Foreign Policy Update – USA Gov Policy

AFGHANISTAN

The question of how to end the war in Afghanistan has troubled American policymakers for more than a decade. Extensive talks in the past yielded few lasting results. Yet, the United States persevered and it appears an end may be in sight. The goal of recent talks has centered on facilitating a political settlement to end the war in Afghanistan, reduce United States and Allied Forces presence, and ensure that no terrorist group ever uses Afghan soil to threaten the United States or our allies.

According to a statement released by US Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, “In recent weeks, in consultation with the Government of National Unity, U.S. negotiators in Doha have come to an understanding with the Taliban on a significant and nationwide reduction in violence across Afghanistan. Upon a successful implementation of this understanding, signing of the U.S.-Taliban agreement is expected to move forward.”

The US is prepared for the signing to take place on February 29. The Secretary reports that the intra-Afghan negotiations will start soon thereafter, and “will build on this fundamental step to deliver a comprehensive and permanent ceasefire and the future political roadmap for Afghanistan.” Throughout the negotiations the US position has been that the only way to achieve a sustainable peace in Afghanistan is for Afghans to come together and agree on the way forward. Although the State Department acknowledges that challenges remain, Pompeo believes this represents a real opportunity for peace.

IRAN

There are many stages of dispute a country can go through before a war breaks out. One of those, diplomatic negotiations, is often called “war by other means.” Another instrument to avoid war is “sanctioning.” In the case of Iran it appears the US Government is determined to avoid war and accept a slower process to peace to avoid open conflict and the associated devastation that is inevitable by sanctioning responsible parties in the Iran conflict.

On Friday, February 21, 2020, the United States sanctioned five members of Iran’s Guardian Council and its Elections Supervision Committee who have played a role in denying Iranians their right to free and fair elections. This includes Ahmad Jannati, the Secretary of the Guardian Council, who has in the past praised the killing of political dissidents and previously called on Iranian authorities to execute even more of them.

In advance of Iran’s upcoming parliamentary elections on February 21, the Guardian Council blocked more than 7,000 candidates from even running, according to the US State Department. “Many were Iranians who questioned the Supreme Leader’s policies. This process is a sham. It is not free or fair,” noted the statement.

In case a man is afflicted with this disorder, exposure to cold can cause spasm related to the smaller arteries which are responsible for blood circulation viagra tablets for women to fingers, toes and other parts of the body. Really can’t wait to watch Fullmetal Alchemist Cosplay at the thrilling day, huh? The brand new Birmingham Comic Con will run alongside the you can check here free viagra sample long-established Memorabilia show at the NEC. Hundreds of thousands of men around the world rate davidfraymusic.com online pharmacy sildenafil and that a vast majority are insistent on levitra. generic viagra 100mg It can reduce erectile dysfunction like nothing.

Brian Hook, Special Representative for Iran and Senior Advisor to the Secretary, pointed out “…now that Iran has violated the nuclear deal, I think five times now, that caused the Europeans to invoke the dispute resolution mechanism, there isn’t much left of the deal to preserve. It’s going to start expiring in October, and the regime has violated it many times. We’re enjoying some very good success with our foreign policy, denying the regime the money that it needs to fund its proxies at the levels that they’re accustomed to and to fund its own operations.”

RUSSIA

The US this week called out Russia for conducting cyber warfare against the country of Georgia. Cyberwarfare remains a major tool in the Russian arsenal. The leadership in Moscow uses it at will to do damage to its enemies and to those simply opposing the Russian Federation’s policies. The GRU, whose mandate is to protect Russia from attack by those outside the country, conducted the October 28, 2019, cyber attack against Georgia. The Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) Main Center for Special Technologies (GTsST, also known as Unit 74455 and Sandworm) was responsible, according to the State Department.

The attack disrupted operations of several thousand Georgian government and privately-run websites and interrupted the broadcast of at least two major television stations. Washington charged that this type of warfare “contradicts Russia’s attempts to claim it is a responsible actor in cyberspace and demonstrates a continuing pattern of reckless Russian GRU cyber operations against a number of countries.” According to the State Department, these operations aim to sow division, create insecurity, and undermine democratic institutions.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.