foreignpolicy--2020-02-13--Trump to Raid Pentagon’s War Account to Build Border Wall

U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to divert $ 3.8 billion in total from programs across the Department of Defense , including a controversial war account used to fund emergency requirements as well as the procurement of ships , F-35 fighter jets and Army vehicles , to help build his long-promised wall along the southern border , Foreign Policy has learned .
For the second year in a row , Trump will raid the Department of Defense ’ s coffers for money for the U.S.-Mexico border wall , dipping into fiscal year 2020 funds earmarked for counterdrug activities and military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant chunk of those dollars will be funneled from a war account known as the Overseas Contingency Operations fund , according to a Feb. 13 reprogramming action sent to lawmakers that was obtained by Foreign Policy .
The Overseas Contingency Operations fund was established after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to fund emergency requirements .
It has been criticized as a “ slush fund ” used to circumvent mandatory spending limits set by Congress .
As it did last year , the White House is planning to transfer funds from elsewhere in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account .
From there , the White House has argued it can legally transfer that money to build additional miles of the wall under U.S. Code Section 284 ( b ) .
The money will go toward “ barrier projects , ” including building fences , roads , and lighting , in California , Arizona , New Mexico , and Texas , said Robert Salesses , deputy assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense integration and defense support of civil authorities , on Thursday at the Pentagon .
The administration has justified using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build the wall by saying that the barriers will help keep violent Mexican drug cartels at bay .
“ All of these areas along the Mexican-U.S. border are home to some of the strongest and most violent drug cartels in the world , ” Salesses said .
“ The improved ability to impede and deny illicit activity within the border barrier area projects will help to deter and prevent illegal cross-border activity and stem the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States.
” In total , the department plans to divert $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account to the counterdrug account , according to the reprogramming , which was signed by acting Pentagon comptroller Elaine McCusker .
The money was intended for procurement of two C-130J airlift aircraft and eight MQ-9 unmanned aerial systems , as well as National Guard and Reserve equipment .
In addition , the department plans to transfer $ 2.2 billion from the base budget—funds that would otherwise have gone to buy Army vehicles , Navy aircraft and ships , and Air Force aircraft—to the counterdrug account .
Specifically , the transfer includes $ 201 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million for two Navy F-35s , $ 155 million for two V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft , $ 180 million for one P-8 maritime aircraft , $ 650 million for Navy landing helicopter assault ships , $ 261 million for Expeditionary Fast Transports , $ 156 million for advanced procurement funds for Air Force F-35s , $ 196 million for two C-130Js , and $ 180 million from the now-defunct light attack aircraft program .
Salesses said Defense Secretary Mark Esper conducted a “ deliberate process ” to determine whether and how the department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s initial request for assistance , which was for 271 mies at a cost of $ 5.5 billion .
Based on recommendations by the secretary of the Army , the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , the comptroller , and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Esper decided to construct 177 miles of the wall—not the full request—on federally controlled land and identified $ 3.8 billion worth of funding for the project .
“ The items to be funded are a higher priority than the items for which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , stressing that , “ The transfer of funds will not adversely affect the military preparedness of the United States.
” The Army Corps of Engineers , which will construct the barriers , should complete the project in the next 12 to 24 months , he said , adding that he does not believe the Department of Homeland Security will ask for additional support for the border wall next year .
The news that the White House is preparing to raid the war account and funding for new equipment comes as the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abroad .
Since tensions with Iran spiked last summer , the Pentagon has deployed more than 14,000 additional U.S. forces to the Middle East , including 3,500 soldiers with the 82nd Airborne Division deployed last month after a U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani .
Lawmakers across party lines expressed outrage at the proposal after it was made public .
Rep. Mac Thornberry , a Republican from Texas and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee , said diverting funding allocated for military accounts “ undermines the principle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in violation of the separation of powers within the Constitution.
” Meanwhile , in a letter sent to Esper obtained by Foreign Policy , nine Democratic senators who sit on influential defense-related subcommittees expressed outrage at the plan to raid “ critical ” programs across the department .
“ The raid on this funding is quite simply an attack on the efforts to ensure our citizen-soldiers are prepared to respond to disasters , both overseas and in nearly every community in all fifty states and four territories , ” wrote Democratic Sens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jack Reed , Brian Schatz , Dianne Feinstein , Patty Murray , Jon Tester , Tom Udall , and Tammy Baldwin .
In particular , the senators expressed concern about the Defense Department ’ s plan to divert funding from “ perennially-underfunded ” National Guard and Reserve accounts , including $ 1.3 billion Congress provided to the National Guard and Reserve Equipment account in fiscal year 2020 .
They called this the “ lifeline of modernization for the National Guard and Reserves , both for warfighting missions and domestic contingencies.
” The senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to transfer funds from the Overseas Contingency Operations account for additional wall construction , according to the letter .
That would turn the war account into a “ slush fund ” for real , the senators warned .
“ These accounts were created to separate what was supposed to be temporary war-related spending from the routine operations of our Armed Forces , but critics came to call these accounts little more than a slush fund to evade spending caps , ” the senators wrote .
“ This raid on these funding lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the critics were wrong.
” The Washington Post reported in January that Trump plans to reprogram $ 7.2 billion overall in Pentagon funding this year to complete about 885 miles of new fencing by spring 2022 .
That initially was reported to include $ 3.5 billion from the counterdrug account—up from $ 2.5 billion diverted in 2019—as well as $ 3.7 billion in military construction funding , slightly up from $ 3.6 billion in 2019 .
However , the increase to $ 3.8 billion for the counterdrug account indicates that the overall number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In total , Trump plans to reprogram $ 7.2 billion in Pentagon funding this year to complete about 885 miles of new fencing by spring 2022 , the Washington Post reported in January .
That initially was reported to include $ 3.5 billion from the counterdrug account—up from $ 2.5 billion diverted in 2019—as well as $ 3.7 billion in military construction funding , slightly up from $ 3.6 billion in 2019 .
The move would bring the total amount of federal funds channeled to the border wall to more than $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S.-Mexico border was a key 2016 campaign promise for Trump , who faces reelection this year .
A judge in El Paso , Texas , ruled late last year that the White House broke the law in diverting funds for the border wall that had been authorized by Congress for the Pentagon and froze the $ 3.6 billion .
But the administration appealed the ruling , and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit lifted the injunction in January , allowing work on the barriers to proceed while legal challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wall is just one of many instances where the Trump administration has sought to circumvent Congress ’ s authority , particularly its control over government appropriations .
“ This repeated maneuver to transfer funds once again is in contrast to the long-established processes involving consultation with the defense oversight committees of Congress on reprogrammings and transfers , ” the senators wrote .
“ Engaging in this scheme again is not only controversial , but also poisonous to the relationship we seek on national defense matters—which should be above this type of rancor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move to use Pentagon money for the wall .
“ The first priority of the DoD is protection of the homeland , ” Esper said during a press conference with his Japanese counterpart in January .
“ So the southwest border is a security issue .
And so we ’ ll see how things play out , but we remain committed to supporting the Department of Homeland Security and its mission.
” Update , Feb. 13 , 2020 : This article was updated with information from a letter sent by Democratic senators and @ @ @ @ @ @

U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to divert $3.8 billion in total from programs across the Department of Defense, including a controversial war account used to fund emergency requirements as well as the procurement of ships, F-35 fighter jets and Army vehicles, to help build his long-promised wall along the southern border, Foreign Policy has learned.
U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to divert $3.8 billion in total from programs across the Department of Defense, including a controversial war account used to fund emergency requirements as well as the procurement of ships, F-35 fighter jets and Army vehicles, to help build his long-promised wall along the southern border, Foreign Policy has learned.
For the second year in a row, Trump will raid the Department of Defense’s coffers for money for the U.S.-Mexico border wall, dipping into fiscal year 2020 funds earmarked for counterdrug activities and military construction. But this year, a significant chunk of those dollars will be funneled from a war account known as the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, according to a Feb. 13 reprogramming action sent to lawmakers that was obtained by Foreign Policy.
The Overseas Contingency Operations fund was established after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to fund emergency requirements. It has been criticized as a “slush fund” used to circumvent mandatory spending limits set by Congress.
As it did last year, the White House is planning to transfer funds from elsewhere in the Pentagon’s budget into the counterdrug account. From there, the White House has argued it can legally transfer that money to build additional miles of the wall under U.S. Code Section 284 (b).
The money will go toward “barrier projects,” including building fences, roads, and lighting, in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, said Robert Salesses, deputy assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense integration and defense support of civil authorities, on Thursday at the Pentagon.
The administration has justified using the Pentagon’s counterdrug funding to build the wall by saying that the barriers will help keep violent Mexican drug cartels at bay.
“All of these areas along the Mexican-U.S. border are home to some of the strongest and most violent drug cartels in the world,” Salesses said. “The improved ability to impede and deny illicit activity within the border barrier area projects will help to deter and prevent illegal cross-border activity and stem the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States.”
In total, the department plans to divert $1.6 billion from the Overseas Contingency Operations account to the counterdrug account, according to the reprogramming, which was signed by acting Pentagon comptroller Elaine McCusker. The money was intended for procurement of two C-130J airlift aircraft and eight MQ-9 unmanned aerial systems, as well as National Guard and Reserve equipment.
In addition, the department plans to transfer $2.2 billion from the base budget—funds that would otherwise have gone to buy Army vehicles, Navy aircraft and ships, and Air Force aircraft—to the counterdrug account. Specifically, the transfer includes $201 million for Army vehicles, $223 million for two Navy F-35s, $155 million for two V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, $180 million for one P-8 maritime aircraft, $650 million for Navy landing helicopter assault ships, $261 million for Expeditionary Fast Transports, $156 million for advanced procurement funds for Air Force F-35s, $196 million for two C-130Js, and $180 million from the now-defunct light attack aircraft program.
Salesses said Defense Secretary Mark Esper conducted a “deliberate process” to determine whether and how the department could support the Department of Homeland Security’s initial request for assistance, which was for 271 mies at a cost of $5.5 billion. Based on recommendations by the secretary of the Army, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the comptroller, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Esper decided to construct 177 miles of the wall—not the full request—on federally controlled land and identified $3.8 billion worth of funding for the project.
“The items to be funded are a higher priority than the items for which the funds were transferred,” Salesses said, stressing that, “The transfer of funds will not adversely affect the military preparedness of the United States.”
The Army Corps of Engineers, which will construct the barriers, should complete the project in the next 12 to 24 months, he said, adding that he does not believe the Department of Homeland Security will ask for additional support for the border wall next year.
The news that the White House is preparing to raid the war account and funding for new equipment comes as the United States commits more U.S. troops to conflicts abroad. Since tensions with Iran spiked last summer, the Pentagon has deployed more than 14,000 additional U.S. forces to the Middle East, including 3,500 soldiers with the 82nd Airborne Division deployed last month after a U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani.
Lawmakers across party lines expressed outrage at the proposal after it was made public. Rep. Mac Thornberry, a Republican from Texas and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said diverting funding allocated for military accounts “undermines the principle of civilian control of the military and is in violation of the separation of powers within the Constitution.”
Meanwhile, in a letter sent to Esper obtained by Foreign Policy, nine Democratic senators who sit on influential defense-related subcommittees expressed outrage at the plan to raid “critical” programs across the department.
“The raid on this funding is quite simply an attack on the efforts to ensure our citizen-soldiers are prepared to respond to disasters, both overseas and in nearly every community in all fifty states and four territories,” wrote Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy, Jack Reed, Brian Schatz, Dianne Feinstein, Patty Murray, Jon Tester, Tom Udall, and Tammy Baldwin.
In particular, the senators expressed concern about the Defense Department’s plan to divert funding from “perennially-underfunded” National Guard and Reserve accounts, including $1.3 billion Congress provided to the National Guard and Reserve Equipment account in fiscal year 2020. They called this the “lifeline of modernization for the National Guard and Reserves, both for warfighting missions and domestic contingencies.”
The senators are also “alarmed” at the decision to transfer funds from the Overseas Contingency Operations account for additional wall construction, according to the letter. That would turn the war account into a “slush fund” for real, the senators warned.
“These accounts were created to separate what was supposed to be temporary war-related spending from the routine operations of our Armed Forces, but critics came to call these accounts little more than a slush fund to evade spending caps,” the senators wrote. “This raid on these funding lines puts an end to any pretense that the critics were wrong.”
The Washington Post reported in January that Trump plans to reprogram $7.2 billion overall in Pentagon funding this year to complete about 885 miles of new fencing by spring 2022. That initially was reported to include $3.5 billion from the counterdrug account—up from $2.5 billion diverted in 2019—as well as $3.7 billion in military construction funding, slightly up from $3.6 billion in 2019. However, the increase to $3.8 billion for the counterdrug account indicates that the overall number could be higher than $7.2 billion.
In total, Trump plans to reprogram $7.2 billion in Pentagon funding this year to complete about 885 miles of new fencing by spring 2022, the Washington Post reported in January. That initially was reported to include $3.5 billion from the counterdrug account—up from $2.5 billion diverted in 2019—as well as $3.7 billion in military construction funding, slightly up from $3.6 billion in 2019.
The move would bring the total amount of federal funds channeled to the border wall to more than $18.4 billion. Building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border was a key 2016 campaign promise for Trump, who faces reelection this year.
A judge in El Paso, Texas, ruled late last year that the White House broke the law in diverting funds for the border wall that had been authorized by Congress for the Pentagon and froze the $3.6 billion. But the administration appealed the ruling, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit lifted the injunction in January, allowing work on the barriers to proceed while legal challenges are pending.
Diverting Pentagon funding for the wall is just one of many instances where the Trump administration has sought to circumvent Congress’s authority, particularly its control over government appropriations.
“This repeated maneuver to transfer funds once again is in contrast to the long-established processes involving consultation with the defense oversight committees of Congress on reprogrammings and transfers,” the senators wrote. “Engaging in this scheme again is not only controversial, but also poisonous to the relationship we seek on national defense matters—which should be above this type of rancor and partisanship”
Esper has defended the move to use Pentagon money for the wall.
“The first priority of the DoD is protection of the homeland,” Esper said during a press conference with his Japanese counterpart in January. “So the southwest border is a security issue. And so we’ll see how things play out, but we remain committed to supporting the Department of Homeland Security and its mission.”
Update, Feb. 13, 2020: This article was updated with information from a letter sent by Democratic senators and with comment from Robert Salesses.


foreignpolicy--2020-02-13--Trump’s Budget Puts Down Stakes in Greenland

The United States is one step closer to establishing a permanent diplomatic outpost in the Arctic by allocating money for a consulate in Greenland , the vast island that President Donald Trump once openly suggested buying , according to a federal budget proposal revealed this week .
The administration ’ s budget proposal allocates $ 587,000 to construct the new U.S. consulate , reflecting the administration ’ s growing concerns with Russia ’ s and China ’ s designs on the Arctic .
Greenland , the sparsely populated autonomous island governed by Denmark , was thrust into the national media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year to buy the island from the Nordic country .
The president abruptly canceled a planned trip to Copenhagen after the Danish and Greenlandic governments made clear Greenland was not for sale , causing a brief and unusual strain in the U.S.-Danish relationship and unease in Greenland .
Despite the tensions , the Danish government has expressed support for the United States establishing a consulate in Greenland .
The newly planned consulate underscores how the United States is looking to boost its presence in the Arctic , where climate change is rapidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential maritime trade routes and lucrative untapped mineral and energy reserves .
For the Trump administration , one of the top concerns is how China and Russia will take advantage of the changing Arctic conditions .
Russia is rebuilding its Soviet-era military installations in the Arctic Circle and ramping up military exercises and activities in the Arctic , while the United States and its Western allies have thwarted Chinese bids to bankroll massive infrastructure investment projects in the Arctic region , including Greenland .
“ We have to restore our physical presence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an expert on trans-Atlantic relations and Arctic issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies , a think tank .
Building a U.S. consulate in Greenland “ is one small step in that direction , ” she said .
The U.S. military maintains a small presence in Greenland at the Thule Air Base , the Air Force ’ s northernmost base in the world , 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle .
The State Department is weighing plans to house the new consulate in an already existing compound in Greenland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greenland ’ s administrative capital , according to current and former officials .
The State Department did not respond to an additional request for comment .
Trump ’ s federal budget proposal calls for steep cuts to the State Department and foreign aid .
It faced sharp criticism from lawmakers , who have final say over the budget .
Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel , the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee , slammed Trump ’ s budget as “ a waste of the paper it ’ s printed on , ” saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would “ weaken our security and leadership around the world.
” Nevertheless , the funding for a consulate in Greenland appears to have broad support in Congress , several congressional aides say , which increases the chances Congress will enact that proposal .
“ China and Russia are both increasing their influence in the Arctic .
Establishing a consulate in Greenland , both a strategic location and close to the U.S. homeland , is an important step in this context , ” a Republican Senate aide told Foreign Policy .
“ The opening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the near term , is a positive development.
” A Democratic congressional aide said State Department officials briefed congressional staffers on the plans in recent months and “ argued emphatically that it was driven by broader Arctic/counter-China/Russia policy objectives and not Trump ’ s land purchase ambitions .
”

The United States is one step closer to establishing a permanent diplomatic outpost in the Arctic by allocating money for a consulate in Greenland, the vast island that President Donald Trump once openly suggested buying, according to a federal budget proposal revealed this week.
The United States is one step closer to establishing a permanent diplomatic outpost in the Arctic by allocating money for a consulate in Greenland, the vast island that President Donald Trump once openly suggested buying, according to a federal budget proposal revealed this week.
The administration’s budget proposal allocates $587,000 to construct the new U.S. consulate, reflecting the administration’s growing concerns with Russia’s and China’s designs on the Arctic.
Greenland, the sparsely populated autonomous island governed by Denmark, was thrust into the national media spotlight after Trump floated a colonial-style plan last year to buy the island from the Nordic country. The president abruptly canceled a planned trip to Copenhagen after the Danish and Greenlandic governments made clear Greenland was not for sale, causing a brief and unusual strain in the U.S.-Danish relationship and unease in Greenland. Despite the tensions, the Danish government has expressed support for the United States establishing a consulate in Greenland.
The newly planned consulate underscores how the United States is looking to boost its presence in the Arctic, where climate change is rapidly melting ice and opening new access to potential maritime trade routes and lucrative untapped mineral and energy reserves. For the Trump administration, one of the top concerns is how China and Russia will take advantage of the changing Arctic conditions.
Russia is rebuilding its Soviet-era military installations in the Arctic Circle and ramping up military exercises and activities in the Arctic, while the United States and its Western allies have thwarted Chinese bids to bankroll massive infrastructure investment projects in the Arctic region, including Greenland.
“We have to restore our physical presence in the Arctic,” said Heather Conley, an expert on trans-Atlantic relations and Arctic issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. Building a U.S. consulate in Greenland “is one small step in that direction,” she said.
The U.S. military maintains a small presence in Greenland at the Thule Air Base, the Air Force’s northernmost base in the world, 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle.
The State Department is weighing plans to house the new consulate in an already existing compound in Greenland used by Danish forces in Nuuk, Greenland’s administrative capital, according to current and former officials.
When approached for comment, a State Department spokeswoman said, “the United States remains committed to increasing our already robust engagement with Arctic allies and partners. Our strong partnerships with the people of Denmark and Greenland help us better coordinate our efforts in this strategically important region.”
Trump’s federal budget proposal calls for steep cuts to the State Department and foreign aid. It faced sharp criticism from lawmakers, who have final say over the budget. Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, slammed Trump’s budget as “a waste of the paper it’s printed on,” saying cuts to the State Department and aid would “weaken our security and leadership around the world.”
Nevertheless, the funding for a consulate in Greenland appears to have broad support in Congress, several congressional aides say, which increases the chances Congress will enact that proposal.
“China and Russia are both increasing their influence in the Arctic. Establishing a consulate in Greenland, both a strategic location and close to the U.S. homeland, is an important step in this context,” a Republican Senate aide told Foreign Policy. “The opening of a consulate, which is expected in the near term, is a positive development.”
A Democratic congressional aide said State Department officials briefed congressional staffers on the plans in recent months and “argued emphatically that it was driven by broader Arctic/counter-China/Russia policy objectives and not Trump’s land purchase ambitions.”
Update, Feb. 14, 2020: This article was updated to include comments from a State Department spokeswoman.


foreignpolicy--2020-02-13--Impeachment Fallout Continues as Former Officials Speak Out

Impeachment Fallout Continues as Former Officials Speak Out Welcome to Foreign Policy ’ s Security Brief .
What ’ s on tap today : Ex-Chief of Staff John Kelly joins other former officials criticizing Trump over Ukraine , Trump approves a tentative Afghanistan peace deal , and Esper and Pompeo head to Munich for major security conference .
This is the final edition of Security Brief Plus .
Beginning Feb. 20 , the Security Brief newsletter will move to Thursdays and feature enhanced coverage of industry moves and major events .
We ’ re excited to announce that Premium subscribers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alerts as soon as FP publishes defense and security news .
You can sign up to receive the alerts here .
( You must be logged into your ForeignPolicy.com account to activate your alerts ) .
If you would like to receive Security Brief in your inbox , please sign up here .
Now that President Donald Trump has been acquitted of his impeachment charges , former U.S. officials are speaking out against the president ’ s actions that led to his trial , reinvigorating the long-running scandal centered on U.S. relations with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Chief of Staff John Kelly said Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman , the National Security Council ( NSC ) staffer the White House sacked after he testified in the impeachment investigation , was just doing his job .
When Vindman heard the president push Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden , one of Trump ’ s political rivals , it was akin to hearing an officer hearing an “ illegal order , ” Kelly said in a speech at Drew University in New Jersey on Wednesday , per The Atlantic .
“ We teach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an illegal order .
And if you ’ re ever given one , you ’ ll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order , and then tell your boss , ’ ” Kelly said .
Trump wants discipline for Vindman .
Kelly ’ s comments came a day after Trump said the military will likely consider disciplinary action against Vindman , an Iraq war veteran .
Both Vindman and his twin brother , an NSC lawyer , were escorted from the White House last week and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Vindman ’ s lawyer condemned the move as political retribution .
Yovanovitch speaks out .
Former U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch also spoke publicly for the first time since testifying in the impeachment trial on Wednesday .
In a speech accepting an award at Georgetown University , Yovanovitch warned that senior State Department leaders “ lack policy vision , moral clarity , and leadership.
” She didn ’ t mention Trump by name , but said “ an amoral , ‘ keep them guessing ’ foreign policy that substitutes threats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not work.
” Refresher .
Yovanovitch was ousted from her job amid a smear campaign by Trump associates , including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani after they realized she stood in the way of pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens .
Yovanovitch , a career foreign service officer , served under six presidents—both Democrats and Republicans .
When Yovanovitch was first from her job last year—months before the issues in the impeachment trial ever came to light—the State Department misled Congress , Foreign Policy , and other media outlets about why she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s silence on her ouster created a morale crisis at the State Department and drew sharp criticism from current and former diplomats .
Tentative peace ?
U.S. President Donald Trump has given conditional approval to a deal with the Taliban that would see U.S. troops leave Afghanistan if the Taliban commits to a reduction of violence over a seven-day period later this month .
If the cease-fire holds , the United States would begin gradually withdrawing troops , and the United States and the Taliban would sign an agreement within 10 days to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Taliban .
Other conditions include the Taliban agreeing not to associate with al Qaeda , the Islamic State , or other terrorist organizations .
“ The best if not only way forward is a political agreement , ” Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Thursday , as Defense News reports .
‘ We ’ re not walking away.
’ Despite reports that Esper is preparing to reduce the U.S. military ’ s footprint in Africa , where it has roughly 6,000 troops , U.S. Army Africa commander Maj. Gen. Roger L. Cloutier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not abandoning its African partners .
Cloudier cited a number of upcoming exercises on the continent as evidence that the United States is “ not walking away.
” The news came as the U.S. Army announced plans to deploy the first Security Force Assistance Brigade ( SFAB ) to the continent to replace elements of an infantry brigade of the 101st Airborne Division in the coming weeks .
The SFAB is a relatively new concept , previously used in Afghanistan , designed to take on the train-and-assist mission that has bogged down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security Conference .
This weekend , around 500 top policymakers will descend on Munich for a flurry of public panels and behind-the-scenes meetings at the annual Munich Security Conference .
Among the attendees this year : Esper , U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif , NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg , and a slew of other world leaders and business executives .
Pentagon moves .
Trump has tapped William Jordan Gillis to be assistant secretary of defense for sustainment and Kathryn Wheelbarger to be deputy under secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gillis is currently the principal deputy assistant secretary of U.S. Army installations , energy , and environment .
Wheelbarger , who is technically the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs , has been acting in the job for more than a year .
She is a former senior staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee .
Conflicting reports .
The New York Post reported this week that Elaine McCusker , the nominee for the Pentagon ’ s comptroller and top finance officer , will be pulled from her post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reassign people roped into Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
But as Defense One reports , it ’ s not clear whether that is accurate ; McClusker herself has cast doubt on the report .
Envoy to Canada .
Trump this week nominated Aldona Z. Wos to be the next U.S. ambassador to Canada .
Wos , a former physician , is a fundraiser for the Republican party and the former U.S. ambassador to Estonia from 2004 to 2006 .
She replaces Kelly Knight Craft , who left her post over the summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United Nations .
“ Not to get angry and keep a smile on your face.
” —Chitetsu Watanabe , Japanese resident , World War II veteran , and the world ’ s oldest living man at 112 years old , when asked about his secret to living a long life How the CIA collected intel on U.S. allies .
During the Cold War , governments around the world trusted the company Crypto AG to protect the communications of their spies , soldiers , and diplomats .
As the Washington Post reports , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CIA and was used to collect intelligence on U.S. allies .
The company was dismembered and claims to no longer have connections to any intelligence agencies , but it serves as a blueprint for the U.S. appetite for mass surveillance today .
Space marriage proposal .
U.S. Air Force Capt .
Stuart Shippee made arguably the greatest wedding proposal ever when he launched a weather balloon 96,000 feet into the air with a ( decoy ) engagement ring for his girlfriend .
The balloon popped at high altitude and the ring descended back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Missouri cornfield , where Shippee popped the question .
For more from FP , subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments , questions , or typos to securitybrief @ foreignpolicy.com .

Welcome to Foreign Policy’s Security Brief. What’s on tap today: Ex-Chief of Staff John Kelly joins other former officials criticizing Trump over Ukraine, Trump approves a tentative Afghanistan peace deal , and Esper and Pompeo head to Munich for major security conference.
Welcome to Foreign Policy’s Security Brief. What’s on tap today: Ex-Chief of Staff John Kelly joins other former officials criticizing Trump over Ukraine, Trump approves a tentative Afghanistan peace deal, and Esper and Pompeo head to Munich for major security conference.
This is the final edition of Security Brief Plus. Beginning Feb. 20, the Security Brief newsletter will move to Thursdays and feature enhanced coverage of industry moves and major events. We’re excited to announce that Premium subscribers and FP Insiders can now get email alerts as soon as FP publishes defense and security news. You can sign up to receive the alerts here. (You must be logged into your ForeignPolicy.com account to activate your alerts).
Dan Haverty contributed to this report.
If you would like to receive Security Brief in your inbox, please sign up here.
Former Trump Officials Speak Out
Now that President Donald Trump has been acquitted of his impeachment charges, former U.S. officials are speaking out against the president’s actions that led to his trial, reinvigorating the long-running scandal centered on U.S. relations with Ukraine. To start, former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council (NSC) staffer the White House sacked after he testified in the impeachment investigation, was just doing his job.
When Vindman heard the president push Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, one of Trump’s political rivals, it was akin to hearing an officer hearing an “illegal order,” Kelly said in a speech at Drew University in New Jersey on Wednesday, per The Atlantic. “We teach them, ‘Don’t follow an illegal order. And if you’re ever given one, you’ll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss,’” Kelly said.
Trump wants discipline for Vindman. Kelly’s comments came a day after Trump said the military will likely consider disciplinary action against Vindman, an Iraq war veteran. Both Vindman and his twin brother, an NSC lawyer, were escorted from the White House last week and will be transferred back to the Pentagon. Vindman’s lawyer condemned the move as political retribution.
Yovanovitch speaks out. Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch also spoke publicly for the first time since testifying in the impeachment trial on Wednesday. In a speech accepting an award at Georgetown University, Yovanovitch warned that senior State Department leaders “lack policy vision, moral clarity, and leadership.” She didn’t mention Trump by name, but said “an amoral, ‘keep them guessing’ foreign policy that substitutes threats, fear, and confusion for trust cannot work.”
Refresher. Yovanovitch was ousted from her job amid a smear campaign by Trump associates, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani after they realized she stood in the way of pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer, served under six presidents—both Democrats and Republicans.
When Yovanovitch was first from her job last year—months before the issues in the impeachment trial ever came to light—the State Department misled Congress, Foreign Policy, and other media outlets about why she was departing her post. Pompeo’s silence on her ouster created a morale crisis at the State Department and drew sharp criticism from current and former diplomats.
What We’re Watching
Tentative peace? U.S. President Donald Trump has given conditional approval to a deal with the Taliban that would see U.S. troops leave Afghanistan if the Taliban commits to a reduction of violence over a seven-day period later this month. If the cease-fire holds, the United States would begin gradually withdrawing troops, and the United States and the Taliban would sign an agreement within 10 days to restart peace talks between Afghan leaders and the Taliban. Other conditions include the Taliban agreeing not to associate with al Qaeda, the Islamic State, or other terrorist organizations. “The best if not only way forward is a political agreement,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Thursday, as Defense News reports.
‘We’re not walking away.’ Despite reports that Esper is preparing to reduce the U.S. military’s footprint in Africa, where it has roughly 6,000 troops, U.S. Army Africa commander Maj. Gen. Roger L. Cloutier Jr. said Wednesday that the United States is not abandoning its African partners. Cloudier cited a number of upcoming exercises on the continent as evidence that the United States is “not walking away.” The news came as the U.S. Army announced plans to deploy the first Security Force Assistance Brigade (SFAB) to the continent to replace elements of an infantry brigade of the 101st Airborne Division in the coming weeks. The SFAB is a relatively new concept, previously used in Afghanistan, designed to take on the train-and-assist mission that has bogged down conventional troops.
Officials gather at Munich Security Conference. This weekend, around 500 top policymakers will descend on Munich for a flurry of public panels and behind-the-scenes meetings at the annual Munich Security Conference. Among the attendees this year: Esper, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, and a slew of other world leaders and business executives.
Movers and Shakers
Pentagon moves. Trump has tapped William Jordan Gillis to be assistant secretary of defense for sustainment and Kathryn Wheelbarger to be deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence and security. Gillis is currently the principal deputy assistant secretary of U.S. Army installations, energy, and environment. Wheelbarger, who is technically the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, has been acting in the job for more than a year. She is a former senior staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Conflicting reports. The New York Post reported this week that Elaine McCusker, the nominee for the Pentagon’s comptroller and top finance officer, will be pulled from her post amid White House efforts to sack or reassign people roped into Trump’s impeachment trial. But as Defense One reports, it’s not clear whether that is accurate; McClusker herself has cast doubt on the report.
Envoy to Canada. Trump this week nominated Aldona Z. Wos to be the next U.S. ambassador to Canada. Wos, a former physician, is a fundraiser for the Republican party and the former U.S. ambassador to Estonia from 2004 to 2006. She replaces Kelly Knight Craft, who left her post over the summer to become Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations.
Quote of the Week
“Not to get angry and keep a smile on your face.”
—Chitetsu Watanabe, Japanese resident, World War II veteran, and the world’s oldest living man at 112 years old, when asked about his secret to living a long life
Foreign Policy Recommends
How the CIA collected intel on U.S. allies. During the Cold War, governments around the world trusted the company Crypto AG to protect the communications of their spies, soldiers, and diplomats. As the Washington Post reports, the company was secretly owned by the CIA and was used to collect intelligence on U.S. allies. The company was dismembered and claims to no longer have connections to any intelligence agencies, but it serves as a blueprint for the U.S. appetite for mass surveillance today.
Odds and Ends
Space marriage proposal. U.S. Air Force Capt. Stuart Shippee made arguably the greatest wedding proposal ever when he launched a weather balloon 96,000 feet into the air with a (decoy) engagement ring for his girlfriend. The balloon popped at high altitude and the ring descended back down to earth before landing in a Missouri cornfield, where Shippee popped the question.
That’s it for today.
For more from FP, subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or typos to securitybrief@foreignpolicy.com.


foreignpolicy--2020-02-14--The End of History and the Last Map

The End of History and the Last Map

How did we get here ?
One problem is that the pessimists had better maps .
Spreading peace and democracy has never been cartographically convincing , even to its promoters .
And it could sometimes look downright sinister to those on the wrong side of the map .
At the same time , maps are ideally suited to essentialist visions of the world that , accurately or not , divide people into discrete , ready-to-clash units , each with their own color and territory .
Perhaps as a result , maps have served nicely as a metaphor for those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more interesting , all along .
A second such map , this one more whimsical , was drawn by Ernest Dudley Chase in 1944 , when Allied victory in the war appeared considerably closer .
Titled “ Mercator Map of the World United : A Pictorial History of Transport and Communications and Paths to Permanent Peace , ” Chase ’ s map posits peace and world government as the natural endpoint of human historical development .
His map celebrates the role of planes , ships , radio , and the “ rocket mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closer together .
A series of insets show political organization advancing from the “ cave man family ” through states to “ the unity of all nations.
” Observers today like to romanticize the post-World War II origins of the liberal international order .
These maps certainly convey the idea ’ s overly romantic side , while the careers of their creators capture its founding contradictions : Gill remains best known for his colorful cartographic propaganda for the British Empire , and Chase , by 1950 , had pivoted to drawing starker red-and-white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , after World War II , it became clear that many in the global south would reject America ’ s liberal internationalism as a neoimperialist attempt to sustain Western hegemony .
And , of course , the superpower conflict between Washington and Moscow would quickly reveal the United Nations ’ limits as a mechanism for permanent peace through the unity of all nations .
After the Cold War ended , maps of peace and harmony proved far less visually engaging than their predecessors and were just as ideologically fraught .
Perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal internationalism ’ s triumph might look like is Freedom House ’ s map of freedom in the world , with all the countries gradually ticking green .
Like maps of global risk or human development , the Freedom House map offers a ready metric for imagining Western politics and living standards spreading across the globe .
For those who wanted a more militant depiction of liberal internationalist ambition , there was also “ The Pentagon ’ s New Map.
” Published by the political scientist Thomas Barnet in 2003 , it generated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely forgotten in the disastrous aftermath of the Iraq War .
The map envisioned the United States ’ 21st-century military strategy as “ identifying the problem parts of the world and aggressively shrinking them.
” Through interventions like the invasion of Iraq , Washington would expand the “ functioning core ” of globalization and eliminate the “ non-integrating gap , ” which was plagued by terrorism , poverty , and repression .
Taken together , these two maps capture the paradox of America ’ s post-Cold War liberal internationalism .
Americans might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many others around the world found them threatening .
The result is a strange contradiction whereby organizations like Freedom House and the Open Society Foundations appear to represent a kind of earnest if slightly quixotic idealism in Washington while becoming the subject of countless conspiracy theories abroad .
For those who imagined color revolutions as a series of CIA-sponsored plots to spread U.S. influence under the guise of democracy , the Freedom House map was also the Pentagon map ; seeing the world painted all one shade was tantamount to the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essentialist view of human society inspired a series of completely contradictory maps imagining what the Middle East ’ s so-called real borders would look like .
Amid the chaos of Iraq ’ s civil war , some observers began to focus on the fault lines within Huntington ’ s category of Islamic civilization and concluded that it was , say , the tensions between Sunnis , Shiites , and Kurds that would ultimately prove insurmountable .
In 2013 , for example , one widely circulated map from the New York Times showed how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on ethno-sectarian terms as four smaller , seemingly more homogeneous , states .
Pessimists today see in the world ’ s ongoing conflicts and chaos evidence that these essentialist visions have been vindicated .
Yet while the post-Cold War world has indeed remained conflict-prone , the conflicts themselves have not followed the predictions of any one particular pessimist .
In 2017 , for example , the Iraqi government crushed a formal bid for Kurdish independence .
Now , after a decade of bloodshed , Damascus seems poised to retake control of Syria .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared “ the past two decades have uncomfortably proved [ Huntington ’ s ] perceptiveness ” before adding , as a caveat , “ [ e ] ven if civilizations per se are not clashing.
” The point , it seems , is that there ’ s definitely some clashing going on , and that ’ s all the vindication Huntington needs .
Tellingly , Marshall begins his book by recounting his experience as a war reporter in Kosovo , where he wondered why NATO forces ultimately stopped at the Ibar River : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ map as a metaphor for the limits of liberal internationalism recalls a short story by the English satirist H.H .
Munro from a century earlier .
During the Balkan Wars ( 1912-1913 ) , Munro , better known as Saki , sketched a brief dialogue between “ the Wanderer ” and “ the Merchant.
” As the Merchant expresses platitudes about “ good government ” and the cruelty of war , the Wanderer waxes nostalgic about watching an earlier Balkan conflict play out in his youth .
“ I remember a sunburnt , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war-map , red flags for the Turkish forces and yellow flags for the Russians , ” he says .
“ I remember the day of wrath and mourning when the little red flag had to be taken away from Plevna.
” Without giving the Merchant time to interject , the Wanderer goes on to worry that “ modern war ” would “ destroy and banish the very elements of picturesqueness and excitement that are its chief excuse and charm.
” Every conflict in the Balkans , he notes , ends with “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ territory ” and “ an intrusion of civilised monotony.
” If “ the Turk ” were finally “ driven out of Europe , ” then “ the dust of formality and bureaucratic neatness ” would settle over the region .
In place of “ prowling wolves ” and “ Komitadje bands , ” the Wanderer imagines how dreadfully dull the headlines would become : “ Socialist Congress at Uskub , election riot at Monastir , great dock strike at Salonika , visit of the Y.M.C.A .
to Varna.
” Risk geopolitics are certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative , and they make for sharper and more compelling maps .
But they also come at a cost .
When World War I broke out , Munro , then 44 , eagerly enlisted despite being overage .
In 1916 , he was shot in the head by a German sniper at the Somme .
Hopefully , it was an end that the Wanderer would have appreciated and one that we can still avoid today .

American punditry has entered a new phase of post-Cold War pessimism. Liberal internationalist optimism about the worldwide triumph of peace and democracy may have died long ago, but proclaiming its death is now more popular than ever. A steady stream of think pieces about the return of history, resurgence of nationalism, and reemergence of great-power competition all herald what might be called the rise of Risk geopolitics. How did we get here? One problem is that the pessimists had better maps.
American punditry has entered a new phase of post-Cold War pessimism. Liberal internationalist optimism about the worldwide triumph of peace and democracy may have died long ago, but proclaiming its death is now more popular than ever. A steady stream of think pieces about the return of history, resurgence of nationalism, and reemergence of great-power competition all herald what might be called the rise of Risk geopolitics.
How did we get here? One problem is that the pessimists had better maps.
Spreading peace and democracy has never been cartographically convincing, even to its promoters. And it could sometimes look downright sinister to those on the wrong side of the map. At the same time, maps are ideally suited to essentialist visions of the world that, accurately or not, divide people into discrete, ready-to-clash units, each with their own color and territory. Perhaps as a result, maps have served nicely as a metaphor for those who assumed conflict was more natural, or more interesting, all along.
The challenges of mapping global peace and prosperity were already evident 75 years ago, when Americans began to articulate a new liberal internationalist vision for the future. The end of World War II, like the end of the Cold War, led some to imagine that the world was entering an unprecedented era of international peace. Earnest optimism about this postwar world took particularly fanciful form in two striking—yet strikingly unrealistic—maps. The first is the cartographer Leslie Macdonald Gill’s 1942 map of the Atlantic Charter, which visualized U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s promise for the peace that would follow an Allied victory. Rays of sun shine down on a world engaged in commerce and industry while a man in the corner hammers artillery into ploughshares. Borders between countries are still demarcated but only barely, with dotted lines that disappear under all the bustle.
A second such map, this one more whimsical, was drawn by Ernest Dudley Chase in 1944, when Allied victory in the war appeared considerably closer. Titled “Mercator Map of the World United: A Pictorial History of Transport and Communications and Paths to Permanent Peace,” Chase’s map posits peace and world government as the natural endpoint of human historical development. His map celebrates the role of planes, ships, radio, and the “rocket mail of the future” in bringing people closer together. A series of insets show political organization advancing from the “cave man family” through states to “the unity of all nations.”
1944 Mercator map of the world united.
Observers today like to romanticize the post-World War II origins of the liberal international order. These maps certainly convey the idea’s overly romantic side, while the careers of their creators capture its founding contradictions: Gill remains best known for his colorful cartographic propaganda for the British Empire, and Chase, by 1950, had pivoted to drawing starker red-and-white maps of the divided Cold War world. Indeed, after World War II, it became clear that many in the global south would reject America’s liberal internationalism as a neoimperialist attempt to sustain Western hegemony. And, of course, the superpower conflict between Washington and Moscow would quickly reveal the United Nations’ limits as a mechanism for permanent peace through the unity of all nations.
After the Cold War ended, maps of peace and harmony proved far less visually engaging than their predecessors and were just as ideologically fraught. Perhaps the best modern-day cartographic depiction of what liberal internationalism’s triumph might look like is Freedom House’s map of freedom in the world, with all the countries gradually ticking green. Like maps of global risk or human development, the Freedom House map offers a ready metric for imagining Western politics and living standards spreading across the globe.
2018 Freedom in the World map
For those who wanted a more militant depiction of liberal internationalist ambition, there was also “The Pentagon’s New Map.” Published by the political scientist Thomas Barnet in 2003, it generated a flurry of media attention before being largely forgotten in the disastrous aftermath of the Iraq War. The map envisioned the United States’ 21st-century military strategy as “identifying the problem parts of the world and aggressively shrinking them.” Through interventions like the invasion of Iraq, Washington would expand the “functioning core” of globalization and eliminate the “non-integrating gap,” which was plagued by terrorism, poverty, and repression.
2003 Pentagon New Map.
Taken together, these two maps capture the paradox of America’s post-Cold War liberal internationalism. Americans might have seen their ambitions as benign, but many others around the world found them threatening. The result is a strange contradiction whereby organizations like Freedom House and the Open Society Foundations appear to represent a kind of earnest if slightly quixotic idealism in Washington while becoming the subject of countless conspiracy theories abroad. For those who imagined color revolutions as a series of CIA-sponsored plots to spread U.S. influence under the guise of democracy, the Freedom House map was also the Pentagon map; seeing the world painted all one shade was tantamount to the United States conquering it.
In contrast to global peace, Risk geopolitics appear all too mappable. Maps have proved particularly popular with people looking for the so-called real fault lines—be they religious, ethnic, or geopolitical—along which the post-Cold War world would inevitably fracture. Most famously, the political scientist Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations came with a clear, if not particularly coherent, map that supposedly predicted what the contours of the 21st century’s conflicts might be.
"The World of Civilizations: Post-1990,” map from Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations, 1996.
Ironically, an equally essentialist view of human society inspired a series of completely contradictory maps imagining what the Middle East’s so-called real borders would look like. Amid the chaos of Iraq’s civil war, some observers began to focus on the fault lines within Huntington’s category of Islamic civilization and concluded that it was, say, the tensions between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds that would ultimately prove insurmountable. In 2013, for example, one widely circulated map from the New York Times showed how Syria and Iraq might end up reconfigured on ethno-sectarian terms as four smaller, seemingly more homogeneous, states.
Pessimists today see in the world’s ongoing conflicts and chaos evidence that these essentialist visions have been vindicated. Yet while the post-Cold War world has indeed remained conflict-prone, the conflicts themselves have not followed the predictions of any one particular pessimist. In 2017, for example, the Iraqi government crushed a formal bid for Kurdish independence. Now, after a decade of bloodshed, Damascus seems poised to retake control of Syria. Particularly revealing was a recent article that declared “the past two decades have uncomfortably proved [Huntington’s] perceptiveness” before adding, as a caveat, “[e]ven if civilizations per se are not clashing.” The point, it seems, is that there’s definitely some clashing going on, and that’s all the vindication Huntington needs.
For some authors, maps ultimately seem less important for their content than as a symbol of humanity’s atavistic nature. In recent years, Robert Kaplan’s The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against Fate and Tim Marshall’s Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Explain Everything About the World have shown the popularity of this approach. Marshall, like Kaplan, uses maps and geography not as a coherent explanatory factor but as a chance to revel in upending liberal internationalist naiveté. Russia, he argues, is expansionist and authoritarian because it lacks natural borders, while China is the exact same way because it has them. The real point, it turns out, is that both countries’ success serves as a rebuke to effete good-governance types in the West.
Tellingly, Marshall begins his book by recounting his experience as a war reporter in Kosovo, where he wondered why NATO forces ultimately stopped at the Ibar River:
I was working with a team of Serbs in Belgrade at the time and asked what would happen if NATO came: “We will put our cameras down, Tim, and pick up guns” was the response. They were liberal Serbs, good friends of mine and opposed to their government, but they still pulled out the maps and showed me where the Serbs would defend their territory in the mountains, and where NATO would grind to a halt. It was some relief to be given a geography lesson in why NATO’s choices were more limited than the Brussels PR machine made public.
Marshall’s invocation of the Balkan map as a metaphor for the limits of liberal internationalism recalls a short story by the English satirist H.H. Munro from a century earlier. During the Balkan Wars (1912-1913), Munro, better known as Saki, sketched a brief dialogue between “the Wanderer” and “the Merchant.” As the Merchant expresses platitudes about “good government” and the cruelty of war, the Wanderer waxes nostalgic about watching an earlier Balkan conflict play out in his youth. “I remember a sunburnt, soldierly man putting little pin-flags in a war-map, red flags for the Turkish forces and yellow flags for the Russians,” he says. “I remember the day of wrath and mourning when the little red flag had to be taken away from Plevna.”
Without giving the Merchant time to interject, the Wanderer goes on to worry that “modern war” would “destroy and banish the very elements of picturesqueness and excitement that are its chief excuse and charm.” Every conflict in the Balkans, he notes, ends with “a shrinking of the area of chronically disturbed territory” and “an intrusion of civilised monotony.” If “the Turk” were finally “driven out of Europe,” then “the dust of formality and bureaucratic neatness” would settle over the region. In place of “prowling wolves” and “Komitadje bands,” the Wanderer imagines how dreadfully dull the headlines would become: “Socialist Congress at Uskub, election riot at Monastir, great dock strike at Salonika, visit of the Y.M.C.A. to Varna.”
Risk geopolitics are certainly more fun to read about than the alternative, and they make for sharper and more compelling maps. But they also come at a cost. When World War I broke out, Munro, then 44, eagerly enlisted despite being overage. In 1916, he was shot in the head by a German sniper at the Somme. Hopefully, it was an end that the Wanderer would have appreciated and one that we can still avoid today.


foreignpolicy--2020-02-14--Living While Female in Mongolia

Living While Female in Mongolia

Wearing a sleeveless black dress and with her brown hair gracefully swept into a chignon , Solongo sipped some tea in an office in downtown Ulaanbaatar , Mongolia , and slowly spoke about what happened when she was 18 .
While walking home from church next to the hodgepodge of homes and yurts crammed into the hilly areas north of the city , a man grabbed her , threatened to kill her , and then raped her .
“ I didn ’ t call police .
It was my secret , ” the now 38-year-old , who asked to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in July .
Solongo berated herself for walking through a dangerous area instead of taking a bus—such self-blame is not uncommon among Mongolian women .
Years later , her husband didn ’ t believe her when she told him about the attack .
The two separated after he had an affair .
She has no job ; her sons are 8 and 11 , and they are acting out .
Her counselor , Yanjmaa Jutmaan , 41 , listened intently as Solongo described her problems .
“ Personal counseling is almost an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said later .
I was in Mongolia helping her write an autobiography about her journey from being an abused teenager in 1990s Ulaanbaatar to the country ’ s first female college chancellor .
In recent years , she ’ s pivoted toward helping abused women .
“ Most Mongolians dismiss it as only for the mentally ill. We are a closed , introverted people .
Suicide and sex abuse rates are high .
Our temperatures range from minus 40 degrees to plus 40 [ Celsius ] .
It ’ s a poor country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like many Mongolian women I spoke to , Jutmaan has experienced sexual abuse as well .
She believes it is time for her country to tackle the rampant abuse of women head-on .
In 2017 , the United Nations Population Fund ( UNFPA ) did a first-ever survey on gender-based violence in Mongolia , which has a population of over 3.1 million .
Key findings , which were released in June 2018 , showed that Mongolia had one of the higher rates in Asia of sexual violence at the hands of people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One out of three women there ( 31.2 percent ) who had ever been in a relationship had experienced physical or sexual violence at the hands of a partner in their lifetime .
The most dangerous place is the home , followed by out on the streets .
One out of 10 women said she was sexually abused before the age of 15 .
Two major triggers were jealousy and alcohol consumption by their partners .
Abuse ranged from being hit , slapped , pushed , shoved , choked , and burned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the landlocked country , where raising livestock is common way to make a living , nearly 1 percent of women reported being chased by a horse or lashed with a whip by their partners .
Abuse is by no means constrained to Mongolia ’ s poor , rural areas .
The same week the U.N. results were announced at a press conference in Ulaanbaatar , Dorjdugar Gantulga , a member of the Mongolian parliament , resigned after being accused of raping a 25-year-old female student—he has since been sentenced to two years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mongolia launched a # HeForShe Campaign , which is part of an international movement for gender equality led by the U.N. Jutmaan , who lent her expertise to the cause as a statistician , thinks the rate of sexual abuse may be well over a third of all Mongolian women , the estimate given in the U.N. report .
“ It ’ s the common experience here , ” she said .
“ It ’ s shame , shame , shame .
Society blames the woman .
Everyone has sexual problems , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mother of four sons , “ it ’ s hard to raise boys to be gentle toward women , because the whole society is against it , ” Jutmaan added .
“ Domestic violence wasn ’ t even a crime here until 2017.
” Normally , Jutmaan , who has a doctorate in mathematics from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and has worked as a senior analyst for the Mongolian government in cybersecurity , policy , and data analysis , would be a prime candidate for a high-level government job .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ road helping the women of her country who have faced abuse .
Hoping to eventually help such women full time , she is trying to raise the money for a new Christian counseling center on land she and her husband bought near the Gorkhi-Terelj National Park about 30 miles east of Ulaanbaatar .
Her center would support the recent spate of One Stop Service Centers , which are a combination women ’ s shelter and medical clinic where abused women can also access legal and psychological services .
They can live with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Since the report came out , the UNFPA has built several One Stop centers around the country .
The 15th opened this past November .
But most observers acknowledge that the centers will never be enough .
“ It is time in Mongolia to work not just for female empowerment , but to work with boys and young men , ” said Ariunzaya Ayush , the chairperson of the National Statistics Office in Mongolia who helped put together the UNFPA report .
Dressed in a copper-colored Mongolian deel the day I saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spacious third-floor office in a government building one block from Sukhbaatar Square , the city ’ s main plaza .
Her grandfather , Puntsagiin Jasrai , was prime minister from 1992 to 1996 .
“ It all begins at the home , ” she said .
“ Thirty-three percent of the boys are physically punished versus 23 percent of the girls .
Parents statistically spend more time with girls .
They pay less attention to boys and punish the boys more .
Boys are also less educated .
The Mongolian culture says men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t cry .
They have to be strong.
” That idea encourages the men to keep their women in line , which leaves the way wide open for abuse .
There ’ s also a strong emphasis on family honor , which works against reporting one ’ s relatives or spouses as physical or sexual abusers , she added , citing a popular saying : “ It is better to have your bones broken than your name dishonored.
” Plus , many women don ’ t realize that what they endure constitutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finding showed that 35 percent of women who themselves had experienced partner violence said that a husband was justified in beating his wife if she was unfaithful .
Much smaller percentages agreed that other faults ( disobeying him , not doing the housework to his satisfaction , refusing sex , and asking whether he ’ s unfaithful to her ) also deserved a violent response .
“ Women don ’ t know differently here , ” Ayush said .
“ They don ’ t see it as a crime , so they accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is.
” Housing is part of the problem .
A large portion of Mongols live with their families in a ger , otherwise known as a yurt , which is a large circular tent with all a family ’ s belongings .
Khongorzul Tuya , the executive director of Focus on the Family Mongolia , a branch of the evangelical Colorado Springs-based organization Focus on the Family , offers counseling and said that families get little privacy in such arrangements .
“ The relationships can be very abusive and neglectful , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boundary issues .
Abuse happens within the family , and they keep quiet about it .
It ’ s related to the shame issue as well .
If they are exposed to the authorities , the whole community finds out about the matter.
” Another issue is neglect , especially in rural areas .
“ Parents leave their children alone for long hours , especially in the countryside , because they have to work and tend animals , ” she said .
“ They ’ ll tie a 2-year-old to the ger wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from the fire ” at the center of the yurt .
She and her husband , who joins her in counseling , believe that such children are so starved for affection that they tolerate sexual abuse , as it appears to be the only way they can find love and acceptance .
Gerelttuya Khishigdorj , a house mother at a Dutch-funded Christian orphanage in Ulaanbaatar , concurs .
She oversees about 40 children .
All the girls have been sexually abused , she said , plus about 75 percent of the boys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her mom and grandmother came to us at the age of 8 , ” she said .
“ She ’ d already been raped .
Her mother was drunk , and some of the men raped the girl while the mother lay there.
” Domestic violence havens are in short supply in Mongolia .
The National Center Against Violence runs one shelter in Ulaanbaatar—where women and their families can stay for up to three months—and two in rural areas , where women and children can only stay for a few days .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on trafficked women , has one in Ulaanbaatar and one near the Chinese border .
The government doesn ’ t fund shelters , which is why the National Center Against Violence approached Holt International , an Oregon-based Christian nonprofit , to help fund its work .
The Desert Rose Foundation , another Christian nonprofit , runs a safehouse in a far-eastern suburb of Ulaanbaatar that houses 20 girls who have been sexually abused , abandoned , or have parents with substance use problems or who otherwise can ’ t care for them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ road to get to the main building , which has a light blue faux brick exterior and a spotless series of rooms for the girls .
An adjoining building has a large , airy library with window seats and books in Mongolian and English .
While there on a rainy July morning , I asked the director , Amarjargal Tsolmon , and assistant director , Suvdaa Jamsran , how long the kids stay there .
“ It depends on how much the girl is damaged , physically , emotionally , and sexually , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tsolmon and added some of her own comments .
“ We had a lot of teenagers at the beginning , but lately we ’ re getting smaller ones .
We tell them they are precious people and what happened is not their fault.
” She pins the problems on the end of Russian rule—Tsolmon says there were far fewer problems under socialist Russia during the 1980s : “ We had wonderful childhoods under socialism .
We could do any kind of sport or art class .
We have free hospitals , free school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school .
We could not imagine anything bad happening .
Now we can ’ t send the girls alone anywhere.
” The economy also tanked after the Soviets pulled out , and as factories closed , joblessness and alcoholism soared .
Poisonous attitudes toward women that had always been simmering below the surface erupted .
For years , the government took few steps to stop the sexual abuse and violence that resulted .
Things began changing , at least economically , in 2010 when Mongolia experienced a mining boom in the western part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rose in the first quarter of this year by 15 percent alone thanks to China ’ s insatiable need for coking coal .
Still , about 30 percent of the country ’ s population live in poverty , many of them in crowded , polluted Ulaanbaatar , which puts immense pressures on families and continues the cycle of violence .
For now , it may be years before women like Solongo can get through adolescence without being attacked or raped .
Government figures show that 46 percent of Mongol teenage girls feel safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared to 87 percent of the men .
And until the culture changes , the counseling centers , orphanages , and women ’ s shelters will be left picking up the pieces .

Wearing a sleeveless black dress and with her brown hair gracefully swept into a chignon, Solongo sipped some tea in an office in downtown Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, and slowly spoke about what happened when she was 18. While walking home from church next to the hodgepodge of homes and yurts crammed into the hilly areas north of the city, a man grabbed her, threatened to kill her, and then raped her.
Wearing a sleeveless black dress and with her brown hair gracefully swept into a chignon, Solongo sipped some tea in an office in downtown Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, and slowly spoke about what happened when she was 18. While walking home from church next to the hodgepodge of homes and yurts crammed into the hilly areas north of the city, a man grabbed her, threatened to kill her, and then raped her.
“I didn’t call police. It was my secret,” the now 38-year-old, who asked to go by a pseudonym for her safety, said in July. Solongo berated herself for walking through a dangerous area instead of taking a bus—such self-blame is not uncommon among Mongolian women. Years later, her husband didn’t believe her when she told him about the attack. The two separated after he had an affair. She has no job; her sons are 8 and 11, and they are acting out. Her counselor, Yanjmaa Jutmaan, 41, listened intently as Solongo described her problems.
“Personal counseling is almost an unknown concept in Mongolia,” Jutmaan said later. I was in Mongolia helping her write an autobiography about her journey from being an abused teenager in 1990s Ulaanbaatar to the country’s first female college chancellor. In recent years, she’s pivoted toward helping abused women. “Most Mongolians dismiss it as only for the mentally ill. We are a closed, introverted people. Suicide and sex abuse rates are high. Our temperatures range from minus 40 degrees to plus 40 [Celsius]. It’s a poor country, and life here is hard.” Like many Mongolian women I spoke to, Jutmaan has experienced sexual abuse as well. She believes it is time for her country to tackle the rampant abuse of women head-on.
In 2017, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) did a first-ever survey on gender-based violence in Mongolia, which has a population of over 3.1 million. Key findings, which were released in June 2018, showed that Mongolia had one of the higher rates in Asia of sexual violence at the hands of people who were not their victims’ partners. One out of three women there (31.2 percent) who had ever been in a relationship had experienced physical or sexual violence at the hands of a partner in their lifetime. The most dangerous place is the home, followed by out on the streets. One out of 10 women said she was sexually abused before the age of 15. Two major triggers were jealousy and alcohol consumption by their partners. Abuse ranged from being hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, choked, and burned to being threatened with a gun. And in the landlocked country, where raising livestock is common way to make a living, nearly 1 percent of women reported being chased by a horse or lashed with a whip by their partners.
Abuse is by no means constrained to Mongolia’s poor, rural areas. The same week the U.N. results were announced at a press conference in Ulaanbaatar, Dorjdugar Gantulga, a member of the Mongolian parliament, resigned after being accused of raping a 25-year-old female student—he has since been sentenced to two years in prison. A month later, Mongolia launched a #HeForShe Campaign, which is part of an international movement for gender equality led by the U.N. Jutmaan, who lent her expertise to the cause as a statistician, thinks the rate of sexual abuse may be well over a third of all Mongolian women, the estimate given in the U.N. report. “It’s the common experience here,” she said. “It’s shame, shame, shame. Society blames the woman. Everyone has sexual problems, and marital rape is common.
As the mother of four sons, “it’s hard to raise boys to be gentle toward women, because the whole society is against it,” Jutmaan added. “Domestic violence wasn’t even a crime here until 2017.” Normally, Jutmaan, who has a doctorate in mathematics from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and has worked as a senior analyst for the Mongolian government in cybersecurity, policy, and data analysis, would be a prime candidate for a high-level government job. But she has chosen a less visible road helping the women of her country who have faced abuse. Hoping to eventually help such women full time, she is trying to raise the money for a new Christian counseling center on land she and her husband bought near the Gorkhi-Terelj National Park about 30 miles east of Ulaanbaatar. Her center would support the recent spate of One Stop Service Centers, which are a combination women’s shelter and medical clinic where abused women can also access legal and psychological services. They can live with their children there for up to 72 hours. Since the report came out, the UNFPA has built several One Stop centers around the country. The 15th opened this past November.
But most observers acknowledge that the centers will never be enough. “It is time in Mongolia to work not just for female empowerment, but to work with boys and young men,” said Ariunzaya Ayush, the chairperson of the National Statistics Office in Mongolia who helped put together the UNFPA report. Dressed in a copper-colored Mongolian deel the day I saw her in July, Ayush occupies a spacious third-floor office in a government building one block from Sukhbaatar Square, the city’s main plaza. Her grandfather, Puntsagiin Jasrai, was prime minister from 1992 to 1996.
“It all begins at the home,” she said. “Thirty-three percent of the boys are physically punished versus 23 percent of the girls. Parents statistically spend more time with girls. They pay less attention to boys and punish the boys more. Boys are also less educated. The Mongolian culture says men have to be heroes. Boys don’t cry. They have to be strong.”
That idea encourages the men to keep their women in line, which leaves the way wide open for abuse. There’s also a strong emphasis on family honor, which works against reporting one’s relatives or spouses as physical or sexual abusers, she added, citing a popular saying: “It is better to have your bones broken than your name dishonored.”
Plus, many women don’t realize that what they endure constitutes physical or sexual violence. One survey finding showed that 35 percent of women who themselves had experienced partner violence said that a husband was justified in beating his wife if she was unfaithful. Much smaller percentages agreed that other faults (disobeying him, not doing the housework to his satisfaction, refusing sex, and asking whether he’s unfaithful to her) also deserved a violent response. “Women don’t know differently here,” Ayush said. “They don’t see it as a crime, so they accept [violence] as the way it is.”
Housing is part of the problem. A large portion of Mongols live with their families in a ger, otherwise known as a yurt, which is a large circular tent with all a family’s belongings. Khongorzul Tuya, the executive director of Focus on the Family Mongolia, a branch of the evangelical Colorado Springs-based organization Focus on the Family, offers counseling and said that families get little privacy in such arrangements. “The relationships can be very abusive and neglectful,” she said. “There are lots of boundary issues. Abuse happens within the family, and they keep quiet about it. It’s related to the shame issue as well. If they are exposed to the authorities, the whole community finds out about the matter.”
Another issue is neglect, especially in rural areas. “Parents leave their children alone for long hours, especially in the countryside, because they have to work and tend animals,” she said. “They’ll tie a 2-year-old to the ger wall for long hours … to keep him away from the fire” at the center of the yurt. She and her husband, who joins her in counseling, believe that such children are so starved for affection that they tolerate sexual abuse, as it appears to be the only way they can find love and acceptance.
Gerelttuya Khishigdorj, a house mother at a Dutch-funded Christian orphanage in Ulaanbaatar, concurs. She oversees about 40 children. All the girls have been sexually abused, she said, plus about 75 percent of the boys. “One girl who lived with her mom and grandmother came to us at the age of 8,” she said. “She’d already been raped. Her mother was drunk, and some of the men raped the girl while the mother lay there.”
Domestic violence havens are in short supply in Mongolia. The National Center Against Violence runs one shelter in Ulaanbaatar—where women and their families can stay for up to three months—and two in rural areas, where women and children can only stay for a few days. The Mongolian Gender Equality Center, which concentrates on trafficked women, has one in Ulaanbaatar and one near the Chinese border. The government doesn’t fund shelters, which is why the National Center Against Violence approached Holt International, an Oregon-based Christian nonprofit, to help fund its work. The Desert Rose Foundation, another Christian nonprofit, runs a safehouse in a far-eastern suburb of Ulaanbaatar that houses 20 girls who have been sexually abused, abandoned, or have parents with substance use problems or who otherwise can’t care for them. One has to walk down a dirt road to get to the main building, which has a light blue faux brick exterior and a spotless series of rooms for the girls. An adjoining building has a large, airy library with window seats and books in Mongolian and English.
While there on a rainy July morning, I asked the director, Amarjargal Tsolmon, and assistant director, Suvdaa Jamsran, how long the kids stay there. “It depends on how much the girl is damaged, physically, emotionally, and sexually,” said Jamsran, who translated for Tsolmon and added some of her own comments. “We had a lot of teenagers at the beginning, but lately we’re getting smaller ones. We tell them they are precious people and what happened is not their fault.” She pins the problems on the end of Russian rule—Tsolmon says there were far fewer problems under socialist Russia during the 1980s: “We had wonderful childhoods under socialism. We could do any kind of sport or art class. We have free hospitals, free school, we could walk by ourselves to school. We could not imagine anything bad happening. Now we can’t send the girls alone anywhere.” The economy also tanked after the Soviets pulled out, and as factories closed, joblessness and alcoholism soared. Poisonous attitudes toward women that had always been simmering below the surface erupted. For years, the government took few steps to stop the sexual abuse and violence that resulted.
Things began changing, at least economically, in 2010 when Mongolia experienced a mining boom in the western part of the country. Its coal exports rose in the first quarter of this year by 15 percent alone thanks to China’s insatiable need for coking coal. Still, about 30 percent of the country’s population live in poverty, many of them in crowded, polluted Ulaanbaatar, which puts immense pressures on families and continues the cycle of violence. For now, it may be years before women like Solongo can get through adolescence without being attacked or raped. Government figures show that 46 percent of Mongol teenage girls feel safe walking alone in their neighborhoods after dark compared to 87 percent of the men. And until the culture changes, the counseling centers, orphanages, and women’s shelters will be left picking up the pieces.


foreignpolicy--2020-02-14--Why Does the White House Object to a ‘Sovereign’ Palestinian State?

Why Does the White House Object to a ‘ Sovereign ’ Palestinian State ?
The Trump administration this week successfully blocked a bid by the Palestinians to win United Nations Security Council backing for a resolution condemning the White House ’ s Israeli-Palestinian peace plan as a breach of international law .
But not before the administration tried to persuade the Palestinians and their allies to water down the resolution with a series of American amendments that would remove references to Israel as an “ occupying power ” and eliminate the word “ sovereign ” in describing the Israeli and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being posted here as part of Foreign Policy ’ s Document of the Week series .
The current U.S. attitude toward Palestinian self-governance contrasts sharply with President Donald Trump ’ s promotion of national sovereignty during his September 2019 address to the U.N. General Assembly , where he declared , “ the future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens , respect their neighbors , and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.
” For Palestinians , sovereignty is an “ amorphous concept ” that its leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Trump ’ s long-awaited Middle East peace proposal—titled “ Vision for Peace , Prosperity , and a Brighter Future ” —which the president unveiled during a Jan. 28 White House press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side .
“ A realistic solution would give the Palestinians all the power to govern themselves but not the powers to threaten Israel , ” the plan says .
“ This necessarily entails the limitations of certain sovereign powers in the Palestinian areas … such as maintenance of Israeli security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ west of the Jordan River.
” The Palestinians , backed by the Security Council ’ s lone Arab government , Tunisia , and Indonesia , circulated a draft resolution earlier this month that “ strongly regrets ” that the Trump plan “ breaches international law and internationally endorsed terms of reference for the achievement of a just , comprehensive , and lasting solution ” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .
In an effort to head off the resolution ’ s passage , top U.S. officials in Washington and world capitals pressured governments with representatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initiative .
Last week , Tunisia ’ s U.N. ambassador , Moncef Baati , was abruptly recalled to his capital and summarily fired for leading negotiations on an initial Palestinian draft resolution .
His dismissal came after Trump ’ s Middle East advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner telephoned top Tunisian officials to warn that the move could harm U.S. relations with the North African country .
The Tunisian foreign ministry released a statement saying Baati had been “ dismissed for purely professional reasons concerning his weak performance and lack of coordination with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UN.
” The Palestinian , Indonesian , and Tunisian delegations subsequently distributed a weakened draft , which simply noted that the U.S. plan “ departs from the internationally endorsed terms of reference and parameters for the achievement of a just , comprehensive , and lasting solution to this conflict.
” But the United States , backed by Britain , maneuvered to have the resolution ’ s passage stopped on Monday morning , citing concerns that it was implicitly critical of Trump ’ s peace efforts .
Instead , the United States proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump plan “ shares the aim of the achievement of a just , comprehensive and lasting solution to this conflict.
” It ’ s unclear whether the United States would have ultimately voted to support the resolution if it took its amendments on board , or whether it would simply have spared the United States from casting a veto .
In the end , the Palestinians decided to withdraw their resolution from consideration , sparing Washington the need to act .
But the U.S. amendments provide insight into America ’ s behind-the-scenes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , the United States sought to strip out provisions that defined Israeli annexation of Palestinian land as illegal or called on states to oppose any changes to Israel ’ s pre-1967 borders not agreed by both the Palestinians and Israelis .
It removed provisions condemning the demographic alteration of Palestinian lands , reaffirming the illegality of settlements on land seized by Israel since 1967 as well as the “ inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by force.
” The United States also proposed eliminating any explicit reference to nearly a dozen previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreements like the Arab Peace Initiative—that have set the basic terms of a future settlement of the decadeslong Israeli-Palestinian conflict .
In its place , the United States proposed the council simply recall its relevant resolutions .
The move reflects the deep suspicion Kushner and other senior administration officials have expressed of the U.N. role in the Middle East peace process and the utility of existing U.N. resolutions that have served as a basis for Middle East peace talks for decades .
They have been trying to upend Middle East diplomacy by starting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Since 1946 , there have been close to 700 United Nations General Assembly resolutions and over 100 United Nations Security Council resolutions in connection with this conflict , ” according to the Trump administration ’ s 181-page plan .
“ While we are respectful of the historic role of the United Nations in the peace process , this Vision is not a recitation of General Assembly , Security Council and other international resolutions on this topic because such resolutions have not and will not resolve the conflict .
”

The Trump administration this week successfully blocked a bid by the Palestinians to win United Nations Security Council backing for a resolution condemning the White House’s Israeli-Palestinian peace plan as a breach of international law.
The Trump administration this week successfully blocked a bid by the Palestinians to win United Nations Security Council backing for a resolution condemning the White House’s Israeli-Palestinian peace plan as a breach of international law.
But not before the administration tried to persuade the Palestinians and their allies to water down the resolution with a series of American amendments that would remove references to Israel as an “occupying power” and eliminate the word “sovereign” in describing the Israeli and Palestinian states. The confidential amendments are being posted here as part of Foreign Policy’s Document of the Week series.
The current U.S. attitude toward Palestinian self-governance contrasts sharply with President Donald Trump’s promotion of national sovereignty during his September 2019 address to the U.N. General Assembly, where he declared, “the future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.”
For Palestinians, sovereignty is an “amorphous concept” that its leaders cannot be fully trusted to possess, according to Trump’s long-awaited Middle East peace proposal—titled “Vision for Peace, Prosperity, and a Brighter Future”—which the president unveiled during a Jan. 28 White House press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side.
“A realistic solution would give the Palestinians all the power to govern themselves but not the powers to threaten Israel,” the plan says. “This necessarily entails the limitations of certain sovereign powers in the Palestinian areas … such as maintenance of Israeli security responsibility and Israeli control of the airspace west of the Jordan River.”
The Palestinians, backed by the Security Council’s lone Arab government, Tunisia, and Indonesia, circulated a draft resolution earlier this month that “strongly regrets” that the Trump plan “breaches international law and internationally endorsed terms of reference for the achievement of a just, comprehensive, and lasting solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In an effort to head off the resolution’s passage, top U.S. officials in Washington and world capitals pressured governments with representatives on the 15-nation council to oppose the initiative.
Last week, Tunisia’s U.N. ambassador, Moncef Baati, was abruptly recalled to his capital and summarily fired for leading negotiations on an initial Palestinian draft resolution. His dismissal came after Trump’s Middle East advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner telephoned top Tunisian officials to warn that the move could harm U.S. relations with the North African country. The Tunisian foreign ministry released a statement saying Baati had been “dismissed for purely professional reasons concerning his weak performance and lack of coordination with the ministry on important matters under discussion at the UN.”
The Palestinian, Indonesian, and Tunisian delegations subsequently distributed a weakened draft, which simply noted that the U.S. plan “departs from the internationally endorsed terms of reference and parameters for the achievement of a just, comprehensive, and lasting solution to this conflict.”
But the United States, backed by Britain, maneuvered to have the resolution’s passage stopped on Monday morning, citing concerns that it was implicitly critical of Trump’s peace efforts. Instead, the United States proposed the addition of a phrase that acknowledged the Trump plan “shares the aim of the achievement of a just, comprehensive and lasting solution to this conflict.”
It’s unclear whether the United States would have ultimately voted to support the resolution if it took its amendments on board, or whether it would simply have spared the United States from casting a veto. In the end, the Palestinians decided to withdraw their resolution from consideration, sparing Washington the need to act. But the U.S. amendments provide insight into America’s behind-the-scenes negotiating strategy in New York.
For instance, the United States sought to strip out provisions that defined Israeli annexation of Palestinian land as illegal or called on states to oppose any changes to Israel’s pre-1967 borders not agreed by both the Palestinians and Israelis. It removed provisions condemning the demographic alteration of Palestinian lands, reaffirming the illegality of settlements on land seized by Israel since 1967 as well as the “inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by force.”
The United States also proposed eliminating any explicit reference to nearly a dozen previous Security Council resolutions—as well as prior international agreements like the Arab Peace Initiative—that have set the basic terms of a future settlement of the decadeslong Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In its place, the United States proposed the council simply recall its relevant resolutions.
The move reflects the deep suspicion Kushner and other senior administration officials have expressed of the U.N. role in the Middle East peace process and the utility of existing U.N. resolutions that have served as a basis for Middle East peace talks for decades. They have been trying to upend Middle East diplomacy by starting from something of a blank slate.
“Since 1946, there have been close to 700 United Nations General Assembly resolutions and over 100 United Nations Security Council resolutions in connection with this conflict,” according to the Trump administration’s 181-page plan. “While we are respectful of the historic role of the United Nations in the peace process, this Vision is not a recitation of General Assembly, Security Council and other international resolutions on this topic because such resolutions have not and will not resolve the conflict.”