Trump - Saviour or Poison Chalice

The visit to Israel by US President Donald Trump has come and gone, and the analysts will undoubtedly still spend some time considering their verdicts dissecting each aspect of the visit.  At first glance, the visit appears to have been filled with symbolism but short on substance.  Following a turbulent first few months in office for the US president, there are many who wonder whether his support for Israel is welcome, or whether it is turning out to be more of a poison chalice than a helping hand.

Trump has been openly and publicly supportive of Israel's position, even from before he was elected.  His high profile campaign promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has been the subject of much debate and controversy.  When his victory in the presidential election was revealed, the Israeli government (and many other Israelis) welcomed his election with the hope and expectation that this would change the anti-Israel bias within the US government and elsewhere that was such a feature of the Obama administration.  And changes have certainly been felt since his election.

The current atmosphere at the United Nations is entirely different from the one that ruled during 2016 and before.  Part of this change can be attributed to new UN Secretary General António Guterres, who is much less inclined to entertain the constant barrage of anti-Israel sentiment that prevailed under Ban Ki Moon.  Much of the change is, however, thanks to new US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley and the change in policy that she represents.  She has imposed the Trump administration's support for Israel at the UN in the strongest possible terms.  The days of raising frivolous anti-Israel resolutions at the UN Security Council are over for now.  The international community has understood that these will be vetoed by the US, and that there is little point in raising them under the current administration.  Haley has been vociferous in her condemnation of the constant attempts to paint Israel in a negative light.  There can be little doubt that the changes at the UN have a great deal to do with the new man in the White House.

President Trump's visit to Israel was highly symbolic.  He made Israel one of the stops on his maiden foreign tour since becoming president.  He visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem during his visit, becoming the first US president to make this visit while in office.  He emphasized to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that funding terror is not acceptable.  He reinforced the support that Israel will always enjoy from his administration.  In spite of this, he stayed clear of the key substantive issues confronting Israel and the region now.  He did not raise the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem.  No mention was made of the constant accusations against Israel regarding construction in Judea and Samaria.  Nothing was said about Palestinian claims to Jerusalem, or accusations regarding Israel's claims to Jerusalem as its capital.  His outward shows of support were all seized upon, recognised and appreciated by the majority of Israelis.  The lack of meaningful progress in getting Israelis and Palestinians to sit down around the peace table is what the international community has seized upon.

The issue that Israel needs to consider is Trump's overall standing within the USA and further afield.  It was clear before he arrived in Israel that Trump has many enemies at home, and that they are determined to keep him on the back foot by levelling all types of accusations against him.  Trump's own conduct in defending these accusations has certainly not helped his cause.  And Israel was dragged into the crossfire when Trump was accused of sharing secret intelligence received from Israel with Russia.  If true, this would be a serious violation of trust, and norms associated  with the sharing of intelligence information.

Distrust for Trump appears to be spreading rapidly within the international community as well.  Trump's recent appearances at the G7 and NATO meetings did not show him to be in accord with any of the other western leaders.  On the contrary, there are indications that Trump is being sidelined from the key international organisations.

Winston Churchill famously said, “Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.”  This is an art that Trump has clearly not yet mastered.  Even though Trump frequently says things that many people are thinking, he has not yet discovered how to say it in a way that does not create enemies.  While Israel has no particular issue with Trump's popularity (or lack of it) in the international community, there is a danger that Israel will be tarred with the same negative brush if she is seen to be too closely associated with Trump.

There is no doubt that Israel has already gained a great deal from the change of administration in the White House.  Trump's influence over US domestic and international policy towards Israel, and his influence over proceedings at the UN cannot be under-estimated.  Israel will certainly wish to see more of that in the future.  There is a danger, however, that the association with Trump could prove to be negative in Israel's relationships with other countries around the world.  If Trump continues to completely ignore the accepted rules of international engagement while representing his contrary views, he will quickly became a pariah in the international community.  And, even if Israel wishes to stay close to Trump to benefit from his supportive views and actions, the association with him may proved negative. 

The prime minister and the Israeli government has a tough job to navigate a careful path to take advantage of the emerging situation, without losing too much in the process.  Will Trump prove to be the good things for Israel that were predicted, or a poison chalice?  Only time will tell.

Assad Keeps Fighting, But Cannot Survive

The uprising in Syria has continued unabated for the past 8 months.  Despite the fact that thousands of people have already been killed in the process, the uprising shows no signs of being quelled by the strong-arm tactics adopted by President Bashar al-Assad.  Despite Assad fighting the civilian uprising using all military options available to him, he cannot survive this challenge to his leadership.  In the interests of preventing further loss of life, Bashar should accept the inevitable as soon as possible and leave office.

The Syrian uprising has progressed in a substantially different way to the uprisings that took place in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya.  The biggest difference in Syria is the fact that the regime has managed to survive for as long as 8 months, despite constant protests by the opposition and Syrian civilians over this time.  We all know that the long-ruling and well-established governments of Gadaffi, Mubarak and others were unable to survive the attacks that they came under for more than a few months.  So what is it about Assad and Syria that has allowed him to survive for this period of time, despite having already killed more than 3,000 civilians (according to the UN) in his attempt to put down the uprising?

Despite the fact that the uprisings in other countries in the region proved to be the catalyst for the demonstrations in Syria, Assad has benefited from the fact other countries have been suffering unrest.  This has diverted the attention of the world and the international media elsewhere, while he tries to take care of his own back yard.  So far, he has managed to escape the fates that Mubarak and Gadaffi suffered when the world's leaders and media were focused on the events in these countries.  While there have been a few reports and international condemnation of events in Syria, these have not been anywhere as directed as those that were directed at Mubarak and Gadaffi before the demise of these two leaders.  In Assad's case, there are indications that this is about to change over the coming weeks and months now that Syria has been brought into target by the international community.

In the case particularly of Libya, oil had much to do with the decision by NATO to take an active part in Libya's uprising.   There can be no doubt that Gadaffi would probably still have been in power, if it was not for the role played by NATO war planes.  Even though oil exploration and export is an important part of the Syrian economy accounting for as much as 25% of the government's income, Syrian oil only makes up about 0.5% of the world's oil production.  As such, the world has not looked upon Syria with the same concern for its stability as it did when chaos ensued in Libya.  It also means that NATO has no interest in getting involved in Syria.  It enjoys little strategic relevance to the world, either in terms of its location or in terms of its production of oil.  The only possible point of strategic relevance relating to Syria is its ongoing dispute with Israel over the Golan Heights.  It is clear that the world would wish for this issue to be resolved in order to reduce the threat of a war between Syria and Israel which would, undoubtedly, drag other countries in the region into conflict.

Perhaps the most important reason why the world has not come down more harshly on Syria until now, relates to its connections with Iran.  Despite not sharing a common border, Syria and Iran have forged extremely close links over the past few years.  Ahmadinejad's Iran has proved to be the "catching net" for those countries seeking international links, but which have been rejected by countries in the west.  As one of the world's major sponsors of terror, Iran has cast its influence far and wide.  It has also stood up to huge criticism by the international community over its nuclear program, thereby showing itself as a leader of the renegade countries which oppose the influence of the USA and other western powers.  In this respect, Iran has shown itself to be quite an attractive ally for Turkey, Syria and other countries that are struggling to gain acceptance into international circles.  The world has realised that any action against Syria, effectively equates to action against Iran.

On the basis of the close links between Syria and Iran, it is difficult to separate action against Iran's nuclear program from action against Syria's extreme crackdown against protestors.  There is a view that says that the world, by escalating Iran on its nuclear program, is trying to divert Ahmadinejad's attention away from Syria in order to allow the world to take a separate position on this.  There seems to be an attempt to divide and rule.  The Arab League has taken a bold and significant stand against Syria over the past week, by suspending it from the organisation, and threatening to take further diplomatic actions against Syria if Assad does not pull his military forces out of civilian areas and halt the violence.  Although there is no love lost between the Arab League and Iran, the Arab League has taken its time in adopting this stand against Syria in view of the fact that it clearly represents taking a stand against Iran at the same time.

Despite Assad's closeness with Ahmadinejad, he will not be able to survive this uprising against his leadership.  He is destined to go the same route as Gadaffi, Mubarak and other casualties of the Arab Spring.  The question is whether he has learned any lessons from those that have fallen before him.  By hanging on to power longer than he should have, Gadaffi issued a death sentence for himself.  When his demise came, the hatred against him was such that he was never going to survive being captured by the opposition forces.  If Assad is sensible, he still has the opportunity to remove himself from power, thereby saving his life and that of his young family.  Continuing to direct his military forces to kill more civilians will make this outcome less likely, and will endanger his life further at that moment when he is driven from power.

Israel is watching carefully to see where events in Syria will lead.  The fall of Assad's regime will surely weaken Ahmadinejad's influence in the region.  Equally, any action taken against Iran's nuclear program will weaken Syria.  Assad has warned that any action taken by the international community against Syria will cause an earthquake in the region.  He knows that this is likely to drag Iran into a broader war in the Middle East, and the international community knows this too.

Ahmadinejad, it seems, is the big winner in all of this.  Leaders like Assad are running to him like little puppies in order to gain his acceptance and support.  He is standing up to the international community with his continued defiance of their calls against his nuclear program, and by continuing to fund international terrorism.  His name is on everyone's lips in the international press, and at organisations like the UN and the IAEA.  He is the modern-day version of Stalin that all seem to fear.  Even Ahmadinejad, however, cannot save Assad's head.  Assad will need to decide whether he is prepared to jump, or whether he is waiting to be pushed.  The latter option will not be without its consequences for him and his family.  Either way, Assad's eventual downfall can only be good for the region and the world by weakening Iran's influence.

How Relevant is NATO to World Security?

Member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) have been meeting in Lisbon over the past few days. This meeting of member countries is regarded as one of the most important meetings of NATO in recent times, as its purpose has been to define a new mission statement, and to sign up to a new strategic doctrine for the next decade. But how successful has NATO been in addressing the real security needs of its 28 member states, and how relevant is NATO in our current world order?

NATO came into being as an organisation for military cooperation in 1949, when the first 12 member states from Western Europe, Scandinavia, the USA and Canada signed an agreement in Washington DC. The parties agreed that an armed attack on one or more NATO members in Europe or North America would be considered an attack on all members. Under such circumstances, all member states would be obliged to assist the member under attack, although the nature of the assistance was left quite vague. It did not necessarily oblige member states to respond with military action against the aggressor in helping its fellow NATO members. This key concept was articulated in Article 5 of the NATO charter.

In the early years of NATO, it proved valuable in forging cooperation between the defence forces of the member states. This allowed for the standardisation of many pieces of equipment in use, and many processes and practices employed by the military. It created "best practice" across many military forces. NATOs first real test as an organisation came with the Korean War in 1950. The threat posed by the Communists forced member states to make available a NATO force, and the forced the organisation to formalise the way in which it ran itself. The Soviet Union was refused membership of NATO in 1954, and this resulted in the USSR setting up its own rival to NATO. The establishment of the Warsaw Pact to stand up to NATO laid the groundwork for the Cold War, which lasted until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. NATO's first Director-General, Lord Ismay, once famously stated that the organisation's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". The Warsaw Pact was eventually dissolved in 1991, thereby removing NATO's main adversary and perhaps part of its reason for existence.

The collapse of the Soviet Union has brought into question NATO's relevance in the modern era of conflict and military threat. NATO took an active role in the Balkans War where NATO forces operated against the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The attack on US soil on September 11, 2001 resulted in NATO invoking Article 5 of its charter for the first time in its history. The attack on the US was considered an attack on all NATO members, and NATO responded by joining US forces in the war in Afghanistan. This war has occupied NATO for the last decade.

The Lisbon meeting seems to have been dominated by concerns of NATO members as to how their forces can be extricated from the quagmire of the war in Afghanistan. Afghan president Hamed Karzai also attended the NATO meeting to engage in this discussion. The difficulty in the relationship between NATO and the Afghan government was reflected in a difficult meeting earlier in the week between Karzai and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus. Karzai has expressed concern about certain tactics employed by NATO forces on the ground in Afghanistan. Although the war in Afghanistan has cost NATO member countries huge sums of money to support and significant loss of life to its soldiers, it has at least provided some relevance to NATO as an organisation over the past decade. This relevance is waning, and could run out completely with the approach of the the targeted withdrawal date of NATO forces from Afghanistan in 2014 or 2015.

To help define NATO's role in the future, NATO asked former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, to assemble a committee of experts and to draft recommendations for NATO's strategy over the next ten years. The Albright document makes interesting reading, not only for what it does say, but specifically for what it does not. In my view, it is far too bland and reflects a lack of willingness to tell things as they really are. In following this path, NATO runs the risk of being irrelevant and not addressing the real security and military risks confronting its member countries.

Interestingly and tellingly, the Albright committee document is indirect and weak when addressing the threats on NATO members arising from the Middle East. Although there is a reference to Israel's conflict with the Palestinians and her other neighbours, Albright's document calls upon NATO to be involved by adding value to dialogue groups in the region. This is tantamount to avoiding the issue at all. Considering that many security experts have gone as far as labelling this conflict as having a substantial impact on the stability and security of the free world, the recommendation of the NATO experts is surprising. More than this, the experts call upon NATO to help to implement a peace agreement consistent with conditions that have been laid down. There is no reference to playing a role in getting to this agreement. Is this something that does not interest or affect NATO as an organisation?

Most interesting of all is the way in which the nuclear threat posed by Iran is addressed. The document simply says that the allies should be open to discussion with its partners on the implications of a possible nuclear breakout by Iran. Surely, this is the world's greatest military and security threat. Considering the fact that most NATO members are situated in Central and Western Europe and, fall quite neatly into Iran's missile range, it is my view that NATO is simply ignoring the greatest threat to its member countries and to world peace. When adding to that its unwillingness to recognise the threat posed by Iranian proxies in the Middle East in the form of Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and others, NATO risks making itself completely irrelevant to its member states. One of the requirements for membership of NATO is that members must be democratic countries. As the only democratic country amongst a sea of nations seeking the downfall and destruction of NATO members, Israel is surely a natural ally and partner for NATO. Ignoring this fact risks the relegation of NATO to the trash heap of history.

One of the driving forces behind this policy of ambivalence is surely Turkey's membership of NATO. Once, Turkey was a critical member of the organisation in that it gave geographical access to locate missiles in critical positions to counter the threat of the Warsaw Pact. These days, Turkey's position on the world political stage is much more threatening and less in line with its NATO allies than ever before. Having had its approaches for membership to the European Union rebuffed, Turkey is increasingly moving into the clutches of its ally Iran. Both countries share the fact that vast majority of their populations are Muslims. Previously this was not a major factor, and now it is not politically correct to point it out. The truth, however, is that this is an increasingly important issue when evaluating the military and security risks of the modern world. Turkey has shown its true colours in recent months by working in NATO to prevent the sharing of critical security information with Israel. Such an act weakens the security of the vast majority of NATO members, and shows that Turkey's continued membership of the organisation, while moving increasingly closer to Iran, is a direct conflict of interests.

Since it came into being in 1949, NATO was never really called upon to exercise its main objective as set out in Article 5. Even though the article was invoked in 2001 for the first time, the circumstances in which the article was exercised were completely different from the situation that was envisaged 60 years ago. The attack on a NATO member was not by the army of a country, but by the army of a renegade terrorist group representing one of the world's major religions. NATO may now have agreed upon its strategy for withdrawal from Afghanistan, but it has failed to show what relevance the organisation will thereafter. The threat from Russia is long gone, and NATO now has the chance to establish itself a strong position in protecting its members from the Islamic threat. Attacks on London, Madrid, New York, Washington and other locations on the soil of NATO countries have already shown NATO to be ineffective against this threat so far. There is still time to respond to it by recognising the problem and taking actions to protect members against it. Failure to do so will, however, prove NATO's irrelevance, and ultimately spell the end of the organisation.