Year of the Nationalist

In a great outpouring of respect, the world came to Washington in December to say goodbye to one of the last century’s great champions of liberal internationalism, President George H. W. Bush. The touching remembrance of a life spent connecting nations reminded us all about the value of international cooperation. However, we have to be honest with ourselves that democracy around the world is increasingly under stress.  President Bush’s funeral took on the flavor of a valiant appeal to world leaders to once again reject the forces of nationalism and authoritarianism that ignited the world twice during the last century. Despite this, the struggles that tested President Bush so many times during his career have reemerged. Therefore, we are dubbing 2018 the “Year of the Nationalist,” a moniker we hoped never to attribute to any year since the Great War buried nationalism in the misery of Flanders Fields.

A Shaky Future

Europe is at the epicenter of massive challenges to the liberalized democracies that have kept the peace since the conclusion of World War II. Lingering effects of the 2008 global recession combined with refugee crises from Syria and Libya have invigorated the demons of the globalized economy. These stressors left many feeling abandoned, and their frustration fueled a rise in nationalism. Anti-immigrant parties won large sections of governments throughout Europe. The anti-immigrant party of Sweden is now the country’s third largest political party. Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, showed such undemocratic tendencies, it prompted the typically diplomatic European Union to condemn his authoritarian leadership style. The Freedom Party in Austria, part of the governing coalition, has past ties to the Nazi Party; and Poland, currently governed by the nationalistic Law and Justice Party, is no stranger to recurring far-right demonstrations.

Meanwhile, France is experiencing nation-wide demonstrations against liberal reform initiatives, and the United Kingdom (UK) is struggling to come to terms with the aftermath of the 2016 Brexit vote. In Death of Brexit: Return from the Right, Adam Pharaoh asserted the Remain faction had initially underestimated the strong forward momentum of the British economy following the Brexit referendum but was belatedly proven right. He concluded correctly (in January) that Brexit-related economic pressure could lead ordinary Britons to call for another referendum. Indeed they did, but as the political turmoil accelerates with the approaching endgame, a second referendum is politically unlikely, leaving a worst-case “No Deal Brexit” as the only probable result.

At the exact moment the UK is withdrawing from the European Union (EU), nationalist impulses in the Trump Administration are casting doubt on America’s commitment to NATO. Cracks in Alliance unity have real consequences and may be the reason for recent tests of resolve by Russia, which seems on the verge of a massive escalation in Ukraine following a crisis at sea resulted in the capture of three Ukrainian ships by Russia. Meanwhile, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is expanding Beijing’s influence into an uncertain EU by pushing increased reliance on Chinese investments in Eastern Europe. This convergence is causing real fear throughout the European community and reviving an old idea about the utility of a European army. In A Tale of Two Armies: Defending NATO, Steve Nolan argued that a European Army is at odds with the EU’s purpose and would, regrettably, dilute critical support for NATO itself. Worse, it would further strain relations with the US and ultimately be a liability to the security of Europe rather than its guarantor.

Authoritarianism Reigns

Europe is not the only region experiencing resurgent nationalism. Latin America has its own brand of authoritarianism fueled by rampant organized crime and corruption. In Tearing Down the Walls, Ligia Lee described the crisis associated with transnational gangs in Central America and analyzed a corrective measure that depends on international outreach rather than seclusion behind walls.

Looking further south, John Boswell discussed tensions in Peru over last year’s pardon of its former president, Alberto Fujimori, in Pardon Me: Peru’s Fujimori Problem. The controversial leader was serving a 25-year prison sentence for corruption and human rights abuses when his pardon resulted in nationwide protests and a condemnation from the UN Human Rights Council. That drama and the political turmoil surrounding it has since brought down President Kuczynski and landed Fujimori’s daughter Keiko – herself a powerful presidential candidate – in jail on a “preventative sentence”.

Though Peru seems at the front end of an excruciating period of political soul-searching, nothing compares to the immense man-made disaster playing out in Venezuela. The failure of authoritarian nationalism in the Bolivarian Republic is the genesis of an exploding humanitarian catastrophe. In Maduro Drones On, Lino Miani argued that President Maduro’s repressive tactics to maintain power have degraded security in what was once South America’s richest state. The attempted assassination of Maduro by aerial drones marked the first notable proliferation of the technology outside of the Middle East and should serve as a wake-up call for security practitioners everywhere.

MBS
Authoritarianism personified: Mohammed bin Salman is the face of one of the world’s last functional monarchies.

The Status Quo Remains

While democracy continues to struggle in Europe and Latin America, the Saudi-Iranian rivalry is inspiring the worst impulses of authoritarian nationalists from Ankara to Aden. In Master of Puppets: Pulling the Strings in Turkey, Nuno Felix called into question the stability of President Erdogan’s power as his pursuit of the now exiled Fethullah Gülen continues for its fifth year. This history describes the context behind Erdogan’s authoritarian tactics to amass power and sheds light on his more recent attempts to exploit the murder of Jamal Khashoggi to drive a wedge between regional rival Saudi Arabia and the United States.

In The Huydaydah Trap, Lino Miani outlined the precarious position of the United States in balancing regional conflicts. With strategic resolution of the war in Yemen focused on a single port city on its Red Sea coast, the sum total of centuries of geopolitical rivalry is concentrated on the previously unknown port of Hudaydah. Though most experts agree that battle there will trigger unimaginable suffering by famine and disease, America’s humane and decent call for a ceasefire could revitalize a beleaguered Houthi resistance and prolong the misery of millions.

Best Wishes

Our analysis throughout 2018 highlights the issues that result from a global shift away from international cooperation. We hope President Bush’s funeral will serve as a bulwark against authoritarian nationalism and not as a memorial to international cooperation itself. Though we will never be able to predict the future, one thing we can all agree on is that a well-informed public is a good thing. Our hope is to provide you with the best context to issues facing our world. Follow us throughout 2019 to receive more insightful articles as we make sense of a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. For now, we at the Affiliate Network would like to wish you a very happy holiday season and a great beginning to the new year.


CrushThe views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of any government or private institution.

Major John “Crush” Gerlach is the Blogmaster and editor for the Affiliate Network. He is a US Air Force Officer and C-17A Weapons Instructor Pilot with deployments in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is currently serving as an Olmsted Scholar in Lyon, France.

 

The Hudaydah Trap

For the last 14 years, the war in Yemen has taken a brutal toll on the innocent population of one of the world’s poorest countries. Though an extension of long simmering tribal conflicts, the war is in some ways a proxy battle between the Iranian-sponsored Houthis and the Saudi-led Coalition of Sunni Arab states. Backed by American weaponry, intelligence, logistics, and political top cover, the Coalition has almost managed to completely surround the last Houthi stronghold in Sanaa, Yemen’s traditional capital. In what amounts to an operational siege of a fortified enclave, the port of Hudaydah is both the key to victory and the final lifeline for millions of Yemenis caught in the middle and slowly starving to death. Despite the emergence of dramatic images of malnourished children in the final stages of starvation, Yemen has raised very little public attention from the Pentagon…until last week.

Yemen Conflict
The Saudi-led Coalition has the Houthis surrounded. The fall of Hudaydah will complete the double envelopment and may end the war.

In a stunning reversal, the Secretaries of Defense and State announced that the United States would demand a ceasefire in Yemen. Communicated simultaneously, the demand came with an aggressive 30-day timeline. With Coalition forces massing for a final assault on Hudaydah, the timing of the announcement comes on the eve of what looks to be an irrevocable turning point in Washington’s favor. Some believe the curious timing makes sense given the dire humanitarian situation, but others point out that none of the warring factions are anywhere close to a negotiable position. A peace process, they suggest, is not only doomed at this point, but will likely prolong, and possibly magnify, the escalating humanitarian catastrophe. The opposing positions illustrate the intensity of the ethical dilemma Yemen presents to the world; is it better to stop the fighting or just get it over with?

Tragic Yemen

Experts among the humanitarian community say famine is a uniquely avoidable disaster but, once triggered, it cannot be easily reversed. Suffering from years of privation, currency collapse, and the world’s worst Cholera epidemic, Yemen rides the famine tripwire in every measurable way. Jeremy Konyndyk, recent Director of the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, believes an assault on Hudaydah will plunge the fragile region into the abyss, if it’s not already there. With some justification, he thinks this realization may be the basis for Washington’s policy shift in favor of ceasefire.

Screen Shot 2018-11-03 at 15.59.18
Jeremy Konyndyk, once Director of the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, believes an assault on Hudaydah will trigger a famine in Yemen. His opinion on this matter is authoritative.

It is very easy to see the moral value of stopping the fighting to save the starving children of Yemen. However, the effectiveness of that course is as ambiguous as the political and military vagaries of the war in Yemen itself. Dave Harden, a respected diplomat that recently led US efforts to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Yemen (and briefly Konyndyk’s boss) takes a dim view of the prospects for peace.

Screen Shot 2018-11-03 at 16.20.23
Dave Harden believes the combatants are not ready for peace.

If Mr. Harden is correct, which seems likely, it is doubtful a ceasefire will last very long or have a measurable positive impact on the conditions that lead to famine. Worse, a respite could breathe new life into a failing Houthi defense and crystallize the war into years of intractable stalemate. The resultant mortality of this outcome will eclipse anything Yemen is likely to suffer if Houthi resistance collapses quickly.

Both Sides

Hudaydah and the spiraling famine in North Yemen present a dilemma in the truest sense. Though it is impossible to calculate just how much good can come from a ceasefire, it is also impossible to know how quickly and effectively the fall of Hudaydah will put an end to the war. The answer will be lost in complex analysis of relative combat power, skill of the commanders, tactical geography, and the unknowable will to win inherent in the opposing forces. There is simply no way to determine which is the ethically superior option from the purely utilitarian standpoint of: what is the most good for the most people?

Rather than making an ethical choice, the United States is shrewdly playing both sides. Calling for a ceasefire widely expected to fail makes it easier to blame one’s opponent for the disappointing result. Though this sounds intensely cynical, it can have the practical outcome of weakening Houthi/Iranian resolve, eroding international support, and may increase their need to make concessions. Giving the Coalition thirty days to implement it, however, encourages an attempt to settle the matter. Though calling for a ceasefire is probably the only politically acceptable option in this gamble, with Coalition troops already advancing into the outskirts of the city, the Hudaydah trap has been sprung, and there is no going back. History will balance the intensity of resultant suffering against the durability and justice — if any — of the political outcome.


Lino Miani, CEO Navisio Global LLC

Lino Miani is a retired US Army Special Forces officer, author of The Sulu Arms Market, and CEO of Navisio Global LLC.

 

 

 

 

 

For additional information concerning the war in Yemen please reference the following articles:

“A hint of hope for a ceasefire in Yemen.”

“Ali Abdullah Saleh’s death will shake up the war in Yemen?

 

A Tale of Two Armies: Defending NATO

During the NATO Summit in Brussels earlier this year, the President of the United States, leader of one of the founding member states of the Alliance, stunned the world when he reportedly declared – in a meeting of the heads of state and government – that the USA would “go it alone” if the Allies failed to increase defense spending. With Alliance unity considered a lynchpin of security in Europe, the mere perception of cracks in its armor could make 70 years of peace vulnerable to collapse. In response, some European Union (EU) members are reviving an old idea and seeking to reverse Europe’s reliance for its security on the United States by creating another military apparatus: the European Army. To some, the concept is a fool’s errand. It runs counter to NATO and is at odds with the EU’s purpose. More importantly, it is harmful to the relationship between Europe and the United States.

Fundamentals

“World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.”

– Robert Schuman

In 1946, as Europe struggled to rebuild after the Second World War, a young State Department official named George Kennan wrote there could be “no permanent peaceful coexistence” with the Soviet Union. With those few words, Kennan summarized the political reality that would dominate American strategic thinking for the next 50 years. Thereafter, the looming Soviet threat forced western European nations toward greater military and economic integration and inspired support from the United States which otherwise would have retreated into its traditional isolationism. Announcing his plan for the recovery of Europe, George Marshall, then US Secretary of State, claimed the “remedy [to prevent further deterioration] lies in…restoring the confidence of the European people in the economic future of their own countries and of Europe as a whole.” As Nicolaus Mills explains, “the genius of the Marshall Plan was that it enabled the countries of Western Europe to look upon one another not as rivals competing in a zero-sum game but as partners with a chance to gain from each other through liberalized trade and interchangeable currencies made reliable by American backing.” European security, at least in the American view, began with sound economic fundamentals.

Unfortunately, the USSR remained undeterred and continued to spread Communist influence throughout Eastern Europe. On April 4th, 1949, as a result of this seemingly uncontested expansion, twelve European nations and the United States ratified the Washington Treaty establishing NATO as a mechanism to deter and repel Soviet aggression. Accordingly, European countries began integrating their economies through a series of treaties that provided a formal construct for their collective economic interests. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Economic Community (EEC), and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC), among others, fostered a cooperative international environment whereby each nation could better control its destiny. Perhaps by design, they also formed the foundations of what would become the European Union.

Senior British and French officers during NATO exercise in West Germany (1950)
Senior British and French officers during NATO exercise in West Germany (1950) Source Credit: Imperial War Museum

Concerned about the overwhelming combat power of the Red Army in 1950, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) contended “the appropriate and early rearming of Western Germany is of fundamental importance to the defense of Western Europe against the USSR.” France vehemently opposed this idea and offered an alternative. Designed to stop German rearmament, the French Plan, designed by Defense Minister René Pleven, called for a highly integrated European Army. The UK worried Pleven’s “European Defense Community” (EDC) might weaken NATO, but did not refuse the treaty outright. The American government, an early advocate for rearming Germany, questioned the logic of Pleven’s proposal. The US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, claimed the EDC was “hastily conceived without serious military advice… unrealistic and undesirable.” In the eyes of western officials, the Pleven Plan, and ultimately the EDC, would result in “duplication, confusion and divided responsibility.” Though several European nations agreed to the terms contained within the Treaty Establishing the European Defense Community on May 27, 1952, the French Parliament refused to ratify it. The EDC collapsed and the allies quickly integrated the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO, allowing West Germany to rearm under a “collective self-defense” organization. France’s concern for German rearmament subsided, and with it, the push for an army outside NATO became a great taboo of the Cold War.

The European Army Reemerges

2018 NATO Summit
2018 NATO Summit Source Credit: Express.co.uk

Contemporary politics and a shaky transatlantic relationship are the rationales behind the European Army’s recent resurgence. US President Trump’s demand for NATO allies to pay their “fair share and meet their financial obligations” enflames Europe’s desire to extricate itself from the US-dominated security relationship. Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission President, expressed this sentiment in a 2015 interview saying, “A joint EU army would show the world that there would never again be a war between EU countries… such an army would also help us to form common foreign and security policies and allow Europe to take on responsibility in the world… a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values.”

It is therefore unsurprising the EU began developing a joint military investment strategy exclusive of NATO and the United States in November 2017. Under the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) agreement, EU members agreed to leverage their combined economies of scale while not explicitly adhering to NATO’s defense spending goal of two-percent gross domestic product (GDP). Responding to US concerns that an increase in EU defense spending could distract from NATO activities, the European Council President, Donald Tusk, warned the United States to “appreciate [its] allies, after all [it doesn’t] have that many.” The rhetorical back-and-forth between western nations continues to drive the United States and its European allies farther apart and provides fodder for some to demand a robust, Europe-only, military apparatus. In late August, French President Emmanuel Macron verbalized this idea, telling European ambassadors “Europe [could] no longer entrust its security to the United States alone. It’s up to us to guarantee our security.”

A Tale Not Worth Retelling

Overt discussion of an extra-NATO military organization is no longer the great taboo it was during the Cold War, but the European Army generates more questions than it answers. The stated aim of the European Union was to end “the frequent and bloody wars between neighbors” by creating a common economic and financial market for European nations. It was never intended to compete with NATO as a provider of multi-lateral military power. The logic the UK used to protest the EDC in the 1950s is still applicable today; that a vote for the European Army dilutes NATO’s resources, degrades its unity of effort, and convolutes the EU’s purpose. With over 70 years of experience working through common funding, command-and-control, training, standardization, doctrine, and capability development, NATO remains the gold standard of collective defense. By contrast, Europe has not developed protocols for controlling the European Army, resolving conflicts between member states, or even disputes between those member states and the EU itself.

European leaders should recognize the dangers of moving forward with their own military unless their long-term goal is to mitigate US influence over European military spending. Perhaps goaded by spite for the current US Administration, Europe is on the brink of a major strategic error. In this tale of two armies, an untested and unfunded European Army is not only a poor substitute for NATO, but it is also a threat to the viability of the Alliance and the security of Europe.


Major Steve “SWAP” Nolan is a US Air Force Weapons Officer, C17 Instructor Pilot, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS) graduate, and is currently serving as the Director of Operations for the 21st Airlift Squadron, California. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Human Resource Management and three Master’s degrees in Business Administration and Operations Management with a focus on Air Mobility Logistics, and Military Strategy. Steve recently published an article discussing how the US Air Force can improve its talent management practices and is currently working on another article based on his SAASS thesis: Triggers, Traps, and Mackinder’s Maps – The Russian Bear, NATO, and the Near Abroad.

…Access, experience, and knowledge…Worldwide

%d bloggers like this: