Sunday, March 18, 2018

Memorandom on Trump Yemen Policy

TO:  Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
FROM:  Aran Hamilton-Grenham
DATE:  2 March 2018
SUBJECT:  United States Yemen Policy

SUMMARY:  President Trump has largely continued the policies that were undertaken by President Obama relating to the Yemenis Civil War, namely backing the Saudi led coalition while using drones to fight back Al-Qaeda in the area.  United States support has not been limited but has actually increased despite wide reports from human rights groups such as Amnesty International.  They have reported the purposeful bombing and shelling of civilian targets by both sides.  The United States should threaten, and if necessary actually pull all military aid until the humanitarian crisis is fixed.  We should play no part in the murder of civilians.

CONTEXT:  Yemen was split into two nations up until 1967, when they split due to a previous Civil War.  There was a capitalist north, and the communist south.  In 1990, the North and South Yemen came to be one, united by at that time President Ali Abdullah Saleh.  He remained President until 2011, with his Vice President Abed Rabbu Mansour Hadi taking over until 2014 when an islamist group, the Houthi’s, charged into the capital Sadah and took it over.  In early 2015, the Saudi Arabian government launched Operation Decisive Storm,   Due to the intense fighting and conflict taking place, many civilians are left malnourished and at risk of succumbing to disease.  A water treatment facility in Yemen was bombed by the Saudi’s, with American made bombs, that resulted in a Cholera outbreak that is still taking place today.  The civil war is seen largely as a part of the a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with Iran backing the Houthi rebels and Saudi Arabia backing the Hadi government.  As it stands now, the people of Yemen are the ones who have suffered the most recently, with 75 percent of people needing humanitarian assistance according to the United Nations.  This includes 11.3 million children who could not survive without it.

ALTERNATIVE:  Instead of financing and assisting with the perpetuation of fighting, the United States should not continue its participation and tacit acceptance of the Saudi behavior and end its involvement in military matters.  Incentives can be used such as threats of a reductions in financial and general military assistance.  On the humanitarian end, the United States should attempt to negotiate without military involvement, and finance and help with assisting the Yemenese people. 

MAIN ARGUMENT:  This would help President Trump accomplish his long held goal of ending radical religious terrorism.  Many in the region, without a home or food to look for, have ended up falling into the hands of organizations such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.  If stability can be brought to Yemen though, steps can be taken to prevent radicalization.  We would not just be getting involved in a conflict that we have nothing to do with.  We would be saving American lives.  In terms of the effects on the people of Yemen, the consequences of continued military action will be dire.  With 75 percent of people needing humanitarian assistance according to the United Nations.  This includes 11.3 million children who could not survive without it.  This places a burden where many organizations, with a significant proportion of funding coming from the United States.  

CONCLUSION:  Financially, morally, and security wise, the United States would benefit from pulling out of military action in Yemen.  As it stands now, the United States is supporting a war that denigrates the image of the entire country.  Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut recently referenced this in a speech on the Senate Floor, where he illustrated that to the people of Yemen, these are American bombs coming down and destroying everything that they know.  The repercussions of continued action will be felt through out the world if actions are not taken to prevent the denigration of the American image.  


Wednesday, March 14, 2018

NATO Mission

In its formation, NATO was initially meant as an organization that would prevent the expansion of Communism into Western Europe via Soviet influence.  But, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, The large enemy that had existed previously no longer existed.  Some questioned whether or not NATO would continue, with its initial mission changing.  
NATO has a clear tilt towards the United States and its interests, and therefore it can be said that it is meant to defend American interests.  But speaking more broadly about the mission, and less specifically to the United States, NATO is meant to advance the security interests of the countries within the western hemisphere. 
This is made clear by the NATO mission in Afghanistan.  This is not a country that is a particular threat, and Russia and China really don’t have anything significant when it comes to their role there.  Instead, it is a mission that is based on stabilizing a country so that religious extremism, which is an issue specific to Afghanistan in Taliban controlled areas where Al-Qaeda is able to operate, so that Western security is enhanced.  
The change is interesting because it started out as a military organization that set out to prevent attacks or intrusions from exterior forces in a defensive way, but it has come to change into something that is more aggressive.  Going out and seeking a fight is not something that was initially seen as a NATO goal.  
NATO has not just evolved to counter terrorism.  It continues to represent a strong defense against rising powers in China and Russia, where the two nations can be seen as increasingly threatening.  By uniting the 29 nations together who are a part of NATO, it makes up a much more powerful block then each one by themselves.  In a way, the bloc can be seen as one larger military interest.  
A problem that can crop up with this is the difference in what each country believes is critical.  Communism was something that was easy to identify and fear.  It influenced every nation to at least some extent, and as a result could take over any nation.  The same is not true of whether an invasion of Afghanistan truly serves people’s interests.  France, Germany, and Canada will all have strikingly different opinions on that.

NATO's Importance in American Foreign Policy

NATO’s Importance in American Foreign Policy

            The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created out of the NATO treaty in 1949. This came after the coup in Czechoslovakia and the Brussels Treaty. Since its creation, it has played a significant role in American Foreign Policy throughout the Cold War and to this day.
            NATO is a collective security pact and had original goals to aid the countries that were part of it. Some original goals that the organization had was to defend Europe from the Soviet Union. In the articles, it gave leeway for non-military cooperation. It also called for military coordination and integration. And Article V describes collective security for these nations. The policy that the organization had was “massive retaliation” so that other countries or countries that were aligned together would be afraid to challenge NATO because they would be met with this “massive retaliation.” Another goal of the treaty was to stop militarism in Europe. After the rise of communism in Germany, these countries feared the presence of systems that could be detrimental to their nations. But militarism did not stop at communism and also included authoritarianism and fascism. Finally, another original goal of the treaty was European integration.
            NATO has a specific organization which allows it to operate. The North Atlantic Council has a 29 member state delegation that is governed by a Secretary General. This Council meets once a week to discuss and coordinate efforts. Since they meet this often, then it is clear how important this is to American foreign policy as we are still relying on it today.
            This organization played a significant role in the Cold War. During this time, it expanded to Greece, Turkey, West Germany, and then Spain. This expansion was met with the Warsaw Pact of USSR and other Easter European countries that also worked as a collective security pact.
            Now, NATO is still used and just as important. It has grown a great amount since its fruition. Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary joined in 1999. Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania all joined in 2004. Followed by Croatia and Albania in 2009. And then the organization has partnerships outside of Europe which help with global diplomacy. As this was made in to protect countries from the USSR, Russia has not had a positive response to the organization. They detest the expansion of NATO. NATO has worked in peacekeeping, like they did with the Yugoslav Wars. It has also worked to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and used Article V to do so.
            NATO has played a significant role, as one has seen with the Cold War, and continues to play a significant part in American foreign policy.


Tuesday, March 13, 2018

NATO's importance in US Foreign Policy


Currently, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) seems to serve a minimal purpose for US national interests; nonetheless, membership in NATO is still important for American foreign policy, especially since President Trump is so significantly lessening this administration’s focus on diplomacy. Throughout history—specifically during and immediately after the Cold War—NATO has served as the pinnacle of unity for many European Countries, especially the Central Eastern European nations previously involved in the Warsaw Pact. However, in terms of the United States, the most important moment in our NATO membership was the invocation of Article 5 in Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Currently, only a few of the goals of NATO actually serve American national interests. Many of the goals, including enlargement and the focus on the European Union, seem to place European interests over others. However, the emphasis on counter-terrorism and peacekeeping are concepts that the United States continues to prioritize and should work with NATO member-states to achieve.
Morally, the United States has an obligation to the member-states of NATO, especially those that responded to the call for collective action of Article 5 in 2001. If these countries were willing to come to America’s aid when we were in need of military assistance, the United States likewise has a moral responsibility to help these countries in the future should they require collective action.
Although the United States’ membership  in NATO continues to seem logical, it’s main goals are a bit at odds with the foreign policy goals of the Trump Administration—though not necessarily at odds with American national interests in general. For instance, a goal of NATO following the end of the Cold War was to form a Western alliance as a bulwark against China and Russia. However, President Trump aims to improve relationships with China, especially in terms of trade. Additionally, the current controversy regarding Russia’s involvement in the 2016 Presidential election calls into question the Trump administration’s loyalty as a force against Russia.
In considering the role of NATO for United States’ national interests and foreign policy, it is vital to think about the consequences were the US pulled out of our membership. Simply in diplomatic terms, pulling out of NATO would make us look extremely isolationist. Although this would uphold facets of Trump’s “America First” philosophy, it is also a statement to other member-states that we would not be willing to help them, even if they were willing to help us. In a military alliance, one nation’s interests should not always be superior to others. Especially since the Trump Administration is so drastically deemphasizing diplomacy and cutting a large portion of the State Department, the US leaving NATO—even though it is an organization focused on military alliance—would cause any international diplomatic efforts to suffer severely. As an international hegemon, American involvement in NATO upholds our commitment to peacekeeping and counterterrorism, as well as our dedication to human rights and international safety.

NATO's Purpose in the 21st Century

            NATO was initially created at the very beginning of the Cold War as an international military body that would act to prevent the spread of the threatening ideology that was communism. Since that threat was defeated over 20 years ago, people have begun to question the purpose of NATO today.
            Even though the world has changed and NATO’s initial target, communism, is no longer a major threat to the international world order that does not mean that their purpose as an international security body needs to change as there are still many threats to the world order. They can remain a global force but need to shift their focus away from communism to other issues plaguing the world.
            The first of these issues still aligns with their old mission. They must keep Russia in check. With Vladimir Putin at the helm of this major world power, Russia poses a bigger threat to the world than people realize. They have a large nuclear arsenal and are still trying to push their own agenda and spread throughout the region as they have recently demonstrated with the invasion into Ukraine. The threat that they pose to the international order is way too big for any one country to handle on their own. If the nations of NATO come together, they will effectively be able to minimize and crush this threat. NATO does not only have to specifically target Russia though, they can also keep other threatening countries in check. These nations can include, but are not limited to, Iraq, North Korea, and China. These three nations also pose great dangers to the way that the world exists today.
            Not all the threats which face the world today are coming from nations though. In the 21st century one of the more dangerous and common threats facing the world is not a political ideology but an extreme religious one. Although the radical faction of Islam is very small, it has become one of the biggest dangers to everyday society. 9/11 is the perfect example of the threat that these groups can cause. With only a handful of men, they could kill almost 3,000 Americans and forever change American society. Since then, many more attacks have been conducted by these groups in Western World. This is another issue that the US cannot handle on their own. By changing NATO into a global coalition against terror, the Western world would have a united front against one of the bigger threats facing the world.
            Lastly, NATO serves one overarching purpose that is viewed by many, including myself, to serve a greater purpose than all its specific purposes. It links the United States to many countries throughout Europe and creates an unofficial western coalition. Even though the current administration is pushing for a foreign policy which is eerily similar to isolationism, in reality it is impossible. The globalized world that exists today requires the United States to be one of the more prevalent actors in the world. By being apart of NATO the United States is linked to their closest allies with no escape. It keeps the United States relevant in a region of the world where they not only have influence but have like-minded ideas of how the world should run. A coalition of nations on the same front has the power to change the world for the better.

Sunday, March 4, 2018

Memorandum on US Foreign Policy Concerning President Trump's Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's Capital

TO: United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
FROM: Kristen Fontaine
DATE: 2 March 2018
SUBJECT: Recognition of Jerusalem as Capital of Israel

SUMMARY: President Trump’s public recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on December 6, 2017 was a diplomatic mistake. Trump should have continued in the footsteps of his predecessors in waiving the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. However, now that he has publically announced his position, he should rescind his declaration and work towards diplomatic negotiations between Israel and Palestine.

CONTEXT: The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, largely pushed by the growing Pro-Israel Lobby, called for the United States Embassy of Israel to be moved to Jerusalem by 1999 and for Jerusalem to be an undivided city. The Act, however, allowed for the President to sign a six-month waiver of action and to renew the waiver every six-months based on “national security concerns.” The six-month waiver was repeatedly utilized by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama throughout the entirety of their terms. On December 6, 2017, President Trump defied the tradition of his predecessors and publically recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and called for the United States Embassy to be moved there, despite the continued lack of peace in the city between Israel and Palestine. Trump later signed the waiver under the Act again, but has instructed the State department to begin preparations. Although the decision clearly garnered support from Pro-Israel lobbying groups, it also sparked a series of protests in the region and denunciation from American allies in the UN.

ALTERNATIVE: Although President Trump has already publically recognized Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel, he still has the option to rescind his recognition and side with our UN allies on the issue. Instead of pushing preparations for moving the US Embassy of Israel to Jerusalem, the Trump Administration should continue to sign the Act Waiver and keep the Embassy in Tel Aviv. The United States should work with the UN to promote multilateral negotiation between Palestine and Israel to promote peace and unity in the city of Jerusalem before any outside actions are made.

MAIN ARGUMENT: Ultimately President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has more negative consequences than it does positive. Clearly, Palestine is severely alienated by the decision, and is now going to be opposed to any potential peace negotiations for a period of time, specifically if the United States is involved. President Trump declaring America’s position in the situation automatically discounts us from any neutrality in future multilateral diplomacy between the two countries. It is also clear that President Trump’s decision was driven by the Pro-Israel lobby and to appease his support base in Evangelical Christians. Ironically, however, the decision was extremely unpopular with the American Jewish community. In a 2017 survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee showed that only 16% of the American Jewish community supported the Embassy’s move to Jerusalem, whereas 44% completely opposed the embassy’s move and 36% supported moving the embassy “at a later date in conjunction with progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks” (AJC 2017). As the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres stated in response to President Trump’s declaration, “It is only by realizing the vision of two states living side-by-side in peace, security and mutual recognition, with Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Palestine, and all final status issues resolved permanently through negotiations, that the legitimate aspirations of both peoples will be achieved.” Although President Trump’s foreign policy expounds a theme of “America First,” this decision has little advantages for the United States and only intervenes in what should be a bilateral decision between Palestine and Israel.  

CONCLUSION: Overall, President Trump should rescind his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel, and should not move forward this preparations to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The decision is unnecessary intervention, defies the stances of our allies in the UN, and has resulted in less of a chance for peaceful negotiations to take place between the two nations.