FRIDAY NEWS ROUNDUP — SEPTEMBER 25, 2020
A TikTok Deal?; Empowering Congress—i.e. Its Staff; The Kremlin’s Election Call; Marine Plans for Island Warfare; Eastern Med Tensions
Happy Friday from Washington, DC. Last Friday, all of us were shattered to hear about the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg, whatever you think of her politics, was a giant of the American legal profession and it is difficult to imagine the last 50 years of jurisprudence without her contributions. Amazingly, she is the first woman to lie in state in the U.S. Capitol, an irony that would not have been lost on someone who spent her career fighting for gender equality in law and practice.
Her death, a tragedy in its own right, also comes at a moment of particular tension in our country and the selection of her replacement is further encouraging partisans to build their barricades higher. In a way, Justice Ginsburg was a mirror image of Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016. Their decades-long friendship reminds us of the greater power of human friendship over partisan rancor.
Justice Scalia’s son Christopher shared a story last week of a conservative appellate judge who questioned why Justice Scalia was sending Justice Ginsburg two dozen roses for her birthday: “What good have all those roses done for you?” he asked. “Name one five-four case of any significance where you got Justice Ginsburg’s vote.”
“Some things,” Justice Scalia responded, “are more important than votes.” Washington, and the Republic we all love, is impoverished by her loss.
This week at CSPC, we hosted our trustee and former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns, for a discussion on U.S. foreign policy and the challenges the 2020 winner will face. Next Wednesday afternoon, we’ll be hosting renowned thinker and Harvard professor Joseph Nye to discuss his book Do Morals Matter?, and, next Thursday evening, former Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Ambassador Frank Lavin will join us for a chat on where U.S.-China commerce is headed.
This week, Ethan covered how our Special Forces need to better plan for operating in contested environments where enemies may blunt our technological edge. Joshua reviewed The Spymasters and its stories of the Directors of the CIA.
In this week’s roundup, Dan looks at the latest on TikTok and worries about the precedent set by the U.S. approach. Michael covers the importance of Congress strengthening its staff. Joshua covers what we know about Russia’s 2020 interference efforts. Ethan analyzes the Marine Corps approach to coastal fighting in the Pacific, and Maria covers the details of the growing economic and military tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean. As always, we wrap with news you may have missed.
A Countdown for TikTok?
Dan Mahaffee
No, you didn’t click the wrong link. Yes, last week, this very same space covered the latest details about TikTok and a possible deal for the company. The saga, however, continues.
Since last week’s roundup, the details about deals regarding TikTok and, to a lesser extent, WeChat have been trickling out in the media — reflecting a chaotic process while court cases loom in the background to stay the apps’ removal from U.S. app stores. Currently, the deal awaits approval by Beijing — as Chinese regulators will have to sign off on the deal — but the bigger concern, now, is that Washington not inadvertently sign off on Beijing’s broader vision for the future of the global data economy.
There are three main factors at play, and all three have been keen goals for the administration to address: the data, the algorithm, and the company. First, the data question revolves around the protections for U.S. and other partner countries users’ data and whether that would be controlled by Chinese firm and TikTok owner ByteDance or, according to the terms of the new deal, U.S. software and cloud provider Oracle. Second, the algorithm — which keeps eyeballs glued to the app and turns user data into revenue — is also a major stumbling block for Chinese regulators. It appears that the algorithm would remain in Chinese hands, though there will be questions about how the algorithm is licensed or used by the non-Chinese entity. Finally, the nature of the company remains unclear, as the U.S. statements on the deal have indicated plans for an international company, “Global TikTok,” with stakes held by Oracle (12.5%) and Walmart (7.5%). What becomes of the remaining 80% is a sticking point. The Trump administration and the U.S. companies have stated that the 80% would be held by ByteDance’s VC investors, while ByteDance has claimed they would hold onto that stake until reducing it following an IPO for TikTok in the next year. Reuters breaks this down with incredible detail, including back-and-forths with CFIUS term sheets covered in red ink.
First, it is remarkable to think about TikTok’s rise and realize that there is no clear equivalent for U.S. social media in the Chinese marketplace. It wasn’t for the lack of trying by Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., but rather the onerous censorship and information control of the Chinese Communist Party. By championing Chinese internet giants, including ByteDance, China has created its own massive players on the global stage, while keeping western companies out of the market. This created a sheltered environment where Beijing’s censors can control the flow of information, while a digitally-transformed economy would develop in a protected marketplace and abundant data pool. That TikTok expanded in the United States reflects the openness of our marketplace and general lack of concern about data protection, be it surveillance capitalism or companies compelled by law to comply immediately and unquestioningly towards Beijing’s national security and intelligence interests. The terms of this deal, available at time of press, do not provide a clear answer about how U.S. users would be protected other than that their data would be in an Oracle cloud. What access ByteDance, or any other Chinese entities, have to that data remains unclear.
Beyond the specific data questions, we must ask if we are truly giving China the upper hand when it comes to the future shape of the internet. While the Chinese government has yet to sign off on the specifics of the deal, one of their most vocal Twitter “Wolf Warriors,” Hu Xijin of the Global Times, tweeted his kudos. The irony was not lost on yours truly that he posted it on a social media app blocked in China.
In fact, the audience could very well be much of the rest of the world, where there are also doubts about both American tech hegemony and America’s leadership on the global stage. The United States has long advocated for a global internet, rather than one controlled by sovereigns. China has, for decades, sought to undermine that global internet. It would be naive to expect that we could now reshape China’s massive domestic internet and tech ecosystem, but we cannot let it be the appealing global model for the future. It’s hard to establish a contrast though, when connections to the party and leader appear of equal importance in Washington and Beijing. To build global coalitions to protect user data and establish clear rules of the road for the digital economy is one thing and a very laudable, bipartisan goal. To help campaign contributors and unwittingly endorse China’s vision for the internet — and how we do business writ large — is another.
End the Self-Lobotomization of Congress
Michael Stecher
Earlier this month, Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that proposed a series of changes to the nature of the Senate. According to Senator Sasse, the U.S. Senate, formerly the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body” has become too weak and ceded too much power to the Executive Branch — and he is right about that. A point-by-point critique of his recommendations is not necessary and some of the problems he notes are very real: anyone who has watched even a handful of Congressional hearings has winced at members that have not done the homework and prefer shouting to listening; members are often better served by feasting upon the proscenium in an empty hall for their social media feeds than engaging in substantive debate.
He fundamentally misidentifies the sources of legislative weakness in policymaking, however. Congress struggles to throw its weight around on defense matters, for example, because they cannot bring enough expertise to the fight. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy has nearly 100 policy and supporting positions on just that one slice of the national security universe. The Senate Armed Services Committee has 47 professional staff members for all of the Committee’s work overseeing the entire military. Our neighbors at New America recently released a report on the human capital trends among staff on Capitol Hill and their findings are alarming.
The total number of staff that can be employed by a personal office in the House of Representatives is set by rule, but as the “permanent campaign” has taken over politics, a growing fraction of those staffers are in district offices rather than Washington. Legislative staffers are covering an increasing number of policy areas, with less time to develop subject matter expertise. Since 1993, the inflation-adjusted pay for staffers has fallen for nearly all positions and the median legislative assistant makes around $35,000 per year. The average legislative staffer has worked on the Hill for only around 3 years and only around a quarter of staffers want to continue working in Congress in their next career move.
One of the report’s conclusions is that “Congress — with its declining pay, demanding expectations, and short job tenure — is subsidizing the lobbying industry. For the most part, working on the Hill is an entry-level position for K Street, rather than a stepping stone for a career in public service.” This reminds me of the stories that Michael Lewis tells in Liar’s Poker about junior analyst training on Wall Street: new hires were considered disposable. Some received no training at all; overworked and underappreciated, they could take their hard-won experience to competitors for a big pay bump. The difference is that in the intervening 30 years, most Wall Street firms have realized that letting the people who know how to do the work leave is a bad strategy. New America finds that there is a relationship between tenure and how well staffers understand their legislative work, and Congressional offices pay higher wages for more experienced staffers, but only on average around $9,000 per year for an additional 2.5 years of experience.
Last week in this column, I wrote about a little-noticed report from an obscure subcommittee attached to a poorly understood regulatory agency that advocated for focusing the Congress’s attention on the most important factor that is limiting the U.S. capital markets from participating in efforts to address climate change: the lack of a price on carbon. I was surprised in my research to find that the Business Roundtable had a similar idea. Business Roundtable is a heavy hitter in Washington: its chairman is the CEO of Walmart; and its president was White House Chief of Staff and Director of the Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush. It is not an organization that we would normally associate with the Green movement or the political left.
It is also an organization with serious policy chops: their lead for climate change was previously Senator Lamar Alexander’s chief of staff. The honest truth is that someone like that can probably better influence legislative outcomes from Business Roundtable than from a Senate office. There have been 11 proposals for “market-based approaches to pricing carbon” in the fashion that Business Roundtable might support in the 116th Congress, none of them got any traction. A proposal backed by Business Roundtable and the organization’s close relationships on both sides of the aisle would almost certainly have more legs. A similar story could be told about data privacy rules, where Congress has not taken up the torch despite unsubtle cajoling from industry.
Individual Congressional offices differ, but in the aggregate this is how Congress has gone from a maker of new policy ideas to a taker. This is not all bad; there is always going to be more expertise in the policymaking world than sits in any committee or personal office — that is, for example, why think tanks like ours exist — but this has gone too far. On too many critical issues, Congress gets ideas from outside groups to make laws that are only implemented through administrative rulemaking in the Executive Branch. Even in questions of war and peace, Congress has ceded the field.
Just yesterday, the House Select Committee on Modernization of Congress announced recommendations to boost Congressional capacity by, among other things, centralizing training for staffers and rethinking (read: increasing) how staffers are paid. U.S. political culture, however, is very opposed to increasing pay for Congress. James Madison proposed an amendment that forbade Congress from raising its compensation until an election had intervened — giving voters the opportunity to vote out those self-dealing bums. This amendment (the 27th) was ratified in 1992, right around the time when Congress began systematically reducing its own brainspace.
Many voters already think that working in Congress, either as a member or staff, is a plum gig. That is a big reason term limits, as Senator Sasse suggests, are so popular. They are wrong and term limits would only cause the power of outside groups and the Executive Branch to increase further relative to Congress. Governance by administrative rule-making and executive order sounds a lot more like an administrative electoral monarchy than a constitutional republic. Nothing is stopping Congress from acting to arrest this slide in the 117th Congress, as long as the Speaker and Minority Leader, whoever they are, are willing to work together to serve their joint institutional interests, rather than their separate electoral ones.
Russian Electoral Interference & Kremlinology
Joshua Huminski
In an unsurprising development, a Central Intelligence Agency assessment states that Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, is likely continued to approve and direct interference and disinformation operations in advance of the 2020 presidential election. The assessment, released in support of sanctions against Andriy Derkach, a pro-Kremlin Ukrainian lawmaker, is the latest disclosure about Russia’s activities.
According to Washington Post sources, the assessment states “We assess that President Vladimir Putin and the senior most Russian officials are aware of and probably directing Russia’s influence operations aimed at denigrating the former U.S. Vice President, supporting the U.S. president and fueling public discord ahead of the U.S. election in November.”
The CIA analysis has “moderate” confidence, which is a lower degree than accompanied the 2016 assessment. This likely reflects the absence of either multiple sourcing, electronic intercepts, or other corroboration. It should be noted that in advance of the 2016 election, the CIA exfiltrated an agent, allegedly close to Putin’s inner circle, who had been providing intelligence on the president’s electoral interference and other matters.
According to the Department of the Treasury, Derkach is accused of being “an active Russian agent for over a decade”, having released “edited audiotapes” and “unsubstantiated allegations against U.S. and international political figures.” Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin said that Derkach and other Russian agents “employ manipulation and deceit to attempt to influence elections in the United States and elsewhere around the world.” He added, “The United States will continue to use all the tools at its disposal to counter these Russian disinformation campaigns and uphold the integrity of our election system.”
The Department of the Treasury also added new sanctions against Yevgeniy Prigozhin, one of Putin’s inner circle and the financier behind the Internet Research Agency, one of the lead entities involved in 2016’s social media manipulation campaign. According to Secretary Mnuchin, “Yevgeniy Prigozhin has an international network of supporters to spread his malign political and economic influence around the globe.”
The Intelligence Community is much more vocal in advance of the 2020 election than it was prior to 2016 about foreign election interference. In August of this year National Counterintelligence and Security Center director, William Evanina, released a statement detailing not only Russia’s attempts to interference in the election, but also efforts by Iran and China, along with their nominal preference for electoral outcomes.
While it is both evocative and amusing to picture Putin chairing a strategic communications meeting and determining messages, branding, and what hashtags to use, it is unlikely to be the case. Certainly, as noted by the CIA assessment, Putin has made his desired outcome clear, has directed the intelligence and information apparatuses (both official and otherwise) to act, but the ecosystem that is Russia’s bureaucracy is not running everything through the Kremlin.
The fragmented system of Russia’s bureaucracy ensures that agencies, ministries, and groups are competing against one another in service of Putin and his inner circle. RT, Russia’s state-owned “news” outlet almost certainly takes guidance from the top, but exercises its own editorial independence in that messaging. The Internet Research Agency, as well, takes its marching orders, but is autonomous in its selection of messaging and strategy.
This competition results in an increasingly cloudy and murky information space. Sorting the wheat from the chaff becomes more difficult as the noise levels increase. This is currently the case with the poisoning of Alexei Navalny and has been the case with previous incidents. Apologists for the Kremlin are trafficking in alternative theories on his poisoning: if Novichok is so poisoning, why isn’t he dead? How could the perpetrators have known where he was staying? Why did they leave the water bottles behind? Surely the GRU or whomever couldn’t have been that incompetent? It was a German plot or the Americans were behind his poisoning.
This is merely a rehashing of the tactics around the downing of MH-17. According to Russian propaganda the Ukrainians shot down the passenger jet from the ground, or from the air, or provided the surface-to-air missiles to the separatists, or any other number of possible scenarios. The goal of all this noise is to drown out the truth, muddy the waters, and deflect from the actual facts on-the-ground.
Putin — who was recently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize — is almost certainly directing the electoral interference in the sense that he has a desired outcome: a weakened United States, a fragmented NATO and European Union, and the creation of space for Russia’s interests. How that is put into practice is the task of the sycophants, bureaucrats, and ministers all of whom are vying for his favor, to protect their position, or ensure their rise within the kleptocratic system. The end result is, ultimately, the same. Russian interference in America’s elections.
The nuance does, however, matter. Seeing Moscow as a monolithic actor under Vladimir Putin obfuscates the nuance and complexity of the Kremlin, and masks opportunities for exploitation. Washington also risks seeing Russian perfidy behind every tree and ignoring other actors like Iran and China.
The United States must be on guard for foreign interference and work to build a more information resilient society, but it must not do Moscow’s work for it — seeing and appreciating the complex landscape, understanding how Russia operates, and preparing accordingly is a far better strategy than hyperbolic overreaction.
Manning Littoral Warfare
Ethan Brown
Strategic force projection relies on three key principles, coincidentally those same principles make up the components of an effective tactical assault plan: speed, surprise, and violence of action. Of course, when we consider the force application prism from a literal perspective, the Indo-Pacific theater challenges all of those precepts. The distances are extreme, reducing speed, adversarial bubbles proliferate, which render surprise unlikely, and the potential for violent action may not get a chance to force the issue of direct, decisive conflict.
The operational environment of the south Pacific makes for difficult deterrence, to say the least. Moving beyond a strategy of prevention, and in favor of the counterpunch, the Marines have announced plans to restructure their infantry for the purpose of countering Chinese aggression in the region. This reorganization of its infantry forces will better prepare for a dynamic and contested battlefield, along the thousands of island chains across the region. This continues the doctrinal shift exhibited by Gen. David Berger’s efforts earlier this year when the Corps moved to nearly eliminate its heavy armor and heavy rotary-wing lift packages from the inventory.
This “Littoral Regiment” will be genetically similar to the existing Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF), which by doctrine is a consolidated maneuver force composed of assault, logistical, command & control, and offensive capabilities. The MAGTF operates from a flotilla based around the present inventory of U.S. aircraft carriers. However, the Littoral Regiment construct will be exclusively beholden to the Pacific theater, vice a modular global force. The Corps aims to create three such regiments, with one based in Guam, and two based out of Japan. Each Regiment is expected to incorporate multiple support battalions (including logistics and air defense) in order to create a self-contained theater fighting unit.
This space has previously covered how the U.S. Navy plans to implement a fleet of vessels capable of self-sustaining, “if it floats, it fights” doctrine; navies drift further and further from the Alfred Thayer Mahan archetype of maritime force composition as the . In short- the idea is to create a flotilla of small, Light Amphibious Warships with a self-contained amphibious assault force, consolidated offensive and defensive firepower, and the extreme of decentralization, a foundational tenet of U.S. military doctrine.
This concept of a Littoral Regiment doesn’t work if the Navy doesn’t provide the ride, to paraphrase “A Few Good Men”, which means those LAWs. Thus, the initiative to recreate a Naval fleet that exists somewhere between blue and brown water takes on a new level of critical need for the DoD. Simply, the MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit, a GWOT organizational combat team) of yesteryear tucked away in those big aircraft carriers won’t be much good in a confrontation with PLA defenders, defended in zone on an artificial island, ensconced in the protective bubble of Anti-Access/Area Denial methodology.
Returning to those doctrinal principles of Speed, Surprise and Violence of action, a new Littoral Regiment would be a fully consolidated fighting force, capable of performing traditional roles entrenched in the Marines DNA: amphibious beachhead assault, establishing/securing a defensive perimeter, and augmenting itself with offensive firepower in the form of F-35B USMC and USN aircraft. Incorporating logistics and Air Defense battalions would ensure that the Marine Littoral Regiment (MLR) on the lonely atoll or island would be capable of self-sustainment for the short term.
Copacetically, the LAWs themselves would be equipped with advanced radar, self-defense, and offensive weapons capable of defeating a PLA Navy defense, or deterring a counter-assault. Since these LAWs and their integrated MLR are roughly ¼ of the total tonnage of a current amphibious assault fleet (Gerald R. Ford-class supercarrier, amphibious assault platform, logistics carrier and its flotilla of escort destroyers and missile frigates), the Navy and Marine Corps indeed appear to be building a faster, lighter, more lethal force. With the understated rapidity of the LAWs maneuverability and deployment, as well as a unilateral regiment-sized force under its own command & control architecture (integrated with the LAW via JADC2/ABMS), the MLR potentially solves the Speed and Surprise challenges. And no living soul in their right mind will ever doubt the ferocity of the United States Marines, ipso facto- Violence of Action.
For initial strategic posturing, the Marines appear to be concentrating on the artificial islands crafted at the behest of the PLA’s encirclement strategy, one which aims to reduce the offensive superiority of U.S. firepower and create a massive denied environment. The ability of the LAWs platform (and particularly, the aim to produce a lot of them) offers strategic flexibility the likes of which the DoD has never had in its conventional forces (special operations are their own category of global response). By creating a unified fighting force enabled by its own support components, augmented by advanced firepower, the MLR is well suited to fighting a low-tech, compartmentalized fight, even against a technologically superior force in their own backyard. That is the mindset needed to succeed in a GPC environment where the adversary is every bit as capable as U.S. forces.
Atolls and artificial islands are one thing, but the elephant in the room that the Marine Corps press release doesn’t specifically identify is Taiwan, a crucial partner in the South China Sea. The island sits a mere 87.13 miles straight line distance from the Chinese port of Quanzhou, a potential staging area for PLA forces in the event of violent reunification. Taiwan rests deep inside A2/AD coverage from the Chinese mainland, so in the stark inevitability of conflict — Speed, Surprise and Violence of Action are without a doubt pivotal rules to employ, hence the Marine Littoral Regiment.
The Geopolitical Firestorm in the Eastern Mediterranean: Solutions in sight?
Maria Hatzisavvas Damsgaard
In recent months, the simmering tensions between ancient rivals Greece and Turkey have heated up. With martial rhetoric and a pronounced uptick in military presence by both countries in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, tensions have reached heights not seen since the 1974 crisis, which included both a military coup in Greece and an invasion of the predominantly ethnically Greek Republic of Cyprus by Turkey. The dispute is multifaceted: a longstanding controversy over the Republic of Cyprus; the side-effects of the wars in Libya and Syria; the ongoing refugee crisis; maritime claims around Greek islands in the Aegean Sea; and natural gas reserves in the eastern Mediterranean — to name a few. While Greece and Turkey have agreed to resume talks on resolving disputes in EU and NATO forums, the political and military tensions between two NATO members is a major cause for concern.
In May 2019, Turkey sent an oil-and-gas drilling ship to the northern coast of Cyprus to carry out seismic surveys and exploratory drilling. Turkey justified the action by claiming that the territorial waters of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus — a quasi-state established after the 1974 invasion that is only recognized by Turkey, the rest of the international community considers it occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus — entitles Turkey to the economic benefits of any gas finds around the island. Besides its claims for energy exploration, Turkey also claims that Greece’s historic maritime borders are distorted by small Greek islands in the Aegean Sea, including Lesbos, Chios, Kos, Rhodes, Chastellorizo and Samos, that should not have the same maritime rights in international law as countries with vast coastlines. This is also at odds with commonly accepted international law under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which Turkey has not ratified.
The Republic of Cyprus and the European Union were quick to condemn the Turkish move as illegal in 2019, and the EU came to Greece’s defense in the Aegean, responding by reducing economic assistance to Turkey, calling for the European Investment Bank (EIB) to review its lending to Turkey, and suspending high-level bilateral talks. Yet despite EU sanctions, the Turkish foreign ministry promised to continue with drilling, which it did. Why would Turkey contest Greek maritime borders? During the past decade, Turkey’s economy grew substantially, with annual growth rates averaging around 5%; the bigger the economy, the bigger the energy bill. A central concern for Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is that his country is not self-sufficient in energy and is greatly dependent on importing oil and gas from Russia, Azerbaijan, and Iran. Following a Turkish lira currency crisis in 2018, the current coronavirus pandemic has put Turkey in the midst of a deteriorating economic situation, putting even more pressure on Erdoğan, who, polling shows, is losing political ground domestically.
Erdoğan’s solution? The great wealth underneath the seabed of the eastern Mediterranean, which includes major deposits of hydrocarbons, offshore gas and other natural riches. One such field, the Aphrodite gas field south of Cyprus, is estimated to have over 1,600 million barrels of oil and around 129 billion cubic meters of natural gas, valuing the field at well over $9 billion. This field, as well as other lucrative resources in the eastern Mediterranean, are now becoming an international flashpoint. In August 2020, Greek and Turkish warships collided in an area south of Cyprus. France, whose relationship with Turkey is already strained after Turkey sent 3,500 paid Syrian fighters to Libya to salvage the Tripoli-based government, dispatched its own naval force in support of Greece — right after Greece purchased 18 Rafale combat aircrafts from France, of course. In a move described by the Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis as “abandoning decades of passive foreign policy,” Greece has now begun to extend its legal United National Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) claim from to 12 nautical miles along its Italy-facing coastline; a legal action following a June 2020 agreement with Italy on maritime boundaries in the Ionian Sea, and the August 2020 agreement with Egypt designating an EEZ in the eastern Mediterranean.
While the disagreements in the eastern Mediteranean are seemingly of energy reserves and delimiting maritime zones, the dispute between Greece and Turkey is far from new. The Turkish-led Ottoman Empire controlled Greece for nearly 500 years before its independence in the 19th Century. Greece was awarded substantial territory from Turkey in the peace treaties after the First World War, only to lose it during the Turkish War of Independence. Until the 1920s, there were substantial populations of Greeks in Turkey and Turks in Greece. The Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church remains in Istanbul, where the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great installed his predecessor in 330 CE, and nationalist Greeks still dream of Constantiople. In recent decades, the UN and the EU have been the peacemakers of this historic dispute, and both are members of NATO.
The two sides nearly came to blows in 1996 when a dispute over uninhabited land features — whether they are “islands” or “rocks” under international law is part of the issue between the parties — in the Aegean. Navy vessels rushed to the scene and commandos were landed in the area and Turkish forces on Cyprus were mobilized. Forceful U.S. diplomacy by President Bill Clinton and Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke are generally credited with preventing a war.
Turkey still has some big trump cards that make it possible for President Erdoğan to continue to act aggressively. The first is the EU “open-the-gates” card. Turkey hosts the world’s largest refugee population, with about 4 million refugees and asylum seekers, mostly from Syria. The EU has a deal with President Erdoğan to manage the flow on asylum seekers coming into Europe. If Erdogan wants to raise the temperature in Brussels, he can threaten to open the gates and let some of those refugees flow into Europe, just as he did earlier this year. The second trump card is one relating to the United States. In spite of Secretary Pompeo’s visit to Cyprus earlier this month, the United States is the dog that has not barked in this geopolitical clash. US-Turkey relations have deteriorated over the past 5 years, swaying away from the countries’ firm alignment during the Cold War, the latest nadir marked by Turkey’s acquisition of the Russian S-400 missile system in 2019. Turkey, however, still hosts a critical U.S. air base in Incirlik, close to the Syrian border, which is critical to U.S. power projection in the region and reportedly houses around 50 nuclear free-fall bombs.
All the stakeholders are looking for a way towards de-escalation, but talks to address the underlying political tensions between Greece and Turkey are lacking a viable forum. Who should be coordinating these talks? NATO is a consensus-based organization that considers both countries equal members, but may not have a sufficiently strong hand to play. The European Union, which only includes Greece, still fears 4 million refugees. The UN has never played much of a role in the region. The United States is missing in action; Secretary Pompeo is returning to southeastern Europe this weekend, but the dispute does not appear to be on the agenda. Without mediation, this will be a much more dangerous issue to resolve.
News You May Have Missed
Trump Attacks China over Pandemic in Pre-Recorded U.N. General Assembly Speech
Eric Dai
In a pre-recorded speech delivered to the 75th annual U.N. General Assembly, which began on Monday, President Trump demanded that the international community hold China accountable for its role in the COVID-19 pandemic, repeatedly calling COVID-19 the “China virus” and attacking China as “the nation which unleashed this plague onto the world.” Trump’s speech was followed by a message from Chinese president Xi Jinping, who praised his country for its measures in controlling the virus and warned against politicizing the issue of the pandemic. The two speeches, a symbol of the growing divide between the United States and China, highlighted the diplomatic tensions created by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Investigation into FinCEN Files Exposes $2 Trillion in Potentially Dirty Transactions
Thomas Triedman
An investigation by BuzzFeed News and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists exposed how prominent banks have enabled the widespread flow of dirty money throughout the financial system. The flagged transactions were reported in Suspicious Activity Reports filed by banks and sent to law enforcement; applicable privacy laws prevent banks from providing more details. The report brings to the fore a lack of private- and public-sector collaboration, and inspires a reexamination of current anti-financial crime regulations.
Hackers Release Personal Data of 1,000 High-Ranking Belarusian Police Officials
Thomas Triedman
Violent protests in Belarus have turned cyber as a group of hackers released the personal data of 1,000 upper-level members of the Belarusian police force, which has repressed anti-government protesters in an effort to keep Lukashenko in power. The hack potentially marks a transition from traditional mass protests to more radical and revolutionary behavior — in this case, the naming-and-shaming of the perceived elite.
Bloomberg Raises $16M to Cover Felon Debts in Florida
Oscar Bellsolell
Two weeks ago, an 11th Circuit Appeals Court ruling declared constitutional a law requiring people with felony convictions to pay fines and debts before being able to register to vote. This week, Michael Bloomberg has announced he has raised $16 million to pay off debts related to criminal convictions of Floridians. While Bloomberg’s initiative could benefit 32,000 people in the state, an estimated total of 775,000 people in Florida who have served prison time for felonies owe fees or fines and are not eligible to vote. Florida’s AG has requested authorities to further investigate the matter.
Blair House Airs Netanyahu’s Dirty Laundry
The college student who comes home for Thanksgiving break with weeks’ of dirty laundry is a common trope: mom does it better and freer than the laundry machines in the dorm. Blair House, the official guest house across the street from the White House, also apparently does laundry better and freer than the official residence of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. “Actual suitcases of dirty laundry for us to clean …. After multiple trips, it became clear this was intentional,” according to a U.S. official quoted in the Washington Post. The corruption accusations that Netanyahu is facing in Israel come down to his alleged penchant for misusing government resources for personal gain, so this may not be exactly out of character. Either that or the dryers are just better in downtown Washington.
The views of authors are their own and not that of CSPC.