FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

American Foreign Policy Led to a No-Win Outcome in the Middle East

When in college in the early seventies, I did a paper on the role of the Arab League. Among my findings was the fact that the League’s members could not agree on very much, not even how best to jointly deal with Israel. The Arab countries continued to do more bickering among themselves than working together to mutually resolve regional concerns.  The problem is worst even today.  The Middle East shudders from instability that stretches from Syria to Iraq to Yemen, spawning terrorist threats as well as threats to the legacy of American intervention in Iraq and Saudi Arabia’s leadership role in the Arab world. After the so-called Arab spring, a number of regimes from Libya to Egypt are less stable than before the movement.

As for the U.S., the Iraq occupation and subsequent attempt at democracy have proven to be a costly failure.  President Obama’s failure to topple Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, his inability to apply pressure for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, and the disappointing result of U.S.-led nuclear talks with Iran not leading to a rapprochement between the United States and Saudi Arabia’s main rival Iran, all continue to undermine the U.S. position in the Middle East.  Now, one has President Trump’s withdrawal from the multi-state nuclear agreement with Iran and the possible further destabilization of the region, and more potential Israel-Iran confrontations. Sure, it appears that the extremist Islamic State (ISIS) has been defeated in Iraq and Syria, but opposing radical Sunni and Shia forces continue to operate throughout the region.

Through all of this turmoil, except for Israel, no one is happy with American Middle Eastern policies. The Arab discontent has opened the door to increased Russian presence in the region and Turkey is unhappy with American military support to the Kurdish forces in northern Iraq. Moving the American embassy to Jerusalem didn’t help matters, as it again raised Israeli-Palestinian tensions. Worst, Lebanon is now facing greater influence by Iranian-backed Hezbollah. The strong showing by Hezbollah and its allies in recent Lebanese elections could jeopardize the country’s regional and international standing at a time when its leaders are counting on international support to prop up the economy, support the military and deal with the burden of nearly 1 million refugees from neighboring Syria.

Let’s face it, no one really believes that President Trump has a true understanding of Middle Eastern complexities. Instead, he will blindly follow Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s lead on military and foreign policy matters. Unfortunately, the current mess will only get worst.  Starting with former President Obama, everyone agrees that the U.S. can’t unilaterally fix the Middle East. They’re going to need a lot of help from European and what few allies they have in the region.  We may be looking at a no-win outcome for some time to come.

Leave a comment »

Where Is Trump Going With His Foreign Policy — Especially When It Comes To North Korea?

Just learned from a release by the Associated Press that President Trump has dumped Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Wow!  It’s getting hard to know who is in his Cabinet without a numbered sweater.  What’s even more interesting is that Tillerson’s dismissal comes following Trump’s announcement that he plans to meet with the “little rocket man” — Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s Dictator. Just by sitting down with the President, Kim Jong Un will get what he craves the most: legitimacy.  Of course, this sudden move on the part of Trump most likely caught the former Secretary of State off guard.  Indeed, the entire State Department and foreign service were probably excluded from the decision-making process.  Instead, it appears that the South Korean administration is driving the agenda.  That leaves the Trump administration with few people with experience in dealing with North Korea, while those in the North Korean Foreign Ministry have been working on little else.

No one really knows Kim Jong Un all that while. He certainly has studied Donald Trump.  In the short-run, sanctions relief is definitely one of his goals.  In addition, there is little doubt that the planned May meeting is a ploy on the part of North Korea. Any unlikely peace treaty would require addressing issues regarding the U.S. military’s presence in South Korea and its transfer of wartime operational control to South Korea and United Nations forces in South Korea.

Trump is employing a very high-risk strategy which could backfire spectacularly. Kim Jong Un will never agree to so-called “denuclearization” without major unacceptable concessions by the U.S.  Any concessions will certainly strengthen his regime’s safety externally while ensuring his continuing internal control over the North Korean people.  As one expert on North Korea noted: “Kim wants to portray himself as the bold leader of a normal, peace-loving nuclear power who can meet an American president as equals.” For Kim, the associated propaganda will greatly benefit him on the home front where the current sanctions have had a detrimental impact on the day-to-day lives of North Koreans.  Expect more displays of affection for the regime.

The real danger here is that Trump may be all too willing to concede on a number of important policy matters in order to claim some sort of diplomatic triumph. Donald Trump may perceive himself as a “great negotiator”, but he is no match for the North Koreans.  I suspect that Rex Tillerson recognized this, warned Trump, and subsequently left following his voiced objections.  This is an all too familiar occurrence within Trump’s administration, and can only lead to greater White House problems and internal dissension.

Leave a comment »

Relations Between Canada and U.S. Are at Their Worst in Many Years

Well, there is little doubt that we start off the New Year with relations between our two countries at their worst in many years. Let’s just summarize some of the issues at hand:

  •  With respect to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), President Trump wants to void the agreement in accordance with his America first policies. Canadian, American and Mexican negotiations are not going well and could break down entirely. In addition, increases in S. duties pertaining to Canadian soft wood imports and Canada’s recent complaint on American trade tariffs to the World Trade Organization, have not helped with the NAFTA talks.  Canada was left no choice in the matter.
  • With respect to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), on which Canada sits as a member, the U.S. is pressuring NATO partners to increase their defence spending as a proportion of the Gross Domestic Product. The U.S. is not happy with Canada’s current defence expenditures, despite Canada’s continuing contribution to the European defence scheme and its past military contributions to Desert Storm and to the war in Afghanistan.
  • On immigration, Canada has seen an increase in refugees crossing its borders from the U.S. because of fears that the Trump administration will end temporary programs — now over ten years old — that accommodated thousands of refugees who had fled natural disasters and violence in their countries. The programs’ termination will affect thousands of refugees from Central America and Haiti. For example, in January 2018, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security will decide whether to extend the Temporary Protected Status designation for El Salvador.
  • Trump’s declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and his intention to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is in direct contradiction to Canada’s stance which aligns itself with the United Nation’s position. Canada was forced to abstain from a recent UN vote on the American proposition to recognize the above policy. The Trump administration is also threatening to reduce its financial support for the UN and its activities.
  • The Trump administration’s position on ‘climate change’ is in direct opposition to Canada’s position, which along with the rest of the world supports the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015.

These are just a few of the conflicting positions taken by the Trump administration which cause major concerns for the current Canadian government. Ordinary people on both sides of the border remain friends and benefit extensively from the good political and trade relations that have existed for decades.  Canada fought alongside the U.S. in two World Wars, Korea and Afghanistan. Under the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), you have a U.S. and Canadian bi-national organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning includes the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands. Canada has cooperated with the U.S. in dealing with major cross-border environmental concerns, including mutual actions to clean up pollution in the Great Lakes and the building and maintenance of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

It’s sad that our neighbour’s government appears to no longer trust us! I firmly believe that the average American, like the average Canadian, still wants to strengthen this important relationship.  Until now, there is little doubt that our close relations have benefited both peoples.  Hopefully, Americans will come to see the potential damage to our relations should the Trump administration’s policies continue down its very rocky road.

Leave a comment »

What’s With Trump And The Middle East!

Well, good old wanna-be President Trump announced that the U.S. will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and will eventually move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This is being done without the support of his NATO allies, including Canada and the European Union. In addition, the move would be in contravention of a United Nations’ resolution on the matter.  While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu naturally praised Trump for the announcement, the Arab League and Arab countries including NATO-ally Turkey, condemned the proposed recognition. Violent demonstrations against the American announcement broke out all over the Middle East and even in Canada. So much for America’s neutral honest broker approach to peace talks between Israelis and the Palestinians!

Not only that, the move has benefited Russian President Vladimir Putin who has made in-roads in establishing greater Russian presence in the Middle East. Timing is everything.  As part of a whirlwind Middle Eastern tour, Putin recently visited Syria, Egypt and Turkey. While President Trump sparked outrage across the region, Putin is playing the role of sober and dependable partner, cozying up to major Arab players in the region.  Although Putin can be blamed for supporting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, he has declared victory over the Islamic State and announced an imminent drawdown of Russian forces in Syria.  Russia is now seen as becoming more influential in Middle Eastern affairs than compared to a decade ago.  With Trump’s recent declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, such a move will only accelerate the decline of U.S. influence and put an end to any American involvement in peace talks between Israel and the Arab countries.

Once again, as with Trump’s idiotic stance on free trade and multi-lateral trade agreements, the current administration’s erratic and chaotic foreign policy changes will only hurt the perception of U.S. leadership abroad. The ‘Ugly American’ has indeed returned.  Even the U.S. State Department, which includes the Foreign Service, is in terrible disarray. Many key foreign posts have yet to be filled.  Even positions taken by current Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, have often been contradicted by tweets or statements by President Trump.  What a mess!  All the rest of the world can do is watch and wonder aloud.

Leave a comment »

Trump’s Plan to Decertify the Iran Nuclear Deal Leaves Republicans in the Lurch

President Trump has argued that under the Iran nuclear deal signed in 2015, Iran has not “lived up” to the spirit of the deal. This despite the fact that by all accounts — even that of the U.S. — Iran had lived up to its commitments under the agreement. In addition, European leaders have stated that they were not interested in expanding the scope of its implementation. Other countries that are party to the deal — Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and Iran —argued that the agreement was designed to address issues solely related to Iran’s nuclear program, and not other issues that Trump has raised in the past.

Now, Trump is expected to decertify the deal which would kick the matter over to the Republican controlled Congress, which in turn would then have 60 days to determine how to proceed and whether to re-impose sanctions. The only problem is that the majority of Republicans have little appetite to reopen the 2015 deal, backed by the Democrats in Congress. The Republicans want to avoid a crisis and don’t want to kill the agreement which would leave them with the blame both at home and abroad. Once again, the President and Republicans are at loggerheads, with the party split between the so-called hawks and doves.

The situation with Iran is a lot more different than it was ten years ago. After all, it is in Iraq, where fighting the Islamic State (ISIS) has most conspicuously brought the U.S into a tacit alliance with Iran, that a more hostile relationship between Tehran and Washington could prove most consequential. Iranian-backed militias are deeply embedded in the overall Iraqi effort to wrest back territory from the militants, one that is also being aided by the United States.  Today, Iran commands the loyalties of tens of thousands in allied militias and proxy armies that are fighting on the front lines in Syria, Iraq and Yemen with armored vehicles, tanks and heavy weapons.  Exactly what the Trump administration intends to do about a state of affairs that has already become deeply entrenched is unclear.  So pervasive is Iran’s presence across the region that it is hard to see how any U.S. administration could easily roll it back without destabilizing allies, endangering Americans, undermining the war against the ISIS and upsetting the new regional balance.

The Iran nuclear deal is only one part of the foreign policy equation in the Middle East. To date, the deal has succeeded in stabilizing relations with Iran as it pertains to the nuclear weapons issue. Trump will have to spell out a broader strategy for confronting Iran, including its ballistic missile program and alleged support for terror networks in the Middle East. Decertifying and reopening the deal will not help matters, and may even destabilize relations with Iran who has become a major ally in the fight against ISIS. Without a doubt, the President’s move will present Congress with another hot potato and, once again, undermine America’s credibility to uphold its commitments with its allies and partners.

Leave a comment »

U.S. Has Given Way To China When It Comes To Trade And Foreign Investment

In recent years, China, the second largest economy in the world, has made major strides in trade with other countries and in investment abroad. China’s position in Asia has been strengthened by President Trump’s withdrawal from trade negotiations under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). While the U.S. withdrawal may have slowed the TPP talks, most countries, including Canada and Japan, believe that trade talks will continue, either bilaterally or multilaterally. Australia’s trade minister even went so far as to suggest the remaining 11 countries could ask China to join the deal instead. Moreover, China has offered up its own version of the pact, one that excludes the U.S. and favors China’s more mercantilist approach. Indeed, Canada and China have now agreed to start exploratory trade talks in the fall.

In the Middle East and Africa, China is making major inroads in terms of trade, investment and infrastructure development in several countries. Take the example of Iran where China is currently investing billions in infrastructure improvements such as bridges, rails, ports and energy. As a result of unilateral American sanctions that intimidate global banks, China is the only source of the large amounts of capital that Iran needs to finance critical infrastructure projects. China is also an important market for Iranian oil, even after Western sanctions were lifted in 2016 allowing Iran to again sell oil in European markets. With the completion of rail lines from Urumqi, the capital of China’s western region of Xinjiang, to Tehran, China will have a faster and more direct link to export its goods as far as northern Europe, Poland and Russia — at much less cost than today.

Elsewhere, Chinese President Xi Jinping made a trip through Latin America in November 2016, his third in four years. Bloomberg News reported that he signed more than 40 deals, and committed billions of dollars of investments in that region.  In January 2017, President Xi became the first Chinese president to attend the World Economic Forum at Davos. His aim was no doubt to reinforce the message of Chinese global leadership on free trade.

The TPP was all about the U.S. showing leadership in the Asia region.  In the end, trade experts believe that with U.S. not there, the void has to be filled.  It will be filled by China.  Years ago, I read a book entitled “China Inc.” by Ted C. Fishman*.  Well worth reading, the book highlighted China’s impressive and unprecedented economic gains while becoming a power house.  When it comes to trade and foreign investment, I’m certain that Mr. Fishman would agree today that the Trump administration could be the best thing that’s happened to China in a long time.

* China Inc. (How the Rise of the Next Superpower Challenges America and the World): Ted. C. Fishman (Scribner, New York, N.Y., 2005)

Leave a comment »

President Trump, Cozying Up To ‘Dictators’ Can Be Very Hazardous

In 1938, British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, flew to meet Germany’s Adolf Hitler at his private mountain retreat in Berchtesgaden in an attempt to resolve the Sudetenland crisis in Czechoslovakia. If history has taught us anything, Chamberlain’s appeasement policy made war much more likely because Hitler thought he could get away with anything.  Meetings between legitimate elected leaders and ‘dictators’ are seen as legitimizing ‘dictatorial’ regimes.

Trump’s description of Russia’s Vladimir Putin as a “nice guy” two years after Russia annexed Crimea from the Ukraine baffles one’s mind. The incursion by the Russian military was seen as responsible for the defeat of Ukrainian forces. Many countries, including the U.S. and Canada, implemented economic sanctions against Russia or Russian individuals or companies.  Amnesty International expressed its belief that Russia is fuelling the conflict, noting that there had been an estimated 8000 casualties resulting from the conflict.  The Russian Federation was accused of fuelling the ongoing violence with the presence and continuing influx of foreign fighters and sophisticated weapons and ammunition.  More recently, Putin has aligned himself with Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, who has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. Maybe, not so much a “nice guy” or one to be admired!

Now one sees President Trump continuing to outreach to rogue leaders, even declaring that he would meet North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-un and Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte. Kim’s grandfather Kim Il-sung established a Stalinist state after the Korean War.  Kim has continued to build a huge military arsenal, including a nuclear potential, while human rights are abused and North Koreans are starving from a lack of food.  Of course, we are familiar with Duterte who is accused of supporting thousands of extrajudicial killings of drug suspects in his country.

Having a face-to-face meeting between two or more businessmen is not the same thing as it is in the world of international diplomacy. You are not only the President of the world’s most powerful nation, but you are also a leader among ‘democratically elected’ national leaders.  You have alliances, both military and political, and their policies and positions must be respected.  The international community looks to you for coherent and strategic leadership, not showmanship.  Simply by meeting with the likes of Assad, Duterte and Kim can look like recognition of and support for their regimes, both internally and externally.  For the most part, this is exactly what they relish and seek out.  Such meetings will achieve very little towards resolving the real issues and dictatorial behaviour.  Only comprehensive and aggressive international actions and their economic and political consequences can help to prevent further abuses in these countries and future threats to global peace.  Indeed, beware of the Chamberlain effect!

Leave a comment »

With Trump, ‘Brinksmanship’ Appears to be the Name of the Game

Brinksmanship is defined as the pursuit of a dangerous policy to the limits of safety before stopping. When it comes to Syria, North Korea and Iran, it appears that President Trump is willing to employ this approach to his foreign policy. What is curious, is the fact that during his campaign Donald Trump indicated that he wanted the U.S. to avoid becoming the world’s policeman. Even then, his platform was and continues to be incoherent as evidenced on his changed stance on Russia and NATO. Putin was a good guy, now not so much!  NATO was obsolete, now not so much!  Worry about ISIS, not about Syria’s Assad regime. All that changed with the recent use of chemical weapons by Assad on civilians, including children.

I remember the Cuban blockade of Soviet Union cargo ships which was imposed unilaterally by President Kennedy in response to Soviet missiles being installed in Cuba. Fortunately, this scary example of brinksmanship did not lead to a full-out nuclear war because of delicate behind-the-scenes diplomatic negotiations with Moscow at the time. The U.S. had to agree to withdraw its missiles stationed in Turkey in exchange for the removal of the Soviet missiles from Cuba. Both sides came to their senses, and back room diplomacy saved the day.

The U.S. is today’s only real superpower. With respect to the proportion of its GDP in terms of military spending, it far outspends countries such as China and Russia. However, even though the U.S. currently has enough nuclear weapons to completely destroy any country, President Trump wants to increase its nuclear arsenal. Given such policies, one would think that other countries would see his position as a further threat to their internal and external political and economic objectives.  Whether one agrees or not with American intentions, launching unilateral military strikes against countries or carrying out military exercises off their shores is being interpreted as belligerent actions.  Moreover, saying that foreign regimes “must behave” sends an ‘inciteful’ message.

I would suggest that American behaviour has to also be in accordance with international laws and coherent foreign policy goals. The way to avoid brinksmanship is to keep open the lines of communication through diplomatic channels, including those of one’s allies.  Canada and its other NATO allies cannot afford to sit back, wait and watch as this dangerous drama unfolds on the international stage. It is incumbent upon America’s allies to provide a stabilizing effect when confronted with any form of brinksmanship. As during the Cuban crisis, we may be able to avoid future conventional wars, and even all-out nuclear conflicts.

Leave a comment »

Does Quasi-Isolationism Really Work?

Who is it that once said? “No man is an island unto himself”.  According to Wikpedia, this originally was a famous line from Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, a 1624 prose work by English poet John Donne.  Moreover, the gist of the saying is that human beings do not thrive well when isolated from others.  One has to ask whether the quasi-isolationism adhered to by Trumpism will really work in the era of globalization?

Since the start of the industrialized age, the world has become an increasingly smaller planet. What affects one region of the world can affect most regions.  Technological advances in communication, transportation, cybernetics, medical fields, agriculture, energies, etc., etc. have brought continents together.  As for trade among countries, years ago it was recognized that there are advantages to having freer trade.  Most economists argue that everyone benefits from promoting freer trade because each country produces or provides cheaper goods and services by creating economies of scale and greater efficiencies in output and costs.  Such freer trade promotion is also supported by numerous international oversight forums which emerged post-World War II.

For some time now, we have lived in a world of commerce involving multi-national corporations operating in several regions. Besides providing greater access to investment capital, technical expertise and business savvy, multi-nationals develop local labour markets and service industries.  To be certain, their primary goal is to increase their profits by taking advantage of local markets, natural resources, cheaper labour and government assistance.  Multi-nationals out the U.S. have greatly benefited from access to overseas markets. Recognizing however that there are also regional socio-economic costs involved — be they environmental, political or social.

Who has certainly benefited from increased trade is the American consumer. Next time that you go to a Walmart or Target, think about the variety and quantity of affordable goods available.  “Buy American” is a nice slogan, but would be an expensive one to act upon.  To effectively compete on the international stage, American businesses have to continue to develop knowledge-based products and services and promote greater innovation wherever possible and cost-effective.  Backing ‘quasi-isolationist’ doctrines will not only backfire economically and politically, but will cause the rest of the world to minimize their trade dealings with the U.S.  Countries have formed more-and-more regional trade blocs and will continue to do so, often out of necessity.  After all, no one can afford to become isolated on an island.

Leave a comment »

With Donald Trump, What Can Canadians Expect in the New Year?

Back in July 2015, I blogged that Donald Trump could become the next president of the United States. Well, low and behold for all the reasons that I had alluded to back then, he is now the president-elect to the surprise of many.  Whether you like it or not, Americans will most probably be stuck with Trump and a Republican controlled congress for the next four years.  Indeed, his impact will no doubt be felt in the rest of the world, but in particular in Canada. After all, the U.S. is Canada’s biggest trading partner and political ally. Why is this so important?  Here are a few notable reasons based on past statements by Trump himself:

  • He plans to revisit the current terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico.
  • He intends to increase border security measures, most likely forcing Canada to allocate more resources to the border.
  • He will nullify President Obama’s attempt to have greater relations with Cuba, a country with which Canada has long had economic and diplomatic dealings.
  • He wants Canada to greatly increase its defence spending, especially as it concerns the country’s contribution to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
  • He will most likely support the proposed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline between the Alberta oil sands and the American Gulf Coast, despite continuing environmental fears.
  • He does not believe in ‘climate change’, and intends to pull the S. out of the Paris climate agreement which Canada supports through proposed carbon reduction goals.
  • Etc., etc., etc.

Just remember, when the elephant below Canada’s southern border sneezes, we catch a cold if not pneumonia! Trump’s unpredictability makes it even more difficult to predict what will happen next year.  At no time in U.S.-Canada relations have there ever been such potentially serious tensions and uncertainties.  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will have to adjust quickly to the situation in order to maintain normal positive and reciprocal relations with the U.S. administration. On the other side, Americans, especially those living in the northern states along Canada’s border, must make it abundantly clear to Trump that good relations are extremely important to each country.  After all we are close friends who live, work and play together on a regular basis.  However, like any nation state Canada has every right to defend its interests — be they domestic or international.

Leave a comment »