Welcome to Home & Away. I will keep it short as it is too hot for long newsletters and much else. Speaking of the heat, to describe what is going on as a “heat wave” fails to do justice to what is going on. “Heat embrace” comes closer to it. Climate change is on pace to be THE defining global reality long before this century’s end unless something even worse does us in before then. JeninOne Away development worth commenting on was the outbreak of serous fighting in Jenin, an Arab city at the northern end of the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Israeli military forces moved against what the government described as terrorists. The military action came after repeated incidents in which individuals on both sides were killed. Several reactions. First, this is not another intifada. What we are seeing is the morphing of the Palestinian opposition into Iranian-backed militias. The Palestinian Authority is too weak to rein them in. It is also too weak to advance much in the way of a political or diplomatic agenda other than to be critical of Israel. Second, this Israeli government is uninterested in diplomacy or in any accommodation with the Palestinians. What Prime Minister Netanyahu is interested in is expanding settlements and reducing the costs of occupation. He will do better at the former than the latter. Missing is any strategy whatsoever for preserving Israel as a democratic, Jewish state. One question is the relationship between these events and the Israeli desire to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government does not feel compelled to assist the Palestinians, for whom there is little sympathy, but popular support within the Kingdom for the Palestinian cause makes it difficult for the Crown Prince to ignore their situation. So what is going on in Jenin and elsewhere sets back potential normalization. What would be fascinating though would be to watch the Israeli political reaction to a Saudi offer to link normalization with Israel not just to U.S. security guarantees against Iran but to meaningful change in Israeli policy toward settlements and a Palestinian state. The Biden administration wishes all this would go away so it can focus on Russia and China and matters domestic and avoid the awkward politics of splits within the Democratic Party over Israel. Nonetheless, the issue is unlikely to fade. The danger is that violence will take on an Islamic dimension following some incident at an Islamic holy site. If this happens, the cost will not just be an inability to advance peace but also the possibility of the Abraham Accords coming undone. UkraineA second Away subject is Ukraine. There was an interesting story in the Financial Times crediting China with pressuring Putin not to use nuclear weapons if the battlefield worsens for him. (The same story reported that the United States, United Kingdom, and France had signaled they would enter the fray directly and destroy Russian military forces in Ukraine if the nuclear line were crossed.) China seems to be looking for a way to get back into the good graces of Europeans to reduce the odds they will sign on to new U.S. export and investment controls aimed at denying China the advanced technology it seeks. If so, it would be a good moment to press China to lean on Russia not to act irresponsibly and cause a crisis involving the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. One last item. There was an NBC News report about a meeting in April between several former senior U.S. national security officials and a group of Russian diplomats led by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. I was one of those present. I won’t go into any detail about what may have been accurate or inaccurate in the story because exchanges of this sort have the best chance of being useful if they are kept confidential. I would say, though, that such meetings can be valuable opportunities to keep channels of communication open at moments when official interactions are either nonexistent or unproductive and the stakes high. They permit participants to convey their views on a range of subjects while providing an opportunity to get a better idea of the thinking of those associated with other countries and governments. Since they are not official meetings, participants often feel more comfortable speaking candidly and testing new ideas or proposals. Critically, such meetings are conversations, not negotiations. Those involved speak for themselves, not for any institution they might be affiliated with, and certainly not for the U.S. government, although relevant government officials are kept informed about what is taking place. And to underscore the obvious, a willingness to meet in no way connotes sympathy with much less endorsement of the views of the other side. Since there seems to be some legitimate interest in my position mixed in with nasty, ad hominem attacks, let me quickly summarize my views on Russia’s war against Ukraine. They are a matter of public record as I have written about this subject for Foreign Affairs, Project Syndicate, the New York Times, and the Boston Globe. I have been a strong and vocal critic of Putin’s unjustified war of choice from the outset, disagreeing with those who maintain it was somehow provoked by NATO or the United States. I am on record supporting large-scale, sustained military support to Ukraine. I believe it critical that Russia’s act of aggression fail, not just for the sake of Ukraine and European security, but to underscore that territory cannot be acquired by force, the closest thing we have to a universal norm of world order. It is also important to demonstrate to other leaders harboring territorial ambitions, among them Xi Jinping, that the costs of aggression would far outweigh potential benefits. At the same time, I am skeptical that Ukraine will be able to liberate all of its territory any time soon using military force, and worry that an open-ended war will leave the country and its people in ruins. I also fear that Western willingness to stand by Ukraine could fade over time for reasons both political and strategic. For this reason I wrote an article (with Charles Kupchan) advocating that a cease-fire be proposed at the end of this fighting season should Ukraine fall short of recovering all the territory occupied by Russia. Such a cease-fire would be accompanied by a commitment to provide long-term military and economic support to Ukraine, the extension of formal security assurances, and a pathway to EU membership. As we wrote in the piece, “Kyiv would not be asked or pressured to give up the goal of taking back all of its land, including Crimea and the Donbas.” But Ukraine would pursue that goal at the negotiating table rather than the battlefield. Ideally, there would be two negotiating tracks: one between Ukraine and Russia, another between Russia and NATO. Such a policy should be introduced only after close consultations with Ukraine. In short, diplomacy should be done with Ukraine’s government, not to it. The interesting news is that the Ukraine government, sobered by how difficult and costly the counteroffensive is proving to be, seems to be contemplating the introduction of a diplomatic dimension thus far largely missing from the conflict. Some of Ukraine’s most ardent supporters might take this into account before they reject out of hand any attempt to explore diplomatic options. Diplomacy is not a favor granted to another side but a tool whose use should be weighed against that of other options to advance one’s foreign policy objectives. Independence DayAt home, July 4 has come and gone. Here at our gathering of some twenty family and friends, some of whom were from Australia and New Zealand, we (as in yours truly) read out loud the opening and closing parts of the Declaration of Independence. (I left out the extensive bill of particulars levied against King George.) What struck me was not just how radical a document it remains but also how conservative it was and is at the same time. The Declaration made the case for independence in this one set of circumstances, but was careful not to make the case for rebellion in any and all situations. To the contrary, the authors went out of their way to emphasize just the opposite, that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes." Democracy is a balancing act. Just before July 4, I was fortunate to be the subject of a generous profile by Peter Baker that appeared in the New York Times. It focused as much as anything on what motivated me to write my most recent book and my growing concern over things at Home and their implications not just for life here but for American foreign policy, I.e., Away. Here it is in case you missed it over the long weekend: To Foreign Policy Veteran, the Real Danger Is at Home Hope your summer is off to a good start. Because of planned travel, the plan here is to publish the next issue of Home & Away in two weeks, on July 21. Use the freed-up time wisely. As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away. Richard Haass in the news
Articles:
Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens. |
No comments:
Post a Comment