Month: August 2019

Categories
Quick Analysis

Foreign Policy Update

CHINA

In a recent interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show Secretary of State Michael Pompeo discussed US-China trade relations, pointing out that the US understands the long game that China is playing and that Washington is prepared for it. He said the United States wants China “to stop stealing our stuff, to stop forcing our companies to transfer technology if they just simply want to do business and serve the Chinese market.  We want our trade barriers gone.  They want – we want zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers.  We want a fair trading relationship.” The Secretary was firm saying that Washington will be successful in pushing back the Chinese challenge. Recently, Beijing announced it was not imposing additional tariffs on the United States, a strong indication that China is aware it is running out of American goods to tax.

In a separate interview on the Tony Katz Show the Secretary spoke again about the US-China relationship and how the Administration is pushing back. He noted that Washington’s view is that the US “can’t allow China to continue to take money from the United States.” Pompeo said: “We watch their military build up as well. That is, as they steal our intellectual property, including our intellectual property connected to our things like airplanes and helicopters and telecommunications, and all the things that provide security for people in our country – as we watch them grow their security on our backs, we recognize that’s not sustainable….”

According to Pompeo, the US is working on multiple fronts. While the most visible is the trade effort, the Administration also is “pushing back against them [China] to make sure that there’s not Chinese telecommunications” stealing Americans’ private data by having their information traverse across a Chinese network with Chinese equipment.   

AFGHANISTAN

Concerning the ongoing negotiations with the Taliban, Secretary Pompeo reinforced previous statements that the two objectives President Trump has set out continue to be in place. He noted the first is “the President has said we, given the geostrategic challenges that the country faces, we have to make sure that the resources we deploy in every theater are appropriate for the time, and he has talked about these endless wars in places like the Middle East and said we need to reduce our cost and our risk to the young men and women we send there.”

The second objective, he added, is that we “ensure that we protect the American people.” In Afghanistan that means reducing the risk of terrorism emanating from the region. 

This condition sometimes becomes the sole reason of problems in someone’s professional and levitra samples personal life. Precautionary measures: Super p force is just for generic cialis no rx guys over 18 years. Because of their ability to reduce risk of gynecomastia (abnormal growth of breast tissue in males) and enhance recovery of natural testosterone production after a cycle, use of anti estrogen supplements such as sample viagra Nolvadex, Clomid has become popular in bodybuilding. Erectile Difficulties Another generic levitra pills symptom that you swill find while being a patient of prostate cancer is about the disorder within your sexual organ.

IRAN

Secretary Pompeo called President Trump “very forward-leaning” when it came to dealing with foreign leaders such as North Korean President Kim and the Iranian leadership. He added it presents the US with a “conundrum” as the President has stated that having conversations creates value. “You can understand each other.  You know what the positions are more clearly rather than talking through the press or having some intermediary,” Pompeo pointed out.

“With respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran, we took over two and a half years ago with them on a pathway to a nuclear weapon.  They had this JCPOA, which protected them and gave them that clear pathway.  They had money.  The previous administration had given them an enormous amount of wealth and allowed them to trade with the world so that they could grow their wealth, which they would use to conduct terror campaigns all around the world.  We flipped all of that.  We got out of the JCPOA.  We’re aiming to find a deal that actually protects the American people from the potentiality of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, said Pompeo.”

Washington put economic sanctions in place against the revolutionary regime with the specific goal of starving Tehran’s capacity to underwrite Hizballah, which threatens Israel, and to underwrite militias in Iraq that threaten Americans around the world, and to take down their machine. Pompeo said it takes wealth and resources to conduct terrorism. “We’re trying to deny them the wealth and resources” to prevent them from fomenting terror around the world.   

Pompeo pointed that it is the Iranian people who will drive the destiny of their nation.  And in the end, he added, the “Iranian people will demand that their leaders behave in ways that don’t undermine their economy and threaten them from a security perspective, deny them the most basic fundamental rights.” 

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.  Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Comey Cited for Ethics Violation

Former FBI Director James Comey will be subjected to personnel action for his ethics violations, but will not be prosecuted.  This continues an unfortunate and ill-advised trend of failing to prosecute mostly anti-GOP figures, including examples such as Hillary Clinton (uranium sales to Russia in return for “donations” to her organization, email violations) and former IRS official Lois Lerner (using her agency for partisan political purposes, harassing the Tea Party) for their crimes.

Yesterday, The Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz announced the release of a report examining former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James B. Comey’s retention, handling, and dissemination of certain memoranda memorializing seven one-on-one interactions that he had with President-elect and President Donald J. Trump between January 6, 2017, and April 11, 2017.

the OIG concluded that the memos were official FBI records. The OIG determined that Comey violated applicable policies and his FBI Employment Agreement by providing one of the unclassified memos that contained official FBI information, including sensitive investigative information, to his friend with instructions for the friend to share the contents of the memo with a reporter. Additionally, the OIG determined that Comey, while FBI Director, kept copies of four of the seven memos in a personal safe at his home and, after his removal as FBI Director, violated FBI policies and his FBI Employment Agreement by failing to notify the FBI that he had retained them, or to seek authorization to retain them. Comey likewise violated applicable policies and his FBI Employment Agreement by providing copies, following his removal as FBI Director, of the four memos he had kept in his home to his three private attorneys without FBI authorization. Comey also failed to fulfill his obligation to immediately alert the FBI about his disclosures to his private attorneys once he became aware that the FBI, after Comey’s removal, had determined that one of the memos included several words, the names of foreign countries being discussed by the President, that were classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level.

Upon completing its investigation, the OIG provided its factual findings to the Justice Department for a prosecutorial decision regarding Comey’s conduct, as required by the Inspector General Act. After reviewing the matter, the DOJ declined prosecution. The OIG provided today’s report to the FBI and to the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility for action they deem appropriate.

Text of the OIG conclusion:

Congress has provided the FBI with substantial powers and authorities to gather evidence as part of the FBI’s criminal and counterintelligence mission. The FBI uses these authorities every day in its many investigations into allegations of drug trafficking, terrorism, fraud, organized crime, public corruption, espionage, and a host of other threats to national security and public safety. In the process, the FBI lawfully gains access to a significant amount of sensitive information about individuals, many of whom have not been charged, may never be charged, or may not even be a subject of the investigation. For this reason, the civil liberties of every individual who may fall within the scope of the FBI’s investigative authorities depend on the FBI’s ability to protect sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure.

As Comey himself explained in his March 20, 2017 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he was unable to provide details about the nature or scope of the FBI’s ongoing investigation According to the physicians it is recommend best price on levitra not taking more than one tablet in a day can result in various health complications. It http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/September-15-2014.doc viagra no prescription is important to understand the underlying cause can help restore the erectile function. As soon as this enzyme is sildenafil 100mg price inhibited, productions of other essential compounds like cyclic Guanosine Monophosphate (cGMP) and it causes the arteries to widen. History Blue Lotus holds special significance in history, tradition and art super viagra active and culture of Egypt. into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election because the FBI is very careful in how we handle information about our cases and about the people we are investigating…. Our ability to share details with the Congress and the American people is limited when those investigations are still open, which I hope makes sense. We need to protect people’s privacy…. We just cannot do our work well or fairly if we start talking about it while we’re doing it.

However, after his removal as FBI Director two months later, Comey provided a copy of Memo 4, which Comey had kept without authorization, to Richman with instructions to share the contents with a reporter for The New York Times. Memo 4 included information that was related to both the FBI’s ongoing investigation of Flynn and, by Comey’s own account, information that he believed and alleged constituted evidence of an attempt to obstruct the ongoing Flynn investigation; later that same day, The New York Times published an article about Memo 4 entitled, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation.”

The responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part to the employees of the FBI who have access to it through their daily duties. On occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges, or higher ranking FBI and Department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters. They may even, in some situations, distrust the legitimacy of those supervisory, prosecutorial, or judicial decisions. But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.

Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information. Comey said he was compelled to take these actions “if I love this country…and I love the Department of Justice, and I love the FBI.” However, were current or former FBI employees to follow the former Director’s example and disclose sensitive information in service of their own strongly held personal convictions, the FBI would be unable to dispatch its law enforcement duties properly, as Comey himself noted in his March 20, 2017 congressional testimony. Comey expressed a similar concern to President Trump, according to Memo 4, in discussing leaks of FBI information, telling Trump that the FBI’s ability to conduct its work is compromised “if people run around telling the press what we do.” This is no doubt part of the reason why Comey’s closest advisors used the words “surprised,” “stunned,” “shocked,” and “disappointment” to describe their reactions to learning what Comey had done.

We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy. Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism. In a country built on the rule of law, it is of utmost importance that all FBI employees adhere to Department and FBI policies, particularly when confronted by what appear to be extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions. Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure. What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.

The OIG has provided this report to the FBI and to the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility for action they deem appropriate.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S., German Relations Reach Low Point

German-U.S. relations have reached their lowest point since East and West Germany were united. Issues including Berlin’s inadequate contribution to NATO, its Middle Eastern policies, and its voluntarily growing energy dependence on Russia are the key concerns.

NATO

American Military News recently reported that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reneged on Berlin’s promise to live up to its NATO obligation to commit 2% of its GDP on defense. U.S. Ambassador Richard Grenell tweeted that “It is offensive to assume that the U.S. taxpayers will continue to pay for more than 50,000 Americans [U.S. troops] in #Germany, but the Germans get to spend their surplus on #domestic programs.”

DW, a German news source, reports that “US defense expenditure represents 72 percent of defense spending across the trans-Atlantic alliance.”  

Merkel’s course reversal resulted in significant controversy. Christian Whiton, a former State Department senior advisor, told The Jerusalem Post that “Merkel’s posture is a joke and shows that the German government has no intention of doing its fair share for common defense. We ought to move our forces out of Germany and focus on collaboration with Poland the Baltics.” He added, “Even if Germany were to spend the minimum 2 percent of GDP it promised on defense, which seems unlikely, there’s the question of what they would do with it. After all, they have opposed the US on Iran nuclear sanctions, and seem totally unwilling to help protect shipping in the Persian Gulf.”

 Dietmar Bartsch, the chairman of the Left Party faction in the German Bundestag, has suggested that if the U.S. does The manufacturer starts to advertise that prescription drug, promoting it to the market and gives it a unique “brand” name. sildenafil canada pharmacy But devensec.com super cheap cialis herbal cure to stop premature ejaculation is very much efficient for improving the health of male reproductive organs. It brand cialis for sale http://www.devensec.com/sustain/eidis-updates/IndustrialSymbiosisupdateJanuary_February2012.pdf is also used to flavor ice cream and liqueur. Once this contention is done away with, males can resume click here for more generico viagra on line proper functioning of their reproductive organ when it comes to sexual intercourse. transfer troops to Eastern Europe, it should also remove its nuclear weapons from German soil.

The Financial Times explains that “Germany’s low defence spending weakens Nato Party politics and a pacifist culture make it hard to raise expenditure… Even if German defence spending is a bit higher than planned, it will remain the weakest military power among Europe’s largest countries despite having the strongest economy.”  The strength of Germany’s economy, the fourth largest in the world, makes its subpar defense spending more inflammatory.

Middle East

The Gatestone Institute has thoroughly reviewed Berlin’s anti-Israel, pro-Iran tilt. Its’ examination indicates that “Germany continues to provide millions of euros annually to organizations that promote anti-Israel BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) and “lawfare” campaigns, anti-Zionism, antisemitism, and violence… In May 2016, Germany approved an especially disgraceful UN resolution that singled out Israel at the annual assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) as the world’s only violator of “mental, physical and environmental health… German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier has cozied up to the Iranian regime and other enemies of Israel. Germany consistently appears to prioritize its relations with Israel’s enemies… Instex, an initiative of German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, would enable European trade with Iran despite U.S. sanctions… A senior German diplomat appointed to head an EU barter system that would enable European companies to sidestep U.S. sanctions on Iran stepped down after giving an interview in which he criticized the existence of Israel and praised Tehran’s ballistic missile program… much of Germany’s political establishment appears to be fundamentally anti-Israel. In March 2019, for instance, Germany’s Bundestag overwhelmingly rejected a resolution by the Free Democratic Party (FDP) to urge Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government to reverse its anti-Israel voting record at the United Nations… In February 2019, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier congratulated, “also in the name of my compatriots,” the Iranian regime on the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that seeks Israel’s destruction.”

Energy

The Clean Energy Wire reports that “Germany is the biggest buyer of Russian gas.” A Forbes study noted that  Russia’s natural gas exports to Germany increased significantly in 2018, and that dependence is expected to continue to rise. Angela Merkel has vowed to phase out both coal and nuclear power, which will render her nation increasingly reliant on Russian energy. Forbes believes that “Germany may not be ‘controlled’ by a dependency on Russian gas at the moment, but if the disappearing coal and nuclear energy is replaced by Russian gas, it would quickly be in a situation where it is. And that has many in the West very concerned.”

Relations Remain Vital

German-American relations remain vital for both nations. However, Berlin needs to contribute its fair share, and to cease engaging in efforts that weaken the Western alliance.

Photo: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Mass Shootings: Why

The human tragedies that unfolded in El Paso and Dayton reflect how our society has become unhinged, loosened from all bounds of human decency and community standards. Rational discourse was the first victim. The heartbreaking loss of life was an almost inevitable result.

Despite the presence of guns in private ownership throughout America’s history, mass shootings are a 21st century phenomenon. Tevi Troy, writing in National Affairs, notes:

“ … mass shootings are a late-20th-century American phenomenon, with a persistent and frightening increase in regularity in the early 21st century…The first mass shooting in the collective American memory was the University of Texas at Austin shooting in August 1966.”

Troy reports that was the only mass shooting in the Johnson Administration. Three occurred under Reagan, four under G.H.W. Bush, eight under Clinton, eight under G.W. Bush, and 24 under Obama. Six have now occurred during the Trump presidency.

What has changed in America?  Democrats blame access to weapons that can fire rapidly. Republicans blame untreated mental illness.  The problem is, statistics don’t bear either out.

Alex Yablon, writing in The Trace, reports that “According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there are roughly 638,000 machine guns in circulation in the United States, a number that includes both assault rifles like the M16 and more novel products, like the Uzi submachine gun.” With that many automatic weapons in circulation, one would expect a far higher number of mass shootings if the weapon was the cause.

What about mental illness? A study in the Annals of Epidemiology reported in Science Direct found that “Media accounts of mass shootings by disturbed individuals galvanize public attention and reinforce popular belief that mental illness often results in violence. Epidemiologic studies show that the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are never violent…” In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, “…mental health stakeholders encountered a painful dilemma. The goal of keeping guns out of the hands of seriously mentally ill individuals was emerging as perhaps the only piece of common ground between gun rights and gun control proponents; a post-Newtown public opinion poll found that a majority of Americans across the political spectrum favored ‘increasing government spending to improve mental health screening and treatment as a strategy to prevent gun violence.’ But mental health experts and consumer advocates strongly rejected what they saw as the scapegoating of people with mental illnesses—the vast majority of whom, epidemiologic data shows, will never act violently toward others—as if people with mental health disorders were somehow responsible for gun violence in general.”

Obviously, keeping weapons in general out of the hands of those with violent mental disorders is a good idea, but it is not the total answer, not by a long shot. Neither is abolishing the Second Amendment.  It is absurd to believe that an individual willing to commit murder, assault, rape or robbery will be deterred by statutes prohibiting gun ownership, although some may argue that in the case of automatic weapons, it may reduce somewhat the number of victims in any one particular incident, assuming the perpetrator, lacking access to a repeating weapon, doesn’t use an even more dangerous instrument such as a home made bomb. 

The answers to what caused the mass shooting phenomenon to increase are ones that will make many uncomfortable. By the 1990’s, two events occurred.

Some grave side effects also happen but are hardly confronted by men, so take instant help if you experience any severe side effects purchase levitra online when taking the medication. Avoiding these unhealthy habits is advisable to avoid ED or impotence. viagra no prescription They might also avoid smoking and excessive consumption of alcohol may also affect your ability to achieve an erection. mastercard generic viagra respitecaresa.org Several causes play a significant role for arising the problem of oligospermia in males, but it does potentially have a place for preventing impotence cialis soft issue is possible in some cases.

The first: America became an unquestioned superpower, and for an all-too-brief period, the only true superpower. There was no longer an external danger allowing those predisposed to hate to see “us” as one side, and some other, external, force as the enemy. Rather than Redcoats, Nazis, or Soviets as the bad guys, some, with a predisposition towards violence and animosity, began to view some faction of fellow residents of this nation as the target of their venom.  

Hillary Clinton, during her presidential bid, answered a question about whom she considered the “enemy” by saying, not poverty, racism, terrorism, but “Republicans.”

The normal cultural and moral restraints that would have had some influence preventing acting out on no longer held much sway, because they were no longer taught.

Paul Barnwell, writing in The Atlantic,

“…my students seemed to crave more meaningful discussions and instruction relating to character, morality, and ethics, it struck me how invisible these issues have become in many schools. By omission, are U.S. schools teaching their students that character, morality, and ethics aren’t important in becoming productive, successful citizens?… Talking with my students about ethics and gauging their response served as a wakeup call for me to consider my own role as an educator and just how low character development, ethics, and helping students develop a moral identity have fallen with regard to debate over what schools should teach. The founders of this country, Jessica Lahey wrote in The Atlantic, would ‘likely be horrified by the loss of this goal, as they all cite character education as the way to create an educated and virtuous citizenry.’ ”

Schools have eliminated teaching the virtues of both a uniting form of patriotism, and any discussion of the Judeo-Christian ethic that is the foundation of American society. Our media substantially overlooks, and even mocks, any concept of traditional morality. On top of that, the concept of value judgement, that there is, indeed, such a thing as right and wrong, has vanished from mainstream discussion.

Perhaps, in a nation of 327 million citizens, it is inevitable that some truly evil or insane individuals will be present and act out.  The lack of any grounding in appropriate ethics makes that inevitable.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Majority of Fed Arrests are of Aliens

It is one of the strangest episodes in American history: a number of cities, and some states, have decided to protect illegal aliens who have committed serious crimes.

A typical example is California, where SB54 made that jurisdiction a “Sanctuary State” in which local law enforcement will not cooperate with the federal government in Washington’s attempt to seize illegal aliens lawbreakers.  As then-acting ICE director Tom Homan said at the time of passage (in 2017), “SB54 will negatively impact ICE operations in California by nearly eliminating all cooperation and communication with our law enforcement partners in the state… and prohibiting local law enforcement from contracting with the federal government to house detainees.”    

The following year, New York City followed California’s example. h The results, unfortunately, were predictable. According to Scott Mechowski, ICE  acting field office director: “In just three months, more than three dozen criminal aliens were released from local custody. Simply put, the politics and rhetoric in this city are putting its own communities at an unnecessary risk.”

The result of this odd experiment in political correctness have now been clearly spelled out in an ICE study.  We provide key excerpts:

Immigration, Citizenship, And The Federal Justice System, 1998-2018

This… report highlights trends from 1998 through 2018, providing statistics on immigration and non-immigration offenses, U.S.-Mexico border and non-U.S.-Mexico-border districts, and country of citizenship. The findings are based on data collected by BJS’s Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP), which receives administrative data from six federal justice agencies: the U.S. Marshals Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, U.S. Sentencing Commission, and Federal Bureau of Prisons. The FJSP links and standardizes this information, enabling the production of statistics not available elsewhere.

Highlights:

Based on fiscal years—

  • In 1998, 63% of all federal arrests were of U.S. citizens; in 2018, 64% of all federal arrests were of non-U.S. citizens.
  • Non-U.S. citizens, who make up 7% of the U.S. population (per the U.S. Census Bureau for 2017), accounted for 15% of all federal arrests and 15% of prosecutions in U.S. district court for non-immigration crimes in 2018.
  • The portion of total federal arrests that took place in the five judicial districts along the U.S.-Mexico border almost doubled from 1998 (33%) to 2018 (65%).
  • Ninety-five percent of the increase in federal arrests across 20 years was due to immigration offenses.
  • In 2018, 90% of suspects arrested for federal immigration crimes were male; 10% were female.
Nerves are viagra pharmacy damaged by high level of glucose in the blood may come to lower. A person who experiences codependency gets their self-worth from sources other than sildenafil india themselves. Those who are conscious about using such medication ever when they have a doctor’s approval may like to research viagra pill about these drugs on the internet, for their satisfaction effectiveness. This is something that may easily be avoided by keeping blood sugar levels well controlled three to six months before you become pregnant. lowest priced viagra

I n 2018, 64% of all federal arrests were of non-U.S. citizens. In comparison, 37% of all federal arrests in 1998 were of non-U.S. citizens. Federal arrests of non-U.S. citizens more than tripled from 1998 to 2018 (rising 234%), while federal arrests of U.S. citizens rose 10%.

Citizenship: While non-U.S. citizens make up 7% of the U.S. population (per the U.S. Census Bureau for 2017), they accounted for 15% of all federal arrests and 15% of prosecutions in U.S. district court for non-immigration crimes in 2018.

Non-U.S. citizens accounted for 24% of all federal drug arrests and 25% of all federal property arrests, including 28% of all federal fraud arrests.

Citizenship by Country: The country of citizenship of persons arrested by federal law enforcement changed notably over time. From 1998 to 2018, Mexican citizens’ share of federal arrests rose from 28% to 40%. Citizens of Central American countries’ share of federal arrests rose from 1% to 20% during the same period, while U.S. citizens’ share of federal arrests fell from 63% to 36%.

The border and immigration: From 1998 to 2018, the portion of all federal arrests that took place in the five federal judicial districts along the U.S.-Mexico border (out of a total of 94 judicial districts nationwide) almost doubled, increasing from 33% to 65%. In 2018, a quarter of all federal drug arrests took place in these five districts. Across 20 years, 95% of the increase in federal arrests was due to immigration crimes. Federal immigration arrests from 1998 to 2018 increased 5-fold (from 20,942 to 108,667). Prosecutions Of suspects prosecuted in U.S. district court in 2018, 57% were U.S. citizens and 43% were non-U.S. citizens. Almost all (99.7%) of the non-U.S. citizens prosecuted in U.S. district court were prosecuted for something other than first-time illegal entry. The five crime types for which non-U.S. citizens were most likely to be prosecuted in U.S. district court were illegal reentry (72% of prosecutions), drugs (13%), fraud (4.5%), alien smuggling (4%), and misuse of visas (2%)

Photo: ICE

Categories
Quick Analysis

China’s Growing Influence in Middle East

The House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East  recently held hearings reviewing China’s growing influence in the Middle East.

Jon B. Alterman, The Senior Vice President, Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy, and Director, Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provided testimony detailing this challenging issue. The New York Analysis of Policy and Government provides key excerpts:

China’s Middle East ties have grown alongside growth in its overall economy and its oil demand. In 2000, Chinese-Saudi bilateral trade totaled $3 billion, dominated by crude oil. By 2010 it was $41.6 billion. While the pace of trade growth has slowed, it continues to grow by double digits in most years, and China has advanced plans with several regional states to double trade within a decade. While the plans sound ambitious, they have precedent. China established the China-Arab States Cooperation Forum in 2004, and thirteen years later China- Arab trade had quadrupled. 

What is important to grasp about China’s approach to the Middle East is how deliberate it is, and how limited it is. My understanding of Chinese foreign policy is that alongside the overarching desire to restore China to its rightful primacy of place among world powers is a profound sense of China’s vulnerability and insecurity…China has no missionary zeal to persuade the world of the virtues of Chinese civilization, nor any desire to operate in a world of like-minded states. … The Chinese government has no formal allies, while alliances have been a foundation of U.S security policy for three-quarters of a century. 

… China’s appetite for oil is large, its oil deposits are limited, and it lacks the geology for a fracking revolution. China will need oil for decades to come, and much of that oil will need to come from the Middle East. 

Much of China’s global trade transits the Middle East as well. An estimated 60 percent of China’s European and African trade passes through the UAE, for example, and much of China’s European and Mediterranean trade sails through the Suez Canal, creating a potential chokepoint for Chinese goods. The region’s chokepoints—the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab al-Mandeb, and the Suez Canal—are China’s chokepoints. 

China has benefitted tremendously from articulating a “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI) that is sufficiently concrete as to persuade Middle Easterners that it will be transformative, but (like all skillful acts of politics and marketing) sufficiently vague for a diverse array of them to imagine playing a key role in its execution…Much less remarked on is that China has actually engaged in relatively few BRI-related projects in the Middle East, and that China is coming under increasing scrutiny for embracing ill-considered development projects abroad that do more for China than the host governments. 

In the Middle East, as in much of the world, China is trying to use economics as its calling card. China has militarized the South China Sea, opened its first overseas military base in Djibouti in 2017, and continues to pour resources into the development of Gwadar Port in Pakistan in a way that puzzles businesspeople who see little economic justification for it… In the Middle East, China’s goal is to embed itself more deeply in the economics of the region without provoking a response from the United States or its allies. China’s attraction to regional governments is offering a more “a la carte” kind of engagement, devoid of the notions of Western states that economic growth must necessarily be accompanied by a set of changed social and political norms. 

…In my judgment, China has no intention of displacing the United States from the Middle East, confronting the United States in the region, or engaging in a rivalry with the United States there. In part, China feels ill-prepared to engage in a conflict with the United States in a region far from China. But equally importantly, China sees no need to. It feels that stabilizing the region is beyond its reach and doing so would likely do more to antagonize potential partners than advance stability. Such tasks are better left to the United States. 

Instead, China is happy to have the United States incur costs in the region while China derives benefits. China’s narrower security interest is ensuring that instability in the Middle East does not blow back on China. For Middle Eastern countries, China benefits from high hopes and low expectations. China is a newcomer to the scene, with relatively little history in the region but a domestic economic track record that is enviable by almost any measure. In some ways, China is in the place that the United States was after the First World War, a dimly understood global power holding out the promise of a better future untainted by an imperialist history. 

China also promises not to disrupt social values in societies undergoing profound change. That is, China promises access to the Chinese economic miracle while expressing none of the Western concerns about fostering systems that produce resilient societies. The China model—robust economic growth under an authoritarian political framework—has become even more attractive to Middle Eastern governments after the Arab uprisings of 2011, which reminded governments of the perils that more open political space can pose to governments lacking the support of their populations. While regional governments often seem to seek U.S. hegemony as protection against external foes, a growing focus on the threat of internal disorder, and a strong conviction that U.S. recipes for openness threaten chaos, makes alternatives to the U.S. more attractive. Further, concern that growing U.S. energy self-sufficiency will draw the United States away from the Middle East calls for a hedge. 

Embedded in the Chinese strategy to promote economic ties is an effort to embed Chinese technology in infrastructure. Modern computing relies on complex code being layered over complex code, rendering large blocks of code a sort of black hole whose contents are not understood, even by programmers themselves. This is especially true in the field of artificial intelligence, a premise of which is that it is the computer that directs an activity rather than a programmer. Immense arrays of code, whether applied to 5G technology, self-driving cars, computer chips, or any of a wide range of technologies open the door both to surveillance and to the installation of “kill switches” that can cripple devices at will. Since the Chinese government and Chinese industry are, by law, intertwined, the spread of Chinese technology also spreads Chinese security capacity into the heart of potential adversaries without a single soldier being deployed or a shot being fired. 

One might argue that China is devising a new mode of imperialism, whereby Imperialism 1.0 was European imperialism, and Imperialism 2.0 was the U.S.-led rules-based international order. Imperialism 3.0 (or perhaps, Mercantilism 2.0), is a set of wholly interest-based, government-to- government ties that allow the rapid exploitation of economic opportunities on what is, at least initially, a consensual basis. Chinese state-owned enterprises, Chinese construction firms, and Chinese technology flow in, creating an engagement that may turn into dependency. China certainly represents a challenge for Western governments that seek to use “whole of government” solutions to fight corruption, pursue technical excellence, and encourage environmental stewardship. China advertises that it provides a shortcut to resources. 

Of course, China is not relying on economics alone to advance its interests. China also deploys traditional statecraft to advance its interests and confound its adversaries. It is useful, in that regard, to consider China’s approach to Iran. For Chinese strategists, not only is Iran’s current international position acceptable, but the current U.S. strategy toward Iran is a gift. China (along with Russia) was willing to go along with Obama-era sanctions on Iran and agree to the JCPOA, but the Trump administration’s strategy much more closely serves Chinese interests. From a Chinese perspective, maintaining ties with Iran is a vital strategic imperative, for the following reasons: 

1) Iran is a hedge against a cutoff in oil sales because its hostility to the United States makes it unlikely to join a U.S.-led effort to embargo China in the case of heightened tension. All of the other Middle Eastern producers have close U.S. ties.

2) Tensions with Iran help ensure that the United States cannot fully focus its military attention on the western Pacific. If the United States puts two carrier strike groups off the coast of Iran, and it can only have three on station at any given time, that means that the United States only has one it can dedicate to China.

3) Tensions over Iran’s activities disrupt U.S. ties with its allies, diminishing U.S. global leadership and creating the more bilaterally-driven world that China seeks. A fractured Western alliance is much less threatening to China than a united one

. 4) Close ties to Iran drive Saudi Arabia to seek even closer ties to China. That leads the Kingdom to offer China high volumes of discounted oil, drives bilateral investment, and creates opportunities for Chinese construction firms in the Kingdom.

5) Iran represents an investment opportunity for China. As a distressed asset, China sees tremendous opportunities in Iran, with prime Moreover, they also help you enhance your function which could assist you to a great extent. cheapest tadalafil uk Therefore, it offers effective treatment best prices on cialis for male impotence, as in opinion of Dr. Anyway it is better to avoid any kind of narcotics not to become dependent. viagra pharmacies Phosphodiesterase-5 is an enzyme that is found in cialis pills uk, the brand that popularize oral medication for erectile dysfunction approved by the U.S. geographic location, its educated and relatively large population, and relatively diversified economy. China faces little competition investing in Iran. 

6) Iran is by far the weaker party in this bilateral relationship. China represents more than 30 percent of Iran’s import and export markets, but Iran represents less than 1 percent of China’s. Iran clearly needs China, but China has alternatives to Iran. 

What is especially notable is how effective China has been in developing its ties with Iran without disrupting its other ties to Chinese partners in the Middle East. China seems to have mastered the art of deriving benefits from its relations with Iran without paying heavy costs. 

As I see it, China has four principal regional partners besides Iran. Importantly, President Xi has visited three of them in the last five years, signaling the importance that China attaches to each relationship. 

The first is Saudi Arabia, which is China’s largest trading partner in West Asia and the wealthiest country in the region. China, in turn, is Saudi Arabia’s largest trading partner and largest oil customer. Chinese construction firms have been playing a growing role developing Saudi infrastructure; meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been especially eager to build refineries and petrochemical production facilities in China that are specially tailored to use Saudi grades of crude oil. 

President Xi visited Saudi Arabia in January 2016, and King Salman made a rare trip to China in March 2017. His son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, traveled to Beijing in February 2019, when he was still persona non grata in much of the world after the October 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul. The Crown Prince reportedly signed economic agreements totaling $28 billion and broadcast that Saudi-Chinese trade had shot up 32 percent in the last year alone. 

Saudi Arabia seems to be developing China as a hedge against a decline in Western oil consumption, as a well as a hedge against Western discomfort with authoritarianism within Saudi Arabia. In addition, wooing the Saudis allows China to play Saudi Arabia and Iran off against one another. 

China’s Arabian Peninsula ties extend beyond Saudi Arabia. China is also the United Arab Emirates’ largest trading partner, and Dubai Port is a vital global shipping and logistics hub for Chinese goods. More than 200,000 Chinese nationals live in the UAE, which is emerging as a sort of entrepot for Chinese traders who want to be closer to overseas markets. 

While the UAE has been aligning more closely with the United States for decades, the leadership clearly sees such an orientation as being wholly compatible with closer ties to China as well. The UAE sees a leading role for itself as a consequence of the Belt and Road Initiative, building out on what is already a robust trading relationship. 

In July 2018, China and the UAE used the occasion of President Xi’s visit to the UAE to announce that they had upgraded their 2012 “strategic partnership” to a “comprehensive strategic partnership,” outlining cooperation in nine fields including politics, trade and economics, technology, energy, renewable energy, and security. The two countries set a goal of doubling bilateral trade by 2022, and the UAE recently allowed Chinese visitors visa-free entry. 

In the last five years, as China has grown increasingly concerned with transit through the Suez Canal, there has been significant growth in Chinese involvement in Egypt. Chinese firms are deeply engaged in constructing Egypt’s new administrative capital in the desert outside of Cairo, and they are developing a Red Sea port and industrial zone in Ain Sukhna. During a September 2018 visit to Beijing, President Sisi reportedly signed $18 billion worth of deals with China, covering rail, real estate, refining, and energy projects. In fact, President Sisi has made at least six trips to Beijing since taking office in 2014, compared to just two trips to Washington. 

Despite this, trade figures between Egypt and China are dwarfed by China’s trade with other major regional partners. In addition, China struggles to find goods to buy from Egypt. Oranges are a key export, and China has been working for a decade to boost Chinese tourism in Egypt as a way to reduce trade imbalances. Chinese companies reportedly cooled on Egyptian investments about a year ago, convinced that the Egyptians were intent on ensuring that profits only accrued to the Egyptian side. Those concerns appear to have been assuaged, and the larger strategic reality – that the Egyptian leadership is clearly courting China (as it is also courting Russia) – has become the dominant theme. This is seemingly as a hedge against Western countries turning their back on the country. 

The last key country is Israel. About a decade ago, a delegation from Israel came to Washington and asked experts here how Israel could remain strategically important to China after the United States put a definitive end to cooperation on military technology that had U.S. roots. Israel seems to have solved that equation, developing deep commercial relationships in advanced technology and government-to-government cooperation in the security and counterterrorism fields. 

It is remarkable just how quickly these ties have developed. According to Thompson Reuters, Chinese investment in Israel increased tenfold between 2016 and 2017, totaling more than $16 billion. Chinese firms are deeply engaged in building Israeli infrastructure, building tunnels for light rail, expanding port facilities in Ashdod and Haifa and striking agreements to operate the ports for 25 years. 

In recent months Israelis have been discussing the implications of greater Chinese involvement in Israel. According to Foreign Policy, Israel’s National Security Council was expected to release a report to the Israeli government in March 2019 that outlined steps Israel should take to protect its national security as it welcomes international investment. Reportedly, the main target was China. China’s footprint in Israel could not only give China insight into matters regarding Israeli security, but could also provide pathways to surveil U.S. naval operations in Haifa Port and provide access to technologies being developed by Israel or that play a role in U.S. defense systems. 

China’s advantage in all of this is the government seems to know what it is trying to do, and what it is not trying to do. China has a strategy that is elegant in its simplicity, seeking ways to encourage governments open the door wide to Chinese engagement.

…The whole Chinese model may collapse under its own weight. As the Belt and Road Initiative has grown in complexity it has encountered complications, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank remains a relatively small operation after opening with high hopes three years ago. China is increasingly sensitive to charges that it is creating debt traps for its borrowers, despoiling the environment, and contributing to political corruption…

We need to be mindful that the Chinese model may pose a formidable challenge…

We can all think of organizations that are like IBM in 1985, completely dominant in their field but facing systemic challenges because that dominance is of diminishing value. 

China is, to my mind, seeking to exploit an emerging paradigm shift… China is seeking opportunities to create new a new model whereby it does not confront its adversaries head-on nor do expensive things that serve other nation’s interests. Instead, China is focused exploiting opportunities that others ignore, carving out profitable activities where others see obstacles, and building on a base that others have created and sustained. 

To me, the biggest danger we face in the Middle East is assuming that our adversaries will confront us in the ways we are most prepared to be challenged… 

China’s challenge is not that of a peer that is seeking to displace us in the Middle East. Instead, it is of an upstart that is seeking to render our entire model obsolete. China’s challenge needs to be taken as a reminder we must be more deliberate about what we need to do in the Middle East. It is a reminder that we need to explore new models of relations, rather than merely doubling down on what we have done for last 50 years. And it is a reminder that our goal must be not merely to reinforce the status quo, but to lead the world to a better future. It is what we have sought to do for much of our history. We must continue to do so, and we must continue to find success.

Picture: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Foreign Policy Update

HONG KONG

In a recent television interview Secretary of State Pompeo commented on the unrest in Hong Kong, saying that “these are protesters who are simply seeking liberty and freedom. They’re asking only that China uphold its commitment, the promise that it made, which was that there would be one country but two systems, respecting Hong Kong in ways that were appropriate for the Hong Kong people. That’s what President Trump’s made clear. He said he is for liberty, he is for democracy, and we hope that the Chinese Government will respect that.” 

The protests are ongoing and have attracted several million Chinese participants in recent weeks. The Chinese leadership in Beijing does not readily accept the rights of the protesters or their complaints as legitimate.  “Luan,” or chaos, from the government’s perspective is disruptive to society and counterproductive. Without a history of freedom of speech or other individual rights, western analysts remain unsure how long Beijing will tolerate the unrest. 

In June 1989 the Chinese government forcefully removed student protesters from Tiananmen Square in a massive military move resulting in the deaths of thousands of its own citizens. Today Chinese President Xi faces criticism from many nations for repressing the protesters as well as from domestic constituencies divided between hardliners in the military who would like to see the unrest end and a nascent civil society of human rights advocates supporting the demonstrators. The decision Xi makes will have significant fallout. Extreme repression of the protesters in Hong Kong could further drive Taiwan toward the United States and make military action one of the few remaining options for Beijing to gain control of the island. Xi could also face additional scrutiny from the international community, further sanctions, and a loss of confidence by neighboring countries that China has been wooing as it rises in power as a new Pacific hegemon.

CHINA/VIETNAM

China continues to take aggressive action in the South China Sea. The United States is “deeply concerned” as China is continuing its interference with Vietnam’s longstanding oil and gas activities in Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claim. On August 13 China redeployed a government-owned survey vessel, together with armed escorts, into waters offshore Vietnam near Vanguard Bank in what is viewed as an escalation by Beijing in its efforts to intimidate other claimants out of developing resources in the South China Sea.

According to the State Department, this calls into “serious question” China’s commitment, including to the ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, to the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes.

China’s actions undermine regional peace and security, impose economic costs on Southeast Asian states by blocking their access to an estimated $2.5 trillion in unexploited hydrocarbon resources, and demonstrate China’s disregard for the rights of countries to undertake economic activities in their EEZs, under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, which China ratified in 1996, according to the State Department.

GEORGIA

The United States is “troubled by reports that Russian-backed de facto authorities have resumed the installation of fencing on Georgian territory near the administrative boundary line of the Russian-occupied Georgian region of South Ossetia,” according to the State Department spokesperson. The creation of the “border” separates families, affects local farming, and hurts critical infrastructure in the region.

In fact, sucralose may be many times more carcinogenic cialis on line (cancer-forming) than DDT, an insecticide previously banned due to the danger of its toxicity. Kamagra tablets levitra 40mg contain Sildenafil citrate, which is the same in all devices. If you happen to 5mg cialis tablets be Carter’s fan, you would love to get inspired from an earlier era tattoo with a set of tribal-inspired elements made on his arms. When you go in the bed a depressive mood, you may not sleep peacefully. cheap viagra in usa

Washington is calling for the immediate halt of construction of new fencing and other barriers. And, for “Russia to suspend its illegal occupation of 20 percent of Georgian territory; to withdraw its forces to pre-conflict positions; and to allow unfettered access for the delivery of humanitarian assistance in accordance with its clear obligations under the 2008 ceasefire agreement.”

IRAN-SYRIA

An Iranian oil tanker, the Bonita Queen, is sailing towards Syria in violation of sanctions placed on Iran. The State Department confirmed Secretary Pompeo is aware of the situation and that Washington views the shipment as aiding terrorism conducted by the Assad regime. 

Secretary Pompeo stated on August 22 that if the ship heads to Syria “we’ll take every action we can consistent with those sanctions to prevent that.” He also used the opportunity to reinforce the United States’ strong position that all ports in the Mediterranean “should be wary of accepting any ship which is carrying Iranian oil and violating US sanctions.” According to the State Department, if crew members on board a ship violating sanctions or others assist it, they may be ineligible for visas and admission to the United States.

 CUBA

This week the State Department strongly condemned Cuba’s prosecution of Roberto Quinones. His crime: reporting on a pastor home-schooling his child. The Cuban regime has a long history of violating human rights, including the right of freedom of expression and fair trial guarantees. In this latest case Quinones, on August 7, the Cuban regime convicted Quinones on dubious charges of resistance and disobedience and sentenced him to one year in a labor camp. 

His detention and trial, according to the State Department, were marked by the “flagrant disregard for legal norms that are typical of the Cuban regime.” Cuban authorities did not inform Quinones of the charges against him until minutes before the trial and did not permit him legal representation in the courtroom, it said. In addition, the Cuban regime’s prosecutors did not permit Quinones to present evidence of his injuries at the hands of the police who arrested him. Adding cruelty to injustice, regime officials have refused to allow Quinones to visit his ailing father. The Trump Administration uses targeted sanctions and trade restrictions aimed at the regime to limit it from obtaining outside resources it can use to further oppress its citizens and to prop up the Maduro regime in Venezuela.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.  Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Hijacked Environmentalism

Despite the general popularity of environmental programs and the intense push to enact “green” measures, little of substance has actually been accomplished. The reasons are clear.

Exaggerated claims of imminent and massive harm, combined with the hijacking of environmental concerns by those seeking to use the issue as an excuse to push a socialist agenda (despite a significant history of socialism being far worse for the environment than capitalism) are to blame.  

Bjorn Lomborg, writing in the New York Post notes that “A year ahead of the US presidential election, exaggeration about global warming is greater than ever. While some politicians continue (incorrectly) to insist it’s made up, far more insist (also incorrectly) that we face an imminent climate crisis threatening civilization…An example: We are constantly told that climate change is to blame for an increase in extreme weather like flooding, droughts and hurricanes. But the UN climate science panel actually finds the evidence does not support claims that floods, droughts and hurricanes are increasing.”

Kevin Cochrane, writing for the Washington Times, recently reported that the chief of staff for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist firebrand from New York, admitted  “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” Change the entire economy thing? From capitalism to? Yes, to a socialist planned economy. And yet, history demonstrates time and time again, not just the economic failure of socialism, but its devastating effect on the environment. Socialism and environmental protection are incompatible.”

Additionally, there is a significant level of hypocrisy on the part of many of the leaders of the extreme environmental movement.  Their message is clear: Middle class Americans should make massive life-style changes and pay enormous charges while elites live larger than ever. Tim Stickings and Dianne Apen-Sadler, reporting for the Daily Mail, recently described “Eco-warrior elite” turned up at secret climate change Google camp in 114 private jets, helicopters and mega yachts.”  

The Competitive Enterprise Institute recently completed an analysis by Kent Lassman and Daniel Turner of what the “Green New Deal” being pushed by Democrats would cost a typical household. The New York Analysis of Policy and Government provides this key excerpts:

“In early 2019, a handful of progressive Democrats galvanized their party around a set of ideas that—even if only partially implemented—would restructure vast areas of the American economy and radically refashion the American household with large and ongoing costs. 

This set of proposals, called the Green New Deal (GND)—introduced in the 116thCongress as H. R. 109 and S. 59—has earned attention, depending on the source of commentary, either as an instrument of effective leadership for the 21stcentury or as an unserious ideological signaling exercise. In either case, it is difficult to read as a set of genuine policy proposals; it is perhaps better described as a far-reaching, aspirational set of guideposts for a resurgent progressive force in American politics…It promises a utopia…

So, it is highly recommend for us by the experienced doctors.If prescription for ordering viagra icks.org you want more information about the same, medical experts about the negative reviews of this drug, they explained the following. When medicinal drugs meant for remedying erectile dysfunction first surfaced, they were extremely costly(certain are even mastercard viagra now two classifications of it. There is more to Male Dysfunction than meets browse that shop order generic viagra your eyes. On the other hand, Dapoxetine backs off your discharge handle with the goal that you don’t get the right assistance, cialis tadalafil uk this site on sale now you will find it very hard to get sites ranked for.

“At its root, the Green New Deal is a radical blueprint to de-carbonize the American economy…

The sum of our analysis is not favorable for the GND’s advocates. At best, it can be described as an overwhelmingly expensive proposal reliant on technologies that have not yet been invented. More likely, the GND would drive the American economy into a steep economic depression, while putting off-limits affordable energy necessary for basic social institutions like hospitals, schools, clean water and sanitation, cargo shipments, and the inputs needed for the production and transport of the majority of America’s food supply…

“At a minimum, the GND would impose large and recurring costs on American households. We conclude that in four of the five states analyzed—Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania—the GND would cost a typical household more than $70,000 in the first year of implementation, approximately $45,000 for each of the next four years, and more than $37,000 each year thereafter.  In Alaska, estimated costs are much higher: more than $100,000 in year one, $73,000 in the subsequent four years, and more than $67,000 each year thereafter.

“The Green New Deal is a plan to radically reshape the American economy and the landscape of a household economy. Every aspect of how we live and work would be affected by the proposal. The preponderance of goods essential for agriculture, transportation, and construction would be replaced. In short, it is not realistic… we can conclude that the Green New Deal is an unserious proposal that is at best negligent in its anticipation of transition costs and at worst is a politically motivated policy whose creativity is outweighed by its enormous potential for economic destruction.”

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Palestinians Continue to Reject Opportunities

The Israeli-barred visit by two first term U.S. congresswomen, Freshmen Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN), the first Muslim women elected to Congress, has sparked increased debate over the Palestinian issue.  Talib and Omar, who are virulently anti-Israel, sought to achieve a public relations coup by their intended provocative trip to the Jewish State.

They sought to raise opposition to both the Netanyahu government, and the Trump Administration’s efforts to produce a peace plan.  The Trump administration recently held a “Peace to Prosperity Workshop” in Bahrain, attended by both Israelis and representatives of Arab states. Arab nations, now more concerned with Iranian expansionism than the ongoing Palestinian issue, have been more open to dealing with Israel. Clifford May quotes Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa: “Israel is part of this heritage of this whole region historically. So the Jewish people have a place amongst us.”

The actual roadblock is the fault of the leadership of the Palestinians. Mahmoud Abbas leads the “State of Palestine” and has been chair of the Palestine Liberation Organization since 2004. He has refused to negotiate with Israel or the U.S., and is locked in a bitter feud with other Palestinians. In that refusal, he is following in the footsteps of Yasser Arafat, who was Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization from 1969 to 2004 and President of the Palestinian National Authority from 1994 to 2004.

 The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) / reports that “…at least three times the Palestinians have refused statehood when it was offered to them… n 2008, after extensive talks, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and presented a comprehensive peace plan…  In the summer of 2000 US President Bill Clinton hosted intense peace talks at Camp David between Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Israeli leader Ehud Barak, culminating in a comprehensive peace plan known as the Clinton Parameters… Despite the vast concessions the plan required of Israel, Prime Minister Barak accepted President Clinton’s proposal, while Arafat refused, returned home, and launched a new terror campaign against Israeli civilians (the Second Intifada)… UN Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, passed in November 1947, called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the land which at that point was controlled by the British-run Palestine Mandate. All the Arab countries opposed the resolution, voted against it, and promised to go to war to prevent its implementation. Representing the Palestinians, the Arab Higher Committee also opposed the plan and threatened war, while the Jewish Agency, representing the Jewish inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate, supported the plan.”

The Palestinian question has been fraught with historically incorrect arguments.

A History News Network notes:

“Historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine.  There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time.  Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled ‘the Jewish Wars,’ the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines… the historical record says that Palestine was never a country, and was rarely ever an intact entity.  At most it was a geographic entity like Scandinavia but, even as that, it changed over time…None As the penis gets erect the arteries and veins in the penis become robust and it canada in levitra http://www.slovak-republic.org/living/ cuts down the supply of the blood out bringing the member back to its original size. This medicine is not formulated cialis online no prescription for men with impotence. Even if you have insurance, a doctor’s visit is seldom free, and most insurance companies won’t cover the cost of the prescription, leaving the burden on the consumers. tadalafil without prescriptions Blueberry, strawberry, and prices cialis raspberry antioxidant drinks are worth checking out. of this is meant to deny that Palestinians have a just claim to the land—or that Jews have a just claim to the land.  There has always been only one practical solution to the problem of two peoples claiming the same land—the two-state solution.  But many people seem surprised to learn that this solution was invented by neither President Clinton nor President Bush nor President Obama. The two-state solution has a long history dating back at least to 1937, when the British proposed to partition the land between Arabs and Jews while leaving Jerusalem under international control.  A similar plan was approved by the UN General Assembly in 1947, and then again proposed by President Clinton in 2000. The great irony is that the leadership of the Arabs of Palestine consistently rejected the two-state solution in the belief that they could have everything; the result was that they ended up with nothing… The real stumbling block to the creation of a Palestinian state are Palestinians—Hamas, in particular—who cannot bring themselves to accept a state that doesn’t comprise all of ‘historic Palestine.’  Tragically, the recent reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas means there will be no two-state solution—and no peace agreement.”

Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for the Defense for Democracies writes “The Six-Day War of 1967 was a second attempt to use military force to vanquish Israel. When the fighting halted, Gaza and the West Bank, territories that had been occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively, were in Israeli hands. That presented a new opportunity. The Israelis could attempt what Egypt and Jordan had not: establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, a so-called ‘two-state solution.’ In exchange, Palestinians would only need agree to peacefully coexist with their neighbor. The Arab League promptly issued the Khartoum Resolution, the ‘Three No’s’: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.’ “The Israelis persisted. Deals were proposed in 2000, 2001 and 2008.The Palestinians were offered more than 90% of the West Bank. Each time, the Palestinians – or at least those who led them – declined. No counteroffers were presented.

“Yet another opportunity: In 2005, Ariel Sharon, then Israel’s prime minister, withdrew every Israeli soldier and farmer, every synagogue and cemetery, from Gaza. If Gaza became a peaceable neighbor, expending its energies and foreign funds lifting its people from poverty, a deal on the West Bank would follow. You know what happened next: Hamas went to war – literally, not figuratively – with Fatah, its rival. Hamas prevailed, which is why Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas dares not set foot in the territory.

Hamas then turned its guns, missiles and, more recently, terrorist tunnels and incendiary kites on Israel. This was in line with the Hamas Charter which calls for Israel to be annihilated and replaced by an Islamic emirate. Hamas views its struggle against Israel as a jihad. To compromise would be a sin – literally, not figuratively.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Russian Strategic Intentions, Part 3

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes presentation of key excerpts of the “Strategic Multiyear Assessment”(SMA) prepared for the U.S. Military Joint Chiefs of Staff by key defense policy analysts. It examines Russia’s global interests and objectives, as well as the activities—gray or otherwise—that it conducts to achieve them.

How Should the US Respond?

Determine Intent to Avoid Unintended Consequences Understanding why actors are violating norms (e.g., boundary testing, system breakage) reduces the probability of unintended escalation and informs the development of deterrent measures. Intent and attribution are inherently problematic in the gray zone. However, mistakenly attributing aggressive intent when an action is taken in ignorance of the consequences, or in self-defense, may lead to interpreting an action incorrectly as gray and thus potentially threatening. A response based on faulty interpretation may be perceived as aggressive as well as unprovoked and increase tensions and the probability of unwanted escalation. Conversely, interpreting as benign an action that is in fact part of a gray strategy risks missing the window of opportunity for derailing that strategy before it becomes a done deal.

Stay Engaged and Respond Early Inaction in the face of low-level gray actions can, over time, create a “new reality” that threatens US interests and security. At that point, reversion to the status quo ante will likely require much greater, and more costly actions, and may not be possible without the use of military force. Part of the reason Russia is choosing to operate in the gray zone is its perception that the US will not respond to lower level actions for fear of triggering escalation. US failure to develop early, effective response options reinforces this perception. An enduring, proactive presence and consistent messaging across all USG agencies is a significantly superior approach to taking select actions in response to Russian aggression. This approach would be aided by the DoD expanding its definitions of maneuver and objectives to better account for the human aspects of military operations.

What Capabilities Does the US Need? Engagment with population across multiple arenas (economic, political, media and others) is a defining characteristic of many gray actions and all gray strategies. Gray zone actors are consistently engaging with populations within and outside their borders, in efforts to effectively set the narrative for both their own actions and motivations, and those of the US. Unless and until the US does the same, it will be at a disadvantage in addressing gray zone challenges. Across all aspects of gray zone identification and response, one central theme emerges from the work done for this project: The US needs to think more broadly and deepen our understanding of the human / cognitive domain. We cannot afford to ignore populations, or engage with them only once a crisis has erupted.

A richer understanding of the operational environment provides the essential context for identifying those actors that are likely to engage in behavior the US considers to be gray, and a potential threat to US and/or partner nation interests. Understanding the drivers and buffers of stability within specific regions and countries can help analysts and planners identify actors that are likely to be vulnerable to another actor’s gray actions and strategies. It can also help identify the actors they are vulnerable to in specific areas (e.g. domestic political influence by Russia, or economic pressure or reward from China). For any response or deterrent action taken by the US and partner nations to be effective, we also need to be able to anticipate with greater accuracy the likely population response (at the group level, not just the state level) to our actions. Figure 2 highlights the aspects of the gray zone on which the SMA team analyses indicated the US and partner nations should build understanding. It also shows the areas in which the analyses suggest the US should further develop in order to improve both I&W and responses to gray zone challenges.

Deeper Understanding of the Human/Cognitive Domain When considering capabilities in the context of gray zone challenges, we need to think first in terms of information. Information provides a richer understanding of the operating environment and emphasizes the human/cognitive domain.

This is very dangerous levitra without prescription because it may lead to mild or severe side effects. Chain smokers are at higher risk of impotence as smoking viagra sildenafil narrows arteries, which further affects blood flow. You should also practice regencygrandenursing.com cialis overnight shipping exercises like meditation, yoga and Pranayam. In cancer patients, when radiotherapy has been used and the prostrate gland has been removed, the regencygrandenursing.com viagra generika nerves that are extending down to your spine and exiting through a series of openings.

 Specifically, the US must:

• Broaden its understanding of the strategic and operational environments to better incorporate the human / cognitive domain

• Consider the non-military arenas and non-state level of the gray zone when developing I&W, and deterrence and response options

• Think beyond purely kinetic responses and develop ways to shape the international environment to reduce the motivation for actors to engage in gray activities in the first place. This will require addressing the broad question of the sustainability of a global system built on norms that are not implicitly accepted by all major powers

• Build trust and credibility with partner nations to enable greater coordination of effort in collective gray zone deterrence and response activities, as well as earlier I&W or gray zone activity against vulnerable partners

• Narratives are not the only tool for building influence. Explore other (non- military) levers of power the US can use to increase its influence without violating or undermining international norms

Develop Clear and Compelling Strategic Narratives

• The US lacks a compelling “story” to present as a counter to competing narratives. We need to better articulate US interests and strategy to both ourselves and others

• Establish the extent to which the target population trusts the US, and have in place strategies to bolster that trust when it is low, prior to engaging in any narrative messaging

 • US messaging (and objectives) must be consistent across the USG agencies working in specific regions and countries. This will require coordination and communication across agencies

Conclusion

The findings from the SMA Gray Zone Project suggest that the capabilities to effectively respond to gray activities are, in some ways, as fluid as those activities themselves. Russia’s gray activities and strategy continue to evolve and adapt, so any capability to respond must itself be adaptable. Rather than focus on specific means (which will continue to change), US capabilities should focus on ends such as containing Russian influence and maintaining an international system consistent with US interests.

Toward this end, much of the SMA teams’ discussion and findings regarding response options in the gray zone coalesce around the role of influence. In particular, how the US can increase its ability to influence international state and non-state actors, and minimize the influence of actors potentially detrimental to the status quo, or to US interests specifically. For this, we need a better understanding of the human / cognitive domain, which can only be achieved with a combination of richer information and conceptual models and frameworks to guide search and interpretation.

Picture: Putin, (Pixabay)