Fury over Trump aid cuts in Gaza

A Palestinian woman holds a sign reading “UNRWA is a service organization and must remain that way” during a July protest in Gaza City.

Ashraf AmraAPA images

Hamza Abu Eltarabesh-21 August 2018

I recognized the man lying on the ground during a recent protest in Gaza City. His name is Nidal al-Shanti. He was once my teacher and had been kind to me.

When I injured my hand in class 14 years ago, al-Shanti took me to hospital. He bought me orange juice and – following my treatment – drove me home.

To my relief, al-Shanti soon regained consciousness after he fainted at the protest. He drank some water and immediately launched into a tirade about his employer UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestine refugees.

He had just learned that he was losing his job.

“UNRWA has killed us and killed our families,” al-Shanti, a teacher of metal and woodwork, said.

Al-Shanti, 42, had borrowed $70,000 from the bank recently, so that he could buy a new house. He had planned to move into the house by the end of this year.

That now appears unlikely because he has been deprived of his income.

The uncertainty about how he will meet other financial commitments is also causing him stress. His 9-year-old son Walid has leukemia and requires medication costing $300 per month.

UNRWA, a key provider of education and health care to Palestine’s refugees, is undergoing a crisis. A $300 million cut in US aid to the agency this year has placed many of its activities in jeopardy.

Last month the agency announced measures that could affect around 1,000 jobs, as well as resulting in salary reductions for those who remain on the payroll.

More than 100 of its Gaza-based employees were informed in July that they would not be having their contracts renewed. Approximately 580 staff are being moved to part-time work.

Although the funding cuts have been imposed by President Donald Trump and his administration in Washington, many people in Gaza are directing their fury at the agency itself.

Anger

“Instead of helping us as refugees, UNRWA is playing games with our livelihoods,” said Fathi Shehada. A social worker, he had been employed on the agency’s food voucher programs before the recent cutbacks.

Since his father died in 2008, Shehada’s family has relied heavily on his job to make ends meet.

“I’m not married yet,” the 32-year-old said. “I have put getting married on hold so that I can support my family. Now it seems that I will have to extend this delay for another few years – until I find another job.”

Nedaa Ismail, a 31-year-old mother of four, had been working as a psychologist for an UNRWA school. Losing her job will have severe implications for her family.

Her husband’s salary as a police officer with the local administration in Gaza is not enough for the family to live on. Furthermore, he has only been receiving part of his wages in recent times.

“My family needed me to have my job,” she said. “I have no idea what to do now. UNRWA is punishing our refugee children.”

The anger of UNRWA staff has been palpable during recent protests. The agency has complained about some of the tactics used by protesters, such as blocking managers from reaching their offices.

During one demonstration, a man doused himself in diesel. Others intervened to stop the man from setting himself on fire:

The man in question was Jihad Wishah, a 35-year-old who had also been working as a psychologist for an UNRWA school.

Wishah has been married for the past decade but he and his wife have not been able to have children. The couple had planned to visit Egypt for fertility treatment later this year. Wishah fears that he will not be able to afford the trip.

When he heard of the UNRWA job cuts “my dream of having children vanished,” Wishah said.

“Political decision”

Organizers of the protests have vowed to continue them.

Amir El-Mishal, who represents a union for UNRWA employees, has demanded that the agency’s decision to cut jobs be withdrawn.

A spokesperson for the protesters, Ismael al-Talaa, noted that the people losing their jobs provide sorely needed services. Ending contracts to UNRWA workers will have an adverse impact on many of Gaza’s most vulnerable people.

“This is a political decision,” said al-Talaa, who has lost his own job working in the agency’s food voucher program.

Since the job cuts were announced, new evidence has surfaced about how senior figures in Washington wish to damage UNRWA.

Jared Kushner, a top-level adviser and son-in-law of Trump, expressed a desire earlier this year to “disrupt” UNRWA. In email correspondence, Kushner contended that the agency was “corrupt” and “inefficient.”

Kushner’s allegation was at odds with comments from UNRWA that the US goverment had expressed satisfaction with how the agency was transparent and accountable.

Dating from January, Kushner’s email message was published this month by Foreign Policy magazine.

The disruption favored by Kushner will increase hardship for Palestinians.

About half of Gaza’s two million inhabitants receive food aid from UNRWA. It also runs more than 250 of Gaza’s schools and 22 medical centers.

UNRWA announced late last week that classes for the 526,000 Palestinian refugee children who attend its 711 schools in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria would begin on time in September.

But UNRWA’s commissioner-general warned that “we currently only have funding to run the agency’s services until the end of September,” and that a further $217 million is needed to ensure schools remain open through the rest of the year.

Many Palestinians fear that the attacks on UNRWA are part of a bigger assault on the rights of refugees.

Akram Atallah, a political analyst who writes a column for the newspaper al-Ayyam, suspects that the Trump administration wishes to prevent Palestinians from returning to homes they lost during the Nakba, the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Although that right has been affirmed in UN resolutions, Israel and its allies in Washington have long been working to undermine it. Atallah believes that the US wishes to take the issue of refugee rights off the agenda from any negotiations between Israel and Palestinian political leaders.

“After Trump announced that he was recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the US and Israel are now working to end the discussion on refugees,” Atallah said. “I expect that the American leadership will soon ask for the right to return to be removed from negotiations.”

Hamza Abu Eltarabesh is a journalist from Gaza.

Trade-wars presage systemic hara-kiri

Why is Trump taking a wrecking-ball to global supply-chains?

Graphic above shows Goods imports-exports only 
Services are another $400 billion imports and $900 billion exports 
Total $2.8 trillion imports and $2.3 trillion exports. Net deficit $500 billion
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-imports-and-exports-components-and-statistics-3306270

Global oil trade is financed in dollars: Petrodollars!
https://www.punjabkesari.in/business/news/crude-oil-fall—gold-down-at-1-month-low-683292

Kumar David-August 18, 2018, 7:35 pm 

American liberals, its establishment and all the powers of Europe fondly believe that Trump is a passing delirium; come November’s Congressional elections or failure to secure a second term in 2020, the world will reawaken, the nightmare will pass. I do not share this sanguine hope, the world has changed; Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again. All things reach the equivalent of their allotted three-score and ten, young men grey and suffer cupid’s embarrassing droop, the greatest empires Decline and Fall. Trump may come and he may go (more likely he will go), but time’s arrow will not reverse. Trump or no-Trump neo-populism, Alt-Right (mostly) and Alt-Left, are steering civilisation across a Rubicon. There is no going back – as Caesar learnt at the cost of his life when he crossed into Italy at the head of his legions. The liberals will awaken to an unfamiliar world. That back-to-front goat who proclaimed the End of History is now the butt end of everybody’s joke!

The World Economic Forum has a series of articles by Robert Muggah, Taylor Owen, Yves Tiberghien, the aforesaid goat Francis Fukuyama, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Misha Glenny, which were summarised as follows. (https://www.weforum.org/focus/the-future-of-global-liberal-order).

"After a 70-year run, the global liberal order is under threat. The future of liberal democracy, open markets and common security pacts hang in the balance. There are red flags everywhere - from outbreaks of populism to the spread of protectionism and trade wars. The question everyone is asking is - can these trends be reversed? And if they can, will the global liberal order be updated and made fit-for purpose in the 21st Century? If the global liberal order collapses, will it be replaced by something fundamentally different? This series of articles, curated by the Lind Initiative, explores the crisis facing the global liberal order from without and within and the implications of a post-western international order".

The articles are no big deal, but the summary points in the direction I want to take this essay. Let us first jettison a myth. Many say that Trump is ignorant of global supply chains, does not grasp that all are losers in trade-wars, is clueless about economics etc. Hogwash! The US has access to good bourgeois economists breast fed this Economics-101 stuff in year-1. Nor do they live in a deluded past; they know that everything is not made in America or Europe any more to be sold to benighted foreign sods. They know that components and products move to and fro, from here to there and packaged and marketed bearing many brand names. They know how furiously America and its IMF handmaiden fought to force open doors in the name of globalisation, overthrow barriers and invade investment spaces. They recall scavengers like JR who crawled. This is all on the table in the Oval Office under Trump’s nose.

But hard economists also know that globalisation is no longer in America’s interest. Trump began in January with tariffs on 18 products; it has now swelled to 10,000 causing dislocation at home and abroad. Free market competition no longer serves ailing America. Liberals and the elite may live in an ideological has-been land, but the Trump Base experiences hardship. Hence the disconnect. Steve Bannon, John Bolton, Larry Kudlow, Peter Navarro, Wilbur Ross and other insiders know there is a chasm between ‘Trumponomics’ and theory, both classical Ricardo and neo-liberal Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. The President knows that his trade war is inane in bourgeois economic speak.

So why does he persist! Two reasons: (a) old economics, classical or neo-liberal, does not work anymore, late-capitalism is structurally stymied and doesn’t work anymore and (b) his Base demands it. (Base is synonymous with "Strong Republican" but only 20% of the US electorate according to a recent study – see graphic).

The case against Trumponomics is valid; it will increase prices of imported and locally produced goods in the domestic market (inflation), lead to loss of employment (jobs lost will far exceed gains in a few industries), it will not narrow the trade deficit only redistribute it among trading partners, and it will undermine the trust of allies (Canada, Europe and Mexico). However none of this will stop Trump from playing to his Base – "dirty foreigners rape America in the name of trade", immigrants eat our wealth, Muslims are terrorists etc. We are familiar with the parallel: ‘Tamils plunder our jobs, Muslims loot our businesses, Kochchis salivate for our women (or the converse?) and Imperialists rob us. His imperatives are no different, he too has to pander to electoral rabble; in all the world the game’s the same.

Though I have focussed on Trump neo-populism has come to stay across the world. I have said this so often that I suspect you are fed-up. The demon cannot be banished unless inequality, slow growth and extremism subside. For reasons to do with capitalism’s life-cycle, too complex to theorise here, that is not possible; the resurrection of capitalism is not doable. Hence breakdown of supply chains, trade-wars and Trump-like eruptions will increasingly be the norm. The Base is right; it knows it is drowning in the Swamp. In time it will learn that Trump cannot drain the Swamp. Then what – fascism?

China’s game plan

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Xi Jinping start off with huge advantages. They can do pretty much as they please for two reasons. There is little or no popular, expert or media opposition and secondly the economy is amenable to party/state direction. The public believes that Trump is near mad and that China is being victimised; opinion is firmly and near universally behind the leaders unlike in the US. Not only the large state sector, banks, the not so independent central bank (Peoples’ Bank), but private enterprise too toes the line. That China is attempting to turn from an export-led economy to more emphasis on the domestic market will also help.

Still a protracted trade war with the US is cause for concern for Xi and the CCP since a downturn in standards of living, or a slump even if temporary, will cost the leadership some of its legitimacy. The economy was slowing down by a percentage point or two prior to the trade war and the financial system is groaning under the weight of a debt splurge thanks to a mountain of nonperforming loans extended to provincial governments (infrastructure) and provincial government owned enterprises. Americans and the Europeans now rightly accuse China of stealing intellectual property and wish to shut out technology transfer and tighten Chinese investments in their markets. This threatens China-2025, the plan to make China a technology leader in the middle of the next decade.

China’s long-term strategic goal is to roll back American supremacy and become an equal power. The Belt & Road initiative, bringing small countries under its financial influence and befriending Europe as the US withdraws fits in with this objective. Though not a walkover, China is emerging as the winner as the US surrenders its advantages.

The US starts with military and technological advantages and an incomparably better alliance system. Trump is dismantling the third and time will even out the second. Even if Trump goes immanent trends cannot be reversed.

Rest of the world

A scholarly essay would round this off with a discussion of more than the US and China; Sino-European trade prospects, US-European-Canadian hiccups, WTO entanglement and Russia, Trump’s spoiler, would get fair treatment. But this is a newspaper column, not a prize winning scholarship essay. I expect you to read up and fill out your education. Yes, all professors are a pain in the butt! You’re stuck with me so you might as well read just three more paragraphs. I will end this piece with a few staccato comments on some crucial points bearing on the trade-war.

Turkey is balking at US trade sanctions and signalling its interest in joining BRICS. Erdogan has introduced counter sanctions in response to US sanctions on two Turkish Ministers who ordered the arrest of America pastor Andrew Brunson. A worst case scenario would see Turkey pull out NATO; that would be devastating for the alliance. US sanctions on Iran are imminent; Russia, China, Turkey and India are expected to defy America and continue to buy Iranian oil. The EU will also enforce the ‘Blocking Statue’ under which European firms are shielded from the consequences of US sanctions.

The upset with the most profound long term consequences would be a challenge to the mighty petrodollar. The sale of nearly all crude oil and petroleum is denominated in dollars; oil prices are quoted in dollars and everybody buys and sells in that currency. The dollar is king. US banks have a stranglehold when sanctions are imposed since countries like Iran are wholly dependent on the dollar banking system. The EU has tried to buy oil and gas in Euros and China tried to popularise the concept of a petro-yuan; both not very successful so far. In the face of ubiquitous US sanctions suffocating trade in general and especially the oil trade, the need to break this stranglehold has become urgent. If it flips, Trumponomics will have done the world an unintended service. Christians say "God moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform"!

The United States is a country with immense reserves of strength. It would be a great mistake to underestimate it. To give you an example, it is relaxing pollution controls, encouraging cheap dirty energy and throwing out automotive fuel economy standards to make US companies competitive. Prior to its death rattle these are the games the dying superpower will play. And, with Democrat Rashida Talib (will be first Muslim woman) and another Dem woman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (will be youngest ever) almost certain to be in the next House of Representatives, the contest of populisms will be fascinating to watch post November 2018.

Manafort convicted on 8 counts; mistrial declared on 10 others

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted on eight counts of bank and tax fraud. The judge declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 charges. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

By Matt Zapotosky

, Reporter

Lynh Bui

, Reporter

Tom Jackman

, Reporter

Devlin Barrett

, Reporter

August 21 at 7:48 PM

A jury found former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort guilty Tuesday on tax and bank fraud charges — a major if not complete victory for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III as he continues to investigate the president’s associates.

The jury convicted Manafort on eight of the 18 counts against him and said it was deadlocked on the other 10. U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis declared a mistrial on those charges.

Wearing a black suit, Manafort stood impassively, his hands folded in front of him, and showed little reaction as the clerk read the word “guilty” eight separate times. As through most of the three-week trial, Manafort showed no emotion as he looked at the six women and six men who convicted him.

President Trump reacted to the verdict by denouncing Mueller’s investigation.

“Paul Manafort’s a good man,” the president told reporters in West Virginia. The verdict, he said, “doesn’t involve me but I still feel, you know, it’s a very sad thing that happened.”

He pointed out that the charges in Manafort’s case did not involve Mueller’s core mission of investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether any Americans conspired with those efforts.

Paul Manafort's attorneys, Kevin Downing, center, Richard Wetling, left, and Thomas Zehnle leave the Federal Courthouse after their client, Paul Manafort, was convicted on 8 counts of tax and bank fraud. (Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post)

“This is a witch hunt that ends in disgrace,” Trump said.

For Trump, the outcome of Manafort’s trial was only half of a double-barreled blast of bad news Tuesday. Shortly after the verdict was read, the president’s former longtime attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in an unrelated case to eight crimes, saying that among other things, he helped arrange hush money payments at the direction of then-candidate Trump.

[Michael Cohen says he worked to silence two women ‘in coordination’ with Trump to influence 2016 election]

Manafort, 69, was found guilty of filing a false tax return in each of the years from 2010 through 2014, as well as not filing a form in 2012 to report a foreign bank account as required. He was also convicted of two instances of bank fraud, related to a $3.4 million loan from Citizens Bank and a $1 million loan from Banc of California.

The charges on which the jury deadlocked included three counts for not filing a form to report a foreign bank account, and seven counts for committing bank fraud or conspiring to commit bank fraud.

President Trump reacted on Aug. 21 to the conviction of his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort on eight counts tax and bank fraud charges. (The Washington Post)

The judge thanked the jurors for their service and they were dismissed, leaving the courthouse without speaking to reporters. The judge has ordered their names not be disclosed in court records.

Once the jury left the courtroom, Ellis asked Manafort to approach the lectern. The judge told him that he would order a pre-sentencing report and it was important for Manafort to “pay careful attention to the preparation of the document.”

Manafort’s wife declined to speak to reporters as she left the courthouse.

Lead defense attorney Kevin Downing said Manafort was “disappointed” in the verdict, though he also wanted to thank the judge “for giving him a fair trial,” and the jurors for their deliberations.

Manafort’s lawyers asked for 30 days to file a motion for a new trial or for the judge to toss out the verdict. Manafort “is evaluating all of this options at this point,” Downing said.

His possible prison sentence wasn’t immediately clear, but legal experts said he likely faces roughly seven to 10 years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines. Trump has repeatedly declined to discuss whether he might someday pardon Manafort.

The conviction, analysts say, might increase the pressure on Manafort to cooperate with Mueller in hopes of getting a sentencing break. “Now that he’s seen how this goes, maybe he is now more likely to want to consider working out a plea deal,” said Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney who observed much of the trial.

[Trump calls Mueller lawyers ‘thugs’ and ‘a National Disgrace!’]

The verdict comes as Trump has stepped up his criticism of Mueller’s investigation, publicly criticizing it on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. As the Manafort trial began, Trump called for the probe to be shut down immediately.

Manafort’s guilty verdict may strengthen Mueller’s hand as he continues to investigate possible conspiracy and seeks an interview with the president; an acquittal could have led to a broader effort by conservatives to shut down the special counsel’s office.

The 18 charges in the Manafort trial centered around Manafort’s personal finances, and had little to do with the special counsel’s mandate of probing Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether any Trump associates conspired with those efforts.

But the trial was the first to emerge from Mueller’s probe, and as such it marked a significant public test of his work. After four days of deliberations, the jury largely validated Mueller’s decision to charge Manafort.

Over two weeks of testimony, more than two dozen witnesses, including his former right-hand man Rick Gates, as well as his former bookkeeper and accountants, testified against Manafort. They said he hid millions of dollars in foreign bank accounts that went unreported to the IRS, and then later lied to banks in order to get millions of dollars in loans.

His lawyers had argued that Gates, not Manafort, was the real criminal, pointing to Gates’ admitted lies, theft, and marital infidelity, which he acknowledged during his testimony. Gates pleaded guilty in February to lying to the FBI and conspiring against the United States, and has said he hopes to get a lesser prison sentence by cooperating against Manafort.

Prosecutors, in turn, told the jury that the case’s most compelling evidence included the dozens of documents, many of them emails, showing Manafort oversaw the false statements to the IRS and banks.

Manafort’s defense team called no witnesses at all, as his lawyer argued prosecutors had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to defraud the government or banks. Manafort’s lawyers repeatedly suggested their client might not have known the law.

[Closing arguments in Manafort trial]

The trial featured heated arguments at times — not between the government and defense lawyers, but between the judge and prosecutors. The judge repeatedly chided Mueller’s team in front of the jury, though at the end of the trial he urged the panel not to consider during its deliberations any opinions the judge may have expressed.

Manafort faces a second trial in September in Washington D.C., on charges he failed to register as a lobbyist for the Ukraine government, and conspired to tamper with witnesses in that case. Manafort has been in jail since June as a result of the witness tampering charges.

During closing arguments last week, Manafort’s lawyers accused the special counsel’s office of having gone on a fishing expedition to find evidence of financial crimes.

“Nobody came forward to say we’re concerned about what we’re seeing here. Not until the special counsel showed up and started asking questions,” lawyer Richard Westling said, suggesting the special counsel “cobbled together” information to “stack up the counts” against Manafort and overwhelm the jury.

“It is not enough that wrong information or even false information was given,” Westling said, telling jurors that to convict his client, they had to be convinced that Manafort intended to deceive banks and the IRS.

Prosecutors charged that Manafort failed to pay taxes on millions of dollars in overseas bank accounts which he kept hidden from his accountants and the IRS. He earned that money working as a consultant for Ukraine’s then-president, Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych fled Ukraine in 2014 amid massive street protests, causing Manafort’s income to dry up, according to witnesses.

Prosecutors called Manafort’s bookkeeper and former accountants to testify against him. Those witnesses said Manafort misled them about foreign bank accounts he controlled. A former accountant for Manafort said she went along with falsifying information on Manafort’s tax return to lower the amount he would have to pay.

Other witnesses included employees of luxury clothing stores, a landscaper, and a home entertainment company employee, all of whom testified to the big ticket purchases Manafort made — paid via wire transfers from foreign bank accounts.

Witnesses said Manafort spent a small fortune at the time he was cheating the IRS — more than $1 million on clothes, including a $15,000 ostrich jacket, more than $2 million on home entertainment systems, and millions of dollars on homes for himself and his family. One witness said Manafort spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on landscaping, including a bed of red flowers in the shape of an “M” in the backyard of his Hamptons home.

Michael Brice-Saddler contributed to this report.

The Trump Administration Just Threw Out America’s Rules for Cyberweapons

U.S. cyberstrategy needs updating, but this isn’t the way to do it.

An employee walks behind a glass wall with coding symbols at the headquarters of Internet security giant Kaspersky in Moscow on October 17, 2016. (Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP/Getty Images)

BY PATRICK BARRY-

 AUGUST 21, 2018

Quietly, in a week dominated by other news, the Trump administration has taken the United States’ purported rules for using cyberweapons and thrown them out the window.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an order on Aug. 15 reversing a set of classified guidelines “that had mapped out an elaborate interagency process that must be followed before U.S. use of cyberattacks, particularly those geared at foreign adversaries.” The change, a Trump administration official said, represents “an offensive step forward.”

At first glance, it is not clear that there is anything wrong with this shift. Having counseled senior officials responsible for both cyberdefense and cyber-offense, it’s hard not to conclude that the United States is doing a lousy job at both. The country’s adversaries are pulling well ahead, whether it is Russia launching a massive cyberspace-enabled campaign to interfere with U.S. elections, China swiping precious intellectual property, North Korea attacking the U.S. film industry, or the Islamic State mobilizing recruits.

Despite well-intentioned efforts by U.S. Presidents Barack Obama (whose activities I supported while in government) and George W. Bush to set cyberstrategy and build up cybercapacity, the United States is simply not able to counter threats in cyberspace. Its rules do need to change. But throwing them out entirely is unwise.

For one, it isn’t clear that the Trump administration has an alternative process for managing cyberspace policy. Tearing up the offense and defense rulebook follows Trump’s hollowing out of the White House team that runs cyberspace policy. This administration has also weakened U.S. cyberspace diplomacy—meant to establish global rules of the road, including initiatives to restrict bad behavior by countries like Russia and China—by eliminating its chief coordinator at the State Department.

Reasonable people can disagree over whether the abolished roles were functioning as well as they could. Personally, I believe that the White House team would have operated better had it been more closely integrated with the regional groups coordinating overall policies toward the United States’ chief adversaries. If a data breach were linked to the Russian government, for example, the White House cyberteam should have supported the Russia group’s management of the response. But the positions were necessary. Since the departure of Chris Painter, the ousted State Department coordinator of cyberspace diplomacy, there have already been signs that the United States is losing more ground to its adversaries in shaping global governance of the internet. Cyberspace policy touches everything, including commerce, law enforcement, diplomacy, international law, intelligence, and military affairs. That is why some top-down structure for managing it was necessary.

In the absence of a White House cyberteam, the United States is left with a handful of individuals to handle policy. One of them is National Security Advisor John Bolton. With regard to cyberspace, Bolton has shown a predilection for the easy button, issuing aggressive threats with little regard for the consequences.

Before his appointment, for example, Bolton called for the United States to use its “muscular cyber capabilities,” to impose costs on our adversaries “so high that they will simply consign all their cyberwarfare plans to their computer memories to gather electronic dust.” Bolton’s words sound great, but they betray a simplistic understanding of the difficulty involved in unseating Russia and China from their digital perch, including what do when their infrastructure is in an unwitting third country or, worse, in the United States itself.

Another problem is Bolton’s reputation for consolidating power around himself. There is an obvious problem with allowing one person—and a rather trigger-happy one, at that—to have so much influence: He could push the United States toward war, even if Trump never intended it. Although the national security advisor has no formal operational role in war, Bolton already demonstrated that recklessness can inch the country closer to conflict when he made some ill-advised and unsanctioned comments about North Korea. He may also have a freer hand when it comes to cyberwar, thanks to some seldom-noticed provisions within the National Defense Authorization Act that appear to pre-authorize the use of certain cybertools against the United States’ main adversaries. As much as Washington may indeed need to do a better job punching back against cyberthreats, it matters who is doing the punching and how, especially if it is primarily a person with a penchant for living dangerously.

Finally, even with the most state-of-the-art cybertools, it is not clear that complete freedom to use them would deter America’s adversaries. Russia and China, and to a lesser extent North Korea and Iran, are doing everything they can to erode U.S. advantages and strengthen themselves. Russia’s influence operations and what appears to be a multiyear campaign to tap into U.S. digital critical infrastructure probably give the Kremlin a leg up that no rule rewriting will overcome. And China can always stay ahead of the game by stealing U.S. technology, perhaps by cranking up investment in U.S. startups or inviting the country’s most capable companies into their marketplace. Indeed, Apple and Google are already there. It is enough to make experts wonder whether cyberdeterrence alone is a realistic option.

Fortunately, there is a way out of this mess. One step would be smarter and more transparent investment in cybercapabilities. The United States’ defenses aren’t cutting it. The cybersecurity industry has grown at huge rates year after year, but the country may not yet be more secure. One approach to the problem could be to identify the right package of incentives to encourage firms to design with security in mind from the start. The effort could start with emerging technology industries, as a British government report recently recommended. Another would be to apply artificial intelligence not to weapons systems, but toward helping humans identify and patch vulnerabilities at scale.

It is important not to take offensive tools for granted either. When former U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter expressed disappointment with the performance of U.S. Cyber Command in the fight against the Islamic State, it should have been a wake-up call. Carter attributed Cybercom’s woes to interagency infighting. But thanks to the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force, we know the military enjoys wide latitude to go after terrorists, which means that infighting could not have been the sole issue. Rather, Carter’s statement raised questions about whether senior leaders had the right tools at their disposal. In addition to better tools, the United States also need better personnel: more diplomats with digital expertise and more special agents who know computer forensics better than they do al Qaeda.

In addition to better tools, the United States also need better personnel: more diplomats with digital expertise and more special agents who know computer forensics better than they do al Qaeda.

Further, beyond a cyberwar rulebook, the United States desperately needs to know what cards it is even playing with and, just as importantly, how to play them. The country’s experience with counterterrorism is instructive. Following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Republicans and Democrats spent years inventorying the country’s tools—intelligence, law enforcement, diplomatic, military—and determining how best to employ them. The Obama administration even declassified its guidance for certain counterterrorism tools, colloquially known as the “playbook.” Analogous tools exist in cyberspace—investigations, sanctions, and, yes, cyberweapons—and there have also been some limited attempts at inventorying them. But Washington needs to organize them into a hierarchy and outline how each might be used independently, in sequence, or simultaneously.

Ultimately, even more than focusing on tools and rules, the United States has to acknowledge a difficult reality: For the last two decades, the country’s strategic focus and investment has concentrated disproportionately on terrorism and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everything else has been secondary, including responding to those who are threatening the country through cyberspace. No set of rules, cyberweapon, or deterrence strategy alone is likely to change the calculus of China, Russia, or any other country. In fact, the only reported instances where the United States appears to have curbed the use of malicious cybertools have been when it has built cyber concerns into broader discussions, including Obama’s agreement with Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2015, in which China agreed to certain limits on theft of U.S. intellectual property through cyberspace, and through the Iran nuclear accord. Both reportedly produced changes in each country’s pattern of digital confrontation. This suggests that mitigating the harm from rampant digital insecurity will depend less on building more capabilities or plans in cyberspace. Rather, it will depend on integrating them into grand strategies for dealing with today’s adversaries.

EXCLUSIVE: US tip-off helped Turkey target PKK leader in Sinjar

Erdogan accuses Washington of stabbing Ankara in the back, but from Syria to Iraq, the NATO allies' armies are coordinating closely

Ismail Ozden was killed on 15 August after the US shared information with Turkey (Twitter/@ismailumut)

Ece Goksedef

Tuesday 21 August 2018

ANKARA - While US President Donald Trump was threatening Turkey with further sanctions last week, the American military shared intelligence that helped Ankara target a high-ranking Kurdish militant leader, a Turkish diplomat told Middle East Eye.

The strike is evidence of the NATO allies' continuing close military collaboration, which spans from Iraq to Syria, despite a row played out in tariffs and tweets that threatens the foundations of the Turkish economy.

'The Pentagon is the one that usually cares about Turkey's concerns, and we will keep our cooperation with them on the ground'

- Turkish diplomat

Ismail Ozden was killed on 15 August after the Turkish air force conducted two bombing operations against the Sinjar Resistance Units (YBS), an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which both Turkey and the US have designated as a terrorist group.

After the Americans shared information with Turkey, bombs were dropped on Ozden's car in Iraq's northern Sinjar area, near the border with Syria. 

The Pentagon has not denied the diplomat's account. 

"We support Turkey's counter-PKK efforts in a variety of ways. We recognise the very real threat that the PKK poses to Turkey's security," Eric Pahon, a Pentagon spokesperson, told MEE late on Monday.

From Manbij in Syria to Sinjar in Iraq, to a new Turkish-Iraqi border crossing in the works, four Turkish diplomats told MEE that military cooperation between the two countries is progressing regardless of the public sparring over imprisoned American pastor Andrew Brunson.

“The Pentagon is the one that usually cares about Turkey's concerns, and we will keep our cooperation with them on the ground," said one of the diplomats.

The Pentagon on Monday also stressed that, despite the tensions, the relationship between Washington and the Turkish military remains strong.

"There has been no interruption in our relationship with Turkey at all," Colonel Rob Manning told reporters.

'The gear is in'

One project that will move forward according to both Turkish and American sources is joint patrols of the northern Syrian town of Manbij, which lies 25km south of the Syria-Turkey border.

Manbij has been a source of tension between two countries since 2016, when the Syrian Democratic Forces, led by the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), took control of the city with the support of the US army.

'Even if it’s going slow, Manbij is an example of how we can work a deal together'

- Turkish diplomat 

Turkey views the YPG as a terrorist group and an extension of the PKK, which has waged a three-decade insurgency on Turkish soil. Washington sees the YPG as a key ally in the fight against the Islamic State (IS) group.

During Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu's visit to Washington in early June, the two countries reached an agreement: the YPG would withdraw from Manbij, and US and Turkish forces would hold simultaneous and then joint patrols to maintain security and stability in the town.

Last Thursday, US Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis said: “The gear is in. The officers are in and it will start shortly."

David Satterfield, the State Department’s acting Middle East chief and possibly the next US ambassador to Ankara, said on Friday that the row between Turkey and the US had not affected the Manbij agreement.

"The proceeding upon the Manbij roadmap by all parties involved has been smooth and extremely encouraging. There has been no consequence or impact that we can discern of the other bilateral issues in play here," he said. 

Turkish soldiers on patrol in Manbij - joint US-Turkish patrols are expected to begin soon (AFP)

One of the Turkish diplomats MEE spoke to echoed Mattis and Satterfield: the deal may have been moving slowly, but even if it’s taking more time than expected, joint patrols will start soon, he said.

During a visit to Washington earlier this month, the Turkish delegation used Manbij as an example of cooperation in an attempt to try to solve the diplomatic crisis over Brunson, said the diplomat, who works closely with his US counterparts to resolve the disagreement.

“Even if it’s going slow, Manbij is an example of how we can work a deal together," he said. "That’s why we brought it to table when we were in Washington and asked them why they wouldn’t accept another deal to work together on Brunson.”

The visit to Washington ended without any solutions, with the US rebuffing two Turkish deals in exchange for Brunson's release. Regardless, joint Manbij patrols are expected in the coming days.

Limits to cooperation

Manbij is not the only area over which the Turkish army and the Pentagon cooperate. There are also the Qandil Mountains and Sinjar in northern Iraq.

Following America's assistance with the Sinjar operation last week, Turkey now expects the US to share more intelligence about the Qandil Mountains in northeast Iraq, where the PKK has been based since the 90s.

During a February meeting between Mattis and his Turkish counterpart, Nurettin Canikli, in Brussels, the US promised to share intelligence with Turkey to support its fight against the PKK in Iraq. 

But all four of the Turkish diplomats which MEE spoke to stressed that Ankara is aware of the limits of the Pentagon’s cooperation.

In Manbij, the YPG has not yet withdrawn despite the June agreement, and the militia still controls nearly a quarter of Syria with US support.

Turkish and Iraqi governments are working on a new crossing in Ovakoy

In Sinjar, American support for Turkey's fight against the YBS will be limited, since the US uses the area itself to transport weapons, ammunition and other equipment to the YPG in Syria.

The diplomats said the Pentagon has cooperated with Turkey on its hunt for some high-level PKK leaders, but has been reticent to do more.

The US has significant influence over the YBS and, if the group was cleared from the area by Turkish operations, the Americans wouldn't have armed groups to protect their convoys, which carry equipment into Syria.

Iranian-backed Hashd al-Shaabi militias also operate around Sinjar, and the US would prefer the YBS maintain control of the area, rather than any group supported by Iran.

READ MORE►

Turkey ready to release pastor but US offering nothing

One of the diplomats, whose area of expertise is Iraq, told reporters last week that Turkey is working on a bigger plan to clear the YBS from Sinjar. 

“We know there are mostly Yazidis in the YBS and, after IS left the area, these Yazidis think they desperately need this YBS group to protect them," he said. 

"We are trying to find the differences between the Yazidis and the YBS and will work on them to end the Yazidis’ need for the group."

New crossing on Turkey-Iraq border

The real reason behind Turkey’s efforts to clear the area of the YBS is the plan for a new border crossing in Ovakoy, a village on the border of Iraq, Syria and Turkey. 

The only current crossing, located in Habur to the east of Ovakoy, is controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government, and there are no crossings between Turkey and Iraq controlled by the government in Baghdad.

'If we succeed, Iraq won’t depend on Iran to export its oil, and that’s why the US supports the project'

- Turkish diplomat

But the new crossing will directly link Turkey to Iraq and will include a highway that runs from Baghdad to the border, bypassing Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region.

Turkey and Iraq are currently discussing the opening of the crossing. Turkey is ready to take responsibility for the construction work in Iraq, including building parts of the highway and repairing existing sections damaged by IS, one of the diplomats said. 

“There are many armed groups to the south of our planned border gate. This creates an environment of anarchy, and that’s the perfect place for terrorists to have freedom to move," the diplomat said.

"The US uses this freedom to cross the border and help the YPG in Syria, but we need to clear the terror groups to secure the road from Baghdad to the new border gate."

Turkey has not started to hold talks with the US about the new crossing, but the government knows that Washington is not against the project in principle because it will likely increase trade between Turkey and Iraq - and decrease Iraqi dependency on Iran.

Iraq currently has 10 border crossings with Iran and most foreign trade conducted over land is done with its neighbour to the east. 

Iranian canned tomatoes for sale in a Baghdad supermarket - Iraq is dependent on Iran for certain goods (AFP)

One of the diplomats said Turkey is aware that Iran is not happy about the new project because it is afraid of losing influence in Iraq.

“Iran and Iraq have more than 10 border crossings but we have only one, and it’s not even controlled by the central government in Baghdad," he said.

"We want to increase our volume of trade with Iraq. That will also lead to transportation of Kirkuk oil to Turkey’s Ceyhan port.

"If we succeed, Iraq won’t depend on Iran to export its oil, and that’s why the US supports the project.”

However, promises of support from the US for the crossing won't be enough for Turkey. Ankara, the diplomat said, will be looking for the US to cut off its support for the YBS.

This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.

 

Taliban to travel to Moscow for peace talks after 17 years of war

Talks follow wave of violence but also series of overtures from Afghan government

A security check in Helmand, Afghanistan. The Taliban have not responded formally to the government’s offer of a ceasefire. Photograph: Muhammad Sadiq/EPA

Emma Graham-Harrison-Tue 21 Aug 2018

The Afghan Taliban will travel to Moscow for peace talks next month in a high-profile embrace of public diplomacy that will be a landmark for the group and their Russian hosts after 17 years of war.

“The first reaction was positive, they are planning to take part in the meeting,” the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said, adding that he hoped for productive negotiations at the talks, which will bring together a dozen groups including regional heavyweights China, Iran and Pakistan, starting on 4 September.

Blasts heard in Kabul during Afghan president's Eid speech - video

The Taliban did not officially comment on the reports from Moscow, but a senior member of the group confirmed to the Associated Press that they would send a delegation “for the sake of finding peace in Afghanistan”.

The official said the group plans to send representatives to other countries in the region, including Pakistan and China, “to take them into confidence and address their concerns”.

The talks in Moscow would mark the Taliban’s first public participation in a regional forum since they were ousted from power in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on America. They were invited to a previous round of talks in Russia last year but did not attend.

The talks will come after a wave of intense violence, but also in the wake of increased diplomatic outreach by the insurgent group and a series of peace overtures from the Afghan government.

A ceasefire in June, during the Eid holiday at the end of the month of Ramadan, showed huge public appetite for ending decades of war. It also showed the Taliban had command and control over thousands of militants scattered across the country.

President Ashraf Ghani, who made the first offer to halt fighting then, called for another break in hostilities for the Eid al-Adha holiday this week.

The Taliban have not responded formally and the centre of Kabul was hit by rockets on Tuesday as Ghani made a speech on peace. However, the Wall Street Journal reported that they planned to mark an unofficial truce.

The announcement from Moscow comes after a flurry of other diplomatic activity. In recent months the Taliban sent official delegations to Uzbekistan and Indonesia, and held talks with US diplomats in Qatar, where the militants’ political wing has an unofficial base.

Both sides may have more appetite to talk now than they did a few years ago, when US-led forces insisted they could crush the Taliban and the militants argued they had the patience and morale to fight foreign forces until they gave up.

In recent years the Taliban have made gains in rural areas around Afghanistan and have briefly seized several cities, but US air support and other military backing have ensured they cannot capture and hold urban centres.

And while US president Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his frustration with the cost and length of the conflict, American officials fear withdrawing support would allow militant extremists free rein again in the country where the 9/11 attacks were planned. The rise of the regional branch of Isis has only added to those concerns.

The militants have refused to negotiate with the Afghan government, which they denounce as a puppet, and insist they will only attempt to broker peace directly with Washington. The meeting in Moscow could offer a rare public platform for the Afghan government and senior Taliban leaders to interact directly.

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, supported the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, but recently American officials have accused Moscow of backing and arming the Taliban. The Taliban are banned in Russia as a terrorist organisation. Moscow says it maintains contacts only because of security concerns. It fears that radical groups could use Afghanistan as a base to target Russian interests or build up cells in neighbouring countries including Tajikistan, where last month four cyclists were killed in an attack claimed by Islamic State.