Friday, December 31, 2021

Qatar's Eid Charity Subsidizes Palestinian Terrorism

 



Qatar's Eid Charity Subsidizes Palestinian Terrorism

by Jordan Cope

JNS

December 9, 2021

In recent decades, Qatar has financed ventures that have bolstered its image as a patron of culture, progress and hospitality. From elite soccer sponsorships, funding of Western universities, its airline (the "world's best") and its Al Jazeera network, Qatar excels at public relations.

Qatar has unsurprisingly developed strong business and security relationships with some of the world's most powerful nations. The United States, for instance, enjoys $185 billion in business with Qatar and hosts its largest Middle Eastern military outpost there. When it retreated from Afghanistan, the United States even relied on Qatar's help with evacuations. Doha will now "represent U.S. interests" at the Qatari embassy in Afghanistan, a testament to U.S. dependence on Qatar.

U.S. dependence on Qatar is growing, but Qatar is no ally.

However, Qatar is no ally. One must never forget how Qatar counter-intuitively supplied the "Taliban's political leadership" with a safe haven, thus helping reinstate it into power. One must also never forget the billions of dollars that Qatar has reportedly injected in aggregate into Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood affiliates and Islamists largely responsible for Libya and Syria's civil wars. Doha's optics contrast with its Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde duality as a patron of terrorism—a reality exposed when Qatar allowed Hamas and Taliban leaders to intermingle on its soil this year.

Documents discovered by the Middle East Forum about the finances of the regime-controlled Sheikh Eid Bin Mohammad Al Thani Charitable Association—also known as the Eid Charity—further confirm this dualism, but more so, how Qatar uses philanthropy to disguise its ties to Islamists. As Qatar strives to project itself as a patron of humanity, it's time to expose Qatar's PR efforts and some of its select beneficiaries.

What better place to start than the disputed Palestinian territories, which receives seemingly endless coverage from Qatar's Al Jazeera network? The Eid Charity documents reveal the distribution of more than 1,000 grants to 27 organizations across the Palestinian territories, worth almost $90 million.

Cue the Qatar Committee for the Reconstruction of Gaza (QCRG), which has received approximately $3 million from the Eid Charity, per the documents. A Qatari government agency that has received hundreds of millions of dollars in years past, the QCRG purports to be humanitarian, boasting about its grants to the "Palestinian people" and featuring photos of innocent beneficiaries: children and hospital patients.

Though sustaining life, the QCRG simultaneously endorses those who proactively seek genocide, such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a mostly Iran-funded terrorist organization committed to Israel's "destruction."

Qatar has no humanitarian justification for its affiliations with the PIJ.

Qatar has no humanitarian justification for its affiliations with the PIJ, which, per the Council on Foreign Relations, "does not participate in the political process." Yet QCRG chairman Ambassador Mohammed Al Emadi engages the PIJ's most prominent leaders—meeting Khaled Al Batsh, the PIJ's "leader in Gaza," and Khader Habib, a senior leader, both of whom Emadi invited to his residence in October 2019.

In mid-2019, Emadi attended (and presumably hosted) a press conference featured in photos with the PIJ. There, he expressed his respect for "all Palestinian factions" and "their sacrifices," while describing the PIJ as "one of the most important factions." He further acknowledged having "direct meetings and contacts" with the PIJ's leadership, whom he commended for its "positive attitudes."

Qatar's envoy in Gaza, Mohammed Al Emadi (left), invited senior PIJ official Khaled Al Batsh (right) to his residence in October 2019.

Unsurprisingly, Emadi has been thanked by the PIJ's leadership for Qatar's role in Gaza, and likewise, by the leadership of Hamas. Emadi regularly meets high-profile officials such as Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas's "political bureau chief," and Yahya Sinwar, Gaza's "de facto ruler" whom Emadi also received in his residence.

In 2012, former Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani even joined Emadi in meeting Ismail Haniyeh—presumably to oversee the implementation of charity projects, a testament to Qatar's willingness to embrace terrorist organizations at its highest levels of governance (0:09).

Qatar has also engaged organizations with second-degree ties to Hamas. Cue the Ibn Baz Charitable Society—a Salafist organization presumably named after its namesake, "the most senior Islamic authority to open the door to the religious legitimization of Palestinian terrorism."

It has received $3.5 million despite its leader, Sheikh Omar al-Homs, having espoused anti-Semitism, claiming "the Jews have inflicted harm on all nations that have lived with them." While acknowledging tensions with Hamas, al-Homs has encouraged further cooperation, observing, "the goal that we see is to bring hearts ... closer and postpone disputes before the battle with the Jews ... Hamas bears the slogan of Islam, and whatever our differences, Islam brings us together."

Sheikh al-Homs ultimately seeks to "expand" his organization's base and radicalism "to the West Bank." Qatar hosted al-Homs when he was once unable to return to the Gaza Strip.

A last beneficiary warranting mention is the Islamic Charitable Society of Hebron (ICSH). A "part of Hamas's daw'a network" between 2000 and 2004, ICSH has been outlawed by Israel and identified by the German Intelligence Service as "directly linked to HAMAS." It functioned as a "coordinating organization" for the Union of Good, which, fabricated by Hamas's leadership, transferred funds to Hamas and was consequently designated by the U.S. Treasury in 2008. In 2020, the Palestinian Authority arrested ICSH's head, Fadeel Jabareen, alongside other suspected Hamas activists for illegally distributing charity in the West Bank. It has received almost $5 million in Eid Charity aid.

Qatar's "philanthropy" has allowed it to shroud in impunity its efforts to engage Islamists.

In sum, Qatar's "philanthropy" has allowed it to boost its public relations while shrouding in impunity its efforts to engage Islamists. The newly-revealed Eid Charity documents serve as a reminder that much remains to be discovered when it comes to investigating the breadth and consequences of Qatar's financing, whether in the disputed Palestinian territories or elsewhere around the world.

Jordan Cope is the Qatari finance fellow at the Middle East Forum. Follow him on Twitter.

2021’DEN 2022’YE TÜRK DIŞ POLİTİKASI (4) Sedat Ergin

 




2021’DEN 2022’YE TÜRK DIŞ POLİTİKASI (4) Sedat  Ergin

 - Suriye’de adım adım büyük pazarlığa doğru

31 Aralık 2021

 

Geçenlerde Google’da Suriye haritası için arama yaptığımda, bu ülkeyi toprak bütünlüğü içinde gösteren haritaların azınlıkta kaldığını fark ettim. Haritaların çoğu Suriye’yi ya içsavaşın değişik aşamalarındaki bölünmüşlüğü içinde ya da bugün olduğu gibi muhtelif nüfuz bölgelerine ayrılmış en son haliyle gösteriyordu.

Bütün bu haritalarda farklı ülke ya da grupların denetimindeki bölgeleri tanımlamak için pek çok renk kullanılmıştı. Sonuçta hepsinin sizde bıraktığı anlam, bir yamalı bohça görüntüsünün çağrışımlarından ibarettir.

Özellikle içsavaş dönemine ilişkin süreklilik içinde -genişleyen, daralan- bölgeleri yansıtan, her biri diğerinden farklı haritalar, 911 kilometre sınır paylaştığımız güney komşumuzun 2011’de başlayan, önümüzdeki ilkbaharda 11’inci yılını geride bırakacak olan içsavaşta ne kadar büyük bir kaosun içinde savrulduğunu anlatmak için yeteri kadar çarpıcıdır.

2020 BAŞINDA ŞEKİLLENEN GEÇİCİ STATÜKO YERLEŞİYOR

İşte bu kaotik tabloda son iki yıldır majör bir değişiklik söz konusu değil. Türkiye’nin 2019 yılı ekim ayında Fırat’ın doğusunda gerçekleştirdiği “Barış Pınarı Harekâtı” ile 2020 Şubat’ında İdlib’de yaşanan şiddetli çatışmaların hemen ardından 5 Mart 2020’de Moskova’da varılan Türk-Rus mutabakatıyla şekillenen tablodan sonra, Suriye sahasında cephe hatlarını değiştiren önemli bir değişiklik olmadı.

Bu durum çatışmaların yaşanmadığı, cephe hatlarının zorlanmadığı anlamına gelmiyor kuşkusuz. Ama bu hadiseler sahanın bütününe hakim olan büyük fotoğrafı etkilemiyor. Sonuçta 2019 sonu ile 2020 başında şekillenen geçici statükonun en azından gözle görülebilir bir gelecekte yerleşik bir hal alabileceğini düşünebiliriz. Bununla birlikte, İdlib’in zaman zaman basınç alanı oluşturmaya devam edeceğini göz ardı etmeyelim.

SURİYE’DE SAHADAKİ AKTÖRLER

Bugünkü tabloya baktığımızda sahada çok sayıda aktör ve bunların tuttuğu nüfuz bölgelerini görüyoruz. Sıralarsak:

Önce, tabii ki içsavaşı göreceli olarak kazanmış olan ve uluslararası camiaya dönüş adımları atan Esad rejimi... Rejim, Fırat’ın batısındaki toprakları büyük ölçüde geri alıp, Fırat’ın doğusunda ise Rusya ile birlikte sınır hattına paralel bir koridorda artık bayrak gösterebiliyor.

Esad’ın baş destekçisi olarak sahaya yayılmış olan ve askeri varlığını kademe kademe güçlendiren Rusya...

Bir diğer destekçi olarak sahadaki açık-örtülü askeri varlığıyla, milisleriyle ülkenin pek çok noktasında denkleme kolaylıkla girebilen İran...

Sınırın yaklaşık üçte ikisine tekabül eden bitişik alanlarda, Suriye toprakları içinde tesis ettiği harekât bölgelerinde bulunan Türkiye...

Fırat’ın doğusunda nicelik olarak küçük bir askeri varlığı bulunmakla birlikte PKK’nın Suriye’deki uzantısı PYD-YPG kadroları ile kurduğu askeri ittifak üzerinden bu coğrafyada -sınır koridoru hariç- toprakların büyük bölümünü nüfuzu altında tutan ABD...

Tabii bu ülkelerin yanı sıra irili ufaklı, her biri de kendine yer açmaya çalışan devlet dışı silahlı aktörler var. Türkiye’nin desteklediği Suriye Milli Ordusu (ÖSO), PKK’nın uzantısı PYD/YPG, yaşadığı ağır yenilgiye rağmen Suriye içinde hâlâ varlığını hissettirebilen DEAŞ, El Kaide çizgisine bağlılıklarını sürdüren Huraseddin gibi gruplar ve İdlib’de alan hâkimiyetine sahip olan El Kaide türevi Heyet Tahrir eş Şam (HTŞ) gibi...

ABD İLE RUSYA’NIN SURİYE DİYALOĞUNA DİKKAT

Bu sıralamayı yapınca bu kadar çok aktörlü bir yapıdan nasıl bir istikrar tablosu, nasıl bir çözüm çıkabileceği sorusunun kolay bir yanıtı yok. Üstelik dışarıdan müdahil olan Körfez ülkeleri gibi oyuncuları saymadım bile...

Sahadaki nüfuz bölgeleri aynı kalsa da 2022’ye girilirken Suriye krizine ilişkin siyasi koşullarda önemli değişimlerin yaşanmakta oluşu denklemdeki en yeni unsurdur. Aslında 2021’nin başında pek hissedilmeyen bir yöneliş bugün belirgin bir şekilde kuvveden fiile çıkıyor.

Bu gelişme, Arap dünyası ile Esad rejimi arasındaki ilişkilerin normalleştirilmesi yönünde somut adımlar atılmakta oluşudur. Üst düzey temaslar, Şam ile yürümekte olan ziyaret trafiği büyük bir ivme kazanmış bulunuyor. Suriye’nin 2011 yılında üyelikten çıkarıldığı Arap Birliği’ne dönüşü rejimin meşruiyetini iyice sağlamlaştıracaktır.

Batı dünyasında Esad rejimine soğuk duran çevrelerde bile artık bu normalleşme sürecini kabullenme ikliminin yavaş yavaş zemin kazandığını görüyoruz. Biden yönetiminin Suriye’ye bir öncelik vermeyeceğinin, büyük ölçüde eski politikanın sürdürüleceğinin anlaşılması da bu yönelişi güçlendirecektir. Bununla birlikte, ABD’nin elinde her zaman kendisini masada kuvvetli tutacak bir “Kürt kartı” bulunuyor.

Bu noktada Biden yönetiminin işbaşı yapmasından sonra ABD ile Rusya arasında Suriye’yi konu alan bir diyaloğun sessiz bir şekilde yürümekte olduğunu da hatırlatalım. ABD ve Rusya liderlerinin geçen haziran ayında Cenevre’deki görüşmelerinden sonra yürütülen “yapıcı diplomasi” ile BM Güvenlik Konseyi’nden çıkan Suriye kararında sağlanan uzlaşı kayda değer bir adımdır. Keza ABD’nin de Suriye’ye uyguladığı ekonomik yaptırımlara insani mülahazalarla birtakım esneklikler getirmiş olması da önemlidir.

Dolayısıyla, ABD ile Rusya’nın önümüzdeki dönemde Suriye üzerinde aşama aşama bazı uzlaşı zeminleri bulmaları bir ihtimal olarak gözden uzak tutulmamalıdır.

Bu yönüyle baktığımızda Suriye sorununa bulunacak çözümün bazı kilitleri Cenevre’de BM gözetiminde Suriye’deki tarafların katıldığı konferans sürecinde değil ama soruna müdahil ABD ve Rusya gibi başat aktörlerin kendi aralarında yürütecekleri müzakereler üzerinden açılabilir.

RUSLAR KÜRTLERİN ÖZERKLİĞİNE GÖZ KIRPIYOR

Bu süreçte Türkiye de kuşkusuz Suriye’ye ilişkin çözüm masasının önemli bir aktörü olarak denkleme girmektedir. Bulunacak çözümün yaratması muhtemel sonuçları Türkiye’yi hayati bir şekilde ilgilendiriyor.

Bu noktada Suriye’nin toprak bütünlüğü esas olmakla birlikte, sahada bu kadar parçalı bir yapı üzerinden Şam’daki hükümetin 2011 öncesinde olduğu gibi her şeyi mutlak kontrolü altında tutabildiği eski düzene dönebileceğini beklemek, çok gerçekçi görünmüyor.

Bu da bizi çözümün muhtemelen özerklik kavramını kabul eden bir siyasal yönetim modeli üzerinden olacağı sonucuna götürüyor. Rusya’nın artık açıkça “Suriye’deki tüm etnik ve mezhepsel grupların haklarının teslim edilmesi gerektiğini” vurgulaması, özellikle Suriyeli Kürtlere dönük önemli bir açılımı gösteriyor. Rusya Dışişleri Bakanı Sergey Lavrov’un bu çerçevede Fırat’ın doğusunda PYD-YPG denetimindeki “Özerk Yönetim” olarak adlandırılan yapının yönetici kadrosunu geçen ay Moskova’da kabul etmiş olması dikkatle not edilmesi gereken bir adımdır.

Buradaki bütün mesele Suriye’deki Kürt grupların varsayılan bu özerk bölgede hangi alanlarda ne kadar yetkiye sahip olacakları ve ana omurgasını PYD/YPG’nin oluşturduğu Suriye Demokratik Güçleri’nin Suriye’nin ulusal ordusuna nasıl eklemleneceği sorularında düğümleniyor. Rejimin yetki devri konusunda ne kadar esneklik göstermeye yanaşacağı, Rusya’nın da Suriye Devlet Başkanı Beşar Esad’ı bu konuda ne ölçüde ikna edebileceği önümüzdeki dönemin belirleyici sorularıdır.

Bu arada “Özerk Yönetim”, hem Washington hem de Rusya ile düzenli müzakere halindedir.

TÜRKİYE ESAD İLE NORMALLEŞMEYE GİRER Mİ?

Türkiye’nin PKK uzantısı PYD/YPG’yi merkeze alan böyle bir çözümün şekillenmesi halinde buna nasıl bir tepki vereceği kuşkusuz kritik bir önem kazanacaktır.

Bir mesele daha var. Suriye sorununa nihai bir çözüm bulunacaksa Kürt gruplar için üzerinde durulan özerklik düşüncesinin ülkenin rejim kontrolü dışında kalan başka bölgeleri açısından bir emsal oluşturup oluşturmayacağı sorusu da kaçınılmaz olarak gündeme gelecektir.

Her halükârda Türkiye’nin kontrolündeki harekât bölgelerinde bulunan Suriye Milli Ordusu (ÖSO) unsurları ve ülkenin başka bölgelerinden kaçarak bu topraklara yerleşen insanların konumlarının nihai bir çözümde nasıl düzenleneceği sorusu da yanıt bekliyor.

 Bütün bu sorular Türkiye’yi çok yakından ilgilendiriyor. Sonuçta Suriye adım adım uluslararası camiaya dönerken, Türkiye çözüm sürecindeki konuları Esad rejimi ile Rusya’nın arabuluculuğu üzerinden mi konuşacaktır?

Neresinden bakılırsa bakılsın, Suriye’de büyük pazarlık daha yeni başlamaktadır. Bu pazarlığın çok uzun bir zamana yayılması da muhtemeldir. Türkiye’nin, sorunlu olduğu bütün bölge ülkeleriyle ilişkilerini normalleştirme yönünde önemli adımlar atarken, durumunu kuvvetlendiren Esad rejimine hâlâ sırtını çevirmesi gerçekçi bir tutum olarak görünmüyor.


Sedat Ergin  31 Aralık 2021

Ten Anniversaries to Note in 2022

 

Ten Anniversaries to Note in 2022

As 2021 comes to a close, here are ten notable historical anniversaries to mark in 2022.
President Richard Nixon and Chairman Mao Zedong shake hands on February 21, 1972.
President Richard Nixon and Chairman Mao Zedong shake hands on February 21, 1972. National Archives

Anniversaries mark the passage of time, recall our triumphs, and honor our losses. Two thousand twenty-one witnessed many significant anniversaries: the centennial anniversary of the dedication of the tomb of the unknown soldier, the seventy-fifth anniversary of Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech, and the fiftieth anniversary of the publishing of the Pentagon Papers, to name a few. Two thousand twenty-two will also see anniversaries of many significant events in history. Here are ten to note:

Fiftieth Anniversary of Nixon’s Trip to China, February 21, 1972. President Richard Nixon said his trip to China in February 1972 was “the week that changed the world.” He wasn’t exaggerating. The visit was the first by an American president to the People’s Republic of China. It was made all the more remarkable by Nixon’s reputation as a staunch anti-communist. The trip was arranged seven months earlier when National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger secretly visited China. After Nixon deplaned in Beijing, Americans watched on television as he and the first lady toured various cultural sites, thereby getting their first glimpse of life behind the so-called Bamboo Curtain. In private, U.S. and Chinese officials hammered out the final details of the Shanghai Communiqué, which they had begun negotiating months earlier. Issued at the end of Nixon’s trip, it stressed that both countries sought a “normalization of relations” and that “neither should seek hegemony in the Asia–Pacific region,” while it finessed the question of Taiwan’s future. The communiqué stated China’s view that “Taiwan is a province of China” and reaffirmed the U.S. “interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.” Nixon assured Mao privately that the United States wouldn’t encourage Taiwanese independence. Nixon’s trip did not establish formal U.S. diplomatic relations with China. That would come seven years later under President Jimmy Carter. But Nixon’s visit did open a new era in the complex relationship between two of the world’s most influential countries.

More on:

United States

2021 in Review

Diplomacy and International Institutions

Political History and Theory

Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Truman Doctrine, March 12, 1947. In late February 1947, Britain informed the United States it could no longer afford to provide aid to Greece and Turkey. President Harry Truman recognized that the decision might lead to geopolitical disaster—the Soviet Union would likely fill the vacuum Britain was creating. Determined to thwart Moscow, Truman decided to pick up the baton Britain was dropping. But doing so required persuading Americans, and a Republican-controlled Congress looking to cut federal spending, that the United States should give taxpayer dollars to foreign countries. Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R-MI), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Truman privately that Republicans would support him if he could gain public support, but added that to do so Truman had to “scare the hell out of the American people.” Knowing that the case for foreign aid required “the greatest selling job ever facing a president,” Truman went before Congress on March 12, 1947. He outlined the threat facing the United States and declared: “It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” The public was persuaded. In May, Congress voted by wide margins to appropriate the funds Truman had requested. By embracing what became known as the Truman Doctrine, the United States broke with its traditional reluctance to become entangled in events outside the Western Hemisphere and began to assume the responsibility of global leadership.  

Fiftieth Anniversary of the Signing of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, May 26, 1972. As the Soviet Union and the United States developed nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in the 1960s, both sides also sought to build systems to shoot down incoming ICBMs. The appeal of missile defense is obvious: it can potentially defeat or mitigate a missile attack. But it also can make an attack more likely. If a country develops an effective defense, the opposing side might see its only hope for survival to lie in attacking first, before any of its missiles can be destroyed. The fear that missile defenses might be destabilizing in a crisis, along with concerns about cost and effectiveness, led the Soviet Union and the United States to sign the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 1972. It permitted each country to construct two ground-based defensive missile sites—later reduced to one—with each limited to one hundred interceptors. However, the missile defense idea didn’t die with the adoption of the ABM Treaty. President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 Star Wars speech led to renewed missile defense research as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative. On June 13, 2002, President George W. Bush withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty to allow the United States to deploy missile defenses. The United States has spent more than $200 billion on missile defense since 1985, though the effectiveness of the resulting systems is questionable. Meanwhile, China and Russia are building hypersonic missiles designed to evade U.S. missile defenses.

Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Marshall Plan, June 5, 1947. One of the most consequential foreign policy speeches in American history was delivered in less than eleven minutes at a college commencement ceremony. When Secretary of State George C. Marshall arrived at Harvard Yard on June 5, 1947, initial postwar optimism had given way to the grinding challenges of rebuilding Europe—and staving off communist expansion. The United States weeks earlier had committed to giving Greece and Turkey $400 million in aid. However, Truman administration officials believed that a comprehensive reconstruction plan for all of Europe was needed. Working feverishly to develop the plan, they decided that Harvard University’s upcoming commencement ceremony provided an ideal opportunity to unveil their idea. Speaking to a 15,000-person crowd with no media present, Marshall proposed a plan as bold as it was simple: the United States would help rebuild war-torn Europe if Europeans agreed to develop a plan for reconstruction. The offer even extended to the Soviet Union and its allies. Was Marshall soft on communism? No. He knew that any proposal to aid communist governments would be dead on arrival on Capitol Hill. But he calculated, correctly, that Joseph Stalin would reject the offer. Congress turned the Marshall Plan into law, and Europe’s reconstruction took off. The Marshall Plan has been rightly called “the most effective program the United States launched during the entire Cold War.” In 1953, Marshall was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the plan that rebuilt Europe.

Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Handover of Hong Kong, July 1, 1997. In 1984, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang struck an historic agreement for Hong Kong to be returned to China. Britain gained control of Hong Kong in 1841 in the midst of the First Opium War. The territory’s boundaries were expanded in 1860 and again in 1898, when China was compelled to lease Hong Kong to Britain for ninety-nine years. Reclaiming lost Chinese territory was a priority for the Communist Chinese once they came to power. Negotiations began in 1982. The 1984 deal called for sovereignty to be transferred on July 1, 1997. On that day, Hong Kong reverted to Chinese rule as a Special Administrative Region under the “one country, two systems” policy. To secure British agreement, China agreed that Hong Kong could maintain its free-market system for fifty years. For more than two decades, the Hong Kong Basic Law entitled the city’s residents to freedoms denied to those living in mainland China. But Beijing eventually sought to assert more control over Hong Kong. That triggered pro-democracy protests, including one in June 2019 that saw more than one million people march against a bill to permit extraditions to mainland China. Beijing responded by asserting its right to interpret the Basic Law. In 2020, it imposed a national security law that has since been used to jail pro-democracy activists and to shutter pro-democracy media outlets. The days of “one country, two systems” look to be numbered.

Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Publication of the “Mr. X” Article in Foreign Affairs, July 1, 1947. The title of the third article in the July 1947 issue of Foreign Affairs—“The Sources of Soviet Conduct”—wasn’t remarkable. But the name of the author was: “X.” It was a pseudonym for a little known State Department official named George Kennan. Sixteen months earlier, while serving as the U.S. charge d’affaires in Moscow, he had sent a lengthy cable to the State Department explaining why Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had given a fiery speech in which he spoke of the wartime alliance with the United States as a thing of the past. Kennan’s 5,000-word missive, now known as the Long Telegram, argued that U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union had erroneously assumed that offering incentives would persuade the Kremlin to be more cooperative. To the contrary, Kennan wrote, powerful internal dynamics drove Soviet behavior, and “as a result, only the threat of force could limit or alter Soviet ambitions.” In “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” Kennan refined and extended his argument, writing that the “main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.” The doctrine of containment would guide U.S. foreign policy for the next four decades. Kennan, however, disliked how his intellectual handiwork was implemented, believing that successive U.S. administrations gave it a more belligerent and militaristic twist than he had intended. 

Fiftieth Anniversary of the Munich Olympic Massacre, September 5, 1972. The 1972 Olympic Games, the first hosted by Germany since the end of World War II, were billed as the “Peaceful Games.” Sadly, they weren’t. Early on September 5, ten days after the opening ceremony began the games, eight members of the Black September terrorist group broke into the Israeli team’s quarters in the Olympic Village. They killed two Israelis immediately and took nine others hostage. In return for the release of the athletes, the terrorists demanded that 234 Palestinians be freed from Israeli jails, that two members of the Red Army Faction terrorist organization be freed from German prisons, and that they all be given safe passage to the Middle East. On the evening of September 5, believing that German authorities had given into their demands, the terrorists agreed to be transported to Fürstenfeldbruck Air Base west of Munich along with their hostages. When they arrived at the base, German police launched a badly planned and executed rescue attempt. All nine Israeli hostages were killed, as were five terrorists and one German police officer. The games were postponed for thirty-four hours and a memorial service was held for the slain athletes. The Israeli government later launched a clandestine operation, dubbed “Wrath of God,” to kill those responsible for the Munich Olympic Massacre. For years the victims’ families lobbied the International Olympic Committee to remember their loved ones during the Olympics’ opening ceremony. That finally happened at the 2021 Tokyo Olympics.

Centennial of the Founding of Foreign Affairs Magazine, September 15, 1922. When the Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1921, discussion turned almost immediately to publishing a journal. On September 15, 1922, Foreign Affairs debuted at just $1.25 a copy. The editorial statement that opened the issue laid out the magazine’s mission: “to promote the discussion of current questions of international interest and to serve as the natural medium for the expression of the best thought.” In doing so, the magazine vowed it “will not devote itself to the support of any one cause, however worthy …. Its articles will not represent any consensus of beliefs. What is demanded of them is that they shall be competent and well informed, representing honest opinions seriously held and convincingly expressed.” For one hundred years now, successive Foreign Affairs editors have adhered to that promise. The list of contributors to the magazine is long and illustrious. They include Madeleine Albright, W.E.B. DuBois, Samuel Huntington, Henry Kissinger, Margaret Mead, Leon Trotsky, and numerous presidents and prime ministers. The magazine’s articles have shaped the foreign policy debate at home and abroad, most famously with the publication of the “X” article. As technology has evolved so too has Foreign Affairs. The print magazine, which is now published six times a year, has been joined by a website and a mobile app that post new material daily. What has remained constant is the commitment to publish the best work on pressing foreign policy issues.

Centennial of the End of the Ottoman Empire, November 1, 1922. Nothing lasts forever. Not even history-defining empires. The Ottoman Empire is a case in point. Its origin dates back to 1299 when Osman I, from whom the empire gets its name, gained control of a principality in Anatolia. A century-and-a-half later, Mehmed II accomplished the unthinkable. He captured Constantinople—modern day Istanbul—ending the thousand-year reign of the Byzantine Empire and earning the sobriquet “the Conqueror.” The empire reached its height in the early sixteenth century under the rule of Suleiman the Magnificent; its boundaries ran from modern-day Yemen in the south to Austria in the north, and from the Persian Gulf in the east to Algeria in the west. In 1683, Ottoman forces were turned back at the gates of Vienna. Over the next two centuries, the empire’s prosperity and influence declined, and its borders shrank as a result. By the late nineteenth century it was the “Sick Man of Europe,” preyed upon by some European powers and propped up by others. When World War I began in 1914, the Ottomans sided with the Central Powers. In the midst of the war, the Ottomans targeted Armenians living in the empire, killing more than one million of them either directly or through forced marches. The Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers in October 1918 by signing the Armistice of Mudros. Four years later, Turkey’s Grand National Assembly abolished the Sultanate, officially ending the Ottoman Empire.

Centennial of the Establishment of the Soviet Union. December 30, 1922. The 1917 Russian Revolution ended nearly four hundred years of rule by the Tsars and triggered a three-year-long civil war. Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks emerged triumphant, with control over Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and the Transcaucasian Federation, which would later be divided up into the republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. In December 1922, delegates from all four entities gathered in Moscow for the Congress of Soviets. On December 30, they adopted the Declaration of the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Treaty of the Creation of the Soviet Union, which officially created the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). In theory, the legislatures of each of the four constituent republics was entitled to review the text of the treaty before providing their official approval. The treaty was never discussed again, however. The USSR eventually came to encompass fifteen republics, forming the world’s largest country in terms of area. It triumphed over Nazi Germany at a horrific cost—more than twenty million Soviets died in World War II—and during the four-decade-long Cold War it rivaled the United States as a global superpower. The USSR’s sclerotic economic and political systems ultimately proved to be its undoing. With the fall of the Berlin Wall 1989, its domination of Eastern Europe collapsed and the Soviet republics began demanding their independence. On Christmas Day 1991, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev announced the USSR’s dissolution. It had lasted sixty-nine years.

Other anniversaries in 2022. January 30 is the fiftieth anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Derry, Northern Ireland. February 17 marks seventy-five years since Voice of America began to broadcast to the Soviet Union and Eastern EuropeMarch 14 marks ten years since the International Criminal Court found Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga guilty of war crimes for using child soldiers. April 29 is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Chemical Weapons Convention entering into force. May 3 marks seventy-five years since Japan’s post-war constitution went into effect. June 24 marks ten years since Mohamed Morsi won Egypt’s first free and fair democratic presidential election. July 26 marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of President Truman signing the National Security Act, which among other things created the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency. August 31 is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in a car crash in Paris. September 11 marks ten years since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. October 28 is the centennial of Benito Mussolini’s March on Rome. November 29 marks seventy-five years since the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13 to partition Palestine. December 11 marks twenty-five years since the UN adopted the Kyoto Protocol.

On the lighter side. January 11 is the centennial of the first time Insulin was used to treat diabetes. February 5 marks ten years since the New York Giants won Super Bowl XLVI, or what New England Patriots fans refer to as “Agony Bowl II.” March 15 is the fiftieth anniversary of the premiere of The Godfather. April 15 marks seventy-five years since Jackie Robinson became the first Black man to play Major League Baseball. May 2 marks seventy-five years since the premiere of Miracle on 34th Street. June 20 marks ten years since LeBron James won his first NBA Championship as the Miami Heat defeated the Oklahoma Thunder in five games. July 2 is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the premiere of Men in Black. August 9 marks ten years since Usain Bolt became the first person to win the 100/200 meter double in consecutive Summer Olympics. September 27 is the bicentennial of the deciphering of the Rosetta Stone. October 14 marks seventy-five years since Chuck Yeager became the first person to fly faster than the speed of sound. November 4 is the centennial of Howard Carter’s discovery of King Tutankhamun’s tomb. December 19 marks twenty-five years since the premiere of Titanic, the third highest grossing film of all-time.

Charlotte Peterson and Anna Shortridge assisted in the preparation of this post.

Other posts in th

Foreign Policy Stories to Watch in 2022

 


Five Foreign Policy Stories to Watch in 2022

As 2021 comes to a close, here are five foreign policy news stories to follow in the coming year.
The virtual summit between President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping is shown at a restaurant in Beijing on November 16, 2021.
The virtual summit between President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping is shown at a restaurant in Beijing on November 16, 2021. Tingshu Wang/Reuters

Two thousand twenty-one had its fair share of big news stories. The same will be true of 2022. Some of those stories no doubt will surprise. Here are five that won’t. Any one of them could turn into the dominant news event of the year—or fade away. We’ll know in twelve months which will sizzle and which will fizzle.

COVID-19 Persists. There was a moment in July 2021 when it seemed that the COVID-19 pandemic was ending. Scientists had produced vaccines at a record pace. Seemingly all that was left to do was to get shots into arms. But the behavior of people and the virus defied that optimism. In countries with ample vaccine supplies, far too many people refused vaccination. Most countries, though, couldn’t get enough vaccines for their citizens. The culprit was a mix of governments hoarding supplies for domestic use—just 20 percent of the 2.74 billion vaccine donations pledged for global use have been donated—a disjointed international response, and the sheer logistical challenge of vaccinating billions of people. So the World Health Organization isn’t likely to meet its goal to have 70 percent of the world’s population vaccinated by September 2022. Low-income countries clearly won’t get there—at the end of 2021 less than 5 percent of people living in poor countries were vaccinated. Meanwhile, the Omicron variant emerged in late 2021 and quickly spread worldwide. Initial research showed it to be more transmissible than the Delta variant and less likely to be stopped by existing vaccines or the natural immunity conferred by having already contracted COVID-19. So a new surge in hospitalizations and deaths seems inevitable. One piece of good news is the arrival of antiviral treatments that substantially reduce the risk of hospitalization or death. Even so, the global pandemic, and its many consequences, won’t be ending anytime soon.

More on:

Global

United States

COVID-19

China

Ukraine

U.S.-China Tensions Continue to Bubble. Whether or not the term “new cold war” is the best descriptor for the current U.S.-China relationship, relations between world’s two leading countries are frosty. Xi Jinping has made it clear that he sees China as the ascending superpower that will reshape the global order to its liking. Joe Biden has vowed that the United States will “prevail in strategic competition with China” and has made countering Beijing “Job 1” in U.S. foreign policy. To that end, Biden has acted both unilaterally and with likeminded countries. In terms of the former, his administration kept in place Donald Trump’s trade tariffs, sent U.S. ships through the Taiwan Strait, condemned China’s suppression of freedom in Hong Kong and human rights abuses of Uighurs in Xinjiang, and announced a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics, which China is hosting. In terms of the latter, the Biden administration held the first-ever Quad Leaders’ Summit, persuaded NATO and other allies to issue tough statements on China, and unveiled the AUKUS deal. The near-term flashpoint could be Taiwan. China in 2021 increased the size and scope of its intrusions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, raising concerns it was rehearsing for an invasion of the island. Biden and Xi held a “respectful” three-and-a-half hour call in November to discuss their differences. The conversation didn’t conclude with any agreements or joint statements, nor did it cool the rhetoric coming out of either capital. Both sides have good reason to keep their differences contained. But the future is likely to bring testier relations.

Russia Threatens Ukraine. The surging tensions between Russia and Ukraine in the final months of 2021 have deep roots. Russian President Vladimir Putin regards the breakup of the Soviet Union as the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." His foreign policy has long sought to reverse that catastrophe. He took a significant step in that direction in 2014 when he reacted to the Orange Revolution that swept Ukraine’s pro-Russian president from power by seizing Crimea and encouraging Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Putin repeated his belief this past summer that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people” and that “the true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.” However, his focus on Ukraine probably reflects geopolitical calculations more than a sentimental attachment to the Ancient Rus. As two scholars put it, he “views Ukraine as a Western aircraft carrier parked just across from Rostov Oblast in southern Russia.” NATO is open to the possibility of membership for Ukraine, something its current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has pursued with steps such as supporting joint NATO-Ukraine military drills. Putin warned in November that NATO would cross a “red line” if it expanded into Ukraine and called for “legal guarantees” that it won’t expand further east. Russia’s military buildup on Ukraine’s borders could be a bid to force that issue. In December, Biden rejected Putin’s red line but agreed to a meeting with four leading NATO members to discuss Russian concerns. Diplomacy may provide an off ramp to avoid a war neither side likely wants. But history is rife with examples of off ramps missed.

Iran’s Nuclear Program Advances. Is Iran poised to become the world’s newest nuclear state? Joe Biden came to office hoping he could avoid confronting that question by persuading Tehran to return to compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. But as 2021 came to an end, seven rounds of negotiations had failed to yield a breakthrough. Nor had Iran stood pat during the year. In an ostensible response to what was presumed to be Israeli sabotage, Iran began enriching uranium to 60 percent, a level not needed for any civilian purpose. By year’s end, Iran appeared capable of producing enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon within a month of deciding to so. Whether it would remained an open question. Many experts argue that Iran will settle for being a threshold nuclear state, capable of “going nuclear” on short notice. But such a latent capability could still upend the security situation in the Middle East by potentially emboldening Iran’s malign activities in the region. The Biden administration looks to be hoping that China and Russia will pressure Tehran to step back. That pressure may not come or, if it does, it may not work. Israel, which understandably views Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat, has urged the United States to take military action. The Biden administration, though, looks to be no more eager to use military force against Iran than its predecessors were. But if military force is off the table, and sanctions won’t change Tehran’s calculations, then a nuclear, or almost-nuclear, Iran looks to be inevitable.

The U.S. Trade Agenda Founders. Joe Biden likes to say that “America is back.” That’s not the case when it comes to trade. Biden has continued most of his predecessor’s trade policies. As 2021 ended, Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods remained in place, even though they cost more jobs than they created and cost U.S. consumers money. Biden similarly continued Trump’s policy of blocking appointments to the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) appellate body, effectively immobilizing the organization. Biden also directed U.S. government agencies to buy more products made in America, a move that invited trade partners to retaliate in kind. And Biden rejected calls to rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the trade deal he once supported and which is now known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Biden argued that he first needs to “have made major investments here at home and in our workers” before changing course on trade. That approach is misguided. As many as one in five U.S. jobs depends on trade, while technology accounts for most job losses. America’s trade partners aren’t waiting for the United States gets its house in order. They are negotiating new deals that put U.S. exporters and workers at a disadvantage. Standing pat is also undercutting Biden’s top foreign policy priority—countering China. Beijing is now seeking to join the CPTPP, the very agreement intended to counter its rising power. Don’t expect Biden’s to soften his self-defeating trade policies in 2022. With midterm elections next November, political rather than economic or strategic calculations will likely dominate the administration’s thinking.

Charlotte Peterson and Anna Shortridge assisted in the preparation of this post.