Enough With the Threats About Jerusalem

If, as a result of any White House Jerusalem-related announcements, mass violence occurs, the full blame will be with the rioters and their corrupt instigators, not with the President of the United States for conducting reasonable and fair foreign policy in doing nothing more than recognizing the political capital of a sovereign state and declaring intent to move the US embassy there. Particularly unwelcome are riots from people who have been on the US taxpayer dole for many decades and have paid us back with the murders of our citizens.

Overlooking Corruption and Authoritarianism Among Allies Leads to Abuse Of Our Humanitarian and Counterterrorism Aid

https://en.dailymail24.com/2017/12/02/overlooking-corruption-and/

US policy of providing "counterterrorism" funding and humanitarian aid to authoritarian regimes, who claim to be allies, but who utilize that money to suppress criticism, political opposition, and minorities runs counter to its own interests in preventing radicalization in otherwise stable countries and liquidating terrorist groups in the region. We have seen how such misuse of funding worked to perpetuate slavery in Mauritania, where abolitions have been labeled "terrorists" in order to justify the expenditure of US aid to hunt down such critics. 

We are seeing the same pattern in Bangladesh, where the President of the opposition party BJP, Mithun Chowdhury, was just arrested.  The sudden arrest of the leader of the opposition in a country allegedly allied with the United States should be an international scandal, but has not received coverage from the press, no more so than a similar arrest of arrival during the elections in Cambodia. However, unlike Cambodia, which has been shifting in China's direction in months leading up to the elections, Bangladesh's formerly secular Awami Party claims continuous close cooperation with the United States.  In reality, Bangladesh's, Sheikha Hasna is pulling a fast one over the administration, continuing the pattern of the past several years - at the cost to the country's poor population, minorities, and political opposition. 

Human rights attorneys and activists are doing a poor service to the concerns of the most vulnerable in failing to bring to our attention the continuously deteriorating human rights situation in Bangladesh.  As human rights reports produced by such human rights workers who risked their lives inside the country as Shipan Kumer Basu, who have had to flee the country due to threats to their lives show,  under the auspices of the ruling Awami League party, the political opposition has been suffering brutality, facing extrajudicial assassinations and disappearances on a daily basis, has been deprived of due process at show trials, has seen the proliferation of fabricated and forced confessions to spurious charges, has been dealt unspeakable tortures in remand and in prisons, and is being systematically defamed in the press. As such, there is no meaningful alternative or check and balance inside the government, whether with respect to domestic issues or to foreign policy.

The roots of this grave and unsustainable situation go back to the history of the Soviet Union’s involvement in the formation of the Awami League. The Soviet Union has backed this overtly leftist party, which despite the stated secularism, has shown proclivities for violence and chaos more characteristic of totalitarian regimes than liberal democracies. Its historic rivalry with BNP, the leading opposition party, has been marked by mutual violence and distrust. However, the last few years have shown a drastic growth in attacks not merely on the BNP and other rival parties, but the attacks on the parliamentarian model of governance, and thus, on the fabric of the otherwise largely moderate and stable civil society.  The brutal suppression of any criticism under the pretense of counterterrorism, as well as the chaotic situation around the elections two years ago, led to allegations of widespread electoral fraud and BNP’s withdrawal from participation. Arguably, the current government is completely illegitimate, due to the failure of its leading opposition party to participate in the last elections.

However, with the elimination of its chief rival, the Awami League, led by the strongwoman Sheikh Hasina, only intensified its attacks on the opposition and other leaders. Such attacks have been highly damaging to Bangladesh’s claims to democratic governance and participation in respected international organizations alongside the United States. Last year, the then- newly appointed co-secretary of the BNP, Aslam Chowdhury has been arrested and put under remand, which has been extended, under the trumped charges of sedition. His alleged crime? Mr. Chowdhury happened to have been invited to India’s BJP party youth conference, where an Israeli lobbyist also was in attendance. The two interacted with each other, as well as with hundreds of other participants. Bangladesh does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Still, an incidental meeting has been used to accuse BNP, as well as other rival parties, of sedition and conspiracy to overturn the existing government. Several BNP activists and leaders including Mr. Chowdhury have been arrested in a very public manner. Under the remand, the accused, who have recently been officially charged, have no access to lawyers, and their communication with the outside world is extremely limited. They are allowed no visitors, and their condition is quite grave. Torture is a widespread method of extracting false confessions from individuals under remand, as countless accounts of victims have shown.  Already, the Awami League has threatened to utilize Mr. Chowdhury’s alleged comments in remand to arrest his alleged accomplices and to undermine the very existence of BNP, in essence opening a witch hunt against the entirety of Bangladesh’s opposition and leading the country in a very dangerous direction.

This disturbing series of events threatens the stability of Bangladesh and its neighbors, and places strain on the development of future relations between Bangladesh and the United States. Bangladesh participates in such institutions as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organization. The countries engage in a strong trade relationship. Bangladesh is the beneficiary the largest assistance by the United States in Asia outside Afghanistan and Pakistan. The current predicament puts the wisdom of such assistance in question.  Deterioration of human rights, suppression of political opposition, extrajudicial killings, and arbitrary detentions and arrests point in the direction of increased political risk in investment and trade. Much of the assistance that is meant to go towards the development of the country and counterextremism measures is likely being misused towards mass arrests of political opponents and critics of the government’s harsh measures and failure to observe the minimal due process. Rather than fighting terrorism, the Awami League fights the critics that keep its own foreign and domestic policy excesses in check. Governments that are largely authoritarian are not reliable partners in security, in trade, or in political processes. The increasing centralization of power in Bangladesh is a threat to U.S. interests in the region, be they opposition to extremism, peaceful development of relations with India, which is increasingly concerned by Sheikh Hasina’s erratic actions, and the stabilization and strengthening of the region vis-à-vis aggressive overtures from China. 

Furthermore, by engaging in public and widespread conspiracy theories against U.S. allies, such as Israel and India, the Awami League betrays the trust the U.S. government is placing into its growing partnership with this allegedly West-oriented party. The Awami League’s fearmongering and defamation against outside scapegoats can only lead to internal destabilization, ethnic clashes, and deterioration in diplomatic relations with other allies and partners.  Whether this current development is merely a natural succession to the last few years’ increase in centralization and Sheikh Hasina’s dictatorial tendencies, or whether the current witch hunt against the opposition is a concerted attempt to distract from other, more disturbing developments, leaving such developments to continue unchecked will lead to further disrespect for the U.S. position, assistance, and diplomatic involvement in the country and the region.

I speak for 160 million Bangladeshis who surely deserve better than this untenable political situation when I call on  Congress and the administration to utilize their  collective strength, respect, and wisdom to exert influence on the course of events, before the Awami League’s disastrous actions render irreversible damage on Bangladesh-U.S. relations, and turn Bangladesh from a stable, developing, and moderate country into the Syria of South Asia, an outcome we simply cannot afford.  

 Please consider engaging in applying appropriate political pressures on the Awami League to

demand the immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Aslam Chowdhury . Mr. Miltun Chowdhury,and other political prisoners. demand that the government of Bangladesh cease and desist from any further politically motivated arrests, arbitrary detentions, conspiratorial statements and comments to the press, extrajudicial killings and assaults, and other unconscionable attacks on individual and political freedom

demand the review of any funding or other forms of assistance that go towards Bangladesh’s alleged counterextremism efforts and hold the ruling party accountable for any misuse of the U.S. goodwill, trust, and assistance.

Also, speaking on behalf of all the unjustly detained, all the tortured, all the disappeared and murdered individuals, I ask you to hold a public hearing focused on the increasingly authoritarian situation in Bangladesh, and the potential for Awami League to become a regional security threat and a force of aggression and destabilization in the area.

A an U.S. human rights lawyer,  I surely speak with reason when I say that the U.S. taxpayers deserve better than to subsidize an illegitimate authoritarian government which defames our allies, tortures and murders opposition, and misuses the funding that should be going towards the fight against terrorist groups to go after legitimate critics of its policies.

Who Is Lying About Kirkuk And Why It Matters

cross-posted in Times of Israel:

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/who-is-lying-about-kirkuk-and-why-it-matters/


Among the growing Baghdad-Barzani rift, various claims have been made about who knew what and when, and who said what and why.

The  three competing perspectives are as follows:

* US betrayed Kurds by failing to stop the invasion by Iraqi forces, Iran-backed Shi'a militias, and the IRGC. Kurds have been strong allies to the US during the fight against ISIS, and have peacefully voted to secede from a state, which is increasingly manipulated by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and thus is not a good fit for the significant Kurdish population. The oil fields can and should be peacefully negotiated by the two governments, but the Iraqi forces have no business invading Kurdish-held territories, which the latter have liberated from the ISIS presence. Moreover, Iraqi Constitution, Article 140, provides for Kurdish independence, and given that the Constitution was comprised with the assistance from US lawyers and the State Department, US is well aware of that provision and should be respectful of it.

* Kurdish leadership new full well from CIA, State Department, and Pentagon statements before the referendum that US was strongly opposed to secession and would not be supportive if Baghdad decided to take back its territory in the aftermath. Barzani blatantly lied to its population, leading them to believe that the US was deceptive about its support for Kurds. There was no reason to believe that the independence referendum had international support. Barzani overstepped his authority in the attempt to distract from his own illegitimate hold on power despite the constitution.

* The well trained Iraqi forces, armed by the United States, had significantly more field experience in long-term operations than Peshmerga. Furthermore, Baghdad was planning to invade Kirkuk regardless of whether or not Kurds held the referendum, so it was only a matter of time before the region was overrun with Iraqi forces coupled with Iran-backed Shi'a militias. Barzani did not necessarily count on the Talabani faction to sell out to the IRGC, but had decided to call the referendum, knowing that they would be taken over regardless, to draw attention to the upcoming takeover, and also to start taking active steps towards the future, knowing that putting that off would likely make it less, not MORE likely to gain international support and recognition with time.  Furthermore, regardless of US statements, it was in the US interests to support Kurds and to avoid clashes between allies, so regardless of US statements about the referendum, it was reasonable to expect that they would mediate in a manner that would avoid violent takeover and could help negotiate oil. It's not in the US interests to have IRGC presence regardless of how the US administration feels about Baghdad's claims to Kirkuk, or or other issues complicating Kurdish path to independence.

These three narratives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And the Kurdish people should have had realistic expectations of the US role in their own story, and had demanded better preparation and organization of troops, clear communications, and an actual plan from the Barzani government, not to mention dealing with the election issue instead of going for populist slogans. However, none of these considerations takes away from the legitimacy of the following concerns:

Whatever the concerns of the US in balancing various interests in the region and preventing further destabilization, failure to take a leadership role in preventing conflict, actually led to the very destabilization it was trying to prevent. Pentagon's denials about the role of IRGC in this avoidable situation are not helping the US credibility, and further, play into the hands of the very actors no one wants to see play a decisive role in the future of Iraq and Kurds. These lies and denials make US look treacherous, deceptive, anti-Kurdish and do nothing to dissuade the Kurds from moving forward with whatever faulty narrative Barzani may be peddling. In fact, it is pushing them into the embrace of the Russians, while IRGC and Baghdad government feel emboldened to disregard Kurdish claims, and act in a matter that is punitive and vindictive, rather than defensive of Baghdad's legitimate claims and interests.  As a direct consequence of US failure to intervene, several disturbing developments occurred:

IRGC, dressed as Shi'a militias, and in conjunction with actual Iran-backed militias,  have continued plundering and raiding their way through the territory, up to Al-Qosh, increasingly placing minority civilian populations and Jewish and Christian historical sites in danger.  Minorities, such as Christians and Yazidis, have been forced to choose among three factions - Kurdish Peshmerga, the PMU units, now linked to Iran, and Iraqi forces,  in order to protect their civilians and interests. That does nothing to simplify the situation, as the continuous clashes may force these groups to pick up weapons against each other.  Christian militias that run their own defense in Nineveh are paid by PMU, which is troubling to US interests in preventing Iranian financial transactions that benefit the IRGC, recently designated as a terrorist organization. Qasem Soleimani, despite being recognized as a terrorist by the State Department in a recent statement, continues to play an active organizing role in the planning and implementation of the regional takeover.

Second, Turkey and Iraq are moving to cut off Kurdish access to Syrian and Turkish overpasses, which will ease the likelihood of future Turkish entry into the area. Turkey views Kirkuk as its own sphere of interests, and considers the prevention of contiguous Kurdish territories between Iraq, a likely Syrian Kurdish federation,and Kurdish territories in Turkey as central to its interests.  There is also a growing possibility that Turkey may target the oil pipelines remaining under Kurdish control, which will deprive the Kurds of their essential livelihood and further empower and embolden Erdogan's expansionist neo-Ottoman ambitions in the region. Turkey is becoming an increasing threat to US interests in the region and elsewhere, and this additional step will make that much harder for the US to defend its foothold, access to energy, defense of minorities, or relationships with more stable and less aggressive allies.

For now, however, Iraq is more likely to gain control of that pipeline and has already taken steps to bypass the Kurdish region in providing oil to Turkey. Iraq and Turkey are on the same page with regards to Baghdad's regaining control and dominating Kurdistan, and Turkey has already made a similar security agreement with Iran. This triumvirate will ultimately prove hostile to US interests in the region, and should be broken up by the US, regardless of Barzani's flaws. US needs to prioritize what is at stake. Iran-oriented Iraq is no great ally and will likely prove a hindrance in the US's future battles against Iranian aggression. And Turkey is proving increasingly less of a friend and more of a menace as it opposes US presence in the region, detains US citizens, interferes with US strategy in Syria, and threatens US allies. The more time the US wastes maintaining supposed neutrality that only strengthens our enemies, the more likely we are to find ourselves friendless when our neutrality inevitably backfires.

No Such Thing As Coincidences

I doubt that Bill Browder's visa revocation is an accident.

More likely, it was ordered by someone who is either directly sympathetic to Putin's goals or wants to make the administration look bad.

Regardless, Secretary Tillerson should make a personal apology on behalf of the agency to Mr. Browder, who, instead, should be lauded for his heroic efforts on behalf of human rights and anti-corruption.

We're Living An Old Joke About the Nazis

Rex Tillerson: It's time for Iranian militias to go home.

IRGC + Iranian militias immediately picked up their marbles and went home.

Or not. No, they actually didn't even blink.

Doesn't Add Up

Once again, you cannot maintain that the President is both a brilliant genius who can outsmart anyone at anything and 8 months into the presidency to maintain that he is a helpless hostage of the Deep State (Which he insists on not replacing), while his own appointees refuse to expose the Obama staff's iniquities.

How US Can Prevent Future Unjust Imprisonments and Arbitrary Detentions of Americans by Cuba and Others

In early October, a US citizen and her husband, a former Cuban diplomat, were sentenced to 13 and 17 years respectively on charges of espionage by a  military court in Havana. This sentencing follows the expulsion of 15 Cuban diplomats from the United States by the State Department, after Cuba failed to protect US diplomatic personnel from repeated sonic attacks on its territory. This news went largely unnoticed by U.S. media and thus elicited no outrage or condemnation by the international community, nor public expressions of concern by the State Department.

Cuba has a long and sordid history of arresting critics, dissidents, and foreigners on trumped up national security charges.  Alan Gross is but the most famous of foreigners who spent years in Cuban prison for humanitarian work and assistance in civil engagement. Cuban government had engaged in a campaign of extortion, and finally released Mr. Gross, after US paid over $3 million in settlement.  It seems that the Castro regime was less concerned about the assault on its law than about getting a hefty renumeration for its own pockets. President Trump acted to restrict tourist travel to Cuba for American citizens in June, but that still leaves 12 categories of travel legal and does not address the issue of American citizens who are already in Cuba.  In other words, US nationals continue to travel to Cuba for various, entirely valid reasons, and yet are subject to arbitrary detentions, imprisonment on trumped up charges, denial of medical treatment in Cuban jails, and abuse of all kinds.

The Alan Gross case had worked in Cuba's favor and set a precedent of successful use of Americans as hostage, whose release can be negotiated for financial and political boons.  President Obama's shift in policy, normalizing the diplomatic relations between the two countries did little to address the Castro regime's illegitimate use of the justice system to secure payments for prisoners, that under normal circumstances would be considered a form of racketeering under US RICO statutes. Two years after normalization, this shift in policy has failed to empower and enrich millions of Cubans unaffiliated with the Castro regime, has not only not fixed the deplorable human rights situation but actually led to a crackdown on human rights activists, caused medical concerns for US diplomats in Cuba, and in general, and with respect to anyone and anything excepting the wealthiest crony investors, has misfired "big league".

The worst of it for the US is that Cuba continues to play it both ways - demands legitimacy accorded to it by the normalized relations, while also continuing to use Americans as pawns against the US government. This latest conviction is not only a perverse tit-for-tat in retaliation for the expulsion of the Cuban diplomats from the United States, but a reminder that Cuba, despite being smaller, weaker, and known for its support of terrorists and rogue regimes from all over the world, still has the upper hand in its relations with the United States. Cuba can detain, convict, and abuse Americans and the US will play right into its hands, because the US values human life and the Castro regime does not. US is willing to go to extreme lengths to secure the release of its unjustly held citizens and permanent residents, whereas for Cuba, a person is only worth as much as the regime can get in payment for his release. And until recently, short of banning all travel to Cuba, we were powerless to do anything about it, because we have no leverage short of going along with the demands of the extortionist regime and exchanging prisoners or paying money. We are not willing to engage in the same terrorist behavior and hold Cuban diplomats or citizens hostages here just to secure the release of American nationals.

But what recourse do we have under such circumstances? It appearance that we do have a path forward that does not include negotiations with an illegitimate revolutionary regime that thinks nothing of extortionist abductions to further its goals. After examining existing human rights laws on the books,  I discovered that:

* Currently, there are no laws, nor pending bills that would penalize states or individuals or entities responsible for arbitrary detentions, arrests, denial of medical treatment, or torture against US citizens and permanent residents.

* The only legislative requirements associated with US prisoners in other countries are regular reporting requirements by the President to Congress, which obviously do not do much to assist those in need.

* Currently, there are at least 10 US citizens & permanent residents held captive in Iran, at least 4 in North Korea, at least one in Turkey, and just this weekend, there has been news of conviction of a US citizen on Cuba on espionage charges, resulting in a 13 year sentence.

*  In the past, US citizens have been held or convicted on trumped up charges, denied medical treatment, and brutally tortured in a number of countries. Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Turkey have all used the imprisonment of these individuals to extort political and financial concessions from the United States.

* One solution to this legislative gap would be a law incorporating Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act  type language, that would would assert visa cancelations and asset freezes for any individuals and entities associated with unjust treatment of US nationals.  That would include judges, prison guards, wardens, torturers, and doctors involved in denial of life-saving medical treatment in prisons.

* Such legislation  would essentially ostracize anyone involved in such activity on the basis of their unconscionable actions, and not simply for the fact of membership in an organization such as IRGC. Organizations can dissolve or be renamed; many of the people involved in the lawless arrests and imprisonment of Americans are not members of any political organizations, and yet contribute to this gross injustice.

* In addition to making such people unwelcome in the international arena, and denying them the possibility of utilizing the US banking system, as well as providing a bit of justice for the survivors and for the families of people who have gone missing or died as a result of actions by these state enablers (such as Bob Levinson and Otto Warmbier), this legislation would likely positively affect the outcome of hostage negotiations by giving the executive branch additional leverage in conducting these talks. Currently, we have no leverage and as a result have been forced to either admit defeat and retreat or to grant concessions which only encourage what ultimately amounts to terrorist behavior.

* Another positive aspect of this legislation is making these countries safe for travel. Executive actions are currently preventing US citizens from traveling to countries such as North Korea, and strong travel warnings and restrictions have been placed on Cuba and other places. Visas have are not being issues for travel to Turkey. Such actions ultimately only hurt the idea of freedom of travel, which is central to a functioning democracy, and are only necessary because currently there is no other way of providing for the basic security of those traveling to these countries. Such measures are inimical to health people-to-people relations and any possibility of business, cultivating individual relationships, or frankly, even liberalizing such countries through their exposure to Western ideas and private initiatives.  A much better way of ensuring security for Westerners is attacking the cause of all problems - extortionist state action, which endangers travelers. Legislation that penalizes those who benefit from such extortion would disincentivize these states from further engaging in such actions, deter abductions, and make US travels restrictions less necessary.

And while the audience considers the upsides of taking legislative action that would empower our negotiators and reduce the power of racketeering regimes over the United States, I hope the White House considers highlighting this case of a gross miscarriage of justice, publicly denounces the Castro regime's extortion, shuts down the US embassy in Cuba until further notice, and expels the remaining diplomats from the United States. There is no reason why the enablers and servants of the Castro regime should continue to be treated as legitimate actors by the international community while continuing to engage in illegitimate actions and unjust convictions of foreigners. Civilians are not, and should never be, fair game during diplomatic tensions, and this instant conviction for "spying" that has come so shortly after the expulsion of Cuban diplomats from the US, should be no exception.

Contrary to Progressive Bandwagon Fantasy, Tillerson's Exist Would Actually Strengthen The Presidency

So the entire left-wing media jumped on the "Rex Tillerson is in shambles and will be leaving soon" bandwagon. On the one hand, weakening the presidency is in the interests of the left-leaning media circus; on the other hand, they are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to get Tillerson out as quickly as possible. In fact, the next candidate is much more likely to be on the same page as Trump with regards to Iran deal and other issues, and will likely to strengthen our foreign policy rather than weaken it. At this point, in their desperation, the progressives are just making noise for the sake of making noise.

Reinventing the State Department.

Once upon a time, diplomacy was a powerful political tool for assisting and complementing military solutions towards complex problems.

Now it has become a joke of endless dialogues and peacemongering at the cost of all other steps that need to be taken to resolve the problem.

The issue here is not destroying or eliminating the State Department, but reorienting its mission, optimizing existing tools towards the foreign policy goals of the administration, getting rid of the people who are disruptive to those goals, and hiring people who will be helpful towards the implementation.

But the status quo cannot continue. The military can only advice as to the military objectives and strategies towards achieving those. They are not a substitute for political decisions.

State Department Finally Listens to Reason, Follows Senator Cruz's Advice, Expels 15 Cuban Diplomats from the US

The State Department finally used common sense, took Senator Ted Cruz's advice, and expelled 15 Cuban diplomats from the US in retaliation for the failure to protect US diplomats stationed in Cuba from unprovoked sonic attacks, resulting in various injuries.

This is an important point, because Cuba, though claiming both innocence and ignorance, is clearly responsible for protecting US diplomatic personnel from harm, and the State Department's first duty is to ensure that our people around the world receive the best possible treatment in the event of work-related injuries, and are kept out of harm's way to the degree possible. It's also important to note that even if Cuba is not the perpetrator of the attacks, it mostly likely is aware of the actors behind it, and is giving them cover. These incidents have been taking place over the course of two years, and it's astounding to consider that during this entire time period the host country hasn't got a clue as to who or what has targeted and harmed so many people in different locations.

Evacuation of those directly in harm's way was the common sense protective measure, but taking a punitive measure that underscores that attacks on our people and protection of perpetrators will not be tolerated was equally important. Whether this expulsion will prove to be a sufficient signal remains to be seen. However, I side with those, such as SEnator Cotton and Senator Rubio, who think that our embassy in Cuba should be shut down, not only for the protection of the remaining 40% of our diplomatic force, but to send a strong signal that we are not playing games and there cannot be a relationship until this unacceptable situation is resolved and the culprits are brought to justice.

Protecting the Nameless Defenders

According to the latest reports, most of the diplomats attacked with sonic devices in Cuba were US intelligence officers operating under diplomatic cover (Admittedly, even without official reports determining as much, this wasn't hard to surmise). This changes absolutely nothing about the course of action that should be taken. Intelligence-related attacks of this sort should not be met with impunity, and the courageous individuals who are facing such extreme danger on behalf of US security on foreign soil should be receiving best possible treatment.

In Which the State Department Stands in Support of... Taliban

When the Trump administration took completely reasonable steps to try to closed down the Taliban office in Qatar, the State Department pushed back, claiming that such a step would undermine US efforts in Afghanistan.
Wait a minute - we spent 16 years in Afghanistan, fighting... who or what exactly?
Since when has Taliban (backed by Russia and Iran) been helpful to our efforts in Afghanistan?
Why shouldn't we be taking all possible action to pressure the enemy we are ACTUALLY FIGHTING?
What am I missing here, and who exactly works for our State Department?
I hope Tillerson goes on a massive firing spree after this "dissent memo". This is absolutely unacceptable.

Breaking Up Egypt and North Korea: Why Sissi's Illicit Trade with North Korea Makes Sense

Earlier, I expressed bewilderment when the State Department sanctioned Egypt by withholding aid due to the alleged broken promise regarding an NGO law that Egypt had reassured the US government it would not implement, but did.  The pragmatic Tillerson's willingness to intervene in an ally's internal issues when other similarly situated allies, such as Turkey do much worse, with no reprimand from the White House, seemed a little excessive and unfair. I thought there had to be more to the story and that the stated reason was probably not the real one. A bit later, an update regarding Egypt and North Korea's ongoing and illegal arms trade caught my attention, and I wondered whether that's what really was going on. However, at the time, there was no comment from the White House that would link the two events, nor did the analysts so much as suggest that could be the real reason for the tensions between Sissi and Tillerson.

Now, it seems, my suspicions were unequivocally confirmed by an explicit statement from the administration acknowledging that the sanctioning of the aid was at least in part due to the incident of a ship flying under Cambodian flag, found caught delivering North Korean arms to Egypt. According to the article, Egypt claimed innocence and cooperation with the UN in destroying the weapons; however, the Egyptian intelligence only reacted when there was no other choice and did not volunteer information; furthermore, despite profuse denials, it appeared that the rogue ship was destined for Egyptian companies rather than some third parties. Reason for dealing with North Korea? North Korea is both cheaper than most other suppliers, and has been modernizing where Russia, and others have stuck to distributing old Communist arsenals.

Several questions naturally arise at this juncture:

1. Why is Egypt so desperate for cheap weapons?
2. Why does it value those cheap weapons more than it values its alliance with the United States? (Sissi had to be fully aware of the operation, as well as the priority this administration has placed on not dealing with North Korea)
3. The incident happened last year during Obama's administration. Has anything changed since then? Has the new administration made its priorities sufficiently clear at the outset?  Was it wise for the new administration to punish Egypt for the sins committed under Obama?
4. What impact have the new sanctions had a) on Egypt-North Korea relations and b) on Egypt-US relations?
5. What is the next step for the administration if Egypt is found to continue trading with North Korea in violation of both old and new sanctions against the latter?
6.  What should US do if it legitimately wants to woo Egypt away from bad actors? (This is a separate question from what I think the administration will actually do).

I will start off with a tentative and entirely unscientific guess that Egypt was as angered by Trump's reaction to last year's incident as Trump was by perceived deception, and will continue to do whatever it feels like doing just because it can. Does it seem rational in terms of the fact that this incident already cost Egypt badly needed aid from the US and Trump's much desired goodwill? If we were discussing a Western democracy, it would sound completely irrational, even crazy, indeed. But we are talking about a Middle Eastern dictator, and therefore, all of this makes complete sense.  First of all, Sissi did not view Obama as an ally and felt no obligation to constrain his own decisionmaking by US concerns, especially since Obama himself did not seem all that particularly concerned about North Korea, and certainly not concerned enough to go after all the other countries that we now know have been involved in illegal arms trade with the Junche regime. Sissi needed weapons to fight ISIS and internal enemies, and he sure wasn't going to get all those weapons from the US, and North Korea was simply cheaper than everybody else providing such services.  Trump's reaction must have been somewhat surprising to Sissi who probably thought of Trump as a more pragmatic-minded leader than Obama and was hopeful that the relations between the two countries would start off well.  Trump, however, made North Korea a top foreign policy priority, and Sissi's unwillingness to see eye to eye on that matter was a red line.  Allegedly, Obama was likewise angry at Sissi for alleged other North Korean weapons deals over the years, but if that is the case, none of that made it to the level of public knowledge and one may wonder why that was the case.

However, based on the available evidence, it appears that this administration's response has been reactionary. The rocket deal from last year impacted Trump's decision to delay or freeze aid to Egypt, which is understandable... but unwise. First, it just does not make sense for a new administration to build relations with an ally based off solely an incident that took place under a previous administration. Now, if it turns out that there is evidence of continued trade that has gone into this year, and that after many behind the scenes discussions about the importance of cutting it out, Egypt failed to comply, I would say Trump would be wholly justified in making that decision.  If that is not the case, though, the administration is making a mistake that may take well with the president's base here in the United States, but will not move Sissi to improvements, certainly not in the immediate future, not even if Sissi needs Trump a lot more than Trump needs Sissi (which isn't the case, either). To bend to Trump's terms under such circumstances - if this freeze is indeed a reaction to one past incident rather than a result of an ongoing and failed dialogue - would mean to lose face, and as I've argued before, that's just not something Sissi can afford to do and certainly not something he would ever consider.

What should President Trump have done? Exactly what I just suggested: engaged in a quiet behind the scenes conversation with Sissi, explained that North Korea is providing dangerous assistance to Iran, and  thus presents a danger to everyone, promised to cut a good deal on necessary weapons, and to increase cooperation related to fighting ISIS, and told Sissi in no uncertain terms that while the administration is willing to let Obama era bygones be bygones and start out on a fresh page, no further infringements of sanctions on North Korea would be tolerated, and that a relationship with the US would have to be predicated on a basic degree of honesty and respect.  No matter how tempting and unnerving it may be, you just don't start out a new relationship with an apparent and eager ally with threats and punishments, especially when you are simultaneously letting other countries off the hook for various human rights violations and security infringements (and I'm talking Turkey - Sissi has a less than cordial relationship with Erdogan, who is housing Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and is alleged to have supported ISIS). Acting in an apparently hypocritical manner was likely seen as a stab in the back by Sissi and did not make him warm up to any concessions. SO the issue here is not that Sissi doesn't want or need a relationship with the US, but that he perceives the decisionmaking as being done by Trump (which is not inaccurate), and predicates a strong relationship with the US on a strong relationship with Trump. If the US is not providing Sissi with what he needs to retain power, some level of support, and ability to control the security situation, then what kind of an ally is it, and why does Sissi need it, when he can have Russia, which makes no such preconditions? That is how Sissi thinking at the moment. He would prefer US to Russia, but he will prefer a loyal ally who understands what he needs over one that just makes constant demands. That's not to say that Trump was incorrect in having these expectations either, and from Trump's perspective, Sissi's actions were also most disappointing, and perhaps even seen as an act of betrayal. But we are adults here, which means, we realize that national self-interest here should trump whatever personal issues either leader has with each other at this point.

While I cannot say for certain what happened in meetings between the administration and Sissi's people before the sanctions were announced, I can tell you what's happening right now: Egypt may be more careful in trying not to get caught, because it's aware that it's under greater scrutiny now than ever before, but it will continue to try to cut deals with North Korea whenever it can until and unless something major changes: either it suffers an emergency and desperately needs US help, the international situation changes such that it becomes simply too costly and damaging to do business with North Korea, or there is a change in US leadership, and Sissi feels he can try again with a new president. He would certainly be willing to reconsider if Trump himself makes a move to put this messy business behind him, but I doubt that's going to happen in the near future.  As for the US, given that it has been some time since the freeze on aid has been announced, and there have not been further developments, I think the administration is planning to maintain its stand for the time being, and unless there is a new adviser who informs Trump that the current course of action will not lead to a breakthrough, I likewise see no warming of relations with Egypt in the immediate foreseeable future for largely the same reasons. If the US catches Egypt continuing to engage in North Korea, it may try to slap on more sanctions, or engage in tough talk behind the scenes, but at this point, without a serious investment into the repair of the damaged relationship, I doubt that additional tough steps, particularly if they are public, will change Sissi's mind. He will simply look for other partners. As for Trump, if he ever wants to get back on track with Sissi and move that conversation in a much more constructive direction for both countries, all he needs to do is pick up the phone - and make an offer (or a deal, if you will) that Sissi can't refuse.

US Should Expel Cuban diplomats and shut down US Embassy in Cuba

Senators Rubio, Cotton, and Cruz (among possibly others) have all expressed concern about the health of the US personnel in Cuba after a series of sonic attacks. All three called for cessation of diplomatic relations with the vile regime, expelling diplomats, shutting down our embassy there, and so forth. The administration has been slow in following this sage advice. The emergency personnel remaining in Cuba is still at risk of attacks. Moreover, our continuing welcoming of Cuban diplomats to the US sends the wrong message after nearly two dozen diplomatic personnel fell victim to mysterious attacks on Cuban soil with not a shred of evidence as to who or what might be responsible. It's time for US to hold the Castro regime accountable for what happens to US diplomats on its soil. Legitimacy and trust should have to be earned.

State Department follows Iran and Turkey right into the Swamp

Our pathetic State Department, as voiced not by some Arabist career diplomat, nor by an insidious Obama holdover, but by Trump's very own Rex Tillerson, just proclaimed that it does not recognize the results of Kurdish independence referendum. Yet, this administration, continuous onwards in its quest to fund corrupt Palestinian leadership and work towards establishing a Palestinian state. Mind you, in an interesting and completely unexpected coincidence, Hamas, part of the future unity government, is openly funded by Iran, same country bluntly opposed to the establishment of a Kurdish state. In the same coincidence, Hamas is also supported by Turkey, another country that expressed its opposition to the Kurdish state in the strongest possible terms short of an invasion. Instead of providing moral strength and leadership and using its status as a world power to shush the naysayers once and for all, the United States is once again, jumping off the moral bridge following the bad example of instigating bullies no one ever actually wants to be friends with, right into the morass of nincompoopery and relativism. Well done, Secretary Tillerson, we are not only NOT draining the swamp, we are actually making it a lot worse.

The Cuba Non-Response Response

The US has taken certain security precautions in response to the ongoing trouble for diplomats in Cuba, namely
1) cutting staff by 60% to leave only "emergency" personnel (what, they are not people?)
2) warning Americans not to travel to Cuba
3) moving visa applications for Cuban visitors to nearby countries
and
4) stopping official delegations to Cuba, though receiving diplomatic visits in the US.

You know what US hasn't done? Assigned any sort of responsibility to the Castro regime for allowing Americans to be repeatedly and continuously attacked on Cuban soil

The Cuban Travesty

What we know about the mysterious sonic  attacks against US diplomats n Cuba...

... Not much,actually.

What we know about the actions of the US government:

- Despite the multiplicity of victims,  most of the US diplomats and staff are still there.
- The State Department is planning to evacuate a "large portion" of the embassy, without clarifying when exactly that's going to happen,  nor giving reasons why it won't evacuate the entire body of our personnel, all potentially open to future attacks by the unidentified entity.
- After announcing that the State Department is considering shutting down the embassy, under pressure from five US Senators, the State Department agreed to a hastily arranged meeting with Cuban representatives, who are urging the US to be involved in the investigation and not to shut down the embassy.
- No further information about the source of the attacks was put forth at the meeting, but interesting, the US is now sure it wasn't Cuba, but no one will state what other actor it is or could be.
- Interestingly, no one raised any questions as to whether Cuba could potentially know who that other party is.
- Cuba is known to engage in friendly relations with a number of anti-Western entities, including North Korea, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and others.

Let me get something straight here.

Cuba needs us a lot more than we need Cuba.

Yet, despite getting 0 useful information pertaining to the health of our diplomatic personnel, the State Department agrees to a meeting in the US on short notice. And immediately puts aside the question of shutting down the Embassy. And is suddenly sure that it's not Cuba, but appears uncertain of the identify of the mysterious attacker.

Color me skeptical for a moment.

What has changed from before the meeting to after?

Perhaps, the Cubans offered to cut a deal in exchange for not disrupting the relationship. What's a few dozen diplomats when major investments are at stake? The US (and various cronies) get good cuts. The affected diplomats are evacuated, at least for a while, shutting down the criticism about the urgency of the matter, while embassy remains open in a major diplomatic victory for everyone's benefited from the normalized relations (Obama's cronies, most of the career State Department employees, and those Obama appointees who are still in plays), the administration gets the credit for skillfully managing the situation, and everyone walks away happy. The culprit may never be found, but we have bigger fish to fry.

Except the inconvenient truth here is that the affected personnel is STILL in Cuba for reasons that defy logic or explanation - and that haven't, in fact, been directly addressed or explained by Tillerson or anyone else.

Cuba has recently been devastated by Hurricanes, and searching for mysterious sound devices with a flashlight is likely the least of their worries, even if they are honest about the effort.

However, most likely they are not and never have been. Here's why:

The affected territory - in and around diplomatic residences and the embassy, is limited in nature. IF this is a serious investigation involving Cuba, the US, Canada, and possibly other Western actors, if there was a stationary source of sound, it would have been found by now, or else completely destroyed by the storm. If it's a mobile device, the culprits would never leave it out there to be found. So even if Cuba is responsible for the attacks, it certainly won't ever make itself accountable, but it will play along with the United States and wag the tail nicely in order to continue reaping the benefits of normalization. More likely, if there's another entity involved, and Cuba is well aware of who it is, it gets to milk two cows - pretend to cooperate with the US in exchange for goodwill, while also getting paid off by the responsible party.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Most importantly, it can happen again and again, so long as our people are still there.

I am now convinced that simply evacuating the affected individuals, who are not even receiving the best treatment that they can in Cuba, is not enough, though it should have been the first priority.

The embassy has to be shut down for the safety of our foreign officers and other employees. We should not allow Cubans, and their malevolent buddies to play us for fools while they are enriching themselves with our investments, and legitimizing themselves  in the international community through diplomatic contacts and priority visits with our officials. If they want to build a relationship with the US, Cuban government must choose sides now, and give up whoever it is that is behind these unconscionable attacks on our personnel.

And our first duty is to our own citizens. We must regard all such incidents as attacks on our national sovereignty, acts of aggression, and do everything humanly possible to first, remove our people from the zone of danger and ensure the best possible treatment for them all, second sending a clear signal that we take such acts of aggression seriously, and third, leave any of our would-be partners with a clear choice of action: either they ensure that we get whatever we need to defang our adversaries, or they themselves will be regarded as facilitators and accessories of the aggressors and treated accordingly.

The State Department Violates Law, Breaks Promises to Yazidis, Christians; allows Iran to spread influence in Iraq

Take a moment to read this article outlining that the State Department has has no issue delivering significant financial aid to Rohingya Muslims fleeing Myanmar, but has been withholding promised aid to Yazidis, Christians, and other vulnerable minorities facing genocide in Iraq, or worse, delivering that aid through UN which is notoriously "religion-blind" and hasn't taken the targeted minority status into consideration.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/critics-state-department-delaying-aid-congress-provided-yazidis-christians-iraq/

***

The aid package came the day after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spoke with Aung San Suu Kyi, the de facto leader of Burma, and urged the Burmese government and military to "address deeply troubling allegations of human rights abuses and violations."

Tillerson's quick efforts to help the Rohingya demonstrated the State Department's ability to quickly direct humanitarian aid to a threatened minority group. However, critics say the swift action stands in sharp contrast to State's foot-dragging when it comes to directing funds to Yazidis, Christians, and other religious minorities facing genocide in Iraq.

***

President Trump promised to aid the victims of ISIS genocide, and Congress has placed a statutory obligation on the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to do so before the current fiscal year runs out in a few days, Rasche said.

***

The Yazidi population also has plummeted, although estimates of how far the population has fallen vary wildly, ranging from the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands since ISIS launched its attack in the Sinjar region of Iraq in 2014.

Despite the congressional commitment, lawmakers and human rights activists say most of the U.S. taxpayer money going to help people in Iraq is channeled through the United Nations, which has a "religion-blind" policy of distributing most of the money to refugee camps that Yazidis and Christians avoid out of fear of further violence and persecution.

***

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill and human rights activists are tracking the list of U.N. development projects in Iraq closely and said there are only very minor projects in Christian towns and communities. Shea said she is aware of one that would repair a canopy on a municipal building but that she believes there are no major infrastructure or road projects that would help Christian communities return and provide interim jobs for those returning.

The Iranians, in contrast, just opened a new elementary school, mosque, and library in the Ninevah region, Shea said.

From this we learn several things:

1. The State Department is in danger of violating the law.

2. Humanitarian aid to Iraq, to which we have specific commitments, is going through the notoriously ineffectual United Nations, despite this administration's commitment to national sovereignty and avoiding "globalism".

3. Administration/State Department officials responsible for aid distribution, who commented for this article, refused to go on record with their names.

4. The administration is fully aware that Iran is using the Fertile Crescent as a land bridge for creating a Shi'A crescent, and is threatening ideological influence, as well as physical conflicts, by building humanitarian institutions with Islamist strings attached in the vicinity of the most vulnerable populations.

5. Rohingya is already receiving humanitarian aid from a number of Arab/Muslim states. Yazidis have nowhere to flee and are dependent on the scarce financial aid that's coming mostly from the West. Christians are not likely to receive humanitarian aid from anyone but Western countries.

How do we explain these seemingly mind-boggling issues that appear to contradict Secretary Tillerson's preexisting commitments, as well as challenge the expectations of Congress?

Tillerson himself has been widely criticized for alienation from his own agency, as well as being too slow with implementing policies, and yet, the State Department moved quickly to aid Rohingya. A variety of factors is likely at fault. Dependency on the UN is but one of them. However, lack of structure answerable to the administration - in other words, political appointees, loyal to the Trump administration's visions of foreign policy - may explain the stark contrast in priorities that appears to reflect the Obama' administration's priorities in immigration. Once again, the most vulnerable minorities are getting shafted in favor of a politically popular group that is making the headlines. That is a rather crude way of describing the way the State Department prioritizes humanitarian disasters, and yet the patterns speak for themselves.  The lack of names and faces on record in this article supports this hypothesis. Bureaucrats of course wish to avoid accountability, but career State Department officials have a particular reason to stay below the radar and avoid being identified as having come in under Obama or having particular ideological proclivities that play a role in the distribution of humanitarian aid.

What is particular disturbing is the fact that the same bureaucrats are willfully empowering UN bureaucrats with the taxpayers' money, shifting responsibility to a body that is highly ineffective and slow-moving at best, but more likely both incompetent and comprised of downright evil actors.

And what's completely unacceptable here is that US national security priorities are being deliberately ignored in favor of appeasement of particular interests and agendas, perhaps among Islamist lobbyists who have specifically brought up the Rohingya crisis through a wide variety of media, and concerns about Islamophobia through their front organizations, such as CAIR in recent meetings with the State Department. Yazidi organizations, such as Yazda, and Middle Eastern Christian organizations in the US, lack both the numbers and the power, to attract the same amount of attention from that agency. Humanitarian aid is being cynically used to assert and wield power by lobby groups, no matter what the Congress has decided our priorities should be. Worse still, is that the State Department is well aware that both the administration and Congress are on the same page with regards to countering the spread of malicious Iranian influence in all forms, including deceptive ideological education that it is seeking to import to vulnerable minority communities in Iraq. While the United States is once again appearing to betray its own promises, Iran shows up as a sort of white knight in shining armor, building schools, community centers, and luring the unsuspecting, the weak, and the needy under its fold.  Such measures go against our agreement with our allies, and certainly the spread of ayatollah-dominated influence endangers the process of rebuilding Iraq, and the communities that suffered from ISIS-inflicted genocide and war related trauma.

Now that the Iraqi Kurds have voted in favor of an independent state in a recent referendum, our obligation to the vulnerable communities in that region takes yet another dimension. That dimension includes ensuring that with the chaotic and challenging process that takes places in creating a new state, the rights of these minorities are protected, and they have the tools they need to address their special unique interests, as well as the institutions to protect their culture in the middle of the transition, when more powerful actors such as Iran will try to take advantage of the uncertainty to perhaps pressure the Kurds, and wield undue influence through its historically potent divide and conquer strategies. Instead of focusing on building a strong relationship with a potential new friendly state and keeping our promises to its various constituents, we are giving opportunity to countries like Russia, currently the KRG's biggest backer , and to Iran, that is likewise not above investing financially where it cannot yet fully take over militarily, to fill in the vacuum of our disappearing leadership.

The takeaways here are simple and straightforward: reassert our concerns for our own interests and national sovereignty by restructuring our humanitarian aid towards direct and immediate provisions, hold the State Department officials accountable for implementation of our promises and for keeping with the law on the issue, unmask those actors within this agency that are acting counter to the direct orders given and are thus preventing the administration from successfully executing its own foreign policy, and ensure that by placing our national interests, rather than interests of dubious Islamist lobbies first, we remain perceived as leaders, desirable allies, and reliable friends, with whom every group wants to work closely and do business.

Keeping our word is fundamentally doing the right thing and a welcome change from the last administration's feckless governing both at home and abroad. Let's make it happen, starting with doing what's right for the people who need our help the most.