Search This Blog

Monday, June 12, 2017

Europe Resurgent

Europe Resurgent

by Advait Arun, 08 May 2017

Advait Arun is a political commentator and writer at Frumious and Foreign Friday, a school board representative-elect in Gunn School District, and the National Co-ordinator at Uproot.
This piece is about Macron. But this piece is also about the world. Emmanuel Macron, the youngest French head of state since Napoleon, has never held elected office before, yet he swept away Le Pen in a decisive victory. Granted, most of his support came from those who refused to support Le Pen, but there is no denying that Macron has a suave, cosmopolitan personality that gave him the momentum he needed to succeed.
Say what you will about his policies — his economic ideas are contentious not just at home but abroad. But they all hinge on one main factor: the European Union. Macron is a committed internationalist, paying homage to the European tradition of his predecessors. At his victory celebration, Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” (the EU’s anthem) was played instead of the Marseillaise, the French national anthem.
It may seem that Macron is just another globalist who doesn’t care for the downtrodden of France. That is yet to be proven. But, from his initial ideas and his worldview, I personally see something completely different, with far-reaching consequences.
For the past 70 years, defined by the bipolar (US and USSR) world order, Europe has largely taken a backseat in world affairs. They remain important in Eastern Europe and in some conflicts in the Middle East, through NATO and the powerful economic bloc they make up (the EU), but they largely hold no significant stake in areas of the world they used to control.
Where did Great Britain, France, and Germany go? They shaped the world in which the USA, Russia, and China fight over, and yet they seem mired in continental affairs.
That’s where Macron has the potential to change the game. But first we must make some decidedly far-fetched assumptions. Let’s assume that his party En Marche claims a plurality in the French Parliament, giving Macron the ability to enact his reforms. Next, let’s say his reforms don’t cause crippling controversy, and instead produce positive results. Give it a year, and maybe the French economy will be on the rise again.
If that happens, France can challenge the German policy of financial austerity in the EU, and it can use its new economic leverage to turn the EU from a German economic tool into something that really does work for the good of all Europe. The European Union will attain much more economic power, being backed by two powerhouses instead of one. (This doesn’t bode well for Britain, but we’ll get back to that later.)
America, Russia, and China might be the most powerful nations on Earth currently, but assuming Macron, through his vitality and political prowess, succeeds, he could redefine the world in which we know. Instead of seeing a right-wing populist wave sweep Europe, we could instead see France and Germany leading Europe back into the international arena.
With a stronger European Union, economically, Macron and Merkel can pursue better immigration policies, better collective security, and a redefined international role. Starting in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, we could see France and Germany commit protection to the former and diplomacy/peacekeeping to the latter, largely usurping the waning American commitments in those regions.
The idea speaks for itself. But what of Great Britain, whose Crown once shone over more than a third of the world’s surface? Currently, they are mired in what might be the “worst trade deal in the history of trade deals” — and it’s not Brexit. Rather, it’s the negotiation to get out of Brexit, that threatens to split Great Britain back into separate nations.
Economically, Great Britain will recover. Economies always bounce back.
Foreign policy-wise, however, they must realize that they were never British, they were always European — Continental affairs occupy them more than they would like to admit. For centuries, they were the arbiter of the balance of power on the continent, and eventually the world.
America’s ambivalence about its role in the world, in juxtaposition with what might go down as one of the biggest Conservative takeovers of the British government in a century, gives Britain the chance to redefine its relations with Europe and the entire world.
Theresa May may not be part of the EU anymore, but you can bet that, along with Macron and Merkel, she will be anxious to project British power back onto an uneasy world.
Macron has not succeeded with his agenda yet. And, of course, Merkel (or someone of the same ideological bent as her) must succeed in German federal elections in September. But if they do, the world could see a radical shift in the geopolitical landscape, as the European powers return to preeminence against a revanchist Russia, a restive Middle East, and a looming China.
I reference America as a “waning” power a few times above, but this is only because there has been no consistent policy put forth by the Trump administration as to responding to the threats that we face. America is ambivalent and, by virtue of inaction, is receding from it’s preeminent global role. Of course, this shift is not permanent, and America, if we chose, could easily reclaim that mantle. But, until then, the playing field is wide open for the European states to get back in the game and make their mark.
Best of luck, Emmanuel Macron. The fate of Europe depends on you. 

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Names to Know: Most to Least Concerning Trump Advisors

Names to Know:

Most to Least Concerning Trump Advisors

by Whitney Ahn



Steve Bannon: Senior Counselor, Chief Strategist
        He was the editor of Breitbart, which ran articles and pieces that were racist, sexist, homophobic, and everything else. Regardless of your opinion on "PC culture", Breitbart is and was the basis of the case in its favor.

Stephen A. Miller: Senior Advisor
         He is extremist at best, and an insane and sociopathic Russophile at worst. His influence over the President is strong, as shown throughout the Trump campaign, which is what makes him so dangerous.

Reince Priebus: Chief of Staff
         Priebus is not crazy, but is so inexperienced that his occupation of this important position becomes to entire administration's detriment.

Kellyanne Conway: Counselor
         She's really more of a PR expert than a policy advisor, and has shown signs of multipolarity with regards to her general sanity. Her loyalty to President Trump is undying, but several outlets

K.T. McFarland: Deputy National Security Advisor
         She opened the Deputies Committee by limiting everyone to two minutes, because she's "from TV". Beyond that, McFarland is surprisingly qualified, despite having not served since the Reagan administration.

Jared Kushner: Senior Advisor
         He is (probably) not crazy. However, his presence brings up concerns of nepotism and his occupation of an official rule is potentially a breaking of laws that were designed to prevent this sort of thing from happening, though communications officials in the White House have made the argument that fits into a legal loophole.

Ivanka Trump
         She is (probably) not crazy. However, her presence, like Kushner's, brings up concerns of nepotism. The difference between her and her husband is that she does not hold any official position.

Dina Powell: Senior Counselor for Economic Initiatives
         She has yet to show any signs of being completely crazy, and has the ear of Ivanka Trump, who is also (probably) not crazy.

H.R. McMaster: National Security Advisor
         He's definitely not crazy. So there's that.

Monday, February 13, 2017

What Even is the Principals Committee?

What Even is the National Security Council?

by Whitney Ahn

        The National Security Council, aka NSC, aka Principals Committee, was established right after WWII to ensure that every administration had access to a solid national security policy-making process. Until Trump, it included, among others the President, Vice President, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the National and Homeland Security Advisors, UN Ambassador, and Secretaries of State, Defense, the Treasury, Homeland Security, and Energy (there's a longer list on Wikipedia).
        Donald Trump has decided to, for better or for worse, up-end this entire system by removing the DNI, former Senator Dan Coats (R-IN) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, and adding the Chief Strategist, Steve Bannon. This effectively removes the sole military and intelligence advisers from the NSC and replaces them with Steve Bannon.
        Many Republican policymakers, notably including Sen. McCain, have criticized this move, saying that the move was confusing and unprecedented. In defense of Bannon's addition to the council, some have said that past people with Bannon's position, such as the Bush administration's Karl Rove and the Obama administration's David Axelrod, have attended the NSC. However, neither served in any official capacity on the NSC and both have stated that they were barred from entering any meeting regarding national security issues, to keep a chasm between politics and national security.
        Some could argue, however, that both of the removed positions are rendered redundant by Trump's other administration picks. By selecting former DIA director Mike Flynn as his National Security Advisor, intelligence officials are represented. And, via Flynn and other former generals like Secretary Mattis and Secretary Kelly, some could even argue that the military realm is almost over-represented.


What do you think of the NSC changes? Tell us your thoughts in the comment section below.

Friday, January 20, 2017

Names to Know: Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, David Friedman, and K.T. McFarland

Names to Know: Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, David Friedman, and K.T. McFarland

by Whitney Ahn

These are shorter pieces of our Names to Know series, for officials either less prominent or for whom there is less information about.

Mike Flynn
        Former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn grew up in a blue-collar family of Democrats, and grew up to be every Democrat's worst nightmare. Donald Trump selected him to be his National Security Advisor, the highest-ranking security official in America that doesn't have to be confirmed by the Senate. He co-wrote (though some say his role in authoring it was limited) an interesting and extremely well-publicized paper about American intelligence agencies, saying that they fail to think about cultural context and the lot as much as they should. This paper, and its publicity, lead to his appointment as the director of the DIA, the military equivalent of the better-know civilian agency, the CIA. In 2014, Director Flynn said that the United States is at a greater risk of terrorism than it was before 9/11. Shortly after, mostly in part due to his incredibly troubled reign at the DIA, he was forced to resign. He was essentially laughed out of Washington, and no one ever expected to hear from him again. But becoming one of the few Republican figures willing to work with Trump early on, Flynn gained the now-President's ear and trust, and is now back in D.C. His support for Trump was so fiery that he became a demouge-like figure to the left after his speech at the Republican National Convention, where he shouted that Hillary Clinton should be locked up. After all, he had no positive reputation in Washington to lose, and the power of this endorsement could not be nearly as effective if it were for any other candidate.

Jared Kushner
        Being named as a high-ranking advisor to Donald Trump caused Kushner, his son-in-law, to be the target of a number of questions regarding its legality in relation to nepotism laws. Kushner is best known as a real estate investor and husband of the much more prominent and widely beloved Ivanka Trump. For some reason, possibly because he is Jewish and Mr. Trump has a history of appointing people to jobs they are inexperienced for because their race or religion is perceived as being relevent to issues the job surrounds (see neurosurgeon Ben Carson as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development), Kushner is expected to be working on brokering peace between Israel and Palestine, as opposed to his Secretary of State pick, oil tycoon Rex Tillerson, or Ambassador to Israel, bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman, whose jobs now place this issue directly into their responsibilities. Speaking of...

David Friedman
        David Friedman handled Donald Trump's abnormally large number of bankruptcies and in return, he has been nominated to be the American Ambassador to Israel. Friedman is yet another controversial pick, due to comments he made that compared any Jewish person who is not a conservative to Jews who helped the Nazis in the Holocaust. This obviously angered the more left-leaning, as well as moderate, members of the government. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is widely known as one of the most right-wing heads of state in the world, publicly expressed support for the nominee for the ambassadorship.

K.T. McFarland
        K.T. McFarland is Donald Trump's Deputy National Security Advisor, which is not a Senate-confirmed position, and is notable for being one the few administration officials who undebatably have qualifications that are specific to her job. She received the highest civilian honor possible from the Department of Defense, the Distinguished Civilian Award. She has served in the Kissinger and Reagan administrations, and has commentated on Fox News. She's not considered by some major foreign policy figures such as Kori Schake (a Republican, and former advisor to John McCain), but all the same, she has more experience than the typical Trump nominee.

Names to Know: Rex Tillerson

Names to Know: Rex Tillerson

by Whitney Ahn

We're back! And just in time for the inauguration of Donald Trump. Regardless of your opinion on him, he still gets to choose who will fill the key roles across government. Because we have a whole new administration of people to look at and analyze, our Names to Know series gives profiles of various major figures in foreign policy and national security, starting with the Trump cabinet and major advisors. Editor-in-Chief Whitney Ahn has begun our Names to Know series with Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson.

        Rex Tillerson is the CEO of ExxonMobil, and Donald Trump's nominee for Secretary of State. Donald Trump's press releases suggest the primary reason for selecting Mr. Tillerson for this key diplomatic role, despite his utter lack of policy-making experience, is his extensive role in making foreign deals, in places such as Iran, Syria, and Russia, all of which the United States clearly has interests in (with regards to nuclear weapons, ISIS, and Ukraine).
       These deals also have lead to relationships with foreign nations that some describe as troubling, especially Russia. In 2013, Vladimir Putin awarded Tillerson the Order of Friendship, the highest civilian honor Russia gives. Tillerson also has a personal friendship with Igor Sechin, the man who makes the Kremlin's military policy and the second-most powerful man in Russia. His third tie to the former Soviet nation is his ownership of $15,000 worth of stock in the Russian technology company Yandex, which he would likely have to sell upon or prior to confirmation.
       Tillerson also has relationships with Africa and the Middle East. ExxonMobil's subsidiary, Infimum, made 53.2 million dollars in Iran, 1.1 million dollars in Syria, and .6 million dollars in Sudan, from 2003-2005. In 2011, in direct violation of Iraqi law (at this point Iraq was not yet a failed state), Tillerson signed a deal with Iraqi Kurdistan. America has a strong relationship with the Kurds, but a key ally in the region, Turkey, does not. In fact, some have argued (myself included) that Turkey is more focused on defeating the Kurdish rebel groups in Iraq and Syria than ISIS. Strong relationships with the Kurds would likely upset the Turkish government, without a delicate touch and strong negotiation skills.
       Tillerson and Trump have serious policy differences on a number of issues. For example, he said in a confirmation hearing on January 11th that the United States should take strong actions to deter Russia from further expansion in Ukraine, and that Barack Obama did not go far enough in his initial reactions. He also said that is a "fair assumption" that Putin was aware of Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 American presidential election. Both of these are sharp breaks from Donald Trump's policy of a cozier relationship with both Russia and Vladimir Putin specifically. However, Tillerson would not say whether or not he believes Vladimir Putin is a war criminal when pressed by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). Unlike Donald Trump, Tillerson does not believe climate change is hoax, but also thinks that scientific ability to predict its effects are highly limited. Again breaking from Trump's general patterns, given that Trump has made a series of comments many in Mexico's government have found offensive, Tillerson praised Mexico, calling the nation "a long-standing... friend of" the United States. Prior to the Senate committee hearing, Tillerson publicly expressed support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, whereas Donald Trump built his campaign around vitriol against trade agreements like the TPP.
       Despite the many concerns about Tillerson, he has received endorsements from an impressive number of major American foreign policy officials, such as former Secretary of State James Baker, who said he had the "management and negotiation skills, and... the international experience" necessary for the job. Former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley called it a "strong choice", and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called it an "excellent choice". Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he has "vast knowledge" and experience dealing with "governments and leaders in every corner of the world," and he also received endorsements from former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Assistant Secretary of State Robert Charles, Suzanne Maloney (of the notoriously liberal-leaning Brookings Institute), and Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint.
       Trump's nominee faces an unusually steep pathway to confirmation, more than likely will be the next American Secretary of State. The policies he will implement are largely mysteries. No one really knows how the policies he advocated for, to benefit ExxonMobil, will impact the policies he will advocate for, to benefit America. One thing is clear: If he can separate himself fully from the interests of Exxon and only focus on the interest of America, we will have a powerful advocate. If not, except America's global standing to fall. Now, it's Congress' turn to decide if the great risk is worth the great reward.

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

What this Election means for U.S.-Cuba Relations

What this Election means for U.S.-Cuba Relations

by Daniela Gomez

             Since November 2014, Obama has made it a mission to bring the US and Cuba closer together. The steps he has taken to get closer to the small island country have been exalted and criticized in equal measure, but the tentative relationship the US has with Cuba now may be in danger as soon as President-elect Trump takes office. Through his preferred method of social media communication, Trump tweeted that he would halt relations with Cuba if he didn’t get a “better deal”.

If Cuba is unwilling to make a better deal for the Cuban people, the Cuban/American people and the U.S. as a whole, I will terminate deal.

             Of course, it’s hard to know Trump’s position on anything, he flip-flops too much, but it is possible that he does nothing in the near future to try to change Cuban-American relations. His tweet shows if anything a lack of understanding about how these diplomatic moves are made. The relationship both countries have right now is an accumulation of different strategic moves and deals, not just one treaty or deal that can be rewritten. Not to mention Trump has been supportive of normalizing US-Cuba relations in the past, only saying that he would have made a “stronger deal” as president instead of the steps taken by President Obama. This lack of understanding or position could force him to simply keep relations where they are right now, if not continue to open up to the island nation. Unfortunately, Cuba may sense that the American president knows little to nothing about international diplomacy and try to take advantage of that.Not to mention, Trump has been supportive of normalizing US-Cuba relations, in the past, saying only that he would've made a "stronger deal" as President, as opposed to the steps taken by President Obama. This lack of understanding or position may force him to keep relations where they are now or continue upon the path set by Obama before him. Unfortunately, Cuba may sense how little the President-elect knows about international diplomacy and try to take advantage of that.
             What most likely will happen is that President Trump will leave dealing with Cuban relations to Congress, which holds a Republican majority and will probably push toward a tougher stance on the nation and try to re-add it to the list of States that Sponsor Terrorism. Interestingly enough, House Speaker Paul Ryan was at one point in favor of lifting the embargo against Cuba, saying it was a failure, so he may be more open-minded as to maintaining and working to continue open relations with the country. The best that can be expected is that nothing much happens in the next two years (until midterm elections in which the Democrats have a chance to retake at least the Senate).
            Trump’s election has thrown a lot of questions in the air, especially about foreign policy. Trump’s inexperience and immature appearance to the rest of the world is much to our disadvantage. Though Trump said he would be America’s strongman, he gives off quite the opposite effect to other countries, who sense weakness in a president who has no government experience and who sees no problem in tweeting retaliatory and insulting comments at 3 AM in the morning. This appearance might be the most damaging for American foreign relations, especially with Cuba, with whom it is important to appear open but firm and strong. Trump so far has mastered neither, and it seems unlikely he will do so in the coming years. However it is important to look at how much the House and Senate are involved in fostering these good relations, especially when the president may not be able to do much good about them. Hopefully, Congress will serve as a check to Trump’s blatant lack of experience or governmental knowledge, and therefore preserve some of the progress that has been made in the last eight years, especially relating to Cuba, but that remains to be seen. Hopefully in these next four years, they will counteract the racist and anti-foreign policy image that Trump espouses. So, hopefully, the Washington insiders that Trump so despises will play a significant role in keeping him from ruining American foreign policy in the indefinite future.