The weekend’s news suggests that President Donald Trump’s pardon of a war criminal, former Army officer Michael Behenna, is not going to be a one-off thing but part of a broader trend of pardoning those accused or convicted of war crimes. While this policy presents challenges to the American armed forces—endangering discipline and cohesion, my focus here is on the impact on present and future allies. Simply put, this new stance will make it much harder for many countries to join the US in any future military campaign. Here, I take a quick look at what the allies provide and then focus on how pardoning war criminals is likely to affect future military cooperation.
|From the National Interest.|
The news of the month, Asia-Pacific-wise, is that Japan has admitted that its escort destroyers (and other names for its helicopter carriers) are going to be converted into aircraft carriers via some modifications and with purchasing the version of the F-35 that can take off from a short deck. Why?
That is, why is Japan doing this? I raise that simple question. Folks think the answers are obvious:
a) China is bad and spending heaps on a larger navy
b) Trump is unreliable so Japan needs carriers more now than before.
And my response to these answers is this: how do carriers solve these problems? Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. But my study of Japanese civil-military relations suggests that damn few civilians are asking any questions at all.
The past few years challenge much of the conventional understanding of international relations. One of the big lessons from the IR scholarship of the 1970s is that the nature of international relations is that threats and bullying don’t work. As Robert Jervis discussed it, the world can be either a constant chicken game or a repeated prisoner’s dilemma–aka deterrence vs. spiral model. In short, is international relations an environment (a system!) where countries cave into threats or do they balance against them, that those who believe that pushing countries around are usually confronting with coalitions created by such bullying. Kaiser Wilhelm, as IR scholars use as a example, threatened everyone, hoping that they would back down. Instead, these countries solidified their alliances and showed up in Europe in August 1914. Oops.
Over the past several years, we have seen a series of countries engage in bullying behavior–Russia, Saudi Arabia, Trump’s US and China. Russia has wielded nuclear threats to encourage Europeans to not deploy troops to the Baltics and to dissuade them from supporting Ukraine. How has that worked so far? Saudi Arabia has seemingly become unhinged as of late, overreacting to Canadian discussions of Saudi human rights and all but warring upon Qatar. Trump, well, is a bully, so we ought not be surprised by his threats nor by his ignorance of IR scholarship. Threatening the allies has led them to ponder hedging and alternatives. He might think the North Koreans have submitted after last year’s threats, but I am pretty sure the North Koreans think they have the upper hand.
The big surprise, to me anyway, is China. China has manged its rise so very well in large part because it has mostly wielded a velvet fist. Yes, it has buzzed American planes and ships, had friction with Indonesia, and other stuff. But generally, the China of the 2000s and early 2010s has been replaced by a more aggressive and obnoxious China. The tiff with Canada is importance since Canada was the western democracy least likely to object to the Huawei company getting inside Canada’s 5G. Well, not any more. The current standoff is causing Canadian parties to rally against China–who is arguing now that Canada should submit? Moreover, a conversation with a European diplomat today reminded me that Canada has more influence than folks think. Not necessarily to push China back into the straight and narrow but to serve as bellwether. If a country has a problem with the US or EU, well, those are powerful entities that can antagonize. But a country has a problem with Canada? That suggests that the particular country is problematic… and, jeez, is China problematic these days.
I am not a China expert so I don’t really know what is driving China to behave this way. I would guess domestic politics and nationalism (populism? Not quite). But everything I have learned in my career tells me that China’s choices now are self-destructive–that being aggressive does not pay in the long run. That bullying is counter-productive. Perhaps China is encouraged because the US led by Trump is so incompetent and unreliable, which means balancing will be late, inept and weak. But it is still a dumb move–the Chinese have been gaining strength with little opposition because they were not overly aggressive.
The thing about IR theory stuff–it didn’t say that bullying didn’t happen. It just said it was not productive. So, the question for future IR scholars, if we live so long, is whether China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Trump’s US are punished or not. We shall see.
A new study puts Canada in the bottom tier of what international partners consider the most helpful, influential donor countries.
AidData, a research lab located at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Va., has just released a report that examines aid effectiveness from the perspectives of those that are being advised and assisted by donors.
Between January and March 2017, AidData asked public, private, and civil society leaders from low- and middle-income countries to identify their preferred development partners among various bilateral and multilateral development agencies. Specifically, leaders were asked to share their views on how donors were influential in shaping policy priorities and how helpful donors were in implementing policy
initiatives or reforms.
These leaders held positions of responsibility between 2010 and 2015 and were thus knowledgeable about various development policy initiatives during that time. The results show how various bilateral (including Canada) and multilateral donors performed on “influence” and “helpfulness” metrics.
So how did Canada do? On “influence,” Canada is ranked 27th out of 35 bilateral and multilateral donors. Various stakeholders—government officials, local representatives of development partners, and civil society organizations—ranked Canada very poorly.
On “helpfulness,” Canada is ranked 25th out of 35. Canada again received a poor ranking by government officials and local representatives of development partners, and does somewhat better with civil society organizations.
Canada’s ranking within regions (sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Pacific, and Latin America and Caribbean) or by sector, on both influence and helpfulness, is also quite poor. It is hard to find a region or sector where Canada stands out.
Since it may be unfair to compare bilateral and multilateral agencies because of their different mandates and portfolios, a look at how Canada does relative to other OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) bilaterals would seem more appropriate.
Unfortunately, Canada’s ranking among bilaterals is
again quite low. Among OECD DAC donors (and excluding the European Union), Canada’s rank on influence is 11 out of 13, and on helpfulness, nine out of 13. So, overall, Canada’s performance leaves much to be desired.
But there are a few key takeaways. First of all, money and client base matters; large multilaterals such as the World Bank and the IMF, and bilaterals such as the United States and the United Kingdom, work with many people, and they are ranked among the most helpful and most influential partners. How much is spent in terms of volume of aid dollars is positively associated with performance.
Smaller and more specialized agencies such as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) are also highly rated. They tend to serve a specific target audience and are thus able to establish deeper ties with them.
Thirdly, bilateral donors that don’t do so well overall can be helpful and influential in specific regions (for example, Australia in the East Asia and Pacific region) and sectors (for example, Japan on the environment, and Sweden on governance).
Finally, unsurprisingly, non-DAC donors (that often adopt a policy of non-interference) are not viewed as being very influential. But they are not particularly helpful either because they tend to work mostly with government stakeholders. However, when we compare the rankings in this survey with an earlier one conducted in 2014, some non-DAC donors such as China and India are becoming more influential relative to OECD DAC donors.
And this has implications for Canada, because our aid disbursements in volume terms have not changed a lot recently, varying roughly between $5-billion to $5.8-billion between 2010 and now. The aid-to-grossnational-income ratio has also been quite low and below the average of all OECD DAC donors in recent
Such numbers make it more challenging to be influential and helpful.
Low aid disbursements become even more problematic when they are spread across many countries/regions and sectors. Does this mean that specialization is the way to go? Not necessarily. As the report indicates, being specialized may also mean less influence because many development issues such as poverty or lack of governance require a cross-sectoral approach.
Finally, will Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP), released in 2017 be influential and helpful? Money matters but the success of the FIAP will ultimately depend on how much it engages with domestic stakeholders and aligns with the national priorities and strategies of recipient countries.
Yiagadeesen (Teddy) Samy is a full professor and Director at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University.
This article was originally published in The Hill Times
People have been asking me lately–what is the big deal with this international liberal order? What has it ever done right? What has it ever given me? There are lots of pieces to it, but I am focused on NATO for obvious reasons, including my assignment at next week’s Kingston International Conference on Security.
So, here’s Mattis’s quote from the NAC (North Atlantic Council) Defense Ministerial:
SecDef Mattis: For nearly 70 years the #NATO alliance has served to uphold the values upon which our democracies are founded.
— US Mission to NATO (@USNATO) June 8, 2018
and my reaction.
It was kind of nice, wasn’t it? https://t.co/QYNzz6BLLe
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) June 8, 2018
I used to scoff at the usual NATO existential crisis stuff–that NATO needed a reason to exist in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, that there was some conflict within that might lead to the alliance breaking up, etc. But now I am in the club of those who fear for NATO’s future. Why? Trump. It is that simple. Putin actually did more for NATO unity in 2014 than anything else by making folks remember NATO’s day job–keeping Europe peaceful and, as a result, prosperous. But his gambles on Trump, on Brexit, on supporting right wing aspiring autocrats (Orban of Hungary, Erdogan of Turkey, etc) have worked out.
The alliance has worked and changed our conception of alliance not just because it is far more institutionalized than any other alliance past or present, but because all of it relied on largely shared values. Not just democracy but democracy with embedded liberalism–that governments played a role in adjusting to international shocks, made easier by international cooperation.
And now is a splintered G-7 meeting due to Trump using “national security threat” to play a particularly problematic card–to impose tariffs on allies without the consent of Congress. To be clear, this is the opt out card built into the agreements. He does not really believe that these countries or their exports to the US are any kind of threat, but he does not believe in norms, rules or the future. So, Trump has used this exception, antagonizing everyone except maybe the Italians (their own populist election results are handy for self-destruction).
So endeth the shared values. Orban has already promoted illiberal democracy, and Trump would too if he could articulate anything (note that Gorka is back, and Gorka is a living embodiment of Orban’s illiberal democracy). True, Trump is not the US, but he is, alas, 40% of it, and the GOP seems ok with selling out American values for tax cuts and court seats. So, even if/when the Democrats come into power, they will not be able to reassure the Europeans and the Canadians. After all, this big split is the most significant … since the last Republican president and the misconceived Iraq war of 2003.
So, how can NATO provide security by reassuring nervous members and deterring adversaries? The lack of common values undermines NATO credibility–will the US show up if Russia does something? Perhaps not since Trump is now trying to get Russia back into the G8 despite everything Russia has done since seizing Crimea.
NATO isn’t dead, and I hope to see signs of life when I go to the expert side party at the summit next month. But NATO is far from healthy, and I worry that we soon look back at those 70 years Mattis speaks of and wistfully remember the good old days. Maybe the good old days weren’t as good as they seem, as Billy Joel reminds us, but they were better than the days before that–WWI, WWII and all that.
Fun times in Korea, eh? I was really struck during my two weeks there of a split in opinions–most of the folks I met were “cautiously optimistic” about the situation, that the Trump-Kim summit might lead to a significant improvement in regional tensions, while other folks were in the “ruthlessly pessimistic” camp. And I was a member of the latter. Why? Because TeamRP just could not see anyway for North Korea to “denuke” in any meaningful way when the US had, ooops, done some regime change on Libya.
So, I get back to North America and notice that Bolton has been talking about the “Libya Option” seriously, which did ultimately send the desired signal (if Bolton does not want peace) to the North Koreans. So, the North Koreans have said that they had no intention of trading their nukes for economic assistance. That, along with the earlier announcement that that they were skipping a meeting since the US and ROK were not cancelling a key military exercise, reminded us that North Koreans have always been the most obnoxious trolls in International Relations (sorry, John and Stephen).
So, folks are having an epiphany–negotiating with North Korea is hard, and they aren’t giving up their nukes. I had a bit of a different Korean epiphany thanks to some sharp outsiders (Canadians and Americans who took me out for drinks and bbq:
American troops have long been based in South Korea to do two things: deter the North Koreans and reassure the South Koreans. Standard tripwire type stuff. Now, things have flipped as smart South Koreans want the Americans to stay to deter an American attack on North Korea. Yeah, that seems backwards, but the idea is that Trump would not attack North Korea with so many Americans in harm’s way (is that wishful thinking rearing its ugly head again?). That Trump would have a freer hand if the Americans were no longer down range of North Korean artillery….
Before I left for South Korea, I thought that the likely outcomes from a KJU-Trump summit would be in decreasing likelihood:
- A modest agreement, such as NK agrees not to test any more nukes (its test area is broken and other new nuclear powers tested six nukes, so a convenient time to give away this chip) and US promises to de-escalate a smidge. Trump would come home, declaring he solved the Korean problem, and the pundits/press would buy it, but not much would have really changed. Woot!
- NK agrees to give up its ICBM capability, Trump agrees to reduce or even eliminate US forces in South Korea, so NK gets not only recognition of being a nuclear power but decoupling of South Korea and Japan from US.
- Trump and KJU yell at each other as each is upset that they don’t have a common understanding of “denuclearization.” So, the road to war is a bit clearer, and John Bolton does a happy dance.
- No meeting as NK does not want to signal that it gave in to “massive pressure” from US.
- No meeting as Trump realizes he can’t get the Nobel Prize.
- A meeting with much reduced expectations–perhaps freezes of NK’s weapons in exchange for US promising not to regime change (which is believed by none).
- A meeting, then war.
So, yeah, not great. Are things clearer now than two weeks ago? Not sure. I do think Team Relentless Pessimism is feeling pretty good about feeling pretty bad. Woot?
Hearts across Canada sank when news broke that a driver of a rental van had deliberately struck pedestrians along Yonge Street in Toronto on Monday. Images of similar events in London, Barcelona and Nice – all linked to terrorism – immediately come to mind during such incidents. But this is not the first time we have seen vehicle-based attacks in Canada – the October, 2014, attack in St.-Jean-sur-Richelieu as well as the 2017 attack in Edmonton, allegedly in the name of violent extremism, are two recent cases.
In the hours between the attack and the news conference on Monday night, speculation as to whether the attack was a terrorist incident grew on social media. Sadly, it was not so long ago that we had a similar conversation in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting. How could it be that someone who accumulated machine guns in order to kill innocent concertgoers was not a terrorist?
For example, Justin Bourque, the perpetrator of the 2014 Moncton shootings that killed three RCMP officers, subscribed to an anti-government ideology. And over the past two weeks we have learned that Alexandre Bissonnette had consumed vast amounts of conspiracy theories and alt-right media that demonized Muslims and refugees. Mr. Bissonnette apparently became convinced that society was under attack and he had to do something.
The problem for prosecutors is that in these two cases, the person may have been politically motivated, but pointing to a coherent set of ideas on which their acts were carried out is not possible. So, although their attacks may have been similar, terrorism charges have not been laid.
Part of the issue is the circumstances in which our terrorism legislation was written. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the government envisioned terrorist groups with coherent ideas, leadership and goals. It is doubtful that they could have foreseen that someone might be politically motivated because of their consumption of material produced by an internet subculture or online videos of conspiracy theorists.
Does this make our terrorism legislation inherently biased? There can be no question that the legislation does a better job of capturing certain violent extremist views and not others. The question then is, would we be better off broadening the crime of terrorism or eliminating it all together?
It is imperfect, but there are practical reasons for keeping the current definition, even when it may lead to what seems to be inconsistent results. First, it helps to set out and limit the mandate of what we want our security services to investigate as violent extremism.
This helps to explain why Abdulahi Sharif, the accused in the Edmonton attack, has not faced terrorism charges, despite an IS flag in the vehicle that was used to assault police and civilians. And given that Mr. Bourque received one of the most severe sentences in Canadian history for murder (75 years without chance of parole), it is not clear that terrorism charges would have added anything to his punishment.
There is nothing to stop politicians from describing the attack in Toronto as a terror incident. Indeed, politicians from all parties did so in the wake of the 2017 Quebec mosque shooting. While we may never get terrorism legislation right, there is no reason why our response to any such violent incident should not be the same – to stand up for our communities, to empathize and to work toward a better Canada.
This post was originally published by the Globe and Mail