Posts tagged with "foreign policy"

Gaza Crisis: A Deciding Factor in the Election

Leave a reply

A New Policy released a statement analyzing the impact of the Gaza conflict and US policy towards it on the election results. The statement argues that the Gaza issue was a critical factor in key states like Michigan and revealed weaknesses in Biden’s campaign early on. It criticizes the Biden administration’s handling of the issue, particularly regarding the criminalization of student protests and Harris’s alignment with Biden’s unpopular stance on Gaza.

The statement suggests that the election outcome presents an opportunity to build a new coalition within the Democratic party, centering support for Palestinian rights, free speech, and a more just foreign policy. It emphasizes the need for strategic and urgent action to drive policy changes, shift American politics, and revive American values. Looking ahead, A New Policy expresses hope that President-Elect Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy may lead to a change in US policy towards Israel. 

Read the full analysis of the election result below:

Josh Paul
Former Director, U.S. Department of State
Senior Advisor at DAWN, (DAWN; Founded by Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, DAWN promotes democracy & human rights in the Middle East and North Africa).
https://dawnmena.org/

Yesterday evening, before most States had been called, A New Policy issued the below release. In the morning light, every word of it stands.

But before we look forward, a look back: what was the role of Gaza and the Movement U.S. policy towards it has sparked in this election? Clearly, it was a critical factor in key states like Michigan. But even more than that, throughout the last year, it has been a leading indicator:

It was Gaza that first revealed the weakness in President Biden’s re-election campaign long before that fateful first debate. It was the criminalization of student protest that demonstrated the hypocrisy and signaled the failed nature of Biden’s, and then Harris’ attempt to woo millennials and Gen Zs long before the exit polls showed how badly she had underperformed. It was the hope for change in policy that buoyed Harris in the early days of her campaign, and then her unwillingness to separate herself from Biden on Gaza that signaled the fated strategy of hewing to the unpopular mantle of Biden long before Harris did so in any of the other policy areas. AIPAC may claim that this election was a victory for supporters of Netanyahu’s Israel, but in reality this election was a failure for those who could only see Gaza as a niche issue, rather than the vote-winner it could have been in many states, and the canary in the coalmine that it represented on issues far beyond Palestine.

And it will remain so. Whatever happens to America’s alliances, credibility, and civil rights in the year to come, it began with Joe Biden. It began with Gaza.

But all hope is not lost. President-Elect Trump has shown a clear transactionalism in his approach to foreign policy, and it is clear that unconditional support for Israel comes with a cost that exceeds its value. It is also clear that many across the Republican Party, and particularly in its base, believe that America should never offshore its own policy decisions. A New Policy will work with the incoming Administration and Congress wherever we can to ensure American interests are centered.

This is also a clear opportunity to take the new political cycle build and grow a new coalition in the Democratic party. Biden’s failure – Blinken’s failure – Sullivan’s failure – and the failure of many other senior officials who for over a year have turned a deaf ear to the calls from their own base, and a blind eye to the suffering of the Palestinian people – should be a wake-up call, and a chance to fundamentally shift support for Palestinian rights, support for free speech at home, and support for a more just American foreign policy, from the left of the party to its center.

There is much to be done, and for many people this morning the barriers to success may seem higher than ever. But we must work strategically, and with urgency, to drive urgent and overdue changes in America’s policies, to shift American politics, to center America’s interests, and to revive American values. That work begins today.

Unconditional Support for Israel: The Risks and Consequences of THAAD Deployment

Leave a reply

Josh Paul

Former Director, U.S. Department of State.
Senior Advisor at DAWN, (DAWN; Founded by Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, DAWN promotes democracy & human rights in the Middle East and North Africa).
https://dawnmena.org/

In 2008, when I worked in the Pentagon, one of my roles was to brief the Undersecretary on the Middle East portion of the SDOB – the Sec Def’s Orders Book, which directs out-of-cycle deployments. As we learn of U.S. plans to deploy a THAAD battery to Israel, I can picture the tab in that thick binder that will have gone forward, with its proposal for deployment, estimated cost, and likely competing perspectives from stakeholders such as the US Army, US European Command, and US Indo-pacific Command. But one thing the SDOB will not have included will have been a political assessment.

Israeli civilians, like all peoples, should not have to live under the threat of rocket fire or ballistic missiles, and on its face, THAAD provides that protection. But does it truly? As others have noted, the THAAD deployment may make Prime Minister Netanyahu more comfortable in ordering a devastating and disproportionate strike against Iran. Even if it succeeds in its tactical objectives, such a strike would be a step away from a regional settlement and lasting peace. The decision to deploy THAAD to Israel is not simply a decision to protect Israel – it is a decision to enable further military escalation. A policy that was truly in the Israeli interest would be one that used American leverage to wind down Israel’s military operations, end the occupation, and frame a pathway to a just and lasting peace.

The THAAD deployment may also have more immediate consequences, not all of them predictable. If Israel does strike Iran, Iran’s response options will have to take the THAAD and its 48-interceptor-load into account. Do they increase their missile load to overwhelm the system, utilize cruise missiles launched from nearer Israel to destroy the system first, or recalibrate their response to focus it on easier targets such as Gulf oil infrastructure (this need not be a kinetic operation – simply scuttling a large ship in the Straits of Hormuz would do measurable harm to the global economy)? Each of these options, particularly the second, also comes with increased risk of direct harm to U.S. assets and personnel, which will be a factor for Iran to carefully consider, but also means that Biden effectively using U.S. forces not only as a deterrent but also as a triggering mechanism that may draw the U.S. further into a regional conflict – and the deployment also places THAAD, whose only operational success has been against a single missile launched from Yemen into the UAE, and which is critical to the defense of Korea and the Gulf, to the test. It will likely prove very effective – but if it fails against a large-scale barrage, there will also be a weakening of its deterrent factor in and beyond the region.

For a year, faced with a wide array of alternatives, each time the Biden Administration has chosen to double-down on unconditional support for Israel. The consequences so far have been devastating for Palestinians, destabilizing for the Middle East, and damaging to America.

US Aid in the Spotlight: Balancing Domestic Needs with Global Commitments

Leave a reply

FEMA Faces Funding Shortfall After Hurricane Helene Batters East Coast, Mayorkas Under Pressure

As Hurricane Helene continues to wreak havoc along the East Coast, concerns are escalating over the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) ability to adequately respond due to funding constraints. These concerns, unfortunately, are proving to be well-founded in the wake of the storm’s devastation. This crisis unfolds amidst heightened scrutiny of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, following an impeachment attempt by House Republicans earlier this year.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, FEMA’s funding shortfall is starkly apparent, highlighting the urgent need for robust disaster preparedness and sufficient resources for the agency. With the domestic funding shortage limiting assistance to affected residents to a mere $750, DHS leadership faces mounting pressure, potentially hindering FEMA’s capacity to effectively address the crisis.

Meanwhile…

A report from Brown University’s Cost of War Project found US spending on Israel totals at least $22.76 billion and counting. This is a conservative estimate that includes approved security assistance funding since October 7, 2023, supplemental funding for regional operations, and an estimated additional cost of operations. It does not include any other economic costs. The report also notes that the $17.9 billion the US government has approved in security assistance for Israeli military operations in Gaza and elsewhere since October 7 is substantially more than in any other year since the US began granting military aid to Israel in 1959. However, this is only a partial amount of the U.S. financial support provided during this war.

United States Offers Humanitarian Aid to Lebanon Amidst Escalating Crisis

The United States has announced a substantial humanitarian aid package to address the escalating crisis in Lebanon. The aid, which includes funding and essential supplies, aims to alleviate the suffering of the Lebanese people who are facing immense challenges. This assistance underscores the United States’ commitment to supporting Lebanon during this difficult time.

Supplemental Bill Signed into Law, Delivering Billions in Aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan

In a recent move to bolster international security and support key allies, a supplemental bill has been signed into law, allocating billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. This legislation underscores the United States’ commitment to global stability and its strategic partnerships in critical regions.

The aid package, according to the Biden-Harris Administration, will provide much-needed resources to Ukraine as it continues its war with Russia, as well as to Israel in its ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people, including in the wake of recent conflicts with Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran. Additionally, the bill includes provisions for Taiwan, aimed at enhancing its defense capabilities and deterring potential threats from China.

Official say this substantial financial commitment demonstrates a strong resolve to stand by allies and promote peace and security on the international stage.

“My commitment to Israel, I want to make clear again, is ironclad,” Biden said “The security of Israel is critical, and we’ll always make sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself against Iran and the terrorists it supports.” 

“The only success the Biden administration could claim over the last year was that it had prevented an escalation of the war in Gaza from engulfing the region. However, Israel has interpreted unconditional U.S. support for its war – and unlimited weapons supply – as a green light to attack Lebanon and expand the war. This endangers not only civilians in another country but American citizens in Lebanon and across the region. The U.S. is being drawn ever closer to war with Iran. This is a complete and utter failure by the administration. We and others have warned about this for months. We are tired of “I told you so.” – Feds United for Peace

Domestic and international aid are both forms of assistance provided to those in need, but they differ in their scope and focus. Domestic aid refers to assistance provided within a country’s own borders, often in response to natural disasters, economic hardship, or social issues. On the other hand, international aid is directed towards other countries, typically to address humanitarian crises, promote development, or support strategic allies.

While both types of aid aim to alleviate suffering and improve lives, domestic aid is often seen as a government’s responsibility to its own citizens, whereas international aid is more discretionary and can be influenced by foreign policy objectives. Additionally, domestic aid is usually funded through taxpayer dollars, while international aid can come from a variety of sources, including American tax payers, government budgets, private donations, and international organizations.

In the current news cycle, we see examples of both domestic and international aid. Concerns over FEMA funding for Hurricane Helene highlight the importance of domestic disaster preparedness, while the US providing aid to Lebanon and a supplemental bill allocating funds to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan demonstrate the country’s commitment to international assistance.

Ultimately, both domestic and international aid play crucial roles in addressing global challenges and promoting human well-being, officials in Washington, DC say. The balance between these two forms of assistance often reflects a country’s values, priorities, and its role on the global stage.

The main causes of concern surrounding Hurricane Helene are:

  • FEMA’s preparedness and funding levels: There are worries about whether FEMA has adequate resources and is sufficiently prepared to handle Hurricane Helene’s disaster.
  • DHS Secretary Mayorkas: The ongoing political scrutiny of the DHS Secretary adds another layer of complexity and potential instability to the situation, which could impact the agency’s ability to respond effectively.
  • Hurricane Helene’s devastating impact: These factors combined create a heightened sense of anxiety and uncertainty about the government’s ability to manage the hurricane’s aftermath.

The main types of US government aid:

  • Humanitarian aid: This type of aid is exemplified by the assistance package provided to Lebanon to alleviate the suffering of people facing a crisis.
  • Military and defense aid: This is illustrated by the supplemental bill that allocates funds to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan to strengthen their defense capabilities and deter potential threats.
  • Disaster relief aid: Although not explicitly mentioned as international aid, the reference to FEMA funding for Hurricane Helene implies the importance of this type of aid within the US.

The key challenges facing FEMA in its response to Hurricane Helene are concerns over its preparedness and funding levels, compounded by the political scrutiny of DHS Secretary Mayorkas and the Biden-Harris Administration for centering international aid and support rather than domestic needs. These factors could potentially impact FEMA’s ability to respond effectively to the crisis.

How the US prioritizes its domestic and international aid efforts

Insights into the factors that influence these decisions:

  • Domestically, the focus is on disaster preparedness and response, as highlighted by the concerns surrounding FEMA’s readiness for Hurricane Helene. 
  • Internationally, the US prioritizes humanitarian aid in response to crises, as seen in Lebanon, and support for strategic allies and global stability, as evidenced by the aid package to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. 
  • These priorities suggest a balance between immediate humanitarian needs, long-term strategic interests, and fulfilling the government’s responsibility to its citizens. However, the exact process and criteria for allocating resources between domestic and international aid are not specified.

Understanding the Candidates: Foreign Policy in the 2024 U.S. Election

Leave a reply

As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, foreign policy takes center stage. The Council on Foreign Relations provides comprehensive resources to track candidates’ policies, monitor critical global issues, and understand the evolving role of the United States in the world.

Vice President Kamala Harris seeks the presidency amidst ongoing foreign policy challenges, including conflicts in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip. Former President Donald Trump aims to return to his “America First” policies, a significant departure from traditional Democratic approaches. Jill Stein, the Green Party’s candidate, advocates for a non-interventionist stance, criticizing U.S. military involvement overseas and supporting maintaining current levels of international aid.

The upcoming 2024 US presidential election is shaping up to be a pivotal moment in foreign policy. The candidates vying for the presidency bring starkly different visions of America’s role in the world.

For a list of the remaining 2024 Presidential Candidates, click HERE.

Incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris, representing the Democratic Party, seeks to build upon the Biden-Harris administration’s foreign policy agenda while navigating complex geopolitical challenges.

Former President Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner, is campaigning on a platform of “America First” policies. His approach emphasizes a departure from traditional alliances and a focus on prioritizing American interests above all else.

Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, offers a non-interventionist perspective. She has been a vocal critic of American military involvement overseas and advocates for a more restrained foreign policy. And Cornell West, an intellectual running for president as an independent, states his foreign policy position as, “Cease all war funding and weapons to Ukraine and invest in peacemaking.” 

Libertarian, Chase Oliver states his policy position on foreign aid and relations as, “End aid being directed to nation-states currently at war. This includes Israel and Ukraine. While we offer moral support to our friends currently engaged with the enemy, we should not be contributing to extending the fight.” Randall Terry, under the banner of the Constitution Party, focused his campaign on pro-life policies. His website states, “Our campaign has 3 Goals to Defend Children, Defeat the Democrat nominee and Destroy the Democrat Party.”

With such contrasting viewpoints, the 2024 election promises to be a defining moment for the future direction of US foreign policy. Voters will have a crucial decision to make, as the outcome will undoubtedly shape America’s engagement with the world for years to come.