| | | | Fareed on Trump's Climate Announcement | | Fareed says that President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement is disappointing not just for what it could mean for the deal itself, but what it says about America's role in the world.
"Climate change is happening, and will continue, whatever Trump has decided about the Paris deal. We have an iceberg estimated to be about the size of Delaware that could be about to split off from an Antarctic ice shelf," Fareed says.
"And the world had come together to try to do something serious about the problem. Indeed, I think anyone who has engaged seriously with other countries understands how the Paris agreement has become almost the signature example of global cooperation. It took years to get everybody on the same page, and most importantly for Western countries, marked the first time that China and India were really onboard."
"But it's not just about Trump abandoning this specific agreement. Remember, over the past seven decades, the United States has played an extraordinary leadership role in writing the global rules of the road for everything from trade to climate change. It has had the opportunity to get its interests, ideas and values enshrined in those rules.
"By the very nature of global problems – climate, pandemics – somebody's going to be the leader, somebody's going to write the rules. Yet President Trump seems to be throwing that away and saying, we don't need that, we don't want to be encumbered by anything. That's actually a much worse position to be in than when you're writing those rules."
| | Europe's Dynamic Duo Taking Charge | | | Europe's new centrist dynamic duo of Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel is putting a spring back in the continent's step – and that could upend relations with Britain and the United States, argues Peter Apps for Reuters. "Economically, the eurozone is in the best shape it has been for almost a decade, its growth outpacing America's in the first quarter of this year. The migration crisis has somewhat eased, and with it the political fallout from recent militant attacks. All of these problems – as well as Europe's far right – may well return. But for now, the political energy seems to be with the center. Merkel and Macron are determined to take advantage of it," Apps writes. "In more normal times, Merkel and Macron – both natural Atlanticists – would likely prefer to bolster ties with Washington and London. With Brexit and Trump, they feel the United States and UK have taken stunningly wrong turns – and they intend to be seen filling the gap." | | Covfefe Tweet Is No Laughing Matter: Bershidsky | | | The jokefest that followed Donald Trump's "covfefe" tweet risks distracting from the very serious risk posed by the president's social media habits, argues Leonid Bershidsky for Bloomberg View.
"In 2014, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev briefly lost control of his account. For 44 minutes, the hacker posted on his behalf: 'I resign. I'm ashamed of the government's actions…," Bershidsky notes.
"But what if @realDonaldTrump tweeted something that came out of Ronald Reagan's mouth in 1984?: 'My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you that I have signed legislation to outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.'
"Reagan's infamous 'nuclear joke,' which rocked world leaders, was 136 characters long, just right for a tweet. Then, no military confrontation ensued because it was immediately obvious Reagan didn't mean it: He was merely unaware of live microphone. I shudder to think what procedures would be launched if a similar Trump tweet were left out there for hours." | | No, Kabul Attack Doesn't Make Case for Troop Boost | | This week's bombing in Kabul was tragic. But it shouldn't be taken as evidence that the West should ramp up its military presence in Afghanistan, the Toronto Star editorializes.
"Rather, in the face of the latest attack and the larger intractability of the Afghan nightmare, NATO leaders should carefully consider whether, after 16 largely fruitless years, more of the same really makes sense.
"Why, after all, would a few thousand extra troops make a decisive difference now? At the mission's height, the NATO alliance had more than 100,000 military personnel stationed in Afghanistan. Even that massive force did little to bring stability to the country." - Wednesday's attack "augurs for what could be a deadly Ramadan," writes Peter Bergen for CNN Opinion. Especially on the 27th day of Ramadan, the "Night of Power."
"In 2016, the 27th day of Ramadan fell on July 2. This is the same day that ISIS attackers in Bangladesh massacred 20 at a restaurant popular with foreigners in the capital, Dhaka," Bergen notes. "The 27th day of Ramadan in 2016 was also the same day that ISIS launched a car bomb that killed more than 200 in Baghdad.
"Security services from Afghanistan to the United States should be alert throughout the Ramadan period, but especially on the 27th day of the holy month."
| | U.S. Scrambling After Neglecting Russia Spook Threat: Watkins | | Washington is obsessed over the questions swirling around the Trump campaign and Russia's involvement in the 2016 presidential campaign. But there is a broader issue at play, suggests Ali Watkins for Politico EU. "Moscow's espionage ground game is growing stronger and more brazen than ever.
"It's a problem that's sparking increasing concern from the intelligence community, including the FBI. After neglecting the Russian threat for a decade, the U.S. was caught flat-footed by Moscow's election operation. Now, officials are scrambling to figure out how to contain a sophisticated intelligence network that's festered and strengthened at home after years' worth of inattention," Watkins says.
"As the Russians continue aggressively pushing legal boundaries in both the United States and Moscow, there's a tangible frustration among U.S. intelligence officials and on Capitol Hill that the U.S. has consistently missed its chance to crack down on Moscow's spy games."
| | Why NATO Puts Up with Erdogan: Spiegel Online | | Tension with the Trump administration isn't the only thing creating division within NATO right now. But as provocative as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been, NATO leaders appear to have decided that they have little choice but to put up with him, Spiegel Online columnists argue.
"It appears that NATO, under pressure from Erdogan, is shifting from being a values-based community to one based solely on words. A few strong statements are directed at the provocateur Erdogan, but little else is done -- and NATO just goes on with its business," they write.
"NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is determined to tolerate Erdogan's attacks because he needs Turkey as a base for Middle East operations. And Chancellor Merkel is unlikely to oppose Erdogan too strongly because she pegged her political fate to Ankara's goodwill by making Turkey the gatekeeper for refugees yearning to make their way to Europe." | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment