THE 2016 DEMOCRAT PLATFORM’S FOREIGN AND NATIONAL SECURITY POSITIONS: MIDDLE EAST

In this series, we will be looking at positions taken by the Democratic Party in their 2016 Platform on issues pertaining to national security. Next up is the Middle East. A commentary on the platform issue will be found at its end.

THE PLATFORM:

Syria

The Syrian crisis is heartbreaking and dangerous, and its impact is threatening the region, Europe, and beyond. Donald Trump would inflame the conflict by alienating our allies, inexplicably allowing ISIS to expand in Syria, and potentially starting a wider war. This is a reckless approach. Democrats will instead root out ISIS and other terrorist groups and bring together the moderate Syrian opposition, international community, and our regional allies to reach a negotiated political transition that ends Assad’s rule. Given the immense scale of human suffering in Syria, it is also imperative that we lead the international community in providing greater humanitarian assistance to the civilian victims of war in Syria and Iraq, especially displaced refugees.

Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, we will work with the NATO-led coalition of partners to bolster the democratically-elected government as it assumes a primary role in tackling terrorism, forges a more secure future for the country, and safeguards advances, like securing women’s rights. Democrats will continue to push for an Afghan-led peace process and press both Afghanistan and Pakistan to deny terrorists sanctuary on either side of the border. We support President Obama’s decision to maintain a limited troop presence in Afghanistan into 2017 and ensure that Afghanistan never again serves as a haven for terrorists to plan and launch attacks on our homeland.

Iran

We support the nuclear agreement with Iran because, as it is vigorously enforced and implemented, it verifiably cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb without resorting to war. We reject Donald Trump’s view that we should have walked away from a deal that peacefully dismantles Iran’s nuclear program. We will continue the work of this administration to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon and will not hesitate to take military action if Iran races towards one.

Democrats will also address the detrimental role Iran plays in the region and will robustly enforce and, if necessary, strengthen non-nuclear sanctions. Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. It violates the human rights of its population, denies the Holocaust, vows to eliminate Israel, and has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East. Democrats will push back against Iran’s destabilizing activities including its support for terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, counter Iran’s ballistic missile program, bolster the capabilities of our Gulf partners, and ensure that Israel always has the ability to defend itself. Finally, Democrats recognize that the Iranian people seek a brighter future for their country and greater engagement with the international community. We will embrace opportunities for cultural, academic and other exchanges with the Iranian people.

COMMENTARY:

The Middle East is a region in turmoil with no good or easy answers either for nations in the region or for Western governments. The fundamentals of insecurity remain the Sunni-Shia divide and the rise of ISIS and other terrorist groups that thrive on this divide in the Muslim community. There are a lot of issues that are missing in this section of the Democratic platform. Not least is directly the problems of the Gulf Sates like Saudi Arabia and Yemen, as well as a discussion on Libya.

On Syria, the key statement about the country – that the “crisis is heartbreaking and dangerous, and its impact is threatening the region, Europe, and beyond” – is correct. Yet the landscape is so dark and complex that a clear path forward is not only very difficult, it is near impossible without the cooperation of all the major powers in the region. However, this is not currently forthcoming, as Egypt, Turkey, and other players are in internal disarray. Additionally, the Sunni-Shia conflict still badly needs resolution,  which seems out of reach without long-term work to heal. 

What can and should be done more specifically is deal with the real, major, and dire humanitarian situation. We need now to start to look at a humanitarian space which can at last be effectively enforced by multi-lateral peacekeeping/peace-protecting forces that include Muslim, Western, and other nations, along with needed support with major resources to create a cordon of protection and safety.

Supporting “moderate” forces remains a work in progress that must be reinforced.  Yet all of this must, in the end, lead to Assad’s removal in order to create lasting peace.  Russia must recognize the need to change its strategy and re-assess its interests, and see a crisis that is heartbreaking, dangerous, and one that’s impact is threatening the stability of the entire region. Europe, America, Russia, and beyond need to acquiesce to a real compromise that ends with a broad based multi-group governmental coalition based on ensured security of all ethnic groups.  Not least, what is needed is a major rebuilding of society – which will need a large amount of funding – for a region that has been decimated by hate and a brutal regime. The United Nations and other international organizations need to be involved.

The Afghanistan section essentially is a reiteration of the Obama Administration’s existing strategy, which tries to combine a certain limited US military presence with support for the Afghan government’s efforts to do what is necessary to bring security and a measure, at last, of a responsible government to the nation.

Progress, though slow and with many setbacks, have been made against ISIS and other terrorists groups. There is no mention of addressing the major problem of deep corruption that undermines true security and stability and the building of a measure of democracy. Part of the answer must be to restore some common security and economic improvement in the lives of the common citizen. This means Pakistan must act to stop its actions to destabilize Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

Iraq stands as another battlefield that needs a comprehensive approach – military action alone will not fix the ills we now see in that nation.

Iran remains a work in progress and the Democratic Platform outlines the right path forward because no honest observer can deny that the Iran nuclear agreement is at the heart of ensuring that Iran does not get a nuclear weapons for a very long time. The platform acknowledges that all of the other problems of Iran must be addressed, likely one-by-one, and we need to find some common ground. An aggressive stance is self-defeating for that country, and some are starting to recognize this, but it is a slow process. We need a long-term strategy to nudge Iran towards peace and help it to take a more cooperative stance in the region.

What is clear is that the Democratic platform is by far more realistic, more likely to result in a better outcome, less risk prone, and less likely to make the region even more unstable than much of Donald Trump’s own views and those of the GOP that unthinking hostility towards diplomacy and conciliation, raw hostility, and mindless use of military threats and bluster are.

We welcome your comments!

See our 2016 Campaign coverage

GOP National Security Officials Weigh in on Trump

On Monday, 50 former Republican national security officials, including Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, John Negroponte, Meghan O’Sullivan, and Tom Ridge, released an open letter in which they stated that Donald Trump, if elected, “would be the most reckless President in American history.” Below is the full text of the letter and its signatories.
STATEMENT BY FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS
The undersigned individuals have all served in senior national security and/or foreign policy positions in Republican Administrations, from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. We have worked directly on national security issues with these Republican Presidents and/or their principal advisers during wartime and other periods of crisis, through successes and failures. We know the personal qualities required of a President of the United States.
None of us will vote for Donald Trump.
From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.
Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.
In addition, Mr. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding of America’s vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances, and the democratic values on which U.S. foreign policy must be based. At the same time, he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends. Unlike previous Presidents who had limited experience in foreign affairs, Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself. He continues to display an alarming ignorance of basic facts of contemporary international politics. Despite his lack of knowledge, Mr. Trump claims that he understands foreign affairs and “knows more about ISIS than the generals do.”
Mr. Trump lacks the temperament to be President. In our experience, a President must be willing to listen to his advisers and department heads; must encourage consideration of conflicting views; and must acknowledge errors and learn from them. A President must be disciplined, control emotions, and act only after reflection and careful deliberation. A President must maintain cordial relationships with leaders of countries of different backgrounds and must have their respect and trust.
In our judgment, Mr. Trump has none of these critical qualities. He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
We understand that many Americans are profoundly frustrated with the federal government and its inability to solve pressing domestic and international problems. We also know that many have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us. But Donald Trump is not the answer to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.
Donald B. Ayer
Former Deputy Attorney General John B. Bellinger III Former Legal Adviser to the Department of State; former Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, The White House
Robert Blackwill Former
Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Planning, The White House
Michael Chertoff
Former Secretary of Homeland Security; former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Department of Justice
Eliot A. Cohen
Former Counselor of the Department of State
Eric Edelman
Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; former National Security Advisor to the Vice President, The White House
Gary Edson
Former Deputy National Security Advisor, The White House Richard Falkenrath Former Deputy Homeland Security Advisor, The White House Peter Feaver Former Senior Director for Strategic Planning, National Security Council, The White House
Richard Fontaine
Former Associate Director for Near East Affairs, National Security Council, The White House
Jendayi Frazer
Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs; former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs
Aaron Friedberg
Former Deputy National Security Advisor to the Vice President, The White House
David Gordon
Former Director of Policy Planning, Department of State
Michael Green
Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asia, National Security Council, The White House
Brian Gunderson
Former Chief of Staff, Department of State
Paul Haenle
Former Director for China and Taiwan, National Security Council, The White House
Michael Hayden
Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency; former Director, National Security Agency
Carla A. Hills
Former U.S. Trade Representative John Hillen Former Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs
William Inboden
Former Senior Director for Strategic Planning, National Security Council, The White House
Reuben Jeffery III
Former Under Secretary of State for Economic Energy and Agricultural Affairs; former Special Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs, National Security Council, The White House
James Jeffrey
Former Deputy National Security Advisor, The White House
Ted Kassinger
Former Deputy Secretary of Commerce
David Kramer
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
James Langdon
Former Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, The White House
Peter Lichtenbaum
Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration
Mary Beth Long
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
Clay Lowery
Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs; former Director for International Finance, National Security Council, The White House
Robert McCallum
Former Associate Attorney General; former Ambassador to Australia
Richard Miles
Former Director for North America, National Security Council, The White House
Andrew Natsios
Former Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
John Negroponte
Former Director of National Intelligence; former Deputy Secretary of State; former Deputy National Security Advisor
Meghan O’Sullivan
Former Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan
Dan Price
Former Deputy National Security Advisor
Tom Ridge
Former Secretary of Homeland Security; former Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, The White House; former Governor of Pennsylvania
Nicholas Rostow
Former Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, The White House
Kori Schake
Former Director for Defense Strategy, National Security Council, The White House
Kristen Silverberg
Former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations
Stephen Slick
Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs, National Security Council, The White House
Shirin R. Tahir-Kheli
Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations, National Security Council, The White House; former Ambassador and Senior Advisor for Women’s Empowerment, Department of State
William H. Taft IV
Former Deputy Secretary of Defense; former Ambassador to NATO
Larry D. Thompson
Former Deputy Attorney General William Tobey Former Deputy Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy; former Director for CounterProliferation Strategy, National Security Council, The White House
John Veroneau
Former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative
Kenneth Wainstein
Former Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, The White House; former Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Department of Justice
Matthew Waxman
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; former Director for Contingency Planning and International Justice, National Security Council, The White House
Dov Zakheim
Former Under Secretary of Defense
Roger Zakheim
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
Philip Zelikow
Former Counselor of the Department of State
Robert Zoellick
Former U.S. Trade Representative; former Deputy Secretary of State

THE 2016 DEMOCRAT PLATFORM’S FOREIGN AND NATIONAL SECURITY POSITIONS: NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

In this series, we will be looking at positions taken by the Democratic Party in their 2016 Platform on issues pertaining to national security. Next up is Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Issues. A commentary on the platform issue will be found at its end.

DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM TEXT:

Democrats are committed to preventing the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and to eventually ridding the planet of these catastrophic weapons. We believe America will be safer in a world with fewer weapons of mass destruction. Donald Trump encourages the spread of nuclear weapons across Asia and the Middle East, which would weaken the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and he is unwilling to rule out using a nuclear weapon against ISIS.

Democrats want to reduce the number of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons around the world, as well as their means of delivery, while retaining a strong deterrent as long as others maintain nuclear strike capabilities . We will strengthen the NPT, push for the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and stop the spread of loose nuclear material. Democrats will be informed by a new Nuclear Posture Review in determining continued ways to appropriately shape our nuclear deterrent, with the aim of reducing our reliance on nuclear weapons while meeting our national security obligations. Democrats will also seek new opportunities for further arms control and avoid taking steps that create incentives for the  expansion of existing nuclear weapons programs. To this end, we will work to reduce excessive spending on nuclear weapons-related programs that are projected to cost $1 trillion over the next 30 years.

COMMENTARY:

Nuclear security and preventing nuclear war should be the critical issue of American diplomacy and defense policy. It is taken by the Democrats as the highest priority.  

Nuclear weapons and  nuclear non-proliferation, as well as dealing with the other weapons of mass destruction, are key to American security and not a subject for partisan or mindless un-thoughtful policies. Dealing with these issues require action and responses to real threats in a rational and considered way, not by mindless and unconsidered military attacks when in fact we are not under attack.  As seen in the Democratic Platform, judgement is key and listening to experts is required.

During the Cold War, stability depended on nuclear deterrence and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), based on creating a strategic force that it invulnerable to a first strike from Russia and vice-versa. The problem is that this equation does not provide faultless security from a mad leader, an accident, or a miscalculation from either side.

Thus, decades of arms control and reduction and “confidence building measures” have tried to mitigate against these “unforeseen contingencies.” The platform here is silent on these issues but these approaches have been an integral element in Obama’s strategy and that of almost all past presidents, though it seems to be threatened by an unstable and ignorant Trump.

Perhaps the most specific platform statement of nuclear policy was: “Democrats will also seek new opportunities for further arms control and avoid taking steps that create incentives for the expansion of existing nuclear weapons programs. To this end, we will work to reduce excessive spending on nuclear weapons-related programs that are projected to cost $1 trillion over the next 30 years.”   What is needed as a key element to stabilize and reduce nuclear weapons is not only not create incentives for fewer weapons, but also to undertake urgent efforts to have agreements that aim to reduce instability and mistakes and to create a environment that lessens the chances of mistakes. There is room now to reduce on all sides the “hair triggers” on such weapons and create added confidence building frameworks to reduce the possibility of accidental use. 

The Trump Republicans do not even think about nuclear issues as a national security priority and even threaten to use such weapons under the most irresponsible conditions imaginable – when our key vital interests are not at stake, as a first strike force against forces that do not have such weapons, and even when our nation vital survival is not threatened.

We welcome your comments below!

THE 2016 REPUBLICAN PLATFORM’S FOREIGN AND NATIONAL SECURITY POSITIONS: ISRAEL

In this series, we will be looking at positions taken by the Republican Party in their 2016 Platform on issues pertaining to national security.  Next up is International Institutions. A commentary on the platform issue will be found at its end.

PLATFORM TEXT WITH PASSED AMENDMENTS:

Our Unequivocal Support for Israel Like the United States of America, the modern state of Israel is a country born from the aspiration for freedom and stands out among the nations as a beacon of democracy and humanity. Beyond our mutual strategic interests, Israel is likewise an exceptional country that shares our most essential values. It is the only country in the Middle East where freedom of speech and freedom of religion are found. Therefore, support for Israel is an expression of Americanism, and it is the responsibility of our government to advance policies that reflect Americans’ strong desire for a relationship with no daylight between America and Israel.

We recognize Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state and call for the American embassy to be moved there in fulfillment of U.S. law. We reaffirm America’s commitment to Israel’s security and will ensure that Israel maintains a qualitative military edge over any and all adversaries.

We support Israel’s right and obligation to defend itself against terror attacks upon its people and against alternative forms of warfare being waged upon it legally, economically, culturally, and otherwise.

We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier and specifically recognize that the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS) is anti-Semitic in nature and seeks to destroy Israel. Therefore, we call for effective legislation to thwart actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories, in a discriminatory manner.

The United States seeks to assist in the establishment of comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, to be negotiated among those living in the region. We oppose any measures intended to impose an agreement or to dictate borders or other terms, and we call for the immediate termination of all U.S. funding of any entity that attempts to do so. Our party is proud to stand with Israel now and always.

NEW PASSED AMENDMENTS:

Two Amendments were also passed regarding Israel, discussed here: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/gop-platform-republican-convention-israel/

“The U.S. seeks to assist in the establishment of comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, to be negotiated among those living in the region,” the approved amendment said. “We oppose any measures intended to impose an agreement or to dictate borders or other terms, and call for the immediate termination of all U.S. funding of any entity that attempts to do so.”

“We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier, and specifically recognize that the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (“BDS”) is anti-Semitic in nature and seeks to destroy Israel,”  the new version read.

COMMENTARY:

There is little room for honest debate about how to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or solutions other than blind support of the present Israeli right-wing hawkish government. No hint that such a path in fact, as Israeli former security and intelligence chiefs have noted, that the present policies will increase dangers to Israel’s security not lessen it. There is no room for effort by the US other nations and international bodies whose job is to prevent war and safeguard humanitarian outrages from either side.

The threat to take away American funding and support to any organization that might want to act to solve the conflict is an unprecedented threat to peace making and    international diplomacy, let alone an effort to silence any voices here or abroad that question the present Israeli government’s stance, no matter how misplaced and dangerous to international peace, regional security, and justice for both sides it is. It asks America to take sides with actions that can only lead to more dangers for Israel and its people, as well as the region.

The statement in the passed amendment that Israel is not an occupier is a factual lie under international law. Israel exercises authority via its military over Palestine and its people against their will and the entire world recognizes this reality.

It assumes that any action by Israel’s present government must be in our interest, no matter what it might be — including violating of human rights, illegal actions, the deliberate killing of innocent civilians — and that we would go to war to defend these actions.

This simply is madness and blind adherence to a set of policies and actions that would make peace in the Middle East even more difficult. It would be contrary to Israel’s own long-term security, and isolate America from the rest of the international community — including our European allies — which supports, as we do now, the Two State Solution and opposes illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian areas.

While this is a crude play for those voters that support Israel, it is in reality an outreach to those that support an aggressive and belligerent Israel that they want to America blindly to endorse — one led by a leader that has disrespected our elected President and has played partisan games of division with domestic American politics and made racist names for even his own Arab citizens. The fact is that the majority of Jews in America, according to polls, want to see peace in the Middle East through a binding and fair solution for all sides that will finally put to rest the march towards madness and self-inflected risks and the unending conflict. There is, in sum, no balance in this platform for lasting peace.

See our forthcoming coverage of the Democract platform on national security and foreign policiy statements coming soon.

We welcome your comments below! 

THE 2016 REPUBLICAN PLATFORM’S FOREIGN AND NATIONAL SECURITY POSITIONS: NATO AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

In this series, we will be looking at positions taken by the Republican Party in their 2016 Platform on issues pertaining to national security.  Next up is International Institutions. A commentary on the platform issue will be found at its end.

“Frankly it’s sad. We have NATO, and we have many countries that aren’t paying for what they’re supposed to be paying, which is already too little, but they’re not paying anyway. And we’re giving them a free ride or giving them a ride where they owe us tremendous amounts of money. ” (Donald Trump on Meet the Press, July 24, 2016)


THE PLATFORM:
Renewing the European Alliance

With bipartisan support, President Truman forged the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as an alliance of the western democracies. Its continued effectiveness is vital, especially in light of recent military challenges in Eastern Europe. With the American people spending on defense, per capita, four times the amount spent by Europeans, we demand, as we have in the past, that our fellow members of NATO fulfill their commitments and meet their need for greater investment in their armed forces. We have common imperatives: Ending terrorism, combating nuclear proliferation, promoting trade, and more.

We also have a common problem: The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.

We urge greater attention in U.S. diplomacy, trade, and strategic planning, to the nations of Eurasia, formerly parts of the Soviet Empire. Caught between their two authoritarian neighbors, their path toward democratic institutions has been uncertain. We urge our government and our allies to work toward the integration of the Central Asian republics into the global economy through foreign investment, which can bring with it market and political reforms and a firmer establishment of the rule of law. Those developments will not only improve the living conditions throughout that vast area but are likely to reduce the lure of the radical ideologies that already threaten the region.

INTL INSTITUTIONS

Sovereign American Leadership in International Organizations
There is no substitute for principled American leadership. Since the end of World War II, the United States, through the founding of the United Nations and NATO, has participated in a number of international organizations which can, but sometimes do not, serve the cause of peace and prosperity. While acting through them our country must always reserve the right to go its own way. We must not be silent about our country’s cause. That is why we have long supported our country’s international broadcasting to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

Our continued participation in the United Nations should be contingent upon the enactment of long-overdue changes in the way that institution functions. American taxpayers, the chief funders of the U.N., deserve full transparency in the financial operations of its overpaid bureaucrats. We should no longer tolerate its managerial scandals, its Human Rights Council composed of some of the world’s worst tyrants, and its treatment of Israel as a pariah state. The U.N.’s Population Fund has, from its origin, been rooted in no-growth policies that limit economic development in the countries needing it most. Its complicity in China’s barbaric program of forced abortion led President Reagan to set a wall of separation — his Mexico City Policy, which prohibits the granting of federal monies to non-governmental organizations that provide or promote abortion. We affirm his position and, in light of plummeting birth rates around the world, suggest a reevaluation of the U.N.’s record on economic progress.

Precisely because we take our country’s treaty obligations seriously, we oppose ratification of international agreements whose long-range implications are ominous or unclear. We do not support the U.N. Convention on Women’s Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, as well as various declarations from the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development. Because of our concern for American sovereignty, domestic management of our fisheries, and our country’s long-term energy needs, we have deep reservations about the regulatory, legal, and tax regimes inherent in the Law of the Sea Treaty. We emphatically reject U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of U.S. sovereignty, and we oppose any form of Global Tax.

To shield members of our Armed Forces and others in service to America from ideological prosecutions overseas, the Republican Party does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. We support statutory protection for U.S. personnel and officials as they act abroad to meet our global security requirements, and we deplore the current inaction of the Administration in that regard. Our service members must be subject only to American law.

COMMENTARY:

NATO:

Both the summary of the problems with NATO and Eastern Europe’s governments and the threat to destroy the Alliance by demanding the financial requirements of NATO be met by all nations at the risk of US withdrawal are particularly interesting. This is contrary to the NATO treaty and weakens the fundamental strength of a united and credible deterrence that is at the heart of the alliance.

Even more disquieting is the contradictory statement of supporting our Eastern European NATO members and for Eurasian nations who are not members from Russian aggression: “we will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.” The platform goes on to insinuate Russia a brutal regime: “the continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin.” It seems again that Trump and his followers want their cake and eat it: they both praise a brutal Putin and advocate aggressive actions against Russian aggression. On one hand he wants praise from the likes of Putin, who he sees as a “strongman” like him, and on the other he is reaching hypocritically and duplicity for the votes of American voters whose families come from this region. He believes that voters will only see what they want to believe and ignore the contradiction. The problem is what our allies and Putin will think about the creditably of a Trump presidency.

What is not talked about is how exactly to improve the NATO struggle against ISIS and terrorism, in particular when the NATO allies are afraid of a Trump presidency and its corrosive heart. It seems, in reality, that he and his henchmen have not a clue of what needs to be done, or perhaps it is so dangerous that they do not want to disclose it before the election?

The platform does not talk at all about the major dangers in Europe to the EU and NATO of the rise of neo-fascist parties and elements within Europe which are at odds with democratic norms, European unity, dealing with an aggressive Putin, or dealing with immigration in a more constructive way than Trump – the hate machine for women, minorities and immigrants – is even close to thinking about.

Trump evidently does not really want a united NATO or Europe and is quite content to see divisiveness and growing disunity serving his purpose of “making America great again.” However, it does just the opposite. The question whether the American public will see the contradiction?

INTERNATIONAL ORIGINATIONS:

Once again it is hard to see much of a positive perspective to the role many key international organizations, not least the United Nations. Yet this creed is not only poorly written, rambling, and mostly wrong about the accomplishments of many international organizations, it also does a disservice to the key role these organizations play to keep our world a little more humane, help the poorest, and mitigate some of the worst crises and disasters. They need to be praised and not disparaged.

Just a few examples, they would not join the Law of the Sea Treaty, which the US has singed long ago and which we use to assert our freedom of navigation and defense the ocean ecology, and they would destroy the work of the key organization that gives women the right to their own bodies through the U.N.’s Population Fund.

The throw-away line about “international broadcasting” to Eastern Europe, done by the US government and not part of any international organization (such statements show again that this document was not written by anyone of any expertise in this field), is a throwback to the old Cold War days and aimed at the votes of some ethnic groups that want these broadcasts to continue, which many of them should not as instruments of single-minded ideological propaganda but as voices of balance and good reporting.

The foolish and negative tone and the outlandish comments about how they would restructure (undermine) or even destroy these vital groups is another example of a withdrawal from the world’s efforts to solve critical problems. But worse, their policies towards these institutions would send the world back to the dark ages and cause misery, mass deaths, and conflict rather than improving the life of our world’s people. They belittle the World Court, the International Criminal Court, and the EU courts, all of which are key to enforcement of international law and humanitarian rights.

Are they perfect? No. But they have do much more good than not and need to be strengthened, not weakened as the GOP and Donald Trump seem to want. 

 

RNS Race to the White House Coverage

Screen Shot 2016-07-14 at 10.02.14 AM

With the start of the Republican National Convention today in Cleveland, Ohio, we are excited to debut our dedicated 2016 General Election coverage. We have three pages dedicated to the race, with one about the matchup and one each for the major candidates.

Click here to see the latest updates on the race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, featuring poll updates, the FiveThirtyEight forecast, and Electoral College predictions.

Click here to see where Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton stands on key national security issues.

Click here to see where Republican Candidate Donald Trump and his running mate Mike Pence stand on key national security issues.

Make sure to check back for updates and coverage of the 2016 Race to the White House.

The Strategic Importance of Eastern Europe in the Modern World

The Strategic Importance of Eastern Europe in the Modern World

By:  Blaze Joel, National Security Intern

p090414ps-0589

Via White House

For the majority of the twentieth century, the U.S. was embroiled in the Cold War, directing money, resources, and attention towards stopping the advances of communism across the world and in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe. Twenty-five years ago, the Cold War suddenly and, seemingly unexpectedly, ended as the Soviet Union dissolved. America’s focus on Eastern Europe, however, did not. With the brutal wars in the former Yugoslavia and the transition to democracy among other former Warsaw Pact nations, the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton Administrations had to make Eastern Europe a priority. The former pioneered a U.S.-Russian strategic partnership in 1991 while the latter defined the role of NATO in a non-Cold War world with its use in the former Yugoslavia – the first military operations in the history of the Alliance.

After 9/11, the strategic landscape understandably shifted away from the former Communist Bloc and more towards the Middle East as the War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq began in the early 2000s. These wars and the consequent changing global landscape – with its proliferation of non-state actors and terrorist networks – facilitated a fundamental change in the U.S. strategic outlook and foreign policy that dominated the bulk of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama Presidencies. As the Obama Administration comes to a close and with either a Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump Presidency set to begin in January of next year, Eastern Europe again looks to – and should – be a focus of American foreign policy.

A “return” of sorts to the Eastern Bloc should be a priority of the next administration for a number of reasons. First, and most immediately, the primary trail for Syrian refugees crosses the Balkans through Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, and Hungary. Last fall, we saw tensions rise in the Balkans as several nations closed off their borders as a means to try to stem the flow of migrants who hope to resettle in Germany or other locations in West or Central Europe, thus inflaming tensions in the region.

Second, political commotion and economic stagnation is becoming more prevalent in the region. The Ukrainian Crisis is about to enter its fourth year this November. Right-wing politics have risen in Hungary with the Jobbik Party, Austria with Norbert Hofer and his FPÖ, and Poland under Andrzej Duda’s Presidency. In the Balkans, Croatia’s government recently collapsed, Bosnia continues to be politically divided, Macedonia’s “Colorful Revolution” continues, and a recent New York Times article detailed the emerging radicalization among young Muslims in Kosovo, some of whom are turning to ISIS as an alternative.

Third, Russia is becoming a more major player on the world stage under Putin. This is not only evident in Russian efforts in Syria that have helped to bolster Assad’s strength, but also seen in an increased Russian role in Eastern Europe. This is exemplified by the war in the Donbas and the annexation of Crimea, but is more prevalent than just Ukraine. Russia continues to try to keep Serbia as an ally in the region, working to deny Kosovo recognition in the UN and pushing Serbia to guarantee its military neutrality (and therefore prevent it from joining NATO). In the face of European sanctions against Russia, the Kremlin has not backed down, creating tension on the continent with several European nations hesitant to restart a “new Cold War” with Russia due to its resource and oil wealth.

All of this is exacerbated by potential unrest in the European project as a whole, as exemplified by the British referendum on leaving the EU this past month. With this move, The United Kingdom set off a chain reaction that has impacted financial markets and undermined the political stability of Europe itself. Leader of the French National Front, Marine Le Pen, has called for a “People’s Spring” to bring national concerns to the forefront of international politics and minimize (or negate) the role of international institutions in domestic governance. While the consequences and potential “domino effect” of the Brexit vote are still unknown, uncertainty will likely define European politics and international relations for the foreseeable future.

In the face of these tensions, the Obama Administration has recently begun to step up its presence in Eastern Europe. On June 13, NATO announced that it would deploy four multinational battalions to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, which became official at the NATO summit in Warsaw last week. This move is seen as desperately needed, not only by Poland and the Baltic states, but also by Lieutenant-General Ben Hodges, the commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, who said on June 23 that “Russia could conquer the Baltic states quicker than we could get there to defend them.” Last year, Hodges was similarly wary of a Russian threat, citing a threat from the Russian ambassador to Denmark that the Danish Navy could become a nuclear target if it participated in NATO’s missile defense program.

Whoever the next President of the United States is, he or she will face an increasingly complex world that requires increasingly multifaceted policies. To name a few of these upcoming issues: ISIS will continue to be a threat to the Middle East and the world; North Korea has shown signs of wanting to increase its global status through its nuclear program; the Syrian Civil War will be entering its sixth year; political instability has come to Latin America in Venezuela and to a lesser extent Brazil; ISIS and Boko Haram terrorize northern and western Africa and the civil war in South Sudan has begun anew. Despite the plethora of global issues, Eastern Europe must be crucial to the next President’s strategic plan. An increasingly bold Russia, political and economic stagnation (including growing inequality) and uncertainty, and the increasing of national tensions exacerbated by the migrant crisis mean that the region once thought to be the bastion of expanding democracy and stability through its new NATO and EU members is at risk of becoming a point of tension once again.