From Norwich University:
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Why a 9/11-Style Commission for Trump-Russia Ties is a Bad Idea
Why a 9/11-Style Commission for Trump-Russia Ties is a Bad Idea
by Whitney Ahn
The connection between the President, the Trump Campaign, and Russia is a complex, tangled web that most agree should be investigated so that the American people can gain clarity of the web. The investigation is so unanimously supported among the political leadership of both Democrats and Republicans alike, save the presidential subject of the investigation, that the main point of contention is not the subject matter of the investigation but the investigators themselves.
Can the Senate and House Intelligence Committees be trusted to produce a convincing report that gives the American people and our leaders a full picture of what happened regarding the 2016 election and related events? Some say yes; some say no; some say the Senate, yes, but the House, no.
Those that say no generally call for an independent commission, similar that created for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. The idea of ensuring independence from partisanship in an investigation so political nature is both positive and necessary. However, upon researching further, one may find that this is not the best route forward.
Firstly, there is the problem of funding. The White House and Congress must together agree upon an appropriations bill to fund the theoretical commission. Even if the White House would agree to fund this commission, it seems unlikely that they would approve a large enough sum to fund a through and quality investigation.
This appropriations bill would also require both sides agree to details like the scope of the investigation, as well as whether or not to put a deadline on it. Giving the White House that much power over what would likely be the most trusted investigation into its own self seems to be troubling at the very least.
Then there is the issue of membership. The 9/11 commission had 10 members, 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats, appointed by the House, the Senate, and the White House. To suggest that the Democrat leadership would not place their most zealous members, such as Rep. Maxine Waters or Rep. Pramila Jayapal, on the committee is as ridiculous a notion as the suggestion that Republican leadership would not place their own most zealous members, such as former Gov. Mike Huckabee or Rep. Jack Kingston. The parties may do so for no other reason than they suspect that the other side will do the same.
While an independent and Congressionally-authorized special committee or commission would most certainly be ideal for the sake of the validity and trustworthiness of the investigation's ultimate results, whatever they may be, it is very important that the 9/11 style of commission not be copied, and that partisanship plays no role in the investigation.
Can the Senate and House Intelligence Committees be trusted to produce a convincing report that gives the American people and our leaders a full picture of what happened regarding the 2016 election and related events? Some say yes; some say no; some say the Senate, yes, but the House, no.
Those that say no generally call for an independent commission, similar that created for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. The idea of ensuring independence from partisanship in an investigation so political nature is both positive and necessary. However, upon researching further, one may find that this is not the best route forward.
Firstly, there is the problem of funding. The White House and Congress must together agree upon an appropriations bill to fund the theoretical commission. Even if the White House would agree to fund this commission, it seems unlikely that they would approve a large enough sum to fund a through and quality investigation.
This appropriations bill would also require both sides agree to details like the scope of the investigation, as well as whether or not to put a deadline on it. Giving the White House that much power over what would likely be the most trusted investigation into its own self seems to be troubling at the very least.
Then there is the issue of membership. The 9/11 commission had 10 members, 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats, appointed by the House, the Senate, and the White House. To suggest that the Democrat leadership would not place their most zealous members, such as Rep. Maxine Waters or Rep. Pramila Jayapal, on the committee is as ridiculous a notion as the suggestion that Republican leadership would not place their own most zealous members, such as former Gov. Mike Huckabee or Rep. Jack Kingston. The parties may do so for no other reason than they suspect that the other side will do the same.
While an independent and Congressionally-authorized special committee or commission would most certainly be ideal for the sake of the validity and trustworthiness of the investigation's ultimate results, whatever they may be, it is very important that the 9/11 style of commission not be copied, and that partisanship plays no role in the investigation.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Friday, November 18, 2016
How Foreign Leaders and Officials are Reacting to Trump's Election
How Foreign Leaders and Officials are Reacting to Trump's Election
by Whitney Ahn
Harjit Sajjan, the Canadian Minister of National Defence, said he was "looking forward" to Donald Trump's inauguration, something commonly said about most new President-elects by foreign officials. However, Donald Trump is not most President-elects.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, offered a mixed tone, saying she'd be willing to work with Donald Trump because German-American relations are essential to her country. The deputy chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, however, was far more blunt, saying that "Trump is a trailblazer of a new authoritarian and chauvinist international movement."
Another international major figure, former Pakistani Ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqan, has also come out with negativity. Today at the Halifax International Security Forum, said of anti-Muslim rhetoric that "harm has already been done... people who like me can't help you."
Similarly to Merkel, Federica Mogherini (the European Union's foreign affairs chief) tweeted her reaction to Trump's victory: "EU-US ties are deeper than any change in politics." This implies that she has some fears that Trump will cause a major shift regarding American politics towards Europe. Martin Schulz, the president of the European parliament, called Trump's elect "a protest vote" similar to Brexit.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that he was looking forward to working with Trump, but emphasized that "it is important that the transatlantic bond remains strong." Trump has repeatedly called for pulling out of funding for NATO unless other countries agree to pay more.
Theresa May congratulated Trump on his victory. After Brexit, the UK is trying to maintain positive relationships with as many countries as possible. Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, went in an opposing route, calling for Trump to prove he "will be a president for everyone in modern, multicultural America."
In France, President François Hollande said that Trump's win "opens up a period of uncertainty." Hollande had previously endorse Secretary Clinton in the presidential race. He emphasized that "certain positions taken by Donald Trump" put many things in jeopardy, saying that "what is at stake is peace, the fight against terrorism, the situation in the Middle East... economic relations, and the preservation of the planet." However, Marine Le Pen, a major opposition figure globally known for her controversial rhetoric regarding ethnic and racial minorities considered offensive by many, has shown the utmost support for Trump. Trump has returned the favor by going so far as to prioritize conversations with Le Pen above even talking to the French president, and many other world leaders.
Vladimir Putin sent a telegram to Trump (yes, they still do that), congratulating him. At a ceremony at the Kremlin, he said that "it's not our fault that Russian-American relations our in such a poor state," but expressed optimism that under Trump, the two nations can come closer. Putin clearly sees an opportunity to connect with Trump, and hopes to increase co-operation between the two. In Ukraine, President Petro Poroshenko met with the US ambassador on Wednesday, and claimed that he remained optimistic that "the US administration would remain a reliable partner in the struggle for democracy."
Isreali Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump, and was extremely enthusiastic about his election. One of his ministers, Naftali Bennett, declared that Trump's victory meant that "the era of a Palestinian state is over." Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbasaid expressed serious caution but optimism. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that Trump's "elections marks the beginning of a new era," and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that the election has no impact on Iranian policies.
Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto expressed a willingness to work with Trump, after being criticized heavily within his country for having dialogues with him while he was still a candidate. Former presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador said that Mexico is "a free independent, sovereign country," that it is neither a colony nor a protectorate, and that Mexico depends on no foreign government.
China's President Xi Jinping congratulated Trump, and Lu Kang, a spokesperson for China's foreign ministry, said that they were looking forward to working with him. Joko Widodo, the president of Indonesia (the world's largest Muslim nation), said that he "thinks there will be no change." President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, known for mass murders and insulting Barack Obama (he called him a "son of a whore" earlier this year), extended warm congratulations
Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, was the first foreign leader to meet with Trump, and expressed cautious optimism, a tone that seems to be struck by the vast majority of foreign leaders and officials.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Why Russia Is So Effective: Countering Russian Power Gains
Why Russia Is So Effective:
Countering Russian Power Gains
by Whitney Ahn
Russia is in an economic crisis. Their military capabilities are on a decline. They severely lack in allies, especially in Europe. And yet, Vladimir Putin is able to perform this weakening hand so incredibly powerfully. This leads to more and more nations, like the Philippines, becoming more attracted to aligning with Moscow (and Beijing) over Washington.
One potential explanation is the Donald Trump line, that Putin is such a strong leader he can overcome any weaknesses that his country might have. That’s seriously debatable, as Putin has repeatedly shown that his capabilities for subtleties in his foreign policy are highly limited.
Another possible rationale is that the Russian’s strengths are so specialized into important realms of modern society. For example, one of the major strengths of the Soviet Union was the math and science education, so it’s no surprise that a lasting impact of the Soviet Union is that Russia is blessed with incredible computer capabilities, which gives them the ability to hack nearly anyone or anything at will.
So how does the United States counter that? Although some might say that making counter-investments in technologies could be a good strategy, I would posit that the best thing to do would be to play our own strengths. Rather than hacking the Kremlin, perhaps the focus should be on increasing investments on American military forces in Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, and other regions that Russia has strategic interests in. Rather than fixing our weaknesses, I would propose that Vladimir has proven over the past decade and a half that a stronger strategy would be to focus on our strengths and to flaunt and deploy them wisely.
Another major strength of the United States is our appeal as a beacon of democracy. When the world watches and sees in our Congress extreme levels of bureaucracy, incompetence, and ineffectiveness, they see a nation of discordance. They are pushed away from the United States and our allies, and towards Russia and China, and their respective allies. Thus, the best best counter-measures would be to find ways to streamline our Congressional processes, improve upon our disastrous ineffectiveness, and resolve our extreme polarization.
Another major strength of the United States is our appeal as a beacon of democracy. When the world watches and sees in our Congress extreme levels of bureaucracy, incompetence, and ineffectiveness, they see a nation of discordance. They are pushed away from the United States and our allies, and towards Russia and China, and their respective allies. Thus, the best best counter-measures would be to find ways to streamline our Congressional processes, improve upon our disastrous ineffectiveness, and resolve our extreme polarization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)