Interestingly, governments in the countries where there are massive protests going on, as well as physical attacks on Jewish sites (here's looking at you, Sweden), have not issued any statements calling for peace and dialogue. That's because such protests against an uncontrollable course of events related to people they have absolutely nothing to do with and living far away, is in the interests of those governments. Rather than refocusing on the needs of their people, they are far happier having the attention diverted elsewhere = as has been the case for decades. Same people who are now protesting over the alleged violation of rights for Palestinians by the mere statement of recognition of an already Jewish portion of Jerusalem with Israeli government in it would not grant Palestinians full citizenship in their own land. (AHEM, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, etc.) So let's see what's really going on:
1. Either this is not about Trump's statement (because Trump did not explicitly recognize any particular Jerusalem borders), and it's all about Israel not having a right to exist, even including specifically Jewish sites)
or
2. No one actually cares about it just as no one cares about the Palestinians, and people just want to let out their generalized rage at life, but they don't have the freedom to protest their own government, so to make themselves feel better, they pretend to be outraged about some distant cause to which they have little connection. Also, when was the last time Palestinians stood up for their rights to anything? Have Palestinians picked up the human rights issue in Egypt? Have they protested against al-Assad in Syria? Taken an issue with Hizbullah's corruption and control in Lebanon? No? And yet all these people are rioting on their behalf.
Showing posts with label foreign affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign affairs. Show all posts
Sunday, December 10, 2017
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Mugabe and The Dog's Ear
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
What US Neutrality on Iraq's Invasion of Kirkuk Means for Our Interests in the Region
Cross-Posted:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-us-neutrality-on-iraqs-invasion-of-kirkuk-means-for-our-interests-in-the-region/
President Trump responded to the entrance of the Iraqi forces and Iran-based militias into Kirkuk this morning by stating that US is not taking sides between Kurds and the Iraqi government and is engaged in encouraging all sides to avoid clashes and continue dialogue.
However, in the context of the current tensions, US neutrality and commitment to non-intervention is taken as betrayal by the Kurds and as tacit approval by Iraq, Iran, and even Turkey. Qassem Soleimani's role in the fall of Kirkuk was the first test of the White House's new policy on Iran, which includes designating IRGC as a terrorist organization and opposing Iranian expansionism in the Middle east. Nevertheless, thus far, the administration has failed to show commitment to upholding US law and going after the terrorist leader, despite an opportunity to do so in the course of this operation.
From the perspective of tribal Middle Eastern societies, no matter what President Trump's actual intentions are, he has chosen sides by failing to stop the Iraqi forces from entering Kirkuk, raising the Iraqi flag, lowering the Kurdish flag, seizing the oil field in the area, and in every respect asserting dominion and control over the area. That is a sign of not only a political betrayal, but of a strategic choice that will have long-term repercussion for the region. Despite the lofty rhetoric about stopping Iran, the United States cannot overlook the alliance about the Abadi forces, trained and supplied by the United States, and Iran-backed Shi'a militias, that in the past, have pressured the Kurds, threatened religious minorities in the area, including Yazidis and Christians, and despite some limited cooperation with the United States on the issues of fighting ISIS (mainly out of self-interest), have otherwise acted as agents of the ayatollah-led Iranian regime. Both indecisiveness and conscious choice to allow Baghdad and Iranian agents to do as they wish with the Kurdish areas, send the same signals to all involve, and make the United States both unwelcome with the allies, and irrelevant with the adversaries in the region.
Strategic withdrawal from an active role in the region may have its place, but only if it's done on our terms, to our advantage, and in a way that signals a well-thought out foreign policy and defense of interests, rather than weakness, inability to make decisive move, or a choice of undemocratic regimes and bad allies over dependable allies whose help will be needed many times over in the future. Indeed, however, many are not convinced that the position of the administration on this issue is sincere. For instance, Turkey's position on the matter of Kurdish independence may have been the lodestar in this decisionmaking process. Turkey has recently come to an agreement with Iran on a variety of matters, which included increased military cooperation and the issue of Kurdistan's independence referendum. After the fall of Kirkuk, Ankara issued its approval of the invasion.
The administration has been careful in maintaining good relations with Turkey. It had previously pressured Barzani to postpone the referendum, after both Abadi and Erdogan expressed strong opposition. President Trump, despite major policy differences, recently called Erdogan a friend, and Turkey and the US recently concluded a deal over Boeing airplanes. Turkish lobby has been strong in the US. Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security adviser, had worked for Turkish interests. In fact, shortly before being removed from his position, Flynn had reportedly blocked a military move in Syria that Turkey had opposed. Moreover, as we now know, Turkey had paid off a number of major think tanks that had advised President Trump shortly prior to Erdogan's visit to the White House in May of this year. President Trump is likely getting very bad advise from the Secretary of State, who views the independence referendum as illegitimate, and from an assortment of sources, who are taken in by the extensive Turkish lobby in the United States.
None of it changes matters. The current calculus throws the Kurds into the arms of Russia, which has already ascended to power along with Iran in Syria, pushing the United States out of a position of significant influence altogether due to our short-sighted focus on only dealing with ISIS. Furthermore, Russia has stayed away from publicly condemning the referendum, and in fact, acted as the biggest financial backer of KRG. Although the Kurdish leadership is generally distrustful of Russia, Russia has proven itself to be a stalwart ally to Assad, and has deftly advocated for the Kurds in Turkey when it suited her interests. Putin's backing of the Kurds in Iraq is not sentimental; rather, he is shrewdly taking advantage of the US inaction to establish Kurdistan as Russia's sphere of influence and rise to power in the Middle East, all without having to expend significant power or resources.
As our influence diminishes and our presence becomes marginal, the US is likely to miss significant opportunities for business and educational investment in Kurdistan; infrastructure projects with potential for job growth for American workers; creation of a stable buffer state in the Middle East that would likely protect our security interests vis-a-vis Iran and Turkey, and spread elements of democracy and liberalization naturally through the people indigineous to the region rather than through conquest, occupation, or or other policies likely to be viewed as colonialist. What we are losing, however, Russia, Turkey, and Iran are gaining. Sooner or later, the imperial ambitions of these three aggressive states will come to a head in the oil-rich region; however, either one of the three belligerent actors prevails, which will not benefit the region, or the three countries come to a power-sharing agreement, in which case minorities, Israel, and the US will all lose out, or the situation deteriorates to the point of chaos, with civil war, strife, and new waves of refugees repeating the tragic events in Syria. In all cases excepting the instance where US rises to the occasion, shows moral and strategic leadership, and backs Kurdish aspiration to independence, we are looking at some very dismal scenarios that will place America dead last not only in the Middle East, but in the international arena as well.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-us-neutrality-on-iraqs-invasion-of-kirkuk-means-for-our-interests-in-the-region/
President Trump responded to the entrance of the Iraqi forces and Iran-based militias into Kirkuk this morning by stating that US is not taking sides between Kurds and the Iraqi government and is engaged in encouraging all sides to avoid clashes and continue dialogue.
However, in the context of the current tensions, US neutrality and commitment to non-intervention is taken as betrayal by the Kurds and as tacit approval by Iraq, Iran, and even Turkey. Qassem Soleimani's role in the fall of Kirkuk was the first test of the White House's new policy on Iran, which includes designating IRGC as a terrorist organization and opposing Iranian expansionism in the Middle east. Nevertheless, thus far, the administration has failed to show commitment to upholding US law and going after the terrorist leader, despite an opportunity to do so in the course of this operation.
From the perspective of tribal Middle Eastern societies, no matter what President Trump's actual intentions are, he has chosen sides by failing to stop the Iraqi forces from entering Kirkuk, raising the Iraqi flag, lowering the Kurdish flag, seizing the oil field in the area, and in every respect asserting dominion and control over the area. That is a sign of not only a political betrayal, but of a strategic choice that will have long-term repercussion for the region. Despite the lofty rhetoric about stopping Iran, the United States cannot overlook the alliance about the Abadi forces, trained and supplied by the United States, and Iran-backed Shi'a militias, that in the past, have pressured the Kurds, threatened religious minorities in the area, including Yazidis and Christians, and despite some limited cooperation with the United States on the issues of fighting ISIS (mainly out of self-interest), have otherwise acted as agents of the ayatollah-led Iranian regime. Both indecisiveness and conscious choice to allow Baghdad and Iranian agents to do as they wish with the Kurdish areas, send the same signals to all involve, and make the United States both unwelcome with the allies, and irrelevant with the adversaries in the region.
Strategic withdrawal from an active role in the region may have its place, but only if it's done on our terms, to our advantage, and in a way that signals a well-thought out foreign policy and defense of interests, rather than weakness, inability to make decisive move, or a choice of undemocratic regimes and bad allies over dependable allies whose help will be needed many times over in the future. Indeed, however, many are not convinced that the position of the administration on this issue is sincere. For instance, Turkey's position on the matter of Kurdish independence may have been the lodestar in this decisionmaking process. Turkey has recently come to an agreement with Iran on a variety of matters, which included increased military cooperation and the issue of Kurdistan's independence referendum. After the fall of Kirkuk, Ankara issued its approval of the invasion.
The administration has been careful in maintaining good relations with Turkey. It had previously pressured Barzani to postpone the referendum, after both Abadi and Erdogan expressed strong opposition. President Trump, despite major policy differences, recently called Erdogan a friend, and Turkey and the US recently concluded a deal over Boeing airplanes. Turkish lobby has been strong in the US. Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security adviser, had worked for Turkish interests. In fact, shortly before being removed from his position, Flynn had reportedly blocked a military move in Syria that Turkey had opposed. Moreover, as we now know, Turkey had paid off a number of major think tanks that had advised President Trump shortly prior to Erdogan's visit to the White House in May of this year. President Trump is likely getting very bad advise from the Secretary of State, who views the independence referendum as illegitimate, and from an assortment of sources, who are taken in by the extensive Turkish lobby in the United States.
None of it changes matters. The current calculus throws the Kurds into the arms of Russia, which has already ascended to power along with Iran in Syria, pushing the United States out of a position of significant influence altogether due to our short-sighted focus on only dealing with ISIS. Furthermore, Russia has stayed away from publicly condemning the referendum, and in fact, acted as the biggest financial backer of KRG. Although the Kurdish leadership is generally distrustful of Russia, Russia has proven itself to be a stalwart ally to Assad, and has deftly advocated for the Kurds in Turkey when it suited her interests. Putin's backing of the Kurds in Iraq is not sentimental; rather, he is shrewdly taking advantage of the US inaction to establish Kurdistan as Russia's sphere of influence and rise to power in the Middle East, all without having to expend significant power or resources.
As our influence diminishes and our presence becomes marginal, the US is likely to miss significant opportunities for business and educational investment in Kurdistan; infrastructure projects with potential for job growth for American workers; creation of a stable buffer state in the Middle East that would likely protect our security interests vis-a-vis Iran and Turkey, and spread elements of democracy and liberalization naturally through the people indigineous to the region rather than through conquest, occupation, or or other policies likely to be viewed as colonialist. What we are losing, however, Russia, Turkey, and Iran are gaining. Sooner or later, the imperial ambitions of these three aggressive states will come to a head in the oil-rich region; however, either one of the three belligerent actors prevails, which will not benefit the region, or the three countries come to a power-sharing agreement, in which case minorities, Israel, and the US will all lose out, or the situation deteriorates to the point of chaos, with civil war, strife, and new waves of refugees repeating the tragic events in Syria. In all cases excepting the instance where US rises to the occasion, shows moral and strategic leadership, and backs Kurdish aspiration to independence, we are looking at some very dismal scenarios that will place America dead last not only in the Middle East, but in the international arena as well.
Monday, October 16, 2017
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.
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.
Thursday, October 12, 2017
The Unthinkable
International opposition to the Kurdish independence referendum might just do what decades of deliberately divisive engagement has failed - finally unite the different Kurdish factions around a common purpose.
And that's how states are born.
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
The Known Knowns
Today there was a Congressional hearing regarding the MEK bombshell report concerning Iran's continuous nuclear proliferation work, with input from North Korea.
But did we hear anything about it? No. All we heard all day long was the latest about Harvey Weinstein, more stuff about the NFL, and Trump's latest tweets.
Priorities, priorities...
But did we hear anything about it? No. All we heard all day long was the latest about Harvey Weinstein, more stuff about the NFL, and Trump's latest tweets.
Priorities, priorities...
Monday, October 2, 2017
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.
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.
Sunday, October 1, 2017
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.
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.
Saturday, September 30, 2017
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.
Friday, September 29, 2017
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.
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
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Kurdistan's Geopolitical Implications
Over 90% of Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan voted "yes" in the independence referendum.
Now what?
Well, there are actually several things going on with the Kurds.
First, the Iraqi Kurds decided to form an independent state.
Syrian Kurds are building an autonomy, and Damascus appears open to that possibility.
Iranian Kurds are increasingly antagonizing the state.
Turkish Kurds are increasingly under pressure by Erdogan, with heads of pro-Kurdish party HDP in prison, many Kurdish politicians under detention or threat of arrests, and frequent raids and attacks against young Kurds suspected of being connected to the PKK or simply accused of it without any evidence whatsoever.
The consequences of the independence referendum have been manifold. The United States notoriously and repeatedly had asked the Kurds to postpone it in order to avoid tensions; Israel openly supported the vote; Canada and France stated that they would be ok with the results either way; and Russia was a big financial backer.
Most of the Western world, however, spoke out against the independence referendum. As Seth Frantzman points out., perhaps supporting Middle Eastern monarchies, once created by colonialists, but refusing self-determination to an indigenous nation with its own culture and democratic structure, is a way for perpetuating colonialist legacy for many European states. Meanwhile, the neighbors of the aspiring states took the vote even worse. Iraq refused to recognize the vote, and is threatening to expropriate Kurdish oil fields by force and to shut down flights to and from Erbil. Turkey is threatening to sanction the region into starvation. Iran is looking to military intervention as an option. And Iraq sent a military delegation to Iran to coordinate a potential military response.
Much like in 1948, when another indigenous nation became independent and formed a state, only to be immediately attacked by its neighbors, all hell appears to be about to break loose.
Iran, Iraq, and Turkey see Kurds as a threat, and for a good reason. Not only does Kurdistan have a potential to become a bulwark against the regional aggression of both Iran and Turkey, but it may inspire the Kurdish populations of both countries to rebellion, and may set a bad example for other minorities in Iran. Moreover, a democratic and relatively liberal Kurdistan in an unstable, illiberal, and deeply undemocratic Middle East is a dangerous entity, similar to Israel. The usual suspects, in fact, have been accusing Kurds of conspiring with Israel. And both Iran and Turkey threatened not only Kurds, but Israelis over the support for the referendum and the idea of a Kurdish state.
As for Arab States, they have long had issues with Kurds, emanating from competition over oil, territory, tribal differences (particularly in Syria), cultural issues, and even religious tensions. Shi'a Iraqis took issue with Sunni Kurds, and Kurdish practice of Sunni Islam appears to be more liberal in comparison to their Sunni Arab neighbors. Complicating the situation is the fact that many of the Syrian and Turkish Kurds are secular/socialist, some Iraqi Kurds have reconverted to Zoroastrianism, some are Christian, and then there are Yazidis, who are of Kurdish descent but consider themselves the carriers of the true Kurdish religion and see Islam among Kurds as a remnant of Arab Muslim colonialism in the region. Most Kurds of Jewish descent have moved to Israel, but some have been living secretly in the Kurdish area, and Jewish Kurds in Israel are overall open and supportive.
Strategically, up until recently, Kurds in Syria presented a problem for Arab States, both because they were in conflict with many of the Sunni tribes, and because they were seen as a bulwark against the spread of Wahhabism through various insurgent and terrorist groups, which were backed by Saudi Arabia and embraced by Turkey. Kurdish ambitions for autonomy in Syria became a serious thorn in Turkey's side, since Turkey perceived a potential for contiguous Kurdish territory as a potential to destabilize Eastern Kurdistan in Turkey, which could lead to a separate independence movement and requisition of Turkish territory. For that reason, Turkey was willing to embrace and support ISIS, so long as ISIS focused its efforts on destroying the Kurds and prevented them from consolidating territory. Of course, eventually, ISIS got out of hand and became uncontrollable even inside Turkey. But even still, Turkey was willing to sacrifice its own forces to invade Syria, anger Western allies, and weaken itself internally, just to attack Kurds rather focus all of its efforts on ISIS. We see this attitude continue to this day.
Arab Gulf States, however, may sooner or later be forced to shift their positions, as long as Sunni Syrians and Kurds come to some sort of agreement. Iran's rapid expansionism and the increasing and seemingly inevitable possibility of land corridor from Syria to Lebanon presents a much greater and immediate problem that Kurdish limited ambitions for autonomous federalism in Syria. Kurds do not threaten the existence of the monarchies, whereas Iran backed Shi'a minorities inside the predominantly Sunni Gulf States do. Kurds are not looking to destabilize other states, whereas Iran has exactly that goal in mind. Kurds are still stateless and therefore by definition weaker than Iran, now pumped with unfrozen money delivered in cash by the Obama administration, and through all the investment deals by large Western countries. Kurds have significant internal differences, and through disunity failed to achieve the same level of cohesion and prosperity as they could have otherwise (and still may as a state), and certainly somewhat more fragile than the Islamic Republic even at its most divided. So Kurds are not an immediate threat, and furthermore, increasingly, just like Israel, Kurds are a potential ally, though admitting that may take the Gulf monarchies even longer than finally putting their decades-old enmity with the State of Israel on ice. Kurds are opposed to Iran and likewise proved to be a cogent and effective force against ISIS. Moreover, while the Arab states, with shocking levels of social inequality, are increasingly falling behind economically, Kurds are investing not just in oil but in education, and are likely to lead in the regional development with help from Israel, and eventually, other Western investors. They are a viable regional trading partner... or competitor, depending on how these monarchies choose to play it. So far, they have been quiet comparatively to Iran, Iraq, and Turkey.
However, right now they have an opportunity to make an important choice about their own future. Do they embrace progress, putting aside age-old tribal feuds, and invest into building up a relationship with a strong ally, who can help, at least temporarily, to fight back the increasingly aggressive and ever-nearing mutual enemy? Will they embrace modernity and progress, recognize Kurdistan's potential, and work together on joint ventures, on growing past oil, on modernizing and taking the region in a different direction? Or will they fall prey to internal divisions, corruption, clerical intransigence, and petty rivalries, and fall behind the vanguard that is Kurdistan, perhaps forever? That remains to be seen, however, the positive influence of more liberal Arab states such as Morocco and Tunisia, and the seeming commitment to modernization that such younger regional leaders as KSA's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are promising in word as well as some action, are some of the signs that point to the fact that these Gulf States are at least considering a wiser, and more thoughtful approach to geopolitical strategy than the pessimists would have us believe. I hope they choose to embrace promise and vision instead of the past delusions and ghosts of outdated colonialism. These partnerships and their potential are worth the trouble.
As for Kurds? They are committed to fighting for their future, and just as Israel once with a little help from a few good friends, managed to break through all the obstacles and to come out stronger, smarter, and better in every way, so will this nation that has been waiting its turn for far too long. And everyone else, sooner or later, will have no choice but to get used to it. The only question is, will they reap the rewards of early loyalty and friendship, or will they close the ranks of the belated sour grapes consumers, grumbling over remaining scraps.
Now what?
Well, there are actually several things going on with the Kurds.
First, the Iraqi Kurds decided to form an independent state.
Syrian Kurds are building an autonomy, and Damascus appears open to that possibility.
Iranian Kurds are increasingly antagonizing the state.
Turkish Kurds are increasingly under pressure by Erdogan, with heads of pro-Kurdish party HDP in prison, many Kurdish politicians under detention or threat of arrests, and frequent raids and attacks against young Kurds suspected of being connected to the PKK or simply accused of it without any evidence whatsoever.
The consequences of the independence referendum have been manifold. The United States notoriously and repeatedly had asked the Kurds to postpone it in order to avoid tensions; Israel openly supported the vote; Canada and France stated that they would be ok with the results either way; and Russia was a big financial backer.
Most of the Western world, however, spoke out against the independence referendum. As Seth Frantzman points out., perhaps supporting Middle Eastern monarchies, once created by colonialists, but refusing self-determination to an indigenous nation with its own culture and democratic structure, is a way for perpetuating colonialist legacy for many European states. Meanwhile, the neighbors of the aspiring states took the vote even worse. Iraq refused to recognize the vote, and is threatening to expropriate Kurdish oil fields by force and to shut down flights to and from Erbil. Turkey is threatening to sanction the region into starvation. Iran is looking to military intervention as an option. And Iraq sent a military delegation to Iran to coordinate a potential military response.
Much like in 1948, when another indigenous nation became independent and formed a state, only to be immediately attacked by its neighbors, all hell appears to be about to break loose.
Iran, Iraq, and Turkey see Kurds as a threat, and for a good reason. Not only does Kurdistan have a potential to become a bulwark against the regional aggression of both Iran and Turkey, but it may inspire the Kurdish populations of both countries to rebellion, and may set a bad example for other minorities in Iran. Moreover, a democratic and relatively liberal Kurdistan in an unstable, illiberal, and deeply undemocratic Middle East is a dangerous entity, similar to Israel. The usual suspects, in fact, have been accusing Kurds of conspiring with Israel. And both Iran and Turkey threatened not only Kurds, but Israelis over the support for the referendum and the idea of a Kurdish state.
As for Arab States, they have long had issues with Kurds, emanating from competition over oil, territory, tribal differences (particularly in Syria), cultural issues, and even religious tensions. Shi'a Iraqis took issue with Sunni Kurds, and Kurdish practice of Sunni Islam appears to be more liberal in comparison to their Sunni Arab neighbors. Complicating the situation is the fact that many of the Syrian and Turkish Kurds are secular/socialist, some Iraqi Kurds have reconverted to Zoroastrianism, some are Christian, and then there are Yazidis, who are of Kurdish descent but consider themselves the carriers of the true Kurdish religion and see Islam among Kurds as a remnant of Arab Muslim colonialism in the region. Most Kurds of Jewish descent have moved to Israel, but some have been living secretly in the Kurdish area, and Jewish Kurds in Israel are overall open and supportive.
Strategically, up until recently, Kurds in Syria presented a problem for Arab States, both because they were in conflict with many of the Sunni tribes, and because they were seen as a bulwark against the spread of Wahhabism through various insurgent and terrorist groups, which were backed by Saudi Arabia and embraced by Turkey. Kurdish ambitions for autonomy in Syria became a serious thorn in Turkey's side, since Turkey perceived a potential for contiguous Kurdish territory as a potential to destabilize Eastern Kurdistan in Turkey, which could lead to a separate independence movement and requisition of Turkish territory. For that reason, Turkey was willing to embrace and support ISIS, so long as ISIS focused its efforts on destroying the Kurds and prevented them from consolidating territory. Of course, eventually, ISIS got out of hand and became uncontrollable even inside Turkey. But even still, Turkey was willing to sacrifice its own forces to invade Syria, anger Western allies, and weaken itself internally, just to attack Kurds rather focus all of its efforts on ISIS. We see this attitude continue to this day.
Arab Gulf States, however, may sooner or later be forced to shift their positions, as long as Sunni Syrians and Kurds come to some sort of agreement. Iran's rapid expansionism and the increasing and seemingly inevitable possibility of land corridor from Syria to Lebanon presents a much greater and immediate problem that Kurdish limited ambitions for autonomous federalism in Syria. Kurds do not threaten the existence of the monarchies, whereas Iran backed Shi'a minorities inside the predominantly Sunni Gulf States do. Kurds are not looking to destabilize other states, whereas Iran has exactly that goal in mind. Kurds are still stateless and therefore by definition weaker than Iran, now pumped with unfrozen money delivered in cash by the Obama administration, and through all the investment deals by large Western countries. Kurds have significant internal differences, and through disunity failed to achieve the same level of cohesion and prosperity as they could have otherwise (and still may as a state), and certainly somewhat more fragile than the Islamic Republic even at its most divided. So Kurds are not an immediate threat, and furthermore, increasingly, just like Israel, Kurds are a potential ally, though admitting that may take the Gulf monarchies even longer than finally putting their decades-old enmity with the State of Israel on ice. Kurds are opposed to Iran and likewise proved to be a cogent and effective force against ISIS. Moreover, while the Arab states, with shocking levels of social inequality, are increasingly falling behind economically, Kurds are investing not just in oil but in education, and are likely to lead in the regional development with help from Israel, and eventually, other Western investors. They are a viable regional trading partner... or competitor, depending on how these monarchies choose to play it. So far, they have been quiet comparatively to Iran, Iraq, and Turkey.
However, right now they have an opportunity to make an important choice about their own future. Do they embrace progress, putting aside age-old tribal feuds, and invest into building up a relationship with a strong ally, who can help, at least temporarily, to fight back the increasingly aggressive and ever-nearing mutual enemy? Will they embrace modernity and progress, recognize Kurdistan's potential, and work together on joint ventures, on growing past oil, on modernizing and taking the region in a different direction? Or will they fall prey to internal divisions, corruption, clerical intransigence, and petty rivalries, and fall behind the vanguard that is Kurdistan, perhaps forever? That remains to be seen, however, the positive influence of more liberal Arab states such as Morocco and Tunisia, and the seeming commitment to modernization that such younger regional leaders as KSA's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are promising in word as well as some action, are some of the signs that point to the fact that these Gulf States are at least considering a wiser, and more thoughtful approach to geopolitical strategy than the pessimists would have us believe. I hope they choose to embrace promise and vision instead of the past delusions and ghosts of outdated colonialism. These partnerships and their potential are worth the trouble.
As for Kurds? They are committed to fighting for their future, and just as Israel once with a little help from a few good friends, managed to break through all the obstacles and to come out stronger, smarter, and better in every way, so will this nation that has been waiting its turn for far too long. And everyone else, sooner or later, will have no choice but to get used to it. The only question is, will they reap the rewards of early loyalty and friendship, or will they close the ranks of the belated sour grapes consumers, grumbling over remaining scraps.
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
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.
... 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.
Giving Credit Where It's Due
Kudos to Senator Chuck Schumer for doing the right thing and publicly supporting Kurds' right to self-determination and a future state in Northern Kurdistan.
Would have been a REAL profile in courage if he did so BEFORE the referendum, but better late than never. I hope others will follow his lead.
North Korea Should Be Punished For Human Rights Violations, Including Otto Warmbier's Murder
Recently, the world's attention has been on North Korea due to its incessant threats to world peace, stability, and freedom.
Largely, the reaction of the international community in the form of new UN and US-led economic sanctions, rearmament, various demonstrations of military force, threats, speeches, and angry tweets were aimed at North Korea's repeated ICBM tests, braggadocio regarding its latest nuclear developments, and escalating apocalyptic rhetoric.
Although the House recently passed a new incarnation of the North Korean Human Rights Act, aimed at providing information from the outside world to the North Koreans, its substance is mostly aimed at empowering the average citizens, rather than at punishing the regime for turning the entire country into a concentration camp, for the mass arrests of its people, and the horrendous tortures of its citizens and the unlucky foreigners captured upon visit. Recently, the United States banned travel of US citizens to North Korea, largely to avoid the likely scenarios of having to negotiate with the totalitarian regime for the release - and tragically failing, as happened most recently in the case of Otto Warmbier, a student who was arrested, sentenced to 15 years of hard labor, but who, after brutal torture, had to be evacuate and died shortly upon his return to the United States.
But again, that is a preventative measure aimed at protecting US citizens, rather than a punitive measure against the regime.
After Warmbier's death, the only US reaction was ramped up rhetoric and a symbolic overflight of military planes in a show of force, which did little to deter the immediate escalation of aggression by North Korea on other fronts. No sanctions were levied against DPRK for that abduction on trumped up charges, and for the brutality resulting in murder. Despite the existing infrastructure of the Global Magnitsky Act, signed into by President Obama in 2016, no individuals or entities associated with this abhorrent series of events, was ever singled out for international shaming, and at the very least, symbolic PNGing from the United States and personal asset freeze. It took more than just the political elites to murder Warmbier, just as it takes more than just the members of the regime giving the orders to arrest, torture, and execute North Korean citizens on a daily basis. The police officers who arrested him, the judge who sentenced him, the wardens and the guards in the prisons where Warmbier spent the last year and a half of his life, the doctors who allegedly provided him with medical care and who lied about the conditions that led to his death, and frankly, even the negotiators who refused to release Mr. Warmbier in a timely manner into US custody, should all be held accountable for their part in this heinous act, and should be denied legitimacy in the eyes of the American people and international community. Publicly and irreversibly.
And sanctions against the regime itself should be levied specifically on the basis of this act of aggression against the United States, and violation of human rights under international law. I advocate for these seemingly unenforceable steps for the following reasons:
First, the Warmbier family deserves justice. Sanctions and punishments against all involved won't bring their son back, but they will know that the US values each individual's life, and will deal swiftly with anyone who deals with its citizens in such an unconscionable manner. Mr. Warmbier's suffering and death will not be for naught.
Second, DPRK and other countries around the world, engage in hostage-taking of foreigners, will get the message - US will not stand by idly, allowing these noxious regime to continue grabbing innocent people on trumped up charges, in violation of all international norms and basic civility. And particularly, further attacks on its own citizens will no longer be tolerated
Third, other US hostages around the world will get a sure morale boost from knowing that their country values them as human beings. It's not just about the US government not looking good as a result of failed negotiations, but rather, US passport has value, and if the US government cannot immediately get them out of their predicaments, it sure will make it hurt until it is no longer profitable to engage in these unjust imprisonments.
Fourth, by levying punishment on the basis of such abductions and other human rights violations, US is insisting on the value it puts on basic norms of civilized behave and reasserts its international leadership in maintaining a secure environment.
And fifth, the worst of human rights violators are also a danger and a threat to their neighbors and other adversaries on other fronts. If human rights violations against foreigners who travel are ignored, and attacks on the national sovereignty against their countries are dismissed, these aggressor are further emboldened to attack on other fronts and by other means. Unjust detention, torture, and murder of anyone US citizens should be considered an act of war on par with a missile thrown in our general direction, and treated with equal harshness.
We, should, at all times, carry ourselves from the position of strength, both military and moral. For we are indeed superior to North Korea's monstrous regime, and while we may choose to respect its sovereignty and not intervene to change the form of government, however awful, there are lines that can never be crossed, and that red line is attacks on and murder of US citizens.
Largely, the reaction of the international community in the form of new UN and US-led economic sanctions, rearmament, various demonstrations of military force, threats, speeches, and angry tweets were aimed at North Korea's repeated ICBM tests, braggadocio regarding its latest nuclear developments, and escalating apocalyptic rhetoric.
Although the House recently passed a new incarnation of the North Korean Human Rights Act, aimed at providing information from the outside world to the North Koreans, its substance is mostly aimed at empowering the average citizens, rather than at punishing the regime for turning the entire country into a concentration camp, for the mass arrests of its people, and the horrendous tortures of its citizens and the unlucky foreigners captured upon visit. Recently, the United States banned travel of US citizens to North Korea, largely to avoid the likely scenarios of having to negotiate with the totalitarian regime for the release - and tragically failing, as happened most recently in the case of Otto Warmbier, a student who was arrested, sentenced to 15 years of hard labor, but who, after brutal torture, had to be evacuate and died shortly upon his return to the United States.
But again, that is a preventative measure aimed at protecting US citizens, rather than a punitive measure against the regime.
After Warmbier's death, the only US reaction was ramped up rhetoric and a symbolic overflight of military planes in a show of force, which did little to deter the immediate escalation of aggression by North Korea on other fronts. No sanctions were levied against DPRK for that abduction on trumped up charges, and for the brutality resulting in murder. Despite the existing infrastructure of the Global Magnitsky Act, signed into by President Obama in 2016, no individuals or entities associated with this abhorrent series of events, was ever singled out for international shaming, and at the very least, symbolic PNGing from the United States and personal asset freeze. It took more than just the political elites to murder Warmbier, just as it takes more than just the members of the regime giving the orders to arrest, torture, and execute North Korean citizens on a daily basis. The police officers who arrested him, the judge who sentenced him, the wardens and the guards in the prisons where Warmbier spent the last year and a half of his life, the doctors who allegedly provided him with medical care and who lied about the conditions that led to his death, and frankly, even the negotiators who refused to release Mr. Warmbier in a timely manner into US custody, should all be held accountable for their part in this heinous act, and should be denied legitimacy in the eyes of the American people and international community. Publicly and irreversibly.
And sanctions against the regime itself should be levied specifically on the basis of this act of aggression against the United States, and violation of human rights under international law. I advocate for these seemingly unenforceable steps for the following reasons:
First, the Warmbier family deserves justice. Sanctions and punishments against all involved won't bring their son back, but they will know that the US values each individual's life, and will deal swiftly with anyone who deals with its citizens in such an unconscionable manner. Mr. Warmbier's suffering and death will not be for naught.
Second, DPRK and other countries around the world, engage in hostage-taking of foreigners, will get the message - US will not stand by idly, allowing these noxious regime to continue grabbing innocent people on trumped up charges, in violation of all international norms and basic civility. And particularly, further attacks on its own citizens will no longer be tolerated
Third, other US hostages around the world will get a sure morale boost from knowing that their country values them as human beings. It's not just about the US government not looking good as a result of failed negotiations, but rather, US passport has value, and if the US government cannot immediately get them out of their predicaments, it sure will make it hurt until it is no longer profitable to engage in these unjust imprisonments.
Fourth, by levying punishment on the basis of such abductions and other human rights violations, US is insisting on the value it puts on basic norms of civilized behave and reasserts its international leadership in maintaining a secure environment.
And fifth, the worst of human rights violators are also a danger and a threat to their neighbors and other adversaries on other fronts. If human rights violations against foreigners who travel are ignored, and attacks on the national sovereignty against their countries are dismissed, these aggressor are further emboldened to attack on other fronts and by other means. Unjust detention, torture, and murder of anyone US citizens should be considered an act of war on par with a missile thrown in our general direction, and treated with equal harshness.
We, should, at all times, carry ourselves from the position of strength, both military and moral. For we are indeed superior to North Korea's monstrous regime, and while we may choose to respect its sovereignty and not intervene to change the form of government, however awful, there are lines that can never be crossed, and that red line is attacks on and murder of US citizens.
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
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/
***
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)