EMAIL DETAILS
SUBJECT:
Friday, January 20, 2017
PRI: NORMAL
FROM:
T
thegab@usglc.org
DATE:
2017-01-20 14:37:08
MSG_ID:
<9ae46984e6844affacb94638789fca82@usglc.org>
RECIPIENTS:
TO:
H
Hunter Biden
<hbiden@rosemontseneca.com>
CONTENT:
TEXT: YES |
HTML: YES
PROCESSED
The Weekly GAB Friday, January 20, 2017 U.S. Global Leadership Coalition | www.usglc.org http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=9GWBR6NndMBX9eanmaaKTQ Transition 2017 THE NEW YORK TIMES Trump Team's Queries About Africa Point to Skepticism About Aid | http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=ra6CRr0WTxBZMV-AvSOddg Helene Cooper President-elect Donald J. Trump's views of Africa have, until now, been a mystery. But a series of questions from the Trump transition team to the State Department indicate an overall skepticism about the value of foreign aid, and even about American security interests, on the world's second-largest continent. A four-page list of Africa-related questions from the transition staff has been making the rounds at the State Department and Pentagon, alarming longtime Africa specialists who say the framing and the tone of the questions suggest an American retreat from development and humanitarian goals, while at the same time trying to push forward business opportunities across the continent. THE WASHINGTON POST Nikki Haley Departs Sharply From Trump on a Range of Foreign Policy Issues, Including Russia | http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=j7kd612SYwXYxg6xH6_fhg Anne Gearan and Sean Sullivan South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley departed sharply and sometimes awkwardly from President-elect Donald Trump on several foreign policy issues Wednesday and told senators that as United Nations ambassador she would not hesitate to disagree with her boss. The Republican rising star who had been critical of Trump as a candidate struggled at times to distance herself from some of Trump's most controversial positions without openly contradicting him. During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Haley voiced heavy skepticism about Russia and optimism about NATO, both deviations from some of Trump's statements. She unequivocally shot down the idea of a Muslim registry or ban, which Trump has never fully disavowed. POLITICO Trump's Team Weighs Retooling State to Focus on Terror | http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=7nRqLhXLbZ-59LKHNq4-Bg Nahal Toosi and Josh Dawsey Donald Trump's team wants to restructure the State Department to focus more heavily on counterterrorism - a move that could dramatically reduce the time and resources devoted to climate change, promoting democracy abroad and other programs seen as liberal priorities. A retooling plan would likely include enhancing State's intelligence unit, eliminating several special envoy positions and promoting the use of the contentious term "radical Islam." At the same time, the department is looking to de-emphasize policies that are centered on nation-building abroad, in keeping with Trump's "America First" rhetoric, according to the sources. DEVEX Wade Warren Appointed Acting USAID Chief | http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=PCqfIHZuk2Cyqs54WbE8RQ Michael Igoe U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Gayle Smith informed employees Wednesday that Wade Warren, who leads the agency's policy bureau, will take over as acting administrator at noon on Jan. 20. As of Tuesday most of the agency's political appointees had departed their offices. Smith included with her note to staff a list of interim leadership appointments who will take over "until any changes are made by the Trump administration." Warren, who has been leading USAID's internal transition effort, was selected by Smith for the interim post - a selection approved by President Barack Obama and supported by the president-elect's transition team, according to the email. Who's in the News THE WALL STREET JOURNAL [See below for full text] Don't Make Any Sudden Moves, Mr. Trump http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=IRYyMZ9gu-VD4NERzJ9huA Richard Haass is the President of the Council on Foreign Relations. There is much to be said for a foreign policy equivalent of stare decisis. To say so isn't to argue against all change: Every policy should be reviewed regularly and revised as circumstances warrant. Fresh opportunities arise, as do new threats. But wholesale, frequent reversals of foreign policy run the risk of unnerving friends and emboldening adversaries. The U.S. should be especially wary of sudden or sharp departures in what it undertakes abroad. Consistency and reliability are essential attributes for a great power. Allies who depend on Washington for their security need to know that this dependence is well placed. Serious doubt about America would inevitably give rise to a very different and much less orderly world. THE HUFFINGTON POST Making America Good Again http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=Ao9c9VQQNC61F1sdyXzOqw Anne Goddard is the President and CEO of ChildFund International Add me to the list of those who have serious concerns about the years ahead, especially when it comes to our nation's capacity - and willingness - to help those who live beyond our shores. While I understand the patriotic fervor behind returning the country to some perceived level of greatness, the fact is, enhancing America's fortunes does not require that we do less for others. In other words, this is not a zero sum game, and making America "great again" is not dependent on making other countries less great or even less good. Greatness, by all accounts, has room for many. THE NEW YORK TIMES John Kerry: What We Got Right http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=wqnBBcoqRAQTT-MHb8NDzQ John Kerry is the Secretary of State. With a new administration taking office this week, it is natural to assess the inheritance it will receive from the old. There are some who see nightmares wherever they look and insist that the entire global system is unraveling and that America's position as world leader is in precipitous decline. As the departing secretary of state, I cannot claim objectivity. But I will leave office convinced that most global trends remain in our favor and that America's leadership and engagement are as essential and effective today as ever. Development & Diplomacy THE HILL New Administration Must Look to Recent Past for Global Health Lessons | http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=f1tV0hNQI70K3G_o-WB2bA Noelle Sullivan Leading up to the Inauguration of President-elect Trump, experts have made the case for why global health should be a top priority for the new administration. Global health has a long history of bipartisan support and is, frankly, good business. However, Ebola in West Africa and Zika in the Americas should teach us something about progress in global health: selective funding for narrow targets do little when unpredicted diseases or ailments emerge. Meaning, we may target Ebola and Zika as global health priorities, but doing so does nothing to prepare us for the next emergent health crisis. To truly make a difference, global health initiatives must directly target weakened health systems, not narrow initiatives. THE NEW YORK TIMES How the Response to Zika Failed Millions | http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=wjCzMiUN5Vyj1V1NhQVubg Donald G. McNeil Jr. Almost a year ago, the World Health Organization declared the Zika epidemic a global health emergency, calling for an epic campaign against a virus that few had ever heard of. As it spread to almost every country in the Western Hemisphere, scientists and health officials at every level of government swung into action, trying to understand how the infection caused birth defects and how it could be stopped. The W.H.O. ended the emergency status in November, but the consequences of the outbreak will be with us for years to come. So maybe now is a good time to ask: How'd we do? Not so great, according to more than a dozen public health experts who were asked to reflect on the response. The battle was a series of missed opportunities, they said, that damaged still-uncounted numbers of babies across a whole hemisphere. FOREIGN POLICY Samantha Power Scolds Trump for Embracing Russia as it 'Tears Down' World Order | http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=d0rqmbHa7Zhk40IUzPs-rg Robbie Gramer While Russian intervention around the world - from paramilitaries in Ukraine to strike fighters over Syria to email hacks in the United States - seem unrelated to each other, Power identified a common thread: "What Russia is against." Russia took "one aggressive and destabilizing action after another" in recent years, she said, recounting its illegal annexation of Crimea, war in Ukraine, and "atrocities" in the Syrian civil war to shore up Bashar al-Assad's regime. Moscow, she said, is not trying to shape a new global order, but rather "tearing down the one that exists." "This is what we are fighting against," Power said. "Having defeated the forces of fascism and communism, we now confront the forces of authoritarianism and nihilism." THE HILL Graham, Cruz Proposal to Defund the U.N. Is Misguided | http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=I8eA6tH2G_GDvIUbyAS9kQ Melanie Nezer Republican senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Ted Cruz of Texas last week introduced legislation that would block U.S. funding for all United Nations functions, a response to last month's U.N. Security Council vote opposing Israeli settlements. In so doing, the senators chose to take out their frustrations about the outgoing administration's Israel policy on some of the most vulnerable people on earth. The decision will negatively affect countless refugees and others who rely on the U.N.'s worldwide humanitarian efforts to keep themselves and their families safe from violence, starvation and homelessness. Politics & Foreign Policy NPR How to Salvage U.S.-Russia Relations: One Expert's Take | http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=OV-hZxRGEMGxpCMYk25yQg Lucian Kim Thomas Graham, managing director of the Kissinger Associates consulting firm, doesn't like to discuss speculation that he may become President-elect Donald Trump's next ambassador to Moscow. But the former diplomat and adviser on Russia in the George W. Bush administration does like to talk about something else: how to salvage U.S.-Russian relations following accusations that Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered in the November presidential election. For all of Trump's praise for Putin during the election campaign, there is still no coherent line on how the incoming Republican administration plans to deal with Russia. THE NEW YORK TIMES What the U.S. Gets for Defending Its Allies and Interests Abroad | http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=vf6GEWuWXxXPPthWLZJEBQ Max Fisher and Sergio Pecanha President-elect Donald J. Trump has questioned the return that the United States gets for defending its allies. Here's the current picture of what America puts in and gets out of global alliances: 1) Treaties with more than 30 countries help bring stability to the most economically and politically important regions for the United States. 2) The European Union is America's top trading partner. Keeping Europe peaceful and unified has been a top United States priority since World War II. 3) The United States keeps a large footprint in Asia to counter the influence of China and to support allies against North Korea. 4) Thirty percent of global maritime trade runs through the South China Sea. The United States is competing with China to lead in that fast-growing market. 5) In the Middle East, the United States wants to maintain access to oil and gas, and partners against terrorism and Iran. THE WASHINGTON POST China Quietly Gears Up For Possibility of Trade War With United States | http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=gkYmaBmRJcOIoOfi5qqTuQ Simon Denyer China is gearing up for the possibility of a trade war with the incoming Trump administration and has fired a small warning shot, according to the American business community here as well as the Chinese themselves. At the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, Chinese President Xi Jinping warned that a trade war would benefit nobody, but at home, his government is quietly getting ready for one. Publicly, China's Ministry of Commerce has responded calmly to Trump's repeated criticism of the two countries' relationship, with its spokesman Shen Danyang insisting last month that the transfer of power in Washington won't change ties, which he described as "interwoven," "interdependent" and "mutually beneficial." But behind the scenes, the ministry is not standing still. THE HUFFINGTON POST Security Goes Beyond the Military and James Mattis Knows It | http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=3PUeF8wvM0e9e4w5iyCVCw Lorelei Kelly Last week, #Maddog was a top trending hashtag during General Mattis' (ret.) Senate confirmation hearing for Defense Secretary. While this nickname may be ideal for social media discourse, it's completely inadequate to describe what James Mattis and other military leaders have experienced over the course of the last two decades. Incoming Secretary Mattis is a strategic thinker who understands how US strength is a cooperative endeavor. Today's military readiness, in fact, requires it. "Maddog" Mattis is a military man through and through. But he fully understands that the challenges we face will require supportive teamwork beyond the military. Incoming Secretary Mattis can uniquely make the case for a modern national security strategy - one that insists on prevention - to all of our political leaders. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Don't Make Any Sudden Moves, Mr. Trump http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=agxFyAyHFtvkCvA4J-uonQ Richard Haass is the President of the Council on Foreign Relations. Stare decisis ought to apply to foreign policy. In legal circles, that phrase-Latin for "let it stand"-means that judges and courts emphasize precedent and allow existing decisions to prevail unless there is strong reason to overturn them. The idea is to discourage individual courts from doing their own thing, which could create a dysfunctional patchwork of rulings. The notion reflects an understanding that the integrity, reputation and legitimacy of the legal system would suffer were the law to shift too frequently. There is much to be said for a foreign policy equivalent of stare decisis. To say so isn't to argue against all change: Every policy should be reviewed regularly and revised as circumstances warrant. Fresh opportunities arise, as do new threats. But wholesale, frequent reversals of foreign policy run the risk of unnerving friends and emboldening adversaries. The U.S. should be especially wary of sudden or sharp departures in what it undertakes abroad. Consistency and reliability are essential attributes for a great power. Allies who depend on Washington for their security need to know that this dependence is well placed. Serious doubt about America would inevitably give rise to a very different and much less orderly world. There would be two reactions. First, "self-help" would increase, as countries take matters into their own hands in ways inconsistent with American interests-including by developing their own nuclear weapons. Second, many countries could fall under the sway of stronger regional states, undermining the balance of power. This is a prescription for instability. As soon as President-elect Trump is inaugurated, he will face many difficult challenges: from an unraveling Middle East to an uncertain Europe to a blustering North Korea. Rushing to reverse longstanding American policies could generate new challenges and make existing ones harder to resolve. A few items already in the news suggest precisely what the new administration should not do. The first would be to discard the "one China" policy. For 4? decades, Washington and Beijing have successfully finessed the difference between the mainland's claims to Taiwan and America's commitment to the principle that any change in the island's status can only come about peacefully and voluntarily. Central to this successful maneuver is the idea that there is only one China and Taiwan is part of it. The formula has not only allowed Taiwan to flourish economically and become a thriving democracy, it has enabled the U.S. and China to develop important economic ties and cooperate on a range of regional and global challenges. Continuing to finesse the issue is far preferable to abandoning "one China." The latter course risks triggering armed conflict with Beijing, ruling out any possibility of cooperation on North Korea, and poisoning what will be the most important bilateral relationship of this century. A second error would be to "tear up," or not to comply in any way with, the 2015 nuclear pact with Iran. The agreement isn't ideal: The U.S. arguably paid too much for too little. But undermining it now-or being perceived as doing so-would isolate Washington, not Tehran. Reconstituting the world-wide regime of sanctions that existed before the agreement would prove impossible. The U.S. would quickly face the unpalatable choice between watching Iran cross the nuclear threshold or starting a war in an effort to stop it. The Trump administration would be wiser to focus on ensuring that Iran complies with the existing accord. At the same time, though, the U.S. and its partners should develop a strategy to deal with Tehran's push for regional primacy. It could include bolstering Sunni states and groups, aiding Kurdish forces, and imposing new sanctions on Iran. The U.S. could also begin planning a follow-on pact that would constrain Tehran's nuclear options once important aspects of the current deal expire. A third mistake would be to immediately move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. This might at first seem like a sensible proposal, even an obvious one. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and where most government officials reside and work. But moving the embassy comes with real downsides, only some of which relate to the diplomacy-going nowhere slowly-intended to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The bigger argument is that moving the embassy risks making Jerusalem an even greater magnet for protest, violence and terrorism. The move could take a conflict that has lost more than a little salience in the Muslim world and transform it into a crisis, increasing the threat to American embassies and personnel world-wide. American foreign policy could stand some change, but it should be introduced only when the probable benefits outweigh the risks and costs. The new administration should proceed with caution: It is inheriting a global situation that can only be described as daunting. This is no time to make conditions worse. The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition 1129 20th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036 Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | USGLC.org http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=kbwqkkHP0Kl5VMgnKyzFVw http://action.usglc.org/site/CO?i=ie5KUcpJwpn6ilWAzWVgkO6DueBiEA3Y&cid=0 http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=4ALvts0hkYlvhCIJtFEbqg http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=EaCjLCEETsbVv2MHpRx8Mw
METADATA:
THREAD:
INDEX:
Adhhnw96Y3peujfGTc6EvA7DflNFxg==