The View from Right Field

Jamal Khashoggi: What’s Worse? Foreign Policy Edition.

What’s worse (it’s easy until you think about it):

(i)  Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist, has been living in self-imposed exile for the last year, while writing articles critical of the Saudi government for, among others, The Washington Post.   On October 2, he enters the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and is killed at some point thereafter, while in the embassy, by people connected with the Saudi government.

(ii)  Between October 2015 and December 2015, five employees of Causeway Bay Books, a bookseller in Hong Kong, disappear.  At least two of them disappear while in the People’s Republic of China, one while he is in Thailand, and another in Hong Kong itself.  All five are later confirmed to be in the PRC in connection with an alleged investigation of an old traffic incident involving one of them.  Causeway Bay Books sold political books, banned in China, that were critical of the Chinese government.

The Policies of Donald Trump and the Trump Administration

A commentary in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal bring up a fascinating point: The difference in ideas and policy between Donald Trump and the Trump administration.  In this case, Ukraine.  While President Trump doesn’t seem to care about Ukraine, and has told aides he doesn’t want to get involved in the question of Russia’s support of Ukrainian rebels occupying part of eastern Ukraine,¹ the Trump administration has actually been very supportive of Ukraine.

According to Judith Miller in the Journal:

“Ukrainians say Mr. Trump’s policies are surprisingly supportive of Kiev and hostile toward Moscow. In some ways they believe Mr. Trump has been much better than his predecessor.

Another August 8 Anniversary: Georgia, 2008

I am referring, of course, to the Georgia of Tbilisi, not Atlanta.  Ten years ago today, during the Olympics in Beijing, Russia invaded Georgia.  Robert Kagan recalls what happened: 

“Vladimir Putin struck one of the first major blows [against the liberal world order] when he sent Russian forces into South Ossetia in neighboring Georgia in support of Russian-backed separatists.  The Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, fearing a full-blown invasion, ordered his troops to attack [i.e., attack the Russians who were in Georgia], thus springing Putin’s trap.  Using the Georgian attack as a pretext, Putin launched that full-blown invasion, with tens of thousands of troops, fighter aircraft and elements of the Black Sea Fleet all pre-positioned and ready to move the instant Saakashvili acted.”

The West pretty much ignored the Russian attack.  Even though Georgia had contributed more troops to the war in Iraq than any other non-NATO country, George W. Bush refused to provide military equipment.  We only provided humanitarian aid (like the Obama administration did in Ukraine).

When Trump Meets Putin: Will He Agree NATO Should Not Have Expanded East?

It looks like Donald Trump may be meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Vienna before the NATO meeting in mid-July.  If they meet, I am sure President Putin will raise his complaint about Eastern European countries joining NATO.  Given that President Trump agreed with Kim Jong Un of North Korea that U.S.-South Korea military maneuvers constituted “war games” and were “very provocative,” the very terms that North Korea uses in its propaganda to criticize the maneuvers, it is entirely possible President Trump will agree with President Putin.  The fact President Trump thinks NATO members are ripping off the United States perhaps makes it even more likely he will agree with President Putin.

However, if President Trump does agree with Russia on this, then he will be wrong, very wrong.  The historical record is unclear as to what the United States and USSR agreed with respect to NATO expansion when Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to German unification and the right of a united Germany to stay in NATO.  While the official documents didn’t contain any promises about NATO expansion, it is possible the Soviets understood NATO wouldn’t expand as it did.  But regardless of what the Soviets, now Russians, understood back then, there is nothing wrong with the NATO expansion that occurred. 

The Return of One-Man Rule: Increasing Risk in China

In my prior post, I talked about the tendency in foreign affairs to assume that things will continue as they have been.  I looked at Russia and the risks that may come from Russia as it declines.

The country, however, that could be an even greater risk is one that seems the very opposite of instability right now: China.  While The Economist saw Russia as a declining power, it said “China is clearly a rising one that has time on its side”.  Such a view fits with President Xi’s reelection last year and his changes to both the Chinese constitution and the party/governmental structure this year.  It certainly seems that President Xi is in control and that China has the time – and stability – to play the long game.  Once again, I wonder,

When Stability Is Most Expected, Change Often Intrudes: Russia

There is a tendency in foreign affairs, as in life generally,¹ to assume that things will continue as they are.  Of course, this is not true, but people still get surprised when things change.  Examples of this are too numerous to mention, though I feel obligated to list a couple.  In December 1944, nobody expected a German offensive on the Western front.  Voila, the Battle of the Bulge.  The same could be said for the Tet Offensive in Vietnam in 1968, except for the fact that, when the Battle of the Bulge was over, we understood it was a German defeat.

A more recent example is the January 1989 statement by Erich Honecker, leader of East Germany, that the Berlin Wall would be around for another 50, or even 100, years.  Oops.

Another Donald Trump Foreign Policy Outrage?

It’s hard to keep up with the latest outrages in Washington.  For a while, earlier this week, it was Donald Trump’s call to Vladimir Putin to “congratulate” him on his reelection – even though President Trump’s national security advisers specifically told him not to congratulate President Putin.  And that President Trump had not, during the call, condemned the recent attempted murder of a former Russian spy in England – even though his advisers had suggested he do that.  The Washington Post went crazy, as did John McCain.  I was thinking of doing the same myself, but then I thought: why.

Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, probably got it closer to right when he said, about the congratulatory call, “I wouldn’t read too much into it.”  Leaders of other countries haven’t done what President Trump did, in terms of congratulating President Putin.  But then some of them haven’t been following up their words, or lack of words (in this case), with real actions on other matters.  They aren’t spending on defense what they have agreed, in NATO, to spend.  Germany, for example, is spending way less than NATO’s 2% target and is committed to another Russian pipeline to potentially increase its dependence on Russian gas – and increase the amount of money Vladimir Putin gets from energy sales.  Obviously, President Trump shouldn’t have done what he did, but what is Vladimir Putin going to pay more attention to: words of congratulation or actual military spending?

The Real Issue: Standing Up to Russia

While the media are focusing on Rex Tillerson’s firing, the special election in Pennsylvania, and students protesting for more restrictions on guns, a bigger story is not getting the attention it deserves: The attempted murder last week of a former Russian spy, and his daughter, in England with a military-grade nerve agent.

In the past, former Russia/Soviet spies have been murdered with poison (in their tea, with the tip of an umbrella), but this involved a chemical weapon that could have, and actually did, harm other people, too.  In addition to the former spy and his daughter, an English police officer who was one of first on the scene is in hospital, too.

How to Get Donald Trump to Act on Russian Meddling in Our Elections

If people really want Donald Trump to take Russian meddling with our elections seriously (which would be a good thing), maybe it would help if they stopped saying President Trump’s election was illegitimate because Russian interference got him elected.  Just a suggestion.

Shale-Oil: A Win-Win

An article in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal was headlined “Warning Is Sounded on Shale” (print edition).  The first sentence explained: “U.S. shale companies are churning out crude oil at a record pace that could overwhelm global demand and reverse the oil market’s fragile recovery, a top energy-market observer said Tuesday.” 

After reading this, I thought to myself, how is this a problem?  I understand companies in the energy business might prefer prices to be higher (and life easier), but shale-oil companies increasing the supply of oil sounds great for customers and consumers.

According to the article, the  flexibility of U.S. shale companies to increase production reduces the likelihood of price spikes like we had in 2011 to 2014, when oil was over $100 a barrel.  This helps consumers.  It especially helps those consumers who have to pay a relatively high percentage of their income for heat and electricity.  If your energy costs are only 1% or 2% of your budget, a 50% increase is eminently manageable.  But if energy costs are 10% of your budget, as they are for poorer people in much of the United States, a 50% increase, or even a 25% increase, in energy costs is a problem.