Foreign Policy Blogs

Natalia Veselnitskaya (Facebook via Talking Points Memo/Kurir)

President Donald Trump’s Russia problems have multiplied with recent reports that his son, Donald Trump Jr., met with a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer during the 2016 presidential campaign after he was promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton and told that this information was “part of a Russian government effort” to help his father in winning the presidency. These revelations are the clearest indication yet of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere in the election.

The meeting took place at Trump Tower in New York on June 9, 2016. Initial reports were that the meeting included Trump Jr., the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and the Russian lawyer, Natalia (or Natalya) Veselnitskaya (Наталия [or Наталья] Весельницкая). It was later learned that the meeting also included Russian American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin (Ринат Ахметшин), thought to be a former Soviet intelligence agent; Russian American translator Anatoli Samochornov (Анатолий Самочернов), who has previously worked with Veselnitskaya; and Irakly “Ike” Kaveladze (Ираклий Кавеладзе), a U.S. citizen born in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.

The meeting was arranged by publicist Rob Goldstone at the request of his client, Azerbaijani-Russian pop star and businessman Emin Agalarov (Эмин Агаларов). Trump Sr. previously met Emin and his father Aras Agalarov (Араз Агаларов) at the 2013 Miss USA pageant in Las Vegas and Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, both owned by Trump, and in which Goldstone was also involved. A Russian blogger posted numerous photos of Trump, Goldstone, and the Agalarovs meeting in Las Vegas. Goldstone is also thought to have been present at the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower.

Emin Agalarov, Donald Trump, and Aras Agalarov (Life.ru)

Rob Goldstone with Emin Agalarov and Donald Trump (Facebook via The Stern Facts)

Aras and Emin Agalarov are respectively the president and first vice-president of Crocus Group (Крокус Групп), a real estate and property development company based in Moscow. Irakli Kaveladze is identified as a vice-president of “Crocus International” (Крокус Интернэшнл) residing in the United States, and was a subject in a 2000 U.S. government investigation into Russian money laundering in the United States.

Sometimes called the “Trump of Russia” and frequently described as a “Russian oligarch,” Aras Agalarov is one of the wealthiest men in Russia and a close associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In 2013 he was awarded the prestigious Order of Honor of the Russian Federation by Putin himself. Agalarov also owns a mansion in Alpine, New Jersey currently valued at just under $7 million, which he recently put up for sale.

Vladimir Putin and Aras Agalarov (Minval.az)

A former prosecutor, Veselnitskaya is currently listed as the “general director” or “managing partner” of a law firm in the Moscow suburbs called Kamerton Consulting (Камертон Консалтин), founded in 2003 by Veselnitskaya and her husband (or ex-husband) Alexander Mitusov (Александр Митусов). A former Moscow Region deputy chief prosecutor and deputy minister of transport, Mitusov is now vice-president of corporate and legal affairs for SG-Trans (СГ-транс), a leading provider of transportation services for petroleum and gas products throughout Russia and the former republics of the Soviet Union.

Veselnitskaya’s business in the United States stems from her attorney-client relationship with Russian businessman Denis Katsyv (Денис Кацыв) and his father Petr (or Pyotr) Katsyv (Петр Кацыв), who as Moscow Region minister of transport was the direct superior of Veselnitskaya’s husband Alexander Mitusov. In 2013, Denis Katsyv and his company, Cyprus-based Prevezon Holdings Ltd., were accused of money laundering in the United States in connection with the U.S. Magnitsky Act, enacted in 2012 to counter Russian corruption and human rights abuse. A case was filed against Prevezon in September 2013 by then-U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara for the Southern District of New York.

On behalf of Katsyv and the Russian government, Veselnitskya has been a leading figure in Russian lobbying efforts against the Magnitsky Act. “She was probably the most aggressive person I’ve ever encountered in all my conflicts with Russians,” says Veselnitskaya’s legal opponent Bill Browder, a former investor in Russia and a major proponent of the Magnitsky Act, “She is vindictive and ruthless and unrelenting.”

Veselnitskaya is also a close associate of Yury Chayka (or Yuri Chaika; Юрий Чайка), the Putin-appointed Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation (roughly equivalent to the U.S. Attorney General), noted with Veselnitskaya in Russian media for his opposition to the Magnitsky Act. Chayka seems to play a far more political and ideological role in Russia than his title would suggest. In addition to opposing the Magnitsky Act, he accused the pro-democracy opposition group Open Russia (Открытая Россия) of being a front organization for the U.S. State Department. Veselnitskaya confirmed to The Wall Street Journal that she has been in regular contact with Chayka on matters related to the Magnitsky Act.

Vladimir Putin and Yury Chayka (Current Time)

A 2015 documentary in Russian and English by the Anti-Corruption Foundation (Фонд борьбы с коррупцией) details corruption and abuse of power by Chayka, his family, and their associates throughout the Russian prosecutorate, including ties to Russian organized crime. Following release of the documentary, Aras Agalarov publicly defended Chayka in an op-ed to the Russian newspaper Kommersant. Russian opposition leader and founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation Alexei Navalny (Алексей Навальный) criticized Agalarov’s defense of Chayka, noting Agalarov’s own corrupt practices and ties to the Putin regime. Veselnitskaya is also connected to Agalarov through her Moscow Region legal practice.

Rob Goldstone’s emails to Donald Trump Jr. initiating the meeting with Veselnitskaya named the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” as the source of the damaging information on Hillary Clinton that the Trump campaign would receive through Veselnitskaya. Since there is no such title as “Crown prosecutor” in Russia, it is believed that Goldstone was referring to Prosecutor General Yury Chayka. Chayka’s office has denied any involvement in the meeting.

Veselnitskaya and Denis Katsyv are also linked to Russian American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin and translator Anatoli Samochornov through their collaboration in lobbying against the Magnitsky Act with a group called the “Human Rights Accountability Global Initiative Foundation” (HRAGIF). Akhmetshin has been called a Russian “gun for hire” in Washington’s lobbying world, and HRAGIF has been the subject of complaints for likely violations of the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) over its unregistered work on behalf of Russian interests.

Casting further suspicion on the Trump administration for its Russian ties is the dismissal in May of the federal money-laundering case against Denis Katsyv and Prevezon Holdings, represented by Veselnitskaya. As noted, the case was formerly handled by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who was fired by Trump in March. In May his Trump-appointed successor abruptly settled the $230 million case with Prevezon for only $5.9 million and no admission of guilt just two days before the case was scheduled to go to trial. On July 12 following reports on Trump Jr.’s meeting with Veselnitskaya, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “demand answers” on the settlement.

Veselnitskaya denies any connections with the Russian government, and told NBC News that she neither had nor offered damaging information on Clinton to Donald Trump Jr. or others associated with the Trump campaign. Rather, she said, it was Trump Jr. and associates who solicited information from her. She added that she knows Emin Agalarov took part in arranging the meeting, but denied ever meeting him in person. For its part, the Kremlin claimed to have “no information” on Veselnitskaya nor knowledge of who she is.

The Agalarovs have also denied any involvement in Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election. The Agalarovs’ U.S. attorney, Scott Balber, told CNN that Veselnitskaya previously worked for the Agalarovs in her capacity as a Moscow-area real estate lawyer. Balber’s previous clients include Donald Trump and Russian uranium company Tenex in a 2015 case involving violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Rob Goldstone has also hired a lawyer, Bob Gage, “to handle Russia-related inquiries.” Donald Trump Jr.’s lawyer, Alan Futerfas, is being paid from Trump Sr.’s campaign fund.

The post Connecting the Dots Between Trump and Russian Lawyer Veselnitskaya appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

What Will The Department of State Become?

The State Department issued the report on an internal “listening survey” on July 5. The report is not public, but reports indicate that its first recommendation is to define a mission for the Department of State. It also addresses a host of other concerns, and current and past State personnel complain that the Department is being gutted, among other things. But the Department has had no continuity in its mission since the Cold War. In and of itself, the “Listening Report’s” first recommendation addresses the key question of U.S. diplomacy and foreign relations.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, tight cohesion around Containment gave way to issue-by-issue policy-making. Without that doctrine, FSOs became subject to office-chiefs’ parochial priorities, and their stances would inevitably contradict each others’ — and their previous work as they moved from post to post. Today not even the anti-terrorism mission gives clear guidance.

There are two special challenges to setting a State mission. First, today any person in the world might be the next hacker, dictator, suicide bomber – inventor or artist. Second, the definition of diplomacy, the Department’s expected expertise, analogous to Defense’s in the use of arms, is itself indistinct. State needs a clear function, in which it can even reach individuals, through today’s chaotic world.

A U.S. foreign policy mission will only endure if it rests on a nuanced knowledge of the tenets, nuances, and implications (including philosophical, political, and strategic) of our Declaration of Independence. This specialized knowledge should lie at the heart of a common professional identity, personally held by each U.S. diplomat. It could be imparted by a single institutional move — to shape new formative training for diplomats.

The Declaration is the base on which diplomacy works for Americans. Training must also provide a common grounding in world affairs disciplines, including military, economic, historical, and cultural, plus exposure to a broad range of American realities. But it now must impart fluency in our founding tenets as the bedrock capacity.

An analysis of the diplomats’ function, extracted from Jeremy Black’s History of Diplomacy, shows diplomats’ performance hinging on an understanding of their leader. To represent their nation, report on trends in their host country, and as needed negotiate or facilitate, they needed to know the person (for most of history, be it monarch or dictator) who embodied the nation. U.S. diplomats need to know 300 million people, all with unalienable rights.

America’s fundamental common feature is our explicit, deliberate founding on principle, which binds us regardless of complexity and disruption. The principle — of unalienable rights and government dedicated to secure them — is abstract and dualistic, so understanding requires reflection as well as recitation. But that passage is the focal point: it forms our founding civic creed. The Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Bill of Rights follow it, and refer to its terms. Our history can be seen as revolving around it. It created America’s nationality and defines the basis of our national interest.

Our diplomats must project the narrative of America’s founding creed, to governments and individuals, in all channels of discourse and in our policy formulation. Much as a major league pitcher can snap off a curveball or slider as needed, diplomats will need a mental “muscle memory,” to discuss, in direct response on any given case, how our principles apply, why they are valid, or how they benefit humanity. Diplomats who have internalized our narrative as professional reflex can voice and shape policy in its spirit, to set others’ perceptions by our lights.

Infusing this expertise in diplomats’ formative training will push it down to the lowest levels. The junior officer will have the same compass as an ambassador, so even improvised responses to unexpected issues will naturally fit our grand interest. Each diplomat will likewise share an innate sense of the essentials for reporting to Washington. In inter-agency processes, State representatives will be equipped to voice and apply America’s fundamental values for any policy decision.

Steeping our diplomats in our founding creed, and simultaneously imparting topical skills, will marry policy knowledge with America’s nature in a professional cadre. Such operational norms could give Americans comfort that our foreign policy reflects our nature. All Americans, whether they study the creed or not, share its values, so a mission based on it will respect any electoral mandate. State will take on an air of “America’s Desk,” our experts in the national interest.

Such a conception of U.S. diplomacy, carried by the diplomats themselves, would give clear orientation for policy and institutional arrangements.

U.S. foreign policy faces a new era that calls for new policies and practices. George Kennan, facing his own foreboding new era, made an observation I still find relevant: To survive, he said, the United States “need only measure up to its own best traditions.” Today, a new State embodying our founding tenets will ensure our best future.

The post The Department of State’s Listening Survey Calls For A Mission appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

President Donald Trump and Donald Trump, Jr.

The words above were spoken by former National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice in reference to Iraq’s purported possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) prior to the Iraq War. With the latest allegations against Donald Trump being labelled by some as Russiagate’s “smoking gun” occurring simultaneously with the U.S.’ nuclear standoff with North Korea, Russia, and China, Rice’s quote is actually much more relevant and truthful now than when it was originally uttered. Washington’s Russiagate obsession not only exacerbates its increasing isolation on the world stage, but also, more crucially, its increasing isolation from its own citizenry.

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany to discuss a whole range of issues. Despite the exclusive nature of the meeting, Syria was apparently a priority issue as it was soon announced afterward that a Syrian ceasefire in the south of the country had been negotiated between the U.S. and Russia.

However, very shortly after this meeting, which ran for four times as long as originally scheduled, the latest allegations involving Donald Trump’s “collusion” with Russia during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election surfaced in the form of actions taken by his son, Donald Trump Jr.. Curiously, this is eerily reminiscent of an earlier Syrian ceasefire agreement negotiated by the previous U.S. administration and Russia which was undone by the mistaken U.S. bombing of Syrian military personnel.

Regarding North Korea, this state’s missile and nuclear tests continue to receive front page attention in the U.S., culminating in the recent North Korean ICBM test on the U.S.’ national holiday, the 4th of July. However, what receives far less attention is the perceived impact of the U.S.’ THAAD system on both Russia and China, both of whom may assist the U.S. on this issue only if it suits their own respective national interests.

With respect to Russian concerns, the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, and Syrian theaters of operation collectively represent more than enough opportunities for both the U.S. and Russia to miscalculate and underestimate each others’ resolve in dealing with vital national security interests and overlapping spheres of influence. However, none of these theaters rises to the nuclear level (yet). Conversely, merely the Russian perception that U.S. deployment of THAAD in South Korea will impact Russia’s ability to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons will more than likely just lead to Russia increasing its own first-strike nuclear capabilities in order to guarantee this deterrence capability for itself.

For China, the THAAD security dilemma is even more paramount than Russia’s as China’s known nuclear arsenal is much more limited than both Russia’s and the U.S.’. As with Russia, China is already in conflict with the U.S. on a range of issues and within differing geographical areas. These include, but are not limited to, the recent U.S. arms sale to Taiwan, continued U.S. “freedom of navigation” maneuvers in the South China Sea, tacit U.S. encouragement of Indian cross-border military incursions, U.S. admonishment of China on human rights and trafficking, and U.S. sanctions on Chinese banks and individuals accused by the U.S. of assisting North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

These tactics may be part of an increased high-pressure strategy by the U.S. to get China to assist it in resolving the North Korean Crisis. However, as a true “ally” (which Trump labelled China shortly after Mar-a-Lago), China’s inevitably going to ask the U.S., “What will China get in return from the U.S. as true allies who respect each other’s core interests?” China’s “double cancellation” proposal and insistence upon its “new model of great power relations” paradigm are both emblematic of this dilemma.

Fundamentally, the U.S. has no good coercive options with respect to North Korea, either in the form of a threatened military strike, or continued ineffective sanctions. Also, at this point, neither Russia nor China are in a powerful enough position to change North Korea’s calculus that nuclear weapons possession is the ultimate guarantor of regime survival. Bilateral negotiations between North Korea and the U.S. won’t work without some form of buy-in from China. Therefore, though difficult and time-consuming, the only viable option for the U.S. is to restart some form of the now-stalled Six Party Talks where the vital national interests of all concerned regional states are acknowledged. Without this, and without some form of regional economic engagement with Asia post-TPP, the U.S. risks further isolation in  Asia on this particular issue.

Domestically, Russiagate continues to insult the intelligence of many Americans. Due to a historical, isolationist strain in early American culture, many Americans to this day are far more cognizant of the domestic issues which directly impact their everyday lives, not international relations. Of course, this is changing everyday, but former President Clinton’s maxim of “It’s the economy, stupid.” still rings true today.

To suggest to large numbers of Americans residing outside Washington and between the U.S. coasts that somehow Russia reminded them of the importance of basic questions is quite…indigestible. These questions might include: “How am I going to put food on the table for my family and myself in this economy?”, “How am I going to pay off all this student debt while being underemployed in a stagnant economy?”,  “How am I going to ensure that life is better for my children than myself in this economy?”, and “How will I take care of my ageing parent(s) if I lose my job and my insurance in this economy?”

As with great power relations in geopolitics today, interests predominate in domestic affairs as well. While some in power may perceive it to be beneficial to use Russiagate as the bell from Pavlov’s dogs experiments, this utility is only temporary. Unless certain elements in Washington understand that by actually helping to answer their various constituents’ questions above, they serve their voters’ long-term interests as well as their own, then they will continue to erode their own actual power and legitimacy on a daily basis. As of this writing on Bastille Day, this is an important lesson to not only learn, but an even more important one not to forget.

The post “We Don’t Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud.” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Contrary to certain claims, any objective analysis comparing former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to Kurdish Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani illustrates that Kurdistan is not destined to be a failed state.

An article published in Newsweek claimed that an independent Kurdistan would be a failed state, stressing that disputes over water, borders and the existence of militias hinder the success of an independent Kurdistan. While I don’t try to minimize the difficulties that the Kurds face in solving water and border disputes as well as the obstacles posed by Turkish and Iranian opposition to Kurdish independence, the fact that they have these problems does not predetermine that Kurdistan will be a failed state. Indeed, the reality of life in Iraq under former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki versus life in Iraqi Kurdistan under Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani proves who truly will be the failed state.

Under the rule of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, Sunnis were tortured, raped, abused and even ethnically cleansed. Baghdad went from being 45% Sunni in 2003 to 25% Sunni at the end of 2007. As a result, former Baathists launched a bloody insurgency that included suicide bombings, car bombings, kidnappings and other terror attacks. This led to a civil war that left tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead. In an American attempt at damage control, the US sought to have the Awakening Movement, which consisted of Sunni insurgents, to point their guns at Al Qaeda instead of US troops. However, Maliki did not deliver on his promises to them, which left them bitter, unemployed and susceptible to further radicalization. As a result, the Iraqi Army became a largely Shia militia and this worked to undermine Iraqi unity.

After Obama became US President and vowed to end US involvement in Iraq, Maliki began a systematic campaign to destroy the Iraqi state and to replace it with his own personal political party. Professional generals were sacked and replaced with party loyalists. Corruption was also rampant. According to the New Yorker, almost 220 billion dollars had been allocated for some 6,000 projects yet little or no work was done on them. About 70 billion dollars were handed out in government loans that have as of yet to be repaid. In 2010, the Iraqi people were fed up with Maliki’s corruption and he lost the elections to a moderate, pro-western coalition encompassing all of Iraq’s major ethnic groups.

However, even though he no longer had the largest party in parliament, the Obama administration supported him staying in power in violation of the Iraqi Constitution. To make matters worse, Iran offered to start backing Maliki in exchange for control over several government ministries and this sealed him staying in power. As a result, Maliki was given the first shot at forming a coalition, got American forces to leave Iraq on unfavorable terms and remained in power until 2014, which had devastating consequences.

As a result of the 2010 elections, Sunni Arabs, who joined in a coalition together with Christians, Turkmen, Shia Arabs disgruntled with Maliki and Kurds, were outraged that after they had fought against Al Qaeda and won the elections, they could not have a Sunni Prime Minister. And when US forces withdrew and stopped reigning in on Maliki’s excesses, Iran filled the void and Maliki ordered the arrest of Sunni Vice President Tariq Al Hashemi, which alienated Sunnis even more. Hashemi was forced to flee the country and was sentenced to death in absentia. He is in exile to date.

But Hashemi was not the only victim for in no time at all, Maliki was using his security forces in order to go after all of his rivals. Tens of thousands of Sunnis were rounded up and were held in prison for years without a trial. According to Human Rights Watch, some of the Sunni prisoners were even massacred. It is indisputable that the US backing Maliki staying in power even after his electoral defeat significantly contributed to the rise of ISIS in Iraq for the Sunnis felt persecuted and lost hope in the political process. This led to their radicalization. Thanks to Maliki, Iraq is truly a failed state today and will remain so despite the eviction of ISIS from Mosul for the sectarian conflict and corruption Maliki nourished still have of yet to be resolved.

In contrast, the Kurdistan Regional Government was thriving during the same period of time. Kurdistan’s Prime Minister Nicharvan Barzani is the man who made the export of Kurdish oil to Turkey and Kurdish-Turkish rapprochement possible. In the beginning, when Barzani stated that he not only wanted to export Kurdish oil but to do it via Turkey, numerous people thought it was an unrealistic dream. But today, Iraqi Kurdistan is a major exporter of oil via Turkey and Barzani has a good working relationship with the Turks. Under his leadership, trade between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan amounted to $8 billion and a former foe of the Kurds was transformed into a business partner.

This happened for a number of reasons. For starters, Barzani prudently decided that he seeks to establish a state only in Iraqi Kurdistan. He does not seek Turkish territory. This helped to calm down the Turks. Secondly, Iraqi Kurdistan under his rule has much to offer the Turks. For example, the Kurdish oil industry has been so successful that numerous major companies like Exxon-Mobile and Chevron prefer to operate from the relatively safe Iraqi Kurdistan, even if it means they won’t be able to operate in Iraq. The fact that Barzani was able to ensure that his region of Iraq would remain the safest and would be free of sectarian strife helped to enable confidence in foreign investors including the Turks. And like everyone else, the Turks need oil and they prefer to obtain it by not operating in an area in the midst of a civil war.

In addition, Barzani’s development projects enriched the entire region and helped to build the foundations of a state, which the Kurds hope will be established after the referendum this fall. Barzani is also working in order to bring corruption to a halt and to bring back money that was wasted by the government. With the help of the UK, Germany and the US, he reformed the Peshmerga and is working to have a strong united army to protect the new state.

By building alliances, turning foes into business partners, ensuring safety for all, protecting minorities, avoiding sectarian strife, developing the region, fighting against corruption and uniting the Peshmerga, Barzani has demonstrated true leadership abilities. These qualities all demonstrate the marks of a statesman who knows how to deal with problems. If he has the will, determination and the skills, there is no reason why he won’t succeed, even if he faces numerous obstacles, such as Iran seeking to sabotage Kurdish independence, Turkish concerns over the referendum, border disputes, water issues, existence of militias, etc. So thus in conclusion, I think we should encourage the Kurds to continue to work hard to build a second Israel in the Middle East, who respects human rights, minority rights, women’s rights and gay rights. We should not predetermine that they will fail merely because they face real struggles.

The post Who will be the failed state, Iraq or Kurdistan? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

President Donald J. Trump grins widely with the Russians in private.

Did the Trump campaign collude with Russia? Did Russia’s action require collusion? And if not, might the Russians have had ulterior motives for the many open and clandestine meetings that occurred between Russia’s representatives and those of the campaign?

As the U.S. Intelligence Community announced last winter, Russian intelligence agencies actively interfered in the U.S. electoral process in 2016 to the advantage of Donald Trump. The impact of this interference on the outcome is difficult to determine. Some are quick to point out that Russia did not successfully tamper with the actual voting or vote-counting processes, which of course is a good thing. Harder to assess is the impact of various Russia-generated scandals on voters’ perceptions and attitudes, whether Russia’s actions changed people’s minds or made certain groups of voters more or less likely to turn out on Election Day.

While the fact of outside interference is a central issue, much of the debate has focused on whether the Trump campaign actively colluded with that interference. Trump and his associates—evidently, and perhaps understandably, focused on the consequences for themselves—seem to see the issue solely in terms of an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of his presidency. I do not mean to belittle the issue of collusion, it is indeed important, but we should not forget that the fact of interference is in itself a vital issue worthy of serious investigation regardless of whether collusion occurred.

In a sense, the most important collusion came not from the Trump campaign, but from the press and the pundits, which took every morsel of banality or gossip that was dished out by Russian hackers and treated it as a scandal revealed. As Joshua Foust, a former intelligence analyst, noted after reviewing the hacked DNC emails: “Moreover, these leaks don’t actually serve any public interest: they aren’t exposing corruption or illegal conduct. They are just gossip: who secretly hates whom, can-you-believe-this-brainstorm, stuff like that.” The biggest “scandal” to come out of the DNC hack was a couple of dirty tricks proposed by angry staffers (talking outside their areas of responsibility) that were never acted upon; and this was presented as proof that the primary-electoral process was rigged.

With regard to collusion by the Trump team, what seems most striking is that most of the Russians’ actions did not really require anyone’s cooperation (beyond that of the media).* The Russians stole emails and other documents from the DNC, DCCC, and Podesta archives; they gave them to WikiLeaks; no help needed, thank you. Yet we do have some evidence that (a) at least some Trump people were willing, even eager, to collude and (b) that a number of meetings were held between several Trump people and several Russian nationals who either worked for the Russian government or had past connections with it.

Regarding the eagerness, some Trump campaign aides—central ones, such as Michael Flynn, and peripheral one, such as Carter Page—were known to have pro-Russian sympathies. In July 2016, Trump, who generally spoke favorably of Russia while denying that it was helping him, publically called on the Russians to find and release Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails. (A Trump aide later said it was a joke.) Beyond that, we have Donald Trump, Jr.’s email chain from June 2016 in which he responded “if it’s what you say I love it” when offered “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary,” which was being provided as “part of Russia and its government’s support of Mr. Trump.” We also have the less direct evidence from Peter W. Smith, a Republican donor, fund-raiser, and activist, who claimed a close connection to Trump’s foreign policy adviser Michael Flynn, knew a lot of inside information about the Trump campaign, and established an independent corporation to support the Trump campaign from the outside. Smith actively sought Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails, which he assumed the Russians must have hacked and would make available if asked. He hired his own hackers to make the connection with the Russians. It should be noted, though, that we do not know for sure that Smith’s activities were authorized by the Trump campaign. The fact that Smith was seeking a connection with Russia as late as September 2016 does not support the notion that the campaign had already been colluding with Russia since at least June (unless Smith was not considered important enough to tell and was acting on his own, which is certainly possible). So, it is clear that at least some Trump people were willing to collude, but we still lack solid evidence that actual collusion occurred.

If collusion was not necessary, then why did so many Russians hold personal meetings with so many Trump associates? Why would they expose themselves in this way? It is certainly possible that active collusion with a campaign might make the interference more effective, or that letting Trump know how much help Russia had provided (and how compromised his campaign had become) might make him more willing to do Russia favors in the future. These would in fact be consistent with past Russian intelligence practices. Yet I would like to offer an alternative possibility. The Russians might have been purposely planting seeds of suspicion in order to sow chaos and discord in U.S. politics after the election.

Remember that, according to the U.S. Intelligence Community’s assessment, the Russians’ original purpose was “to undermine faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.” Only with time were their goals seen as expanding to include “a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”** Now this preference for Trump could mean that they liked him, which seems to be the conclusion drawn by Trump (who appears to see personal relationships as the be-all and end-all of international politics). It could also simply be a function of the fact that he was the alternative to Clinton, whom Putin clearly did not like. Finally, depending on your view of Trump, his victory could be seen as a means for achieving the original purpose: undermining American government, especially if his victory was compromised.

What do we mean by compromised? Is there evidence that the Russians sought to taint a possible Trump victory? On the one hand, you have the Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, constantly showing up at all sorts of public and private meetings with Trump associates, often with little evident reason for him to be there. As evidence of secret, or at least private, meetings emerges, however, we see much more.

• Ambassador Kislyak recommends that Jared Kushner meet with banker Sergei Gorkov. Presumably, he does not mention that the bank in question is under U.S. sanctions and that Gorkov’s résumé proudly lists the fact that he’s a graduate of the FSB (Secret Police and Intelligence) Academy.
• Ambassador Kislyak holds conversations with Michael Flynn—while Obama is still president and formulating sanctions against Russia—about undermining Obama’s policies toward Russia on a phone that the ambassador must know is bugged.
• Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov brings an “official photographer” who is also a photojournalist to a meeting with the president from which U.S. journalists have been excluded and then immediately publishes photos of Trump grinning widely with the Russians in private.
• The Russians have an email sent to Donald Trump, Jr., that openly says the Russian government supports the Trump campaign and wants to give it stolen documents that will incriminate Trump’s opponent. Who does that! It’s like James Bond knocking on the door and saying, “Excuse me, but I’m from British intelligence and I’m here on a secret mission.” Even if their purpose was to test the campaign’s receptiveness to collusion, it seems they could have thought of something a little subtler, something that would have left less physical evidence of said collusion.

Then, when Trump wins the election, you might expect the Russians to support their new, powerful ally at the pinnacle of the U.S. government. What happens?

• Two days after the election, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov announces that Russian officials have been in contact with Trump’s immediate entourage throughout the campaign.
• When news of Kushner’s meeting with Gorkov emerges, Gorkov, contradicting Kushner, says they were discussing private business, implicating Kushner in a possible violation of U.S. law.
• When the meeting between Donald Trump, Jr., and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya becomes known, Veselnitskaya confirms Trump’s story that she did not offer him damaging information about Hillary Clinton, but then she adds, “It’s quite possible they were looking for such information. They wanted it so badly.”
• Rinat Akhmetshin, a former Soviet counterintelligence operative and current pro-Russian lobbyist in Washington, volunteers that he, too, was at the Veselnitskaya meeting and that she did offer the younger Trump information on Clinton.

If the Trump team was colluding with the Russians, the Russians do not appear to be very grateful. It is possible that the Russians are showing their dissatisfaction with Trump for his failure to lift sanctions or otherwise improve the state of U.S.-Russian relations, although Ryabkov’s statement preceded any opportunity Trump might have had to do that. I suppose it is also possible that the Russians have real dirt on Trump and that these little gestures are just reminders of what they could reveal if he does not come through soon. I posit the possibility, however, that their purpose all along has been to undermine the U.S. government, to sow chaos and discord, to inflame suspicions, to turn American against American, and to erode the United States’ capacity to do anything at all, either at home or abroad, regardless of whether the Trump team actually collaborated or not. If so, they certainly found the perfect instrument in Donald J. Trump.

*A recent article posits that Jared Kushner’s digital team may have given the Russians information on which constituencies to target when distributing false or damaging stories about Hillary Clinton during the late stages of the campaign. While possible, this is still not proven. Even if Kushner’s database was the only possible source of such information, Russian hackers have shown some ability to acquire information from databases without having to ask for it.

**Of course, it would also be in keeping with past Russian practice if they had a range of possible objectives—ranging from minimum to maximum goals—depending on the receptiveness of the environment encountered.

The post Trump and the Russians: Collusion or Sowing Discord? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

At this critical juncture and in this particular ‘do or die’ moment in Somali history, objective assessment of new trends has an existential significance. Early this year when the previous Somali President was voted out of the office in favor of a more popular one, the euphoria was so contagious, and expectation so high. Sadly, that was eclipsed by leadership strategic errors and vicious strings of terrorist attacks and targeted assassinations.

With over 30 such attacks since February, the belligerence, frequency and lethal accuracy have set a new precedent. Ironically this came at a time when the new government launched a controversial campaign of what many—especially in Mogadishu—considered selective disarmament, declared an “all-out war” against al-Shabaab and promised to eradicate them within two years.

Naturally, almost all fingers are pointed at the usual suspects, al-Shabaab. And it is hard to dispute when they themselves continue to claim responsibility, though sometimes through spokespersons that are barely known to the public. However, to accept that never-changing narrative that there is only one actor who solely benefits out of conditions of insecurity is to naively assume that all other clandestine armies, scores of shadowy experts and deadbeat ‘security’ gangs across Somalia are there for shark-fin-gazing in the Indian Ocean.  In addition, there are the domestic profiteers of chaos who in the past three decades been investing heavily to defend the status quo by any ruthless means necessary.

Dyslexic Priorities

Whatever the end result, no one can accuse the new government of not trying. The government has launched initiatives such as cleaning the city, attending public events to boost public morale, and conducting random office inspections to keep ministers and staff on their toes. While these are good initiatives, there are more critical issues waiting for the government’s full attention. On some of these issues the government has already taken ill-advised approaches.

After declaring war against al-Shabaab, a stealth enemy that is part of the social fabric, and promising to eradicate them “in two years” the government launched a controversial disarmament campaign that many interpreted as a defanging process of certain clans and interest groups. Launching such initiative before any attempt was made toward confidence-building or managing perception would only make genuine conciliation facilitated by current government dead on arrival.

The government also declared war against corruption without providing comprehensive definition or what constitutes ‘corruption’, and without pushing through the Parliament all anti-corruption laws and the establishment of an independent commission to fight corruption; especially when clouds of suspicions hover over certain government officials. In clear conflict of interest, some ministers (and MPs) own private security companies that compete for projects. Both the President and the Prime Minister stated publicly that they and all their ministers will declare their individual assets for transparent public scrutiny. Several months into office, officials are yet to make good on those promises.

They also aggressively expanded the selective taxation that targets the likes of fruit venders and Tuk Tuk or Bajaj drivers (3 wheeled taxis) while exempting the conglomerate businesses such as money remittances and phone and internet services.

Private Security Branding

In a clever marketing strategy that exploits consumer biases, major manufacturing companies of household products commonly have several competing brands of the same products side by side in super markets. They even hire different brand managers to advance one product against another, though profits generated from all those products ultimately go to the same owners.

The private mercenary industry clearly duplicated the same strategic marketing, and nowhere is that more apparent than in The Horn.

Horn of Africa is a tough and a high volatile neighborhood. It’s only second to the Middle East where it, in fact, shares many traits- natural resource wealth, historical grievances and suspicions, and leaders with myopic vision and gluttonous appetite for corruption. With Donald Trump being in the White House and UAE establishing its intelligence network and loyal militia in Somalia, the stage is set for a new theater of lucrative clandestine operations. The current volatile political and security landscape could not have been more ideal for Erik Prince, founder of the infamous Blackwater, and companies. If it did not exist, they would’ve invented it.

Erik Prince and companies’ clandestine operations in Somalia began in 2010 when Saracen International appeared in Mogadishu and in Puntland regional administration. However, with Blackwater’s record of crimes against humanity, a loaded name (Saracen), and a good number of their mercenaries being remnants of Apartheid era enforcers, it didn’t take long to attract UN and other human rights groups’ attention. So, Saracen turned into Sterling Corporate Services.

Against that backdrop, the Prince-led Frontier Services Group Limited (aka The Company) comes to the scene to provide “security, insurance and logistics services for companies operating in frontier markets”. So, is it not within the realm of rational skepticism to question the good-faith of any Mafia group offering business protection services, life insurance, and luxury burial/cremation package for a price that you cannot refuse?

Modified Hegemony

In recent decades, Ethiopia has secured itself certain level of authority that made her the de facto hegemon of The Horn. With IGAD being a political rubberstamp where Ethiopia sets the agenda, decides the when and why of every meeting and which one of her concocted initiative gets mandated, it was not that hard.

The good news is with current government, Somalia is no longer entirely obedient to the marching orders of its hegemonic master. Moreover, the Oromo and Amhara peaceful insurgency has on the one hand exposed the repressive tendencies of the Ethiopian government; on the other, the vulnerability of its ethnic federalism. So, Ethiopia was compelled to re-strategize for its own survival. It has settled—at least for now—to remain low profile and calibrate its previous ambition to directly control a good number, if not all, of Somalia’s coveted ports and other resources.

As the de facto custodian of Somalia security that can stabilize or destabilize at will is the guarantor in each of the DP World deals. They are set to make 19 percent in Berbera seaport deal, maybe much more lucrative deals in the Bossasso and Barawe.

The X-Factor

Recently the US has removed Mukhtar Robow out of its terrorist list. This, needless to say, placed Robow on a dangerous stage and under a lethal spotlight. Robow was an enigma. He was considered the man who always gave credence to the narrative that al-Shabaab is not a terrorist organization driven by Somali issues but an organization driven by global ambition that has 700 plus foreign fighters.

Robow was also one of the last high profile Shabaab leaders to be added to the terrorist list. He also had very close relationship with warlords from his region who were loyal to Ethiopia. Days after he was taken out of the list he became under Shabaab attack. Oddly, the Somali government sent its army to defend Robow against his comrades. But this might make clear sense if, in the coming months, Robow and company flee to Barawe and settle there.

Dollars and Dysfunction

The Somali government must muster the courage to call the current international community sponsored and lead counterterrorism and stabilization system what it is: a failed system with a high price tag. Any foreign-driven reconciliation project intended to simply clear the anchorages for lucrative but controversial commercial (and military base) seaport deals in Berbera, Boosaaso, and Barawe will in due course fail. Make no mistake, without effective institutions of checks and balances and political stability, ‘foreign investment’ is euphemism for predatory exploitation or looting.

The new government either failed to understand al-Shabaab for what it truly is: a symptom of a number of root causes such as lack of reconciliation and trust, inept leadership and lack of national vision, chronic reliance on foreign security and funding.

All eyes are on President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo. Somalia cannot afford another four years of sleepwalking into catastrophe- a reinvented web of political, social, economic and geopolitical problems. This nation direly needs a shock therapy.

Therefore, President Farmaajo must go to the Parliament to declare all foreign energy and security related agreements unilaterally signed by regional administrations as null and void. The current trajectory would not only keep Somalia in perpetual dependency but in perpetual violent conflicts.

On September 19th the UN General Assembly debates will open. President should articulate a new vision on that global platform and put pressure on the Security Council to convert AMISOM—minus frontline states and private securities—and other forces on the ground (US, UK, UAE, Turkey, etc.) into a U.N. peacekeeping mission. This may achieve three essential objectives: minimize the negative roles played by certain actors, control free flow of arms and centralize the command and control of all militaries on the ground. Equally important, it will sideline the frontline states and private military services.

The UN mission should last no longer than two years- a period long enough for a genuine, Somali-owned and sponsored reconciliation.

Wherever they operate, the latter abides to neither local nor international laws. They thrive in impunity and that is why they have a long atrocious record and that is why they constantly keep reinventing themselves.

Rest assured, in the court of public opinion, every bone they break and every person kill will be blamed on President Farmaajo, UAE and US for ‘ushering in’ these merchants of death and suicide deals.

Meanwhile, unless we change our thinking and attitude, things will remain the same or get worse. Streets will get cleaner for the next tragedy, and Somalia will remain the most attractive playground for zero-sum games, for quick riches, and for undermining political or geopolitical opponents. It is an ever-morphing dangerous environment where the hunter is being hunted.

The post Blackened Waters of Somalia appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Ibrahim Abdel Latif (Photo Credit: Dr. Marwa Abdel Lati)

In the United States and other free countries across the globe, any person who is born in that country is granted citizenship rights and basic human rights, such as access to healthcare. As the descendent of Sephardic Jewish refugees who fled the anti-Jewish violence that erupted in Greece in the period leading up to World War I, no one today in America would argue that I am not an American citizen but rather am a foreign Jewish refugee who should not receive equal access to medical treatment. However, the descendants of Palestinian refugees who live in Lebanon are not so fortunate.
The descendants of the Palestinian refugees who left their birth country during Israel’s War of Independence are still not granted Lebanese citizenship and basic human rights such as healthcare, despite the fact that all young Palestinians in Lebanon today were born and raised in the country for a couple of generations now. This reality has adversely affected the fate of Ibrahim Abdel Latif, a young man of Palestinian heritage in Lebanon who has been denied medical treatment merely because of where his grandparents came from.

In an exclusive interview with Dr. Marwa Abdel Latif, Ibrahim’s sister, she related that the plight of Palestinians in Lebanon is horrific and this reality adversely affects her brother: “My brother dropped a good paying job just so he can get hired at this new job of his to be legal and to qualify for some work compensation insurance as he struggled in previous companies to get health coverage and the pay is always much lower for Palestinians anyways than their Lebanese colleagues with similar qualifications. So to start with, my brother is a Palestinian and he knows that most Lebanese companies do not hire Palestinians as they are considered foreigners. Most companies have a rule for 10% foreigner, which includes all other nationalities other than Lebanese. So my brother finally qualified for insurance as the company he works with is very decent and good with Palestinians but that is a preference for the company rather than the country.”

Nevertheless, despite the fact that Ibrahim managed to get health insurance unlike most other Palestinians, when he was run over from behind by a truck and needed urgent medical treatment, the Lebanese hospitals did not want to help him unless he got 100% coverage and his health insurance plan only covered 40%: “Lebanese hospitals usually do not allow you in unless you pay upfront or you have connections. My family does not belong to any organization or religious groups or any political party as we were raised to act independently of any party to assure ourselves that we are not blinded by their morals. The insurance was refusing to pay because the hospital is expensive to their standards but we had no choice of the hospital as the Red Cross took him there as it was the closest to the location of the accident and the other hospitals refused to take him in unless he redid all the paperwork and pay the entire coverage.”

Ibrahim’s family attempted to get local Lebanese charities to help them due to their situation and all of them refused to help them: “My family tried to reach out to many organizations, who simply insulted my parents and sisters. After they heard they are Palestinian, they pretty much told them that there is no help here for Palestinians. Only Lebanese should have access. We tried to call news reporters and they said that they don’t focus on Palestinian issues. My family is half Lebanese and we are just really hurt. It feels like my own blood has turned against me. I am a proud Lebanese Palestinian and I feel for both nations but seriously, this should be about human decency.”

“Palestinians are completely isolated and treated like a disease,” she stressed. “I think this really needs to change.” Dr. Abdul Latif is American educated and married an American so she lives in the US but until this, she was quiet about these issues in order to respect her family: “My family is living there and they are always worried so I kept my mouth shut. But I am done with this. Enough is enough. Something has to change.”

Dr. Abdel Latif emphasized that what her brother has endured is a good glimpse of the daily struggles of Palestinians in Lebanon: “I feel bad for the Lebanese but it is still not ok. My brother was about to get kicked out of the hospital because the insurance was refusing to pay. My parents are elderly and my dad was stopping them from throwing him outside with opened wounds and lungs bleeding in a tube into a bottle.” Dr. Abdul Latif claimed that the hospitals in Lebanon discriminate against the poor so much that they would even throw out a Lebanese person in a similar condition but the Lebanese got one advantage that a Palestinian does not: “The Lebanese belong to parties and commonly a call from an official could save someone’s life. But I don’t even know how to fix all of this. The Palestinians in the camps try to donate whatever they have which is very little to help each other out.”

Dr. Abdel Latif emphasized that Ibrahim is one of the best guys she knows and she proclaimed that she is not merely saying this because he is her brother. She stressed that he is super intelligent and hard-working, overcoming numerous obstacles in a hostile atmosphere where many turn to radical Islam in order to make it where he is today as an electric assistant engineer. In an area where others turned to terrorism, he chose to try and make a humble living, never giving up hope in improving the plight of himself and his family through civil and humane means. The banks denied him the option of buying a home for he did not earn enough money but he still never gave up his strong work ethic and his aspirations: “I wanted to help him come here because he has experience and is hard-working and a good guy but I could not. It is too much.”

Dr. Abdel Latif started a GoFundMe campaign to help save her brother’s life. So far, she has raised about $5,000 but is still $10,000 short of what she needs to save his life. Due to the social media campaign she started and the fact she started to raise some of the money, the Lebanese started to treat her brother but she is still waiting for them to operate on him. She asks every person with a heart to donate in order to help save her brother’s life.

In order to help save Ibrahim’s life, click here!

The post Palestinian in Lebanon denied medical treatment due to his nationality appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump meet at G20 Summit (Kremlin)

U.S. President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin July 7 on the sidelines of the Group of Twenty (G20) Summit in Hamburg, Germany. Intended to be a half-hour meeting, it went on for more than two hours. Present in addition to Trump and Putin were U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and two translators. There were no note-takers or foreign policy experts representing the U.S. side, and the U.S. appeared to have done little in the way of preparation for the meeting.

Russia was pleased with the outcome of the meeting, reporting that Trump appeared to accept Putin’s denial on meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. While the Trump administration insists that Trump did not believe Putin’s denial of election meddling, reviews of the meeting in the United States were not so good as in Russia. “The Russians just played the President,” former White House communications director and State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki writes at CNN, highlighting the lack of preparation and foreign policy expertise on the U.S. side. “It was predictable. And [Trump] let it happen.”

Putin is, of course, a former intelligence officer who has led Russia alternately as president and prime minister for 18 years, and Lavrov is a seasoned diplomat with decades of experience. Trump and Tillerson, on the other hand, are political neophytes who have been in government for less than six months.

“The Trump-Putin bromance is back on,” writes John Cassidy at The New Yorker, and Putin appears to be the alpha-bro in the relationship. As Cassidy observes, Putin “got what he wanted from the meeting: a commitment from the U.S. to move on from the [2016 U.S. presidential] election controversy and normalize relations”; while Trump “could claim that he had raised the question of Russian interference [in the election], even if he did so only in the most perfunctory of fashions.” What the U.S. got other than superficial cover for Trump remains unclear.

“Trump handed Putin a stunning victory,” writes Molly McKew at Politico, “From his speech in Poland to his two-hour summit [with Putin] in Hamburg, the president seemed determined to promote Russia’s dark and illiberal view of the world.” As Anne Applebaum and Jonathan Capehart likewise note at The Washington Post, Trump’s speech in Warsaw seemed to affirm the authoritarian nationalism of the right-wing Polish government that gave Trump a “fawning reception” with government-sponsored “rent-a-crowds” bussed in from across the country. In what must have been music to Putin’s authoritarian ears, Trump’s speech contained no mention of democracy or human rights.

Then in Hamburg, Trump shared a chuckle at the expense of American news reporters with Putin, who is strongly suspected of having journalists and other critics killed in Russia. “Are these the ones who insulted you?” Putin asked, gesturing thuggishly at the reporters with his thumb as they were being ushered out of the room. “These are the ones,” Trump replied, chuckling with Putin, “You’re right about that.” Perhaps Trump also thinks that Putin is right in how he deals with troublesome journalists and political opponents (Recall that Trump once praised the Chinese government’s deadly crackdown on China’s 1989 democracy movement at Tiananmen Square as a “show of strength,” and called the peaceful democracy movement itself a “riot.”).

“Are these the ones who insulted you?” (Kremlin)

“The Russian-American relationship is no longer about Russia or America…,” writes Anne Applebaum at The Washington Post, “It is driven, rather, by the personal interests of the two main players,” Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Applebaum notes that there were “no aides, no advisers, no experts” present at the meeting and “nothing prepared in advance” to represent the interests of the American people. “Both [Putin and Trump] got what they wanted,” however: “Bragging rights for Putin; a new friend for Trump. As for the rest of us — it doesn’t matter what we think. In this relationship, only two people matter.”

Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, had previously suggested as much when he said that there was “no specific agenda” for the meeting: “It’s really going to be whatever the president wants to talk about.” When have such important meetings between world leaders ever been about “whatever the president wants?” Just as the Russian presidency is all about Vladimir Putin, the U.S. presidency increasingly appears to be all about Donald Trump and his “absolute right” to do as he likes with the Russians or anyone else. No previous U.S. administration has spent as much time talking about the president’s “rights” and the president’s “unquestionable authority” as this administration has.

Despite the authoritarian tendencies Trump displays with his American critics, body language analysis indicated deference and supplication on Trump’s part with Putin and dominance on Putin’s part with Trump, clearly showing “who’s the boss” in the relationship between the two men. As Russia’s RT noted with pleasure, there was even a “House of Cards” moment, when Trump extended his hand to a haughty-looking Putin in a scene reminiscent of a meeting between fictional U.S. president Frank Underwood and Russian president Viktor Petrov in the Netflix series:

Putin-Trump House of Cards (Twitter)

If Trump hoped for a boost at home from his second overseas trip and first meeting with Putin as president, then he seems certain to be disappointed. If anything, the meeting with Putin has generated even greater suspicion regarding Trump’s strange fixation on cozying up with Russia.

The post Trump Confirms Authoritarian Bromance with Putin appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The first week in July in 2017 saw the launch of a medium range Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, or ICBM out of North Korea. The Hwasong-14 missile was launched from a mobile launcher, similar in function to that of the Russian Topol-M launch vehicle. While tested from a mobile platform, the test firing was based near the North Korean-Chinese border. The Hwasong-14 was launched towards the Sea of Japan, but estimated ranges for this new missile shows that it may be able to reach as far as Alaska and even may be able to target Hawaii. Reaction from international media and President Trump was swift, and hopes that relations with China will push North Korea towards a less aggressive stance seems to be the first policy position from most Western leaders and their allies in Asia.

The production of ICBMs usually comes with the belief that the sole possession of a weapon of mass destruction will give the country that possesses it leverage over adversaries when smaller conflicts arise. The question remains to whether or not the ones in control are rational actors, and have something to lose in a nuclear conflict. The theory during the Cold War that the Americans and NATO and the Soviets were rational, and therefore would not seek an open nuclear conflict was often wishful thinking in a complex situation. With smaller actors now starting to form nuclear weapons programs that can reach US territory and surely strike US allies, rationality and diplomacy might be the only barrier to saving millions of lives. Smaller nations with power concentrated with one person or a small group of individuals, armed with ICBMs is changing the global balance of power rapidly, and may permit chaos, a muted response and refused justice and the allowance of human rights abuses and genocides that would normally urge international assistance and cooperation. Rational small actors might be harder to come by, and the end result will be a less secure international order.

Strategies in handling those deemed irrational may give rise to policy approaches that lack nuance. The fear of a small state becoming nuclear ready may bring back Cuban Missile Crisis type stand offs or the undercover moves seen in the 1950s that permanently scarred regions like Latin America and the Middle East. Fear of a nuclear based attack as seen with Soviet allies in the Cold War may motivate ill-conceived policy approaches that will make moves like the installing of Pinochet and accusations like those exposed by Snowden more common place. Preventing small countries from obtaining ICBMs might be another option, but the desire for open conflict without a focus and determinable goal and end date may start with positive intentions, and end with another Syria, a conflict that has led to an international political mess, permitted mass genocide and has no end date. Full commitment to limiting ICBMs in the initial phases of the programs might be the best horrible option, otherwise containing those weapons away from regions where conventional weapons are in constant use is the only other option. Defense and new and refined technologies that can counter and kill ICBMs before hitting their targets will also become a growing industry and technology, made by many of the same researchers that produce the ICBM missile technology in the first place. Accepting dictatorial demands from minor strongmen and religious zealots do not seem to be a permanent option, so actions will be needed unfortunately with ICBMs at the bargaining table.

The post The Need for a New ICBM Strategy appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Photo Credit: Hindu Struggle Committee)

Hindu rights activist Shipan Kumer Basu illustrated that Bangladesh has a lot to learn from Israel and that Israel can play a role in assisting the minority communities within Bangladesh.

According to Shipan Kumer Basu, head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, the Jewish people have been persecuted for thousands of years and that due to this history, “Israel has a history of helping people who are in distress throughout the world. Israel is a country full of talent and has vast expertise.” He believes that Bangladesh could benefit from Israeli knowledge in a variety of fields: “Extending their strong helping arms will strengthen our country and the minorities both intellectually and financially.”

He noted that in the past, Israel was very helpful to the Bangladeshi people: “In the 1971 Bangladeshi War for Liberation, then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi appealed to Israel for help. Israel readily helped with arms and ammunition and thus Bangladesh was born. Israel was the first country to recognize Bangladesh as a country officially. But, the same country did not keep any ties with Israel.” Some Bangladeshi Muslims are now greatly opposed to this reality. As Kaji Aujijul Haq said, “Why can’t we keep ties with Israel, when most of the Arab world is opening up to Israel? Our Prophet instructed us to keep ties with the Jews. Have we become more powerful than the Prophet himself?”

“Israel can help us in many ways,” Basu stressed, noting that Israel has the potential to play a key role in empowering the minorities within his country. According to a report released recently by the Hindu American Foundation, the Hindu minority living in several countries in South Asia are subjected to legal and institutional discrimination, restrictions on their religious freedom, social prejudice, violence, persecution, and political marginalization: “Hindu women are especially vulnerable and face kidnappings and forced conversions in countries such as Bangladesh and Pakistan. In several countries where Hindus are minorities, non-state actors advance a discriminatory and exclusivist agenda, often with the tacit or explicit support of the state.”

For this reason, Basu believes it is of critical importance for Israel to work in order to empower the minority communities within Bangladesh, stressing that this can lead to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations. He seeks for elections to be held as soon as possible under international supervision for he does not trust the Awami League government to hold fair elections: “If the Awami League comes to power again through a showcase voting process, then it will be a disaster. All of the minorities will lose the power to vote. Then, the Awami League will snatch land, kill and force the Hindus to leave Bangladesh. So a very neutral election is in need so that both Hindus and Muslims can live in peace.” Basu has enlisted the support of Israeli Druze diplomat Mendi Safadi, head of the Safadi Center for International Diplomacy and Public Relations, so that the plight of the Hindu minority in Bangladesh can reach the international community. He believes that Israel can play a key role in helping his people to obtain human rights and equality before the law in Bangladesh.

The post Hindu Rights Activist: “Bangladesh has a lot to learn from Israel” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

President Tsai Ing-wen arriving in Panama City on her first overseas state trip in June 2016 (photo: The China Post)

The days of countries paying tribute to China, in order to stay in China’s good graces, may long be gone, but nowadays the tribute appears to flow in the opposite direction.  Since opening up its economy in the late 1980s, China has grown into an economic behemoth – capable of flexing its economic muscle to influence not only its own backyard, but far-flung countries in Central America such as Panama.  

Last month, Panama became the latest country to cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan and instead recognize China and its “One China” policy, presumably influenced by promises of economic aid and investment.  Beijing is not the only country to lavish extensive economic aid in exchange for a country’s political allegiance (“dollar diplomacy”), but it is one of the countries which has the most to offer financially.

Taipei’s efforts at autonomy depend on the international recognition of its Republic of China (ROC) government in Taiwan, and have suffered in recent years as more countries fall under the economic spell of Beijing.  To date, only 20 countries recognize the Republic of China’s government in Taiwan, down from 30 countries in the mid 1990s.  And the pressure from Beijing is also growing on other countries which do not even have formal diplomatic relations with Taipei  – the UAE, Bahrain, Ecuador, Jordan, and Nigeria have been asked by Beijing to rename Taiwan’s representative offices, such as “Taipei Trade Office”, that do not suggest Taiwanese sovereignty.

The linkage between withdrawing diplomatic recognition of Taiwan and receiving economic gifts is not lost on the Panamanian government – countries which vote with China at the U.N. usually receive more aid than other countries, according to AidData.  China is the second heaviest user of the Panama Canal, and Chinese companies such as Landbridge Group and COSCO Shipping have been scouting investment opportunities around Panama.  Landbridge paid $900 million in May 2016 for Panama’s largest port, Margarita Island Port in the Colon Free Trade Zone, and other Chinese companies seek contracts to upgrade the port for handling larger container ships, as part of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “One Belt, One Road” infrastructure project.  COSCO is expected to bid on a tender proposed later this year to develop some 1,200 hectares of land adjacent to the Panama Canal.

Panama was the first overseas visit of President Tsai Ing-Wen since assuming office in May 2016.  Following Panama’s reversal, she denounced the decision as a betrayal, arguing, “Oppression and threats are not going to help in cross-strait relations. It will on the contrary increase the discrepancy between the people” of Taiwan and China, and vowing, “We will not compromise and yield under threat”.

Panama is the second country this year to succumb to Beijing’s riches on offer, and Taipei can expect further pressure from Beijing on the diplomatic front in swaying other nations to choose Beijing.  And the pressure is mounting on other fronts as well – while Taiwan is routinely blocked from United Nations events (except with permission from Beijing), last month a Taiwanese professor and three Taiwanese students were blocked from using their Taiwanese passports as proof of identification when visiting the public gallery at the United Nations (UN) human rights office in Geneva.  Staff at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) told them only documents issued by Beijing would be acceptable, with one staffer arguing ‘Taiwan is not a country. Please present an identity document from a country recognised by the UN’”.

Incidents such as these, and further deserter countries like Panama, can be expected as strongman Xi Jinping tightens the reins on Taipei, which is being driven further away.  Nationalistic distractions like Taiwan will prove useful as Xi attempts to deal with domestic economic and security worries in the run-up to the critical 19th Party Congress in October.  

The post Using Economic Muscle, Beijing Sways Panama over Taiwan appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Presidents Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin in happier times, during a G-8 meeting in Ireland in 2013. (Photo: Pete Souza)

On June 23, the Washington Post published an article online about the Obama administration’s deliberations concerning Russia’s hacking of the U.S. electoral process last year. The article, which was fairly balanced, has yielded a considerable amount of discussion, much of which has been far less balanced.

A Rant (Please excuse me for a moment.)

Have you ever noticed how, after a decision is made, after the implementation is complete, after the consequences are in, everyone—and by everyone I especially mean TV pundits—is suddenly an expert on whatever question was involved. In fact, everyone suddenly has been an expert from the beginning. And they pretty much know the same things. They know the decision was wrong; they know the outcome was a disaster; and they know that if only the decision maker had gone with the other option—whatever that option might have been (and it is unlikely to be specified)—then everything would have worked out well. There would, in fact, have been no adverse consequences whatsoever, for there can only ever be two options, and obviously one of them must have been the perfect solution to the problem at hand.

Just imagine this scenario: Let’s say that George W. Bush decided at the last minute not to invade Iraq in 2003. To this very day, Dick Cheney would be going around saying, “If only we had taken out Saddam Hussein when we had the chance, they would have greeted us with flowers and the Middle East would be a beacon of peace, stability, and prosperity today.” And pretty much all of the pundits would believe him.

Now, Back to Our Story

The key take-away from the pundit discussion regarding Obama and the Russian cyber attacks is that Obama did nothing in the face of Russian aggression. The critics rarely if ever say what he should have done;* often neglect to mention what he did do; and completely ignore the reasons for not doing more. President Trump, seeing an opportunity to fault his predecessor, has picked up this theme and promoted it, blaming any ill consequences of Russian hacking on Obama’s lack of response while continuing to deny that the hacking occurred at all.**

With regard to timing, critics complain that the administration did not make a public announcement of the Russian hacking until early October when CIA director John Brennan had attributed the hacking to Russia in early August. This, however, disregards the fact that the rest of the Intelligence Community did not conclude that Brennan was right until . . . late September. (People often assume that the government knows something from the moment that one official believes it to be true, but government—or any collective decision-making process—does not work that way, which actually prevents a lot of irresponsible decisions.)

The complaint also tacitly dismisses the potential importance of Obama’s (ultimately unsuccessful) efforts to bring the Republicans into a joint statement in defense of the America electoral system. (He wanted to avoid any appearance that he was interfering in the election himself, especially considering that Trump—and Bernie Sanders—had already denounced the process as rigged.) Critics do not give any explanation for why the announcement would have made a bigger impact in August. (If people really believed that to be the case, then “August surprise” would be a perennial political cliché instead of “October surprise.”) In the end, the announcement received virtually no attention because Trump’s Access Hollywood video and the first dump of John Podesta’s personal emails were released the same day, and the press found them more intriguing, but the administration could hardly have anticipated that.

As usual, Obama’s approach was cautious and deliberative as he focused on ways to deal with the situation without making matters worse. Worse, in this case, would have meant direct interference in the voting or vote-counting process. Thus the task at hand was to avoid the Scylla of allowing the Russians to interfere with impunity while evading the Charybdis of provoking them into escalating. You don’t want to taunt them into some action that you cannot defend against. Also to be avoided was any action or announcement that could undermine the voters’ faith in the integrity of the election and thus further the Russians’ purpose of sowing confusion and distrust. Would the Russians really have escalated? There was no way to know then, and there is no way to know now. Some people have pointed out that the voting and tabulation processes are not connected to the Internet and are therefore safe from outside interference. That is a valid point; yet the computers that controlled the centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz nuclear fuel enrichment plant were not connected to the Internet either, and the United States found that it could get the Stuxnet worm into them if it really wanted to.

So, just what did Obama do? In addition to public announcements that we knew what Moscow was up to, private warnings not to go further, bolstering of the election infrastructure against cyber threats, and postelection diplomatic and economic sanctions, Obama had an additional trick up his sleeve. This is what the Post called “a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia’s infrastructure.” This is something the Russians were intended to find and presumably would be unable to counteract. The idea is to warn them that, if they should interfere in an election again (or engage in some other unacceptable aggressive action), the United States will already be in a position to disrupt Russia’s most vital infrastructures. If the Post has described the situation accurately (and if Trump does not order it removed, which he apparently has not done to date), this may be just the deterrent threat needed to avoid a return of Russia’s electoral interference. In a few years, we shall see.

*Some specify that Obama should have imposed December’s sanctions before the election (and simply assume that this would have elicited neither adverse reactions from the Trump campaign and Republican voters nor escalation by the Russians). In cases such as these, doing what I recommend but not doing it the moment I recommend it (or when I determine after the fact that I would have recommended it if I had recommended it at the time) is often considered the equivalent of not doing anything. The ubiquitous phrase “too little, too late” can be made to fit nearly every situation.

**Similarly, Trump claims that former FBI director James Comey lied to Congress about their conversations while simultaneously asserting that his threat to reveal nonexistent audio recordings compelled Comey to tell the truth.

The post Obama, the Russian Hacking, and the Folks Who Write about Them appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

According to reports, U.S President Donald Trump is “eager to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin with full diplomatic bells and whistles” at the Group of Twenty (G20) Summit in Hamburg, Germany on July 7. In fact Trump is “so excited about meeting Vladimir Putin that U.S. officials are worried.” U.S. allies in Europe are also worried. They probably should be worried.

Despite any “diplomatic bells and whistles,” Trump and Putin are also almost certain to meet behind closed doors, with U.S. representation limited to Trump and a small number of close aides in an administration that is under federal investigation for possible collusion with Russia to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible obstruction of justice. Trump’s last meeting with Russian officials – foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and ambassador Sergey Kislyak – included Trump revealing “highly classified information” to his Russian guests behind closed doors in the Oval Office. This shouldn’t inspire confidence in anyone.

Among concerns regarding his meeting with Putin is that “fanboy” Trump will be “too eager to please” the Russian president. According to reports, Trump “has told White House aides to come up with possible concessions to offer as bargaining chips” in his meeting with Putin, though it remains unclear what if anything Putin would be asked to give in return. Among the concessions Trump may offer is rolling back U.S. sanctions against Russia or agreeing to Russian demands for the return of two diplomatic compounds in the United States seized by the Obama administration in retaliation for Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Foreign policy experts also fear that Trump will be “played” or “outfoxed” by his far more experienced and better-prepared Russian counterpart. Other than offering up concessions to Russia, Trump appears to have no clear agenda for the meeting. Putin, on the other hand, will almost certainly have a list of specific demands or requests to make of Trump. Chief among Russia’s current public demands is the return of the aforementioned diplomatic compounds. What Putin will privately ask of Trump is anyone’s guess.

Among the methods Putin might use to manipulate Trump is to bond with him over supposed “fake news” and the “deep state,” which Trump and his supporters have blamed for Trump’s ongoing Russia problems. To help avoid such pitfalls and improve the optics of the meeting, some administration officials have pressed for the National Security Council’s best known critic of Putin, Fiona Hill, to be included in the meeting. “The idea,” one senior administration official said, “is to get as many adults in the room as humanly possible.” Whether Hill will be included in the meeting remains in question.

A further concern is that Trump appears to have no plans to bring up Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. This is not surprising, given Trump’s mixed signals on whether he believes or wishes to admit that such interference even occurred. Trump is, after all, the apparent beneficiary of Russia’s actions, and to acknowledge such is to bring the legitimacy of his presidency into question. To avoid the topic with Putin would seem to invite further Russian interference in future U.S. elections, which raises obvious questions regarding the motives behind Trump’s refusal to discuss the matter.

At no previous time in America’s history has a U.S. president had as suspect a relationship with a hostile foreign power as Donald Trump has with Russia. At no previous time has a U.S. president displayed such open admiration as Trump has displayed for authoritarian leaders like Putin. The almost daily revelations on Trump’s Russian ties, Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, and possible collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign are more than ample cause for discomfort at the prospect of a private meeting between Trump and Putin.

Trump’s meeting with Putin is preceded by a visit to increasingly authoritarian Poland, where Trump has been promised a “fawning reception” with cheering crowds. To flatter Trump in a country where he is actually quite unpopular, Poland’s right-wing government is reportedly busing “rent-a-crowds” into Warsaw from across the country. Trump’s visit to Poland is seen as a “snub to the European Union” and an opportunity for Trump to use Poland as a “springboard for another attack on the EU.”

Such is the strange new reality of U.S. foreign relations under President Donald Trump.

The post Can Trump Be Trusted in a Room Alone with Putin? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Moroccans gather to protest mistreatment by government and ruling monarchy authorities in late May 2017. Protests, and anger at the ruling class, has continued to grow. Photo: Fadel Senna/AFP

Morocco has long been viewed as a center of stability, with development potential and openness to reform. It has also been a beacon for foreign investment for these regions, considered in many respects an oasis surrounded by a volatile region. Yet in the last month, unusually fervent protests have shaken things, exposed vast inequality and drawn attention the country’s economically depressed northern region. Many see parallels between Morocco’s burgeoning unrest now and the Arab Spring revolts of 2011.

Recently I covered the emergence of these protests, borne from a fisherman in the town of Al-Hoceima killed while trying to reclaim his haul which had been confiscated by police. An opposition group turned this tragedy into a rallying cry, using it as evidence of the government’s disregard for the people’s welfare. They demanded economic support, infrastructure improvements, better hospitals and schools, and an end to ruling regime corruption. In a country not known for political activism, protests spread and grew in terms of participation and frequency; some of the lead organizers were arrested.

It didn’t take long for the protests to grow beyond the isolated northern region of Rif, where Al-Hoceima is located. On June 11, at least 10,000 Moroccans (according to police; march leaders claim the total was much higher) took to the streets of the capital Rabat to show solidarity with the northern protesters. Notably, the Rabat movement was led by the Justice and Spirituality group; an Islamist movement, it played a lead role in Arab Spring-inspired protests in 2011 which resulted in Morocco’s king initiating some democratic reforms. However, these reform have proved mostly hollow and ineffective. Morocco’s king and royal representatives retain a tight grip of control on all aspects of running the country (Morocco has the Arab world’s longest-ruling monarchy). As a perfect example of this, the Moroccan ruling authorities have banned Justice and Spirituality from organizing a political party or being represented in government.

As of June 15, about 100 members of the opposition movement had been arrested. There were calls for King Mohamed VI to intervene to diffuse the growing unrest. After meeting with the Moroccan monarch, newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron commented that King Mohamed is interested in “calm[ing] the situation in the Rif region by responding to the demands of this movement.” Silya Ziani, an opposition leader, called for the king’s involvement saying “We hear about the king investing in major projects abroad. What about us?” Yet the king has not responded or engaged these requests in any way.

Arrests continued on a daily basis over the next week, with no indication the protesters’ grievances would be addressed. In fact, the ministry of justice reported to parliament that it felt the government acted with “maturity, responsibility, wisdom, and in accordance with legal provisions” in breaking up gatherings, some of which featured violent clashes with police. A second major protest in Rabat, planned for June 19, was quickly shut down.

A New York Times op-ed on June 28 by Ursula Lindsey focused on the Moroccans’ plight. As she writes, the monarchy’s promises of democratic reform and giving the people more say in their government and more control over their lives have been largely empty. What’s more, the scale has instead tipped more in the opposite direction: more power and influence by the ruling class. “The king is the country’s highest religious authority, its pre-eminent political actor and its largest fortune. Everyone defers to him and knows that the only decisions that truly count are his.” Plus, according to Lindsey the fisherman’s death in Al-Hoceima just exemplified what many Moroccans knew all too well: “arbitrary and humiliating treatment by the state.”

The more international attention drawn to the Morocco unrest, the better. More world leaders and international organizations need to be aware of it, and (as Macron did) encourage the ruling regime to address the people’s concerns in genuine, meaningful, and non-violent ways. The government may be satisfied with how it handled the resistance this spring. But if they continue to use their authority to oppress and imprison those who disagree with them, Morocco may see a turbulent summer.

The post Unrest, uncertainty continues in Morocco appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Photo: Vijay Soneji, The Hindu

China has become widely known for its breakneck pace of trade and investment across Africa and ubiquitous presence in cities and far flung areas alike. Africa-China trade reached $188 billion in 2015, according to McKinsey, and averaged a 20 percent increase since 2000. As the rapid expansion continues, other countries trading and partnering with African nations are more ‘under the radar’ and not appearing in headlines. India’s external trade has grown significantly with the continent across the Indian Ocean. There are many similarities the regions share in both challenges and opportunities, and plans are evolving to strengthen partnerships.

The African Development Bank (AfDB) hosted its 52nd Annual General Meeting in Mahatma Mandir in Gandhinagar, India. At the meeting, Dr Akinwumi A. Adesina, President of AfDB emphasized the point stating “in 2005-06 the total bilateral trade between India and Africa stood at $11.7 billion, which has reached to $56.9 billion by 2015-16. Now we expect the bilateral trade to exceed $100 billion in the next two years, helped by the (Indian) Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s push for India-Africa partnership.”

According to data from the World Bank World Integrated Trade Solutions (WITS), however, 84 percent of exports from Africa to India were natural resources in 2014. On the other end of the spectrum, exports from India to sub-Saharan Africa consist of consumer goods such as automobiles, telecom and pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, a portion of foreign investment into Africa currently is through Mauritius, a tax haven for investors. Africa’s consumer goods economy is growing but has a ways to go.

The AfDB developed ‘High 5’ priorities to strengthen domestic economies to unleash the continent’s potential: energy, agriculture, industrialization, integration and improving Africans’ quality of life. Prime Minister Modi expressed India’s commitment to partner with African nations to grow technical capabilities in those areas by harnessing India’s expertise and experience to provide value added. Mr. Modi, as well, expressed hope that more African nations join the International Solar Alliance, which framework agreement was announced at the Paris climate conference.

For example of collaboration, Africa is blessed with vast amounts of arable land but much of it goes unused or is inefficiently developed. Dr. Adesina said Africa has nearly 65 percent of the uncultivated arable land in the world. India developed a successful agriculture sector and technologies under challenging headwinds, thus a partnership with Indian companies would be a natural fit and could double as capacity building. Such areas as drip irrigation, mechanization and export supply chain could prove quite beneficial. Of course, if an efficient agriculture industry is developed, that can provide a thrust away from poverty.

Union finance Minister Arun Jaitley emphasized the point at the meeting, “there is a significant scope for the agricultural sector in Africa to benefit from the Indian experience. With the changing global landscape for agriculture India can be a partner in this area.”

In addition to trade, an article in the Indian newspaper, The Hindu, totaled that 152 lines of credit have been extended by the Exim Bank of India to 44 countries for a total amount of nearly $8 billion, $10 billion has been offered for development projects over the next five years and a grant assistance of $600 million at the last India-Africa summit in 2015.

Not One Brick, One Road

Mr. Modi also announced his support to developing an “Asian-Africa Growth Corridor,” also supported by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Within that model, one potential partnership could be port development in East and Southern Africa and connecting with landlocked countries for two-way trade which can connect with Indian or Japanese ports and Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor. It has been called a ‘cooperation model.’ The leaders seek to further engage African nations to flush out the current outline vision document. Relevant infrastructure projects have  previously, and are currently, been developed by the AfDB and African nations, but Dr. Adesina mentioned utilizing Indian expertise would be beneficial as a wide array of projects are needed.

These efforts can also be viewed as an alternate to China’s ambitious One Belt, One Road record setting infrastructure project plan with a staggering estimated price tag of around $1 trillion. The range of OBOR stretches to across Asia, Europe and Africa. Chinese President Xi Jinping further described China is ready to invest $123 billion in roads, ports, energy, and other areas. China has potential to engage 65 nations with potential projects. The program is also widely suspected to drum up increased global influence and leadership, and trade ties are a strong economic method to achieve this goal. However, other nations are not simply going to cede their influence. As noted, India has increased its inroads in Africa, but not on the same scale.

The U.S. is Not Withdrawing

The United States was the top trading partner with Africa, but the rapid ascension of China and other partners has left it falling into the pack. Africa provides great opportunities, but is often viewed at as too risky to do business, thus a myriad of companies have not taken the plunge. The U.S. has, though, been investigating the potential of establishing free trade agreements with Kenya and Mauritius. Africa-U.S. trade reached $33.7 billion in 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA), designed to provide markets for African goods and stimulate trade, was initiated under President Clinton in 2000 and last renewed in 2015 by Congress. Thirty-eight nations are eligible according to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). African exports under AGOA totaled $9.3 billion in 2016 with petroleum over the years continuously being the largest export product, 55.6 percent of the total, however down from years prior due to lower prices and increased U.S. production, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Non-petroleum exports have increased from $1.4 billion in 2001 to $4.1 billion in 2016. Some of the industries are autos and parts, apparel, fruits and nuts, cocoa, and cut flowers. In sum, the amount of the petroleum decrease led to a decrease in overall trade.

Further Road to Economic Growth

The newer economic engagement and development paradigm has shifted to include trade and not just aid. China has stimulated this model while other nations have increased trade and foreign direct investment; official development assistance (ODA) is a significant factor for improving the lives of African citizens at the last mile, but a portfolio of approaches is necessary to reach the goals of the AfDB and everyday African citizens. Trade and investment are front and center.

The post India Continues Building Trade Ties With Africa appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Washington : President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hug while making statements in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Monday, June 26, 2017. (AP/PTI)

In their June 26 meeting President Trump and Prime Minister Modi voiced their mutual admiration as the nations grapple with a complex relationship. Ultimately, India’s tradition of electoral democracy makes it a friend. Though we also share strategic interests, we should take care to base our relations on the deeper values.

Mr. Trump’s and Mr. Modi’s styles may make them compatible. Both were elected by majoritarian populist movements. Both boast large Twitter followings. Both, in Trump’s original travel ban and Modi’s elimination of large bank notes, have sprung hasty policy moves on their countries that led to turmoil. Mr. Trump apparently also now sympathizes with India in its rivalry with China, over his disappointment at the latter’s inaction toward North Korea. A U.S. sale of surveillance drones to India reinforces this common interest, in a strategic counter to China’s “One Belt” projection of economic power across Central Asia and the Indian Ocean.

Interests could diverge, partly in Trump’s immigration-unfriendly plans, and his populist-driven pullout from the Paris Accords. Modi criticized the latter. On immigration, the two countries have unique issue, in the question of the specialized H-1B visas for persons of unique skills—IT driven in this case—to work in the US. India has also been an advocate of free trade, reflecting the interests of a developing economy. These issues were muted at the summit, and many strong rationales for reconciliation are available.

The U.S. should take care that the rationales we invoke, to bolster friendship or to manage differences, rest on the values of freedom and rights. Economic interests can evolve to put us at odds, and strategic calculations have not always brought us together.

But it was Indian-born Amartya Sen (politically opposed to Modi but not renounced in this) who defined both freedom and development as “the expansion of the ‘capabilities’ of persons to lead the kinds of lives they value – and have reason to value.”

Which sounds a lot like Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The post US-India Relations: What Do We Want? What Should We Want? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On September 25, Kurdistan is holding a referendum for independence.

Already, Aldar Khalil, the government spokesman for the Kurdish region in Syria, expressed that the Syrian Kurds are interested in a confederation with Iraqi Kurdistan. Given the divisions between the KRG who has positive trade relations with Turkey and Khalil’s group who is working together with the Assad regime, Syrian Kurdish dissident Sherkoh Abbas argued that it is a good sign.

He emphasized that for a number of reasons, the United States of America should welcome this development and support the Kurdish Referendum for Independence.

Khalil stressed that for starters, an independent Kurdistan will bring the Shia Crescent to a halt. According to Abbas, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Gulf states have recently started to view an independent Kurdistan in a positive light just so that they will be able to confront Iranian aggression in the Middle East region better.

He noted that this has been reflected in their social media: “The GCC had Israel as enemy number one and the Kurds as number two. Now that has changed. Now, they are willing to divide Iraq and Syria so that it could be a buffer against Iran. They view it positively as a way to roll back Iran’s gains as well as the Muslim Brotherhood in Ankara.”

“It is important to be on the side of the GCC, Israel and the Kurds,” he proclaimed. “In the past, anywhere we went in the US Congress and US Senate, they said wait a minute; we have a lot of interests with 21 Arab nations. If we support Kurdish independence, it could hurt our vital economic interests. What we can do is promote human rights and democracy.”

“Now with a shift in the Arab position not viewing the Kurds and Israelis as enemies, now it is easier for all of these nations to support the Kurds for it is not opposed by Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. Those countries don’t view the Kurds as a threat but an opportunity to roll back the Shia Crescent and the threat to the Al Saud kingdom emerging in Ankara, who wants to get rid of the Al Saud family and to be the Khalifa.”

Abbas noted that two years ago, the Arabs would never let Iraq and Syria split for it is Arab land. Now, he claimed that they know if they keep it whole, it is for Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood and that undermines the Saudi kingdom so they now think it is good to let the people of those nations go their own way and to roll back those threats. He added that it is critical to note that the United States does not need to place boots on the grounds in order to confront Iranian aggression in the Middle East.

Since a good portion of the population in the Islamic Republic of Iran consists of minorities like the Azeris, Balochis, Kurds and Ahwazi Arabs, Abbas emphasized these groups can merely do an uprising and enable the Iranian regime to collapse from within as the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds unite in order to form their own independent state, which is ready to be an American base in the Middle East and to be of utmost assistance in America’s struggle against international terrorism.

He stressed that such a strategy can shrink Iran in half and significantly reduce Iranian hegemonic influence in the Middle East without putting the life of a single American soldier in jeopardy.

Finally, an Iraqi source added that America should support an independent Kurdistan for it is the right thing to do after the Baathists and then the Shia militias alongside ISIS terrorized the Kurdish population. Since 2014, the Iraqi central government cut the budget at the same time that the Kurds faced ISIS and the KRG absorbed 2 million refugees.

However, the source emphasized that the KRG to Barzani’s credit did not give up hope of building a pro-Western democratic country that grants human rights, minority rights and women’s rights to all its citizens who would be willing to help the United States in its struggle against terrorism under less than optimal conditions while facing not so supportive neighbors.

The source claimed that America should support Barzani in this just struggle as the Kurds deserve to have what every other nation on earth has. They have their own unique language, culture and national history. They were a state in the past. The source noted that there is no reason why they should not be a state in the future. And for all of these reasons, the source proclaimed that the Unites States should support an independent Kurdistan.

The post Syrian Kurdish Dissident: “America Should Support the Kurdish Independence Referendum” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Trump-Kushner and Xi Jinping families at Mar-a-Lago. (large)

As Bloomberg, The Washington Post, and Reuters have reported, the Chinese government has invited President Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner to visit China later this year for the purpose of cultivating ties between China and the Trump administration and in advance of a possible visit to China by the president. Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post also observes that “Beijing is courting Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner” in “its efforts to gain access to [President] Trump,” bypassing normal U.S. diplomatic channels.

China’s courtship of the couple and the Trump administration’s apparent openness to such an arrangement should raise eyebrows if not very loud alarm bells, as should the prospect of a U.S. taxpayer-funded trip for them to China.

In addition to the obvious nepotism in the couple’s White House roles and their complete lack of foreign policy qualifications, both have business ties to China that present potentially serious conflicts of interest. Putting vetted foreign policy professionals in charge of U.S.-China relations instead of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner would at least provide a degree of separation between China’s dictators and Trump-Kushner family business interests.

U.S. tax dollars should not be used to pay for the president’s daughter and son-in-law to travel to China and play at being diplomats. Jared Kushner, whose only previous experience is helping to run his family’s businesses and being married to Ivanka Trump, has already traveled to Iraq, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories at taxpayer expense to no apparent end but his own self-promotion.

His appearance in a blazer and flak jacket in Iraq was widely ridiculed and earned him a new nickname: “Full Metal Jackass.” Ivanka Trump, whose only previous experience is in the fashion industry, is no more qualified than her husband for such undertakings. These are jobs that should be done by foreign policy and national security professionals.

“Full Metal Jackass“: Jared Kushner in Iraq.

While Donald Trump’s sons ostensibly run his businesses, he seems to be grooming his daughter and son-in-law to become his political heirs in an apparent effort to establish himself and his brood as America’s new ruling family: The House of Trump.

Such practices are normal in a country like China ruled by a “red aristocracy” of dynastic “princelings” like President Xi Jinping. China’s “courtship” of Jared Kushner and “marginalization” of the U.S. State Department has been previously noted with the observation of China’s greater “comfort with dynastic links” than with official U.S. diplomatic channels (See “America’s Princeling: Why Chinese Elites Love Jared Kushner“).

The Trumps and Kushners including Ivanka and Jared as well as the president himself also have significant potential conflicts of interest related to their business ties with China.

Many of the products sold by Ivanka Trump’s fashion company are produced at factories in China where sweatshop conditions have been reported, and the recent arrest and disappearances of investigators looking into conditions at these factories in China prompted The Washington Post to ask if China might be “offering Ivanka Trump unseemly favors” in exchange for favorable treatment by the Trump administration.

Donald and Ivanka Trump have both been awarded valuable trademarks for their businesses by the Chinese government since the Trump inauguration, prompting constitutional concerns regarding foreign emoluments. Unauthorized and unpaid Trump-branded toilets are an example of what can happen in China without trademark protection, and of how far Donald Trump has defined the American presidency down in the eyes of the world:

“Trump Toilets“: What happens in China without trademark protection.

Donald Trump’s and the Kushner family’s real-estate businesses have both also raised money from Chinese investors through the controversial EB-5 visa program for wealthy investors. Recent Kushner EB-5 activities in China prompted a call from U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) for the Kushners to be investigated for potential fraud and concern from Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives that Kushner Companies and its partners in China “may be seeking to benefit from the Kushner family’s connections to the White House.”

In China it is normal to mix government affairs with family ties and business interests, and Chinese government officials frequently use their positions in government to gain financial benefits for themselves and their families.

No doubt China would welcome any opportunity to deal with the United States “the Chinese way” via the president’s family members and their business interests. The United States is not China, however, and the President of the United States should not behave like a Chinese (or Russian) dictator-oligarch.

Negotiations between Washington and Beijing should be handled by professional diplomats who do not have business interests in China that their Chinese counterparts can use as bargaining chips; and no such negotiations should include back-room business deals to enrich the president and his family.

The question of whether someone in China can put the Trump name on a toilet without paying for it should not enter into discussions (if any) on human rights in China, the status of Taiwan, or territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Nor should U.S. taxpayers have to foot the bill for an Ivanka and Jared Go to China self-promotion tour. If Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner travel to China at all, it should be on a family vacation trip at their own expense.

The post China’s Courtship of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Should Raise Eyebrows appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

This week conflict between the U.S. and its allies in Syria against the Syrian regime, Russia, and Iran heated up.

A US F-15 has shot down what has been reported as an armed Iranian made drone operated by Syria as well as the downing of a Syrian SU-22 strike aircraft that was shot down by a US F/A-18E a few short days earlier.

The response by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was to pull back on coordinated communications between the different forces in the region and issue a statement claiming that any U.S. or allied aircraft incurring into the Syrian territory will be painted/tracked by Russian and its allies anti-aircraft radar and fired upon if a threat is demonstrated against forces aligned with the Kremlin

Reporting on the facts of the incidences has been somewhat consistent, but the rationale behind the attacks has been confused in interpretation by many writing on the issue. The U.S., especially under the new  Trump administration, has focused on targeting ISIS and keeping pressure on its fighters while their hubs of Raqqa and Mosul are picked apart by local forces.

Russian complaints that the SU-22 was targeting ISIS fighters complicates the story, as U.S. sources claim that the Syrian SU-22 was instead targeting Syrian rebel allies in the region. In the past, the U.S. has asserted that because Syrian rebels are often linked with jihadi organizations, what constitutes Syria’s rebels was hard to define. Indeed, many American weapons have ended up in in the hands of the very fighters the U.S. is fighting against.

The fate of the Syrian SU-22 pilot remains unknown, an event that mirrored the Turkish shooting down of a Russian SU-24 strike aircraft in 2015. In that incident, a Turkish F-16 shot down a SU-24 killing at least one of the pilots and causalities were suffered by the Russian marines attempting to rescue the pilot.

Like in the current incident, there is a high degree of uncertainty about who Assad’s regime allies are in the region. It should be openly detailed who local U.S. allies are in the region so it can be demonstrated whether or not Washington is really on the offensive against ISIS while Russia and Syria are trying to wipe out future legitimate political opposition in the region.

Ignoring this long lasting conflict in the West can lead to more incidences that are still not clearly understood or addressed in an appropriate manner. Information and education will be the only way the effects of the Syrian war can be understood and addressed effectively.

The post Painting Targets in the Syrian Conflict appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Chinese ship shown ramming a Vietnamese ship while guarding China’s oil rig Haiyang Shiyou 981 in disputed waters in mid-2014 (VnExpress News photo)

Just when Chinese and Vietnamese relations appeared to be going well, the waters of the South China Sea (and East Sea) may be heating up again.

Speculation is rife among geopolitical analysts following the early departure of a Chinese delegation from the annual Vietnam-China Border Defense Friendship Exchange Program this week in Hanoi. The two Communist countries were scheduled to hold a fence-mending gathering along the border where they fought a short, devastating war in 1979.

Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission Fan Changlong’s decision to cut short the delegation’s visit, and the cancellation of the event “for reasons related to working arrangements”, is reportedly over a heated argument during a private meeting Fan held with Vietnamese defense officials.

Some analysts, such as Wu Shicun, president of the Chinese-government affiliated National Institute for South China Sea Studies, believe the argument broke out over oil exploitation of the disputed island chains of the Spratly island chain, “One direct reason leading to the cutting short of Fan’s visit might be because Beijing sees Vietnam as breaking its promises about not exploiting oil in disputed areas in the South China Sea”.

Carl Thayer, emeritus professor of politics at The University of New South Wales in Australia, also speculates General Fan requested Vietnam to halt oil exploitation near Vanguard Bank in the Spratly island chain.

He also believes the Chinese response, which “If true, this would be a clumsy and counterproductive act by China,” may be due to Beijing’s disapproval over Hanoi’s efforts to promote strategic cooperation with the United States and Japan: “This setback would also be a sign that China is being more assertive in response to Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc’s visits to Washington and Tokyo in order to curtail the development of Vietnam’s defense and security relations with these two countries”.

Yet Thayer also warns that a military clash could take place within the next few days, noting that China is deploying 40 ships and several Y-8GX6 turboprop anti-submarine warfare aircraft to the area. The area has seen sparks of conflict before—in May 2011, protests broke out in Hanoi after a Chinese fishing vessel cut a Vietnamese boat’s cable near Vanguard Bank.

Sending that many ships into an area claimed by Hanoi may lead to additional anti-Chinese protests, as witnessed in mid-2014 when Beijing parked its $1 billion deepwater oil drilling rig, the Haiyang Shiyou 981, for 10 weeks in waters claimed by Vietnam as part of its 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone set by international law.

At that time, the rig was surrounded by over 100 Chinese vessels, including military ships, some of which rammed or fired their water cannons at Vietnamese ships encroaching near the Chinese rig.

Should the above deployment of naval ships and aircraft actually take place, Chinese military officials would do well to recall Chairman Mao’s quote, “A single spark can cause a prairie fire”.

The post Chinese General Exits Hanoi Early appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.