AMERICA TESTED BY THE RISE OF FOREIGN NATIONALISMS (ENA HORS LES MURS)

My recent article, "America Tested by the Rise Foreign Nationalisms," was published in the April 2015 edition of ENA Hors les Murs.

The article takes a look at US foreign policy, and Washington's posture abroad, when confronted by the rise of nationalisms around the globe - looking especially at the cases of its sole peer competitor (China), historical allies (Japan, Israel), and potential strategic partners (India, Russia) - and the particular challenges each poses to US interests.

The consequences, posited in this article, demand a reflection on the US' role and means in defending and projecting its influence amid shifting balances in a world dissatisfied with the consequences of globalization, as evidenced by the rëemergence of powerful "domestic fronts."

The full article (in French) after the jump.

A LOOK AT CHUCK HAGEL AND JOHN BRENNAN : OBAMA'S PENTAGON AND CIA NOMINEES

Chuck Hagel: Nominee, Secretary of Defense

Having Chuck Hagel (age: 66), an Obama confidante, at the head of the Pentagon is intended largely to provide political cover to end combat operations in Afghanistan and to begin to implement deep Pentagon budget cuts.

Hagel is chair of the Atlantic Council and member of Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board. He was formerly a Republican senator from Nebraska (1997-2009) and head of an investment banking firm. A two-time Purple Heart recipient, he would be the first Vietnam veteran to serve as Secretary of Defense. Hagel is known – and disparaged by many Republicans – for his independence vis-à-vis party orthodoxy on foreign policy issues and for holding views considered to be views outside of the conservative mainstream (ex. opposition to Iraq troop surge). Indeed, the vivid battle over his nomination has already begun among prominent Republicans, neoconservatives, Democrats, and pro-Israeli groups.

Opposition to Hagel is tri-fold. He has encountered major criticism for past statements about the pro-Israel lobby”: “[It] intimidates a lot of people around here. I havealways argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don't thinkit's [...] smart for Israel.” He has refused to add his signature to letters circulated around DC by AIPAC. Although Hagel has considerably better relations with other arms of said lobby (J-Street, Israel Policy Forum), and the support of heavyweights like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, and most former US ambassadors to Israel, hardliners believe he will antagonize Israel. And to the contrary of the president, Hagel opposes sanctions against Iran, favors negotiations with Hamas and Iran, and has criticized the largesse of America’s defense spending.

Democratic opposition to Hagel centers mainly around a negative remark made about a gay colleague a decade ago. He has since apologized for the comment and has publicly stated his support for openly gay military service.

That Hagel personally knows war and has shown no reserve in expressing his reluctance to go to war may well have an impact abroad (US approach to Iran, willingness to align with Israel’s policies) as well as “at home” (increased attention to returned soldiers).

It is thought that Democrats will ultimately support the President’s choice and that Republicans will find it difficult to confront the potential backlash of opposing a decorated Vietnam War hero. But if Hagel wins a bitter nomination fight, Republicans may consider him weak and show less flexibility in cutting a deal to prevent the sequester from taking effect in late February.

John Brennan: Nominee, Director of CIA

Current Deputy NSA for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and close confidante of Obama, John Brennan (age: 57) is a career CIA agent who has been party to nearly every national security question issue in the Obama administration (including the raid on Bin Laden). Brennan was considered for the job of CIA director in 2008, but withdrew his name for consideration after facing accusations over past public support for “enhanced interrogation techniques” and sending prisoners to countries where torture might occur. Detractors insist that as a high-ranking official inBush’ CIA, Brennan condoned tactics like waterboarding that are considered torturous. In 2009, he condemned such practices.

A primary question elicited by this pick is whether the CIA will maintain, reinforce even, its current place at the heart of counter-terror operations, or if Brennan will usher it back to its traditional espionage capacities.

During his 25 years at the CIA, Brennan exercised a wide variety of functions, including the post of station chief in Saudi Arabia. Following his time in government, Brennan was head of a security consultancy, The Analysis Corporation, as well as chair of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, and the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Brennan speaks fluent Arabic.

Related Reading
Obama’s Nominations of Hagel and Brennan Signal Course Adjustments at Pentagon and CIA (WaPo)
Brennan Pick Revives Leaks Dispute (Politico)

Choice to Lead C.I.A. Faces a Changed Agency (NYT)

photo credits: Associated Press

OBAMA REELECTION CONFIRMS SHIFT IN US STRATEGIC CULTURE (IRSEM)

The reelection of Barack Obama confirms a shift in American strategic culture and has served to highlight deep and meaningful demographic and ideological transformations in the American electorate and in its foreign political preferences.

TWO WEEKS FROM ELECTION DAY: DEBATING THE LAST WEEKS OF A VERY TIGHT RACE (FRANCE 24)

Last night on France 24's Le Débat, hosted by Vanessa Burggraf, we were a panel of four to discuss the result of the final presidential debate, the state of the race heading into the final two weeks including the keys to victory, and the contrasting foreign policy visions of the two candidates (including Obama's first term foreign policy).

Also on the panel were Philip Golub, Stuart Haugen and Anne Kraatz.

Video (in French) after the jump.

OBAMA MAINTAINS FOREIGN POLICY ADVANTAGE, BUT ROMNEY ISN'T OUT YET (LE MONDE)

Over at Le Monde, I contributed an op-ed this morning with a rundown of last night's final debate between Obama and Romney, largely hailed by voters as a victory for the president.

In a debate remarkable in the virulence of the attacks leveraged, the scope of topics was surprisingly narrow, and most of the candidates' arguments were retread from various campaign speeches and events.

The big question of the night was leadership. The president accused his Republican rival of poor judgment, a man dangerously subscribing to the values and frameworks of a by-gone era. For his part, Romney condemned the president's weak global leadership, an "apology tour" that has seen the US' enemies empowered (Iran) and its allies cast aside (Israel). For all of their differences in world vision, Romney did agree with Obama on a number of issues (use of drones), in some cases making only minor distinctions (would have asked Mubarak to step down, but earlier). Perhaps a smart tactical move for a candidate hoping to pick up centrist and undecided voters...

Romney did not disqualify himself from the commander-in-chief test. The president was aggressive, and while supporters may celebrate the bite in his repeated attacks against Romney, it is unclear if voters will agree - or rather see it as unbecoming and evidence of a struggling candidate. Likewise, will voters sign on for Mitt Romney's calls for more defense spending and a more robust US presence in the world in a time of budgetary constraint and reduced ambition in American public opinion?

Foreign policy remains a secondary issue in the 2012 elections. Will Obama transform last night's performance into a second wind of electoral momentum? Or will Romney's cool showing be enough to convince voters to make a change?

Click here to read the full text (in French) via Le Monde

CAPITAL BRIEF - LOOKING AHEAD TO ROMNEY'S TOUR OF EUROPE, ISRAEL

Here is the seventh issue of Capital Brief, from July 24, analyzing Mitt Romney's (still vague) defense policy proposals and their consequences.

Click below to read the Brief.

CAPITAL BRIEF - THE HEAT ON ROMNEY TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE

Here is the fifth issue of Capital Brief, from July 10, focusing on recent conservative and Republican criticisms of Romney and a rejuvenated Obama campaign message.

Click below to read the Brief.

EARLY INSIGHT INTO A ROMNEY FOREIGN POLICY

As the US presidential elections move into the summer, we can already begin to trace broad lines of what a Mitt Romney foreign policy might look like.

Here are some initial impressions:

- Romney is not an ideologue, but has made space in his foreign policy/national security team for neoconservatives (including John Bolton, who many expect would be given an important position in a Romney administration). Romney also counts the advice of other prominent neoconservatives like Robert Kagan of the Foreign Policy Institute, for example.

- His worldview often invokes Cold War paradigms and Bush-era Manicheaism. He considers Russia to be a chief threat to the US (and reproaches the reset), warns of the challenges posed by China (without giving much attention to the opportunities), has suggested the possibility of military action against Iran, and advocates a global posture that ensures the domination and supremacy of US values and its model throughout the world. Romney regularly uses language hailing an "American century" and "American exceptionalism."

But we can wonder how much of this discourse is to accomodate the electoral context, and what touches on his core values.

- Romney talks about increasing defense spending (to 4% of GDP) and strengthening the American national security apparatus, without clearly specifying why or how to do so in the very restricted current budgetary climate.

- Mitt Romney is a hawk on Israel. The former governor of Massachusetts has, for decades, shared ties to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, though they are not said to be personally close. At different moments during the campaign, Romney has received personal briefings from Netanyahu, and Romney has adopted a tone that would show his intent to become closer to the Israeli leader. In addition to planning a foreign policy trip to Israel at the end of July, he has also promised to do "the exact opposite" of Obama in the Middle East, including renouncing the 1967 borders.

- On Syria, Romney has called to join together with international partners to support the opposition to Bashar al-Assad without going so far as to support the airstrikes called for by fellow Republican John McCain.

- If elected, Romney would be quickly confronted by limits imposed on him by both the American people and warring currents within his own party. Most Americans (and a majority of conservative voters) oppose new military endeavors. They are skeptical of any American-led armed entrepreneurship in world affairs, preferring policies that allow for nation-building at home. Any tendency Romney might have to be active in democracy-promotion or in engaging the US military on a new front would be met with fierce opposition from the public.

Within the Republican Party, too, there is an ongoing debate between several currents of international involvement, ranging from neoconservatism to neo-isolationism and something in-between. As diverse as the differences between Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul, or John McCain and Jon Huntsman. For the moment, no one current dominates Republican decision-making.

For further reading on Romney's foreign policy team:

Old Rivalries Dog Romney Foreign Policy Team, M. Hosenball (Reuters)

Some G.O.P. Foreign Policy Experts Tepid on Romney, R. Oppell (NYTimes)

Who Would Be Mitt Romney's Foreign Policy Team? H. Brown (Huffington Post)

OBAMA @ AIPAC / McCAIN ON SYRIA

On March 4, President Obama delivered remarks before the annual AIPAC conference held in Washington. Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu met behind closed doors in the Oval Office today.

Obama's speech reaffirmed America's - and his own - solidarity with Israel, Israel's right to sovereign action, and lamented the excessive "loose talk of war." Calling for more time to let sanctions work (citing Europe's new round of sanctions set to take effect in July 2012), Obama highlighted his administration's effort to build an international coalition to place diplomatic, political, and economic pressure on Iran.

While reassuring Israeli leaders that his policy was not one of containment, Obama argued that it is important for Iran to decide its own fate, citing examples of countries that independently renounce nuclear without a motivating military imperative...

While Obama was busy trying to calm rising tensions over the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran - in part citing Iran's growing regional unpopularity and the diminishing influence of Tehran and its ally Syria - Senator John McCain took the Senate floor and called on the US to lead an international effort to bomb Syria and precipitate the fall of Bashar al Assad's regime.

Although the administration has used strong language to condemn the violence and call for Assad to step down, it has opted for prudence regarding the arming of the opposition forces. Absent a clear understanding of who the opposition are, what they want, and how they hope to achieve it, the administration has chosen caution - caution to avoid sparking a civil war, the use of chemical weapons, or a regional arms race.

On the other hand, American conservatives have long called for action to arm the opposition and put an end to the bloodshed. McCain's comments today represent the first time an American leader has publicly advocated US-led bombing.

Read both mens' remarks here:
President Obama's 2012 AIPAC Address
Senator John McCain's Remarks on Syria on the Senate Floor

NEW SHIFTS IN US INTERNAL DEBATE ON ISRAEL

In recent weeks, following on the heels of the US's dismissal of the Palestinian Authority's U.N. bid for statehood, there has been growing chatter in American discourse on taking a harder line towards Israel.

Skeptics still have ample ammunition to fuel their concern that no amount of tough talk will actually translate into policy. For them, even a subtle shift in American elite opinion is a long-awaited admission of reality. But criticism has been made in the past by all levels of government and in the public sphere, with action remaining elusive.

To boot, the importance of current American electoral dynamics; staunch US domestic support of Israel; and Israeli intransigence cast doubt on Obama's desire (and ability) to summon the courage and creativity to break new ground.

Whatever the interpretation, a spate of very public remarks should not be dismissed insofar as they take direct aim at Israel's current policy and the US's complicity therein.

From the Democratic politics to the mainstream press and a left-leaning think tank, here is a rundown of some of the most visible commentary:

1. The day after President Obama's Sept 21 speech before the U.N. on Palestinian statehood, Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation wrote a vivid, worthwhile piece equating Obama to segregationist whites of the civil rights era in telling Palestinians essentially to "stay in the back of the bus." He then compares the Palestinian initiative to Gandhi's embarrassment of Britain, to Israel's own path to achieving statehood, and to the hypothetical refusal to recognize Kosovo until it resolved all of its issues with Russia. In expressing his disappointment in Obama - who could have ranked among Gandhi, Mandela, or Martin Luther King -, Clemons calls the president's position "dangerous" and one amounting to the USSR losing a war of wills against Cuba at the height of its Cold War power. Lacking will and conviction, Obama risks solidifying his image as a subordinate to Netanyahu.


2. On the same day, Sept 22, former president Bill Clinton - during a panel on the Middle East during his Clinton Global Initiative in New York - blamed Netanyahu for the failure of the peace process; saying that even after receiving all requested security and other assurances, the Netanyahu government has moved further away from the consensus to move toward peace. Clinton evokes another theme, which will be repeated later by others - the demographic shift which makes the Israeli population both less amenable to peace and more in need of it.


3. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, during travels to Israel (Oct 3), warned that Israel is increasingly isolated and must seek to renew relations with Turkey and Egypt, asking "Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena? Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength." Highlighting the reality of dramatic shifts in the Middle East, Panetta called on Israel to make a broad effort to formalize channels of cooperation with its neighbors, lest problems be constantly taken "to the street."


4. Finally, writing in the New York Times (Oct 5), Nicholas Kristof asks and answers the question, Is Israel its own worst enemy?, saying that "Netanyahu is isolating his country" with a policy on settlements akin to "a national suicide policy." Kristof criticizes the US administration for wasting global good will by categorically refusing to support Palestine's bid for statehood, the Israeli government for its insulting response to Obama's pro-Israel speech (authorizing the construction of new settlements), and the unnecessary unraveling of relations with Turkey at the hands of Netanyahu's government. Denouncing Israel's occupation and urging it to apply democratic principles to all - including giving Palestinians the vote in Israeli elections in the territory it occupies, Kristof concludes: "Today, Israel’s leaders sometimes seem to be that country’s worst enemies, and it’s an act of friendship to point that out."


- Obama Tells Palestinians to Stay in the Back of the Bus (Atlantic)
- Bill Clinton: Netanyahu Killed the Peace Process (FP)
- Panetta Warns Israel Getting More Isolated (ABC)
- Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy? (NYT)

- Amy Greene

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

DEBATING OBAMA'S MIDDLE EAST APPROACH (LCI)

On May 23, I was a panelist on the program Le 17/20 hosted by Michel Field on French news network LCI.

The round table debate took place in French and focused on US policy towards Israel and Palestine in the context of President Obama's recent address and Prime Minister Netanyahu's remarks before a joint session of the American Congress.

Here are the main points I raised:

- On this issue, the US domestic debate is complex and multifaceted. Emotional stances can be found on all sides of this issue, cutting across party lines. Even within the administration there was vivid discussion about what to include in the remarks. Following the President's speech, criticism came from both high-ranking Democrats (such as Harry Reid) as well as from Republicans.

- The role of Congress on this topic is particularly important as Israel's security is not only a foreign political, but also a domestic electoral, issue.

- President Obama's clearly stated position put the focus and pressure squarely back on the two leaders concerned, Abbas and Netanyahu. Now that the US had made its policy known, the questions rightly became: Who is serious about moving forward? Who will or will not make concessions? Who is ready to make peace? If the President's plan is rejected, by whom and on what basis?

- Regardless of the current impasse, President Obama was not wrong to tackle this issue immediately upon inauguration. By continuously refining and asserting the US's position from early on, Obama - if nothing else - created a steady psychological impact, gradually removing doubt that the US would again bend to the same recycled reticence towards negotiations. He created an ongoing narrative suggesting that results would be demanded. The question of psychological impact was first raised by a fellow panelist.

- Amy Greene

AMERICA'S NEW FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA: LESSONS FOR EUROPE (IRSEM)

Appearing in the most recent installment of La Lettre de l'IRSEM is an article I wrote assessing the current and coming priorities in US foreign policy as well as a few possible areas for increased transatlantic cooperation.

The succinct policy brief highlights:

- Current realities and priorities in US foreign policy
- World views of the Democratic and Republican parties
- Areas for closer EU-US cooperation and strategic development
Click here to read the article online at the IRSEM (Institut de Recherche Stratégique de l'Ecole Militaire) website.

Or Click Here to download the article in PDF format.

- Amy Greene

TONY JUDT ELUCIDATES MIDDLE EAST MYTHS/MISCONCEPTIONS @ NYT

Tony Judt recently published a short but essential opinion piece at the New York Times in which he attempts to clarify six principal myths heavily represented in the typical discourse about the Middle East conflict.

While touching on the core of the matter - from the "Israeli exception" of being a democracy governed primarily by former professional soldiers, to Gaza's democratic status, and to the questions of Palestine's use of terrorism and Israel's missed opportunities - Judt refutes stale truisms to inject critical pragmatism into the discussion.

The Myths:
1-Israel is being/should be delegitimized
2-Israel is/is not a democracy
3-Israel is/is not to blame
4-The Palestinians are/are not to blame
5-The Israel lobby is/is not to blame
6-Criticism of Israel is/is not linked to Anti-Semitism

Some Highlights:
-on Israel's disproportionate responses: "Unsurprisingly, the state has acquired pathological habits. Of these, the most damaging is its habitual resort to force. Because this worked for so long [...] Israel finds it difficult to conceive of other ways to respond. And the failure of the negotiations of 2000 at Camp David reinforced the belief that “there is no one to talk to.” But there is. As American officials privately acknowledge, sooner or later Israel (or someone) will have to talk to Hamas. [...] Israel will negotiate with Hamas: the only question is why not now."

-on the Israel lobby's power in DC: "...The Israel lobby is disproportionately influential. Why else do an overwhelming majority of congressmen roll over for every pro-Israel motion? No more than a handful show consistent interest in the subject. It is one thing to denounce the excessive leverage of a lobby, quite another to accuse Jews of “running the country.” We must not censor ourselves lest people conflate the two."

-Israel as #1 threat to US security: "Israel is now America’s greatest strategic liability in the Middle East and Central Asia. Thanks to Israel, we are in serious danger of “losing” Turkey [...] Without Turkey, the United States will achieve few of its regional objectives — whether in Iran, Afghanistan or the Arab world. The time has come to cut through the clichés surrounding it, treat Israel like a “normal” state and sever the umbilical cord.

- Amy Greene

AIPAC 2010: NO END TO THE IMPASSE

Hillary Clinton's speech to the 2010 meeting of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) in Washington on March 22 was, with few exceptions, a conciliatory exercise that did little to chafe the Israel lobby and even less reassure skeptics of the US's role in brokering a viable peace. Without defining any concrete next steps, Clinton nonetheless affirmed her personal support of the Jewish state and described America's commitment to it as “rock solid, unwavering, enduring and forever.”

Here are some highlights from Clinton's speech to AIPAC:
- Explicit nod to the broad regional implications of Israel's refusal to change policies, including several mentions to the legitimate right of Palestinian people to thrive in freedom and peace.

- Unequivocal US support for two-state solution according to 1967 lines, stop to settlement-building, and normalization of Israel's regional relations including with Syria. Affirmed Hamas and Hezbollah as "terrorist organizations" while calling for sanctions that "bite" against an Iran with unrelenting nuclear ambitions.

- Argued that untenability of status quo obliges Israel to change course: demographic reality does not favor Israel; technological advances make more difficult the task of protecting Israel's security through military means alone; and the status quo fuels violent extremist ideology that ultimately jeopardizes peace/security and fuels peace rejectionists' ambitions.

Following Clinton's speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Secretary Clinton then with Vice President Biden. Whatever was said during these sessions, Israeli leaders were not persuaded to change the status quo that Clinton decried in her remarks. For that same evening, before the same conference, Netanyahu categorically refused to stop construction of settlements and insisted that Jerusalem belongs to Israel. This following the "insult" of announcing new settlements during the recent visit of Biden, a staunch long-time advocate for Israel.

Netanyahu's rebuke of the US appears driven by a motivation to resist any push-back from President Obama (however mild it has now proven to be) with the hope of making him a one-term president in order to demonstrate that no US politician can stand firm against Israel nor derail its chosen policies and still remain politically viable. This is an interesting gamble given recent poll results showing Israeli public opinion favoring Obama and showing less enthusiasm for Netanyahu and his Likud party.

The US pays a tremendous amount in annual bilateral aid to be treated as such. More disappointing still is the prospect that the administration lacks the strategic vision and political courage necessary to move beyond lukewarm declarations and to apply effective pressure in the face of opposition in order to yield meaningful results.

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu are expected to meet behind closed doors at the White House on Tuesday, March 23.

- Amy Greene

SPOTLIGHT ON...: ROBERT FORD, AMBASSADOR TO SYRIA

President Obama announced his decision to nominate career diplomat Robert Ford as Ambassador to Syria, the first since the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Currently deputy chief of mission at the American embassy in Baghdad, Ford (a fluent speaker of Arabic) was previously Ambassador to Algeria (2006-8) and deputy chief of mission to Bahrain (2001-4).

Ford's mission in Syria will be to further strengthen growing bilateral ties, move Damascus away from Iran to further stigmatize that nation, and to engage the Syrian government anew in the Israel-Palestine peace process to help move beyond the current impasse, all while encouraging the Syrians to renounce support for Hezbollah.

Ford's nomination now awaits Senate confirmation.

- Amy Greene

(photo credit: US Department of State)