Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Peace denied? Russian budget reinforces wartime economy

 

at 12/6/24 11:05pm

On December 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the budget law for 2025-2027. The Duma had earlier approved the law on November 21, and the Federation Council rubber stamped it on November 27. The main takeaway from the budget is that Russia is planning for the long haul in its war with NATO-backed Ukraine and makes clear that Russia intends to double down on defense spending no matter what the cost. While the increased budget does not shed light on expectations for a speedy resolution to the war, it is indicative that Moscow continues to prepare for conflict with both Ukraine and NATO. More importantly, the recently signed budget only reinforces Russia’s move towards a war economy at the risk of exacerbating growing problems in the domestic economy related to labor shortages and inflation.According to Russia’s Ministry of Finance (MinFin), the largest portion of budget expenditures will be dedicated to national defense. According to published figures, 32.4 percent ($126 billion) will be specifically allocated to defense. In comparison, the figure for 2024 was 29.4 percent of the budget or $98 billion. In 2026 and 2027 the expected budget increases are estimated at $69.5 billion and $125.1billion, respectively.The figures suggest that military expenditures are crowding out spending in other areas of the economy. Planned spending on "national defense" is more than twice that allocated to social spending. Defense expenditures are followed by social policy (15.7 percent), national economy (10.5 percent) and national security and law enforcement activities (8.3 percent). In addition, the new budget threatens to exacerbate existing pressures within the domestic labor market. According to Reuters, heavy recruitment by the armed forces and defense industries has drawn workers away from civilian enterprises, as has emigration, pushing unemployment to a record low of 2.3 percent.” Figures from Rosstat indicate that unemployment is at the lowest level since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Furthermore, last week Anton Kotyakov, the minister for labor and social defense, appeared before the State Duma where he announced that labor market demand by 2030 could face a deficit of 2.4 million people. The shortage is expected to be most critical in manufacturing, logistics and IT. The Labor Ministry is fearful that as Russia's labor woes intensify it may contribute to slowing economic growth. Overall, Russia’s GDP growth, which is approximately 3.9 percent for 2024 according to the Russian ministry of economic development (MinEcon), will slow to about 2.5 percent in 2025 and level off at 2.8 percent by 2027. This contrasts with the International Monetary Fund’s estimate of 1.3 percent growth for 2025. As a result of the new budget, MinFin forecasts an increase in state debt of nearly 50 percent in ruble terms through 2027. That would translate to 15 percent in 2023 of GDP to 18 percent in 2027. This runs counter to previous Russian economic policy that emphasized budget surpluses to counter Russia’s persistent inflation.Inflation in Russia is currently running at about 8.7 percent. The MinEcon forecasts a decline to 7.3 percent by the end of the year. .One result of the rise in inflation will be a 7.3 increase in pensions at the beginning of 2025. This will be higher than the expected figure. Pensioners make up a significant portion of Russia’s populace and can be a source of protest and public discontent. According to Sergei Chirkov, head of Russia’s Social Fund, more than 42 million people, or nearly 25 percent, will receive a pension in 2025. It must be noted that Putin approved the increase in military expenditures as the United States announced that it is preparing a new $725 million military aid package for Ukraine. The assistance includes counter-drone systems, munitions for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), and antipersonnel land mines. Previously, President Biden committed to expending all allocated Congressional funds for Ukraine's military support before leaving office on January 20. His latest package brings the total U.S. aid to roughly $7.1 billion in Pentagon stockpiles since the start of 2023.Thus, both sides continue to see doubling down as the only option both militarily and fiscally. Until this cycle of escalation is broken, the risk of direct conflict, possibly even nuclear exchanges, appears ever more likely. Indeed, the absence of restraint from either side appears to be the course of action at least until the change of U.S. administrations. For Russia, expanded military expenditures are a worrying development for the long-term health of a Russian economy that continues to expend greater amounts of financial resources on its war versus NATO-backed Ukraine. According to the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), “for the first time on Putin’s watch, pure military expenditure is expected to rise above social spending, including social policy, education, and healthcare.” Moreover, CEPA notes “increases in overall tax rates contribute a larger share, not least because the extra revenue (including from a higher corporate tax rate) will be diverted into the federal budget and not given to the regions.” Minister of finance Siluanov noted last week that overall regional budgets will shift from a surplus of one trillion rubles to a deficit of approximately 100 billion rubles in 2024. Declining finances in the regions are primarily attributable to declining exports and export revenues. He cites lower coal exports in the Kemerovo region as one example. This development is important as inhabitants of Russia’s regions are doing most of the fighting.Combined with Russia’s labor shortages, fears of consumer inflation, and budget pressures on non-defense items, like pensions, education and social services, it is doubtful that the Kremlin can continue on this course indefinitely without risking popular opposition. Likewise, the Trump campaign’s promises to reduce government spending and increase the real income of most American workers are likely to affect its support for Ukraine. While Trump will almost surely increase defense spending, it will probably not be directed to Ukraine if one believes his campaign rhetoric.Russia’s leadership must understand this and, therefore, the condition of the Russian economy must be part of the formula for when and under what conditions Russia agrees to negotiations. Perhaps the newly signed Russian defense budget is a signal to the new Trump administration that Moscow is willing to up transaction costs of the war until it reaches a point where restraint and negotiation becomes possible if not necessary.

[Category: Putin, Ukraine, Zelensky, Biden, Trump, Nato, Budget, Ukraine war, Enewsletter, Russia]

— Industry: War with China may be imminent, but we're not ready

 

at 12/6/24 11:55am

Military industry mainstays and lawmakers alike are warning of imminent conflict with China in an effort to push support for controversial deep tech, especially controversial autonomous and AI-backed systems.The conversation, which presupposed a war with Beijing sometime in the near future, took place Wednesday on Capitol Hill at a hearing of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) entitled, “The Imperative to Strengthen America's Defense Industrial Base and Workforce.” “Planning, preparing, and then doing what is necessary as if we will be at war with China in the next three years is probably the best way to ensure that we will not be at war with China during this time,” said speaker Dr. William Greenwalt, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Similarly sounding the alarm, Anduril Industries Chief Strategy Officer Chris Brose suggested the U.S. would run out of weapons in under a week of war with China. Positing that inaction may invite aggression from China, committee witnesses proclaimed that America cannot counter increasingly innovative adversaries without a radical transformation of its defense industrial base. And in such a transformation, witnesses proclaimed that deep-tech innovations including AI, autonomy, software and adjacent tech are vital to both the development of state-of-the-art weaponry but also towards the “hyper-scaling” of production processes key towards developing competitive arsenals.“Deterrence depends on an industrial base that can produce orders of magnitude more weapons and military platforms,” Brose said. “This is not possible on a relevant timeline with our traditional defense systems and their equally traditional means of production, but it is eminently achievable with new classes of autonomous vehicles and weapons.”Ultimately, AI tech tools were lauded for their perceived centrality in Washington’s ability to compete amid a fraught geopolitical climate. Going unmentioned were growing ethics concerns, where, for example, AI-powered weapons and targeting systems have sparked controversy for their use in Gaza, often against civilians and for high rate of errors.Critically, conflicts of interest also abound. Brose’s Anduril Industries has springboarded off venture capital funding from the likes of billionaire Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund into the forefront of the weapons industry. The organization has quickly forged close government ties, as showcased by Anduril co-founder Trae Stephens’ recent consideration by President-elect Trump for the deputy secretary of defense position, the second highest civilian post at the PentagonWhile Greenwalt’s AEI does not publicly disclose donor information, an AEI speaker likewise revealed in a 2023 talk that the organization receives funding from Pentagon Contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.And passing through the Pentagon-private sector “revolving door,” witness Halimah Najieb-Locke, vice president of policy and strategy for AI and computing company Entanglement, Inc., worked for the DoD as assistant secretary of defense for industrial base resilience until May of this year. Meanwhile Najieb-Locke’s Entanglement, which focuses on AI, quantum computing, and algorithms, appears positioned to benefit from lawmakers’ positive response to the technology-forward hearing.Indeed, lawmakers present were on the same page. “We need a healthy defense industrial base now to deter aggression and make sure the world’s dictators think again before dragging the U.S. and the world into yet another disastrous conflict,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Il.) said.The hearing’s witnesses may well believe their efforts bolster America’s competitiveness and national security in increasingly tenuous times. And yet, their affiliations suggest their efforts also line their pockets, all while advancing contentious AI-backed and autonomous military production and weapons systems.Altogether, the witnesses’ drive for ground-up defense industrial base transformation, especially when posed in tandem with what’s depicted as imminent war with China, steers congressional discourse towards a tech-forward war-footing.

[Category: Deep tech, Ai, Weapons industry, Anduril, Congress, Enewsletter, Pentagon spending, Defense industry]

— Diplomacy Watch: Still tap dancing around NATO for Kyiv

 

at 12/5/24 10:05pm

Kyiv and Moscow both hinted this week at their shifting expectations and preparations for a potentially approaching conclusion to the Ukraine War, amid a frantic push from the Biden administration to “put Ukraine in the strongest possible position” ahead of President-elect Trump’s inauguration in January.National security adviser Jake Sullivan reiterated this goal as part of a Dec. 2 White House announcement of $725 million in additional security assistance for Ukraine, which will include substantial artillery, rockets, drones, and land mines and will be delivered “rapidly” to Ukraine’s front lines. The Kremlin said on Tuesday that the new package shows that the Biden administration aims to “throw oil on the fire” of the war before exiting office.Later in the week, House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters he has no plans to give in to a Biden administration request to include $24 billion in additional Ukraine aid as part of a short-term spending bill that Congress must pass by Dec. 20.“It is not the place of Joe Biden to make that decision now,” Johnson said. “We have a newly elected president, and we’re going to wait and take the new commander-in-chief’s direction on all of that, so I don’t expect any Ukraine funding to come up now.”Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s rhetoric made a subtle shift in the past week, signalling now that he is open to negotiating a peace deal. In an interview over the weekend, he suggested a potential cessation of the lands Russia has seized in exchange for a NATO invitation, with the hope of winning the rest of the territory back “in a diplomatic way.”Kyiv made this known at a NATO foreign ministers meeting on Tuesday, saying it will not settle for anything less than NATO membership in any future negotiations. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha referenced Ukraine’s pact with major powers 30 years ago exchanging its nuclear arms for security guarantees it has not received — and only would with NATO membership.Diplomats sidestepped the call, with several officials saying there remains a lack of consensus in the alliance. Latvian Minister of Foreign Affairs Baiba Braze said NATO political leaders have agreed “in principle” for Ukraine to join the alliance, according to Al Jazeera, but are waiting on Trump’s administration to take office before moving forward.Russian officials have increasingly hinted at the materialization of peace talks with Ukraine as well; on Monday, Valentina Matviyenko, the speaker of Russia’s upper house of parliament, said there could be attempts at peace talks with Ukraine next year. Still, the Kremlin remains adamant that the conditions are not yet right for talks. Russian spokesperson Dmitry Peskov thanked Qatar and “many” other countries on Wednesday for their interest in hosting Ukraine peace talks, but said “there are no grounds for negotiations yet.”Other Ukraine News This WeekRussian President Vladimir Putin approved a 2025-2027 Russian military budget, which includes a 25% increase in military spending, CNN reported. The budget allocates 32.5% of total government spending to the military, a total of $126 billion, for 2025 alone.Russian and Ukrainian forces have continued heavy exchanges this week, principally in the form of drone attacks, according to Al Jazeera. Russian forces have attacked critical infrastructure The Russian Defence Ministry said this week that its military gained control over the towns of Illinka, Petrivka, Kurakhove, and Novodoarivka in eastern Ukraine.ABC News reported that the Russian Navy tested new-generation hypersonic missiles, the Zirkon antiship missile and the Kalibr cruise missile, as part of a series of exercises in the eastern Mediterranean Sea on Tuesday. Putin told Russian state media the Zirkon weapon has “no analogues in any country in the world,” according to BBC.NATO chief Mark Rutte told reporters on Tuesday ahead of the foreign ministers’ meeting that the alliance will step up intelligence sharing and infrastructure development to counter “hostile” acts by Russia and China including “sabotage, cyberattacks, disinformation and energy blackmail.” NATO concerns about “hybrid” attacks connect to various events throughout the past several months, including an ongoing probe as to whether a Chinese freighter’s severing of two fiber-optic cables in the Baltic Sea last month was sabotage. According to Reuters, China has expressed readiness to assist in the investigation, and Russia has denied involvement in the incident as well as other accusations of sabotage.From State Department Press Briefing on Dec. 2State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said “Ukraine’s future is in NATO,” saying they’ve made “great progress” on the outlined path towards membership but also that there is more work they need to do.“I don’t want to preview any actions that we will take at this meeting, but certainly every time we can get together as allies and to talk with our Ukrainian counterparts, it’s an important step along that road towards NATO membership,” Miller said.

[Category: Russia, Ukraine, Nato, Zelensky, Qiosk, Ukraine war]

— Free speech crises loom with crackdown on Israel criticism

 

at 12/5/24 10:05pm

As one administration exits and another takes form, a harsh reality is becoming clear for critics of maintaining U.S. support for the Israeli government: in government bureaucracies and university campuses alike, crackdowns and pressure on free expression and assembly will continue in force. Precisely how the incoming Trump administration will handle such criticism remains to be seen — but views expressed by his congressional allies and recent cabinet picks suggest a further diversion from upholding freedoms of speech and assembly in the name of maintaining support for Israel's war on Gaza and beyond. Most recently, Trump selected Pam Bondi as his new nominee for attorney general. Last year, Bondi told Newsmax that students demonstrating in support of Hamas should be deported, whether they are here on student visas or as American citizens.“Frankly, they need to be taken out of our country,” Bondi said. "Or, the FBI needs to be interviewing them right away.”Trump himself echoed similar sentiments on the campaign trail, telling a group of donors in May that he would “throw out” any student that protests for Palestine and calling on the Biden administration to revoke the visas of foreign nationals who “support Hamas.”Trump’s congressional allies have echoed the same sentiments in recent weeks. In October, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) met with members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) during which he threatened to revoke accreditation to universities that allow purported pro-Hamas or anti-Israel sentiment. Scalise discussed the various “levers” and “tools” by which the government can crack down on universities, even threatening their existence altogether. “Clearly this administration doesn’t care, but if you get an administration that actually says ‘we’re not going to play the game anymore,’ there’s a lot of levers and tools that will get [universities’] attention, day one,” Scalise said. “Your accreditation is one the line, you’re not playing games anymore or else you’re not a school anymore.”The hour-long meeting was framed as a discussion about antisemitism, but no one present attempted to differentiate between prejudice against Jews and criticism of the Israeli government and its actions. Scalise also slammed Jewish students who criticize Israel, asserting that they “just feel guilty that they’re alive.”Despite Scalise’s accusations of Democratic apathy, and while the harshest rhetoric against universities has come from Republicans, crackdowns on criticism of Israel remains a bipartisan status quo in Washington. In the last year, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have pushed for punishment of pro-Palestinian voices and protesters.In response to last spring’s widespread college protests, encampments and disruptions, the House overwhelmingly (320-91) passed S. 4127, the bipartisan Antisemitism Awareness Act, on May 1. The bill expands and codifies the definition of antisemitism to include “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) was one of 70 Democratic House members who voted against the bill, with 133 in favor.“Speech that is critical of Israel alone does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI’s ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly,” he said in an April 30 hearing on the bill. In the eyes of Tyler Coward, Lead Counsel on Government Affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), references to a foreign nation becoming a proposed exception to free speech protection is a worrying concept.“Our Constitution and First Amendment jurisprudence hold that political speech is entitled to the most robust protections under the First Amendment, and that’s including speech and expression about foreign policy or foreign states,” Coward said. “Inclusion of references to Israel itself triggers those concerns right out of the gate.”However, efforts to constrain or police speech about Israel are nothing new. Many hawkish Israel supporters have pushed for years to expand what anti-semitism entails in federal anti-discrimination law, often along the lines of the definition laid out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. That definition says charges of antisemitism “might include” criticism of Israel.“The goal here has long been to refocus the fight against antisemitism — and there is real antisemitism out there, which needs to be fought — to redefine it and make the central focus of this battle the shutting down of criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism,” said Lara Friedman, the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. Friedman has spent years documenting legislative and lobbying efforts in the U.S. to restrict speech on Israel and pass the IHRA definition into federal law. Many states have already passed resolutions or adopted laws to embrace this framing, according to the Foundation’s data.“This has been fought since long before October 7, and it hasn't passed in Congress because it is so obviously controversial,” Friedman said. “You have major organizations that are not Israel-focused that have come out and said this would massively violate free speech.”The antisemitism bill has been stalled in the Senate for months, so its definition of antisemitism is not yet the legal standard. But Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recently proposed adding the legislation to the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). “Schumer wants to put it on the NDAA, basically saying, ‘I want this to pass, but I don't want to force Democrats to vote on it because some will vote against it, and then they'll call Democrats bad on antisemitism,'” Friedman told RS. “And [Republican Speaker of the House Mike] Johnson is saying, ‘No, we have to have an up-or-down vote and force the Democrats all to vote on it.'”The proposal’s resurgence was not the only way Congress worked to police criticism of Israel on college campuses this past year. Shortly after the Antisemitism Awareness Act was introduced, members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce aggressively questioned several university presidents at length about alleged antisemitism on their campuses. Republican members, in particular, notably including Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Trump’s nominee for U.N. ambassador, leveled harsh accusations against the witnesses, calling them weak and demanding to know why so few students have been suspended and professors fired for their participation in pro-Palestinian protests.“Those who are in charge of universities who negotiate with pro-terror protesters are not doing their jobs,” Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) declared in opening the hearing. To the ire of the committee, the three presidents dodged some questions and provided opaque answers for others. Changes this semester, however, suggests that the pressure had its intended effect.Colleges across the country have significantly restructured their speech, expression and assembly rules to crack down on demonstrations. As the fall term began, Columbia University, for example, restricted access to its main campus. Northwestern University adopted a new demonstration and free speech policy, declaring that no one “may disrupt, prevent, or obstruct, or attempt to prevent or obstruct the regularly scheduled activities of the University.” On November 20, a small group of tenured faculty deliberately violated Northwestern’s new policies by hosting a small protest at “the Rock,” a central square on campus. The demonstration rules prohibit protests at the Rock before 3 p.m. on weekdays. History professor Helen Tilley, one of the attendees, described why she felt a personal responsibility to participate.“I believe that my privileges of free speech and academic freedom also come with obligations to stand up for people who have less power and who are already being punished by the changes in rules that I do not consider fair,” Tilley said.Moreover, the New York Times recently revealed that 950 campus protest events have taken place this semester, in comparison to 3,000 last semester. About 50 people have been arrested so far this fall, compared to 3,000 in the spring. Four students from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign recently attended two pre-trail hearings. The students face up to three years of incarceration on felony “mob action” charges for their participation in campus encampments.Also this week in Virginia, police raided the home of two George Mason University students associated with Students for Justice in Palestine regarding a spray-paint incident that, according to the Intercept, was “part of the widespread campus protests related to Israel’s war on Gaza.” The school’s SJP chapter was shut down and the students were barred from campus for four years.

[Category: Israel-palestine, Palestine, Gaza war, Free speech, Israel]

— Europe's center is not holding

 

at 12/5/24 10:05pm

Two main lessons are to be drawn from the fall of Michel Barnier’s government in France. The first is that talk of Europe massively re-arming itself and substituting for the U.S. as the chief backer of Ukraine while maintaining existing levels of health care and social security is idiocy. The money is simply not there. The second is that the effort by “mainstream” establishments to exclude populist parties from office is doomed in the long run, and in the short run is a recipe for repeated political crisis and increasing paralysis of government.Two countries are central to the European Union, the European economy, European defense, and any hope of European strategic autonomy: France and Germany. Within a month of each other, both have seen their governments collapse due to battles over how to reduce their growing budget deficits. In both cases, their fiscal woes have been drastically worsened by a combination of economic stagnation and pressure on welfare budgets with the new costs of rearmament and support for Ukraine.In both cases, fiscal crisis has fed into the decay of the mainstream political parties that alternated in power for generations — a phenomenon that is to be seen all over Europe (and in the U.S., insofar as Trump represents a revolt against the Republican establishment). This decay is being fed by the growing backlash against dictation by the EU and NATO that is occurring across wide swathes of Europe.In the French presidential elections of 2017and 2022, Emmanuel Macron defeated the Front National (now the Rassemblement National) of Marine Le Pen by essentially uniting the remnants of all the centrist parties in a grand coalition behind himself. The problem with such grand coalitions of the center however is that they leave opposition nowhere to go but the extremes of Right and Left.In the case of France, economic stagnation and resistance to Macron’s free market and austerity measures led in June of this year to crushing defeat for his bloc in European parliamentary elections. Macron then called snap French parliamentary elections in the hope that fear of Le Pen and the radical Left would terrify French voters back into support for him. The result however was that Le Pen won a plurality of the vote, and while electoral deals with the Left gave Macron’s bloc a plurality of seats, they are heavily outnumbered by deputies on the Right and Left. Macron then ditched his left wing allies and stitched up an agreement whereby Le Pen would support a centrist-conservative government under Michel Barnier in return for concessions on immigration policy and other issues. Bizarrely however, this was combined with continued “lawfare” against the Rassemblement National, with the prosecution of Le Pen for allegedly diverting EU parliamentary funds to support her party’s deputies. This is something that looks rather like a technicality or peccadillo, given what we know of the past behavior of EU parliamentarians — but would mean that, if convicted, she would be barred from running for the presidency in 2027. This of course gave Le Pen every incentive to bring down Barnier’s government in the hope that it will bring down Macron with it, and thereby lead to early presidential elections; and when Barnier’s austerity budget (pushed through by decree against parliamentary opposition) infuriated the Left, Le Pen seized her chance. Given the string of defeats that Macron has now suffered (and remembering that the far greater de Gaulle resigned in 1969 after a far lesser defeat), it would make sense for Macron to step down. This would most probably lead to a presidency of the Rassemblement National; but then again, this is also probable if presidential elections take place on schedule in 2027.German politics are in certain respects tracking those of France, but some years behind. Not long ago one would have said a generation behind, but European political change is clearly speeding up. After the 2021 general elections, the decline in support for the Social Democratic party, and the rise of the right-wing populist Alternative fuer Deutchland (AfD) and the left-wing populist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) forced the Social Democrats into an uneasy coalition with two deeply ideologically opposed partners, the Liberals (FDP) and the Greens. As Germany’s economic position worsened, internal battles over the budget also worsened until the coalition eventually collapsed. Opinion polls indicate that the centrist conservative Christian Democrats will come first in elections due in February, but will be far short of an absolute majority. The result will be a grand coalition with the Social Democrats; but if that also falls short of an absolute majority, and the Liberals fail to pass the five percent threshold to enter the German parliament, then (assuming a continued determination to exclude AfD and BSW), the Greens will have to be included. Not only will this replicate the internal weaknesses and divisions of the last coalition, but it will mean that if Germany’s economic woes continue and the coalition parties’ popularity slumps, AfD and BSW will be the only place for discontented voters to go. These parties, being newer, are not yet nearly as popular as their French equivalents. AfD still has to go much further in the process initiated by Le Pen in the Front National, of purging its more extreme elements; and of course there is the special German historical fear of the radical Right. Nonetheless, there are good reasons to think that the future German trajectory will resemble that of France.Meanwhile, large parts of the European foreign and security establishments write and talk as if none of this were happening; as if in fact these establishments had been permanently appointed to their positions by Louis XIV and Frederick II, and given by those sovereigns an unlimited right to tax and conscript their subjects. Thus in an article this week for Foreign Affairs, Elie Tenenbaum of the French Institute of International Relations in Paris and a colleague declare that in response to Trump’s election and in order to block a peace deal disadvantageous to Ukraine and “impose conditions of its own,” Europe must “force its way to the negotiating table.” A European coalition force of “at least four to five multinational brigades” should be deployed to eastern Ukraine to guarantee against further Russian aggression. European combat air patrols could be deployed “while the war is still underway.” And “if Russia remains unyielding, Europe must bear the bulk of the financial assistance to support Ukraine in a protracted conflict.” Where the money and the public support for such a program is to come from is nowhere indicated.I don’t know an appropriate and printable French response to these daydreams, but the Kremlin may reply with an old Russian saying: “Oh sure — when crabs learn to whistle.”

[Category: Germany, European union, Ukraine war, France, Enewsletter]

— Amnesty International calls Israel's actions in Gaza genocide

 

at 12/5/24 10:49am

Today, Amnesty International became the first major human rights organization to accuse Israel of carrying out a genocide in Gaza, releasing a detailed report to substantiate this claim. “Our research reveals that, for months, Israel has persisted in committing genocidal acts, fully aware of the irreparable harm it was inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza,” says Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International. “It continued to do so in defiance of countless warnings about the catastrophic humanitarian situation and of legally binding decisions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordering Israel to take immediate measures to enable the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.” The Israeli foreign ministry has denied the allegations, calling them “entirely false.” Amnesty Israel also disagreed with the findings, saying that the “scale of killing and destruction carried out by Israel in Gaza has reached horrific proportions,” but that Israel’s war in Gaza does not meet “the definition of genocide as strictly laid out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” “Israel’s actions following Hamas’s deadly attacks on 7 October 2023 have brought Gaza’s population to the brink of collapse,” said Amnesty International in its press release. “Its brutal military offensive had killed more than 42,000 Palestinians, including over 13,300 children, and injured over 97,000 more, by 7 October 2024, many of them in direct or deliberately indiscriminate attacks, often wiping out entire multigenerational families. It has caused unprecedented destruction, which experts say occurred at a level and speed not seen in any other conflict in the 21st century.” The report highlights the level of destruction in Gaza, particularly that of civilian infrastructure, stating “there is consensus among UN agencies and experts and humanitarian organizations that the level and speed of damage and destruction caused to Palestinian homes and life-sustaining infrastructure across all sectors of economic activity has been uniquely catastrophic ….” Amnesty also pointed out that the U.N. estimated reconstruction would not be complete until 2040, “even under an optimistic scenario.” Amnesty also points out the high levels of dehumanization seen in the Gaza Strip. The report states that “senior Israeli military and government officials intensified their calls for the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, using racist and dehumanizing language that equated Palestinian civilians with the enemy to be destroyed.” In October, the Israeli human rights group, B’tselem, used the label “ethnic cleansing” to describe Israel's actions in northern Gaza. “For a year now, since the war began, the international community has shown utter impotence to stop the indiscriminate attack on civilians in the Gaza Strip,” B’tselem stated. “Now, when it is clearer than ever that Israel intends to forcibly displace northern Gaza’s residents by committing some of the gravest crimes under the laws of war, the world’s nations must take action.” Amnesty says that “States that continue to transfer arms to Israel at this time must know they are violating their obligation to prevent genocide and are at risk of becoming complicit in genocide,” adding that “all states with influence over Israel, particularly key arms suppliers like the USA and Germany, but also other EU member states, the UK and others, must act now to bring Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza to an immediate end.”

[Category: Gaza war, Israel, Middle east, Israel-gaza, Qiosk]

— Billionaire tied to shady military ops could be no. 2 Pentagon pick

 

at 12/5/24 7:45am

President-elect Donald Trump has reportedly chosen private equity billionaire Stephen Feinberg as deputy secretary of defense. If confirmed, Feinberg would effectively become the Pentagon’s Chief Operating Officer, overseeing the day-to-day operations of the agency. As the co-founder and CEO of Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity firm named after the three-headed dog guarding the gates of hell, Feinberg oversees more than $65 billion in assets, according to Pitchbook. Feinberg is also a major Trump donor, doling out $975,000 to a Trump-aligned PAC in 2016 just days before the election before repeating the feat with an even $1 million in 2020. Feinberg was rewarded by being selected to lead a review of the intelligence agencies as the chair of the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board. Feinberg presents as the anti-Pete Hegseth, the logical reclusive counterpart to the brash secretary of defense nominee. Plagued by scandals Hegseth claims have been generated by his political rivals, the Fox News host faces the toughest confirmation of all Trump’s nominees. On Wednesday, reports emerged that Hegseth may not have all GOP senators on board for the vote, and that Trump might be looking for a replacement. All of this makes the number two job at the Pentagon all the more relevant. Feinberg may relish the comparison, which may make him look like a logical choice by comparison on Capitol Hill. Instead, lawmakers should comb through his record of overseeing companies that trained Saudi hit squads and defrauded the agency he is now slated to run — and raise questions over conflicts of interest arising from his stakes across the defense sectors. Trump’s potential pick of Feinberg shines a spotlight on Cerberus’s defense portfolio. Cerberus casts a wide net across the sector, making significant investments in companies involved in defense test systems, military aircraft training, manufacturers of military vehicles, hypersonic test data, and foreign military training. With such a far reach, some watchdog organizations and conflict of interest experts are eager to ensure Feinberg will look out for American interests rather than his bottom line. “My principal concern is whether he will follow tradition by divesting himself of all of his holdings. As the longtime CEO of Cerberus Capital Management, that would be a big deal,” Greg Williams, Director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight, told RS. Indeed, Cerberus’s investments are near-ubiquitous. The private equity firm’s portfolio includes Navistar Defense, which defrauded the U.S. Marines Corps to the tune of $50 million for inflated armored vehicle prices. Earlier this year, Cerberus bought out Transdigm, a hypersonics company that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense revealed was price-gouging, in one case to the tune of 9,400 percent in excess profit for a metal pin. Until it was bought out in 2020, the crown jewel in Cerberus’s defense portfolio was Dyncorps, which provided planes for drug wars in Central America, and trained U.S.-backed armies in Iraq, Liberia, and Afghanistan. Perhaps most alarmingly, a Cerberus subsidiary called Tier 1 Group trained four members of the Saudi hit squad team that murdered Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. With the approval of the State Department, Tier 1 Group reportedly trained the Saudi nationals in marksmanship, countering attacks, surveillance, and close-quarters battle between 2014 and 2017, the years preceding Khashoggi’s murder. In 2020, Trump nominated another Cerberus executive, Louis Bremer, to a separate Pentagon post. Bremer’s nomination sparked a tense confirmation hearing, during which Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) grilled him on Cerberus’s involvement with the Saudis. "Senators deserve answers to my questions about Tier 1’s role in training any Saudis implicated in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. I don’t feel comfortable moving forward on this nomination until I get answers,” said Kaine at the time. Should Feinberg’s nomination advance, similar questions would likely be raised by lawmakers. “It’s concerning to see that President-elect Trump is considering another nomination for another person affiliated with Tier 1 Group,” said Raed Jarrar, Advocacy Director at Democracy for the Arab World Now, during an interview with RS. “That sends an alarming message of a lack of accountability when it comes to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and our foreign policy.” Feinberg will be expected to liquidate his current assets as quickly as possible, but will likely not have to sit out decisions regarding his former companies, explained Jeff Hauser, the Executive Director of the Revolving Door Project, in a phone call with RS. “It remains a near-inevitability that as part of the Pentagon’s top brass, he will make decisions regarding his former companies.” Hauser also explained that Cerberus’s wide-ranging defense portfolio almost, ironically, may insulate Feinberg from charges of conflicts of interest. “There's an understanding in the ethics world that the more conflicted you are, the less you may have to recuse yourself. And, if he does need to recuse himself, Hauser explained, “he can get a waiver from an ethics official who has every incentive to demonstrate loyalty to the Trump administration.” Federal government employees are expected to sit out decisions involving their former employer for at least a year, but the Trump administration can issue waivers if it deems the conflict of interest will not affect the integrity of the decision. In 2017, Feinberg and Blackwater founder Erik Prince tried to pressure the Trump administration to rely on contractors instead of American troops in Afghanistan. Feinberg reportedly put more emphasis on giving the CIA full control over operations, where paramilitary units would be “subject to less oversight than the military” — a proposal that incidentally his companies stood to gain from. Even if Feinberg divests for his holdings, it’s impossible to divest from a baked-in contractor-first ideology. The deputy secretary of defense “needs skeptics at the highest levels of leadership — not individuals with interests in the financial decisions of an agency with a near trillion dollar budget,” explained Julia Gledhill, a research associate at the Stimson Center, in a written statement to RS. “The revolving door continues to spin for the arms industry." Jarrar invited lawmakers to take their pick for why Feinberg should be disqualified for the number two job at the Pentagon — “Whether it’s money in politics, relationships with foreign governments, gross violations of human rights, or training of mercenaries and killers, this nomination should be categorically rejected.”

[Category: Pentagon, Trump administration, Conflicts of interest, Defense department]

— Competing 'nationalisms' led to shocking showdown in Seoul

 

at 12/4/24 10:05pm

When I was in Seoul last month, the city buzzed with anti-government protests. Left-leaning citizens beat drums and blew whistles, while labor leaders and civil society activists screamed through megaphones for the impeachment of South Korean President Suk-yeol Yoon. Those rallies continued weekly, becoming larger and larger, ever more boisterous.Then, on Tuesday night, Yoon struck back, declaring martial law and mobilizing the armed forces — until even louder citizen protests, a vote by the opposition-controlled National Assembly, and a rebuke from his own People Power Party (PPP) forced the right-wing president to back down.Although it was once a brutally repressive military dictatorship, South Korea has been viewed as a model democracy for almost 40 years. So Yoon’s effort to reinstall authoritarian rule was shocking — but maybe not surprising.There are at least two ways to understand what happened here: a more superficial story that revolves around the government’s policies and behavior; and a deeper story that has to do with Korea’s competing nationalisms.Superficially, we know that Yoon was desperate. Elected by a paper-thin plurality in May 2022, he has been assailed almost from the start by critics of his domestic and foreign policy. In Trumpian style, he campaigned as a critic of feminism, which he blamed for Korea’s low birthrate, and vowed to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality. He pushed to increase the lid on weekly working hours, which upset labor unions. And he took various steps to reconcile with Japan, which had colonized the Korean peninsula from 1910 to 1945, even offering private funds to compensate Koreans forced to work in a Japanese mine during World War II.The president also found himself embroiled in scandals, most of them associated with his wife. The opposition Democratic Party accused the First Lady of manipulating stock prices for personal gain, and then highlighted a video — captured on a left-wing YouTube channel — that appeared to show her accepting a luxury handbag as a gift. A member of the ruling PPP even compared the First Lady to Marie Antoinette.Yoon’s popularity plummeted, and his party — already in the minority in the unicameral legislative body — lost even more seats in April’s elections. His policy agenda stalled, leaving him able to do little more than veto progressive legislation passed by Democrats.Last month, the president went on national TV to apologize for his wife’s alleged indiscretions, promising to establish an oversight office. But he nixed calls for a wider investigation, triggering more protests. In November, when I was in Seoul, Yoon’s favorability rating had dropped to a diminutive 17 percent.Justifying his decision to use the military to block all “political activity,” Yoon told Koreans he was acting to protect the country from “communist forces,” whom he also described as "despicable pro-North Korean anti-state forces.” This statement hints at the deeper story about the country’s competing nationalisms.At the end of World War II, U.S. forces occupied the southern half of the Korean peninsula and Soviet forces occupied the north, ending Japanese colonial rule. Author Bruce Cumings shows how a Cold War accommodation produced two countries in 1948: a pro-capitalist, U.S.-backed South Korea and a pro-communist, Soviet-backed North Korea. The two new countries fought a bitter war that ended exactly where it started — at the 38th parallel.For most of its early life, South Korea was ruled by military generals with the ardent support of powerful business executives and the U.S. government. The authoritarian government imprisoned and murdered labor and student activists pushing for democracy. It invoked a nationalism based on fear of Pyongyang, which had invaded in 1950 and continued to agitate for violent unification, planting bombs, staging terrorist attacks and kidnapping South Koreans.The pro-democracy movement, which finally prevailed in 1987, also invoked nationalism — but a very different kind. It viewed North Koreans as brothers and sisters led astray by geopolitics, not as implacable enemies. For this younger generation, the foe was a military-business elite that had collaborated in the past with Japan, the colonial master, and now conspired with the U.S., a post- (or maybe neo-) colonial master with 30,000 troops on Korean soil.South Korea today is characterized by what Hur and Yeo call “nationalist polarization,” where political “parties are divided on mutually exclusive visions of the nation.” They describe two illiberal outcomes. First, this highly charged form of polarization leads to a zero-sum competition that encourages the winning party to run roughshod over process and rights in the name of national security, while packing agencies and courts with actors who share nationalist goals. Second, it transforms the opposition into an “existential threat” to the nation, rather than merely a misguided competitor.We have seen plenty of this kind of illiberal behavior in South Korea over the past decade. Former president Geun-hye Park, the daughter of Gen. Chung-hee Park, Korea’s first military dictator, invoked the National Security Law to ban a left-wing party viewed as pro-North. The conservative president also denied state support to hundreds of artists and cultural organizations blacklisted for criticizing her administration. Park’s progressive successor, Moon Jae-in, set up 39 special committees to investigate bureaucrats suspected of violating the Left’s nationalist agenda by, for example, cooperating too much with Japan or cracking down too hard on North Korea. Another investigation led to the conviction of a former conservative president on charges of corruption. Moon also used his power to stifle civil society organizations engaged in anti-Pyongyang activities, and barred a cable TV show from airing a speech by a North Korean defector.Far from defending President Yoon’s short-lived imposition of martial law, I am trying to explain it in the context of competing nationalisms. He viewed the Left as a threat to the Right’s vision of national identity and security, just as the opposition viewed him as a fundamental threat to their vision. This zero-sum confrontation led to the current crisis, and does not bode well for Korea’s future.

[Category: Martial law, Yoon suk-yeol, Korea, Seoul, Enewsletter, South korea]

— Turkey and Israel are reaping rewards from the chaos in Syria

 

at 12/4/24 10:05pm

The surprise offensive by Syrian rebels led by a radical Islamist group with roots in Al Qaeda dramatizes the enormous regional repercussions set off by Israel’s war against Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Badly battered by Israel’s air strikes and ground campaign in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah’s inability, at least for now, to be a prominent player in defense of the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a real game-changer, as evidenced by the ease and speed with which the insurgents advanced on the ground after launching their campaign on Nov 27. Having taken Aleppo the HTS-led forces have also gained complete control of Idlib province and entered Hama province where they are engaged in heavy clashes with the Syrian army backed up by Russian warplanes.Their success to date poses a serious dilemma for the United States given that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, is leading the charge, although a number of Turkish-backed groups, including the “Syrian National Army,” are also involved. HTS is identified as a Salafi-Jihadist group and was formerly known as the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front and is designated by the U.S. and other countries as a terrorist group. Of course, it was Al Qaeda which carried out the worst-ever attack on the U.S. homeland on September 11, 2001. While the leadership of HTS publicly split from Al-Qaeda and appears focused on the local situation in Syria, it remains committed to the Salafi-Jihadi ideology of its former parent organization.The rebel offensive was launched the same day the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel took effect. The timing was no doubt linked to the weakened state of Hezbollah, which played a critical role in helping the Syrian government gain the upper hand against armed insurgents following the eruption of the civil war in Syria in 2011. Under the ceasefire deal with Israel, Hezbollah is obliged to end its armed presence in southern Lebanon, which could hence hinder the group’s ability to operate as an effective fighting force in Syria.“They [the armed anti-Syrian government factions] wanted to take advantage of this ceasefire agreement that restricts the movement of Hezbollah,” explained Riad Kahwaji, founder of the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis in an interview with RS.Meanwhile, there exists a broad consensus that the war between Hezbollah and Israel contributed to the successful staging of the rebels’ shock offensive. To confront the Israeli military, Hezbollah withdrew forces from the Syrian arena, thereby creating a gap in the pro-government forces which naturally gave the insurgents a major opportunity. Indeed, the insurgents themselves noted the strategic advantage they accrued by Israel’s operations against Hezbollah. Aside from the ceasefire conditions, there are other factors which render it unlikely that Hezbollah will deploy in large numbers to Syria, at least for the foreseeable future. Chief among these is war fatigue, after having fought a grueling conflict with Israel in which the movement incurred unprecedented heavy losses.“Hezbollah is no longer able to be heavily involved militarily in the events in Syria and has been exhausted by the war with Israel,” according to retired Lebanese Army Gen. Hassan Jouni in remarks to RS.Moreover, the group’s immediate focus will be on the southern front with Israel where the ceasefire appears to be barely holding. “The priority now will be on the front with Israel,” a source close to Hezbollah told RS, adding that it was therefore more likely that other players will step up to support Assad.Meanwhile, Iran has made it clear that it remains firmly committed to preventing the insurgents from prevailing against the Syrian government. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met Sunday with Assad in Damascus to discuss the latest developments, underscoring Tehran’s support for its traditional ally. Tehran has also pledged to keep military advisors in Syria, and fighters from Iran-allied Iraqi groups have crossed the border to help stall the advance of the insurgents. These developments should hardly come as a surprise given that regional developments make it even more vital for Tehran to demonstrate its support of its Syrian ally. “There is this belief that given the events in Gaza and Lebanon, the axis of resistance could be undermined in Syria, but Iran wants to show that this is not the case and will not happen,” said Abbas Aslan, senior fellow at the Tehran-based Center for Middle East Strategic Studies in a phone interview with RS. What remains to be seen is how successful Tehran will be in propping up the Syrian government without relying so much as in the past on Hezbollah’s battle-hardened forces, notwithstanding Russian air operations against the insurgents.That Tehran’s Iraqi allies will be able to fill the vacuum left by Hezbollah in Syria is questionable. The Lebanese Shiite movement’s battlefield prowess far exceeds that of the Iraqi armed Shiite factions. Moreover, experts believe that U.S. influence and pressure in Iraq limit how much manpower that the pro-Iranian Iraqi groups belonging to the “Popular Mobilization Forces” – otherwise known as the Hashd Al Shaabi-- can deploy to Syria.“We saw that the Iraqi Hashd forces were only able to send very limited reinforcements (to Syria), about two-to-three hundred” explained Kahwaji, adding that the United States was pressuring Baghdad not to provide Assad with support.Washington’s stance regarding the unfolding developments reflects a state of confusion that has characterized U.S. policy since the conflict in Syria started over a decade ago. In an interview with CNN, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan voiced concerns over HTS while also hinting that Washington does not necessarily see the events in Syria in a negative light. "We don’t cry over the fact that the Assad government, backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, are facing certain kinds of pressure,” he remarked.How the incoming Trump administration intends to deal with the situation in Syria is anyone’s guess. Given that the president-elect has chosen staunch Israeli supporters to occupy senior posts in his cabinet, there appears to be strong reason to believe that Trump 2.0 policy towards Damascus will be determined to a large degree by Israeli preferences. If so, Washington’s approach may be to weaken and possibly oust Assad from power given the latter’s longstanding alliance with Iran, which remains Public Enemy Number One for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I think Israel sees Turkey’s role as kingpin in Syria as a good thing as it cuts the Shiite crescent in half,” said Joshua Landis, the director of Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute. “Given that Trump’s team is staunchly pro-Israel, Trump may therefore tolerate an Islamist takeover of Syria," he added.Previous statements by the president-elect, however, suggest that he may opt to take a different path. Speaking on the campaign trail in 2016, Trump appeared to lend his support to Syria, Russia and Iran against ISIS, which shares with HTS the Salafi-Jihadist doctrine.“I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS and Iran is killing ISIS,” he remarked at the time. He also wanted to pull U.S. troops out of Syria, but to this day they are still there. While these statements were never translated into tangible policy there is an expectation that Trump himself, rather than his aides, will be running the foreign policy show in his second term. Eight years ago, he clearly saw Salafi-Jihadist forces as a greater threat to U.S. interests than Assad or Iran. Whether that remains the case has yet to be seen.

[Category: Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Hts, Aleppo, Iran, Syria]

— No, Mauritius isn't planning to 'give' US base at Diego Garcia to China

 

at 12/4/24 10:05pm

Anti-China fearmongers on both sides of the Atlantic are pushing U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to overturn the rule of international law and a surprising recent victory for diplomacy — rather than military might — to resolve international disputes. Backed by conservative and other news outlets, a campaign of disinformation, smears, and falsehoods is escalating to get Trump to try to tank a historic deal announced in October that actually gives the U.S. military exactly what it wants: control of its base on the secretive Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia for 99 years or more.In his final days as president, Joe Biden should help formalize the Diego Garcia deal in a planned treaty while correcting the glaring error in the announced agreement. Failing to finalize the deal could have grave consequences for emboldening Trump, undermining the rule of law, and further delaying justice for the long-ignored Chagossian people who were exiled from their homeland by the U.S. and UK governments during the creation of the U.S. base on Diego Garcia in the 1960s and 1970s.The Diego Garcia dealDiego Garcia is the tiny island, smaller than Manhattan, in the middle of the Indian Ocean that’s home to a major U.S. Navy and Air Force base. The military built the base thanks to a secret agreement with the United Kingdom, which has controlled Diego Garcia and the rest of the surrounding Chagos Archipelago since 1814. In exchange for the Pentagon’s covert transfer of $14 million, the British government agreed to U.S. officials’ request that they remove the Chagossians. The people’s African and Indian ancestors had lived in the islands since the time of the American Revolution. During the deportations, British agents and U.S. military personnel even gassed Chagossians’ pet dogs to death, burning their carcasses. Chagossians quickly found themselves living in exile in profound poverty.Diego Garcia shot into the news last month when the governments of the United Kingdom and the Indian Ocean nation of Mauritius announced an agreement settling their decades-old sovereignty dispute over Chagos. For the first time, the UK acknowledged the sovereignty of Mauritius, which previously was a British colony united with Chagos — until the U.S. military came looking for a base. Most in the international community have recognized Mauritian sovereignty since the International Court of Justice and the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly came to this conclusion in 2019. For its part, Mauritius agreed to allow Britain to continue to exercise sovereignty rights over Diego Garcia for a period of at least 99 years to allow the continued operation of the U.S. base. In exchange the United Kingdom will make annual rental payments and provide other support to Mauritius.The two governments further announced that Britain would provide a compensation fund for the Chagossians and for the first time in more than 50 years, the islanders would be allowed to return to all but one of their islands. To the people’s dismay, the agreement continues to bar them from living on Diego Garcia.Right wing critics in the UK and the United States pounced on the Chagos deal to bash the new Labour Party government and the Biden-Harris administration. They spouted a range of bogus theories suggesting the agreement would benefit China because the Chinese government might establish a military or spy presence on the other Chagos islands or because Mauritius might somehow “give” Diego Garcia to the Chinese. Both reputable and not-so-reputable news outlets repeated these claims without fact checking or questioning whether they have any factual basis. They do not. ‘Baseless smear’The idea that Mauritius will let the Chinese military build a base in some of the Chagos islands or give the base on Diego Garcia to the Chinese has no basis in reality. “Baseless smear” is how political scientist and Diego Garcia expert Peter Harris described an accusation he has repeatedly debunked.“There is no evidence–none, zero, zilch–that Mauritius has any interest in hosting a Chinese base or that China has an interest in a Mauritian base. They’re not allies or security partners or particularly close in any way other than a trade deal. It’s a straight up smear,” Harris told me in an email.It’s hard to overstate how absurd the critics' narrative is. The Chagos deal was clearly blessed by the U.S. government and demonstrates the deep alliance between the three countries. “I applaud the historic agreement,” President Biden said. The deal effectively gives the U.S. military, as well as the UK government, a 99-year lease on Diego Garcia, ending a decades-long political and legal headache for both.This tall tale about Beijing taking over is particularly nonsensical because Mauritius’s other closest ally is not China but India, whose greatest rival (other than Pakistan) historically has been China.The idea that Mauritius is aligned with or under the thumb of China is based on nothing more than the fact of Mauritius — like the US, UK, and almost every country on Earth — being a significant trading partner with China and receiving some Chinese loans. Mauritius is one of only two African countries that is not part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.In other words, opponents of the deal have grasped at the convenient straw of anti-China fearmongering to shamelessly support maintaining old school Anglo-American colonial control in Chagos. In an apparent sign of desperation, some opponents are now peddling a new and equally bogus theory that Russia is actually controlling the Mauritian government. The absurdity of all these attacks, particularly from those in Britain's Conservative Party, deepens given that negotiations to return Chagos to Mauritius started under Conservative Party Prime Minister Liz Truss in 2022. Finalizing and fixing the treatyPresident Biden, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and new Prime Minister of Mauritius Navin Ramgoolam should ignore the disinformation campaign and quickly finalize the Chagos treaty, which represents a rare, if partial, victory for international law and the decolonization movement.In finalizing the treaty, the three governments must correct the major problem in the deal announced in October: Barring Chagossians from returning home to Diego Garcia perpetuates their exile and decades of injustice. Returning to the other Chagos islands, at least 150 miles away, is not the same as returning to Diego Garcia where most Chagossians were born and have their ancestors buried. Continuing the Diego Garcia ban also violates the International Court of Justice’s ruling and a U.N. General Assembly resolution demanding the UK and other countries uphold Chagossians’ full human rights and aid their resettlement.While U.S. and UK officials have long used “security” concerns to justify banning Chagossians from Diego Garcia, Chagossians could live on the other half of Diego Garcia, miles from the base, just as civilians live near U.S. bases worldwide, including at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Civilian laborers who are neither U.S. nor UK citizens already live and work on the base.Before Donald Trump takes office, President Biden and the leaders of the UK and Mauritius must finalize their treaty recognizing Mauritian sovereignty over Chagos and allowing Chagossians to return to all their islands including Diego Garcia. For a president whose foreign policy record is a blight on his legacy, Biden has a chance to make a powerful final statement in support of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Biden should go farther by issuing a formal apology for the U.S. government’s leading role in exiling the Chagossians and commit the U.S. to assisting resettlement.Once Trump takes office, perhaps his ability to question foreign policy orthodoxy and desire to cut government waste will lead him to ask why the United States is spending billions of dollars to maintain a military base in the Indian Ocean, thousands of miles from U.S. borders — and then take steps to close it. Contrary to bogus claims that Diego Garcia plays a “vital” security role, the base has been a launchpad for the catastrophic endless wars in the Middle East that Trump claims to oppose.First and foremost, the simple truth is that President Biden can and must help Chagossians return home.

[Category: United kingdom, Primacy, Diego garcia, China]

— Will Senate vote signal a wider shift away from Israel?

 

at 12/3/24 10:05pm

On November 20, the Senate voted on three Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs) of proposed arms transfers to Israel. The vote was historic, marking the first time there had ever been such a vote against major arms sales to Israel. The resolutions failed, but their success in securing 19 Senate votes reflects that times are changing when it comes to arms transfers to Israel.The proposed JRDs disapproved of three specific shipments of offensive arms to Israel, with a total value of over $1.6 billion, which have caused massive civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon: tank rounds worth $774 million; mortar rounds worth $583 million; and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), which are guidance kits for gravity-guided air-to-ground missiles, worth $262 million. Led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 18 senators voted to disapprove all three of the proposed arms shipments, despite intense opposition led by the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee and, sadly, President Biden and Senate Majority Leader Schumer (D-N.Y.). A nineteenth senator, Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), opposed the shipment of the tank and mortar rounds, but did not oppose the JDAMs. The Biden administration itself has admitted that Israel has misused U.S. arms in Gaza. In December 2023, President Biden called Israeli bombing Gaza “indiscriminate.” And then in May, the State Department’s report pursuant to National Security Memorandum 20 made an even broader assessment of Israel’s use of U.S. origin arms, finding that “it is reasonable to assess” that U.S.-supplied arms “have been used by Israeli security forces since October 7 in instances inconsistent with its IHL [international humanitarian law] obligations.”The three resolutions in question wisely directed opposition toward specific offensive weapons that have caused many civilian casualties, in particular in the current war in Gaza.U.S. supplied tank rounds have caused many civilian casualties, and were among the munitions used in the January 2024 killing of 6-year old Hind Rajab, her family, and the Palestinian medics who tried to rescue her. And although the IDF portrays mortars as precise defensive weapons used against enemy missile sites, in practice, mortar rounds have been a leading cause of civilian casualties.Some JRD opponents, like Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), misleadingly portrayed the JDAMs as items that minimize civilian casualties in making strikes more precise by attaching targeting guidance technology to what are otherwise gravity-guided bombs (so-called “dumb bombs”). In practice, making these bombs more “precise” in their targeting does not solve the problem of indiscriminate Israeli strikes with massive civilian harm. More precision does not ameliorate bad targeting decisions. As set forth in the NSM-20 report from an independent task force, of which the author was a member, Israel has repeatedly targeted sites with scores of civilians present, especially women and children, in apparent attempts to kill small numbers of low-level Hamas militants who may not even be there. And even when that is not the case, the bombs themselves have huge impact areas regardless of how much precision guidance they have. Israeli airstrikes using JDAMs on large bombs have repeatedly caused civilian casualties, most recently in an airstrike in Lebanon that killed three journalists. During the floor debate, arguments against the resolutions largely ignored the horrific toll of civilian casualties in Gaza, except to blame them on Hamas. Israel’s systematic and widespread indiscriminate bombardment and flawed weaponeering decisions received little critical review.Some opponents’ arguments against the JRDs also claimed that blocking weapons to Israel, regardless of their violations of the laws of war, would in effect support and strengthen Hamas and Iran. The reality is exactly the opposite. Israel’s enemies have drawn massive regional and international support and strength from reports of the over 44,000 deaths Israel has caused, over half of them women and children — and many, if not most, from the very weapons the JRDs attempted to block. Opponents ignored the geopolitical costs of unconditional U.S. assistance to Israel. Like Israel, the U.S. has become increasingly isolated in the world and has hemorrhaged credibility and diplomatic influence, especially in the global south. This badly weakens the U.S. in its global strategic competition with China and Russia. U.S. businesses have faced boycotts throughout the world because of their ties to Israel. U.S. military installations have come under attack. None of this is in the U.S. interest. Lacking a majority, all three resolutions failed. The four Democratic senators from the largest blue states, California, and New York, opposed all three resolutions. President Biden and Majority Leader Schumer both publicly opposed the resolutions, and both lobbied Senators against them. Republican senators were a solid wall of opposition. But the very fact that the resolutions even came to a vote was historic, and is a sign that times are changing. Such a vote would have been unimaginable just a year ago, and reflects deep concern about Israel’s conduct of operations in Gaza. That 19 senators who voted to block the weapons to Israel in the face of such opposition reflects an extraordinary fracture in decades of lockstep, near-unanimous support for arms transfers to Israel. And notably, one vote in favor of the JRDs came from Sen. Jean Shaheen (D-N.H.), who will become the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There are other signs times are changing. Three 2024 pre-election polls showed that likely voters, and not just Democrats, favored conditioning or even halting aid to Israel, including arms transfers. Vice President Kamala Harris’ failure to endorse an arms embargo against Israel as cost her the votes of many Arab, Muslim, and progressive-American voters. Democrats who opposed the JRDs may be more inclined to support future ones, now that elections are in the rear view mirror and proposed sales will be coming from a Republican administration. For example, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who had just won a close re-election contest, voted “present” on all three and may be open to opposing sales in the future.Non-government organizations and other civil society groups mounted a massive, multi-state effort to gain support for the JRDs and are determined to push for more. Going forward, civil society would do well to repeat what it did in these cases, directing efforts toward specific, clearly-offensive weapons, and backing those efforts with research about specific instances of civilian harm they have caused. The next opportunity for such action may be close at hand. The Biden administration is now pushing forward a $680 million arms transfer to Israel, which includes thousands of additional JDAMs. The shipment is currently subject to a hold by Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D-N.Y.) Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.These groups should also track the process of drafting what will almost surely be the Trump administration’s conventional arms transfer (CAT) policy. The Biden administration’s CAT policy was, from a human rights and international humanitarian law perspective, the best one ever written. In addition to more explicit references to human rights and international humanitarian law, it prohibits transfers of arms when it is “more likely than not” they will be used in violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Unfortunately, the Biden team obviously failed to follow its own CAT policy in the case of Israel. The Trump administration CAT policy will likely de-emphasize human rights and international humanitarian law and place more emphasis on U.S. commercial interests in transfers. Civil society engagement on this issue would be a valuable counterweight, and not just for arms transfers to Israel, but also worldwide.

[Category: Israel-palestine, Palestine, Gaza war, Lebanon, Israel]

— Is Zelensky softening his tone on territorial concessions?

 

at 12/3/24 10:05pm

Since the February 2022 Russian invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has promised that his country would prevail in the ensuing war, and that victory would include not only the reclamation of its territory up to the prewar borders, but also all of its territory up to the 2014 borders, including the Donbas and Crimea. As recently as October, Zelensky continued to insist that Ukraine would not cede any of its territory to Russia.But, as Russian troops break through heavily fortified Ukrainian defenses on their increasingly rapid march west, the crumbling Ukrainian lines may be causing a new reality to dawn in Kyiv.On November 21, Zelensky was asked by Fox News if he had “accepted that under any sort of cease-fire agreement or peace deal that some Ukrainian territory may remain in Russian hands?" His answer differed subtly, but significantly, from his earlier statements.He said: “We cannot legally acknowledge any occupied territory of Ukraine as Russian. That is about those territories … occupied by Putin before the full-scale invasion, since 2014. Legally, we are not acknowledging that, we are not adopting that.”However, when asked specifically if he was “willing to give up Crimea in pursuit of a peace deal to end this war,” Zelensky replied, "we are ready to bring Crimea back diplomatically.” This is a clear change from his earlier position. Zelensky now seems to accept the improbability of recapturing Crimea militarily: "We cannot spend dozens of thousands of our people so that they perish for the sake of Crimea coming back."The Fox interview is not the first time Zelensky has made the distinction between legally acknowledging Russia’s annexation of some Ukrainian territory and conceding it as a practical necessity.The Financial Times recently reported that there is “talk behind closed doors” in Kyiv “of a deal in which Moscow retains de facto control over the roughly one-fifth of Ukraine it has occupied — though Russia’s sovereignty is not recognized.” Zelensky seemed to be following this same line of thinking, when he insisted, in October, that “No one will legally recognize the occupied territories as belonging to other states.”A week later, in an interview with Sky News, Zelensky went even further, stating that "if we want to stop the hot phase of the war, we should take under NATO umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control. That’s what we need to do fast. And then Ukraine can get back the other part of its territory diplomatically."Zelensky then once again distinguished between practically and legally ceding the territory, saying that “the invitation must be given to Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.”Although it is unlikely that NATO would make such a security offer to Ukraine — Zelensky stressed that they never formally have — the development is important because it offers a scintilla of hope for a way to achieve a ceasefire. Once a ceasefire is in place, it can be expanded into an armistice that can last, de facto, for decades, as it has in the as yet unresolved war between North and South Korea, or in the areas of Cyprus that are disputed as a result of Turkey’s invasion.While no peace treaty has been signed, and their mutual territorial demands are yet to be resolved, this has not prevented either South Korea or the internationally recognized portion of Cyprus from pursuing their own development in peace.In the case of Crimea, this could allow Ukraine to agree not to attempt to reacquire the territory militarily, while still officially claiming it, thus allowing future generations to cling to the hope it can be reacquired diplomatically in the future.This idea aligns well with Russian President Putin’s recent proposal that while “Ukrainian troops must be completely withdrawn from,” the annexed territories, he says nothing about Ukraine having to recognize Russia’s annexation of those territories as legal. This idea also dovetails well with those of incoming U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, who suggested not long ago that “Ukraine is going to have to cede some territory to the Russians.”Meanwhile, there are reports of talk from Berlin about Finlandization, or neutrality for Ukraine. The issue was mulled by none other than German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and amid unrelated discussions in Berlin about setting up a “contact group” together with China, India, and Brazil in search of a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine.The practice of claiming a territory as your own, without actually exercising jurisdiction over it, is actually quite common in international diplomacy. Famous examples include China’s disputes over the South China Sea, the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regarding the Gaza Strip, the dispute between Russia and Japan over the Kuril Islands, and between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, but the list is very long (List of territorial disputes - Wikipedia), and no two territorial conflicts are the same. But it is worth noting that, while some have erupted in sporadic military conflict, some far worse than others, most do not.Kyiv’s recognition, therefore, that it is not going to win this war militarily and that it needs to begin to negotiate a solution before it loses more territory is something to be welcomed. While it is still far from a peace settlement, it may be a sign that the regime is now willing to discuss terms that can bring an end to this horrific war.

[Category: Russia, Moscow, Kyiv, Putin, Zelenskyy, Vance, Berlin, Ukraine, Nato, Ukraine war]

— US may push but Ukrainians balk at lowering draft age to 18

 

at 12/3/24 10:05pm

In late November, a U.S. official insisted that Ukraine should consider lowering its conscription age from 25 to 18. Today, Ukrainians are balking at the idea. In an interview with Al Jazeera, a 20-year-old Ukrainian serviceman named Vladislav said that lowering the military conscription age is a “bad idea.” He volunteered to join the army and believes that the option should be open for 18-year-olds to serve, but that it should not be compulsory. “I would choose to be shot to death right here, in Kyiv instead of going to the frontline,” said 17-year-old Serhiy (Al Jazeera did not identify surnames). “Our forefathers, Cossacks, didn’t allow a man who had no children, no heirs, to go to war,” he explained to Al Jazeera reporters. “I would have done the same. If there are no people, who the hell needs this land?”Serhiy’s mother shared her son’s sentiment, adding that young people “aren’t developed mentally, they will jump on (enemy) weapons without thinking, without understanding.” She continued, “they don’t yet have a feeling of self-preservation, they are just flying into battle. This will be (the) destruction of the Ukrainian people.”These sentiments are reflected in recent polling in Ukraine. Gallup found that over 50% of Ukrainians supported an end to the war, with a large amount supporting the possibility of territorial concessions. The war has brought destruction, especially to Eastern Ukraine, and has depleted the population by at least 25%. According to the U.N. Population Fund, around 10 million people have been killed, or have left the country since 2014. Ukraine is also dealing with a demographic crisis. A study predicted that the working-age population in Ukraine will decline by a third by 2040. Ukrainian military officials have reportedly not discussed lowering the conscription age, even as Washington seems to be pushing it. “The need right now is manpower,” an “an unnamed senior US official,” told reporters on Nov. 28. “Mobilization and more manpower could make a significant difference at this time, as we look at the battlefield today.”Ukrainian President Zelenskyy lowered the conscription age from 27 to 25 back in April and had to resort to using patrols to gather up men who were avoiding conscription. This was shortly after U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham traveled to Ukraine in March and advocated for lowering the draft age. “I would hope that those eligible to serve in the Ukrainian military would join. I can’t believe it’s at 27. You’re in a fight for your life, so you should be serving,” he said, seemingly speaking to military-eligible Ukrainians during a press conference in Kyiv.This mobilization drive largely failed according to Ukrainian officials, as desertion has become a larger problem for Kyiv, with more than 100,000 charged under the desertion laws since Russia invaded in February 2022, according to the Associated Press. One Ukrainian lawmaker has claimed that desertion numbers could be as high as 200,000.An officer in the 72nd Brigade noted that desertion was a large part of why the city of Vuhledar was lost to the Russians in October, adding that “it is clear that now, frankly speaking, we have already squeezed the maximum out of our people.”“It is difficult to imagine that Kyiv would drag its heels on lowering the conscription age unless it perceived serious and potentially severe domestic consequences,” said the Quincy Institute’s Mark Episkopos. “This, coupled with polling showing that most Ukrainians favor reaching a peace settlement as soon as possible, thrusts into question the strength of President Zelensky's wartime mandate going into 2025,” he adds. “The opposition to this proposal from Zelensky's office, despite ongoing pressure from the US, suggests that popular discontent inside Ukraine may be approaching a tipping point.”“Being quiet about a huge problem only harms our country,” Serhii Hnezdiliv, a soldier who was open about his choice to desert, told the AP. “If there’s no end term (to military service), it turns into a prison — it becomes psychologically hard to find reasons to defend this country.”

[Category: Ukraine draft, Qiosk, Russia-ukraine, Ukraine crisis, Lindsey graham, Ukraine war]

— Fearing his enemies, South Korea's Yoon declares martial law

 

at 12/3/24 10:43am

South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law today. The move, marking the first-ever suspension of democratic rights in South Korea since the end of military dictatorship in 1987, is poised to send a tremendous political shockwave through South Korean society. Presumably, the decision is driven in large part by Yoon’s motivation to navigate through his mounting domestic political struggles and to confront what he views as the opposition party’s efforts to upend his presidency. South Koreans have been strongly displeased with Yoon’s governance. For months, Yoon’s approval rating has languishing in the low 20s — recently falling as low as 17%. In a November survey, 58% of South Koreans stated they would like to see Yoon’s resignation or impeachment. This was expected to get worse against the backdrop of a looming corruption scandal involving Yoon, his wife, and a political broker over alleged election interference. In light of this, a growing number of opposition party politicians have begun to call for Yoon’s impeachment in the National Assembly. From Yoon’s perspective, the overall destabilizing political situation is being caused by the opposition party’s strident campaign to undermine his rule. Alarmed that his legitimacy is increasingly at stake and in need of a breakthrough, Yoon appears to have found a solution in martial law, which would suspend the National Assembly and other political gatherings that could cause “social disorder.” In the martial law declaration speech, Yoon called for an urgent need to “normalize” the country and explicitly criticized the opposition-dominated National Assembly’s various activities undermining his governance — including its 22 attempts to impeach his administration officials since his inauguration and cutting of 4.1 trillion won from his administration’s proposed budget for next year. Following the announcement, South Korean lawmakers gathered in the National Assembly and voted to lift the martial law. What happens next remains to be seen, but today’s shocking event may very well serve against Yoon’s presumed intention to safeguard his rule, by potentially driving South Korean public opinion toward greater support of impeachment. The martial law declaration may evoke vivid and sensitive memories of military dictatorship across South Korean society and be perceived by many South Koreans as a direct challenge to their democratic system.

[Category: Korea, Yoon, North korea, Qiosk, South korea]

— Lame duck Biden goes for broke on Ukraine aid

 

at 12/2/24 10:05pm

On its way out, the lame duck Biden administration is going for broke, maybe literally, on aid for Ukraine. According to AP reporting and a State Department statement, the U.S. plans to send Ukraine another $725 million worth of military assistance, including HIMARs and Stinger missiles, and more anti-personnel landmines, among other munitions.The assistance, part of over the $7 billion Congress authorized as part of an aid package in April, follows recent and controversial Biden administration decisions to allow the use of long-range missile systems inside Russia, and the use of anti-personnel landmines on the battlefield in Ukraine. The weapons will come from already depleting U.S. stockpiles.With time ticking, Biden officials have taken to the media to make their case for arming Ukraine until the last day of the administration. “We are going to do everything in our power for these 50 days to get Ukraine all the tools we possibly can to strengthen their position on the battlefield,” White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told ABC News on Sunday.“President Biden directed me to oversee a massive surge in the military equipment that we are delivering to Ukraine so that we have spent every dollar that Congress has appropriated to us by the time that President Biden leaves office,” Sullivan explained. But public opinion appears to be running in the opposite direction.According to a September Institute of Global Affairs (IGA) survey, 66% of Americans support a U.S./NATO push towards negotiation settlements in Ukraine. A recent Gallup poll found 52% of Ukrainians preferred a negotiated peace over continued fighting. And signaling a possible diplomatic shift in kind, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Ukraine could support ceding territory to Russia — in exchange for NATO membership.In tandem with its aid efforts, the Biden administration is simultaneously pressuring Ukraine to lower its conscription age to 18. Diplomatic hopes aside, Ukrainians will continue fighting if the outgoing administration has its way.

[Category: Ukraine war, Russia, Qiosk, Biden, Pentagon, Military aid, Ukraine]

— Senegal and Chad just sent the French military packing. Why?

 

at 12/2/24 10:05pm

In late November, both Senegal and Chad – independently of one another – moved to profoundly alter their longstanding relationships with the French military.Senegalese President Diomaye Bassirou Faye, evoking the 80th anniversary of the massacre by French soldiers of Senegalese troops recently freed from German prisoner-of-war camps, at the Thiaroye camp near Dakar, told Le Monde that “soon there will be no more French soldiers in Senegal.”Nearly 3,000 miles to the east, Chad’s government announced that it was withdrawing from a 2019 defense cooperation agreement with France. “Sixty-six years after the proclamation of the Republic of Chad,” the statement read, “it is time for Chad to affirm its full and complete sovereignty, and to redefine its strategic partnerships according to its national priorities.”“Sovereignty” is a word that Washington should reflect upon carefully when assessing its own Africa policy. The incoming Trump administration may not have much of an Africa policy, especially early on – but U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and the permanent civilian bureaucracies at State, USAID, and elsewhere should know that their version of “partnership” may not land as intended in the current political climate of Africa, and especially in the Sahel region.Since 2020, major political changes have swept the Sahel. Coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger toppled presidents who had been democratically elected in a procedural sense, but who had also been seen by large numbers of Sahelians as inept and corrupt – as successive rounds of the major Afrobarometer survey project made clear. All three of the overthrown presidents, meanwhile, had been fixtures of their respective countries’ politics since the 1990s, and all had been largely deferential to France.The ruling juntas in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger all experimented with a populist politics that leaned heavily on the idea of reinvigorated sovereignty, which included expelling French troops, rejecting the Western-backed Economic Community of West African States, and leaning more on partners such as Russia. In Niger, the junta also kicked out American troops, undermining Washington’s massive investments in a drone base and years of training programs and military-to-military collaboration.In Chad, the sudden battlefield death of President Idriss Déby in 2021 produced a different kind of coup – one that preserved the regime, with Déby’s son Mahamat taking charge. Yet Chad’s politics have shifted too, as the younger Déby adopts some of the new sovereignty discourse. While French support was important in the early, delicate days of the reconsolidated Déby regime in 2021, since then Mahamat Déby has not hesitated to reassess Chad’s relationships with its patrons, including not only France but also the United States. In April 2024, Chad told U.S. soldiers to leave, although some may return. The shared theme with other Sahelian countries is that N’Djamena wants to set the terms.Senegal remains free of coups. Yet a presidential election earlier this year brought a parallel kind of upset; the long-harassed opposition scored a breakthrough victory in March after then-President Macky Sall had tried to upend the electoral calendar. While Senegal has seen opposition victories before, this one is different, as Faye (and his even more prominent prime minister, Ousmane Sonko) do not come out of the familiar political class but out of a left-leaning, Pan-Africanist and yes, sovereigntist kind of politics. It remains to be seen how radical Faye and Sonko will prove, but their party recently streamrolled the snap legislative elections, giving the duo a chance to implement what they have promised will be a wide-ranging reform agenda. Across the region, then, politicians and military officers have come to power who are tired of business as usual with France, its colonial master.For the United States, the impact of these changes has been somewhat less dramatic than for France – although the juntas have been fairly cool towards Washington. As elsewhere on the African continent, Washington benefits from not having France’s colonial baggage, and also from not having been the main face of counterterrorism in the Sahel during the past decade; France’s failures in that sphere have generated considerable mistrust and outrage in the region. At the same time, Washington easily risks being perceived as an imperialist power, or even just as an imperious one – U.S. diplomats’ bearing was apparently one factor in the breakdown of negotiations with Niger in 2023.The point, however, is not for Washington to maintain basing and deployments in Africa by feigning greater humility. Better still would be for the U.S. to pull back. Massive training exercises and intensive security assistance do not win long-term allies, as the experience with Niger proves. And the perception that a Western power is using its military to exert a kind of neocolonialist pressure upon African countries can undermine prospects for other forms of cooperation.The United States needs Africa not as a theater for combating Chinese and Russian influence, or as a landscape across which to chase al-Qaida and the Islamic State, but as a genuine partner in an unstable world.Significantly, even as France faces rebukes in its former colonies, French President Emmanuel Macron was playing host to Nigerian President Bola Tinubu in a successful (at least in a diplomatic sense) state visit that focused on what the two heads of state called “a Partnership Between Equals Supporting Our Strategic Autonomy.” Now, no one should take that rhetoric at face value from either side – but it is striking how decentering security allows other aspects of a relationship to blossom. Macron, meanwhile, has also showed uncharacteristic humility in responding to Faye over the Thiaroye massacre, and Faye has appeared to leave a path open for France to chart a new course in its relations with Senegal, although a path more oriented to trade than to security.The U.S. could even find that the current wave of “sovereignty talk” in Africa can be an asset to U.S. Africa policy, opening paths for the U.S. to move from the lopsided, counterterrorism-driven “partnerships” of yesteryear to a more robust engagement with the continent.

[Category: Chad, France, Counterterrorism, Senegal]

— The low hanging DOGE fruit at the Pentagon for Elon and Vivek

 

at 12/2/24 10:05pm

Any effort to suggest what Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s Department of Government Efficiency should put forward for cuts must begin with a rather large caveat: should a major government contractor with billions riding on government spending priorities be in charge of setting the tone for the debate on federal budget priorities?Musk’s SpaceX earns substantial sums from launching U.S. government military satellites, and his company stands to make billions producing military versions of his Starlink communications system. He is a sworn opponent of government regulation, and is likely, among other things, to recommend reductions of government oversight of emerging military technologies.Then there is the scale of Musk’s ambitions. He suggested in a press interview that he could cut $2 trillion in federal spending — nearly one-third of the entire federal budget. If his proposal were to be implemented, it would dismantle large parts of the federal government, including agencies that provide essential services that are not being supplied by the private sector.In short, I hesitate to endorse Musk’s initiative in any way, shape or form. But his recommendations will not be the last word; there is room for Congress and the White House to make reductions in federal spending. This is especially true at the Pentagon, which accounts for more than half of federal discretionary spending. The discretionary budget includes virtually everything the federal government does except for payments under entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.Musk is onto at least one of the Pentagon’s major boondoggles, the F-35 combat aircraft. If carried to completion, the F-35 will be the most expensive weapons program in history, at a cost of $1.7 trillion over its lifetime. Yet 23 years into the program, the F-35 still has major flaws in its software and hardware — over 800 unresolved defects according to one Pentagon analysis. And it spends inordinate amounts of time out of action for maintenance. Versions of the plane for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines were designed to carry out multiple functions — aerial dogfights, bombing targets on the ground, close air support for troops, landing on both airstrips on land and the decks of aircraft carriers — and it does none of them particularly well.For his part, Musk has referred to the F-35 as “jack of all trades, master of none” and “the worst military value for money in history.” His critique is right on target. It is long past time to cut the F-35 program short in favor of cheaper, more reliable alternatives.There are plenty of other big ticket, current generation systems that could be cancelled with no detriment to U.S. security, including $13 billion aircraft carriers, which are vulnerable to current generation high speed missiles, and heavy tanks that have little or no relevance to current or likely conflicts.Another treasure trove of potential savings is the Pentagon’s three decades long, $2 trillion plan to build a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, missiles and submarines. The last thing the world needs at this moment of extreme tension is a new nuclear arms race. The new intercontinental ballistic missile, dubbed the Sentinel, is not only unnecessary but it is outright dangerous. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has called it “one of the most dangerous weapons we have” because a president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch it on warning of an attack, increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war triggered by a false alarm.Another potentially rich area for savings is trimming the Pentagon’s cohort of over 500,000 private contractors, many of whom do jobs that could be done better and cheaper by government employees. Cutting spending on service contractors by 15 percent would save $26 billion per year.A number of independent studies, including one by the Congressional Budget Office, have suggested that the Pentagon budget can be cut by $1 trillion over the next 10 years by a combination of eliminating redundancies and narrowing the missions required of our armed forces.Regardless of what Musk and Ramaswamy recommend, Congress has a chance to scale back the Pentagon’s enormous budget, which is spiraling towards $1 trillion per year. Given all of the other challenges facing the country, to do otherwise would be a case of budgetary malpractice.

[Category: Elon musk, Vivek ramaswamy, Defense spending, Defense department, Pentagon budget]

— War drives revenue increases for world's top arms dealers

 

at 12/2/24 9:13am

Revenues at the world’s top 100 global arms and military services producing companies totaled $632 billion in 2023, a 4.2% increase over the prior year, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The largest increases were tied to ongoing conflicts, including a 40% increase in revenues for Russian companies involved in supplying Moscow’s war on Ukraine and record sales for Israeli firms producing weapons used in that nation’s brutal war on Gaza. Revenues for Turkey’s top arms producing companies also rose sharply — by 24% — on the strength of increased domestic defense spending plus exports tied to the war in Ukraine. The United States remains the world’s dominant arms producing nation, with $318 billion in revenues flowing to American firms in the world’s top 100 for 2023, more than half of the global total. And the five highest revenue earners globally were all based in the United States — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (now RTX), Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics. China ranked second to the United States in arms industry revenues, with nine firms accounting for 16% of the revenue received by companies in the global top 100. Two of the fastest growing countries in terms of revenue growth for top companies were also in Asia, South Korea (plus 39%) and Japan (plus 35%). South Korea’s increase was tied to major export deals with Poland and Australia, while Japan’s was driven by its largest military buildup since World War II. SIPRI’s analysis takes a “just the facts” approach, tracking sales numbers and correlating them with increases in domestic and export spending tied to specific events. It does not address the dire humanitarian circumstances that underlie the growing revenues of top arms companies, most notably Israel’s unconscionable attacks on Gaza, which have killed over 40,000 people directly and many more through indirect causes, including over 62,000 who have died from starvation. The companies and countries fueling this mass slaughter — including U.S. firms that have supplied a substantial share of the bombs, missiles, and aircraft used in Gaza — should be held to account for their actions, even as they halt the supply of weapons and services that the Israeli government is using to commit ongoing war crimes. Another major impact of the revenue surge for top arms makers is the diversion of funding and talent from addressing urgent global problems, from climate change to poverty to outbreaks of disease. And the more companies and countries become dependent on the profits of war, the harder it will be to shift funding towards other urgent priorities. The continuing militarization of the global economy has a double cost — lives lost in conflict and devastating problems left unsolved. The situation needs to be treated as far more than a grim parade of statistics about who benefits from a world at war. It should be treated as an urgent call to action for a change in global priorities.

[Category: Qiosk, Israel-gaza, Gaza war, Ukraine war, Weapons industry]

— Streets on fire: Is Georgia opposition forming up a coup?

 

at 12/2/24 7:10am

Events have taken an astonishing turn in the Republic of Georgia. On Thursday, newly re-appointed Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze announced that Georgia would not “put the issue of opening negotiations with the European Union on the agenda until the end of 2028,” and not accept budget support from the EU until then, either.In the three-decade history of EU enlargement into Eastern Europe and Eurasia, where the promise of membership and the capricious integration process have roiled societies, felled governments, raised and dashed hopes like no other political variable, this is unheard of. So is the treatment Georgia has received at the hands of the West.Kobakhidze’s announcement triggered the latest flare-up of a chronic crisis described in a recent brief for the Quincy Institute. Its origins lie in the “geopolitization” of Georgia’s domestic political arrangement. Although both the government and opposition have long pursued robust integration with the West, key Western leaders nevertheless favored the current opposition and tried to limit or indeed end the ruling Georgian Dream (GD) party’s hold on power. The resulting alienation between the Georgian government and the West was exacerbated when, after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Georgia came under intense pressure to join Western sanctions and give much of its heavy weaponry to Ukraine. Fearing for their small, vulnerable country’s security and economic survival, GD declined.GD has resisted what it views as slow-motion regime change, for example by passing controversial measures this year that would oblige foreign-funded NGOs to disclose their financial records. Those steps further widened the gulf between GD and the West, triggering large-scale protests by pro-EU Georgians in 2023 and 2024. The most recent crest of protests, coming after GD declared victory in an election that the opposition claims (but has been unable to prove) was marred by fraud, had only just petered out days ago.Within hours of Kobakhidze’s announcement, crowds gathered for protests in Tbilisi and other cities, conspicuously angrier and more violent than usual, drawing a greater crackdown from the police as well. Georgia’s human rights ombudsmen have criticized not only the police violence against individuals but, critically, their attempts to disperse the entire protest.Pro-opposition president Salome Zourabichvili, whose term in office expires this month, has declared she intends to remain in office and gather opposition forces in a council to prepare for taking power from a government she denounced as illegitimate. Several Georgian ambassadors have resigned, while hundreds of staff at government agencies have signed letters of protest. A former minister has called for the army to defend the people. This latest flare up of Georgia’s chronic crisis already feels more seismic than previous ones.EU accession is an arcane process, so it’s important to clarify what actually happened and what didn’t. After eight years as an EU associated country (a sort of half-way house for Europe’s periphery), during which GD adopted a raft of EU regulations at a faster clip than its peers, Georgia was allowed to apply for full EU-membership in March 2022. The EU presented a list of broadly formulated “priorities” —conditions Georgia had to fulfill to obtain candidate status. There were poison pills in the small print: GD would have to share power with the opposition, let EU-appointed foreign experts vet senior judicial appointments, allow NGOs agitating to get the government sanctioned and deposed to participate in law- and policy-making, and more. Another priority — “de-oligarchization” — turned out to violate the EU’s own civil rights norms. After an unresolved tug of war over these priorities, Georgia was granted candidate status in December 2023. In recent years, EU accession has morphed from a technocratic-managerial process into an extended obstacle course, in which at every stage arbitrary new demands may be introduced. Georgia may have won candidate status, but accession “negotiations” (a misnomer for supervised adoption of the EU’s entire body of law) do not follow automatically. The government must still accept those same old priorities that GD considers incompatible with the country’s sovereignty.On top of that, the EU declared in June and again after the elections in October that it was “halting” Georgia’s accession indefinitely, citing Georgia’s laws on foreign funding for NGOs and on the “protection of family values and minors” as reasons. And that it would cancel €121 million of budget support. So even before PM Kobakhidze’s shock move, Georgia was in an accession purgatory unprecedented in EU enlargement history.A different — factually correct — perspective holds that this is all hot air: since the EU had already halted Georgia’s accession process and withheld budget support, Kobakhidze’s announcement is the equivalent of “you can’t fire me, I quit!” Except that no one is being fired, no one is quitting, Georgia has not withdrawn from the accession process and remains a candidate for EU membership. Kobakhidze took great care to affirm that Georgia would continue to adopt reforms already agreed with the EU. The next day, he walked things back even further, saying that if the EU offered to launch accession negotiations, he would sign the same day.Even so, it is hard not to read this decision by the Georgian government as an act of defiance, as calling the EU’s bluff. It turns the tables on a relationship in which the EU normally holds all the cards. The Georgian government’s halting of EU accession may be a symbolic act without material consequences, but symbolism matters greatly in the relations between the West and countries like Georgia.Kobakhidze described Georgia’s predicament as being “blackmailed” by the EU: making the start of accession negotiations and budget support contingent on Georgia’s relinquishing essential elements of its sovereignty. As if to illustrate his point, that same day the European Parliament adopted its latest resolution on Georgia, calling for a re-run of the election with monitoring led not by the OSCE but the EU, as well as sanctioning and asset-freezing of a long list of Georgian officials and judges. The European Parliament’s new standing rapporteur on Georgia went further still, demanding new elections organized by the international community, reminiscent of occupied Afghanistan or Iraq.In contrast, the EU’s new High Representative for Foreign Policy together with the Commissioner for Enlargement released a carefully worded statement, avoiding judgment on the election and emphasizing that the door remains open for EU talks. Meanwhile, the State Department suspended the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership, following earlier threats.These developments come at a time when the EU’s enlargement model feels at the end of its tether. While the EU has embarked on a militarization that is prohibited by its foundational treaties, enlargement has turned into a zero-sum geopolitical endeavor. Piecemeal integration into the EU’s one-size-fits-all economic model has not delivered the prosperity and social justice that Georgians have hoped for, a problem highlighted even by institutions strongly supportive of Georgia’s EU accession.One regional analyst characterized Georgia’s actions as “geopolitical backsliding.” That might have been a Freudian slip. Or it might have been in earnest, normalizing the conflation of geopolitics with democracy that defines the West’s approach to Europe’s periphery. This approach — demanding ever-greater inroads into sovereign politics and governance, asking vulnerable countries the impossible, arm-twisting and worse — will not restore the constructive partnership we once had with Georgia and continue to fan the country’s crisis.

[Category: Russia, Eu, Georgian dream, Ngos, Kobakhidze, Eurasia, Enewsletter, Georgia]

— Ukraine’s best hope for peace looks a lot like Donald Trump

 

at 12/1/24 10:05pm

This article was updated by the author and republished with permission from the Nonzero NewsletterLast week, people who fear a third world war got more reasons to worry. Ukraine, with permission from the White House, struck Russian territory with long-range missiles supplied by the United States. Russian President Vladimir Putin has long warned that such an attack would mean that NATO and Russia “are at war,” and he has raised the specter of nuclear retaliation. Granted, these threats could be bluffs, but last week Putin gave them some credibility by (a) loosening the conditions for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, (b) firing a multiple-warhead, nuclear-capable missile at Ukraine for the first time in the war, and (c) declaring, in a speech after the strike, that Russia would be entitled to attack any nations that aid Ukraine’s strikes into Russian territory.While Putin’s caution during previous crises suggests he’s not about to reach for the nuclear button just yet, his dramatic response has complicated any path to a peace deal. Meanwhile, some liberal voices have predicted that Trump’s looming presidency, far from hastening an end to the conflict as Trump has promised to do, will prolong it. If Trump were to cut off arms to Ukraine, he’d remove an important incentive for Putin to call it quits, according to Ben Rhodes, a former White House official under Barack Obama. Among conservatives who advocate foreign policy restraint, there is worry that Trump’s hawkish cabinet nominees portend a departure from the peace agenda he campaigned on. As for hawkish critics of Trump on both left and right, many believe that he may end the war by just giving away the farm to Putin.These concerns are valid. But Trump has good reasons to try proving the doubters wrong. He understands that foreign policy debacles can crater a president’s approval ratings, and he has staked his reputation on being able to end a conflict that started and continues to escalate on President Joe Biden’s watch. “I’m the only one who can get the war stopped,” he told Newsweek this September. Brokering a respectable peace would be a boon to his legacy and an embarrassment for his political opponents—and Trump loves splattering egg on the faces of his detractors. So there is room for optimism alongside the worry. Trump may well manage not only to stop the war but also to get Ukraine the best deal it could realistically hope for.Some say Trump’s Ukraine promises are hollow since he hasn’t outlined a viable peace deal. But Trump maintains, plausibly enough, that he can’t reveal details of a plan without boxing himself in. It would be better, he says, to hammer out a deal with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky behind closed doors, which means keeping mum on specifics for now. Despite Trump’s reticence, there are signs of the kind of deal he’d push for—and signs that both Putin and Zelensky would go for it.This fall, J.D. Vance, Trump’s running mate and now vice president-elect, laid out a likely settlement: The current battle lines become a “heavily fortified” demilitarized zone to prevent future Russian aggression; Kyiv retains its sovereign independence; and Russia gets assurances that Ukraine won’t join NATO. Moscow would presumably also get to keep the lands in eastern and southern Ukraine that it now holds.There’s reason to think the Ukrainians would accept such a deal. While American commentators complain that Vance’s plan “sounds a lot like Putin’s,” Kyiv is less dismissive. In a remarkable change of tone compared to previous statements, Zelensky recently declared that Ukraine “must do everything to ensure that the war ends next year through diplomatic means.” Most Ukrainians agree. A recent Gallup survey found that, for the first time, more than 50 percent of Ukrainians want their government to negotiate a settlement “as soon as possible.” Among respondents who favored a swift settlement, 52 percent said Kyiv should be open to making territorial concessions. Following Trump’s election victory, Ukrainian officials have warmed to the idea of ceding territory to end the war.Putin, for his part, may also be prepared to accept a deal along Vance’s lines. Although battlefield momentum is now on Moscow’s side, Russia’s military gains have come at a tremendous cost. The rate of Russian military casualties appears to be at its highest point since the war began. If the war continues well into 2025, Putin may be forced to order another round of mobilization and risk sparking discontent within Russia.Of course, neither Putin nor Zelensky will pursue a peace deal without some prodding, but Trump seems to know what pressures to apply to each man. During a Fox News interview in July, Trump explained: “I would tell Zelensky, no more [military aid]. You got to make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don’t make a deal, we’re going to give [Zelensky] a lot.” Such an approach, however duplicitous, would be a marked improvement over Biden’s unconditional support for Ukraine, a policy that has failed to convert American assistance into diplomatic leverage. Trump’s dual threats would be credible. Ukraine’s backers are already worried that he’ll suspend military aid. And Trump, as one Republican foreign policy expert told Politico, “can snap his fingers” and congressional Republicans “will vote for more security assistance to Ukraine.” If the sides were to get close to a deal, the thorniest remaining problem would be that of post-war security guarantees for Ukraine. Kyiv desires immediate accession to NATO, a move that Moscow will wage further war to prevent. But Trump’s transition team has discussed a 20-year moratorium on Ukrainian membership, suggesting he may float a compromise that lets both Zelensky and Putin save face. The Trump administration could also engineer a workaround by getting Ukraine admitted instead into the European Union, which has a collective defense agreement of its own. During peace talks early in the war, Russian negotiators reportedly were prepared to greenlight EU membership for Ukraine—a striking reversal given the Kremlin’s previous opposition to Kyiv signing a mere association agreement with the bloc. MAGA Republicans want Europe to take responsibility for the Ukraine crisis, and EU membership for Kyiv would go a long way toward that end.Awkwardly for Trump’s pro-restraint supporters, the hardliners who will fill his cabinet have tended, throughout their careers, to favor militarism over diplomacy. But these nominees—notably, Senator Marco Rubio as secretary of state and Representative Michael Waltz as national security adviser—share something else in common: In accommodating themselves to Trump, they have modulated their Russia hawkism. Trump’s nominees are also proven loyalists, and if they do try to thwart his agenda, Trump can ignore or fire them, as he did to their predecessors in his first administration.The president-elect likely sees a chance to gain leverage in talks by surrounding himself with bona fide hardliners. As one official explained to Axios in 2019, Trump liked having uber-hawk John Bolton on his team because he believed that “Bolton’s bellicosity and eagerness to kill people is a bargaining chip when he’s sitting down with foreign leaders.”Of course, there’s no guarantee that Trump, a wild card who tends to trust his turbulent instincts, will make the moves required to end the Ukraine war rather than widen it. Nor is it guaranteed that such moves exist, given the political difficulties that both Putin and Zelensky would face in agreeing to a peace deal. Donald Trump’s campaign promise to settle the war “in one day, 24 hours” had already received a lukewarm reception in both Moscow and Kyiv, and that was before Biden’s dangerous escalation last week. But Biden, it is clear, is not going to push the parties toward peace, and no other country in the world appears to have the leverage and motivation to make anything happen. That leaves an imperfect leader with a record of surprises. Like it or not, Ukraine’s best hope for peace looks a lot like Donald Trump.

[Category: Trump, Zelensky, Putin, Ukraine, Russia, Ukraine war]

— Rebels seize on Assad weakness, attack Aleppo

 

at 11/29/24 11:46am

Update 12/1: Rebel forces led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) have taken most of Aleppo with Syrian army forces pulling back amid losses. According to reports, rebel forces were making their way to Hama early Sunday and "claiming control of government-held areas along the way."Forces under the banner of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), jumping off from their territory in the Syria’s northwestern Idlib province, have sliced through Bashar al-Assad’s army and penetrated Aleppo.HTS is derived from al Qaeda’s Syrian branch. Al Qaeda was pushed out of Syria by more radical splinter factions early in the civil war. HTS evolved once the conflict was well underway. When the smoke cleared, HTS remained in control of Idlib, which it turned into a mini-Islamic republic under Turkish protection. It was a good fit for Idlib, which had been a source of militant resistance to the Assad government at the very outset of the civil war.As of this writing, HTS fighters have reached the center of Aleppo and seized a town that commands the M5 highway, a key route Assad’s forces would need to reach the city and try to pry the HTS militants from within. Assad had only taken Aleppo back from insurgents in a battle during the summer of 2016 with the help of Lebanese Hizballah.Turkey’s role in this offensive is murky. The attackers, according to news reports, include not only HTS formations, but Sunni militias that have been mobilized and equipped by Turkey over the past few years. This suggests that the HTS campaign might be a Turkish wedge to complicate Assad’s already tenuous reach across Syrian territory and establish de facto Turkish control over a large swath of Syria and one of its largest cities. In this scenario, management of the area’s two million people could be left to HTS, while Turkey reaped the dubious strategic benefit.For Assad, this is nearly the equivalent of October 7 for Israel. But he has none of the advantages that Israel enjoyed in stabilizing the situation after the attack, going on the offensive, and pulverizing Hamas. Although there are rumors of Russian airstrikes against HTS, the fact is that the Russians are stretched thin by their war against Ukraine and will find it hard to rescue their man in Damascus. And there will be no help from either Iran or Lebanese Hezbollah. Tehran lacks the means and whatever it can muster will be in Israel’s gunsights very quickly. And Hezbollah is reeling from Israel’s recent offensive and couldn’t mobilize the fighters needed to get HTS out of Aleppo let alone reach Aleppo on the ground.Looking around Syria’s outer perimeter, it’s hard to see Saudi Arabia intervening militarily on behalf of Assad. With Turkey pressing from the North, Israel from the West and no countervailing pressures from the East or South, Assad could find his statelet shrinking fast.

[Category: Bashar al-assad, Assad, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Al qaeda, Hts, Turkey, Aleppo, Syrian civil war, Enewsletter, Qiosk, Syria]

As of 12/7/24 2:17pm. Last new 12/6/24 12:11pm.