec l'organisation indépendantiste basque Euskadi ta Askatasuna (ETA), le Parlement européen n'a guère aidé M. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Ajoutant aux difficultés, le vol de plusieurs centaines (...) / Espagne, France, Identité culturelle, Région, Terrorisme, Violence, Torture - 2006/11 Dégâts et débats

The United States wants Russia to help oust Iranian troops from Syria.

A l'étranger, l'Algérie apparaît le plus souvent comme l'un des chefs de file du tiers-monde « révolutionnaire », qu'il s'agisse des grands problèmes internationaux ou de son propre développement économique. Les dix années qui viennent de s'écouler depuis son accession à l'indépendance semblent avoir (...) / Algérie, Agriculture, Armée, Capitalisme, Développement, Économie, Industrie, Inégalités, Monnaie, Nationalisme, Socialisme, Chômage, Colonisation, Réforme agraire, Mouvement de libération - 1972/07

On a souvent affirmé que, contrairement aux manifestants de mai-juin 1968, dont la prolixité et les slogans restent gravés dans les esprits, les émeutiers de novembre 2005 ont été muets. Pas de discours, ni de slogan, ni de porte-parole. Mais cela ne signifie pas forcément absence de message. Et, en (...) / France, Livre, Banlieue - 2006/11 Dégâts et débats

It’s reassuring to think authoritarian governments depart with their leaders. It’s also wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’été de Politique étrangère (n° 2/2018). Rémy Hémez propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Terence Roehrig, Japan, South Korea, and the United States Nuclear Umbrella: Deterrence after the Cold War (Columbia University Press, 2017, 272 pages).

L’accélération des progrès de la Corée du Nord dans les domaines nucléaire (sixième essai en septembre 2017) et balistique (84 essais entre 2014 et 2017 dont, fin 2017, des missiles inter­continentaux), a remis sur le devant de la scène le débat sur la dissuasion nucléaire en Asie du Nord-Est, et plus particulièrement en Corée du Sud et au Japon. Le livre de Terence Roehrig s’inscrit dans ce contexte, et s’impose comme une synthèse complète et utile.

Professeur au Naval War College (Newport, États-Unis) et auteur de plusieurs livres sur la Corée du Sud (dont, en 2007, l’excellent From Deterrence to Engagement: The U.S. Defense Commitment to South Korea), l’auteur est un fin connaisseur des questions stratégiques en Asie orientale. Il se concentre ici sur la problématique du « parapluie nucléaire » offert par les États-Unis au Japon et à la Corée du Sud, c’est-à-dire l’engagement pris par Washington d’utiliser son arsenal nucléaire pour dissuader et, si nécessaire, répondre à une attaque contre l’un de ses deux alliés. L’auteur revient au fil des chapitres sur les théories de la dissuasion et de la dissuasion élargie, offre des perspectives historiques en rappelant l’état de ces questions pendant la guerre froide, et analyse les menaces principales que constituent la Chine et la Corée du Nord. Deux chapitres sont aussi consacrés à l’étude de la conception élargie qu’a chacun des alliés de la dissuasion.

La thèse de l’auteur est claire. Les États-Unis ont les capacités nécessaires pour tenir leur engagement. La vraie question est de savoir s’ils en ont la volonté. S’il fait peu de doutes que Washington défendrait ses deux alliés s’ils étaient attaqués, il est fort probable que la première réponse n’inclurait pas l’utilisation d’armes nucléaires. En effet, leur impact de destruction extrême, le coût de leur emploi en termes de réputation internationale pour les États-Unis, et la complexité que la contamination ajouterait à d’éventuelles opérations militaires ultérieures, restreignent fortement l’intérêt d’utiliser ces armes. De plus, dans le cas où le pays visé aurait la faculté de frapper le territoire américain, se poserait un dilemme bien connu : « Les États-Unis seraient-ils prêts à sacrifier Los Angeles pour Séoul ou Tokyo ? » Roehrig rappelle aussi que la taille et la qualité des moyens militaires conventionnels américains font qu’ils pourraient avoir des effets stratégiques comparables à ceux des armes nucléaires, leur usage étant plus crédible. Pour autant, retirer l’engagement de dissuasion élargie au profit de Tokyo et Séoul marquerait une rupture diplomatique et politique majeure peu souhaitable. Une de ses conséquences principales serait sans doute l’acquisition d’un arsenal nucléaire par le Japon et la Corée du Sud, deux pays dits « du seuil nucléaire ».

Ce livre aide à mettre en perspective les engagements de défense des États-Unis au profit du Japon et de la Corée du Sud. Roehrig nous offre une analyse très structurée, faisant le lien entre histoire, théorie, analyse de la menace, études de cas et stratégie. Il passionnera tous ceux qui s’intéressent aux questions de défense en Asie du Nord-Est.

Rémy Hémez

S’abonner à Politique étrangère

U.S. President Donald Trump has shown himself to be a master practitioner of psychological manipulation when it comes to the subject of immigration and refugee policy.

Le fait que la CIA ait enlevé, avec la complicité de gouvernements européens, des personnes suspectées de terrorisme pour les détenir sans jugement, voire les torturer, suscite de plus en plus de remous. / États-Unis, Europe, Droit international, Droits humains, Justice, Prison, Services secrets, (...) / États-Unis, Europe, Droit international, Droits humains, Justice, Prison, Services secrets, Terrorisme, Torture - 2006/08 Refuser la fatalité

Avec « Le Complot contre l'Amérique », l'écrivain américain Philip Roth met en lumière, à contre-courant des idées reçues, les virtualités fascistes de son pays. Il imagine ce qui se serait passé si les États-Unis, en 1940, s'étaient ralliés à Hitler. Son nouveau roman est beaucoup plus qu'un livre de (...) / États-Unis, Judaïsme, Littérature, Nazisme, Racisme, Fiction - 2006/07 Faux-semblants

U.S. backing of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates could be enabling the disaster.

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

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

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

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

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

>> Retrouvez l’article dont est extraite cette citation : « États-Unis : de nouvelles options nucléaires ? », écrit par Benjamin Hautecouverture dans le numéro d’été 2018 de Politique étrangère (n° 2/2018). < <

Don’t expect Mexico’s new president to radically shift the country’s approach to foreign policy.

President Daniel Ortega’s crackdown on protests has driven the country to the brink. If the violence escalates, it could spark a refugee crisis and destabilize all of Central America.

López Obrador won’t reverse the country’s historic oil opening — but he won’t expand it, either.

Parasité par les enjeux commerciaux, le football se mue en rêve de réussite facile. En effet, la grande majorité des jeunes, souvent débauchés en Afrique par les centres de formation européens, restent sur le carreau. / Afrique, Criminalité financière, Enfance, Éducation, Immigrés, Jeunes, Sport - (...) / Afrique, Criminalité financière, Enfance, Éducation, Immigrés, Jeunes, Sport - 2006/06 Règles du jeu