Suchergebnisse

An open letter released Wednesday signed by more than 100 veterans of the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, ex-military officers, and former Republican lawmakers and activists called for fellow conservatives and congressional Republicans to support increased military aid to Ukraine and criticized President Biden for "seem[ing] more concerned about the prospects of a Russian defeat than of a Russian victory."The letter, initiated by the "nonpartisan" Vandenberg Coalition, a "network" of hawkish foreign policy think tankers and former officials convened by long-time neo-conservative Elliott Abrams, was directed primarily at "conservative" lawmakers and their constituents who have appeared increasingly resistant to providing more aid to Kyiv."Abandoning America's friends while they are falling victim to aggression is a pattern associated with the American left, from Vietnam to Afghanistan," according to the letter."Conservatives should not be rushing to lock arms with progressive isolationists. The security of Asia and of Europe are linked, which is why the elected leaders of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia have all sent aid to Ukraine. We support urgent, robust additional American aid to Ukraine," it concluded.Published in The National Review, the letter comes in the immediate aftermath of "the House GOP's decision not to include further funding to support Kyiv and its war effort" in the stopgap government funding bill that was passed last weekend and the ouster of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who had allegedly quietly agreed with the Biden administration to push for additional funding for Ukraine in the coming weeks.According to a September 7-18 poll released Tuesday by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll, about 50% of self-identified Republicans nationwide support continued military aid to Ukraine, while 45% or Republican respondents said the aid to date "has not been worth the cost." Overall, Republican respondents were significantly more skeptical of U.S. support for Ukraine than self-identified Democrats or independents.The Vandenberg Coalition was created by Abrams — who served as "special representative" for both Venezuela and Iran under Trump and deputy national security adviser with particular responsibility for Middle East policy under Bush — in April, 2021 with the evident intention of reuniting predominantly neoconservative "Never Trumpers" with other hawkish Republicans who had served under or otherwise supported the former president behind a policy of confrontation with Russia, China, Iran, and other perceived U.S. adversaries. The initiative took its name from Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, a conservative Michigan Republican who, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, worked with the Truman administration to gain congressional backing for the Marshall Plan and NATO after World War II.The Coalition appears to model itself in part on the Project for the New American Century (1997-2006) and its successor, the Foreign Policy Initiative (2009-2017), as a mainly neoconservative network for hawks of various ideological backgrounds, including primacists, aggressive nationalists, such as Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton and prominent leaders of the Christian Right, to exchange information and analysis and publish "open letters" signed by dozens of former senior national security officials, retired military brass, Republican lawmakers, and analysts from various think tanks.In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, PNAC's letters and their signatories based in key think tanks — notably the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Hudson Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Foundation for Defending of Democracies (FDD), and the Center for Security Policy — played key roles in building public and elite support for the Bush administration's "war on terror," especially in the Middle East.The new Vandenberg letter appears to follow that playbook, although it is directed more at "conservatives" and Republicans rather than a more general audience.Among the more than 100 signatories, many of whom were identified by their former official positions in the Bush and Trump administrations rather than their past or current non-governmental affiliations, a number of individuals based at several of the same think tanks that played such a prominent role in promoting the Iraq war, including Danielle Pletka, Gary Schmitt, and Michael Rubin at AEI; Clifford May and at FDD, and Kenneth Weinstein at Hudson, not to mention Abrams himself, who is currently based at the Council on Foreign Relations, stood out.Remarkably, the list also included Randy Scheunemann, who directed the high-powered White House-sponsored Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in the run-up to the war at the same time that he headed a public relations and lobbying firm that promoted Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, a major source of fabricated intelligence and disinformation that the Bush administration used to rally public opinion in favor of the invasion.In the letter, its signatories stressed the likelihood of disastrous outcomes across the world if Ukraine did not receive more U.S. military assistance and stressed that Kyiv is "not asking for American troops, only American weapons and equipment.""Efforts to stop our aid to Ukraine could lead to a Russian battlefield victory, with catastrophic effects for American security," it warned. "Putin would eye the next stage of the Russian empire's restoration, and China would have a green light to take Taiwan."The Coalition has published two other letters signed by multiple individuals. In February 2022, it published an open letter signed by more than three dozen mainly neoconservative former Bush administration officials and think tankers that called a major Amnesty International report that concluded that Israel was practicing a form of apartheid in its treatment of Palestinians "untruthful, deceptive, and antisemitic."In January, it published a letter directed to the "editors, authors, and contributors to major scientific, medical and journalistic publications worldwide" that called for "accountability for those scientific and news publications that actively sought to censor voices investigating the origins of COVID-19."The Coalition's most recent letter and its focus on "conservative" reservations about supporting Ukraine recalls to some extent a 1996 Foreign Affairs article, "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," by leading neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan who were concerned that conservatives would be unable to "resist the combined assault of [then-presidential candidate Pat] Buchanan's 'isolationism of the heart" and the Republican budget hawks on Capitol Hill." The article argued in favor of a U.S. foreign policy designed to maintain a "benevolent global hegemony."One year later, the two authors jointly founded PNAC with a Statement of Principles signed by, among others, key architects of the Iraq invasion and its aftermath, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Abrams.

Parallel efforts in the House and Senate hoping to find a short-term funding solution have advanced at a snail's pace this week, and it continues to look likely that no agreement will be struck and the federal government will shutdown on October 1. Central to the major battles being fought right now between and within both chambers is the future of Ukraine aid. While majorities in both the House and Senate still support both humanitarian and weapons assistance to Kyiv, an increasing number of Republicans have expressed skepticism or flat-out oppose additional funding beyond the $113 billion allocated by Washington last year. A few have vowed to reject any government funding measures that include more aid or have pushed to attach more conditions to future support. In the latest in a series of flip-flops in recent weeks, House Republican leadership decided late on Wednesday night to remove $300 million in security assistance for Ukraine from the Defense Appropriations bill, and will vote on the aid separately, according to reporting from Juliegrace Brufke. The Senate, which has been more generally more supportive of President Joe Biden's $24 billion emergency supplemental request for Ukraine, has put forward a proposal for a continuing resolution containing $6 billion in funding for Ukraine (coming up short of Biden's ask). The trimming down of aid is likely an effort to placate skeptical Republicans. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), for example, has pledged "to do everything in [his] power to block a bill that includes funding for Ukraine," and he will likely use procedural tools that can delay the resolution from arriving on the House floor until the weekend, all but ensuring a shutdown. Even if the stopgap measure does eventually make its way through the Senate, it is likely dead on arrival in the House. "I don't see the support in the House," Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said on Wednesday. The Speaker reportedly told Sen. Mitch McConnell, the GOP leader in the Senate, that he would not bring a bill to the House floor that funded Ukraine while ignoring problems at the United States' southern border. McCarthy's apparent refusal to entertain the Senate proposal continues his back-and-forth stance on how to handle further aid for Kyiv. The Speaker is in a tricky political situation, balancing a desire to avoid a shutdown with the fear that he will face a "motion to vacate" — in which one member could force a vote on removing him from his job — if he ignores his right flank's demands. As a result, he has continued to be ambiguous on his own stance on aid to Ukraine. After turning down both the Biden administration's offer to hold a briefing with various high-level officials on the status of the war, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's request to address a joint session of Congress during his visit to Washington last week, McCarthy met with Zelensky in a smaller, private group. His brief comments following the meeting suggested that it was a productive one.But a few hours later, Jake Sherman of Punchbowl News posted on X that House Republicans were "considering removing any Ukraine-related funding from the Pentagon spending bill in order to attract GOP holdouts." On Saturday, the Speaker had again reversed course, saying that removing the funding was "too difficult" to do, and that it would therefore stay in, before changing his mind once more on Wednesday. The Ukraine-related funding in the DoD spending bill amounts to approximately $300 million, part of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). An amendment to the bill that would have removed this money, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), was defeated 104-330, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans.It is now unclear if McCarthy, who controls a very narrow majority, can get spending bills that contain any money for Kyiv through the House. After two failed attempts, House Republicans finally managed to vote to approve the rule that will allow them to begin debate on their defense appropriations bill (along with three other single-subject spending bills). The only dissenting GOP vote on the defense appropriations rule was from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who argued that "voting yes means more money for Ukraine." Once the rule was approved, Greene posted on X that she was "the ONLY Republican to vote NO on the rule yesterday that contained appropriation bills with unlimited funds for Ukraine." Other Republicans who voted in favor of the rule may try to strip any Ukraine funding from the legislation (as Rep. Matt Gaetz has already attempted, through the amendment process) or eventually vote against the spending bill. Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) posted a video on X over the weekend, saying "people all over the country are tired of funding never-ending wars." Appearing on Washington Journal on Friday, Biggs said that he would continue to oppose more aid, since "there is no exit plan," out of this conflict.Greene told Cami Mondeaux of the Washington Examiner that the defense spending bill was "dead on arrival" when it gets a vote on the House floor, because there are enough Republican members opposed specifically to Ukraine funding. It appears she was correct, as GOP leadership's decision on Wednesday indicates that they knew that there were not enough votes for the spending bill to pass. Greene, Crane, and Biggs are three of the 29 Republican members of Congress (six Senators and 23 House representatives) who signed a letter last week arguing that "The American people deserve to know what their money has gone to. How is the counteroffensive going? Are the Ukrainians any closer to victory than they were 6 months ago? What is our strategy, and what is the president's exit plan? What does the administration define as victory in Ukraine?"Until those questions were answered, the signers pledged to oppose any future expenditures for the war. "It would be an absurd abdication of congressional responsibility to grant this request without knowing the answers to these questions," they wrote. Twenty-nine members represents a small total of the GOP caucus (though earlier measures making similar demands have garnered more support). As a recent story in Semafor points out, this dynamic puts a majority of Republicans in Congress at odds with their constituents. "Among the GOP base, skepticism of U.S. involvement in the conflict runs deep," reports Semafor. "Fifty-nine percent of Republicans say the U.S. is doing too much to help Kyiv, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released over the weekend, similar to earlier results from Gallup and CNN." Republicans in Congress are slowly shifting in that direction. Gaetz's first attempt to prohibit security assistance for Ukraine had 70 Republicans voting in favor. A similar amendment introduced by Gaetz on Wednesday received 93 votes. If congressional leadership can find a way to break the logjam on other parts of the government funding debate, it's possible that bipartisan and bicameral support for new Ukraine monies will stream forward in future legislation. But the tumultuous events of the last few weeks show that the political pressure in the Republican caucus is moving against future funding, that debates over Ukraine are becoming increasingly thorny, and that the issue will remain central to political disputes for the foreseeable future.

UPDATE 12/6/23, 5:30 p.m. : The Senate fails to approve the supplemental package by a vote of 49-51.President Joe Biden implored the Senate to vote in favor of his proposed supplemental package, saying that "history is going to judge harshly those who turn their back on freedom's cause," during remarks delivered in advance of an expected vote on the legislation later on Wednesday.The $106 billion spending bill includes funds for Israel and the Asia-Pacific, but Biden's nine-minute speech was almost entirely dedicated to the imperative of supporting Ukraine in their war effort. The supplemental contains approximately $61 billion in aid for Kyiv. "Congress needs to pass supplemental funding for Ukraine before they break for the holiday recess," Biden said. "It's as simple as that." His administration earlier this week urged Congressional leaders to pass this bill, telling them that the Pentagon was close to exhausting all of the funds that had been allocated to Kyiv. Biden spent much of his remarks criticizing members of the Republican Party who have soured on giving more aid to Ukraine, and who have insisted that Democrats acquiesce to their demands on border security policy in exchange for their support for the supplemental. "Extreme Republicans are playing chicken with our national security, holding Ukraine's funding hostage to their extreme partisan border policies," the president said, calling the cessation of U.S. support "the greatest gift [Russian President Vladimir Putin] could hope for." But Biden did not address many of the concerns that Republicans have raised about continuing aid to Ukraine, concerns that were reiterated in a statement that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) made earlier this week, which read, in part: "The Biden administration has failed to substantively address any of my conference's legitimate concerns about the lack of a clear strategy in Ukraine, a path to resolving the conflict, or a plan for adequately ensuring accountability for aid provided by American taxpayers.""Part of winning approval from Congressional doubters on Ukraine is to present a viable strategy for ending the war that amounts to more than Biden's vague 'as long as it takes' approach. Biden has not done that," George Beebe, director of Grand Strategy at the Quincy Institute tells RS. "He is not proposing any shift in America's strategy to account for the failure of Ukraine's counteroffensive to break through Russian defenses. Ukraine is simply not going to be able to drive all Russian forces off all Ukrainian land."Biden nonetheless appears determined to stay the course, saying that he is "not prepared to walk away."In Biden's telling, the failure to arm Ukraine would allow Putin to continue to march through Europe — raising the risk of direct confrontation between Washington and Moscow — while also emboldening other would-be aggressors elsewhere. "The entire world is watching," Biden said. Beebe, who has made the case for a shift to a "defensive strategy" for Ukraine, says that the administration's current approach is not sustainable, noting that both Ukraine's reserves of manpower and political patience in Washington and European capitals are dwindling. "We must couple this defensive strategy to a diplomatic offensive aimed at bringing about a stable armistice, because Ukraine is unlikely to weather a long war of attrition with much more populous and militarily capable Russia," Beebe tells RS. "Biden, however, appears to be ruling out any diplomatic compromise, insisting that Putin and Russia must be held accountable for their crimes. Biden's stay-the-course approach is a formula for failure." The Senate is slated to vote on the supplemental package on Wednesday, but the bill is expected to fail, given the lack of progress on border security negotiations. Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn't cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraft so that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2024. Happy Holidays!

Many are seeing the current impasse over the future of U.S. aid to Ukraine as the ultimate manifestation of congressional dysfunction. Following several attempts, the Senate in February passed a $95 billion bill that includes most of the Biden administration's previous requests, minus border funding. That bill sits in limbo in the House, with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who, while signaling he wants a vote on it, has so far been unwilling to bring it to the floor. Last month House Democrats introduced an arcane "motion to discharge" petition, which could allow supporters to bring the bill to a vote if 218 members agree. While 191 have signed the petition, the odds of finding another 27 appear daunting, given the number of progressive Democrats who oppose military assistance for Israel, and opposition by Republicans to bypassing the Speaker.This situation — while distressing to the Ukrainians, and it seems, the foreign policy establishment — presents an opportunity to reestablish some measure of congressional control, if only in a limited area. Members of Congress wary of presidential overreach and endless military intervention can use this delay to push the administration to define its strategy for Ukraine more transparently. Such a definition is essential for Congress, and the voters they represent, to evaluate the total costs, in treasure and risk of escalation, of our current policy.A common task for government bureaucrats is drafting responses to congressional questions for the record sent to their agencies. These QFRs range from in-the-weeds clarifications of budgets to essentially rhetorical questions on why a particular senior administration official is clueless, and everything in between. The best QFRs can cause policymakers to question some of their assumptions. Since the Ukraine war began, the administration's statements have been opaque, often contradictory, and sometimes lacking in elementary logic. We are past the point where the American people deserve straight answers on where this war is going, what our real critical interests are, and how we can best achieve them.Before approving further military assistance for Ukraine, lawmakers should ask, preferably in hearings with administration officials, or at least in detailed letters, a number of overarching questions.The first should be: Can you define what constitutes victory in this war? Does it require Ukraine recapturing all its internationally recognized territory, as President Zelensky and others maintain? Or can victory be defined more simply as preventing the collapse of the current government? What do we mean by providing Ukraine aid "as long as it takes"? The Biden administration should provide actual analysis, based on U.S. national interests, and not simply Ukrainian government talking points.Second, if our definition of victory is the expulsion of all Russian forces from Ukrainian territory, how plausible is that from a military perspective? Can the Biden administration provide a historical example in which a numerically smaller force, without air superiority, successfully attacked a larger force entrenched in strong defensive positions hundreds of miles long, dislodged that force, and inflicted more casualties on the defender than it suffered itself while on the offensive?Next, there has been much speculation about the risks of nuclear escalation, and whether Russian statements are merely aggressive bluffing, with no likelihood such weapons would be used. During the Cold War, wasn't it U.S. doctrine to implicitly threaten to use tactical nuclear weapons, not just to deter the Soviet Union from attacking the US homeland or using nuclear weapons in Europe, but to deter a conventional attack by the Warsaw Pact? If those threats were credible, why would Putin not consider using tactical nuclear weapons if he were facing a conventional defeat in which Ukraine threatened to retake Crimea and the Donbas, areas Russia now considers part of its territory?Fourth, a major talking point has been that a Russian defeat would deter China from attacking Taiwan, and represent a victory for the democratic world over an authoritarian axis. If this is a rationale to keep the war going, wouldn't China take us at our word, and decide that a Russian defeat is an unacceptable red line? Why wouldn't China begin providing munitions, artillery, tanks, and aircraft to Russia to prevent such an outcome?Fifth, in addition to Ukraine's shortage of ammunition and weapons, we increasingly hear about a manpower shortage, and an inability to replace casualties. Despite the battlefield situation, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men remain outside the country or are in Ukraine but making extraordinary efforts to avoid being drafted. Is this due to dissatisfaction with the current government, or a sense that while it was important to save the country in 2022, it's not worth continued fighting to retake Crimea and Donbas, or something else? Regardless of its cause, why should the American taxpayer be more committed to a Ukrainian victory than hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian citizens themselves are?And finally, following Ukraine's unsuccessful counteroffensive last year, Russia is now undertaking limited attacks in several areas, using its superiority in artillery and airpower to wear down Ukrainian defenses. The Biden administration often states that its objective is to give Ukraine as strong a position on the battlefield as possible going into any negotiations. Is it possible that Ukraine is now in the best position militarily that it can reasonably hope for? Is it time for us to urge Ukraine to begin negotiations now, based on realities on the ground, rather than strive for maximum objectives, before it loses any more territory, and its bargaining position is further weakened?***Questions such as these would help start the dialogue on how our policy should evolve. The result may be a security assistance package much smaller than what the administration is proposing. There may be consensus to include, for example, artillery ammunition and shorter range air defense missiles to defend Ukraine's current positions, while excluding longer range munitions and aircraft. Those systems, by allowing strikes inside Russia, might encourage Ukraine to pursue unrealistic victory conditions, reducing the chances for diplomacy.For this approach to succeed, two elements are essential. First, members of Congress must make clear their sympathy for the Ukrainian people and their suffering. The point is not whether Ukraine is justified in seeking the return of its territory — it certainly is. The question is whether this goal is in any way realistic. Since the answer is likely "no," to continue throwing away lives as a performative gesture is immoral as well as pointless. Congress might consider a bill that separates out humanitarian assistance and voting for that now, since those funds are needed regardless of military policy.Second, this approach must be a bipartisan effort, with lawmakers on the left and right working together toward a common goal. So far certain Republicans have been in the lead on this issue, with Democrats lagging behind. More than a year has elapsed since the fiasco in late 2022, when the Congressional Progressive Caucus was forced to retract its already anodyne call for diplomacy. Progressives must overcome their fear of White House displeasure and attack from the Washington foreign policy establishment. People will take notice when similar questions are raised by members of both the Freedom Caucus and "the Squad." Members of Congress who favor endless military intervention have no problem with bipartisan cooperation, and those who think differently need to catch up.With the current effort in the House to act on the Senate's bill, the window is closing to ask tough questions. If Congress is to have any meaningful voice, these issues must be addressed as soon as possible.

The State Department has approved an $80 million military aid package to Taiwan. Though hardly a military game-changer, this modest transfer is unprecedented in its funding source: the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, which is primarily a grant account for military assistance to foreign countries. The transfer, the State Department insists, does not imply the recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign state. "Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and our longstanding One China policy, which has not changed, the United States makes available to Taiwan defense articles and services necessary to enable it to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability," a State Department spokesperson said.Yet the FMF grant follows a consistent pattern of rhetoric and behavior that appears to dilute strategic ambiguity, or the longstanding U.S. policy of deliberately maintaining uncertainty around the question of whether the U.S. would intervene militarily to defend Taiwan from Chinese attack. President Joe Biden explicitly stated, and reaffirmed in response to a clarifying question from 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley, in September 2022 that U.S. forces will fight to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. The ongoing dilution of strategic ambiguity as a credible foreign policy concept, accompanied by a sharp and rapid decline in the overall U.S.-China relationship, raises the specter of military confrontation in the Taiwan Strait. Now more than ever, there is a pressing need to articulate a viable vision not only on Taiwan policy but on the broader issues surrounding the U.S. defense posture in the Asia-Pacific. To unpack the dynamics of the Taiwan conflict and what it means for U.S. strategy, it is worth revisiting an age-old concept of international politics: the security dilemma. The security dilemma, in short, holds that actions taken by states to increase their security can be perceived as threatening by other states, triggering a chain reaction that makes everyone involved less safe. It is a foundational idea in international relations thinking, and for good reason. It speaks to a deeply salient aspect of state behavior, observed over the course of thousands of years from the Peloponnesian War onwards and extensively reproduced in numerous geopolitical contexts. The dilemma has been most clearly and frequently expressed through cases of military buildup. Imagine a scenario in which you, as a leader, have come to believe that your neighbor harbors aggressive intentions toward your country. Your belief may be premised, as these situations so often are, on decades or even centuries of bad blood including real acts of aggression previously committed by your neighbor. So, you resolve to arm yourself to deter and, if need be, repel your neighbor's aggression. But it turns out that you are not the only one driven by such fears. Your neighbor, informed by their own history, interests, and strategic culture, believes something awfully similar about you and concludes that your defensive buildup is a prelude to an attack on them. They might respond with a buildup of their own, thus heightening the risk of miscalculation and catastrophic accident, or by launching a preemptive strike on you. The Taiwan situation is, admittedly, more complex than a simple border buildup crisis between two contiguous powers because it is a maritime conflict centered on a third actor that, despite not being recognized by Washington as a sovereign country, is widely considered key to U.S. regional and global interests. Yet the basic logic outlined by the security dilemma not only still applies but is more relevant than ever to understanding what makes the Taiwan conflict so dangerous and difficult to solve. Taiwan is the geopolitical fulcrum between competing Chinese and U.S. spheres of influence in the Asia-Pacific. Any U.S. effort to impose military costs on a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan, or even to maintain relations with Taipei, will be bemoaned by Beijing as an attempt to "strangle" China and runs the risk of incurring reciprocal Chinese military actions. The security dilemma over Taiwan is, as former Pentagon official and Principal of the Marathon Initiative Elbridge Colby rightly observes, both real and unavoidable, but it need not lead to catastrophe. The dilemma cannot be solved outright, but it can and should be mitigated. Colby and others advocating for a more proactive Asia-Pacific policy are correct in their assessment that the train has left the station when it comes to strategic ambiguity. Chinese strategy is likely already premised on the assumption, increasingly reflected in American foreign policy discourse and military planning, that U.S. forces will directly intervene to defend Taiwan. Strategic ambiguity was a masterstroke of American diplomacy, guaranteeing Taiwan's integrity and advancing U.S. regional interests for over 50 years at exceedingly low cost and with little risk. But the veil has been lifted. The conditions in which strategic ambiguity thrived are not sustainable, not least of all because the Chinese, as the primary audience for which the message of ambiguity was designed, no longer view it as a credible sentiment. The illusion of ambiguity has been dispelled and cannot be recreated in the context of present U.S.-China relations.In thinking about solutions, it is important to highlight that strategic ambiguity and the One China Policy, though historically intertwined, are not and have never been a package deal. It is fully possible to acknowledge Taiwan's vital importance to U.S. interests and to act accordingly without recognizing it as a sovereign country. Recognition would bolster China's pretext for an invasion and massively increase the likelihood of a military showdown over Taiwan. Actions that can be interpreted as a signal that U.S. policymakers are mulling recognition, such as the recent FMF transfer, needlessly risk a disproportionate Chinese response. This is not to suggest that there isn't room for deterrence in the U.S. policy toolkit. Indeed, there is both military and political value in aiding Taiwan with the goal of conveying to Beijing that any attempt at "reunification" through force will be the opposite of quick and painless. But such efforts, while worthwhile, must be accompanied by a coherent and realistic Asia-Pacific strategy that leverages the unique advantages offered by America's regional alliances and balances competition with engagement where appropriate. Our rhetoric and policies on Taiwan should be firm, not bombastic; predictable, not shrill; and guided by concrete material interests, not the promulgation of abstract values. Asia-Pacific is the theater where the configuration of the international order will be decided in coming years and decades. There is no greater strategic challenge confronting American policymakers than to manage the Taiwan crisis in a judicious and forward-looking manner — U.S. global standing hinges on it.

Several members of Congress have created a caucus to support the Mojahedin-e Khalq, an exiled Iranian faction that once fought for Saddam Hussein and was formerly listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. The lawmakers' move comes as the MeK, long accused of cult-like abuses and shadowy foreign ties, faces legal problems in Albania over its Ashraf-3 compound.The MeK announced the creation of the Congressional ASHRAF Protection and Rights Advocacy Caucus in late December, calling it a "bipartisan" group that will be led by Democratic and Republican co-chairs. The current caucus chairman Lance Gooden (R–Texas), and the three other members who have signed on so far are Rep. Paul Gosar (R–Az.), Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R–N.Y.) and Hispanic Caucus chairman Raul Ruiz (D–Calif.).Gooden's legislative director Claire Alden stated that the Organization of Iranian-American Communities, a pro-MeK group, was lobbying Democratic offices to join the caucus. "OIAC is waiting to hear back from several Democrat[ic] members as I understand it," Alden wrote in an email to Responsible Statecraft on January 9.Gooden had sent out a letter on January 8, obtained by Responsible Statecraft, seeking other members of Congress willing "to support the humanitarian and democratic rights of Iranian dissidents living in Ashraf-3, Albania, and worldwide, fighting for regime change and freedom in Iran." It called the MeK "an opposition movement fighting for Iran's liberation from one of the most evil dictatorships of the contemporary era."The creation of a caucus "immediately gives you allies on [Capitol] Hill," says Ben Freeman, director of the Quincy Institute's Democratizing Foreign Policy Program and an expert on foreign lobbying. "They know they've got a receptive ear in Congress. They know that if they email [a caucus member's] office and have a request, at the very least, someone's going to pick up the phone"In addition to the members of Congress, two Trump cabinet officials — former Vice President Mike Pence and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — have also recently thrown their weight behind the MeK.Last year, Saudi Arabia had reportedly agreed to cut its support for the MeK. A few months later, Albanian police raided Ashraf-3, the MeK's sprawling headquarters in Albania. The Albanian authorities accused the MeK of cybercrimes and other provocative activities in violation of the agreement allowing the exiles to stay in the country. The exiles accused Albanian police of killing an elderly man with tear gas during the raid.At the time, the U.S. State Department affirmed Albania's "right to investigate any potential illegal activities within its territory," and stated that the MeK is not "a viable democratic opposition movement that is representative of the Iranian people." Gooden, Malliotakis, Gosar, and Ruiz seem to disagree.Gosar's support for the MeK stands out as particularly unusual, given his other foreign policy stances. The congressman, an outspoken "America Firster," has previously denounced "proxy wars in the Middle East" and vowed to stop Washington's "nation-building, foreign aid giveaways, and bloody regime-change wars.""Congressman Gosar supports freedom in Iran. The Ashraf Caucus shares that goal," said Gosar's communications director Anthony Foti in an email to Responsible Statecraft. "The expectation is for peaceful change organically coming from the people of Iran. At no point has Congressman Gosar supported U.S. military intervention in Iran nor would he." The MeK is a left-wing faction that participated in Iran's 1979 revolution and was pushed out by its Islamist rivals. The group soon began promoting itself as an Iranian government-in-exile, and appealed to the Soviet Union for support. After the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, the MeK's leadership relocated to Iraq and fought for Saddam Hussein's government. In retaliation, the Iranian government executed thousands of leftist prisoners in 1988, one of the most infamous massacres in Iran's history.During their collaboration with the Iraqi government, MeK fighters allegedly participated in the genocidal campaign against Iraqi Kurds. MeK leader Maryam Rajavi was said to have ordered her fighters to crush "the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." The MeK now denies having any involvement in the anti-Kurdish campaign, and often cites a 1999 letter by a Kurdish fighter absolving Rajavi.Saudi Arabia, another rival of Iran, also allegedly began funding the MeK at the time. MeK defector Massoud Khodabandeh told Jordanian media in 2018 that a Saudi prince had given the group suitcases full of luxury goods and trucks of gold worth $200 million in 1989. Former Saudi intelligence chief Turki bin Faisal al-Saud has spoken at MeK conferences. The group denies receiving Saudi funds, claiming that it is "an independent movement, standing on its own feet both politically and financially."After the war, the Iraqi government kept the MeK in bases known as Camp Ashraf and Ashraf-2, considered by critics to be cult compounds. A report by Human Rights Watch in 2005 and a sweeping expose by The Intercept in 2020 confirmed rumors of the abuses that went on inside the camps. Defectors accused the MeK leadership of imprisoning, torturing, and even sterilizing its own members. The MeK again denied the allegations and denounced the "hit piece" against them.Other factions of the Iranian opposition, who often clash fiercely with each other, are unanimous in their rejection of the MeK. Anti-hijab activist Masih Alinejad has labeled the group a "cult." Iranian-American journalist Jason Rezaian, who was held hostage in prison on trumped-up charges by the Iranian government for over a year, has insisted that the MeK's brand is "toxic." Former crown prince Reza Pahlavi called the MeK "terroristic" in a Belgian parliament hearing last year."The fact that a documented cult-like organization with a history of terrorism, human rights abuses, and committing atrocities alongside Saddam Hussein can get endorsed by lawmakers in Washington is a testament to how much money and power is behind the pro-war with Iran infrastructure here," says Jamal Abdi, head of the National Iranian American Council.The National Union for Democracy in Iran and Iranian-Americans for Liberty, two pro-regime-change organizations that are often at odds with NIAC, have also publicly argued that most Iranians reject the MeK. Neither group responded to a request for comment about the caucus.For decades, the United States officially considered the MeK a terrorist organization due to its past attacks on American targets. The MeK had killed at least three U.S. Army officers and three American contractors in Iran before the 1979 revolution. When Iranian revolutionaries released their American hostages in 1981, the MeK complained that refusing to prosecute and execute the U.S. Embassy staff would "embolden and encourage the imperialists."After the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the MeK's relationship with the West changed dramatically. In the 2000s, the MeK became an early source of information on Iran's nuclear program, which was allegedly fed to the group by Israeli intelligence services. Israel also reportedly teamed up with the MeK to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.At the same time, the MeK embarked on a high-profile lobbying campaign to remove itself from the terrorist list. MeK supporters courted American officials from both sides of the aisle, and sympathetic politicians were offered speaking fees of up to $50,000 to appear at pro-MeK rallies. The MeK prevailed; the Obama administration lifted terrorism sanctions on the group in 2011, and spent $20 million resettling MeK members in a new Albanian sanctuary known as Ashraf-3.The resettlement deal came after Iraqi forces, some of them loyal to Tehran, launched deadly attacks on the original Ashraf camps. Daniel Benjamin, the U.S. State Department counterterrorism official who oversaw the delisting, later insisted that he wanted to get MeK members out of Iraq in a humane way, not to whitewash the MeK's "terrorist past."But "what that allowed them to do was to hire lobbying and PR firms," says Freeman, because the terrorist list is one of the few restraints on foreign lobbying under U.S. law. The MeK has several officially-registered lobbyists, and has continued to make large payments to American politicians. Pence, for example, took $430,000 from the group.Gooden, Malliotakis, Gosar, and Ruiz have all spoken at MeK rallies or conferences since the terrorism designation was lifted.Responsible Statecraft asked the four members, via their offices, if they have taken money from the MeK or MeK front groups. Foti said that Gosar has never been "paid for giving a speech" during his "congressional career." Gooden "has never been paid for any appearance," according to Micah Bock, his communications director. Neither answered the broader question of MeK funding. The other two offices have not answered as of press time.

Wearing this bracelet aids in weight loss.

The Israel Defense Forces opened a new crossing for aid to enter into Gaza. The crossing is called the Western Erez crossing, and it is near the coast in the area of Zikim in Israel. It enables aid to reach northwestern Gaza in addition to two other crossings that now serve northern Gaza. Meanwhile in southern Gaza, the Rafah crossing remains closed, leading to concerns about aid entering southern Gaza.
The post Israel Opens Another Crossing for Aid to Enter Northern Gaza first appeared on FDD's Long War Journal.

"We are poor because we don't let our entrepreneurs work," says the director of the Center for African Prosperity at the Atlas Network.

Repeated shutdown fights and continuing resolutions have gotten us no closer to reforming Social Security and Medicare, which are responsible for 95 percent of long‐​term unfunded obligations.

The Guardian, BBC's Focus on Africa and BBC Newsday have reported on new UK support to tackle the devastating locust outbreak in East Africa, featuring a UK-funded supercomputer that is helping countries in the region to track and predict the …

The Israel Defense Forces carried out strikes on 25 targets in Gaza over the course of April 18 and 19. In addition, the IDF launched more operations to secure a corridor of control across Gaza south of Gaza City. The IDF said it had eliminated more than 1,000 terrorists in recent raids. Humanitarian aid transfers by trucks are increasing in southern and northern Gaza.
The post Israel contends with rocket fire, pushes more aid to Gaza first appeared on FDD's Long War Journal.

UPDATE 4/17, 12:45 PMThe House Republicans released three of the bills on Wednesday. The supplemental package includes approximately $26 in aid for Israel, $60 billion for Ukraine, and $8 billion for the Indo-Pacific. The fourth bill, which Johnson says will include the "REPO Act, TikTok bill, sanctions and other measures to confront Russia, China, and Iran," has not yet been introduced. The legislation will reportedly include an "open" amendment process and is expected to be voted on on Saturday night.After months of waiting, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) is expected to unveil an ambitious foreign aid plan this week. According to a one-pager that contained an incomplete list of the items in the bill posted on X on Monday by PBS News correspondent Lisa Desjardins, the plan includes at least $48 billion for Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel, as well as money for allies in the Indo-Pacific and operations in the Red Sea. As far as the foreign aid is concerned, details of the plan are remarkably similar to the bill that the Senate passed in February, and which Johnson has thus far refused to bring to the House floor for a vote. That bill contained roughly $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, and $14 billion in security assistance for Israel. Johnson's plan is reported to also include other Republican sweeteners such as legislation that could ban TikTok and permit the U.S. to seize Russian assets to increase the scale of aid for Kyiv. The House is planning to vote on each of the elements separately later this week, and then send one single package to the Senate containing each approved piece. While the aid for the Indo-Pacific figures to be uncontroversial and a version of the TikTok ban has already passed the House, the other parts of the legislation face a more complicated situation.A number of congressional Democrats have raised concerns about approving more unconditional aid to Israel as it continues to carry out its war in Gaza which has killed more than 33,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children. But, in the aftermath of Iran's strikes on Israel over the weekend, a sufficient number of Democrats are likely to vote in favor of the aid. And, as Politico noted this morning, "there's an understanding that [sending aid to Israel] will be the price of finally securing Ukraine funding." The biggest holdup, as has been the case since Johnson assumed the speakership, is additional assistance for Ukraine. Regardless of the "important innovations" that Johnson hopes to include in the legislation, getting a package through while surviving politically remains a difficult needle to thread. The problem for Johnson has never been procedural or substantive — the Speaker will likely need Democratic support to bring the legislation to a vote, and each element of the package should have enough votes to pass on its own. But none of Johnson's maneuvering over the past few months is likely to relieve him of the accompanying political headache. After the House passed a bill to fund the government last month, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) filed a motion to vacate, a process that could result in a vote to remove Johnson from the speakership. Following Johnson's announcement to the GOP conference that he was moving forward with his foreign aid proposal, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said that he would co-sponsor Greene's motion. Massie has told reporters that there will be more GOP votes to remove Johnson than the eight that voted to oust then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy last October. Some members of the Freedom Caucus, who have been opposed to continued funding for Kyiv, have also expressed concern over Johnson's plan, but it is unclear whether they would support removing him.. The group put out a statement on Monday saying that "under no circumstances will the House Freedom Caucus abide using the emergency situation in Israel as a bogus justification to ram through Ukraine aid with no offset and no security for our own wide-open borders" Johnson appeared Tuesday to take on his detractors. "I am not resigning," he said after a morning meeting of fellow House Republicans on Capitol Hill. Calling himself a "wartime Speaker," he called efforts to oust him "absurd ... not helpful."The Republican Party's margin in the House is so narrow — it will drop to 217-213 when Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) resigns on Friday — that Johnson can only afford two GOP "no" votes before having to rely on Democratic members to save his job. Some Democrats have already said that they were open to helping Johnson if the Speaker allows a vote on Ukraine aid.Massie, who has already called on Johnson to resign, said that this outcome would not work for Johnson. If he relies on Democrats, "He goes further in the hole with Republicans. He becomes toxic to the conference," Massie said, according to NBC News' Sahil Kapur. "For every Democrat who comes to his aid he'll lose 2-3 more Rs." The Biden administration and prominent Senate Democrats have so far reserved judgment on Johnson's proposal, saying that they wanted to see the final details before weighing in, but they appeared open to supporting the eventual package. "It does appear at first blush that the Speaker's proposal will in fact help us get aid to Ukraine, aid to Israel and needed resources to the Indo-Pacific," National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said. "We just want to get more detail." Biden and Johnson spoke by phone on Monday night, and, given the hurdles that the speaker will have to overcome to get his plan through the House, he is likely to want to ensure that whatever does get through has support in the Senate and White House. Johnson also met with former President Donald Trump over the weekend in Florida, but the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee's praise for the Speaker does not appear to have won over skeptical Republican members. Trump was noncommittal about supporting Johnson's aid request, though he maintained that any future money sent to Kyiv should be "in the form of a loan rather than a gift." Some Republicans may be determined to advance a foreign aid bill to the floor regardless of how the votes on the looming legislation go. "One House Republican made the point to me that if this GOP plan doesn't pass, the floodgates will open and they'll just sign the Senate bill discharge petition," said Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman on X.The discharge petition, which would send the bill to the floor over the Speaker's objections, currently has 195 of the necessary 218 signatures. Only one Republican, the recently retired Rep. Ken Buck, has signed on so far.House rules typically allow 72 hours for members to review bill text before voting. If that procedure is followed, Johnson's foreign aid bill could be brought to a vote as soon as Friday night.

Israel's finance minister has blocked a major U.S. shipment of humanitarian aid meant to feed Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, according to Axios, setting up a faceoff with the Biden administration, which has come under increasing pressure from Democrats in Congress to increase the flow of aid into the besieged territory.
The news comes just days after President Joe Biden issued a memorandum in which he committed to enforce a little-used provision of U.S. law that bans Washington from giving security assistance to states that block U.S. humanitarian aid. The memorandum drew heavily on a proposal from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) that called for the implementation of U.S. law restricting military aid for human rights violators.
Biden now finds himself in a bind: He can ignore the memo and anger his allies in the Senate; cut off military aid to Israel; or issue a waiver that would allow shipments to continue while conceding that Israeli actions are contrary to U.S. law.
"The most likely possibility is that the president says, 'Yes, there's been a restriction, but because of the importance of supporting Israel, we're going to waive,'" said John Ramming Chappell, an advocacy and legal fellow at the Center for Civilians in Conflict. A waiver, Ramming Chappell argues, "would require being honest about the fact that the Israeli government is restricting the delivery of humanitarian assistance."
Such an admission would be embarrassing for the administration given its repeated declarations that it has not seen credible allegations of Israeli war crimes, a view at odds with the assessment of all major human rights organizations and even U.S. allies.
"If you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms in order to prevent so many people having been killed," charged European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell on Monday, following Biden's comment that Israeli operations have been "over the top."
As Israel faces charges of genocide at the International Court of Justice, the Biden administration is reportedly conducting internal reviews of Israel's compliance with the laws of war, an important question given the scale of U.S. military aid to the country.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment from RS. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said yesterday that "the Israeli government made a commitment to allow the flour to go in, and we expect them to implement this commitment."
The flour in the shipment, which is currently sitting in the Israeli port of Ashdod, would be sufficient to feed 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza for five months, according to Miller. United Nations experts estimate that one in four Gazans is now experiencing extreme famine conditions, indicating widespread starvation.
Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's finance minister, reportedly blocked the U.S. humanitarian aid because it was destined for distribution by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA. Israeli officials recently accused a dozen of UNRWA's 10,000 Gaza-based employees of participating in or facilitating the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, which killed nearly 1,200 people, most of whom were civilians.
While Israel has yet to provide evidence for the accusations, many countries, including the U.S. and Germany, have paused funding for the U.N. agency pending an investigation. UNRWA, for its part, has cut ties with the accused employees and urged states to reverse course on funding cutoffs. The agency says a continued suspension of funding could have catastrophic consequences in Gaza, which is already facing one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.
Smotrich's office told Axios that he is now looking for a mechanism to deliver the aid without going through UNRWA, which he alleges is part of the "Hamas war machine."
The decision to hold up aid throws another wrench into the Biden administration's efforts to pass a funding package that includes billions of dollars in assistance for Ukraine and Israel. The package made it through the Senate Tuesday, but its odds of passing the House continue to dwindle due to progressive opposition to Israel aid and conservative opposition to Ukraine aid.
In a House hearing Wednesday, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) asked Bonnie Jenkins, a top State Department official on arms control, if the new memorandum would be applied to Israel.
"It's going to be applied to all countries," Jenkins said. "We have talked to Israel about the NSM, and they are aware of it and agreed to it."
But Jenkins punted when asked if the U.S. had secured assurances from Israel that it will allow the provision of U.S. humanitarian aid to Gaza, noting that the memorandum allowed up to 45 days for a state to provide such assurances if it is actively at war.

In an outcome that appeared unlikely just weeks ago, the Senate passed the $95 billion national security supplemental on Tuesday morning, by a vote of 70-29. Whether the bill will eventually become law remains an open question.The legislation — which included $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, approximately $14 billion in security assistance for Israel, $9.2 billion in humanitarian aid for Gazans and people in other war zones, and almost $5 billion in aid for partners in the Indo-Pacific — received support from 22 Republicans and 48 Democratic senators. Two Democrats, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), voted against the package in opposition to the money being sent to Israel as it conducts its retaliatory war in Gaza which has so far resulted in over 28,000 deaths, according to the Gazan health ministry. Among Republicans, support slowly grew during a series of procedural votes, but ultimately less than half of the caucus voted for a bill that was supported by most of party leadership in the Senate. For months, the next tranche of Ukraine aid has been hanging in the balance. After a tumultuous few days, there now appears to be the chance of passage, though the road ahead is murky. Earlier in February, the Senate —which has largely been more supportive of continued aid for Ukraine than has the House — had devised to include border security measures as a way to convince skeptical Republicans to support aid for Ukraine.But the bill was dead essentially as soon as it landed, with a large group of Republicans opposing the border language, which had been negotiated by Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), and James Lankford (R-Okla.) . Within two days Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-Ky.), who had earlier championed the legislation, acknowledged that "we have no chance to make a law" from the current proposal. Instead, the Senate returned to the Biden administration's plan A, by bringing his sprawling foreign aid package to the floor. A group of Republicans, led by Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), J.D. Vance (R-Okla.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) used procedural tools to drag the process out, opposing the quick passage of the bill and what they see as a misguided push to keep funding Kyiv's war effort. "It was the bipartisan foreign policy consensus, the experts, that got us into a 20 year war in Afghanistan, where American taxpayers, for two decades, funded things like how to turn Afghanistan into a flowering democracy, or how to ensure that the Afghans had proper American thoughts about gender in the 21st century. Well, maybe that was a waste of money, and maybe the experts were wrong," Vance said during a floor speech on Monday. ""Now, those experts have a new crusade. Now those experts have a new thing that American taxpayers must fund and must fund indefinitely. And it is called the conflict in Ukraine." Following an overnight filibuster, the Senate eventually passed the bill. McConnell declared victory on Tuesday morning. "Today, we faced a clear test of that resolve. Our adversaries want America to decide that reinforcing allies and partners is not in our interest, and that investing in strategic competition is not worth it. They want us to take hard-earned credibility and light it on fire," the minority leader said in a statement. "History settles every account. And today, on the value of American leadership and strength, history will record that the Senate did not blink."Getting this legislation through the House, however, presents another, likely even more difficult, test. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) said late on Monday in a statement that the House will "work its own will on these important matters," and that "America deserves better than the Senate's status quo." Johnson has maintained that the supplemental should include border security provisions, but he has also said that he does want to support Kyiv.If the legislation is ever brought to a vote, it is likely to have enough votes, but Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), an opponent of Ukraine aid, has pledged to use a "motion to vacate" to remove Johnson from the speakership if he allows a vote on funding Kyiv. Accusations that he had made a "secret deal" with Biden to send more aid to Ukraine was partially responsible for ending Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) term as Speaker last year.To get around this roadblock, congressional Democrats have floated voting to keep Johnson in power if he allows a vote on the national security spending package to proceed. Alternatively, strong supporters of Ukraine in the House could use a discharge petition to overcome opponents of the legislation — a process that can allow a House majority to bypass leadership and force floor action on a bill that has been stuck in committee (RS explained in more detail how this process could work last year).