Posts tagged Foreign Policy
Free Syrian Army rebels defect to Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra
Syria’s main armed opposition group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), is losing fighters and capabilities to Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist organisation with links to al-Qaida that is emerging as the best-equipped, financed and motivated force fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
Evidence of the growing strength of al-Nusra, gathered from Guardian interviews with FSA commanders across Syria, underlines the dilemma for the US, Britain and other governments as they ponder the question of arming anti-Assad rebels.
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said that if negotiations went ahead between the Syrian government and the opposition – as the US and Russia proposed on Tuesday – “then hopefully [arming the Syrian rebels] would not be necessary”.
Maybe (just maybe?) this wouldn’t have been an issue if the West had helped the FSA about a year ago? No one will every know for sure, of course. But worth thinking about.
President Evo Morales acted on a longtime threat Wednesday and expelled the U.S. Agency for International Development for allegedly seeking to undermine Bolivia’s leftist government, and he harangued Washington’s top diplomat for calling the Western Hemisphere his country’s “backyard.
Bolivia’s President Morales expels USAID, accused it of working against him | The Washington Post
I was going to comment on this. But I’ve been asked to do so on NPR affiliate WBEZ’s Worldview tomorrow. So I’m going to hold off until after that. Plus, I want to get my thoughts together on this.
History Matters: Suez Crisis Edition
Last night’s Daily Show, while commenting on Israel’s election, included clips of administration critics suggesting that Obama is the most anti-Israel president, ever. I beg to differ.
Obama certainly has his differences with current Israeli foreign policy under “Bibi” Netanyahu. Then again, what two heads of state wouldn’t? I agree with those who suggest that making blanket statements about unyielding support for Israel comes dangerously close to writing a blank check we might not be ready to cash in (would we support Israel if it attacked vital US interests?).
But do Obama’s public differences in policy with “Bibi” make him the most anti-Israel president, ever? I think that title goes to Dwight Eisenhower during the 1956 Suez Crisis. Let me explain:
In 1956, after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, Israel, France, and Britain invaded Egypt. The United States was opposed to Israeli intervention and—together with the Soviet Union (although with different ulterior motives, obviously)—pushed Israel to withdraw from the conflict and give up its gains in the Sinai. And this wasn’t just public rhetoric: the US imposed (and encouraged its allies to follow suit) economic sanctions on Israel for its role in the conflict and even threats of expulsion from the UN.
I don’t think Obama has quite gone that far.
Of course, perhaps the award for the most anti-Israeli sentiment by someone at the White House could go to Henry Kissinger (scroll down to the “Middle East” section), Nixon’s Secretary of State. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Kissinger famously told Nixon to “let Israel bleed” (by denying assistance) in order to “soften it up” before negotiations.
I’m pretty sure Obama hasn’t done anything like that, either.
The US and Israel are, today, staunch allies. But that wasn’t always the case. The US cautiously supported Israel’s independence in 1948. And until the 1970s, the US worried that being too closely tied to Israel would weaken its position in the region (where lots of oil was at stake). Since the 1980s, however, our foreign policies have merged. But there’s a reason why we have other very close allies in the region. Like Saudi Arabia. And it’s telling that we never sent troops to back Israel in any of its conflicts, like we did for Kuwait in 1990. US-Israeli relations are much more complicated. As are all foreign relations.
History matters.
A fascinating (!!) look at diplomacy in action—and in real time.
From thepoliticalnotebook:
International diplomacy in action… A very interesting set of tweets/exchanges between the feed for the Muslim Brotherhood (@Ikhwanweb) and that of the US Embassy in Cairo. The Muslim Brotherhood decries the violence in Libya that killed the ambassador and three others, and moves on to denounce clashes at the embassy in Cairo. One of their tweets was this:
”.@khairatAlshater:We r relieved none of @USEmbassyCairo staff were harmed & hope US-Eg relations will sustain turbulence of Tuesday’s events”
To which the embassy responded:
”.@ikhwanweb Thanks. By the way, have you checked out your own Arabic feeds? I hope you know we read those too.”
(Oooh, snark.)
The latest in the exchange has been this from the Brotherhood:
”.@usembassycairo we understand you’re under a lot of stress, but it will be more helpful if you point out exactly the Arabic feed of concern”
All screencapped above.
From foreignaffairsmagazine:
The September/October issue of Foreign Affairs is now online!
Kindle, NOOK, and Google Play subscribers can also access the new issue on their devices.
They [the British] needed to win the support of the population if they were to defeat the insurgency and build a legitimate state; but the population would not support a weak, corrupt state in the middle of an insurgency. To reassure the nationalists, the foreign force had to convince them they were leaving; and to reassure the supporters of the British, the foreign force had to convince them they were staying. Such political problems could not be solved with more troops. They were all (to use a British policymaker’s phrase) “the inevitable consequence of our position in Afghanistan.
Rory Stewart, in his review of Diana Preston’s book, The Dark Defile: Britain’s Catastrophic Invasion of Afghanistan, 1838–1842, about the British invasion and failed occupation of Afghanistan. In 1838-42.
Ah. Again.
(via politicalprof)
While the U.S. is concerned about China’s influence in Africa, “the U.S. government is not in a position to do what China is doing nor would we necessarily want to,” said Todd Moss, a former State Department official who now runs The Emerging Africa Project at the Center for Global Development in Washington. More.
This offers an interesting look at three issues: 1) the new investment “boom” in Africa, 2) the emergence of China as a global power, and 3) the question of whether economics should be treated as a strategic policy arm (and if so, what are the consequences?).
Understanding the US budget, in one simple graph. Notice that “International Affairs” is only 1.2% of the 2011 budget. We care about the world just more than a penny on every dollar. What does this say about the quality and/or effectiveness of our foreign policy?
From planetmoney:
Of each dollar the federal government spends, how much goes to defense? How much goes to Social Security? How much goes to interest on the debt? And how has this sort of thing changed over time?
This graphic answers these questions. It shows the major components of federal spending 50 years ago, 25 years ago, and last year.
Read more here.
Saving Somalia
MOGADISHU, Somalia — For the United Nations, the war-torn Somali capital is one of the ultimate “hardship posts.” The U.N.’s few foreign employees based there are entitled to lucrative hazard stipends in exchange for living in one of the world’s most dangerous cities. But for Turkish aid worker Orhan Erdogan, it is his family’s home base.
BY LAURA HEATON, foreignpolicy.com…
The influx of Turkish aid workers has corresponded with a fresh interest by the Ankara government in Somali affairs. In 2010, Turkey established itself as a key international player in Somalia by hosting an international conference in Istanbul that focused on security and investment in a country more often thought of for piracy and social chaos. Then last August, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan made a landmark trip to Mogadishu, traveling with his family and a plane full of ministers and advisors. They only stayed for the day, but the visit — the first by a non-African leader in more than 20 years — made a lasting impression.
An interesting look at the growing reach of Turkey’s influence.
Politicalprof: A Quick Nuclear Weapons Pop Quiz
This looks like a great way to spark a discussion in, say, a POL 103 class.
From politicalprof:
As we make noises about attacking Iran because of its alleged nuclear weapons program, a pop quiz:
1. How many countries that possess a nuclear weapon have ever used one against another country?
2. How many countries that possess a nuclear weapon have ever used one against another country that possesses a nuclear weapon?
3. How many “nuclear” countries that the United States has deemed “crazy” or “irrational” at some point or other of time have ever used one against another country?
4. How many countries that possess a nuclear weapon have ever given them to a terrorist group?
5. If — IF — Iran builds a nuclear weapon, how many will it have? How many will Israel have? How many will the United States have?
If you don’t know the answer to all of these questions, please stop talking about Iran’s nuclear threat.
- Page 1 of 4
- Next »
