President Trump stood next to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Monday and publicly challenged the conclusion of his own intelligence agencies that Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election, wrapping up what he called a “deeply productive” summit meeting with an extraordinary show of trust for a leader accused of attacking American democracy.
“They said they think it’s Russia; I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia,” Mr. Trump said, only moments after the Russian president conceded that he had favored Mr. Trump in the election because of his promises of warmer relations with Moscow.
“I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be” Russia that was responsible for the election hacking, Mr. Trump added. “I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”
Trump’s behavior at the summit press conference was pitiful and obsequious. There is being diplomatic, and then there is indulging another government in its self-serving lies for no good reason. Trump’s display today was the latter. The political backlash against the president has been predictably swift and intense, and it guarantees that any rapprochement with Moscow will face even more resistance than before. No one should be angrier with Trump’s embarrassing spectacle than serious advocates of engagement with Russia.
To make matters worse, Trump is returning once again from a high-profile summit with nothing to show for the effort. For all of Trump’s shameless pandering, the summit appears to have achieved nothing at all. The summit provided an opportunity to extend New START to the mutual benefit of both countries, but that opportunity was squandered. Trump is bringing discredit on the very idea of engagement with Russia, and at the same time the U.S. gains nothing from his substance-free approach to diplomacy.
I have long been an advocate for constructive engagement with Moscow, and I supported the so-called “reset” in Obama’s first term. The “reset” was limited but successful in advancing common interests on a handful of issues. It also succeeded in reducing tensions that had risen to dangerous levels in the closing years of Bush’s presidency. U.S.-Russian relations are once again at a very dangerous low point, and the negative reaction to the summit promises to drive them even lower. We need a policy of competent and constructive engagement more than ever, but this president was never going to be able to provide that.
Improving the relationship with Moscow has been and continues to be a worthwhile goal, but Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term. The U.S. and Russia could and should have a more constructive relationship, but it can’t be based on the denial of reality and ignoring the genuine disagreements that exist between our governments. If there is to be genuine improvement in U.S.-Russian relations, it will come from facing up to these disagreements and finding a way to work through or around them.
John Bolton appeared on ABC’s This Week yesterday and told the following whopper:
KARL: Before you go, I want to ask you about North Korea. Of course, after the summit in Singapore, the president said, quote, “there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea”.
Given what we have seen since that summit, and there are reports of North Koreans actively trying to deceive us about the extent of their nuclear program, and of course we had Secretary Pompeo’s visit to Pyongyang.
He wasn’t even able to meet with Kim Jong-un, did not appear to be a very productive meeting. Given what we have seen since that Singapore summit, isn’t what the president said about there no longer being a nuclear threat from North Korea at the very least wildly premature?
BOLTON: Come on, what he was saying in context was that if North Korea lives up to the commitments that it made on denuclearization, then it would no longer be a threat. The test here will be what North Korea actually does to live up to the commitment that they made in Singapore that they say they still uphold and that now they need to fulfill.
Bolton is telling two major lies in this statement. First, he lied about what the president meant when he asserted that there is no threat from North Korea, and then he lied about the commitment that North Korea made in Singapore. North Korea merely agreed to “work toward” the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and that amounts to agreeing to doing nothing definite. Administration officials have repeatedly misrepresented what that means in order to make the summit seem more successful than it actually was. This keeps clashing with the reality of the North Korean position, and that is one reason why Pompeo’s meeting in Pyongyang last week went so poorly.
The main reason why all of these lies from the administration matter is that the public can’t trust their assessments of how negotiations are progressing when they have made a point of misleading us about them thus far. If they are willing to mislead the public about what was agreed to at Singapore, they will keep misleading us at every stage to come.
The administration’s consistent misrepresentation of the North Korean position creates false expectations of significant concessions from Pyongyang on its nuclear weapons and missile programs that won’t be forthcoming. That oversells what the administration has managed to do so far, and it is bound to create a backlash when those expectations are disappointed. It also boxes in U.S. negotiators, who might be able to hammer out a modest compromise with their North Korean counterparts if they weren’t locked into a completely unrealistic and unachievable goal of total disarmament. The issue here is not just that the administration is pursuing an impossible goal at the expense of more achievable diplomatic compromises. They cannot be trusted to report honestly on what they are doing and what the other side is willing to do.
The Trump administration appears to be in no hurry to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria:
US President Donald Trump’s top security adviser said Sunday that US troops would remain in Syria as long as Iran continues to “menace” the region, seemingly reversing a promise by the White House to pull out sooner.
It is always possible that Trump could contradict what Bolton said, but if Bolton speaks for the administration this suggests that the Iran obsession takes priority over everything else. Bolton’s exact words tell us that the administration intends to keep U.S. forces in Syria for a very long time to come:
But I think the president has made it clear that we are there until the ISIS territorial caliphate is removed and as long as the Iranian menace continues throughout the Middle East [bold mine-DL].
The Iranian “menace” isn’t going to go away anytime soon because Iran has no intention of ending its involvement with its regional allies and proxies, so U.S. involvement in Syria remains an open-ended, unnecessary mission.
It bears repeating that U.S. forces are in Syria illegally. There is no Congressional authorization for U.S. forces to be in Syria, there is no international mandate for them to be there, and the Syrian government does not want them there. The U.S. has no business keeping an illegal military presence in Syria, and it certainly shouldn’t be conditioning the continuation of that presence on Iran’s involvement in the wider region. There is no compelling reason why U.S. forces should still be in Syria in 2018, and no vital American interests are served by keeping them there. The president has indicated in the past that he wants to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria, but the withdrawal keeps being put off for bad reasons. Macron managed to talk Trump into maintaining a “strong and lasting footprint” there. I have assumed that his hard-line advisers would use the Iran obsession to prevent this from happening. Unfortunately, it seems that the Iran obsession has won out once again.
Is intentional starvation the future of war? Jane Ferguson reports on the role of the Saudi coalition blockade and bombing campaign in driving millions of Yemenis to the brink of famine.
This is what collapsing, health, education, water, and sanitation sytstems in Yemen look like. Henrietta Fore describes the dire conditions for Yemen’s civilian population.
Eritrea and Ethiopia’s common enemy. Bronwyn Bruton explains the causes of the recent thaw between the two states.
The Trump-Putin summit’s potential nuclear fallout. Jon Wolfsthal urges the U.S. and Russia to extend the current arms reduction treaty.
Amnesty International has called for the UAE and its proxies to be held accountable for war crimes committed in its torture prisons in Yemen:
An international rights group on Thursday called for an investigation into alleged disappearances, torture and possible deaths in detention facilities run by the United Arab Emirates and its allied militias in southern Yemen as potential war crimes.
Amnesty International’s call comes months after The Associated Press reported that the UAE and allied militias were running a network of secret detention facilities where torture and abuses were widespread, outside the control of Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi’s government.
In a report titled “God only knows if he’s alive,” Amnesty said it documented “egregious violations going unchecked, including systemic enforced disappearance and torture and other ill-treatment amounting to war crimes.”
These are just some of the war crimes committed by coalition forces in Yemen, and these are being committed against Yemenis in the supposedly “liberated” south where the UAE is carving out its sphere of influence. The UAE has maintained that it runs no prisons in Yemen, but this has been exposed as a transparent lie by the excellent Associated Press reporting on these abuses. Amnesty has looked into the cases of dozens of detained and missing Yemenis and confirmed the AP’s findings:
Amnesty said it investigated the cases of 51 men allegedly detained by UAE-backed militias between March 2016 and May 2018 in Aden, Lahj, Abyan, Hadramawt and Shabwa provinces. It said most of the cases involved forced disappearances, and 19 of the men remain missing.
“The families of these detainees find themselves in an endless nightmare where their loved ones have been forcibly disappeared by UAE-backed forces,” said Tirana Hassan, crisis response director at Amnesty. “When they demand to know where their loved ones are held, or if they are even still alive, their requests are met with silence or intimidation.”
Amnesty said it had documented “widespread use of torture and other ill-treatment in Yemeni and Emirati facilities.” Current and former detainees and families gave “horrific accounts of abuse including beatings, use of electric shocks and sexual violence,” the watchdog said.
It strains credulity that no American personnel knew about crimes committed by the UAE and their proxies in these prisons, and any U.S. knowledge of or involvement in the torture of Yemeni detainees should be fully investigated.
The Saudis and Emiratis have been waging an atrocious war on Yemen for more than three years. The UAE’s torture prisons are one of the most egregious and horrifying examples of coalition crimes committed against Yemeni civilians. This is just one more reason why the U.S. should have nothing to do with the Saudi coalition war and ought to halt all military assistance to the coalition at once.
Dan Drezner tries to make sense of Trump’s deference to the GOP legal establishment compared with his disdain for the party’s foreign policy establishment:
Still, this only raises the question of why those petitions had such minimal effects, whereas Trump was quite solicitous of the Federalist Society throughout the campaign and his presidency. And I think the answer here is a variation of an argument I have made repeatedly in the past. The Federalist Society matters because a large segment of GOP voters care way more about the Supreme Court than they do about foreign policy.
Drezner’s explanation is plausible. There are certainly many more voters motivated to vote Republican because of social issues and judges than there are foreign policy-driven voters. Very few voters care about foreign policy, and even fewer base their votes on foreign policy above everything else. Having said that, I think there is more to it than this.
Many Republican foreign policy analysts and pundits rejected Trump from the start because they misunderstood him to be an “isolationist” and therefore judged him to be completely unacceptable to them. They also wrongly assumed that a reheated version of Bush-era hawkish interventionism was the broad consensus view of most people in the party, but they overestimated how much support that view had among rank-and-file Republicans and mistook the lack of intra-party debate under Bush for deep agreement with the Bush-era agenda. Crucially, they failed to grasp how badly the credibility of the party’s foreign policy establishment had been damaged by the Iraq war debacle because they refused to accept that the Iraq war was a debacle. They had spent so many years lying to themselves and their Republican supporters that the war had been “won” by the “surge” that they were wholly unprepared when Trump exploited that weakness despite his own lack of credibility as a war opponent. Put simply, the many petitions failed to have much of an effect because many of the signatories were tarred to one degree or another by the greatest foreign policy failure of the last generation, and the worst part was that they still hadn’t acknowledged the failure. When they attacked Trump as dangerous and unqualified, their criticisms were accurate enough but their collective record of failure made them the worst messengers possible.
Republicans that cared about judges and social issues more than anything else never made a concerted effort to thwart Trump or denounce him despite ample evidence that he wasn’t a serious social conservative and couldn’t care less about judicial philosophy. At the same time, Republican voters don’t perceive leaders of the conservative legal movement as failures responsible for a major debacle. These Republicans assumed that it didn’t matter what Trump believed or what values he had as long as he was willing to appoint the right people. They were happy to provide him with the names of those people, and Trump was happy to accept those names as long as it got him the support he needed. Trump’s hawkish critics were much more ideological and inflexible than the party’s social conservatives, and they were much more disparaging personally about Trump than any other faction. As a result, the former have been mostly frozen out of the administration while the latter have gained considerable influence. Regrettably, hawkish opposition hasn’t made the administration’s foreign policy any less hawkish or destructive, and it has created an opening for fringe hard-liners and lunatics to take over.
In an extraordinary intervention timed to coincide with his UK visit, Mr Trump said Theresa May ignored his advice by opting for a soft Brexit strategy.
And he warned her any attempts to maintain close ties with the EU would make a lucrative US trade deal very unlikely.
This is obnoxious interference in British politics on Trump’s part and will presumably be seen as such by most people there regardless of party. U.S. presidents should refrain as much as possible from commenting on or speculating about political developments in an another country, especially an allied one. It is even more important to avoid giving offense to the host government when the president is there on an official visit. In this case, Trump’s intervention seems sure to backfire.
It is a measure of how deeply loathed he is in the U.K. that Trump’s embrace of Johnson and his criticism of May are likely to doom Johnson’s prospects and bolster support for the prime minister. According to YouGov, 77% of Britons hold an unfavorable view of the president. Even among Conservative respondents, the unfavorable rating is 66%. There has rarely been an American president as politically toxic in Britain as this one, and any politician linked with him is likely to become similarly radioactive.
The prime minister was weakened by the Johnson and Davis resignations last week, but Trump’s attack is likely to cause her party and her opponents to rally behind her just as the president’s attacks on Trudeau and Canada had a similar effect last month. Even many of her detractors will probably hold their fire for fear of appearing to do his bidding. If Trump was hoping to undermine May’s position, his statements have likely had the exact opposite effect.
Trump spent the last two days berating NATO allies to increase military spending, and it yielded nothing:
French President Emmanuel Macron has denied President Donald Trump’s claim that NATO allies have agreed to boost defense spending beyond 2 percent of gross domestic product.
It is not surprising that gratuitously haranguing other governments in public doesn’t make them more cooperative. The president managed to alarm allied leaders with his antics, but he doesn’t seem to have persuaded them to do anything more than they were already doing. As he did at some other recent summits, Trump put on a show that achieved nothing except to damage relations with allies. When he claims that he scored a great triumph, it is important to remember that he’s lying to the public as he so often does.
Meanwhile, NATO expansion continues to shuffle forward like the zombie policy that it is:
NATO on Wednesday invited Macedonia to start talks to join the alliance after Skopje reached a deal with Greece in a long-running row over the country’s name.
Alliance chief Jens Stoltenberg said Macedonia would be able to become NATO’s newest member, provided the new name was approved in a referendum later this year.
Macedonia’s membership in NATO had been blocked by Greece because of the dispute over the country’s name, and it is likely that the recent agreement to settle that dispute will resolve the matter in the near future. While the possible resolution of the disagreement between the two neighbors is welcome news, it makes no sense to bring yet another country into the alliance. The alliance also continues to string along Georgia with the promise of future membership, and Trump said that Georgia would have a chance to join in the future. The U.S. doesn’t need any new security dependents, and it certainly shouldn’t support Georgian membership in the alliance, but the alliance keeps adding new members and keeps giving aspiring members encouragement that they will be let in at some point.
It is strange that ongoing NATO expansion never seems to provoke Trump’s ire. If Trump’s objections to European levels of military spending were rooted in a concern about free-riding allies, he ought to be opposed to adding new members that are guaranteed to be free-riding dependents. Curiously, he raised no objections to Montenegro’s accession last year and he evidently doesn’t oppose bringing in Macedonia. He isn’t even clearly opposed to bringing in Georgia. No matter what one thinks about the alliance, halting its continued, mindless expansion should be the priority for the U.S.
Mike Pompeo gave an interview to Sky News Arabia this week in which he made some remarkable statements:
Well, Iran needs to get out of Syria. They have no business there. There’s no reason for them to be there. There’s been Iranian influence there for a long time. Iranian forces, Iranian militias must leave the country.
If Iran has no business in Syria, the U.S. certainly doesn’t have any business keeping troops there. Leave aside the absurdity of the statement that the ally of a government has no business supporting that government in a war, and just consider the breathtaking hypocrisy of this statement coming from a U.S. official. The U.S. is engaged in hostilities in at least a half dozen countries around the world and attacks other governments at will. Our government has been actively supporting the Saudi-led attack on Yemen for more than three years, and we have had U.S. force operating illegally in Syrian territory and airspace for almost four. It is the height of arrogance and folly to issue this ultimatum. The U.S. has no right or authority to make such a demand, and the administration should be focused instead on withdrawing our forces from wars that we have no business fighting or supporting.
Jane Ferguson writes about the use of starvation as a weapon in the war on Yemen:
A blockade of the rebel-held area is intermittently enforced by the Saudis, with all shipments of food and other imported goods subject to U.N. or coalition approval and inspections, driving up prices. Saudi-led aerial bombing has destroyed infrastructure and businesses, and has devastated the economy inside rebel-held areas.
The coalition blockade drives up prices of basic goods so that they are prohibitively expensive at the same time that they wreck the country’s economy with their military campaign. The war on Yemen further impoverishes an already poor country and strangles the civilian population with starvation. This has been documented and made known to all parties for years, so there is no question that the coalition governments know the effects that their actions are having. They are acting deliberately to starve Yemen into submission while feigning concern for the victims of their own policies.
The ongoing attack on Hodeidah threatens to make all of this much worse:
The Saudis have ignored pleas from every humanitarian organization operating in Yemen to halt the offensive in Hodeidah. The groups warn that disrupting the port’s operations will spark food-price increases and famine in areas under Houthi control. “I would say if it’s closed for a matter of two weeks you will start seeing an impact on the streets,” Frank McManus, the country director for the New York-based International Rescue Committee, told me.
Leading hawkish House Democrats recently wrote a letter urging the Saudis and UAE to reconsider their demands for the surrender of the port. There is growing opposition in Congress to the assault on Hodeidah, and that is increasing overall opposition to U.S. support for the war. Congress needs to move more quickly and bring more pressure to bear on the Saudis and their allies if they are to prevent the world’s worst humanitarian crisis from getting even worse.
While the blockade is doing the most harm, it is important to remember that the coalition is also attacking food production and distribution inside Yemen as well. Here Ferguson notes that systematic targeting of farms and fishing boats, which Iona Craig reported on last year:
Martha Mundy, a retired professor of anthropology from the London School of Economics, has, along with Yemeni colleagues, analyzed the location of air strikes throughout the war. She said their records show that civilian areas and food supplies are being intentionally targeted. “If one looks at certain areas where they say the Houthis are strong, particularly Saada, then it can be said that they are trying to disrupt rural life—and that really verges on scorched earth,” Mundy told me. “In Saada, they hit the popular, rural weekly markets time and again. It’s very systematic targeting of that.”
There was a recent example of this just a few days ago when an airstrike near Taiz killed ten civilians at a farm:
— Ahmad Algohbary (@AhmadAlgohbary) July 8, 2018
Civilian targets in Saada have been struck frequently ever since the entire area was illegally declared to be a military target by the coalition over three years ago:
Saada, the Houthis’ ancestral home and stronghold in the country’s northwest, has been pummelled by air strikes. Refugees from that area, who moved into makeshift camps near the border with Saudi Arabia after the strikes, told me that coalition forces then bombed their settlements. A man named Jabr Ali Al Ghaferi said that his wife was hit with shrapnel and died a few days later. “The air strikes targeted the gate and the bridge which connected the camp to the market,” he said.
The U.S. enables these attacks with its military assistance to the Saudi coalition. Contrary to administration claims, this is an aggressive war being waged on the people of Yemen, and our participation in it is wholly indefensible. The U.S. ought to have nothing to do with this campaign, and it ought to be using whatever leverage it has with the Saudis and the UAE to stop it, lift the blockade, and give political negotiations a chance to put an end to the war for good. The Trump administration isn’t going to do this on its own, so that means Congress and the public have to insist on it.
This exchange from a background briefing with State Department officials shows just how distorted the administration’s view of Yemen has become:
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, the Secretary has talked of the role that Iran has played to really worsen and deepen the humanitarian situation in Yemen. When Iran supplies missiles that are fired into a commercial airport, it threatens people from every nation who are flying into another country’s airport. So we talked about how to better deter Iran, how to cut off their supply lines so that they’re not able to supply the Houthis with material to conduct bomb attacks inside Saudi Arabia. We think a role – that Iran has played a very large role in contributing to the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen [bold mine-DL].
QUESTION: What about Saudi or Yemenis’ responsibility in Yemen, Saudi or the UAE?
MODERATOR: Guys, we – we got to – we got to go, but I can – I can – I think I can probably connect you with David Satterfield, who’s been involved in the – he’s our Yemen guy.
The Saudi coalition air and sea blockade has been starving Yemenis for three years while Iran has done nothing to impede commercial goods and humanitarian aid, so of course Iran is the one that U.S. officials claim has a “very large role” in contributing to the crisis. The Emiratis and their proxies are right now engaged in an attack on a port that is essential to the survival of millions of people, but there is no mention of how this threatens to exacerbate a crisis that the coalition created. The administration isn’t interested in identifying the real causes of Yemen’s humanitarian crisis, because it was caused in large part by the coalition acting with U.S. support, and so U.S. officials cynically feed the public this propaganda to shift the blame anywhere but where it really belongs.
This in keeping with the administration’s habit of dishonestly blaming Iran for anything that happens in the region, and it is also proof of the disgraceful carte blanche that the U.S. continues to give the Saudis and Emiratis in Yemen. The official giving the briefing can’t even be bothered to address the question of Saudi and Emirati responsibility for the humanitarian crisis. The administration’s determination to cover for the Saudi coalition and ignore their numerous crimes against Yemeni civilians means that U.S. officials won’t even mildly criticize the coalition governments in a briefing.
In the last six weeks, the Saudi coalition attack on Hodeidah has forced more than 100,000 Yemenis to flee their homes:
More than 121,000 people have fled from Yemen’s port city of Hodeidah amidst a barrage of airstrikes from the Saudi-led coalition, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported Wednesday.
Since June 1, the fight has displaced 17,350 households, according to the report.
The attack on Hodeidah has slowed as coalition forces have run into more resistance than they anticipated, but there are still huge numbers of civilians being displaced by the fighting. The people displaced by the attack on Hodeidah are in greater danger because of insufficient food and water, but the conditions for those that remain are also deteriorating. Oxfam issued a warning about the situation there last week:
“The fate of 600,000 people hangs in the balance,” said Muhsin Siddiquey, Oxfam’s Country Director in Yemen. “Slowly but surely the city is being squeezed and the real fear is that this is merely a precursor to an onslaught that will lead to widespread loss of life.
“Hudaydah cannot be allowed to become a graveyard. There is still time to stop this destruction. One of our biggest fears is an outbreak of cholera. Hudaydah was a cholera hot spot last year and a repeat would be devastating for the people there.
Pressing ahead with an attack on Hodeidah would have disastrous consequences for the civilian population of the city and the surrounding area, and it would threaten the lives of millions more people that rely on the port. The U.S. is supporting the attack after saying for years that it would not allow it, and in doing so it has once again proven to the coalition governments that there is nothing they can do that will jeopardize U.S. military assistance for this war. It is imperative that Congress press the administration to change its position on this offensive, and Congress must cut off all U.S. assistance to the Saudi coalition.
Henrietta Fore of UNICEF reports on the appalling conditions in Yemen:
Further north, a similar scene is unfolding at the Al Sabeen hospital in Sanaa. Up to 30 new young patients stream in every day to the hospital’s malnutrition ward [bold mine-DL]. In the neonatal intensive care unit, newborn babies in incubators struggle for every breath.
Keeping babies alive in a country where nothing works any more is a real challenge: There are not enough respirators and not enough medicine. Health staff diligently report to work even though they have not received their salaries in two years. The malnutrition ward is packed. Parents have no money for health care and by the time they bring their sick babies in, it is often too late.
This is what a collapsing health system in a war zone looks like. It has the face of a mother who looks on, powerless, as her eight-month-old child, who has the weight of a newborn baby, fights for his life. It has the face of a father who has to choose between buying food for the whole family or buying medicine for his sick wife.
As Fore reminds us, a Yemeni child dies from preventable causes every ten minutes. That adds up to almost 50,000 dead children every year in a war that has dragged on for more than three years. These children are perishing because of starvation created by the Saudi coalition blockade and bombing campaign and from outbreaks of preventable disease that the blockade and bombing campaign have made much harder to combat. The blockade impedes delivery of essential food and medicine and makes them prohibitively expense for most people in a country whose economy has been devastated.
This humanitarian catastrophe was foreseeable and it was foreseen from the very start, but the Saudi coalition has persisted in purposefully strangling the civilian population for three years. It is an entirely man-made disaster, and the Saudi coalition and their Western backers are its chief authors. Millions more Yemeni lives are at risk, and even if things don’t get significantly worse many more thousands of Yemeni children will needlessly lose their lives because of the coalition blockade and bombing campaign. If conditions worsen because of the ongoing coalition offensive on Hodeidah, the loss of life will be in the hundreds of thousands and possibly in the millions.
Jon Wolfsthal makes the case that the Helsinki summit is the right time to begin talks with Russia on extending New START:
The July 16 summit in Helsinki between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin presents a unique opportunity to reverse the dangerous nuclear competition between the United States and Russia and should be welcomed, despite its inherent risks. The opportunity to stabilize U.S.-Russian nuclear relations by extending New START, a key nuclear treaty that is set to expire in 2021, is paramount and worth the issues that come with any meeting between Trump and Putin.
Extending New START is in the best interests of both countries. The treaty is a continuation of the first strategic arms reduction treaty negotiated between the U.S. and USSR, and it was ratified in late 2010. It places important limits on the arsenals the world’s two largest nuclear weapons states, and its verification measures ensure a degree of stability and certainty in our relationship with Moscow. Allowing the treaty to lapse without a replacement would be a major error that could lead to a new arms race and further deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations. Extending the treaty is particularly important now that relations with Russia have reached one of their lowest points in decades. There is no good reason to let the treaty expire. As Wolfsthal notes, both the U.S. and Russia are in compliance with the treaty’s requirements. The treaty has done exactly what it was designed to do. It is in the national security interests of both states to make sure that the treaty remains in force.
Unfortunately, the president and his National Security Advisor have both expressed opposition to New START in the past. Trump has reportedly described it as a “bad deal,” and Bolton has repeatedly denounced it and gone so far as to call it “execrable.” For the president, New START is a product of the Obama administration and therefore something he probably wants to undo just because Obama was for it. Bolton loathes all arms control agreements, and he seems to despise this one more than most. If Bolton were to have his way on this, it would be very bad for U.S. interests and U.S.-Russian relations. On the other hand, if Trump really wants to improve relations with Moscow while still acting in the best interests of the U.S. he could ignore Bolton and support extending the treaty.
The president continues to misrepresent the results of the summit with North Korea:
I have confidence that Kim Jong Un will honor the contract we signed &, even more importantly, our handshake. We agreed to the denuclearization of North Korea. China, on the other hand, may be exerting negative pressure on a deal because of our posture on Chinese Trade-Hope Not!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2018
Trump’s confidence is not the least bit reassuring, since he then proceeds to mislead the public about what North Korea agreed to do and what was signed in Singapore. There was no contract, and North Korea committed to do nothing specific with respect to its nuclear weapons and missile programs. Kim did not agree to the “denuclearization of North Korea,” but did agree to “work toward” the denuclearization of the entire peninsula. Trump and Pompeo keep lying to the public that these are the same thing, but they aren’t. Pretending that they are the same thing doesn’t fool anyone, least of all the North Koreans. They know very well what they have and haven’t agreed to do. The only reason to claim that North Korea agreed to disarm when they haven’t is to create an excuse for accusing them of deception or being in breach of a “contract” they never signed.
I recently summed up the problem with the administration’s North Korea policy this way:
Our North Korea policy amounts to willfully misinterpreting the other side’s statements and then yelling, “No takebacks!” https://t.co/jfEjXXfWZs
— Daniel Larison (@DanielLarison) July 8, 2018
Trump’s accusation that China may be somehow responsible for what is happening is a weak effort to shift blame to anyone except himself, and it echoes the deranged rhetoric coming from Sen. Lindsey Graham. Yesterday Graham publicly threatened the North Korean government with assassination of its leadership:
“To our North Korean friends — can’t say the word friend yet — you asked Pompeo did he sleep well,” Graham said. “If you knew what I knew about what we could do to the leadership of North Korea, you wouldn’t sleep very well.”
Graham is a lunatic warmonger who is always saying absurd and alarming things, but we should bear in mind that on this issue he is also a close ally and confidant of the president. If Trump thinks that he has somehow been betrayed or cheated, he is much more likely to listen to the ravings of Graham and Bolton, and that would be disastrous for everyone. The danger here is that hard-liners in the administration exploit Trump’s delusions to make him think that he has been fleeced and urge him to abandon the diplomatic track all together.
Both the minister responsible for “Brexit” and the Foreign Secretary have resigned from Theresa May’s government:
Boris Johnson resigns as UK Foreign Secretary, following the resignation of Brexit Secretary David Davis.
The resignation of two top members of her government shows a clear lack of confidence in May’s leadership and a rejection of her handling of “Brexit.” Davis’ resignation was damaging enough for May, and it showed how dissatisfied many in her own party are with her handling of negotiations with the European Union. James Forsyth explained Davis’ reasons for quitting:
Davis has gone because he could not stomach the opening UK negotiating position agreed at Chequers. Davis has long been clear that he wanted a final deal that was, essentially, a souped-up version of the Canada free trade deal. But the position agreed at Chequers envisaged a relationship very different to that, one far more firmly in the EU’s regulatory orbit. As Brexit Secretary Davis was meant to promote the Chequers plan at home and abroad. He clearly didn’t feel that he could do that.
It seems that Johnson couldn’t bring himself to defend the plan, either. Johnson’s resignation makes it look as if the government is collapsing under the pressure of “Brexit.” Forsyth looks ahead to what this will mean for May’s future:
The question now becomes, how does Mrs May pass her deal with the EU, if she can get one? It is becoming increasingly likely that even with the DUP, she won’t have the Tory votes to do it. This makes Brexit far more unpredictable than before—both no deal and no Brexit are more likely than they were. The other big question is whether we are looking at 46 letters going in at some point in the near-future. At the moment, May would almost certainly survive a Tory vote of no confidence. But it would further weaken her.
The resignations create more uncertainty about the future of May’s government and Britain’s relationship with the EU after two years of political and economic uncertainty created by the EU referendum result. Both May and the U.K. are running out of time to secure an agreement to salvage something from the shambles that her government has made of this process.
Mike Pompeo keeps clinging to a hopeless North Korea policy:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shot back against North Korea on Sunday, saying the regime’s criticism that U.S. negotiators acted in a “gangster-like” way during his two-day visit to Pyongyang was unfounded.
“If those requests were gangster-like, the world is a gangster,” said Pompeo, noting that U.S. demands for North Korea to denuclearize were supported by a consensus among U.N. Security Council members.
Pompeo has been claiming for weeks that North Korea agreed to something that it never agreed to do, and now that there is no doubt that he has been wrong about this he doesn’t have a good explanation. It may be that other Security Council members agree that North Korea should disarm, but that doesn’t matter as long as North Korea flatly rejects that demand. Their refusal to do the very thing that Pompeo claims North Korea already accepted underscores why the public can’t trust Pompeo’s assessment.
The Secretary of State continues to ignore the obvious:
Pompeo downplayed North Korea’s criticism on Sunday, telling a reporter that Pyongyang did not have an issue with the idea of complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization [bold mine-DL] — a term better known by its initialism, CVID — despite the North Korean Foreign Ministry singling out the phrase in its statement.
If North Korea doesn’t have an “issue” with this, they are putting on a very convincing show to make everyone believe that they do. The problem for Pompeo is that the public can’t trust what he or the president says about any of this because they have spent the last three weeks lying about what happened in Singapore. The plain text of the summit statement included no details about what North Korea was expected to do, when it would do anything, or how its actions would be verified. Pompeo assured us that it was all implied and understood, and we were supposed to take his word for it. He dismissed basic questions about the content of the statement as “insulting and ridiculous” because he had no good answers.
Now that he has been embarrassed once again, Pompeo lashes out at media coverage:
Mr. Pompeo blamed the media for the stark differences in how he assessed the talks compared to how North Korea’s Foreign Ministry viewed them.
“If I paid attention to what the press said, I’d go nuts,” he said.
In fact, the press is just relaying the competing versions of events. Pompeo’s predicament is that his account of what North Korea has agreed to and what it will agree to doesn’t match up with the publicly available facts. The more that he complains about the easy questions that he can’t answer and the accurate reporting that he can’t refute, the harder it is for anyone to take his claims about this process seriously.
Trump administration delusions about what North Korea agreed to do have collided with reality:
“The U.S. side came up only with its unilateral and gangster-like demand for denuclearization,” an unnamed Foreign Ministry spokesman said in statement published by the state-run Korean Central News Agency a few hours after Pompeo’s departure. The official said that U.S. calls for “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization,” run “counter to the spirit of the Singapore summit.”
It could not be clearer that North Korea has never agreed to disarm, and it should be equally clear that the Trump administration badly misunderstood what North Korea committed to in Singapore. There has been willful misunderstanding on the part of the Trump administration that North Korea’s denuclearization rhetoric has something to do with agreeing to their unilateral disarmament. That has caused the administration to make false claims that North Korea has agreed to disarm, and it has encouraged them to continue down the dead-end road of insisting on this.
The Trump administration’s approach to North Korea suffers from many of the same flaws as its handling of Iran and the nuclear deal. In both cases, the administration issues ultimatums and threatens more punishment if the terms they have dictated aren’t accepted, and in both cases the administration makes maximalist demands that one has to assume are designed to be rejected. Trump and other administration officials view negotiations with Iran and North Korea as a matter of working out the details of the other side’s surrender, and they consistently fail to grasp that there are some things that the other side is never going to concede.
Trump reneged on the JCPOA because it “failed” to achieve maximalist goals that were never possible, and he has bungled the opening that South Korea created with the DPRK because he and his administration remain wedded to maximalist goals that have always been out of reach. Hard-liners that view diplomacy in zero-sum, all-or-nothing terms are unsurprisingly very bad at negotiating with other governments. Because they insist that the other side give up everything it values most, their efforts predictably yield nothing of value for the U.S.
Hard-liners have neither the patience nor the willingness to compromise that successful diplomacy requires, and they are always looking for an excuse to declare that diplomacy is useless. They make demands that they have to know won’t be acceptable to the other side. That way, they can claim that they “tried diplomacy” before moving on to the more aggressive policies that they have wanted to pursue all along. When the U.S. makes the maximalist demands that hard-liners want, it is a good sign that there is no desire for a diplomatic solution because the necessary compromise that such a solution entails has already been deemed unacceptable.
American-made bombs are killing civilians, destroying infrastructure, and fueling anger against the U.S. in Yemen. Jane Ferguson reports on the effects of the U.S.-backed Saudi coalition bombing campaign and the resentment against the U.S. that it causes among Yemenis.
Time for a reckoning in Yemen. Stephen Rapp urges an end to U.S. arming of the Saudi coalition because of their crimes in Yemen.
On North Korea and Iran, hubris continues to haunt American security policy. Steven Metz identifies several of the lessons from the last two decades that U.S. policymakers have failed to learn from previous failed policies.
PBS NewsHour aired the third of Jane Ferguson’s three reports on the war on Yemen last night. The third report focuses on the Houthis and the U.S. role in supporting the war. Ferguson quotes Sen. James Risch, a supporter of the indefensible U.S. policy:
The Iranians are in there and they are causing the difficulty that’s there. If the Iranians would back off, I have no doubt that the Saudis will back off. But the Saudis have the absolute right to defend themselves.
The Iranian role in Yemen has been and remains negligible, and it is ridiculous to say that they are the main culprits for “the difficulty” in the country. It is the Saudis and Emiratis bombing and invading the country, it is their forces that impose the blockade that starves the people, and it is the U.S. that supports them in all of these things. Sen. Risch is parroting Saudi talking points, and they are no more credible today than they have been for the last three years.
Not only are the Houthis not Iranian proxies, as every Yemen expert will confirm, but Tehran specifically told the Houthis not to take the capital in 2014 and their advice was ignored. Trying to shift the blame for a disaster that the Saudis and Emiratis have created with U.S. and U.K. backing is obnoxious and insulting.
Supporters of the war on Yemen can’t defend what the Saudi coalition has actually done, so they pretend that this has something to do with self-defense, but this is simply untrue. It can’t be emphasized strongly enough that the war on Yemen is an aggressive and unnecessary military intervention by the Saudis and their allies, and it has been waged on the people of Yemen for the last three years in a failed bid to reinstall a discredited president and reimpose a government that most Yemenis have already rejected. This has nothing to do with defending themselves and everything to do with trying to dominate their poorer neighbor by force. There is no justification for it, and U.S. involvement in it is an ongoing disgrace.
Ferguson also quotes Sen. Sanders, who correctly points out that the U.S. has no obligation to assist the Saudis in this war:
I don’t know that I have ever participated in a vote which says that the United States must be an ally to Saudi’s militaristic ambitions. This is a despotic regime which treats women as third-class citizens. There are no elections there. They have their own goals and their own ambitions.
Sen. Sanders is correct. The U.S. is not obliged to support the Saudis or any of their allies when they launch an attack on another country. I would add that our government is obligated not to arm foreign governments when we know that those arms will be used to commit war crimes and violate international law. The U.S. has no good reason to be involved in this war, and every reason that supporters of our involvement give is false and based on Saudi propaganda.