| | | | Now that President Trump has levied sanctions and tariffs on Turkey in response to its incursion into Syria, The New York Times writes in an editorial that it's not entirely clear what Trump is so upset about. "Mr. Trump allowed the invasion," withdrawing US troops after a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, "and then threatened to destroy the Turkish economy if it went too far, without specifying how far that might be," the paper writes.
Usually a defender of Trump, The Wall Street Journal's editorial board makes a similar point: "Wouldn't it have been easier simply to tell Mr. Erdoğan, on that famous phone call two Sundays ago, that the US wouldn't tolerate a Turkish invasion against the Kurds and would use air power to stop it?" the paper asks. Calling the whole episode a "fiasco," the Journal concludes that Trump's economic punishments reveal a limited approach to geopolitics: "By now it's not unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Trump's foreign policy can be distilled into two tactics—sanctions and tariffs." | | In a scorched-earth Wall Street Journal op-ed, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan lambastes critics of his Syrian offensive, calling out other relevant powers (save the US) for doing nothing as Syria's war has raged. After accepting 3.6 million refugees within its borders, Erdoğan writes, "at a certain point, Turkey reached its limit."
After European countries pledged to halt arms exports to Turkey, Erdoğan reserves biting criticism for France, which "has blocked weapons sales to Turkey, but why did it ignore our repeated early warnings about imminent terrorist attacks?" (That's a reference to Turkish warnings about one of the perpetrators of the 2015 Paris attacks, which still evoke deep national sentiments.) He takes aim at Arab states for not accepting refugees and, implicitly, for backing militant factions instead of engaging in diplomacy. "The Arab League, whose statements don't reflect the true views and sentiments of the Arab people, has no legitimacy," Erdoğan concludes.
Writing from a European perspective, Sven Biscop of the Brussels-based Egmont Institute shares at least some of Erdoğan's criticisms: In an op-ed published at Encompass, Biscop notes that Europe may criticize Turkey's incursion and America's withdrawal, but it never developed its own plan to stabilize Syria and lacks the organization to send troops there. | | | "The fundamental problem" with the partial China trade deal President Trump announced on Friday, Christopher Balding writes for Foreign Policy, "is that it doesn't seem to actually exist." The "phase one" agreement was heralded by some despite its scaled-down size (it included Chinese promises of agricultural purchases and a pause in US tariff hikes), but Balding points out that the specifics haven't been put to paper. The deal's limited reach is also a sign that the US and China really don't agree on any big issues, he writes, as they've worked to remove them from the bargaining table.
Meanwhile, the trade war has caused permanent damage, Noah Smith writes at Bloomberg. Running through the list of US presidential contenders for 2020, Smith rates their palatability to China (Biden ranks as the favorite, as he'd likely reverse Trump's policies, while Sanders and Warren appear more protectionist), but Smith also argues that no matter who wins, things can't go back to how they were. Chinese businesses are unlikely to see the US as a safe place to invest in the long run, knowing the US could take a Trumpian turn again, he writes. | | Trump's Middle East Bungling | | In a new Foreign Affairs essay, former longtime US diplomat Martin Indyk writes that President Trump has bungled nearly every Middle East issue he's touched, leading to consequences easily foreseen by anyone with experience in the region. Case in point: Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, took Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's word that reaction would be minimal if the US recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. MBS's father, the king, quickly rebuked the move after Trump made it. They similarly entrusted MBS to deliver support for a peace initiative from Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, only to see Abbas reject MBS's offer out of hand.
The list of grievances is long, and Indyk explains them in detail. Trump accepted the Saudi and Emirati blockade of Qatar, which alienated a US ally (Qatar hosts an American military base), pushing it closer to Iran (whose airspace now links Qatar to the rest of the world), and fracturing the Gulf Cooperation Council (a body of states friendly to the US, which has included Qatar). Trump sought to aid Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, not understanding that Syrian control was part of a delicate settlement negotiated by Henry Kissinger; in doing so, he contradicted the UN resolution that underpins peace between Israel and its Arab neighbor, made Israel vulnerable to Iranian operations staged through Syria, and failed to secure an electoral win for Netanyahu in the end.
Throughout all of this, America's allies have been alarmed, Indyk writes. His overriding point: If Trump had consulted advisers with regional expertise, these disastrous moves could have been avoided. | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment