On Shitholes and Shitty Little Countries

To Trump supporters, who are defending Trump's comments about "shithole" countries and the immigrants who come from them:

Remember the time when the French Ambassador called Israel a "shitty little country"?

Such comments from a public official are as unacceptable now as they were then.

And if you don't get why, don't be surprised or apoplectic when the US is called all sorts of degrading names by our adversaries.

The Symbolism and The Peace Plan

My concern, unlike the many people paranoid about Palestinians or Saudis acting up, has been with the potential poison pill of the two-state language included in the text. Although President Trump has made it clear, that he will support a mutual decision by the parties involved, that language leaves room for future pressure on Israel by this administration or future others. As was pointed out elsewhere, George W. would make great speeches on Israel, then push for the creation of the Palestinian state. I do believe that the administration will try to make even this small, largely symbolic step with no timeline for a physical follow through (YUGE red flag in my book), which is a repetition of what Bill Clinton has already done by signing the original law, in order to exert pressure on Israel towards Jared Kushner's peace plan. In fact, Kushner's own comments as late as Sunday, signified as much.

So What of the Waiver?

Trump publicly signing the embassy waiver right after his speech is a political move, not a security move.

As I have stated repeatedly in the past, and have yet to be proven wrong, Trump intends to delay the process for the sake of keeping his base, and in particular, funders, and to ensure they will back him against any primary challengers in 2020.

If anything, prolonging this situation will probably result in more security threats. It would be easier to get everything over with at once, and just move the building, get all the riots out of the system and move on. Making this an endless process with an unclear due date will ensure some level of dissatisfaction from everyone concern, and possibly additional riots or other problems whenever the building IS moved.

US has an interest in justice, freedom, and accountability around the world

We frequently criticize our leadership for failing to take leadership on human rights, particularly on countries that do not come to mind as issues of top priority "strategic importance".

First of all, defending democratic principles and freedom is always of strategic importance. The question only is what is the proper way to do that.

Second, I would sincerely like to commend Senator Ted Cruz for taking a very vocal and assertive stand on behalf of an opposition leader imprisoned for his participation in the election process in Cambodia. Not only did he condemn his act, but he clearly promised to take very specific measures should justice not prevail, in holding the Cambodian government accountable and blacklisting them from coming to the US, an embarrassing and effective step outlined in the Global Magnitsky Act to protect human rights defenders.

Also, kudos on guaranteeing that he would work with other members of Congress and administration - and thus holding our own government accountable on doing the right thing.

I hope to see that this example will start a new foreign policy - one where the US places its interests in justice, freedom, and accountability first.

Article Published on JerusalemOnline

http://www.jerusalemonline.com/blogs/irina-tsukerman/op-ed-when-allies-fight-america-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-31888

Op-Ed: When allies fight - America between a rock and a hard place
Irina Tsukerman explains how the Iraqi incursion into the Kirkuk province has sparked a problematic situation for the US. However, she argues that the Iranian aid that Baghdad is receiving should have triggered the Trump administration to end its “hands-off approach” to the issue.

Iraqi forces in Kirkuk Photo Credit: EPA-EFE
The current standoff between Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's national sovereignty claims in taking over the Kirkuk province and gaining control of the oil-rich fields has placed the US in a difficult position of having to mediate between allies in an attempt to preserve a semblance of stability in a region already plagued by diverse and persistent conflicts. Another NATO ally, Turkey, is likewise placing pressure in an already complicated situation. The US is bound by the terms of a defense treaty to defend other NATO members from all attacks, but Turkey sees even countries outside its own borders as its spheres of influence and has been increasingly aggressive in intervening in the course of events in areas it claims as its territory or potential for future conflicts.

Whether such an expansive interpretation of national interests merits support from other NATO members certainly merits reexamination, but in the instant case, the predicament is directly contributing to further complications and forces the US to have to juggle competing claims of legitimacy in a way that is inching closer to being unresolvable. However, Baghdad's incursion into Kirkuk has crossed the lines of discussion and created a situation where discussing the conflicting interests of various parties in a diplomatic setting is becoming increasingly moot.

Reports of Kurds being forcibly displaced, coupled with actions that caused the Kirkuk's Kurdish governor to flee the area altogether, defy Baghdad's claim that the operation is in place merely to prevent the dissolution of the country. Likewise, Vice President Al-Maliki's comments placing the blame for the creation of ISIS on Erbil in order to break up the country add disturbing and disingenuous undertones to this course of events.

Through it all, the US continues to issue statements claiming that it's "closely monitoring the situation" and trying to mediate among all sides. Without a question, it's in the US' interests to avoid any action that would lead to deterioration of any possibility of returning to a diplomatic track or further destabilizing the region. However, the current hands-off approach not only plays into the hands of its enemies but emboldens action that goes far beyond the securing of Baghdad's perceived interest in preserving its territorial integrity.

How should, then, the US act in situations where its allies - one, a state armed directly with US weaponry, and another, a courageous nation that has been an important asset in the war against ISIS - are in a state of conflict? I would posit that the resolution of the instant scenario should be guided by the same norms the US utilizes in evaluating any situation where its allies come to a head.

First, how does the situation affect US national interests, in particular, any security considerations?

Second, does the US have binding defense treaties with either of the allies and what are the terms of those treaties? In the event that there is no such agreement, or where the agreement amounts to little more than arms trade or promises of assistance in the event of an invasion by outside forces, what is the nature of the relationship between the US and that ally?

Third, has either party involved in the conflict been the aggressor or violated any international laws, norms, or committed any acts deemed unconscionable during the course of the conflict?

Fourth, what role can the US constructively play in order to preserve good relations with both sides, and to mitigate possible damages, including minimizing the number of any casualties, property damage, population displacement and political and economic complications?

Fifth, are there any other factors to be taken into consideration, such as involvement of third parties, such as state and non-state actors, and their role in this conflict, and goals with respect to the US’ own interests and agendas?

Sixth, how are this situation and the US action or inaction affect US relations with other allies, who are likely to be affected by the conflict?

In the past, the US has tried to keep its involvement to a minimum or even stay completely neutral during wars between Pakistan and India, even when those wars took place during the Cold War and Pakistan was largely US-oriented while India had a far stronger relationship with the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the nature of the US outlook on the matter was affected by the fact that the US-Pakistani relationship at the time was largely governed by the view that Pakistan played a role as part of buffer states and that US interests included backing any state that could either potentially fall under Soviet influence or could be helpful in preventing Soviet expansionism.

At the moment, however, the situation in the Middle East is in flux, and our stated goals and unarticulated considerations are far from black and white. Our limited goal of defeating ISIS in the area has been largely met with the help of both Baghdad and the Kurds. The next issue looming large on the minds of the administration and policy experts alike has been the containment of Iran's aggression. Whether containment is the best way to characterize the current stand on Iran, whether it's feasible, or the best possible course of action in the current climate are all questions deserving of independent evaluation. However, there is no doubt that Iran's aggressive actions in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere have given cause to concern in the White House, so much so that just a week ago, Trump placed the IRGC on the list of global terrorists.

Balancing respect for the right to peaceful self-determination with the national sovereignty and territorial integrity rights of others would be a complicated matter under the best of circumstances, but there is one factor that shifts the tenor of the discussion altogether - the role of Iran and the IRGC in Baghdad's forcible takeover of the Kirkuk province.

Baghdad had invited Iran's tanks to its borders days prior to the invasion, so Iran's involvement in the matter should come as no surprise. Those who have been following the events closely should be well aware that Iran's interest in the matter is preventing similar secessionism from taking root among its own minorities, including the Kurds, who have grown restless and have had long-standing conflicts with the Iranian regime.

A joint operation between Iran and Iraq in this matter would be concerning enough, but the fact that Iran sent the IRGC, rather than its military or police forces, to participate in this operation should have been the red line for the US, changing the calculus of conflict. Baghdad's invitation of the IRGC and continued involvement with Qasem Soleimani after the US had designated the IRGC a terrorist organization is an act of betrayal of whatever defense interests we have with Baghdad. It is indisputably a strike to our national security interests - because the US President has deemed that it is so and because the executive branch has taken decisive action in making clear that IRGC is a security threat. Admittedly, the administration sent some mixed signals with respect to the level of seriousness as to the enforcement of the new policy.

For instance, the administration seems to disregard the fact that the IRGC, as all other entities in Iran, get their marching orders directly from the Supreme Leader-guided regime. The IRGC is not an independent entity. It's not a non-state terrorist organization. It is a central part of the Islamic Republic. So when Secretary of State Tillerson makes comments that the US will not interfere in the European trade with Iran, he is, in essence, saying that despite the fact that the US finds that Iran directly sponsors terrorism, it is okay for its allies to trade with Iran and that somehow it's possible to separate trade and investment, from Iran's other activities. The argument that has not worked in the designation of all of Hezbollah (interestingly, an Iranian proxy) as a terrorist entity is somehow still being applied to the Islamic Republic. It's not helpful.

Nevertheless, the new policy is what it is, and as such, requires some level of intervention if the IRGC directly and opens threatens US national security interests, which is exactly what it is doing at the moment. That becomes an overarching consideration. If other allies, including Turkey and Baghdad, refuse to recognize why the IRGC involvement is such a central concern to the United States and ignore this issue, their status as allies comes into question. Any actor that openly cooperates with the US enemies and aids and abets activity by US-designated terrorist organizations in a way that will likely directly impact US interests and security is not acting as a friend.

All other questions, under such circumstances, fade into the background. The first and foremost concern should be: how does this affect the US? The answer is simple: it is harmful to the US, the presence of its troops in the region, its relationship with other allies, and it's most certainly detrimental to its new policy and the goals of countering Iranian aggression. The news that the IRGC, led by Qasem Soleimani, whose forces pressured PUK into giving up control of Kirkuk behind KRG leader Barzani's back, has now established five military bases and headquarters in Kirkuk is both a disaster and an embarrassment. Continuing to deny Iran's involvement will not make it so. Rather, by taking no action to deter the IRGC from spreading its influence in the area, we are openly contradicting our own policy, violating our own laws, betraying our own constituents who are relying on the US government for protection against enemies, and emboldening the openly adversarial Iranian regime. And that is all before we even get to our practical and moral obligations to the Kurds, our other important relationships in the region, or any other considerations.

We are showing ourselves to have no principles, to be a lawless nation, that is incapable of consistently enforcing its own national security strategies, and by failing to stop the incursion of the IRGC into the Kirkuk province, we are opening ourselves to future attacks

JOL Blogger | Irina Tsukerman

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York. Her focus of interests ranges from assisting liberal dissidents and persecuted minorities to international geopolitics to relationship-and coalition building between Jewish and non-Jewish communities in New York and internationally. In addition to Jerusalem Online, her articles have appeared in a range of publications including PJ Media, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel and Morocco World News. She has also appeared on Moroccan media and Fox Business.

Click Here for more reports by Irina Tsukerman

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

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

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

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

Turkey's Extortionism Pays Off

Turkey is holding an evangelical US pastor hostage. Erdogan is trying to extort the US into giving up his political enemy, Fetullah Gullen, in exchange for the American. Yet President Trump continues to do business as usual with this terrorist regime, that is holding a US citizen on trumped-up charges, and recently cut an airplane deal with the Erdogan regime. That's called negotiating from a position of weakness. Where's that in the "Art of the Deal", Mr. President? How can you consider a country that is detaining your citizens for no reason an ally or a business partner? Are there no other non-terrorist states that would be willing to buy our planes? Are we so desperate for Erdogan's "friendship"? In addition to attacking peaceful protesters on US soil, detaining US citizens on trumped-up charges should be considered an act of aggression, punishable by sanctions against everyone involved.

State Department follows Iran and Turkey right into the Swamp

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

The Cuba Non-Response Response

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

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

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.