[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] A [/yt_dropcap]part from the major issues that have been discussed by the Presidential candidates, there are a few foreign policy issues which have not been discussed. At least they were not discussed with the intensity with which they should have been done.
In one of the debates, Donald Trump argued that the Iran nuclear deal (announced on 14 July, 2015) was the worst ever deal and should never have happened. Hillary Clinton did not counter that effectively at all. It was after all a major achievement by Obama. The White House has said that the deal will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. In July 2015, Iran had almost 20,000 centrifuges. After the deal, they can only install a maximum number of 5,060 centrifuges. One other condition is that these centrifuges are least efficient. Iran’s uranium stockpile should also be reduced by 98 per cent to 300 kg for 15 years. It must also keep its enrichment at only 3.67 per cent. By January 2016, Iran had drastically reduced the number of centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordo, which are Iran’s key nuclear sites. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will continuously monitor the nuclear facilities in Iran.
Hillary Clinton could have well argued that the Iran nuclear deal is a success and is not the failure as was portrayed by Donald Trump. Probably she did not do this because of an eye for the votes of the Jewish community in America. Israel is totally against the nuclear deal. It is important that America continues to back Israel. One does not want Israel to be isolated. But at the same time, America does not have to support Israel blindly either.
The Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is seen as a moderate abroad. With the next elections in June 2017, the deal might help him get re-elected because he is seen to be having the support of the majority of the people. Any country should be allowed to transition and develop peacefully. Hence why should Iran not be given an opportunity to evolve peacefully? Unfortunately, this argument was not addressed at all by Hillary. She committed a mistake by not taking on Donald here. People would have appreciated if Hillary had aired her views on this issue frankly.
The Cuba-U.S. deal which led to restoration of diplomatic ties between them was also seen as a significant achievement by Americans in large and by the international community. Obama reversed the U.S.’s 50 year isolationist policy towards Cuba after he became the first president since Calvin Coolidge to visit the country. The two countries severed their ties in 1961. In December 2014, both the Cuban and the American heads announced that diplomatic ties would be restored. The agreement came following eighteen months of secret talks between the U.S. and the Cuban officials brokered and encouraged by Pope Francis. But the U.S. trade embargo, which requires congressional approval, still stays and is unlikely to be lifted in the near future.
A Pew research poll showed that a majority of Americans favoured supported resuming the diplomatic ties and also were for removing the trade embargo. What would the U.S. gain from it? As Carla Robbins from the Council on Foreign Relations puts it rightly, “We’re taking away an excuse – the ability to blame the United States for all of their failings”. Again, this was totally ignored by both the candidates. One can understand Trump ignoring it. But Hillary ignoring it was puzzling to say the least.
Trump referred to the Syrian conflict. But he could have emphasised on that a lot more than what he did. This is a conflict which Russia clearly is getting it right. The U.S. and the western powers along with Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey by insisting that there can be no resolution to the conflict until Assad steps down, exacerbated a conflict that could have been resolved at least a few years back. There was a proposal by Russia in 2012 (reported by ‘The Guardian’ on September 15 2015) saying that Assad will step down at some point once the talks begin between the opposition and the government. The Russians also proposed that the west should not arm the rebel groups. But the western powers rejected this because they were so confident that Assad would fall down quickly. The U.S. and Europe continued to arm the opposition groups.
All the people who were very confident that ‘Assad would go’ have / will quit power. David Cameroon has quit. Barack Obama will be leaving in January of 2017. Francois Hollande, in all probability, will lose power in the next elections in April/May of 2017. But Assad is still hanging on and there are no indications that he is leaving anytime soon. Assad has committed war crimes. But the question ‘who after Assad’ has been completely ignored by the west. Syria might become another Libya if Assad falls. At least Libya had a leader in Gaddafi when he was there. Now it is in total chaos thanks to the west.
The Syrian conflict will have to end as soon as possible. The conflict has become a catastrophe of the worst kind. 400,000 people have been killed in the conflict. It is a waste of human lives. Large scale migration into Europe is happening and the conflict is at least partly responsible for this. The conflict cannot be resolved without the cooperation of Russia. Only one of the two candidates seems to be capable of doing that. Donald Trump is absolutely right on this when he says that fighting the ISIS and not Assad would be his top priority. Whether Trump delivers on this, if he becomes President, remains to be seen. But at least he is saying it…..
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article are those of the author
Trump’s legacy hangs over human rights talk at upcoming Biden-Putin Geneva summit
Two days after the NATO Summit in Brussels on Monday, US President Joe Biden will be in Geneva to hold a much anticipated meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two leaders are meeting at the shores of Lake Geneva at a villa in Parc la Grange – a place I know very well and actually called home for a long time. The park itself will be closed to the public for 10 days until Friday.
A big chunk of the lakeside part of the city will be closed off, too. Barb wire and beefed up security measures have already been put in place to secure the historic summit. The otherwise small city will be buzzing with media, delegations and curious onlookers.
I will be there too, keeping the readers of Modern Diplomacy updated with what’s taking place on the ground with photos, videos and regular dispatches from the Biden-Putin meeting.
The two Presidents will first and foremost touch on nuclear security. As an interlude to their meeting, the NATO Summit on Monday will tackle, among other things “Russian aggression”, in the words of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Last week, Stoltenberg said that he “told President Biden that Allies welcome the US decision, together with Russia, to extend the New START Treaty, limiting strategic weapons, and long-range nuclear weapons”. To extend the treaty is an important first step for Stoltenberg. This will be the obvious link between the two summits.
But Biden also has to bring up human rights issues, such as the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny and Putin’s support for the jailing of Belarusian activists by Lukashenko. Human rights have to be high on the agenda at the Geneva Summit. And indeed, Biden has confirmed officially that pressing Putin on human rights will be a priority for the American side.
Biden and Putin are not fans of each other, to say the least. Both have made that clear in unusually tough rhetoric in the past. Over the years, Biden has said on numerous occasions that he has told Putin to his face that he doesn’t “have a soul”. Putin’s retort was that the men “understand each other”.
Right at the beginning of his Presidency, earlier this year, Biden also dropped the bomb calling President Putin a “killer” for ordering the assassination of political opponents. The Russian president responded to the “killer” comment on Russian television by saying that “it takes one to know one”. Putin also wished Biden good health, alluding to the US President’s age and mental condition which becomes a subject of criticism from time to time.
Understandably, Putin and Biden are not expected to hold a joint press conference next week. But we weren’t expecting that, anyways.
For me, this Summit has a special meaning. In the context of repression against political opponents and critical media voices, President Biden needs to demonstrate that the US President and the US government are actually different from Putin – if they are any different from Putin.
This week, we were reminded of Trump’s legacy and the damage he left behind. One of Trump’s lasting imprints was revealed: Trump had the Department of Justice put under surveillance Trump’s political opponents. Among them House Democrats, including Congressman Adam Shiff, who was one of the key figures that led Trump’s first impeachment that showed that Trump exerted pressure on Ukrainian authorities to go after Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.
In the context of Trump’s impact, President Biden needs to show that there has to be zero tolerance towards the cover up by the US government of politically motivated attacks against voices critical of the US government. If President Biden wants to demonstrate that the US government is any different from Putin’s Russia, Secretary of State Blinken and FBI director Chris Wray have to go. Biden has to show that he won’t tolerate the cover up of attacks on political critics and the media, and won’t spare those that stand in the way of criminal justice in such instances.
Biden is stuck in the 2000s when it comes to Eastern Europe, as I argued last week but he needs to wake up. President Biden and the US government still haven’t dealt effectively with Trump’s harmful impact on things that the US really likes to toot its horn about, such as human rights and freedom. Whether the upcoming Geneva Summit will shed light on that remains to be seen.
Will Geneva Be Any Different Than Helsinki?
Any meeting between the leaders of Russia and the U.S. is inevitably an important international event. At some point in history, such summits decided the fate of the entire world, and the world held its collective breath as it followed Kremlin-White House talks on strategic arms or the two sides seeking agreements on urgent regional problems or any political signals coming from the superpower capitals prior to another round of negotiations.
The bipolar era has long been gone, and the Russia-U.S. relations are no longer the principal axis of international politics, although the suspense over bilateral summits remains. As before, the two countries are engaged in “top-down” interaction. Summits give the initial impetus to Moscow and Washington’s cumbersome bureaucratic machines, then diplomats, military personnel and officials start their assiduous work on specific issues, collaboration between the two countries’ private sectors and civil society perks up, the media gradually soften their rhetoric, bilateral projects in culture, education and science are gradually resumed.
Still, there are annoying exceptions to this general rule. In particular, the latest full-fledged Russia–U.S. summit in Helsinki in July 2018 failed to trigger improvements in bilateral relations. On the contrary, Donald Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Putin in Finland’s capital aroused massive resentment among the anti-Russian Washington establishment. Ultimately, on returning home, the U.S. President had to offer awkward apologies to his supporters and opponents alike, and relations between the two countries continued to rapidly deteriorate after the summit.
Surely, nobody is willing to see another Helsinki scenario in June 2021, this time in Geneva. Yet, do we have good reason to hope for a different outcome this time? To answer this question, let us compare Donald Trump and Joseph Biden’s approaches to Russia-U.S. summits and to bilateral relations at large.
First of all, in Helsinki, Trump very much wanted the Russian leader to like him. The Republican President avoided publicly criticizing his Russian counterpart and was quite generous with his compliments to him, which inevitably caused not only annoyance but pure outrage in Washington and in Trump’s own Administration. Joe Biden has known Vladimir Putin for many years; he does not set himself the task of getting the Russian leader to like him. As far as one can tell, the two politicians do not have any special liking for each other, with this more than reserved attitude unlikely to change following their meeting in Geneva.
Additionally, in Helsinki, Trump wanted, as was his wont, to score an impressive foreign policy victory of his own. He believed he was quite capable of doing better than Barack Obama with his “reset” and of somehow “hitting it off” with Putin, thereby transforming Russia if not into a U.S. ally, then at least into its strategic partner. Apparently, Biden has no such plans. The new American President clearly sees that Moscow-Washington relations will remain those of rivalry in the near future and will involve direct confrontation in some instances. The Kremlin and the White House have widely diverging ideas about today’s world: about what is legitimate and what is illegitimate, what is fair and what is unfair, where the world is heading and what the impending world order should be like. So, we are not talking about a transition from strategic confrontation to strategic partnership, we are talking about a possible reduction in the risks and costs of this necessarily costly and lengthy confrontation.
Finally, Trump simply had much more time to prepare for the Helsinki summit than Biden has had to prepare for Geneva. Trump travelled to Finland eighteen months after coming to power. Biden is planning to meet with Putin in less than five months since his inauguration. Preparations for the Geneva summit have to be made in haste, so the expectations concerning the impending summit’s outcome are less.
These differences between Biden and Trump suggest that there is no reason to expect a particularly successful summit. Even so, we should not forget the entire spectrum of other special features of the Biden Administration’s current style of foreign policy. They allow us to be cautiously optimistic about the June summit.
First, Donald Trump never put too much store by arms control, since he arrogantly believed the U.S. capable of winning any race with either Moscow or Beijing. So, his presidential tenure saw nearly total destruction of this crucial dimension of the bilateral relations, with all its attendant negative consequences for other aspects of Russia-U.S. interaction and for global strategic stability.
In contrast, Biden remains a staunch supporter of arms control, as he has already confirmed by his decision to prolong the bilateral New START. There are grounds for hoping that Geneva will see the two leaders to at least start discussing a new agenda in this area, including militarization of outer space, cyberspace, hypersonic weapons, prompt global strike potential, lethal autonomous weapons etc. The dialogue on arms control beyond the New START does not promise any quick solutions, as it will be difficult for both parties. Yet, the sooner it starts, the better it is going to be for both countries and for the international community as a whole.
Second, Trump never liked multilateral formats, believing them to be unproductive. Apparently, he sincerely believed that he could single-handedly resolve any burning international problems, from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to North Korea’s nuclear missile programme.
Biden does not seem to harbor such illusions. He has repeatedly emphasized the importance of multilateralism, and he clearly understands that collaboration with Russia is necessary on many regional conflicts and crises. Consequently, Geneva talks may see the two leaders engage in a dialogue on Afghanistan, on the Iranian nuclear deal, on North Korea, or even on Syria. It is not at all obvious that Biden will succeed in reaching agreement with Putin immediately on all or any of these issues, but the very possibility of them discussed at the summit should be welcomed.
Third, Trump was not particularly fond of career diplomats and, apparently, attached little value to the diplomatic dimension of foreign policy. The Russia-U.S. “embassy war” had started before Trump—but not only did Trump fail to stop it, he boosted it to an unprecedented scale and urgency.
Sadly, the “embassy war” continues after Trump, too. Yet President Biden, with his tremendous foreign policy experience, understands diplomatic work better and appreciates it. Practical results of the Geneva summit could include a restoration of the diplomatic missions in Washington and Moscow to their full-fledged status and a rebuilding of the networks of consular offices, which have been completely destroyed in recent years. Amid the problems of big politics, consular services may not seem crucial but, for most ordinary Russians and Americans, regaining the opportunity for recourse to rapid and efficient consular services would outweigh many other potential achievements of the Geneva summit.
From our partner RIAC
“Choose sides” is practically a bogus idea for US military partners
“Choosing sides” is practically a non-starter for US military allies such as Japan and South Korea. These nations, first and foremost military allies of the US, are forging cordial and productive ties with other countries based on military alliances with the US. The nature and level of partnerships varies greatly from those of allies, despite the fact that they appear to be quite heated at times.
Military concerns have been less important in the postwar period, but economic concerns have been extremely heated, social and cultural interactions have been close, and the qualitative differences between cooperative relations and allies have gotten confused, or have been covered and neglected.
Some unreasonable expectations and even mistakes were made. In general, in the game between the rising power and the hegemony, it is undesirable for the rising power to take the initiative and urge the hegemony’s supporters to select a side. Doing so will merely reinforce these countries’ preference for hegemony.
Not only that, but a developing country must contend with not only a dominant hegemony, but also a system of allies governed by the hegemony. In the event of a relative reduction in the power of the hegemony, the strength of the entire alliance system may be reinforced by removing restraints on allies, boosting allies’ capabilities, and allowing allies’ passion and initiative to shine.
Similarly, the allies of the hegemonic power are likely to be quite eager to improve their own strength and exert greater strength for the alliance, without necessarily responding to, much alone being pushed by, the leader. The “opening of a new chapter in the Korean-US partnership” was a key component of the joint statement issued by South Korea and the United States following the meeting of Moon Jae-in and Biden. What “new chapter” may a military alliance have in a situation of non-war?
There are at least three features that can be drawn from the series of encounters between South Korea and the United States during Moon Jae-visit in’s to the United States: First, the withdrawal of the “Korea-US Missile Guide” will place military constraints on South Korea’s missile development and serve as a deterrence to surrounding nations. The second point is that, in addition to the Korean Peninsula, military cooperation between the US and South Korea should be expanded to the regional level in order to respond to regional hotspots. The third point is that, in addition to military alliances, certain elements in vaccinations, chips, 5G, and even 6G are required. These types of coalitions will help to enhance economic cooperation.
Despite the fact that Vice President Harris wiped her hands after shaking hands with Moon Jae-in, and Biden called Moon Jae-in “Prime Minister” and other rude behaviors, the so-called “flaws” are not hidden, South Korea still believes that the visit’s results have exceeded expectations, and that Moon Jae-in’s approval rate will rise significantly as a result.
The joint statement issued by South Korea and the United States addresses delicate subjects such as the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. Of course, China expresses its outrage. It is widely assumed that this is a “private cargo” delivered by Biden’s invitation to Moon Jae-in to visit the United States.
Moon Jae-in stated that he was not pressured by Biden. If this is correct, one option is that such specific concerns will not be handled at all at the summit level; second, South Korea is truly worried about the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea concerns and wishes to speak with the US jointly.
South Korea should be cognizant of China’s sensitivity to the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea concerns. When it comes to China-related concerns, the phrasing in the ROK-US joint statement is far more mild than that in the ROK-Japan joint declaration. Nonetheless, the harm done to South Korea-China ties cannot be overlooked.
South Korea highlights the “openness” and “inclusiveness” of the four-party security dialogue system, which allows South Korea to engage to some extent. South Korea will assess the net gain between the “gain” on the US side and the “loss” on the Chinese side. China would strongly protest and fiercely respond to any country’s measures to intervene in China’s domestic affairs and restrict China’s rise.
Cities in Southern Uzbekistan to Improve Urban Infrastructure and Municipal Services
Residents of cities located in two southern regions of Uzbekistan will benefit from improved urban infrastructure and municipal services, thanks...
Global value chains in the aftermath of the pandemic: What role for the G20?
Can embedding inclusive and sustainable transformation at the core of multilateral efforts help ensure that countries benefit from integration in...
World Bank Supports Jordan’s Green, Resilient, and Inclusive Recovery
The World Bank Group’s Board of Executive Directors approved on June 10, 2021 a US$500 million Program to catalyze public...
Morocco and IRENA Partner to Boost Renewables and Green Hydrogen Development
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Environment (MEME) of the Kingdom of Morocco...
EU clears way for the EU Digital COVID Certificate
Today, the Presidents of the three EU institutions, the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission...
Landmark G7 agreement pledges 870 million COVID-19 vaccine doses
A senior UN official welcomed on Sunday, the Group of Seven (G7) leading industrialized nations’ commitment to immediately share at...
Pandemic: A Challenge for the Globalization
The vaccination process across the world is underway, and after almost complete vaccination of the world population, we will see...
Intelligence3 days ago
Incidents of Uranium Theft in India: Depleting Nuclear Safety and International Silence
Economy3 days ago
How has Russia’s economy fared in the pandemic era?
Green Planet2 days ago
The Inevitable Geopolitical Dilemma of Climate Change
Economy3 days ago
Assessing the trends of Globalization in the Covid Era
New Social Compact3 days ago
Educating Women in Pakistan: A Necessity For National Development
Reports3 days ago
Zimbabwe’s Economy is Set for Recovery, but Key Risks Remain
Africa Today2 days ago
Kenya Receives $750 million Boost for COVID-19 Recovery Efforts
Middle East2 days ago
Saudi Arabia steps up effort to replace UAE and Qatar as go-to regional hub