Friday News Roundup — July 26, 2019
Joint Sino-Russian Air Patrols; Meet the New SecDef; Pakistan’s Prime Minister Visits; Civil and Effective Primary Debates; Plus News You May Have Missed
Happy Friday from Washington, D.C.! This week, the languid, midsummer heat wave finally broke and we were all able to breathe exactly one sigh of relief before everyone’s collective attention turned to Capitol Hill and the twin testimonies of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller. More than anything else, Mr. Mueller’s testimony reminded us of an exhausted professor asking his unruly students whether any of them had read the syllabus.
Across the pond, a new day has dawned in the United Kingdom as Boris Johnson takes up the mantle of Prime Minister and begins to reshape the Brexit process in his own image. Boris is a particular kind of character — not for nothing a political opponent published an opinion piece in Wednesday’s Washington Post calls him, “a person with no convictions, delivering a political project he does not believe in, with a plan that does not exist.” Either way, the man whose campaign slogan was “deliver Brexit, unite the country, defeat Jeremy Corbyn, and energize the country (for the acronym DUDE), has stopped opening doors, is making his entrance with his usual flair, sure of his lines, and hoping that the people of the United Kingdom want what he wants. The Brexit deadline is in 97 days, so his new team has their work cut out for them to cut the narrow path and separate from the European Union without triggering new elections.
Here at the Policy Team’s office, we are heartbroken to have to bid farewell to our five fantastic interns this week. Stephanie, Sarah, Madison, Crystal, and Carlota did excellent work over the last eight weeks and we will miss them dearly. You, dear reader, should expect to hear more from them as the years go by. This week, we get one more opinion piece from Sarah about how the structure of debates affect how voters perceive candidates, Dan analyzes Russian and Chinese collaboration to try and stymie the vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific, Michael introduces us to the new Secretary of Defense, Erica remains skeptical of Pakistan’s intentions in Afghanistan, and we close with some stories you might have missed.
U.S. Allies Respond to Sino-Russian Aerial Incursion
Dan Mahaffee
On Tuesday, South Korean and Japanese fighter jets responded to a joint Russian and Chinese air patrol over disputed air space in the Sea of Japan. The Sino-Russian air patrol — consisting of nuclear-capable bombers and an airborne early-warning and control aircraft-entered airspace claimed by both Japan and South Korea over the disputed island known respectively as Takeshima or Dokdo. For U.S. policymakers, this highlights two significant challenges in Indo-Pacific strategy: the increased muscularity of Sino-Russian military cooperation and continued obstacles to South Korean and Japanese cooperation.
That cooperation between China and Russia is accelerating is hardly a surprise, as Presidents Xi and Putin are cementing a shared authoritarian approach to counter U.S. and allied influence. Harkening back to the days of the Cold War, Russia has resumed patrols of nuclear-capable aircraft, challenging the air space of the United States, European NATO allies, and, now, Indo-Pacific allies. Given that the United States and allies have pushed back against Chinese territorial claims in the East and South China Seas, the Chinese have responded with their own patrols that challenge Japanese and South Korean claims, as well as the freedom of navigation operations by U.S. and allied navies. By patrolling together, China and Russia are further cementing their military cooperation by moving to a more operational approach that will allow for improved cooperation and training of their respective aircrews. This also represents a far more robust level of military cooperation compared to some of the previous military exercises that could be generously described as parade exercises in the barren steppes of Asia.
Generally, these aerial intercepts follow a relatively predictable pattern: U.S. or NATO aircraft are scrambled to intercept and shadow Russian patrols, and similarly, U.S. and NATO patrols often skirt the edges of Russian airspace and are met with intercepts by Russian fighter jets. At times, the Russian responses to the U.S. or NATO patrols push the boundaries of what would be considered a “safe and professional” response. Chinese naval intercepts — or those by the Chinese coast guard and government-affiliated “fishing militias” — have also come dangerously close to provoking a maritime incident. What was notable in the South Korean response to the incursion of the Sino-Russian patrol was the forcefulness of their response. When the Russian aircraft approached the airspace near Dokdo/Takeshima, the South Korean fighter pilots fired more than 350 rounds of warning shots to force the Russian aircraft to change its course.
That the South Koreans needed to fire warning shots reflects the risk of an airborne, or seaborne, incident provoking further miscalculation or military confrontation. At the same time, one might wonder if the South Koreans’ response was also a signal to the Japanese. Despite being close allies of the United States, tensions between Tokyo and Seoul have been on the rise. Animus over historical grievances from the Japanese occupation of Korea remain, and President Moon and Prime Minister Abe have found themselves in an increasing war of words and tit-for-tat trade disputes. While tensions between Japan and South Korea are nothing new, it is another headache for U.S. policymakers trying to ensure that our allies are working together in the face of threats from North Korea, a more muscular China, and a revanchist Russia.
In an era of multipolarity and great power competition, the geopolitical environment will feature more and more of these incidents that could spiral into a greater conflict. The post-Cold War assumption that only the United States would be projecting power overseas no longer remains. These air patrols and naval incidents can highlight what aspects of American military power have atrophied while we have been focused on low-intensity conflicts and counterinsurgencies in the Middle East and South Asia. Nor, can we count on our allies to consistently work out their differences in order to best serve our interests. While Japan and South Korea are the most heated example at this point, the political and ideological differences dividing our allies in Europe show no sign of abating in the near future. While U.S. power is hardly a panacea, efforts should be focused on engaging our allies to bridge their differences, while presenting a united front against authoritarian aims.
Habemus Secretarium Defensionis
Michael Stecher
White smoke could be seen emanating from the Pentagon this week, which must mean that we finally have a new Secretary of Defense. On Tuesday, Dr. Mark Esper, who had been serving as Secretary of the Army, was sworn in as the 27th Secretary of Defense. His appointment ends a gap of more than 200 days without a senate-confirmed civilian leader at the Pentagon, the longest such gap in the modern history of the United States.
Secretary Esper has worked in the national security establishment for most of his adult life, with ten years of active duty service in the Army including a tour in Desert Storm with the 101st Airborne Division, eleven years in the Army Reserves and National Guard. During the George W. Bush administration, he served as the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy. He worked as a defense policy advisor to Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Bill Frist (R-TN) and on the presidential campaign of former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson. He was Chief of Staff at the Heritage Foundation, as well as in government affairs at the defense contractor Raytheon and the Aerospace Industries Association, and on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Dr. Esper’s confirmation was a relatively unremarkable affair. As Secretary of the Army, he received generally good reviews in Washington. His major organizational priority was the establishment of Army Futures Command, an office run by a four-star general with the remit to help the Army break acquisition bottlenecks and drive innovative solutions into the hands of soldiers, a key part of the Defense Department’s vision for staying ahead of near-peer competitors like Russia and China. This will be critically important as some of the Army’s most important assets like tanks and infantry fighting vehicles will begin generational modernization programsin the next few years. The most important political crisis of his tenure had to do with poor conditions in housing units on army bases, for which he received high marks from senators on the Armed Services Committee.
The only fireworks to be seen during Secretary Esper’s confirmation hearing came from Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who criticized the nominee for refusing to extend his commitment to recuse himself for business involving his former employer Raytheon. Dr. Esper’s predecessor, Acting Secretary Patrick Shanahan, had recused himself indefinitely for all business pertaining to his former employer Boeing, but with the key difference that Mr. Shanahan had worked at Boeing for over thirty years. Dr. Esper was confirmed by a vote of 90–8, with most of the “no” votes coming from Democratic presidential hopefuls, who have good reason to not been seen supporting President Trump’s nominees, even for roles like Secretary of Defense.
Several of the speakers at Secretary Esper’s confirmation hearing spoke highly of former Secretary James Mattis, especially for acting as a perceived counterbalance to President Trump’s instincts on use of force and alliances. Secretary Mattis was a unique figure in the president’s cabinet, with a deep and broad coalition of support on Capitol Hill. While Secretary Esper will not have the same kinds of relationships — and managing an independent power against the interests of the president is definitely not in the Secretary of Defense’s job description — he did strike a good balance at the hearing by signaling the he will do his duty as the principal assistant to the President in all matters related to the Department of Defense, while also stating that he did not believe that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Forcewould allow the United States to carry out military strikes against Iran and supporting America’s global network of alliances.
The confirmation hearing, however, did not dwell too much on the combat deployments that U.S. service members are currently on. One member of #armytwitter noted that “Afghanistan was mentioned more times in the classic film ‘Super Troopers’ than in the confirmation hearing for the next U.S. Secretary of Defense.” In addition to managing deployments all across the world, Secretary Esper will also have his hands full trying to fill the large number of vacant positions in the Pentagon, including Deputy Secretary of Defense, secretaries of the Army and Air Force, chief information and management officers, and several assistant secretaries.
Having secure and stable political leadership is important in all cabinet departments, but it is especially true at Defense. The civil bureaucracy generally has its own preferences and policy priorities that may not be shared by the president, and it is much easier for senior officials with close connections to the White House to wrangle those cats. With the uniformed military, however, that is even more challenging, since the military’s leaders are also public figures with their own power bases in the interagency and on Capitol Hill. Maintaining a proper balance of power between the services, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense is a delicate task in the best of times and, with so few senate-confirmed leaders in place, this has not been the best of times.
Reversing Course, Trump Puts Misplaced Faith in Pakistan
Erica Ngoenha
This week President Trump hosted Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan at the White House. During the meeting, Trump offered praise for the former cricket star-turned-politician and lauded the improvement in bilateral relations. Trump’s warm welcome was a remarkable turnaround from his decision 18 months earlier to suspend nearly a billion dollars of security assistance in light of Pakistan’s failure to crack down on terrorist groups operating within its borders.
The meeting was not without controversy. During the conversation, Trump claimed that he could end the war in Afghanistan very quickly by killing 10 million people but assured reporters in the room that he did not want to “take that route.” When asked to provide clarification, he offered none. Trump then claimed that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked him to mediate the long simmering Kashmir dispute that flared up again this past February. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs quickly refutedTrump’s comments. The remark was considered a major diplomatic faux pas given that India has always insisted that negotiations over the disputed region be handled bilaterally. But the bigger story out of the Trump-Khan meeting was the President’s newfound confidence that, under Khan’s leadership, Pakistan has been and will continue to be a helpful partner in the Afghanistan peace negotiations. Trump acknowledged that in the past the country has been a hamper to success in Afghanistan, but put the blame at the feet of his predecessors claiming, “I don’t think Pakistan respected the United States, I don’t think Pakistan respected its presidents. And I don’t blame them because they were dealing with the wrong presidents.”
For nearly two decades, the United States has been fighting in Afghanistan to prevent the re-emergence of the Taliban, degrade al Qaeda, and establish peace in the war-torn country. Pakistan has been a necessary partner due to its geographic location and has served as the major artery for supply routes to Afghanistan for U.S. and NATO forces. At the same time, Pakistan has supported and provided safe harbor to some of the very Taliban leaders that the United States and its allies are fighting. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama both railed against Pakistan for this duplicitous behavior all the while continuing to supply the country with billions of dollars of military aid in exchange for support and access. Both tried carrot and stick approaches to alter Pakistan’s behavior. Neither found positive results. Trump initially echoed the frustration of his predecessors, tweeting, “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit.”
Now, Trump wants out of Afghanistan and rightly understands that Pakistan will play a key role in U.S. exit. The White House meeting was driven in part by Senator Lindsey Graham who urged President Trump to meet with Khan after visiting the Prime Minister in January. Sensing an opportunity, Pakistan’s security forces conveniently arrested Hafiz Saeed, founder of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, in the lead-up to Khan’s visit. In a tweet, Trump offered his praise for the arrest, “After a ten year search, the so-called ‘mastermind’ of the Mumbai Terror attacks has been arrested in Pakistan. Great pressure has been exerted over the last two years to find him!” The truth is Pakistan has allowed Saeed to hide in plain sight for a decade. In fact, he has been arrested 8 times in the past only to be quickly released. Pakistani intelligence services have been well aware of Saeed’s whereabouts, but have maintained close ties with terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba as part of an asymmetrical warfare approach to its rivalry with India. Saeed’s arrest is not a credible indication that Pakistan is cracking down on terrorism. In dealing with a transactional actor like Trump, the Pakistanis correctly assumed that they would get undue credit for arresting Saeed that they could leverage during Khan’s visit to the United States.
President Trump’s burgeoning optimism about U.S.-Pakistan relations ignores strategic realities on the ground. The United States and Pakistan have fundamentally divergent interests in Afghanistan. This has been true since the end of the Soviet war in Afghanistan and has been at the heart of fraught relations between the two nations. Since the current war in Afghanistan began, the United States has attempted to establish a fledgling democracy and a state security apparatus capable of keeping the peace. Pakistan’s goal in Afghanistan is to safeguard its power in the country and to curb the influence of other regional players, namely India, through its symbiotic relationship with the Taliban. Ensuring the Taliban plays a role in the future governance of Afghanistan is of paramount importance to Pakistan.
It would be difficult to negotiate a peace deal in Afghanistan without including Pakistan. It has enough leverage in the country to play the role of spoiler, as it often has. However, the Trump administration needs to be clear about the limits of a fruitful partnership with Pakistan. Pakistan views Afghanistan through the lens of geo-strategic competition. By maintaining a foothold in Afghanistan through their connections with the Taliban, the Pakistanis aim to ensure “strategic depth” vis-à-vis a potential Indian incursion. The Pakistanis fear that India will curry favor and influence in Afghanistan and if it succeeds in doing so, India will be able to squeeze Pakistan from both sides.
Pakistan will be helpful to the United States only as long as its interests are served. For now, it behooves the Pakistanis to support the negotiations, which lend legitimacy to the Taliban and ensure the militant group plays a role in the future governance of Afghanistan. However, they will always prioritize Taliban equities at the expense of a democratic government in Afghanistan. Should negotiators finalize a peace deal, Pakistan will be perfectly positioned to play the role of puppet master.
President Trump has preferred a maverick approach to negotiations with tricky states. At times, his instinct to abandon convention works to open up new possibilities for diplomacy, however inelegant. But in the case of Pakistan, his initial observations were correct. Pakistan is a duplicitous partner that has consistently worked against U.S. interests. The key for U.S. foreign policy moving forward is to thread the almost impossible needle of creating opportunities for cooperation when interests align while maintaining realistic expectations of the limits of that cooperation. By continuing on this path of underserved flattery and praise, Trump plays exactly into Pakistan’s hands, and he risks a diplomatic rupture with India.
Let Her Speak
Sarah Weintraub
The second set of Democratic primary debates are next week, and with them comes many candidates’ last chance to capture a national audience and show Americans why they should be the last one standing. The third debates in September are hard to qualify for, and so far only six of the current candidates are guaranteed to be on that stage. For the majority of the candidates, this will likely be their last appearance under the bright lights in this cycle. Viewers will be subject to wild haymaker debate performances, as candidates lay all their cards on the table with the hope of being a lucky winner who gets to scrape by to September. These Hail Mary performances will likely include a lot of interrupting, hoping to land the rehearsed “zinger” that ends up on the front pages the next day.
It would be in the best interest of the Democratic National Commission and CNN, the network hosting the debate, to set stricter guidelines around candidates interrupting one another in the next debate. CNN has said that candidates who constantly interrupt will have their speaking time reduced, but I am skeptical that these vague guidelines will help. CNN should set a number of allowable interruptions, maybe two, and establish that candidates’ microphones will otherwise be disabled. This would allow for all candidates to be equally evaluated on the quality of their plans and political experience, and would not give a leg up to male candidates who are better positioned to interrupt the comments of others without facing backlash.
Doing so would have the benefit of allowing female candidates to display their platforms and qualifications on a more equal playing field. In the first round of debates, Senators Warren and Harris were stars on their respective nights. Following the debates, however, pundits reflected on how Warren seemed to disappear in the latter half of her night and how low-polling male candidates on both nights often jumped in or interrupted to get a few more words to their name. The first night, there were three female candidates on stage and seven men, who accounted for close to 78% of interruptions.
Some might argue that this is part of the race and that female candidates need to put themselves out there and interrupt if they want to be heard. Studies have shown how societal norms prevent women from interrupting at the same rates as men. Men are often rewarded for being angry, as one might come off when interrupting during a debate, while women who do so are seen as incompetent and emotional. As a baseline, it is harder for female candidates to be viewed as credible and qualified, compared to their male counterparts, regardless of their qualifications. The media and the DNC must allow voters to become more confident in voting for women candidates by letting the women candidates debate on an even playing field. These debates are crucial in showing voters what candidate views and policies are and expanding their appeal beyond demographics.
Primary debates matter and have been shown to contribute to voters’ decisions on whom to support. This is especially true for candidates who are lesser known or polling more towards the bottom. Voters who have less information on the candidates have been shown to be more likely to vote for men. If we chalk this up to a lack of information, rather than blatant sexism, there should be a push for voters to have greater access to information on the candidates. A debate, if the women are able to show what they stand for and what they would do in office, can be this source of information for voters.
The women in this race are among the most well-qualified to be president in terms of their career experience, credentials, and national recognition; none is just a token female candidate. Americans should want to hear the wide scope of policy perspectives and experiences inhabited by all the women running. The interruptions were noticeable to any viewer of the first debate and will only be worse in the second debate. By allowing these interruptions, women candidates are put in the double bind of either jumping on the train and contributing, which risks them being labeled as “aggressive” or “shrill,” or being left out of the conversation altogether. This is exactly what happened to Senator Warren on the first night of debate, coming in with the third most speaking time despite having the best poll numbers on the stage. CNN and the DNC are doing a disservice to the voting population by not limiting the interrupts that took place at the first debate.
Earlier this month, FiveThirtyEight ran an article on the hesitancy of voters to vote for a female president. The piece explained,
“Studies have found that voters may be more biased against women when they run for executive offices. So women in a presidential campaign will likely have to do more than their male rivals to convince voters that they deserve to sit in the Oval Office, even if those voters also say they’re fine, in theory, with the idea of a female president.”
This piece and others have highlighted the fact that voters at large do not view female candidates in the same light as men, regardless of their qualifications. For a female candidate to be put on a level playing field come February, voters need opportunities to hear that these candidates are as deserving of their vote and as capable of leading our nation. Persistent debate interruptions from candidates like former Representative John Delaney or Representative Tim Ryan prevent this opportunity from existing. It is not that women are not capable of interrupting, but it is often a harder choice to make because of the unintended consequences it carries. It is unfair to put female candidates in the position of having to interrupt and face the backlash that such masculine-aligned behavior has in our society for women. For the benefit of voters hoping to make the most informed decision possible, the DNC and CNN should both invest in strictly limiting interruptions next Tuesday and Wednesday.
News You May Have Missed
Oh, SNAP! Trump Administration Aims to Restrict Access to Food Stamps
Stephanie Lizzo
While a large proportion of Americans continue to supersize their meals (and consequently their waistlines), many citizens rely on food stamps for parts of their grocery budgets. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program supports nearly 38 million Americans by dramatically improving food security. However, the Trump administration desires to impose significantly stricter qualifications for receiving SNAP benefits; such modifications include increasing the minimum work requirement and raising the “poverty threshold.” Proponents of these reforms argue that loopholes in the existing system are incredibly costly, as some of the food stamp recipients do not demonstrate legitimate need. Regardless, the proposal to reduce eligibility would strip benefits from over 3 million Americans, effectively removing a vital part of the social safety net. Due to the heavy reliance on this program by millions of struggling citizens, the implications of changing the system must be thoroughly explored and understood. The consequences are simply too substantial for a “snap” decision.
India Shoots for the Moon
Sarah Weintraub
Recent excitement around space travel is not solely confined to the National Mall. Only days after the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, India successfully launched its first rocket to the moon from Satish Dhawan Space Center. The price tag was $150 million, which is on the low end for a space mission. The four-piece mission includes no humans but a six-wheeled rover that will roam the under-explored southern pole of the moon. The rover will be looking for traces of water ice as well as Helium-3. Water ice could signal the existence of oxygen and Helium-3 has been proposed as a potential alternative energy source in the future. The rover will be autonomous and will land without human control. The lander component of the mission is planned to touch down on the moon in September.
HIV prevention through arm implant
Carlota Cumella de Montserrat
The first known human case of HIV was discovered 59 years ago, but the disease has since taken over 692,700 American lives. Many have wondered how to prevent this disease and other related illnesses and now we are closer than ever to bringing them to an end. During the 10th International AIDS Society conference, the pharmaceutical company Merck presented an implant that is inserted in the arm and could prevent individuals from getting infected for a year. This implant could be the solution to HIV deaths in the near future. Those that are HIV negative but are at risk of entering in contact with the virus take a drug called PrEP on a daily basis, the same drug that the implant releases over a longer period of time. Although a phase 3 trial still has to take place before this implant shifts the future of HIV, current results are a reason for hope both here and in sub-saharan Africa where new infections are mostly taking place.
Liberals: the Paper Straws of the Public
Madison Howell
Conservatives have been in a constant uphill battle against the liberal assault on American freedom, but the Trump administration continues the courageous fight, this time against the nefarious use of “liberal paper straws.” As anybody that has been forced into the harrowing situation of using one of these paper straws knows, they dissolve in liquid, just like Liberals try to dissolve our freedoms as Americans, this time through their ruinous environmentalism. Brad Parscale, Trump’s campaign manager, has come to our rescue once again by replacing these soggy excuses for a straw with recyclable, laser-engraved plastic ones, so true Conservatives can drink through these beautifully crafted pieces without fear of it degrading in the middle of their drink. While some politicians think that the public should focus on “more important” issues, the people disagree, as the vibrant red straws have made over $200,000 for his 2020 campaign and are now sold out on his website. Say goodbye to disintegrating liberal catastrophes and support the fight to restore American freedom through supporting Trump’s campaign to “Make Straws Great Again!”
The views of contributors are their own, and not that of CSPC.