Displaying posts published in

May 2017

What Germany’s Foreign Minister Should Have Done in Israel David Goldman

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rightly canceled a meeting with visiting German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel after Gabriel met with Breaking the Silence, an organization that accuses the Israeli government of war crimes. As the Times of Israel explained:

Few organizations are more despised on the Israeli right — and by many who are not on the right — than Breaking the Silence, which publishes anonymous testimonies documenting alleged human rights abuses by Israeli soldiers.

That’s the equivalent of meeting Wikileaks — denounced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo as a “hostile intelligence service” — right before a scheduled meeting with the U.S. president. Or the equivalent of a senior American official meeting with German ultra-rightists before a scheduled meeting with Chancellor Merkel. Visiting diplomats simply do not raise the profile and credibility of fringe groups that question the legitimacy of their host government.

Gabriel’s action was obnoxious in the extreme, and Israel’s prime minister had no choice but to snub him. More egregious than Gabriel’s sin of commission, though, was his sin of omission: Germany could explain the reality of their circumstances to the Palestinians more credibly than any other country, by reference to its own sad history.

Why the German foreign minister felt compelled to violate basic rules of diplomacy is another question. Germans dislike President Trump by a 3-to-1 margin, and showing disrespect to Israel is an indirect snub at the United States. As a leader of the Social-Democratic Party, moreover, Gabriel speaks to a left-wing constituency — many of whom equate Israelis with Nazis. As Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick observes:

As polls taken between 2011 and 2015 showed, between a third and half of Germans view Israel as the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany.

That is of minor consequence in the great scheme of things. The Germans will never forgive us for Auschwitz, as an Israeli psychiatrist quipped, and the memory of Nazi crimes is made easier to bear by believing that the Jews are just as bad. (I run into Germans who believe this from time to time, and tell them that the so-called Palestinians they see on television are actors — we exterminated all the real Palestinians, just like the Nazis).

Sigmar Gabriel should have explained to the Palestinians that they are beaten, and what it means to be beaten.

The conflict continues because the Arab side — after losing the 1947 War of Independence, the 1956 Sinai War, the 1967 Six Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and two pointless Intifadas — refuses to accept that it is beaten. That is a common occurrence in history. Most casualties in war occur well after hope of victory has vanished; that, as I wrote in a study for Asia Times last year, explains why many wars continue until there aren’t enough men left to fight.

Admiral Harris: Be Very Afraid of North Korea Jed Babbin

Despite the fact that North Korea proclaimed that war with the United States is “imminent,” the world probably won’t explode next week. Then again, it might.

By all reports, Pacific Command commander Admiral Harry Harris is a cool-headed warrior, not someone given to shouting that the sky is falling. (A Japanese-American, his appointment as PACOM boss unsettled the Chinese.) A friend of mine who knew Harris very well during their days at the Naval Academy said he’s “as straight a shooter as you can get.”)

Testifying to Congress last week about North Korea’s ability to strike the United States with a nuclear-armed ballistic missile, Harris said, “The crisis on the Korean peninsula is real — the worst I’ve seen.… There is some doubt within the intelligence community whether Kim Jong Un has that capability today or whether he will soon, but I have to assume he has it, the capability is real, and that he’s moving towards it.” When a gent such as Harris says that it’s something we have to take seriously.

Harris went on to say that “Kim Jong Un is making progress and all nations need to take this seriously because their missiles point in all directions,” Harris said. “If left unchecked, they will match the capability of his hostile rhetoric.”

Military leaders have to measure an enemy by its intentions and capabilities. North Korea’s capabilities are being developed as fast as its scientists — and those from other nations — can propel it.

Remember A.Q. Khan? He is the Pakistani scientist who may be the world’s worst proliferator. He helped start the North Korean nuclear weapons program that has now come to fruition. The Norks’ sixth nuclear weapons test is expected any day. They may or may not be close to miniaturizing their warheads to fit in a missile’s fairings. They also may or may not be at the point where one of their warhead designs can survive the stresses of launch.

Whether they have reached those points or not, Adm. Harris assures us they probably will soon. That determines capability. What about intentions?

Trump eyes Afghanistan Although Obama declared the U.S. combat mission was over in 2014, the Taliban keeps fighting Jed Babbin

Over the past two weeks National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Defense Secretary James Mattis have taken quiet trips to Afghanistan. They are the president’s eyes on the war our military has been fighting for almost 16 years.

Their trips come more than two months after Army Gen. John Nicholson, U.S. commander in Afghanistan, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that, “I believe we’re in a stalemate.” Gen. Nicholson said that while he has sufficient counter-terrorism forces he needs a few thousand more troops to continue training the Afghan military. U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan is now close to 10,000.

Gen. Nicholson described a stalemate that was created by former President Obama’s Afghanistan policy, which kicked the can down the road so that his successor would have to deal with it.

In early 2009, Mr. Obama said that our policy was to “secure” Afghanistan but that “victory” wasn’t our goal. Mr. Obama described Afghanistan as “the just war” in his speech accepting his aspirational Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. From then on he micromanaged the war and created the existing stalemate.

Later in 2009, Gen. Stanley McChrystal — then U.S. commander in Afghanistan — sent Mr. Obama a report that requested about 40,000 more troops and said that unless those reinforcements were received, we would reach the point where defeating the Taliban was no longer possible.

Mr. Obama fussed and fretted over the report for months. When he finally decided his policy, it was not what Gen. McChrystal wanted. Instead, Mr. Obama came up with a policy that amounted to “McChrystal lite.”

Remaking World Affairs By Herbert London

With much fanfare President Trump welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping to his Florida retreat for face-to-face meetings weeks ago. According to press accounts, Trump was eager to press Beijing to curb North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and martial spirit.

But there was more there than meets the eye. For one thing, the Trump delegation arrived later than Xi, a breach of diplomatic protocol. Was the occupant of the White House sending a message? And second, sometime between salad and entrée, Trump let on that he is attacking Syria with 59 Tomahawks, the same Assad government China supports. It has not been reported whether Xi had indigestion.

The Trump team seemingly ushered in a new stance towards China. For decades, policy analysts in both parties contended that integrating China into the global economic, diplomatic and securities architecture would ultimately serve the interests of the West and yield stability across the globe. But this hypothesis has not been borne out by the evidence.

Since 2008 China has embraced protectionism in defiance of trade agreements. It has boosted state owned enterprises to the detriment of foreign owned firms. And it has extorted intellectual property for Chinese entities as the price for participation in Chinese markets.

On the foreign policy front, China has asserted its territorial and maritime claims with a unilaterally generated air perimeter zone, one that was drawn in a coercive and hostile manner. It has increased its support for North Korea and rejected United Nations actions against its dubious ally. Yet despite, these actions and many others, there persists the belief U.S. and China can establish a modus vivendi. Based on recent assertions and a Chinese willingness to assist in restraining the North Korean nuclear program, a new level of understanding may be emerging. Washington does have its skeptics.