AMERICAN POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MIDDLE EAST PEACE (LCI)

Last evening, July 11, I was a guest on Le 17/20 on French news channel, LCI. The panel was intended to focus on yesterday's meeting of the Middle East Quartet in Washington DC, but evolved into a discussion primarily about Israeli and Palestinian internal politics.

I contributed an analysis of the American political landscape with the following reflections:

--How strong is Obama's political will to press this issue? Currently on his plate: consuming debt negotiations and the early stages of the 2012 electoral cycle. Israel's defense and security is a US domestic electoral issue. Even if Obama were willing to take a harder line to transform his May 2011 speech into action, this would necessarily involve increased pressure on Israel and opening himself (and his campaign) to avid criticism from across the two-party spectrum, including from representatives protecting their own seats in their home districts.

--A closer look at US domestic opposition to the Palestinian vote this September: I signaled the resolution proposed by Reps. Cantor (R-VA) and Hoyer (D-MD), which passed the House almost unanimously (407-6), and threatens to suspend aid to Palestine if they proceed with the UN vote this September and advance toward a deal with Hamas.

--The US's inability to translate words to action: Again, no progress to speak of following Obama's speech; the loss of a widely-respected envoy (Mitchell) who failed to invest the two parties in productive dialogue; a replacement for Mitchell, David Hale, who has barely been visible on the issue; and an American administration very reticent to convene the Quartet out of almost total disbelief that it could produce any effective course of action heading into the summer.

--I suggested that Washington's paradoxical objectives (protection of Israel while maintaining access to Arab oil supplies) can often create an obstacle to developing a coherent policy in the region.

- Amy Greene

SACEUR ADM. STAVRIDIS IN PARIS: EUROPE, NATO'S 21ST CENTURY SECURITY CHALLENGES

In a discussion held in Paris yesterday evening, the SACEUR, Admiral James Stavridis, laid out his 21st Century vision for European security, citing the principal challenges facing the European space (more broadly, NATO) and emphasizing possibility therein for Alliance members to pool resources, ideas and money to innovate solutions.

The list of challenges largely echoes the political imperatives set forth by Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Daalder during their own recent visits to Paris and demonstrates the coherence in the Administration’s line on its policy priorities. The real challenges evoked by Admiral Stavridis can also be read as a wish list, a call to action even, of ways that the US would like to see Europe increase its leadership vis-à-vis the transatlantic relationship.

Beyond the list of challenges cited below, the Admiral vividly advocated that Europe get on board to forge meaningful strategic cooperation with Russia including eventual missile defense, to increase Euro-American manufacturing and industrial ties in the construction of defense materials, and to carve out a more significant role for Turkey in order to maximize its potentially prodigious geopolitical ramifications for the West (but stopped short of calling for EU membership).

Key Challenges:

-Demography: especially the decline in Europe’s population
-Afghanistan: progress is steady, but new avenues of cooperation are essential (public-private partnerships) as is increased focus on civilians (literacy, education initiatives) and better communication with populations
-Ballistic Missiles: many of which are in attack range of the EU
-Terrorism: ultimately a law enforcement issue to be supported by military competences; highlighted point that terrorism poses direct threat to EU soil
-Narcotics: high human costs (deaths, addiction, trafficking of persons) as well as robust financing source for terrorism and corruption
-Flow of Illegal Immigrants: vulnerability to the entry of persons with weapons (possibly nuclear)
-Pirates
-Cybersecurity: special need to protect finance and transportation structures
-Natural Disasters and rapid response capability
-Managing Public Perception of NATO’s actions in the world

Passing mention was also made to Energy Security, more specifically to water, as the Admiral advocated for markets to handle resource management and for governments to manage the related infrastructure issues.

- Amy Greene

IVO DAALDER IN PARIS: EU/NATO COORDINATION KEY

In an appearance at the Ecole Militaire organised by the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique and the IRSEM, and timely given his op-ed in today’s Herald Tribune pleading for better EU/NATO coordination, Ivo Daalder spoke about the Alliance leading up to Lisbon and relayed its two main goals:

1. Revitalize NATO for 21st Century realities, and
2. Poise ISAF for success by increasing the number of trainers on the ground.

In a brief, formulaic speech, Daalder developed the metaphor of NATO as a house (foundation: core values, walls: collective defense and cooperative security, roof: common technical capabilities sharing), while praising the consultative analysis that defines the Alliance's internal deliberations and advocating for increased investment in new technologies.

Daalder urged member states to maintain NATO funding levels despite the crisis, arguing it cheaper to spend collectively rather than individually or even bilaterally. As nations tighten their belts, collective projects like NATO deliver a better return on investment for the money spent, which in turn obliges NATO to better-manage its resources, rather than depend on a budget increase, to maximize efficiency in times of austerity.

Daalder took firmer stances in the Q&A, notably on the debilitating lack of coordination between EU and NATO (also the topic of today’s IHT op-ed). The major points:

- Russia: The consensus to reengage is real within NATO, and it is now up to Moscow to set the tone for further cooperation.

- Global NATO: Daalder revised his former position to echo comments made by Secretary Clinton during the Q&A following her January 2010 speech on European security at the IRSEM. NATO is a regional organization called to act globally and should not aspire to become a global policeman capable of supplanting the UN. Rather, establishing cross-regional partnerships is the key to bolstering NATO’s effectiveness beyond its neighborhood without drastically rethinking its current membership.

- EU/NATO: Daalder's harshest criticism and most vehement comments were reserved for this topic. With inefficient inter-agency organization with little interaction but at the highest levels (Rasmussen/Ashton), the NATO/EU relationship is marked by what it lacks: no common capabilities, no coordination, and incredible lack of communication between the two. For Daalder, the US does not care which of the two takes the lead – the key is that they talk and decide who heads which dossier – but rather decries the waste generated by having two parallel, uncoordinated (often overlapping) tracks of action on every dossier.

Little mention was made of Afghanistan, though Daalder acknowledged the “significant increase” of EU resources devoted to that mission and the fact that Europe bears the loss of life in equal measure to the United States.

To read Daalder’s piece on the EU/NATO relationship, published in the International Herald Tribune: LINK

- Amy Greene

(photo credit: US Department of State)

HILLARY CLINTON IN PARIS: MAJOR ADDRESS ON EUROPEAN SECURITY

This afternoon, January 29, Secretary Clinton delivered a major address on European Security in conjunction with the US Embassy and IRSEM, the Ministry of Defense's strategic studies think tank (Institut de Recherche Stratégique de l'Ecole Militaire).

While emphasizing the need for collective European-American responses to delicately interlaced global challenges, Clinton voiced her support for the Lisbon Treaty, Europe's decision-making autonomy, and praised Europe as a model of transformative power. Though she did mention areas for improvement (need for democratization in certain zones, increased economic opportunity, revamped arms control regime and updated EU/North American institutions fit to manage new problems) and new frontiers for collaboration (cyberterror, terrorism, climate change, energy security).

While assuring the audience that the US's security is anchored in Europe ("Much of what we hope to achieve globally depends on our European partners") based largely on shared, universal values, Clinton asserted the six core principles guiding America's views on European security:

1. Sovereignty of All States to choose allies, provide for their defense, and define boundaries while rejecting claims to spheres of influence.

2. Indivisibility of European Security - there is one Europe with the US as its partner, and sometimes Russia too. It is time to move beyond false divisions (ie: NATO v. non-NATO, EU v; non-EU, etc.) in order to meet common goals.

3. Unwavering Commitment to Article V of NATO - the US will use missile defense to protect all NATO territory. The US is working to engage Moscow to convince it of the stake Russia holds in the presence of nearby missile defense.

4. Practicing Transparency in Dealing with Europe - global threats demand more open exchanges between militaries (info, exercises, site visits). The US supports a revived CFE Treaty for a modern security framework that limits deployment, reinforces territorial integrity, and meets new challenges.

5. Commitment to Non-Proliferation through support of existing treaties, negotiation of new nuclear posture, press other nations to reduce their arsenals and secure stocks.

6. Support Democratization Efforts in order to nourish free expression, encourage development, and end abuses like human trafficking. In this context, the US strongly supports strengthening the OSCE.

Other central topics raised by Clinton:
- Russia: engagement to meet challenges like Iran, climate change, energy security, and non-proliferation.
- China: use a mix of existing institutions to work with Beijing. Key elements: promote military transparency, convince them to sanction Iran, include them in strategic moves like the North Korea talks
- NATO Enlargement: Clinton voiced support for ongoing NATO enlargement plans with Eastern European nations. When this author asked about including non-Western nations who meet membership criteria, Clinton opposed stretching NATO's geography but cited NATO/ISAF as an example of successful cross-hemisphere cooperation that could be applied to other issues like cyberterror.

Click HERE for full text, taken from the State Department.

- Amy Greene

VAN ROMPUY AND ASHTON SEEN BY US MEDIA

Mainstream US media coverage of the appointments of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton as president and high representative for foreign policy, respectively, ranged from dismissal (quoting Van Rompuy's haikus) to skeptical ("the end of ambition for the EU") to indifferent. A few central themes emerged:

This decision, the result of an undemocratic process of back-room haggling by leaders of the EU's 27 members, proves that the Union is, and will remain, more economic than political. The president risks having no political teeth since the Lisbon Treaty does not provide a clear definition of what the EU president will actually do apart from "facilitating" and "consensus-building." Moreover, major budgetary and security decision-making still lies in the hands of individual nations. That means Van Rompuy will have "little leverage to resolve the bloc's divisions over financial regulation, ties with Russia, or the conflict in Afghanistan."

The press did not delve deeply into the top foreign policy post but did mention that it commanded very little respect among some Europeans who were in the running for it (including British Foreign Minister David Miliband). Still, the foreign policy post could "become more important" than the presidency. Not only is the department allotted a significant budget to the tune of billions, but the starting size of the diplomatic corps and staff hovers around 3,000, and among the foreign minister's key tasks will be oversight of the EU's military missions overseas.

It is understood that by naming Van Rompuy, Europe's leaders have demonstrated their desire for "a convinced European," "someone to manage their meetings effectively" and not "a heavy hitter...that could potentially overshadow the organization" (like a Tony Blair). Optimistic accounts insist that Van Rompuy's smaller status could actually provide him with more flexibility to reconcile competing member state interests in order to harmonize the internal decision-making process - even if that comes at the expense of a bolstered international profile and a clear mandate to speak to the world on behalf of a cohesive Europe.

Both Van Rompuy and Ashton (a Baroness, it is noted) are portrayed as weak figures with critically little experience who will "struggle to assert themselves over Europe's high-wattage national politicians." Combined they count a mere two years of experience in their current posts, have never held elected office, and are largely unknown outside of their home nations. However, the two were deemed to be "acceptable compromises" and "concession appointments" by EU leaders who are unwilling to cede to a powerful and prestigious leader in Brussels.

Despite being praised for being an effective arbiter who has greatly eased tensions in his native Belgium, Van Rompuy garners some sarcastic coverage. One paper wrote that European optimists hoped the selection process would yield a "continental George Washington" who could unite a fragmented Union, but instead they have Van Rompuy. He is ribbed for his love of duckpin bowling and writing haikus. And regarding his role as negotiator of the interests of 27 member states, the newly-appointed European president is quoted as saying: "As president of the European Council, I will listen to every country and make sure every country comes out a winner in every negotiation."

And the conclusion for transatlantic relations? According to the New York Times: "The United States and other E.U. partners should expect little change in their traditional bilateral dealings with national governments in Europe despite Van Rompuy's addition to the vast Euro-bureaucracy in Brussels."

-Amy Greene

Sources Consulted:
Bloomberg, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Time Magazine, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post

SPOTLIGHT ON...: WILLIAM KENNARD, US AMBASSADOR TO THE EU

With the status and rank of an ambassador, Bill Kennard will advocate for US interests in Brussels in areas including trade, financial regulation, antitrust, and competition.

A major fundraiser and donor (and technology advisor) to the Obama campaign, Kennard formerly chaired the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 1997-2001. Though many saw him at the time to be a conciliatory appointment with no political teeth, Kennard oversaw the Commission during a time of unprecedented sector growth, turbulence and mergers, factors that ultimately contributed to the dot-com bubble.

During his FCC tenure, Kennard emphasized the importance of consumer choice, expanding broadband and digital offerings, and increasing access to wireless telephone and internet technologies among minorities and rural inhabitants. Shortly before his resignation, he offered conditional approval of the AOL-Time Warner merger, which was the largest of its kind in history.

A Yale Law graduate, Kennard is currently a managing director of the global telecom and media group at Carlyle Group, an asset-rich private equity firm with considerable European presence via funds and joint venture activities. He also sits on several boards, including the New York Times Company and Sprint Nextel Corporation.

-Amy Greene