Diplomacy & Crisis News

Nuclear safety and security, health and nutrition, and food and agriculture will be the main technical programmes for the United Nations atomic agency next year, its head told the agency’s governing body.

Having secured the funds for the initial phase of the deployment of the world’s first malaria vaccine, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced today it will be rolled out in sub-Saharan Africa and immunization campaigns will begin in 2018.

A new global initiative was launched today at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 22) under way in Marrakech, aims to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and save thousands of live by protecting peatlands – the largest terrestrial organic soil carbon stock.

In Brussels, United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson today urged an international conference for the Central African Republic (CAR) to show solidarity and pledge the necessary financial support to the Government-identified priorities and reforms needed for the African country’s rehabilitation and stabilization.

At the United Nations Climate Conference (COP 22) under way in Marrakech, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) participated in the launch of a ground breaking map of restoration opportunities to combat climate change in Africa, an area being called the ‘Great Green Wall.’

Rallying stakeholders gathered in Marrakech, Morocco, for the United Nations Climate Conference, known as ‘COP 22,’ Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today urged everyone – “from the local to the global” – including the private sector, cities and civil society, to get involved in the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

A United Nations human rights expert has appealed to the Government of Nigeria for an urgent explanation of the forced eviction of 30,000 people in Lagos state in the last week.

The United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) today condemned attacks on five Syrian hospitals – including two trauma centres and an emergency obstetric centre – as well as a mobile medical clinic, and demanded that all parties to the five-year conflict respect the neutrality of health workers, health facilities and medical supplies.

At the one-month mark of Iraqi military operations to oust terrorists from Mosul, the United Nations and its partners today said tens of thousands of families in newly retaken areas urgently requiring life-saving assistance and warned that the humanitarian community in Iraq faces a “massive scope” of need.

La victoire du candidat populiste Donald Trump aux États-Unis nous pousse à nous interroger sur l’avenir de l’Europe. L’article de Jean-Dominique Giuliani, « Extrémismes, populismes et nationalismes à l’assaut de l’Europe », publié dans le numéro d’été de Politique étrangère (n°2/2016) offre à ce titre une analyse édifiante.

« Vue de l’extérieur, l’Europe reste un modèle d’état de droit, de libertés, d’un développement économique et social rarement atteint dans les sociétés modernes. De l’intérieur, les sociétés européennes sont traversées de doutes profonds. Ils montent à l’assaut de la construction politique qu’elles ont consenti à bâtir peu à peu après un XXe siècle suicidaire, qui aurait dû les chasser pour longtemps de l’histoire contemporaine.

De la fin du monde bipolaire, l’Europe ne s’est vraiment jamais remise. Pensée pour ramener la paix sur le continent des guerres, l’unification européenne, qui anticipait pourtant brillamment un mouvement fulgurant de globalisation et d’innovations technologiques, semble dépassée par ses propres espérances. Son inachèvement est la cause principale de ses difficultés. Son refus de la puissance la met à mal dans les rapports de force internationaux. Elle est l’objet de toutes les critiques, et focalise de puissants mouvements de gauche comme de droite, tenant à l’extrémisme, au populisme et à un réel retour du nationalisme. Si le premier pousse à l’adoption d’opinions et de conduites extrêmes, le populisme oppose en permanence et systématiquement le peuple aux élites, aux dirigeants et aux partis de gouvernement, cependant que renaît de ses cendres un nationalisme qui subordonne tous les problèmes à la domination hégémonique de la nation.

Ce sont bien ces phénomènes que l’on observe aujourd’hui sur le continent européen. Ils prennent la forme de contestations internes aux États, d’un discrédit des classes politiques et d’une critique violente et europhobe des institutions politiques de l’Union européenne. Tenter de les cerner exige de bien identifier leurs sources, de décrire précisément le tableau qu’ils nous offrent et d’en évaluer les limites, pour mesurer leurs chances d’accéder aux affaires. […]

Ce sont près d’une trentaine de partis populistes, extrémistes ou nationalistes qui pèsent aujourd’hui sur la vie politique en Europe. Leur classification entre ces trois catégories est évidemment sujette à caution, et s’il peut y avoir débat sur leur appartenance à l’une ou l’autre d’entre elles, il n’y aucun doute sur leur qualification dans cet ensemble global. Cinq d’entre eux appartiennent à un gouvernement ou le dirigent. Tous ont une réelle influence sur les discours politiques. Le tableau politique de l’Europe est donc particulièrement inquiétant. […]

L’interpellation populiste n’est pas une spécificité européenne. Elle est commune à tous les ensembles démocratiques et constitue pour eux un défi bien réel. Les mutations technologiques, économiques, culturelles et sociales, qui transforment sous nos yeux l’ordre mondial, imposent à l’évidence des changements majeurs dans l’exercice de la démocratie représentative. Dans ce maelström, la construction européenne est particulièrement interpellée du fait de son caractère original, inédit et inachevé. Son passé l’expose par ailleurs tout particulièrement au retour d’un nationalisme frileux, complètement dépassé par les réalités du monde. Les ressentiments ethniques, les frustrations historiques, les peurs ancestrales et les réflexes conditionnés des Européens, sédiments de l’histoire sur lesquels l’Union européenne s’est bâtie, constituent autant de risques susceptibles de peser sur l’évolution politique de l’Europe.

Les crises récentes nous montrent que les fondations en sont pourtant plus solides qu’il n’y paraît. Elles sont faits d’intérêts souvent partagés à défaut d’être acceptés comme communs, mais aussi d’engagements légitimes, de traités signés et appliqués, d’un droit très avancé, vraisemblablement assez souple pour supporter de vraies attaques, et suffisamment solide pour les contenir. Les mois et les années qui viennent vont les mettre à l’épreuve et apporter une confirmation ou un démenti à cette affirmation – il est vrai, optimiste. »

Pour lire l’article en intégralité sur Cairn, cliquez ici.

Pour vous abonner à Politique étrangère, cliquez ici.

 

Marking World Philosophy Day, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is encouraging people of the world to share their philosophical heritages and &#8220dare to open spaces for free, open and tolerant thinking.&#8221

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki moon has taken note of the appointment today of Samy Badibanga as Prime Minister ahead of the formation of a transitional government of national unity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), in line with the political agreement of 18 October.

Many of the political expectations with which Kosovo began the year yielded fewer results than hoped, the head of the United Nations peacekeeping mission there said today, expressing hope that next year will see clear progress on political dialogue accompanied by necessary progress at community level.

Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. (Associated Press)

Despite Chinese Ambassador to the U.S. Cui Tiankai’s comments during an interview with CNN on Tuesday, in which he stated “we take no sides,” outside the Chinese leadership, the Chinese have indeed been taking sides.

In a survey of 3,300 respondents in China conducted by the state-owned newspaper Global Times in March, some 54% preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Another poll in May conducted of 24,449 people by the Chinese language Phoenix TV website showed 61.5% supported Trump, with only 7.8% favoring Clinton.

Perhaps behind Trump’s initial popularity among Chinese were his isolationist foreign policy views—unlikely to stand in the way of a rising China. During an interview with The Economist in 2015, Trump brushed aside China’s construction of airstrips on reefs in the South China Sea, calling them: “very far away” and “already built.” Also, his perceived status among Chinese as a successful businessman may have also helped explain his popularity even after a number of anti-China statements, as he was seen a more pragmatic dealmaker on trade issues “election talk is just election talk,” than as an ardent human rights advocate and defense hawk like Hillary.

Yet while many Chinese distrust Hillary as an aggressive hawk, and may be happy she lost the election, other Chinese may now be rethinking their earlier support for a Donald Trump presidency as fears over a trade war grow in recent days.

One of those concerned is Chinese President Xi Jinping, who spoke with Trump on Monday to congratulate the new leader. According to the Financial Times, during the conversation Xi emphasized that cooperation between the two countries was the “only correct choice.” 

Some pundits believe Xi was advising and warning Trump to back down on his campaign rhetoric, accusing China of “raping” the U.S. and promising to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports. Trump has also promised to abandon the Paris climate change agreement ratified in September by U.S. President Barack Obama and Xi.

In recent days, president-elect Trump has attempted to soften some of his earlier campaign rhetoric, and may yet issue new statements to calm Beijing’s nerves. Yet the often extreme and contradictory positions taken on some issues, and his relative inexperience as a politician and diplomat have created uncertainty over his governance. In a Pew Center survey released on October 5, some 37% of those Chinese polled expressed confidence in Hillary “to do the right thing regarding world affairs”—compared to 22% expressing confidence in Trump.

To the Chinese, Hillary Clinton was the devil they know. Now Beijing and the Chinese, financial markets, and geopolitical pundits must all adjust to this new uncertainty and hope for the best.

The post Be Careful What You Wish For, China appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election is historical. Without any political experience, in defiance of the political establishment and the mainstream media, relying mostly on his own political instincts, he beat all the odds. Change is indeed coming to Washington, however, whether his presidency will be truly transformational remains to be seen. Here are my top 7 takeaways:

The most important dividing lines in the election were urban – rural, rich – poor and racial contrasts. Note that from the top ten richest states per capita only two went for Trump (rarely populated Alaska and North Dakota, rich because of petrol-industry), while he won all of the ten poorest states except for Maine. There are scores of indicators pointing at the economic hardships of rural America, here I would like to point to just one: while between 2002-2006 50 percent of the new jobs that were created in the US were dispersed throughout 120 counties– out of the 3143 -, between 2010 - 2014 the same figure dropped to 73 counties in and around only a handful of major cities, mostly in blue states.

Although the democrats lost, the American electoral map is changing: none-white votes, especially the Latino ones will matter more and more. The problem for the Clinton campaign was that the democrats forgot about their traditional hinterland: rural – industrial America, “the rustbelt”, populated mostly still by working class-whites. The democrat’s agenda of too much focus on minorities and liberal social issues has failed, and will fail again if more attention will not be given to the economic inequalities between classes and regions all across the board.
Trump will seek to balance between his radical right base and the republican establishment. Without the first he will lose popular support, without the latter he cannot govern. His first appointments and his backtracking on some major policy issues confirm this dual approach. However, with so conflicting ideas and world views in the White House, we can expect intensified conflicts to come within the Trump administration and the Republicans.

It will not be the end of America’s global engagement, but expect change. To potential adversaries such as China and Russia, the glass is half full, half empty: likely less American ‘World policing’, less scrutiny on human rights, but more problems on trade and arms buildup. There could be deeper cooperation with Russia on certain issues, but no one should set high hopes on a successful Reset 2.0. There is one thing Donald Trump likes better than making good deals: win. And the list of issues for potential conflict with President Putin or with China is long. As for NATO, it will not be dissolved, but if Europeans will not deliver much more on defense, instead of the other organization in Brussels, it will be just another organization.

Trump’s election does not mean much good for multilateralism, for trade liberalization, for arms control, for fighting climate change, for open door on migration – signature issues of the Obama presidency. Many of these issues will spark strong debates with European partners. A Trump administration might be good news for parties striving to gain back powers from Brussels into purely national hands. But how far would this nationalist wave go in terms of European disintegration? And what would this mean for Europe’s power structure and for small European countries? Complex questions with highly uncertain answers.

The success of Trump’s presidency will be measured primarily on how he tackles economic inequality, the urban-rural dived in American society, its budget deficit, the challenges of illegal immigration and terrorism. If President Trump would succeed in making progress on some of these issues, that would make America stronger, but the foundation of the transatlantic Alliance stronger.

Language Undefined Tag: USelectionsTrump

(REUTERS/Gretchen Ertl)

Could President Trump’s inaugural speech have a passage on foreign policy that runs something like the following?

“… U.S. foreign policy is action taken in the name of the American people as a whole. That’s why we all want so badly for it to show America as we see it.

I’ve said my Presidency is about taking back our country, about putting it first and making it great again. Overall, the way to do that is to focus again on our amazing Declaration of Independence.

We are caught up in our arguments, but we all agree that this nation was founded on rights, and on government dedicated to serve those rights. Those principles define the nation; we take our country back when we put them back above the arguments. When we observe them, when we do what we must to defend our freedom, when we make every effort to show our deepest nature, then we are as great as America is meant to be.

So every foreign policy action must trace back to how it fits our founding principles. I will judge our foreign policy options on that basis, and I will decide, and explain our actions, in those terms.

We will not all agree on every measure: we might hate each others’ interpretation of the Declaration. But we can remind ourselves that we agree on the principles; our differences are about interpretations and means, not ends.”

Anyone might be tempted to imagine more, but if only this much is expressed, it would be a first step in building common ground. Setting the Declaration as policy criterion would also promote coherence in foreign policy, across issues and over time. Even as our doctrines and world conditions evolve, and as our politics ebb and flow, the undercurrent of America’s nature will be clear.

This language would set the terms in which we address the world in a way that keeps the basic commitment of America’s founding in view. Its implied images, whether of deep friendship, of acceptable conduct toward us, or of hostility to be resisted, fit the broad patterns of our values throughout history.

Moreover, President Trump could say these words without compromising candidate Trump’s themes. Some specific ideas may become indicators of priority rather than concrete proposals. But the greatest force of his mandate comes from a general sentiment, for old-fashioned ideas of right and good to take priority. This language, in reminding everyone of America’s underlying consensus, carries that sentiment.

President-elect Trump could also use this criterion to manage the tangled masses of expertise that will be thrown at him. He need not be expert in the field; he could take the role of questioner in chief, requiring every proposal to include an accounting of how it fulfills or supports America’s founding tenets. He wouldn’t need to ingest the nuances of our deceptively simple creed: competing proposals will have to present their interpretations, and those nuances, to him.

Language like this would tender the prospect of real public discourse. Re-voicing the basis of our founding will also remind everyone of the deep appeal of America’s nature. It’s worth hoping for.

The post Something To Hope For In An Inauguration Speech? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Own report) - Under German pressure, the EU is pushing toward the establishment of military structures, independent of NATO, as is evidenced by recent decisions taken by its defense ministers. At their meeting, ending yesterday, the defense ministers decided, as a first step, that particular EU countries should enhance their military cooperation. The EU will establish a logistic hub and explore the creation of a European Medical Command. They planned the setting up of a nucleus for an EU civilian-military headquarters that, according to Italy's foreign minister, could grow to become a European general staff. These structures could serve NATO, but in the end, are suitable for an EU army. Berlin's attempt to pit the EU against the USA, by ostentatiously taking a distance to President-Elect Trump, has encountered opposition from the UK and several eastern EU countries. Leading European foreign policy makers called the EU a "superpower" expected to be a "global security provider."

(CNN Politics)

For Hillary Clinton supporters the inevitable arrival to Washington, D.C. of the man many of them see as a real-world Darth Vader feels like the tense wait prior to the landfall of a Category 5 hurricane. Liberal prognosticators, pundits and minority communities strain for any information that could provide fidelity on the trajectory of the terrifying tempest. They speculate on its likely impact on their lives and ask themselves, “Should we stay in place hoping for the best or should we get the hell out the way fearing the worst?”

Beyond U.S. borders, leaders of multilateral institutions like the United Nations, security alliances like NATO, clutch trading partners like Mexico and China are also gazing beyond the horizon nervously anticipation the storm surge and squalls that might be coming their way.

But will Trump really be the devastating hurricane that will reorder big chunks of the American and global economic and security architectures or will his impact on the status quo be more like a reshuffling of card decks via a dramatic flipping over of the entire table?

Predicting Trump’s decision-making on major foreign policy issues especially will make hurricane forecasting seem like kinder-garden math in comparison—far more abstract art than blue print interpretation. The reason for this is that like his recently vanquished democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump appears to maintain “both a public and a private position” on key issues.

For example, consider his public opinion on the United Nations. In March of 2016, the then republican front-runner blasted the United Nations ideological orientation before a powerful pro-Israel lobby group. He tongue lashed the U.N system stating that, “The United Nations is not a friend of democracy…. It’s not a friend to freedom. It’s not a friend even to the United States of America, where as we all know, it has its home. And it surely isn’t a friend to Israel.”

But in 2005 he sung a far different tune about the world’s premier conflict resolution body and leader of international climate change resiliency. The occasion was his testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee where he was invited to testify as a commercial development expert regarding out-of-control renovation costs of the U.N. headquarters. In his testimony, Trump the business man remarked:

“I have to start by saying I’m a big fan, a very big fan, of the United Nations and all it stands for,” Trump told  the senators. “I can’t speak as to what’s been happening over the last number of years, because it certainly hasn’t been good, but the concept of the United Nations and the fact that the United Nations is in New York is very important to me and very important to the world, as far as I am concerned. So I am a big fan.”

So on how many other policy matters does Trump maintain a public and private positions? It might be far more than his supporters could have ever imagined. Consider that just after meeting with President Obama two days after his epic electoral victory Trump roll backed his proposal for a total repeal of Obama Care stating that there are parts of Obama’s flagship domestic accomplishment that he really likes.

He has also quietly defanged his proposal to deport 11 million undocumented people residing in the U.S. It is insightful that his First 100 Days manifesto only discusses removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and applying penalties for people trying to reenter illegally. There is no mention of a “deportation force” or much feared draconian proposals that continue to cause millions of undocumented residents considerable angst.

Further, Trump has also recently suggested that he would revise his Muslim ban so that it targets people from countries “linked to terrorism” rather using their Islamic faith as a disqualifying criterion. So are the post-election shifts in tone and substance of flagship policy propositions a harbinger of what is to come? That is hard to know, however, what is certain is that the political Right’s change candidate has already begun to defang the most controversial of his policy proposals.

Lastly, it might be premature to say that Hurricane Trump won’t be packing a big punch, however, I think it’s safe to take the shutters down—almost.

The post Will the Real Donald Trump Please Stand up appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

President-elect Donald Trump’s surprise victory places each of his foreign policy pronouncements under renewed scrutiny. His erratic campaign leaves many wondering where rhetoric will become reality. Foreign policy is no exception.

In Asia—the subject of the Obama Administration’s controversial “pivot” policy—the president-elect is already doing some pivoting of his own. South Korea was a specific target of Trump’s criticism during the campaign. America, he argued, has borne the cost and responsibility of protecting its allies for too long, and should no longer foot the bill for Seoul’s defense. Earlier this year, Trump rattled South Koreans by suggesting withdrawal of U.S. troops stationed there and bi-lateral U.S. talks with North Korea were both possibilities.

As president-elect, however, Trump has changed course. In a phone call with South Korean President Park Geun-hye just two days after the U.S. election, he said U.S. commitment to the South Korea alliance would continue if not grow in his administration.

A portion of presidential campaign rhetoric always dissolves on election night. Given Trump’s general penchant for extreme rhetoric, is he likely to walk back other campaign statements on international affairs? What does Trump’s South Korea reversal signal about the future development of his foreign policy?

Campaign reversals are nothing new, even reversals relating to South Korea. Trump’s turnaround repeats in short form a Democratic chapter in U.S.-South Korea relations. In The Two Koreas—a one-volume history of U.S.-South Korean relations following the Korean War—former Washington Post correspondent Don Oberdorfer recalls the slow death of President Jimmy Carter’s own troop withdrawal policy.

Carter pledged, early in his campaign, to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea. Troop withdrawals had occurred after the Korean War reached a stalemate in 1953. U.S. failure in Vietnam provided a motivation for Carter to want to reduce American troop presence in Asia, but the 38th Parallel remained the most volatile Cold War flashpoint after a divided Germany.

President Carter’s policy emerged as campaign desire to make an immediate mark on pre-existing policy. In Oberdorfer’s telling, Carter’s top aides were reluctant about the form and substance of his withdrawal policy from the start. Once on the record, however, Carter was driven to pursue the policy for its own sake, and after dividing his staff and straining bi-lateral relations, he ultimately settled for a small draw-down in U.S. personnel (roughly 3,000 overall) on the Korean Peninsula. Most tellingly, when Oberdorfer questioned Carter and several of his senior aides about the policy years later, each was unable to articulate why it was conceived and then pursued so doggedly.

Oberdorfer concludes:

“In his haste and lack of finesse, an inexperienced president had transformed a general impulse to reduce U.S. military forces in South Korea into a highly controversial policy with which he was personally, and negatively, identified. Many of the American diplomatic and military officials dealing with the issue were not opposed to substantial reductions if pursued in a well-planned fashion, but they were horrified by the peremptory and damaging way the issue was pursued by the Carter White House. By refusing to heed or even hear the objections until he finally was backed into a corner, Carter undermined his own position.”

This is merely an arcane, if interesting, history lesson but for the fact that the above paragraph describes many fears about President-elect Trump’s foreign policy. He is certainly an inexperienced president – having never held an elective office—and acting with a lack of finesse was a campaign trademark. To those fearing damage—direct and collateral—from Trump’s foreign policy impulses, his about-face on South Korea was a sign that he distinguishes between ephemeral campaign rhetoric—however blunt—and nuanced realities of policy.

Where this leaves Trump on other key security issues, however, is a question the foreign policy establishment is scrambling to answer. How will Trump balance his critical statements about America’s obligations to NATO with his seeming support for Putin’s Russia? Will he be as eager for wholesale change in the U.S.-led fight against ISIS as he suggested during the campaign? In short, where will Trump stick to his hardline rhetoric, and where will be open to change?

Try as they might, no one can see around the corner into a Trump presidency. The capacity for course correction in policy he has displayed may cause some to exhale. The Carter example, however, demonstrates how easily individual political ambitions (regardless of party) can damage U.S. alliance relationships.

Will the president-elect acknowledge this reality? Time will tell. As a candidate, Trump took notions of ‘plain speaking’ politics to extremes that offended large segments of the electorate. As president, America’s well being depends on his turning over a new leaf. We can only hope more ‘pivots’ are to come.

The post What Does Trump’s “Pivot” Back To South Korea Mean For His Foreign Policy? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Own report) - In its struggle against Russia for influence, Berlin has just suffered a severe setback with the results of Moldova's presidential runoff elections last Sunday. Official German representatives were relying on the liberal conservative candidate Maia Sandu to win the elections in the Republic of Moldova, located between Romania and Ukraine, with its population of 3.5 million. Sandu sought to maintain the country's pro-EU orientation. However, the Socialist Igor Dodon won the elections. He not only has recognized Crimea's joining the Russian Federation, he also wants to terminate Moldova's EU association. Dodon's victory is another sign that Germany and the EU are loosing influence in that country. Most recently, proponents of the country's neutrality formed the government and began putting a distance between their country and NATO. Now even closer ties between the Republic of Moldova and the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union seem conceivable.