FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

The Global Arms Trade Will Always Overshadow Human Rights

There is a lot of international outrage over the killing by Saudi Arabian agents of the Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. There has also been anger by human rights groups against the Saudis over atrocities committed against the people in Yemen, mainly with the use of Western supplied military equipment, ammunition and bombs.  To no one’s surprise, President Trump was slow to condemn the Saudis in the murder of Khashoggi, especially in light of over $8 billion in weapons purchases from the U.S.  In 2013, concerns had previously been raised about Canada’s decision to sell armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, which reportedly used them to help crack down on protesters in neighbouring Bahrain during the 2011 Arab Spring. Given that the production of the light armoured vehicles comes from a plant in London, Ontario, the Canadian government today continues to supply them to Saudi Arabia on a contract worth between $13 and $15 billion, despite that country’s recent well documented human rights abuses. Unfortunately, the previous Conservative government under Prime Minister Harper used the sale as an initial start to transform Canada into a global arms dealer. Canada began looking to the Middle East and South America for potential contracts as the U.S., Britain and other traditional customers cut defence spending.

The global arms trade represents a multi-billion dollar industry, involving most advanced countries who are particularly interested in selling weapons to developing countries. This especially includes weapons sold from several key countries.  Russia, as a dominant power in the global arms market, saw orders for its weapons totaling over $11 billion in sales in 2015. Latin American nations, in particular Venezuela, had become a focus of marketing for Russian arms.  In the same year, China reached $6 billion in weapons sales, up from its 2014 total of over $3 billion.  Also, among arms manufacturers that are NATO allies, Germany has found success in marketing naval systems to the developing world.  Britain has done the same with warplanes, and France weapons deals increased by well over $9 billion. Other major global arms suppliers are Sweden, Italy, Turkey, and Israel. The U.S. ranked first in global weapons sales in 2015, signing deals for about $40 billion, or half of all agreements in the worldwide arms bazaar.

Canada remains the only member of NATO and the G7 that has not signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which aims to regulate the trade in armaments — from handguns to tanks.  In 2018, Canada’s Federal Government finally introduced proposed legislation to join the ATT. However, Parliamentary opposition argue the bill contains no assurances that the weapons could not then be transferred to countries that abuse human rights, including Saudi Arabia.

President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau are typical of leaders who have no scruples about selling weapons to countries with poor human rights records. Is it enough to say that stopping the flow of arms to Saudi Arabia is not an option, since other countries will simply step in to fill the gap — thereby depriving both countries of manufacturing jobs and billions in contracts? Despite the ATT, this position is why the global arms trade will continue to overshadow human rights.

Leave a comment »

Is Trump Ready To Go To War With Iran and North Korea?

There appears to be a lot of saber-rattling in Washington nowadays! You have Secretary of State Mike Pompeo listing a set of demands aimed at Iran so that it would become everything but a puppet state of the U.S.  One has John Bolton, Trump’s new national security adviser, who is a well known hawk in and around the capital. A lot of the administration’s critics think that these two would rather skip with the diplomatic niceties and skip straight to military action.

Then we have the European allies, China and Russia who all signed on to the Iranian Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the nuclear deal, in 2015. What Pompeo and Trump fail to understand is that the deal was aimed primarily at limiting Iran’s nuclear program by placing restrictions on it and having International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors set up a system that allows the U.N. watchdog to inspect nuclear-related sites in Iran. It was never intended to influence Iran’s general regional policy issues which would have to done through other separate foreign policy initiatives. Of course, Israel never liked the nuclear deal, which did not directly stop Iran from testing or firing ballistic missiles, and persuaded the Trump administration to go it alone. By scrapping the deal, the U.S. will reimpose U.S. sanctions, further hurting the average Iranian. Iran’s government is resolved to resist the American demands, even at the eventual expense of its economy. An anti-American stance can only help the radicals obtain more control of Iran’s politics.

As for North Korea, Kim Jong Un is playing Trump like a fiddle. Anyone who knows anything about his regime, understands that he is not willing to give up his nuclear arsenal.  Signing any peace treaty would require addressing issues regarding the U.S. military’s presence in South Korea, possibly with its transfer of wartime operational control to South Korea and United Nations forces in South Korea. Kim also now sees how the U.S. treated the nuclear deal with Iran and will not trust the Americans with any similar deal for North Korea. Kim is also using the current military exercises by the U.S. and its allies in the region as an excuse to potentially pull out of the planned June meeting with Trump. Trump is now caught in an awkward situation where political promises were made and expectations were raised as to some form of eventual deal in the region.  The ball is now in Kim’s court.

All of this signifies that American foreign policy is in a mess. Other than moving toward military actions, show me a strategy that makes sense.  The complexities of foreign policy development have been left to overly simplistic approaches and negotiating tactics.  Even the influence of the most powerful nation on earth won’t be enough to rescue this situation from the heap of manure on which it’s built.  I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be working in the State Department these days.

Leave a comment »

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 »