Tag Archives: Foreign Policy

Year of the Nationalist

In a great outpouring of respect, the world came to Washington in December to say goodbye to one of the last century’s great champions of liberal internationalism, President George H. W. Bush. The touching remembrance of a life spent connecting nations reminded us all about the value of international cooperation. However, we have to be honest with ourselves that democracy around the world is increasingly under stress.  President Bush’s funeral took on the flavor of a valiant appeal to world leaders to once again reject the forces of nationalism and authoritarianism that ignited the world twice during the last century. Despite this, the struggles that tested President Bush so many times during his career have reemerged. Therefore, we are dubbing 2018 the “Year of the Nationalist,” a moniker we hoped never to attribute to any year since the Great War buried nationalism in the misery of Flanders Fields.

A Shaky Future

Europe is at the epicenter of massive challenges to the liberalized democracies that have kept the peace since the conclusion of World War II. Lingering effects of the 2008 global recession combined with refugee crises from Syria and Libya have invigorated the demons of the globalized economy. These stressors left many feeling abandoned, and their frustration fueled a rise in nationalism. Anti-immigrant parties won large sections of governments throughout Europe. The anti-immigrant party of Sweden is now the country’s third largest political party. Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, showed such undemocratic tendencies, it prompted the typically diplomatic European Union to condemn his authoritarian leadership style. The Freedom Party in Austria, part of the governing coalition, has past ties to the Nazi Party; and Poland, currently governed by the nationalistic Law and Justice Party, is no stranger to recurring far-right demonstrations.

Meanwhile, France is experiencing nation-wide demonstrations against liberal reform initiatives, and the United Kingdom (UK) is struggling to come to terms with the aftermath of the 2016 Brexit vote. In Death of Brexit: Return from the Right, Adam Pharaoh asserted the Remain faction had initially underestimated the strong forward momentum of the British economy following the Brexit referendum but was belatedly proven right. He concluded correctly (in January) that Brexit-related economic pressure could lead ordinary Britons to call for another referendum. Indeed they did, but as the political turmoil accelerates with the approaching endgame, a second referendum is politically unlikely, leaving a worst-case “No Deal Brexit” as the only probable result.

At the exact moment the UK is withdrawing from the European Union (EU), nationalist impulses in the Trump Administration are casting doubt on America’s commitment to NATO. Cracks in Alliance unity have real consequences and may be the reason for recent tests of resolve by Russia, which seems on the verge of a massive escalation in Ukraine following a crisis at sea resulted in the capture of three Ukrainian ships by Russia. Meanwhile, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is expanding Beijing’s influence into an uncertain EU by pushing increased reliance on Chinese investments in Eastern Europe. This convergence is causing real fear throughout the European community and reviving an old idea about the utility of a European army. In A Tale of Two Armies: Defending NATO, Steve Nolan argued that a European Army is at odds with the EU’s purpose and would, regrettably, dilute critical support for NATO itself. Worse, it would further strain relations with the US and ultimately be a liability to the security of Europe rather than its guarantor.

Authoritarianism Reigns

Europe is not the only region experiencing resurgent nationalism. Latin America has its own brand of authoritarianism fueled by rampant organized crime and corruption. In Tearing Down the Walls, Ligia Lee described the crisis associated with transnational gangs in Central America and analyzed a corrective measure that depends on international outreach rather than seclusion behind walls.

Looking further south, John Boswell discussed tensions in Peru over last year’s pardon of its former president, Alberto Fujimori, in Pardon Me: Peru’s Fujimori Problem. The controversial leader was serving a 25-year prison sentence for corruption and human rights abuses when his pardon resulted in nationwide protests and a condemnation from the UN Human Rights Council. That drama and the political turmoil surrounding it has since brought down President Kuczynski and landed Fujimori’s daughter Keiko – herself a powerful presidential candidate – in jail on a “preventative sentence”.

Though Peru seems at the front end of an excruciating period of political soul-searching, nothing compares to the immense man-made disaster playing out in Venezuela. The failure of authoritarian nationalism in the Bolivarian Republic is the genesis of an exploding humanitarian catastrophe. In Maduro Drones On, Lino Miani argued that President Maduro’s repressive tactics to maintain power have degraded security in what was once South America’s richest state. The attempted assassination of Maduro by aerial drones marked the first notable proliferation of the technology outside of the Middle East and should serve as a wake-up call for security practitioners everywhere.

MBS
Authoritarianism personified: Mohammed bin Salman is the face of one of the world’s last functional monarchies.

The Status Quo Remains

While democracy continues to struggle in Europe and Latin America, the Saudi-Iranian rivalry is inspiring the worst impulses of authoritarian nationalists from Ankara to Aden. In Master of Puppets: Pulling the Strings in Turkey, Nuno Felix called into question the stability of President Erdogan’s power as his pursuit of the now exiled Fethullah Gülen continues for its fifth year. This history describes the context behind Erdogan’s authoritarian tactics to amass power and sheds light on his more recent attempts to exploit the murder of Jamal Khashoggi to drive a wedge between regional rival Saudi Arabia and the United States.

In The Huydaydah Trap, Lino Miani outlined the precarious position of the United States in balancing regional conflicts. With strategic resolution of the war in Yemen focused on a single port city on its Red Sea coast, the sum total of centuries of geopolitical rivalry is concentrated on the previously unknown port of Hudaydah. Though most experts agree that battle there will trigger unimaginable suffering by famine and disease, America’s humane and decent call for a ceasefire could revitalize a beleaguered Houthi resistance and prolong the misery of millions.

Best Wishes

Our analysis throughout 2018 highlights the issues that result from a global shift away from international cooperation. We hope President Bush’s funeral will serve as a bulwark against authoritarian nationalism and not as a memorial to international cooperation itself. Though we will never be able to predict the future, one thing we can all agree on is that a well-informed public is a good thing. Our hope is to provide you with the best context to issues facing our world. Follow us throughout 2019 to receive more insightful articles as we make sense of a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. For now, we at the Affiliate Network would like to wish you a very happy holiday season and a great beginning to the new year.


CrushThe views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of any government or private institution.

Major John “Crush” Gerlach is the Blogmaster and editor for the Affiliate Network. He is a US Air Force Officer and C-17A Weapons Instructor Pilot with deployments in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is currently serving in Lyon, France.

 

Catastrophic Success: The Korean Conundrum

Catastrophic Success: A humorous term describing an ironic situation where one unexpectedly achieves all of his or her unlikely objectives. 

The cynical humor of the term “catastrophic success” is not typically found in reference to international relations, but on June 12th, the President of the United States of America is hoping against hope to achieve exactly that in his meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Indeed, Mr. Trump will become the first person in his position to meet with a North Korean leader. Though the White House is presenting the meeting as a historic “summit” between world leaders, there are a number of reasons why none of Mr. Trump’s predecessors ever attempted such a meeting. The stakes are high and the many risks are well known…except one: Any success short of the catastrophic variety may actually do more harm than good in the long run.

The Non-Summit

Any discussion of the so-called “summit” between Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump should begin with a review of why Korea was divided in the first place. On 8 August 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan in what was both a show of Allied unity and an opportunistic power grab. Recognizing the strategic importance of the Korean Peninsula, America and the Soviets – and their Korean counterparts – invaded the Japanese stronghold from both the north and south and met roughly in the middle near what is now known as the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Following Japan’s surrender, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to sponsor an election to determine the future leadership of an independent Korea. Though United Nations General Assembly Resolution 112 captured this intent, Cold War tensions escalated to the point where the North Korean contender, Kim Il Sung, refused to hold an election and repudiated the victory of Syngman Rhee in the south.

Following the July 1948 election, the United Nations quickly declared Rhee the legitimate president of all of Korea[1], to which the Soviets responded by declaring Kim Il Sung Prime Minister of the north. This is an important point. The UN recognized the government in Seoul as the only legitimate government on the Peninsula in 1948 while the Soviets only declared Kim’s sovereignty north of the DMZ. The result is history. Within two years, Soviet-sponsored North Korean troops poured over the border. The eventual military stalemate crystallized the division of the Peninsula at the DMZ and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was born. When the smoke cleared, 36,000 American, 230,000 South Korean, and 3200 other Allied troops lay dead along with 600,000 South Korean civilians in a war fought specifically to deny the aspirations of an illegitimate pretender to the throne of Korea. Kim Jong Un has simply never been a head of state.

Korean Conundrum

Kim’s illegitimacy and the resultant suffering it caused is the reason no sitting US President has ever agreed to meet a North Korean leader or even to hold bilateral talks with DPRK. To recognize Kim as a head of state would legitimize the division of the Peninsula and invalidate the sacrifices made by UN forces from 1950 until today. Though this makes President Trump’s “summit” with Kim Jong Un deeply troubling, it is true we will need to move beyond the past in order to achieve peace. However, the negative effects of Trump’s approach are not just symbolic, they may actually make peace less likely. Depending on which Trump statement about the “summit” one believes, its objectives include the very worthy goals of denuclearizing the Peninsula and reaching a negotiated end to the Korean war. Even if those goals were achievable – doubtful at best because they involve numerous stakeholders – they are even less likely now that Trump has unwisely elevated Kim to head of state.

North Korean envoy gives Trump a big letter.
The Trump-Kim “summit” featured some bizarre diplomatic twists. Photo credit: https://abcnews.go.com/International/kim-jong-uns-extra-large-letter-trump-sparks/story?id=55607815

The question of leadership is the very reason for the Korean War and resolving it is critical to any future hope for an agreement. Where before there was only one legitimate head of state, there are now arguably, two. The original post-war question of who should rule Korea is now complicated immensely by the fact that the United States has abandoned any clarity on who it supports for the task. Elections will not settle the matter because, like his grandfather, Kim Jong Un knows he cannot win and will not participate. Unlike his grandfather however, he has nuclear weapons to ensure all the stakeholders consider his opinion.

The likely outcome of the ill-conceived and rushed Singapore “summit” is that Korea will be left with a more difficult road to peace; a brutal dynastic dictator with increased negotiating power to legitimize his nuclear arsenal; and a South Korean government that has now lost its claim to sovereignty over the rest of the Peninsula. As we watch – with a mixture of hope and trepidation – the bizarre Trump foreign policy play out in the city-state, let us hope for catastrophic success because anything less may be simply…catastrophic.

[1] More precisely, the UN declared Rhee the legitimate president of those areas that held elections verifiable by the UN; i.e. the South, but also stated his government was the only legitimate governing body on the Peninsula and demanded its authority be extended to the entire country.


Lino Miani is a retired US Army Special Forces officer, author of The Sulu Arms Market, and CEO of Navisio Global LLC. He also wrote this analysis of the assassination of Kim Jong Nam, an event that should, but is not, factoring into the willingness to engage Kim Jong Un diplomatically.

Bolivarian Devolution: The Venezuelan Crisis

This morning nearly 25,000 Venezuelans will cross the Simon Bolivar bridge into Colombia in search of work and a hot meal. Most will return in the evening with extra food for their families if they are lucky. They make the trip hoping to earn money peddling goods on the street, seeking routine medical care, or standing in line for hours to receive one of the thousands of free meals served daily by churches and non-profit organizations. The bridge, a piece of shared infrastructure by which 80% of trade goods pass between the two countries, has become a humanitarian lifeline for those trying to escape the Venezuelan crisis. Recent surveys suggest 93% of Venezuelans cannot afford to purchase food and hospitals there lack 95% of medical supplies needed to provide basic care. The cost of Venezuela’s failed Bolivarian Revolution, a phrase coined by the late President Hugo Chavez, is being paid by the citizens it promised to protect, and the growing spillover into Colombia threatens to turn a Venezuelan problem into a regional one.

The Bolivarian Revolution began rather inauspiciously in 1992 when then-Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez led an unsuccessful military coup to oust the democratically elected president. Released from prison two years later, Chavez went on to win the 1999 election as a populist fringe candidate under a socialist ideology he called “Chavismo”. In a case of extraordinarily bad timing, his anointed successor, a former bus driver-turned-Finance Minister by the name Nicholas Maduro, assumed the presidency following Chavez’s death in 2013. Within a year, the global drop in oil prices triggered an economic crisis in Venezuela, catalyzing the failure of the socialist experiment and intensifying social unrest. President Maduro responded to the resultant popular criticism with a heavy hand, using the military to violently suppress protests and working internally to subvert Venezuela’s democratic institutions.

The situation in Venezuela represents a complete reversal of fortunes from two decades ago. Beginning in the 1970s, nearly four million Colombians fled to Venezuela to escape violence and terror wrought by the drug cartels and the FARC. In 1999, the flow of migrants began to steadily reverse, and 1.5 million people have since left Venezuela for Colombia. Two recent events illustrate the ironic role reversal. On the 15th of August, the FARC officially completed a peaceful disarmament process and was incorporated into the Colombian democratic system as a political party. Then, just three days later, the pro-Maduro Constituent Assembly in Venezuela seized control of the opposition-led Congress, removing yet another democratic impediment to his rule. The move sparked regional outrage, but engendered little surprise as the Venezuelan political apparatus moved one step closer to authoritarianism.

Venezuela Devolution
Thousands of Venezuelans line up every morning to cross the Simon Bolivar Bridge to obtain food and basic necessities on the Colombian side. Photo Credit: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Thousands-cross-Venezuela-border-to-Colombia-for-8383342.php

Socialist Expropriation and Crime

Venezuela controls some of the world’s largest crude oil reserves, a critical piece in a calculated strategy to safeguard the Chavez regime by distributing wealth. The scheme has been remarkably successful over the last 18 years and is probably the only reason his successor is still in power, but corruption, subjugation of private industry, and ill-fated socialist policies have depleted the nation’s wealth. Upon his election in 1999, Chavez nationalized much of Venezuela’s industry. By 2011 Venezuela was receiving only a $5M share of Latin America’s total $150M in annual foreign investment and the number of private businesses had decreased from 14,000 to roughly 9,000. Oil accounted for 95% of Venezuela’s exports at the time, but the billions of dollars earned in the post-9/11 oil boom have vanished. Most of the money was funneled to political supporters and a large share was invested in strengthening the military.

Four years after Chavez’s death, the question remains whether the military will stay loyal to Maduro, to the Revolution, or abandon them both in favor of the opposition. Maduro’s ability to continue lining the pockets of his generals and politicians dwindles by the day. His support is already weakening in the lower ranks of the military where the effects of the economic crisis are most palpable. Worsening conditions increase the potential for a military uprising against Maduro in favor of a leader more capable of advancing the Chavismo ideology. Considering also the historical influence of Cuba’s Castro regime and ongoing support from Russia and Iran, it stands to reason Chavismo will endure even if Maduro’s political capital dries up.

Command of the lucrative illicit drug trade is also a factor. Throughout the Chavismo era, corrupt politicians profited from the trade by exploiting military and police fealty. The details of their corruption were published almost a decade ago when a seizure of data exposed integrated cocaine distribution networks between Venezuela and the United States. Notably, in 2016 two of Maduro’s nephews were convicted in the US for conspiracy to transport cocaine, suggesting possible ties to the President himself. If indeed Maduro is on the take, the growing scarcity of pay-off funds from other sources raises concern he may lose control over the illicit drug trade, leaving a vacuum that could lead to increased violence, volatility, and regional instability.

All-American Solutions

Despite President Trump’s recent refusal to rule out a “military option” in Venezuela, the United States lacks the domestic and international political capital to impose its will there. Furthermore, his intransigence on immigration and the proposed border wall with Mexico have not earned him additional support in a region where one-third of the population sees American power and influence as a major threat. During a recent Latin American tour, Vice President Mike Pence spent much of his time softening Trump’s message on Venezuela and assuring leaders Washington is open to a wide range of options including economic sanctions. Despite the assurances, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos explicitly rejected the notion of a military response in a joint press conference with Pence, insisting Venezuela’s neighbors must use “other measures to bring about change in the country.” Clearly a more indirect and cooperative approach will be required if the United States wishes to influence the situation in Venezuela.

Venezuelan Crisis
Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos addresses the Colombian press during a joint conference with US VP Mike Pence. Despite the positive state of US-Colombia relations, President Santos emphatically rejected the US military option that President Trump mentioned the week prior to the visit. Photo credit: http://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2017/08/14/juan-manuel-santos-le-pidio-a-estados-unidos-descartar-una-posible-intervencion-militar-en-venezuela/

Despite President Santos’ strong stance, there is no reason to believe Latin America is capable of responding effectively on its own. Any admonishments of Maduro’s despotism by Venezuela’s neighbors are tempered by their own dogmatic respect for state sovereignty; a common paradox in a region composed of weak states with strong leaders. Additionally, domestic political concerns consume nearly every country in the region. Brazil is embroiled in its own government scandal and focused on economic and political instability. Argentina is still nursing an economic recovery after years of fiscal mismanagement under the Kirchners. Colombia is coming to terms with a difficult peace agreement with FARC revolutionaries and wants to keep growing economically. Chile, despite being an economic growth leader for a decade, has yet to truly find its voice in regional politics and continues to struggle with domestic political impediments. As is characteristic of Latin America, there is a lot of talk, but no coherent regional stance.

Throughout Latin America, citizens are bracing for the political and economic effects of an influx of Venezuelans seeking work, housing, and social assistance. Violent civil war is a concern, as is the resurgence of illicit transnational networks—a trend that had been on the decline in recent years thanks to progress in neighboring Colombia. A US military intervention would most certainly exacerbate existing regional security challenges. The only sustainable solution to this Bolivarian Devolution rests on the ability of Latin American states to look beyond their respective domestic challenges and respond with an uncharacteristic level of regional cohesion. To enable such a response, the United States should pursue collaborative regional solutions focused on mitigating the economic and social impacts of the growing humanitarian crisis.


The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of any  government or private institution.

Major Patrick “TISL” Parrish is the Blogmaster and editor for the Affiliate Network. He is a US Air Force Officer and A-10C Weapons Instructor Pilot with combat tours in Afghanistan and Libya.

Major Kirby “Fuel” Sanford is a US Air Force Officer and F-16 Instructor Pilot with combat experience in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.