Diplomacy

Professor Mark Nevitt: Secretary Pompeo’s Surprising Defense of International Law

Secretary Pompeo’s Surprising Defense of International Law, Allies, and the Law of the Sea Convention

By Mark P. Nevitt

(Just Security | July 15, 2020) On Monday, Secretary of State Pompeo issued a strongly worded, highly legalistic statement lambasting excessive Chinese maritime claims in the South China Sea.

I welcome Pompeo’s statement as a substantive legal matter. It is long overdue. Nevertheless, it showcased the United States’ current schizophrenic approach to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), its international allies in the Indo-Pacific region and elsewhere, and international law more generally. The United States should seek to reaffirm and reinforce its commitment to international law through UNCLOS Senate ratification. While doing so is by no means a magic bullet, it would serve as an important signal of the U.S. commitment to a rules-based order in the South China Sea and beyond.

To recap: for years, China has been making excessive claims in the region, pointing to a so-called historic “Nine-Dash Line” as the legal basis for these claims. This envelops an enormous swath of the South China Sea, encroaching on other nations’ maritime boundaries. And China is following through on its excessive claims: it has shown a willingness to employ aggressive tactics — including flexing military muscle — against other coastal states in Southeast Asia. It also has been building massive structures on contested “low tide elevations” and “rocks” in the area. These formerly uninhabited formations barely rise above sea level. They don’t qualify as “islands” under international law and, therefore, don’t create a critically important exclusive economic zone around them. But that has not stopped China from building and asserting one …

Read the full article.

 

Watch: Robert B. Murrett Interviews Ambassador Ryan Crocker

At the Rumsfeld Foundation seventh annual Graduate Fellowship Conference in Washington, DC, on Sept. 19-20, 2019, Vice Admiral Robert Murrett, Professor of Practice at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and Deputy Director of the Syracuse University Institute for Security Policy and Law, conducted an engaging interview with Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Diplomat in Residence at Princeton University.

From his service as former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon, Amb. Crocker offered his advice for rising leaders from his wide-ranging experience, as well as remarked on broader diplomatic and security issues of the day.

Second Thoughts About Taliban Peace Talks

By Corri Zoli

(Re-published from Newsday | Sept. 9, 2019) Two U.S. soldiers were killed in Kabul, Afghanistan, from small-arms fire during combat late last month. We likely won’t know specific details about the service members’ identities or circumstances for some time.

“The deaths of the U.S. soldiers run against the grain of many Americans’ usual assumptions about war.”

But what we do know is that ongoing attacks by the Taliban will test America’s resolve to end what President Donald Trump has called an “endless” war. In fact, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reportedly is reluctant to sign an “agreement in principle” between the Taliban and the United States, brokered by U.S. Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. And, the president has decided to cancel peace talks with the Taliban, at least for now.

Secondly, the deaths of the U.S. soldiers run against the grain of many Americans’ usual assumptions about war — and this post-9/11 war in particular — and most Americans’ feelings about losing service members in asymmetric conflicts.

The two service members were fighting on behalf of NATO’s Operation Resolute Support — a noncombat “train, advise, and assist” mission of more than 17,000 troops in Afghanistan, which started Jan. 1, 2015, after the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) ended Dec. 28, 2014.

While commanded by U.S. Army Gen. Austin Scott Miller, as the name suggests, this is a NATO mission. NATO allies with the Afghan government made the decision in 2012 (it has been reaffirmed frequently) to develop Afghan military capacity to defend and protect its citizens.

While Americans’ own security interests are at stake in this mission — no one wants to see another attack like 9/11 by al Qaeda operatives harbored in Afghanistan — the enormous investment in Afghanistan’s military capacity and security infrastructure comes at great price to Americans and citizens from other NATO-member states who have died in these combat and noncombat missions. Clearly, even this noncombat mission is beset with the armed conflict and violence associated with combat missions.

Of the 17,000-plus troops, the United States (8,475), Germany (1,300), and the United Kingdom (1,100) have provided the vast majority of “boots on the ground.” NATO members France and Canada, for instance, have zero troops in the fight. When U.S. administrations from Clinton to Trump pressure NATO members to contribute more to their own defense, the issue is not only about raising their GDP percentage contribution to NATO’s defense budget, it is also who is actually fighting in these security initiatives that European and NATO partners have deemed a priority …

Read the full article.

 

Corri Zoli Discusses North Korea Summit with WSYR

Speaking to WSYR’s Dave Allen on June 12, 2018, Director of Research Corri Zoli analyzes the summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean President Kim Jong-un and the fate of the verbal de-nuclearization agreement between the two leaders. While cautioning some skepticism, Zoli says Kim’s action’s before and after the summit offer some amount of hope that a lasting nuclear and peace deal can be reached and that the Western-educated dictator might be a “change agent” for the hermit nation.

Corri Zoli Speaks to CNYCentral About Planning the North Korea Summit

WSTM News Channel 5 | May 24, 2018

Transcript:

HOST: Let’s bring in some new perspective on this international news. Corri Zoli is an assistant professor at the Maxwell school at Syracuse University and a familiar face here on CBS 5.

Thanks for coming in. This is sort of an unconventional from the start, the way this plan for the summit was announced. Maybe it won’t happen, maybe it will. We’re hopeful it’ll happen, and then finally today … what do you make of today’s announcement.

ZOLI: I think that this is a great example of how negotiations are a language of power, so we’re seeing stuff on the surface … somehow this president of all people is impacted by insults … so what we think we’re seeing on the surface is not reflective of what’s actually going on here in terms of the power dynamics …

Fox News Interviews Robert B. Murrett on North Korea Summit

Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un expected to discuss denuclearization, economy during historic summit

(Fox News | May 8, 2018) Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un expected to discuss denuclearization, economy during historic summit

President Donald Trump says a date and location have been set for the U.S.-North Korea summit, though he has yet to give specifics.

“It’s important because of the potential opening it has; there is potential diplomatic progress.”

“We now have a date and we have a location. We’ll be announcing it soon,” Trump told reporters from the White House South Lawn in early May.

In the past, Trump said the meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un would take place sometime in May or early June. It will be the first-ever meeting between a U.S. president and a North Korean leader.

“It’s important because of the potential opening it has; there is potential diplomatic progress,” former Vice Adm. Robert B. Murrett, a professor of practice, public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University, told Fox News.

Murrett, who also serves as deputy director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at the college, specializes in national security, international relations, military and defense strategy.

“This is something we haven’t been able to do for many years,” he added.

Fox News asked Murrett to explain what the summit could mean for this nation’s future, and he answered three questions about the historic event that Americans should know.

Why is this meeting so significant?

Aside from the potential diplomatic benefits between the U.S. and North Korea, the summit could benefit other countries.

“It not just about the United States,” he said, explaining that the meeting could also be a win for “our partners in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, but also areas in the South Pacific region such as Australia.”

He added, “These talks have the ability to reduce security tensions in East Asia and present an opportunity for the U.S. to reinforce the strong links with South Korea, Japan and even China.”

What topics should we expect Kim and Trump to discuss?

Denuclearization will be at the forefront, Murrett said.

North Korea’s “nuclear weapons and ability to deliver them at long distances should be central,” said Murrett, who added that recent talks between North and South Korea “would suggest that it would remain a core issue.”

President Trump says meeting with the leader on North Korea has a chance to be a big event.

But Murrett also expects discussion of the Hermit Kingdom’s role in the global economy.

Despite various sanctions placed on the country, North Korea’s economy grew by 3.9 percent in 2016. But Murrett said diplomatic talks represent the “prospect of North Korea rejoining the family of the Asians” if only from an economic standpoint, potentially opening the door for the country to trade with more than just China.

“It would be in the interest of the people of North Korea,” Murrett added.

Does Trump deserve credit for the summit?

In short: Yes. In part.

While Trump does deserve credit for agreeing to meet with Kim, his decision to do so was likely sparked by “the window of opportunity that has existed because of ongoing pressure” on North Korea to better its relations with surrounding countries and beyond, Murrett said …

Read the full article here.

Wisconsin Public Radio Interviews David M. Crane for Its “Syria Update”

Syria Update

(WPR Morning Show | April 12, 2018) President Donald Trump took to Twitter Wednesday to issue a warning to Russia – and the world – of a possible military strike by the U.S. This messages comes on the heels of reports earlier this week of a suspected chemical attack in Syria’s rebel-held town of Douma. Join us for a look at the latest details surrounding this possible military action and push back from Russia before we turn to a (insert guest description) to look at the humanitarian concerns about the ongoing crisis in Syria.

Read more here.

Corri Zoli Discusses North Korea Talks with CNY Central

Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism Director of Research Corri Zoli spoke to Syracuse-area channels 3/5 on March 9, 2018, about the overtures between the United States and North Korea on the subject of nuclear weapons. Zoli called them “interesting developments” that we should approach with a “healthy dose of skepticism” given North Korea’s broken promises in the past …

The Danger of a One-Sided Strategy for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

By Louis Kriesberg

(Re-published from The Hill | Feb. 15, 2018) The increasingly dominant role of the president, relative to Congress, has been troubling for many years. The dire consequences are evident with Donald Trump’s presidency. Trump’s policies relating to Iran, North Korea, and many other countries harm American interests and threaten to be disastrous. In particular, I believe Trump’s current strategy to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is misguided.

“Bad consequences for America are already evident and more will appear as this unilateral policy is pursued.”

Last December, President Trump began to force the Palestinian Authority to accept the “peace” terms dictated by the current Israeli government. This strategy is likely to have many unfortunate consequences for the Israelis as well for the Palestinians. But it will also have many bad effects for America and could unleash news dangers.

The strategy began ambiguously, when Trump announced his intention to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Initially, he slightly moderated the significance of the decision by declaring that final Israeli borders should be determined by Israeli and Palestinian negotiations. But soon thereafter, he said he had taken Jerusalem off the negotiation table.

Furthermore, Trump and Vice President Mike Pence made clear that the embassy move would be swift. He also reduced by about half the usual U.S. contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the major program supporting Palestinian refugees. He announced he was considering closing the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s office in Washington. Clearly, Trump is trying to impose a one-sided settlement on the Palestinians.

As in other Trump foreign policy decisions, this approach does not follow a comprehensive consideration of U.S. objectives, widely-sourced information about developments in the region, and review of alternative strategies. Instead, it seems Trump is pandering to some people among his base, particularly in this instance, some Christian Evangelicals and some supporters of right-wing Israeli policies. Moreover, as in other instances, he seems to insist upon acting contrary to whatever former President Obama did.

These are poor grounds on which to base foreign policy choices. Bad consequences for America are already evident and more will appear as this unilateral policy is pursued. The actions destroyed U.S. mediation efforts that were underway. He took an action that was decried by nearly all governments in the world, as demonstrated by the overwhelming votes against it in the U.N. Security Council and U.N. General Assembly.

This harms American standing and influence in the world. Furthermore, the policy increases the chances that fanatics in many parts of the world will undertake terror attacks against Americans. Indeed, organizations that wish to limit or counter U.S. influence and presence in the Middle East would be more able to recruit, mobilize and support such fanatics.

An imposed one-sided solution will have other grave consequences for America. There has been considerable security and other realms of cooperation between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, which the U.S. government has aided. President Trump’s moves to impose a settlement will undermine such cooperation …

Read the full article here.