Month: October 2020

The United States must build alliances throughout Asia to ensure our stability for the next century. The Country needs to strength their relationships with India, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan and especially South Korea. South Korea is the world’s 12th-largest economic power and one of America’s strongest allies for the last 60 years. Moreover, South Korea has the largest and important West’s global supply chain for technology, transportation and telecommunications, also they have been an essential key of democracy housing of the US military bases in Asia.

Meanwhile political affairs between the US and South Korea gain importance in nowadays, Trump’s government has managed this affair in hard ways in 2019 Trump required  from South Korea to paid $4.7 billion per year to station US military forces in the Korean Peninsula, despite of allies must pay for fair share in defense is unfair to demanded such high rates; it has to be based on rationale and data. If the South Koreans cannot trust on reasonable and predictable US foreign policy maybe they will cut off relationship with Washington and to seek other alliances.

The United States needs to be aware South Korea is an essential partner for dealing with North Korea and China, the US has to keep going with clear and fair foreign policy that  allies can understand and count on, besides, US needs to promote the policies that Democratic and Republican secretaries of state have built over decades.

Sharing this recent Vox interview with Markus Garlauskas who served as national intelligence officer for North Korea on the National Intelligence Council from 2014 to  2020.  Garlauskas discusses the Trump administration’s DPRK policy over the last four years – particularly what he felt was done right and how the next administration should handle Kim Jung Un.

One of Garlauskas’s more unexpected takes was that the threat of war with North Korea in 2017 (amid “fire and fury” threats from the White House) was vastly overstated. He said that the gap between Trump’s rhetoric and reality was significant, and that the U.S. had actually come closer to war in 1994 and in 2015 under the Obama administration. Garlauskas said that Trump’s tough rhetoric reflected his administration’s position that “some degree of  posturing was necessary to show North Korea it was serious, and that they were not going to indefinitely tolerate this level of activity.” He framed Trump’s bellicose messages as conscious and strategic rather than haphazard 3 AM tweets.

Garlauskas also praised Trump for not accepting a bad deal in Hanoi that would commit the U.S. to near full sanctions relief for DPRK. He said that Kim offered too little and asked too much at that summit. Critically, Kim wouldn’t commit to the full denuclearization of DPRK on paper. He said Trump was right to walk away.

Garlauskas says that the next president will have to make DPRK a toppling priority, demand a halt to weapons testing, and can’t be afraid of confrontation: “There has to be a willingness to confront Kim militarily — not to initiate war, not to do a bloody nose strike, but basically to make it clear to him that there are limits to what we will tolerate. And we need to make clear that if he crosses into initiating a war, the outcome will be the end of him and his regime. That’s one of the things President Trump said differently than I would have said it, but it needed to be said, frankly, in 2017.”

An interesting read from a former  advisor who doesn’t come off as a total apologist for the Trump administration but makes the case that it did more right than wrong on DPRK.

Mehran Kamrava argues that Multipolarity on its own is not the source of instability in the Middle East region. This statement could be subject to many different perspectives, indeed instability in the region is stemmed from various reasons including different ideological perspectives, differences in defining power in the region and differences in reshaping power balance in the region, sectarian divergences among Sunni and Shia and the official collapse of Pan-Arabism.

Many could argue that, these reasons are stemmed for centuries and may not be new issues. But post 2011 the region has completely changed, the rise and fall of new hegemons. Turkey’s shift from the EU to being more focused on the Middle East and its “Neo-Ottoman” aspirations.[1]Iran and its ideology of rejecting the west in the region along with potential development nuclear program. Israel and its continuous expansionism policy regardless the acknowledgment of Palestinian in the region and with little concern to resolve the ongoing conflict. Saudi Arabia and its hostilities with Iran, and its embracement of Pan-Islamism that overcame the idea of Pan Arabism, along with is funding of radicalized Salafi constituency[2].

Since 2011 and the decline of many states such as Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. There have been new rising aspirations for the neighboring countries to challenge the regional hegemony and reorder balance of power. Resulting in foreseeable new threats to arise, new challenges in the region with the development of technology and AI. Only exacerbating the relations among states in the region and creating more tensions that will only lead to increasing mistrust and continuous hostilities in the region.

Israel’s new normalizing relations or peace agreement with countries of UAE, Bahrain and Sudan is not a step towards peace it is a temporary path to economic and mutual interests that may lead to higher tensions than before exacerbating the situation more in the future if disagreements occur. The real path to normalizing relations starts with normalization within the same country, starts with diplomacy and re-establishing peace negotiations with Palestine to settle the most ongoing prolong conflict till this very day. This is the way to reduce tensions, terrorism attacks and sustain peace.

[1]Mehran Karava, “Multipolarity and instability in the Middle East”, 2018

[2]  Trevor Stanley, “Understanding the Origins of Wahabism and Salafism, 2005

This story was not of course popular as the historic peace deal between the UAE and Israel, but after this deal, Israel has asked the United States to remove obstacles in order to secure the F.22 Fighter Jets to the Isreali Air Force.  This request is following the agreement between the US and UAE for selling F-35s to UAE, a less advanced fighter jet than the F22 that Israel has been eying for sometime.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the PM  said that this was not apart of the peace deal signed last month in Washington. It is said that the F22 is the most advanced fighter jet in the world with its maneuverability, armament and range. The defense officials say that securing this aircraft would give Israal the advantage in the Middle East as they point out that the the evolution of the Middle East militarily requires them to keep up to date as other nations are ” investing huge sums to build some of the most advanced air forces and air defense systems in the world.”

This indicates clearly that despite the peace agreements we have been seeing regarding Israel and Arab countries, Isreal is not letting down at all in terms of defense and security and its determined to be on top militarily in the Middle East. You really cannot blame them as they are still seen as a illegitimate nation to some Arab nations and some even wishing for their demise, leaving them no choice to preserve their stake in the Middle East as they beef up their influence in the region as well as globally, and with President Trump backing Israel, I can see this move happening, especially if he gets reelected.

Just a quick one this week. I found this short Washington Post piece to be interesting as we consider Israel’s recent peace deals with Bahrain and UAE and other deals looming on the horizon (e.g. Sudan and Saudi Arabia, likely after U.S. elections). The piece looks at Arab public opinion of  normalizing relations with Israel and concludes, somewhat predictably, that even though the deals are historic steps, they do not enjoy widespread public support in the Arab states. Lack of public buy-in could be a serious obstacle to peace in the long term.

The article explains that based on survey data, much of the Arab Street feels the move is “aimed at pressuring Palestinians to accept a state without sovereignty, while granting authoritarian Arab Persian Gulf nations international legitimacy and greater access to new technologies for repression.” It also describes how UAE and Bahrain rolled out their new Israel policies alongside reminders that it is illegal to publicly disagree with policies of the ruling families there.

While I believe that normalization of relations between Israel and its neighbors is deeply important, it has to go much further than trade, technology, and military cooperation. There has to be a parallel effort to strengthen people-to-people ties or these peace deals may just be pieces of paper that do not result in a warmer feeling between Arabs and Israelis on the ground – especially if Israeli technology is used to further target dissidents and curb free speech in the Gulf states.

October 23rd is a very serious day in history, at least if you were born Hungarian: the day in 1956 when Hungarians rose against the Soviet yoke. The uprising was brutally suppressed and the show at the international level was initially “stolen” as the Israeli Army marched into Egypt on its way to the Suez Canal on October 29, 1956. On the same day, 64 years later, Israel once again filled the press with the signing of the peace agreement with Sudan. According to the BBC

The Sudan deal comes weeks after similar moves by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain. The two Gulf states became the first in the Middle East to recognize Israel in 26 years.

So, this is great news. And again, I was reminded of the words of the German-American Philosopher Hannah Arendt[2] “Violence begins where speech ends”. The same words circled in my head while ducking with about 15 others in the air-raid cellar of our house in Tel Aviv in July 2014, waiting for the all-clear signal from a rocket Red Alert. I was a diplomat then and it was the beginning of Operation Protective Edge (Tzuk-Eitan), the 50-day war in the Israel-Gaza conflict.[3]  It was on that very evening in Tel Aviv that I understood the real meaning of Arendt´s words and how strongly all this is intertwined with communication or the lack of it.

So, violence ends where speech begins? Or is this “sudden love” rather motivated by fear in the form of Turkey? As we see, in addition to dreaded Iran, there is another major threat on the horizon. With Ankara’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, and poking Saudi Arabia since 2016 with its military engagement in Qatar and Kuwait, Ankara entered a field that gathered seemingly impossible partners under one hat. Let us hope that this “love” will not be just a “love affair”

According to the Sanskrit proverb

the enemy of my enemy is my friend,

it seems logical that Israel and the Gulf States unite against Iran which supports Hezbollah and Turkey which supports Hamas.  Additionally, more and more Arabic countries believe less and less in the chaotic Palestinian Authority and in an independent Palestinian state.

By the way, something similar happened when the United States joined forces with Saddam Hussein against Iran in 1979… Of course, we could think about the words of another one who told[4]:

Whoever is not against us, is for us.

And this is the problem in my eyes in the long run. All these states were against Israel and joining now forces. Remember Iraq. As much I wish the peace in the Middle East, I am not a believer in reaching it very soon. The reason is not that I would not grant Mr. Trump his Nobel Peace Prize, or that I take my Israeli friends far too seriously who say that if there is not a war every two years then something is wrong in the Middle East. Rather, I believe Mara Karlin [5], who put it two years ago as follows:

The next conflict will also probably be fought within Lebanon, although it will likely go beyond southern Lebanon into Beirut. It will also, given the Dahiya Doctrine, involve the destruction of much more than just alleged Hezbollah military targets-the IDF could easily destroy Lebanese state infrastructure and military sites as well… When it does happen, it will be ugly and will almost surely drag in external actors, willingly or not.

[1] Lennon, John, and Paul McCartney. 1967. Love Is All You Need. Video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7xMfIp-irg&ab_channel=TheBeatles-Topic.

[2] Hannah Arendt: “Understanding and Politics”, Partisan Review, XX/4, 1954

[3] Márki, Gábor. 2018. “Essay”, Baruch College, CUNY, 2018.

[4] Luke 9:50; Mark 9:40

[5] Karlin, Mara. “Israel’s Coming War with Hezbollah: A New Conflict May Be Inevitable.” Foreign Affairs online, 21 Feb. 2018. www.foreignaffairs.com.

In his article “Israel and the Arab World- Renewal of the Alliance of the Periphery”, Eyal Zisser describes the unlikely pseudo-alliance that has arisen between Israel and several Arab states as a result of the political upheaval of the Arab Spring and the rising threat of Iran. I do not believe however that this new cooperation between Israel and the Arab states is long for this world. I believe that the situation that the 2 camps find themselves in is similar to what the situation the Western Allies and the Soviet Union found themselves in during World War II, a reluctant alliance against an enemy that threatened to destroy both. Once this threat was extinguished, a fierce rivalry that almost lead to all-out war on several occasions ensued. I believe that something similar would occur between Israel and the Arab States if the threat posed by Iran were to diminish. I also believe the alliance would collapse if the United States continues its current trend of withdrawing from the Middle East.

Sudan has become the 3rd country in the Arab world to normalize relations with Israel in the past couple months, following behind the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. This was part of a U.S.-brokered accord, and the current Sudanese administration and Israel has been discussing ways to move forward, as well as what comes next from this process.

However, there are some political factions within Sudan that have rejected the accord. As Sudan transitions towards free elections, there still remains steps that are yet to proceed. There has been discussions about the potential discussions on trade related to agriculture and other products, as well as potential migration deals that may be on the table.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sudan-israel/sudan-says-it-will-discuss-trade-migration-deals-with-israel-idUSKBN27A0LB

Most military experts agree that the result of the Syrian Civil War is a foregone conclusion; the Assad Regime will remain in power. Nonetheless, Syria fits the definition of a Failed State. Foreign actors are likely to be able to operate in Syrian territory with impunity for the foreseeable future. One such actor is Hezbollah. The Lebanese Shiite, Iranian-backed paramilitary organization played a crucial role in propping up the Assad government just as it seemed to be in its death-rows in 2012 and has gained significant fighting experience in its military involvement.

Hezbollah is one of Israel’s most formidable and immediate military foes. Many analysts, including Foreign Affairs’ Mara Karlin, believe that a significant clash between Israel in Hezbollah is inevitable and on the immediate horizon. The fallout from the Syrian Civil War may dictate what this future conflict might look like. In addition to gaining battle experience, Hezbollah is more heavily armed than the last time they came to blows with the IDF in 2006. Specifically, their rocket arsenal has been augmented through their military operations in Syria. Hezbollah’s presence in Syria also presents the scenario in which the Israelis have to fight Hezbollah not only in Southern Lebanon but also in the Golan Heights region.

A scenario in which a foe gains a foothold in a neighboring country destabilized by civil war is not new to the IDF. Following their ejection from Jordan in 1970,  the Palestine Liberation Organization relocated to Lebanon and used Southern Lebanon as a base to attack Israeli targets. The IDF invaded Southern Lebanon in 1978 to push the PLO out of range. Cross-border incidents and terrorist attacks continued and a full-scale invasion of Lebanon began in June 1982. This was larger than the 1978 operation with IDF forces laying siege to Beirut itself.

The argument can be made that Hezbollah has proven to be a more formidable enemy than the PLO. For starters, they are a single paramilitary organization as opposed to a confederation of political factions. They are better armed and backed by a more powerful benefactor: Iran. Hezbollah is also heavily entrenched in the local population of Southern Lebanon and has been cultivating its “human shield” approach since their last conflict with Israel. The confluence of these issues and circumstances have the propensity to precipitate a conflict even more dealy than the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel. 

The U.S and India grow closer together as they are planning to sign off on a military agreement this week. The agreement would fortify cooperation in the Pacific and Indian oceans in an attempt to collaborate and work against China.

The agreement known as the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement, or BECA, would provide India with access to advanced American maps and satellite images. These advanced images would improve the accuracy of India’s automated weapons, drones, and missiles.

In times of heightened tension between the U.S. and China, the U.S. is all too happy to aid India who is also whose hostility with China is quickly rising. India-U.S relations have been steadily improving over the past few years, particularly in regards to nuclear and defense trade. Now, it seems, the U.S is largely focused on improving maritime cooperation with island countries in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Trump’s administration is working quickly to further relations with India ahead of the election as hostility with China steadily increases. As Harsh V. Pant, head of strategic affairs at Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation, noted: “The fact that the U.S. is spending so much diplomatic capital on enhancing ties with India when an election is a week away underscores the growing maturity of Indo-U.S. engagement and the fact that China’s rise is a challenge that cannot wait for the electoral cycle to get over.” Though this administration may be especially harsh with China, I wonder how relations with both India and China will shift should Trump lose.

Roy, Rajesh, and William Mauldin. “U.S., India Expected to Sign Military Pact as China Prompts Closer Ties.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 25 Oct. 2020, www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-india-expected-to-sign-military-pact-as-china-prompts-closer-ties-11603623601.