The House Refuses to Abandon Ukraine
The House Refuses to Abandon Ukraine
The GOP’s isolationist wing loses big in a pair of defense votes
The House passed the annual defense policy bill on Friday, and what a shock it must have been for the press corps. The Beltway media spent the week informing readers that conservative social policies doomed the bill and that GOP isolationists might block support for Ukraine.
They need better sources. Neither happened, and Republican amendments to abandon Ukraine in particular were routed on the floor. The GOP’s abandon-Ukraine caucus is loud and damaging to the party, but most Americans appreciate the stakes for the U.S. in backing Kyiv.
The House bill authorizes $300 million in security assistance for Ukraine, which Rep.?Marjorie Taylor Greene?aimed to strip in an amendment. Her measure failed 341-89. Rep.?Matt Gaetz?tried to block all further military aid for Kyiv, which lost 358-70. A majority of Republicans joined Democrats in opposing both.
The measures would have damaged U.S. interests and been a disaster for the public’s view of Republicans as the party of a strong national defense. Since when are Republicans against helping people who want to fight for their freedom against Russia or China?
Not one to miss an opportunity to adopt a losing cause,?Donald Trump ?belly-flopped in on Friday with a statement that when he wins the Presidency he’ll end the war in “24 hours,” details never to follow. “This conflict must end. Not one American mother or father wants to send their child to die in Eastern Europe. We must have PEACE.”
Not a single American solider has died in Ukraine, which is part of the point in supporting that country with weapons. Check Russia there so that U.S. troops don’t have to fight?Vladimir Putin ’s tanks in Vilnius or Warsaw.
Mr. Trump lamented dwindling U.S. weapons stocks, a real problem that he could have done more to prevent while President. But the U.S. is replacing donated equipment with better kit, and new contracts are a start on reviving the defense industrial base.
The Trump-Gaetz view commands even less support in the Senate. That’s all the more encouraging given that Mr. Biden has barely made the case for supporting Ukraine to the public. But Congressional patience isn’t infinite, and Mr. Biden ought to use Congress’s show of political support to accelerate the delivery of weapons, especially the long-range missiles the President has been hesitating over.
The GOP isolationists rail against “forever wars,” but the real recipe for extended war is giving Ukraine only enough weapons to fight to a draw rather than to drive Russia out. That’s been President Biden’s strategy. Former Vice President?Mike Pence ?had it right?in our pages this week : The fastest route to peace is a Ukrainian victory.
++++++++++++++
A new security culture in the Middle East
By Eman Ragab - 14 Jul 2023
New frameworks and mechanisms to ensure security in the Middle East and North Africa region have arisen over recent years.
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has long been seen as suffering from a security deficit, all the more so when compared to other regions that have succeeded in creating dynamic forms of collective security to contend against common threats.
However, the last seven years have given rise to a number of new frameworks and mechanisms for security in the region. Some of these have been proposed by the US, others by countries from the region itself. Some of them focus on terrorism, such as the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC) in Riyadh and the Sahel and Sahara Counter-Terrorism Centre (CEN-SAD) in Cairo. Others are concerned with maritime security, such as the International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC) and the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF).
Several mechanisms have also been established to carry out strategic-political consultation on conventional and non-conventional security matters. These include the Negev Forum announced in June 2022, the I2U2 Group founded in the autumn of 2021, and the Trilateral Mechanism between Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq launched in 2020.
Clearly, the MENA region is on the threshold of a new phase in which a diversity of multilateral arrangements is resting on a new security culture. The latter refers to the bedrock on which the security relations among a group of countries are built together with their collective security decisions and strategies.
It helps them to determine the answers to the two vital questions that any regional security arrangement must address. What is at risk in the region? What are the sources of threat?
The new security culture in the Middle East has three main dimensions.
The collective security mechanisms that might arise in the future will probably thus focus not on particular “enemy” states but on specific issues that constitute threats and opportunities. The countries that take part in these mechanisms will be like-minded in the sense that they will share perspectives on mutual interests and potential benefits.
If a country is included or excluded from a particular security arrangement, it will not be on the basis of a “friend-or-foe” judgement. Instead, it will be on the basis of criteria related to what it can bring to relationships in the framework of that arrangement. The new security culture also means that any potential collective security arrangements will not necessarily include all Arab countries or exclude non-Arab countries. They will most likely have a limited number of members focused on certain issues of mutual interest and include both Arab and non-Arab partners.
领英推荐
In keeping with this new security culture, there will also be increasing attention paid to non-military aspects of regional security, as military tools on their own has proven ineffective in dealing with the non-military aspects of security. Future collective security arrangements will thus engage a diverse set of tools that are best suited to dealing with the issues that fall within the scope of these arrangements.
Economic, technological, environmental, medical or other tools can be brought to bear depending on the case in hand. The private sector will also play an increasingly vital role in providing and administering the necessary measures. In other words, the particular strengths of a particular state will no longer be the primary factors to be born in mind when determining the measures and tools to be brought to bear in any collective security arrangement.
Instead, the capacities and resources of private sector firms, including multinational companies, will become more and more instrumental, especially in the light of the growing consensus among the countries in the region that the current and future cross-border economic, social, and security challenges require unconventional forms of collective action.
These will bring to bear modern technologies and the contributions of young people and women in order to ensure sustainable stability and security in the region.
The writer is head of the Security Research Department at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies and a visiting professor of political science at Cairo University.
* A version of this article appears in print in the?13 July, 2023 edition of?Al-Ahram Weekly
----------------
Why Russia’s Democracy Never Began
By Maria Snegovaya ?(bio)
If the Russia of three decades ago, shortly after the Soviet breakup, was a democracy (albeit a weak and fledgling one), who or what sank it? Was it President Boris Yeltsin, with his October 1993 decision to crush opponents by force, his pushing of an executive-dominated constitution, and his disastrous choice of Vladimir Putin as his successor? Had Yeltsin selected someone else, might things be different today?
The answer, I am afraid, is not to be found in something as contingent as bad leadership. The question “Who lost Russia?” is meaningless because Russia, from the point of view of democracy, was never truly “gained.” The Soviet Union broke up in 1991, but no real democratic transition took place. Instead, the former communist system remained in place, with only a few outward appearances shifting: the old Soviet wolf in new clothing. The Soviet-era ruling groups and institutions largely survived at the top of Russian politics. One exception was—or should have been—the market economy, but even there, old elites seized for themselves the most lucrative assets and positions. The eventual re-autocratization of Russia was just a matter of time.
The temporary weakening of an authoritarian regime may sometimes be conflated with a democratic transition. A transition, however, requires fundamental, systemic changes in a given polity. Most authoritarian breakdowns, however, do not bring about democratization but lead instead to a new authoritarian regime or state collapse and anarchy.1
A democratic transition means the institutionalization of new rules such as tolerance of opposition, bargaining and compromise among different?[End Page 105]?political forces, pluralist structures and procedures of competition, and the peaceful, lawful transfer of power according to electoral outcomes.2 ?In transitions from authoritarianism to democracy, political elites are crucial: They set the structural conditions that promote the institutionalization of new rules. Low levels of elite rotation tend to contribute to the resilience of authoritarian regimes.3 ?A democratic transition occurs only when an authoritarian government yields power to a new one operating within the new set of rules—something that is unlikely to happen if old elites remain mostly in place. (ctd.)
+++++++++++++
Washington largely approves of Japan’s strategic and military measures and transformations, as they ultimately serve the purpose of building strong alliances capable of deterring China and preventing it from excessive military assertiveness, while expanding the US sphere of influence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The Japanese military, in fact, ranks as the world’s fifth most powerful.
+++++++++++++
Those who listened to Modi’s Congress speech, whether in American political circles or anywhere else where the shape of the world in the next few years is a subject of concern, could see that, while India wants to be close to the West, it does not want to be part of it. Modi was mindful of the pull of history as much as the present moment’s powerful drivers. He was also aware, realistically and without hyperbole, of the true weight of his nation. But his government’s effort to position itself in the world will be far from easy as the confrontation between the US and China unfolds, particularly in East Asia, a region of strategic importance to India, since India’s actions will have a global impact.
The End+++++++++++++