Grave Dangers: Richard Falk and Lawrence Davidson on Trump's Middle East Policies

Go to Original
By Dan Falcone

Now that Donald Trump has signaled that the US no longer sees the creation of a Palestinian state as a crucial component of an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, the future of US diplomacy in the Middle East is in turmoil. According to international law and international relations scholar Richard Falk, "Trump's casual public comments exhibited no substantive grasp of the situation, and thus when he indicated his abandonment of a two-state consensus, it is best interpreted as reflecting Israel's preferred outcome."

Meanwhile, in a February 15 meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump also continued to disparage Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran, raising questions, referring to it as a "danger."

In this interview, Richard Falk and historian Lawrence Davidson, whose research has focused on the history of US foreign relations with the Middle East, discuss the ramifications of the Trump presidency in regards to Middle East affairs, the Palestinian people and the American embassy in Israel, as well as the meaning of the coming of Trump foreign policies across the world in regards to Iran, Russia and potential NATO expansion.

Daniel Falcone: What does the election of Trump mean for the Palestinians? Do you see a spike in aggression and settlement expansion?

Richard Falk: Trump's election is generally bad news.... In international policy, one can imagine that if Trump were foolish enough to go ahead with his pledge to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, it would be widely experienced throughout the Islamic world as a provocation. Among its unintended consequences might be a new surge of Palestinian resistance, a renewal of active Arab support for Palestinian self-determination, further de-legitimation of Israeli settlement expansion and its various efforts to transform Jerusalem into a Jewish city, a more militant [boycott, divestment and sanctions] BDS campaign around the world, and added pressure at the UN to censure its expansionist defiance of international law, and even to consider the imposition of sanctions.

Lawrence Davidson: Trump's election means that you have a US government that will no longer do one thing and say another. With the exception of Obama's belated lame-duck behavior, the US has always, in practice, supported Israel unquestionably. At the same time, you had a diplomatic position taken that Israeli expansion was counterproductive because it got in the way of a "peace process" that had, in truth, long been meaningless.

[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, in his rather undiplomatic way, demanded that Washington bring words and actions together into a coherent, 100 percent pro-Israeli policy. Obama, apparently still having faith in a "two-state solution," refused to do this.

Trump, on the other hand, has very little understanding of the historical nuances of the conflict. Also, he has no sympathy with underdogs. They, including the Palestinians, are just "losers." So he will bring words and action together as Netanyahu wishes. Under Trump, the US will give its blessing to Israeli imperialism and racism.

President Trump stated numerous times over the course of his campaign that the Iran nuclear deal framework of 2015 was "the worst deal in history." Conjecture without content became common in regards to the intense criticism of all things President Obama. What do you suppose is the potential impact on the deal with the present administration?

Falk: There are reports that Israeli intelligence officials have communicated to the Trump transition team that they hope that the Iran Nuclear Agreement will not be undermined because of its probable detrimental impact on Israeli security. If Trump were to go ahead with a renewed policy of hostility toward Iran, it would immediately raise tensions, and could quickly escalate in the direction of war, with grave dangers of producing another Syrian tragedy of massive displacement and prolonged strife that could cause turmoil and disruptions throughout the entire region, and give rise to a new cycle of extremism.

It could also ruin any prospects for a collaborative approach to the region that joined the United States with Russia and Turkey in peacekeeping efforts, initially to achieve a sustained cease-fire in Syria, followed by an agreed political process. I can only hope that Trump comes to realize the grave dangers of adopting a policy of confrontation toward Iran. Among these dangers is the likelihood that hardliners would again gain the upper hand in the governing process in Tehran, and the moderates who have sought to end national and regional tensions would be marginalized, or worse.

Davidson: Trump often acts in delusional ways. I think he is a man who has always made his own rules and gotten away with it. Enough money will do that for you. However, he has also gotten away with it because he has operated in limited contexts -- mostly in the realm of business. Well, "he isn't in Kansas anymore" (the allusion is to the Wizard of Oz). He is in a much rougher neighborhood, and consequences of acting in his usual egocentric, "I make the rules," way can be quite dangerous for all of us.

Specifically in reference to Iran, he will not be able to renegotiate the nuclear arms pact. His attempt to do so will alienate all the European powers involved and will cost a number of US companies some very lucrative contracts. It is a losing proposition for him and for the US. Much more so than for Iran, who will turn more and more to Russia and China as trading partners. The question is: Will Trump's ego allow him to reconsider any negative moves that he now might have in mind? Such reconsideration is really out of character for him. And, of course, the Israelis will be right there whispering in his ear, urging him to go jump off of this particular cliff.

For the Democratic elite and US government elected officials like Charles Schumer, how fragile is the nuclear deal, considering its skepticism is bipartisan? For instance, if lobbyists pressure politicians regardless of party, based on contributions, is it likely to be reversed?

Falk: It is difficult to assess how much of the skepticism about the Iran nuclear deal was rhetoric, and how much represents real policy goals. There is little doubt that if Netanyahu strongly signals a demand for scrapping the agreement, and confronting Iran and resuming a policy of threatening attack, Trump, with the support of most Democrats, will feel strong pressure to deliver on his earlier denunciation of the agreement, and be faced with many adverse consequences almost certain to follow. The whole diplomatic context is extremely fragile. It should be appreciated that if the arrangement on Iran's nuclear program collapses after being so patiently negotiated, and successfully implemented since 2014 despite the intense opposition of Netanyahu's Israel and its American loyalists in Congress, it would be widely perceived around the world as a huge setback in the search for regional stability and the struggle to prevent any further spread of nuclear weapons.

It should also be remembered that this agreement was a multilateral arrangement between Iran and the P5 +1. That is, the agreement was a joint effort of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, and not merely a bilateral arrangement between the US and Iran. If the US government irresponsibly undermines the agreement, it will badly damage relations with both its European allies and its main geopolitical rivals, as well as undermine confidence in diplomatic alternatives to war in the Middle East.

Davidson: Trump might well choose to renege on US obligations (so much for the sanctity of contracts!) and no doubt he would have the agreement of Zionist politicians like Schumer. But the consequences will be the increased isolation of the US -- particularly from Europe, whose businesses will just move into Iran while US companies will lose out.

There is a dangerous aspect to all of this, however. Trump's tendency is to rub shoulders with dictators. We have seen this with his attitude toward Russia and also toward the present dictatorship in Egypt. He might start to cozy up to the Gulf dictators as a way of trying to scare the Iranians. This could lead to a naval confrontation in the Persian Gulf.

President Trump also seems very anxious to forge a heightened relationship with Israel and tolerant of the extreme rhetoric of Benjamin Netanyahu and his reactionary statesmanship. If this eventually leads to undermining Iran, will that pose problems for Trump, who is trying to appear pro-Russian and pro-Putin? Would it lead to inevitable North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) expansion?

Falk: Yes, Trump will have to take up juggling if he goes ahead and scraps the agreement with Iran and at the same time, seeks to avoid alienating Russia, and quite possibly France and Germany. These European countries are already nervous about what the Trump presidency means with respect to the future of the post-World War II international order that has essentially kept the peace on the continent since 1945. This order is far from perfect, of course, and under pressure from other sources, especially due to the rise of chauvinism and European Trumpism. Nevertheless, Europe has survived decades of Cold War tensions without experiencing yet another major war, this one quite possibly fought with nuclear weapons.

In light of Trump's irresponsible behavior, even Putin may decide that it was time to recalculate Russian interests. This could happen quite quickly if Trump goes ahead and wrecks one of the few potentially stabilizing developments in the Middle East during the last several years. Similarly, if Israel joins NATO, this might be more than Putin is willing to swallow.

Davidson: I think Trump's affinity for Netanyahu is part of the fact that he is most comfortable with fellow bullies. He is setting up a worldwide club of ruling bullies.

If Trump takes an aggressive anti-Iranian stand, I suspect it will complicate his relations with Russia; how much so, depends on what else Trump does, particularly about participation in NATO. If he shows signs of backing out of Europe, the Russians might be willing to stay out of his confrontation with Iran. If he follows Obama's program in Europe, things might be different.

My guess is that Trump will begin withdrawing troops from Europe at a slow pace. He will demand a renovation of the Iran Accord and get nowhere with this. There might be more US sanctions on Iran. However, as I mentioned, the Iranians will not compromise with Trump, and barring a naval confrontation in the Persian Gulf, it will be US businesses that will suffer and Trump's frustration level that will go up.

It was reported that David Friedman, Trump's appointed ambassador to Israel, will work from Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv, even before the embassy switches locations. Can you comment on the symbolism and pending dangers of such a hostile, crude and flagrant act?

Falk: Moving the embassy will be dangerously provocative to the Palestinians and to the region generally. It would confirm the worst impressions that America under Trump has become a rogue state posing catastrophic risks not only in the Middle East, but elsewhere as well.

I am quite confident that there are numerous discussions going in various "deep states" throughout the world about how to contain Trump's America geopolitically and economically, given the early indications that his policies will intensify conflict in many parts of the world. It is possible that these worries are overblown and misdirected -- that, in fact, Trump's call for "America First" (despite evoking unpleasant recollections that such a phrase was the invention of those in the 1930s harboring fascist sympathies) and a positive relationship with Russia, might lead [to] a more relaxed global setting. We should not rule out the possibility that Trump's diplomacy could deescalate Middle East strife and international tensions, give the US a lower global profile and enable a more balanced world order to emerge, doing most of its damage here at home, through moves to implement his vision of nativist nationalism.

My own sense is that if David Friedman chooses to live in Jerusalem, and quietly conduct diplomatic business from the now existing US consulate in the city, it will not be noticed very much. It will not be treated as a rupture with the past unless it is accompanied by other American encouragements of Israeli extremism undertaken with the clear backing of the White House.

In this regard, any move by Israel to end the conflict with the Palestinians by unilateral moves -- such as annexing the West Bank, delinking Gaza and declaring that there be no further diplomatic process -- will lead to strong regional and global reactions, as well as intensify efforts at the UN and in civil society to brand Israel as an outlaw state dangerous to regional and world peace and guilty of criminal behavior. Already there exists a growing international concern that Israel has become "an apartheid state" pursuing policies manifesting a "settler colonial" mentality. Such perceptions pose a challenge to postcolonial international society that will not be indefinitely ignored, especially if Palestinians achieve greater unity and tactical focus.

Davidson: Friedman owns property in Israel, including an apartment in Jerusalem. According to reports, that is where he will live and work.

There are also reports that the embassy move is on a relatively slow track. The Zionists aren't pushing for it strongly because there are other bilateral issues that have higher priority, in particular, a green light for the annexation of settlements. Such a green light would be the backdrop justification for Trump to carry through with the embassy move.

If the Americans do move the embassy to Jerusalem, and eventually the rest of the world follows suit, it will mark the end of Palestinian hopes for a two-state solution. 

Lastly, can you comment on the February 15 Netanyahu and Trump meeting at the White House? What was the significance of this meeting?

Falk: The significance of this meeting was mainly a matter of style and tone, an exhibition of the US enlarged deference to the wishes of Israel when it comes to the fate of the Palestinians. Trump's casual public comments exhibited no substantive grasp of the situation, and thus when he indicated his abandonment of a two-state consensus, it is best interpreted as reflecting Israel's preferred outcome. [He added] that as long as the parties agreed it didn't matter to him whether it was one state or two states so long as it ended the conflict.

Since Israel would rather re-experience Masada [last stand in the First Jewish Revolt against Rome] than renounce the core Zionist objective of establishing a Jewish state, the only one-state "solution" on the horizon of realistic possibilities is an Israeli "one state" that fulfills the messianic nationalist ideal embraced by deep Zionism, likely consisting of completing the expansionist process of recent years by incorporating all or most of the West Bank (already spoken of inside Israel by the biblical names of Judea and Samaria), casting Gaza adrift, consolidating control over Jerusalem, and transferring as many West Bank Palestinians as possible to Jordan.

Fair Game: The Resistance Puts Pressure on Complicit Democrats

Go to Original
By Michael Corcoran

Donald Trump is not the only politician targeted by the blossoming progressive resistance movement in the United States. Establishment Democrats are now openly worried about being held accountable by left-wing activists when they cozy up to industry or aren't steadfast in their opposition to Trump. The fact that nervous senior Democrats felt compelled to ask Bernie Sanders to "urge activists to redirect their anger at Republicans instead of at moderate Democratic lawmakers," as The Washington Post reported, is evidence that the strategy is working.

The shock and awe of Trump's presidency is no doubt a central reason for the nation's collective anger and organized discontent. Democrats, however, would be wise to remember that what has come to be known as "the Resistance" did not spring up from nowhere the day Trump was sworn in as president. The Sanders campaign, the ongoing Movement for Black Lives and the Occupy movement, for example, grew well beyond expectations and emphasized structural problems that both parties were complicit in. With so much at stake, and armed with an increased consciousness of interlocking issues of class, race, gender and more, activists are taking action.

A chief concern is that the Democrats, compromised by private capital and broadly supportive of the neoliberal model, will serve as a weak opposition party and continue to ignore (and even attack) progressives. Indeed, some Democrats and pundits are already leaning on the dubious assumption that strongly opposing the GOP will somehow be "helping Trump" in the 2018 mid-term elections. The left, accordingly, is pressuring congressional Democrats in both red and blue states: to obstruct Trump's appointments, militantly oppose his agenda (including a movement to impeach) and to embrace more progressive policies. This tactic, organizers argue, will not only strengthen the opposition to Trump, but also help sustain a movement that will long outlive Trump's presidency.

"The issues we are protesting are not just partisan issues," said Code Pink's Medea Benjamin in an interview with Truthout. "Immigration and mass deportation, support for an interventionist foreign policy, its connection to Wall Street and support for the neoliberal policies that have hurt so many Americans -- the Democrats have not been strong on so many of these issues."

"We Won't Tolerate Your Betrayal"

One recent example of this dynamic occurred on February 17 when climate denier Steve Pruitt was confirmed to head the EPA, with the help of two Democratic votes in the Senate. Pruitt has devoted just about his whole life to waging war on the EPA, having sued the agency five times. Progressive organizations and activists responded with extreme frustration.

"We will be holding accountable those senators from both parties that voted to confirm Pruitt. We are putting those senators on notice: We won't tolerate your betrayal of the planet and the public trust," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, in a statement shared with Truthout (emphasis added).

Progressives specifically called attention to the two Democratic senators who enabled Pruitt's confirmation: Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota) and Joe Manchin (West Virginia). On social media, Manchin was called a "sellout" and a "traitor" who supported an "enemy against the environment."

Where will this justified anger lead? Some suggest complicit Democrats should face primary opponents in coming elections. Moumita Ahmed, an organizer for Millennials for Revolution who served as a Sanders delegate during the presidential primary, told Truthout that a Democratic Party filled with politicians like Manchin will repel a generation of activists away from the party.

"These two Democrats aren't just anomalies. Their vote shouldn't be justified," Ahmed said. "If we are to engage millennials to vote Democrat, we have to vote out the corporatists like the Manchins and the Heitkamps."

Some Democrats, however, think organizers should be careful with the likes of Manchin and other red state senators. "These activists are familiar with the state of West Virginia, right?" quipped one former congressional staffer, in an interview with Truthout. Manchin, up for re-election in 2018 in a state where Trump got 69 percent of the vote, has been described by the conservative National Review as "the nation's most vulnerable Democratic senator."

Activists insist, though, that complicated electoral politics do not justify voting in unconscionable ways. Plus, not every target of progressive activism can use red-state demographics to defend their votes. Less than two weeks into Trump's presidency thousands of protesters arrived at the home for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York), whom the left has long distrusted, urging him to "Just Vote No" on Trump's appointments. Schumer has supported several Trump appointments. Soon after he "put out a statement that hinted Democrats might filibuster Trump's nominee [Neil Gorsuch]," observed an article in New York magazine. "Maybe all those signs and spines are getting through."

But maybe not. When Virginia senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner voted to confirm Mike Pompeo to head the CIA, more than 100 protesters showed up at Warner's office to show their discontent and pressure Democrats to block his Cabinet choices. The Democrats, however, have not heeded these warnings. As the Washington Post reported, they "appear unwilling to do what their base is asking":

On Tuesday, the full Senate voted 96 to 4 to confirm Nikki Haley, Trump's nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations. Earlier in the day, they voted Haley and three other nominees out of committee -- Ben Carson to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Wilbur Ross to serve as commerce secretary; and Elaine Chao to lead the Transportation Department. That followed full Senate votes for Pompeo on Monday and for Defense Secretary James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly on Friday.

This record does not inspire confidence that the Democrats will fight tooth and nail in legislative battles, as Republicans have done in recent years. The GOP, of course, successfully obstructed President Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, leading some to call it a "stolen seat." Many are skeptical the Democrats will attempt to do so, even though, when polled, Democratic voters overwhelmingly favored using a filibuster to block Trump's nominee. A February 7 poll from the Economist/YouGov shows 52 percent in favor, 12 percent opposed (36 percent unsure). Only 19 percent of those under 29 said they oppose a filibuster.

"Progressives need to tell Democrats that if they don't filibuster the Supreme Court nomination, the base will raise hell," said Norman Solomon in an interview with Truthout. Solomon is the co-founder of RootsAction, which has been organizing a flurry of petitions online to pressure both Democrats and Republicans to take bold action against Trump. The organization's efforts include a campaign to impeach Trump.

"The base has to lead, to make the leaders follow," Solomon said. "Politicians and citizens have different roles. They have some shared goals, but very different roles. Especially during times of crisis as we have now, it is important that citizens act as citizens and use their power to push politicians."

On the heels of the Trump election, the Sanders campaign, the ongoing Movement for Black Lives, the Occupy Movement and the Great Recession, we are seeing an increase in class awareness across the country, including the ways in which race and class intersect. The public is now more educated about the pervasive role of money in politics and how Wall Street, Big Pharma and others are constantly leaning on Democrats, manipulating them with both carrots and sticks.

"People in general are getting a very quick education. They are reading more, buying radical books, joining more protests," said Benjamin, whose organization has long protested both Democrats and Republicans. "It is a great moment for education and mobilization and it is important we are reaching beyond partisanship. This is not just about Trump."

The Great Beltway Fallacy: Capitulation as an Electoral Strategy

On Sunday, the New York Times published an article titled "Are Liberals Helping Trump?" which advanced the argument that progressive activism turns off moderates and helps Republicans. This view that being progressive is a liability, treated as a truism in the beltway and in the dominant media, is advanced during every election cycle, it seems. However, this time around, it is an especially curious position. First of all, the Democrats just lost an election in which they ran a career centrist who helped lead the corporate-friendly Democratic Leadership Council, and was awash in Wall Street money. Meanwhile, in recent years, the Republicans have not gone "moderate" -- they've taken the opposite approach, and have won at every level of government.

The Times piece relies on a few anecdotal examples of "reluctant Trump supporters," who are turned off by the anti-Trump sentiment on social media and in the streets. As Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's (FAIR) Jim Naureckas noted on February 17, the article "refrains from taking a broader look at polling, which is probably wise, because doing so totally undermines [the] argument."

The Times article dismisses the hard word of organizers and struggles of working-class Americans by making a cheap reference to Hollywood liberalism (which, contrary to the ruminations of Bill O'Reilly and friends, does not adequately reflect the American left). It then quotes Ann O'Connell, a 72-year-old retired Trump supporter who said the protests are "destroying the country," adding that she feels "like we are in some kind of civil war right now." It is protesters, in this account -- not Trump's bigotry, racist policies, repression and corruption -- that are causing bitter divisions. This narrative against progressivism was commonplace during the 2016 primary when, despite overwhelming data suggesting otherwise, pundits and politicians insisted that a democratic socialist would be too left for the electorate.

The Washington Post also pushes this Beltway trope. The headline of an article about the Gorsuch appointment reads, "There's a Reason the Democrats Probably Won't Filibuster Gorsuch: Polls." While the Post correctly notes that Gorsuch has a positive approval rating, it fails to mention that the "polls" show that only 12 percent of Democratic voters support even allowing a vote for Gorsuch, let alone confirming him. The Post, like so much of the establishment, assumes the best strategy is to placate conservatives and moderates. Taking the progressive base for granted is the default setting for the establishment. Yet many still become confused and/or angry when progressives aren't energized come election time.

Battle for DNC Chair: a Proxy War for "Soul of the Party"

Speaking of tropes, we are once again seeing headlines about a battle for the "soul of the Democratic Party." On some level this fight seems to go on in perpetuity; the same things were said when Howard Dean ran for president, when Ned Lamont ran for Senate and when the Democratic Leadership Council was still a major force in Washington.

But, in the aftermath of the heated 2016 primary and subsequent election defeat, there is no doubt that battle lines are being drawn, with the establishment wing of the party on the one side, and the relatively progressive "Warren Wing" on the other. There is also very real pressure from outside the party among radical activists and socialists, whose politics cannot credibly be called "fringe," given that a majority of millennials reject capitalism.

The election of the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which will be decided in the coming days, has become a proxy war for this battle. Early on and with the support of Sanders, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) has been the favored choice for progressives. More mainstream Democrats, however, including much of the Obama White House, are backing one of their own, former Labor Secretary Tom Perez.

There has been an effort from some liberal commentators to minimize the difference between the two candidates. "[T]here's truly not much ideological distance between the two. They are both grassroots-minded progressives," argues David Corn in Mother Jones. But organizers are not in agreement; they know the establishment isn't challenging Ellison without a reason. "People are saying nice things about Perez, but we know from leaked emails he has been a Clinton operative," Solomon said. "He represents the establishment wing of the party."

Among Sanders' supporters, the DNC is distrusted enormously. Not only did leaks prove the DNC was actively supporting Clinton during the primary (an ethical violation which then-chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz denied vehemently for months), but Schultz's replacement Donna Brazile was promptly caught leaking debate questions to the DNC for Clinton's benefit. Brazile has offered unpersuasive denials but never a coherent response to these charges. She lost her job at CNN in the aftermath but has never apologized or even acknowledged her wrongdoing and remains in place as interim chair of the DNC.

Given the organization's recent and sordid history, if Perez manages to win there will no doubt be major progressive backlash. Perez has been an outspoken advocate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is seen as weaker on superdelegate reform and, as Solomon noted, is distrusted by the left for his coordination with the DNC to attack Sanders in 2016.

Ellison, on the other hand, was one of the few members of Congress to endorse Sanders for President, and has been the victim of a contemptible smear campaign by hawkish pro-Israel groups and their allies because he has expressed a modest level of concern for the plight of the Palestinians. An Ellison victory wouldn't be an earth-shattering leap leftward, but it could represent a real acknowledgment of the progressive base.

"We need to change this country from inside and outside the party [and are] very much vested in the outcome of the race and what it means for the future," Benjamin said.

Lessons Learned and the Challenge of Resistance

Seth Gladstone, deputy communications director for Food & Water Watch, spoke with Truthout just after Democrats helped confirm Pruitt to EPA, a move he called "simply shameful." He then made an astute diagnosis of how we ended up in our current conundrum, with an authoritarian president checked only by a party with a history for toothless opposition.

"To a great extent, a lack of meaningful, progressive pressure on Democratic Party leaders over the past few years is what got us into this terrible mess," he argued, citing the public's frustration that both parties were deferential to Wall Street and indifferent to social and economic justice. "As a consequence, millions of voters stayed home in November, and our country is now paying a huge price."

Whether Democrats have learned important lessons from all of this is unclear. But to slow the catastrophic agenda of Trump, Gladstone notes, Democrats must be willing to "resist the Trump-Republican agenda at every turn for as long as necessary."

Resisting won't be easy. Trump, the GOP, major power centers of private capital, and corporatist groups like Third Way will all try to benefit from a weak Democratic Party that has enabled them for years. But if the party is successful at all in even minimizing the impacts of Trump, it won't be merely because of its courage or leadership. It will be because party leaders were dragged, kicking and screaming, by an engaged progressive movement that was tired of being ignored and was ready to fight for real change. 

Geneva talks: Rebels positive after meeting de Mistura

Opposition official praises Staffan de Mistura's 'positive ideas' at first meeting of new round of Geneva talks.

Go to Original
By Dylan Collins & Zena Tahhan

Geneva, Switzerland - The Syrian opposition has described its first meeting here with the UN envoy in the latest round of peace talks as "generally positive", praising him for being more engaged in discussing political transition.

The comments came a day after Staffan de Mistura, the UN special envoy for Syria, formally launched the fourth round of negotiations at the UN offices amid low expectations.

The talks are part of the latest political initiative to bring an end to a six-year war that has killed nearly 500,000 people, wounded more than a million, and displaced nearly half the population.

"We heard positive ideas and suggestions from Mr de Mistura," Nasser al-Hariri, the lead opposition negotiator, said at a news conference on Friday.

"I believe he was more enthusiastic than before in discussing a political transition in Syria. So far there are no specific measures."

Hariri said the opposition presented its "understanding" of points in UN Security Council Resolution 2254 that discuss political transition in Syria, including governance, the formation of a new constitution and new UN-supervised elections.

'Just political solution'

The opposition's goal was to forge "a just political solution that ensures for the Syrian people its aspirations and dreams, for which it has paid a very high price", he said.

Friday's discussions with de Mistura only covered "procedural" aspects of the ongoing talks, Hariri said, adding that specific points about the shape and scope of any transition would be clarified in the coming days.

Opposition officials told Al Jazeera that their delegation would respond on Monday to the framework for political transition submitted by de Mistura.

"What will be discussed in the following days is the make-up of a transitional governing body - as in, who the members of this body would be," Mohammad Sabra, the chief negotiator for the opposition delegation, told Al Jazeera.

He said the opposition's participation in the latest round of Geneva talks was aimed at finding ways to implement "mechanisms" to "force the Syrian government to comply with UN Security Council resolutions surrounding Syria, if it refuses to do so".

"The regime always claims that it is looking for a political solution," Sabra said.

"So far, it has not said that it refuses to implement the resolutions. Resolution 2118 stipulates that in the case of refusal, the Security Council can take measures based on Chapter VII of the UN Charter [...] to force the regime to comply with international law, so that we can achieve political transition."

Shortly after Friday’s news conference, the opposition delegation returned to its hotel and held a closed-door meeting with Michael Ratney, the US special envoy for Syria, and several European diplomats.

Government's account

For his part, de Mistura met the representatives of the Syrian government earlier in the day.

In a brief press conference after that meeting, Bashar al-Jaafari, the lead Syrian government negotiator, said de Mistura had presented his delegation with a "document" whose contents would be discussed at their next meeting.

Though the Geneva talks are seen as the most serious effort in months to put an end to the Syrian war, the starkly different political objectives of the rival sides remain unchanged from previous rounds of negotiations, casting doubt on the possibility of achieving progress.

For the Syrian opposition, a political transition that ensures the removal of President Bashar al-Assad remains the only option for peace - an issue that his Damascus-based government has consistently refused to consider.

"The only solution that we will accept is to establish a transitional governing body, which Bashar al-Assad will have no role in, not in this transitional period, and not in the future of Syria," Salem al-Muslet, spokesperson for the opposition delegation, told Al Jazeera.

The latest talks almost fell apart before they began on Thursday, after the opposition threatened to skip the opening ceremony over disagreements on the format of the session.

Rex Tillerson is the opposite of Donald Trump. Will he have any sway?

Rex Tillerson is the antithesis of his boss, the Disrupter-in-Chief Donald Trump.

Go to Original
By Barbara Plett Usher

He is also, in some respects, the antithesis of his predecessor, the garrulous former Secretary of State John Kerry.

For the man who is the public face of US diplomacy, Tillerson keeps a remarkably low profile.

Which has left staff at the State Department, and the journalists who cover it, wondering how he will fare against competing power centres in the White House, and how he will represent America to the world.

Early signs have not been promising.

For the entire first month of the Trump administration the State Department has given no public briefings. It's just been announced that they're set to resume early next month after an unprecedented six-week hiatus.

It was not just the matter of being absent from the cacophony of a new order asserting itself in Washington. It was the noticeable absence of an American voice to the world, a tool of diplomacy that has regularly inserted US positions into the internal debates of allies and foes alike.

Tillerson himself has rarely spoken publicly. On his inaugural trip to a G20 Foreign Ministers meeting in Bonn and again in Mexico, he read prepared statements but didn't make room for reporters' questions and didn't respond when we tried to ask them anyway.

This reticence is consistent with both his corporate background as former head of Exxon Mobil, and his personal style - a lifelong Eagle Scout who values actions more than words.

He does at least avoid the pitfalls of Kerry, who thoroughly embraced the public role of top diplomat, but whose shoot-from-the-hip style sometimes left his aides backtracking after he'd departed the podium.

But one State Department employee says: "I think Tillerson hurts himself with this quiet diplomacy approach, because Washington is not a quiet town."

This reluctance is perhaps understandable given the freewheeling approach of the noisiest voice in town, the White House. It has, at best, sent mixed signals on key foreign policy issues such as Nato, Russia and China.

But Tillerson's recent absence from Donald Trump's meetings with key foreign leaders has left many questioning just how much influence he has.

State department officials point out that his acting deputy Tom Shannon was in the room for the visits of the Canadian and Japanese Prime Ministers. And that Tillerson was travelling during the official part of Benjamin Netanyahu's Washington trip, so he met the Israeli leader separately before he left.

Yet while they were at dinner, the White House appeared to blindside him with suggestions it might depart from a long-standing insistence on a two-state solution to the Mideast conflict.

"If there's going to be a policy change, the State Department needs to know about it," a US official told the BBC.

To a large degree, Mr Tillerson's understated performance reflects this confusion in the administration over who's in charge.

The National Security Council - the traditional centre of influence in the White House, which usually works closely with the State Department - has been paralysed by staffing shortages and a leadership change.

Meanwhile alternative centres of power with undefined parameters have emerged: Trump's Chief White House Strategist Steve Bannon has set up a "strategic initiatives" thinktank to inform policy making.

And his son-in-law Jared Kushner has been tasked with taking the lead on foreign policy issues like Middle East peace, with no formal connection to established State Department channels.

Tillerson has his own channel to the president, says his aide, RC Hammond: "The secretary and the president are in frequent contact, meeting in person and speaking regularly over the phone."

The secretary has, however, reportedly been frustrated with the administration over staffing appointments.

The president had promised to let him pick ambassadors for many of the top-tier postings, two people close to the transition process told the BBC.

But they said White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus circumvented the arrangement by winning Trump's approval for at least 10 nominees before Tillerson was confirmed. These are still going through the vetting process.

The White House has not yet responded to BBC requests for comment.

Battles between the administration and government ministries over appointments are not necessarily unusual. What is unusual is the absence of a clear process, and confusion about who's in charge of policy formation or policy appointments.

Even if it was clear, the State Department is not fully equipped to help make policy.

The White House did not approve Tillerson's initial choice for a deputy and almost all of the high-level State Department jobs are still vacant.

Just two out of the 116 requiring congressional confirmation have been filled, according to the non-partisan organisation Partnership for Public Service - the secretary of state and the UN ambassador Nikki Haley.

Shake-ups on the top floor are standard practice during transitions, but former State Department officials say this one was done with a particularly heavy hand.

Some were given only 48 hours notice to vacate their offices and none were left to backfill until new appointments could be made, which is the normal procedure.

Tillerson's role in these decisions was not clear, as much of it happened before he was confirmed.

And there is plenty of expertise on hand to run the department in the meantime. But those who are acting in senior positions do not necessarily wield the same authority as those who've been officially confirmed for the roles, especially in the uncertain policy environment.

We are "treading water" said one career diplomat, noting the difficulty of getting guidance on even routine policy decisions from the top floor.

With such an introduction to the Trump administration the diplomat had been "highly sceptical" about Tillerson's appointment but was "pleasantly surprised" by his debut.

He came in strong with an opening speech that said all the right things - promising to make full use of the expertise on hand and suggesting that he'd have an open mind about dissenting opinions.

That is what he seems to be doing, working his way through the building in methodical consultations that include not just senior officials but mid-level officers, as he navigates the steep learning curve from CEO to diplomat. This approach has been well received, although I understand there are concerns that he is not as accessible as was hoped.

I have met Mr Tillerson in off-the-record settings and he seemed to me a thoughtful, deliberate man with an interest in taking a long-term strategic view.

And while he is not anti-establishment in the iconoclastic mould of Mr Trump, he is an outsider - to diplomacy but also to the city. Perhaps that makes him less inclined to play by its rules.

Whether that will work in this town, and with this administration, is too soon to say.

New UN climate chief: 'Action on warming unstoppable'

The UN’s new climate chief admits she’s worried about President Donald Trump – but is confident that action to curb climate change is unstoppable.

Go to Original
By Roger Harrabin

President Trump said he’d withdraw from the UN climate deal and stop funding the UN’s clean energy programme.

But former Mexican diplomat Patricia Espinosa told BBC News that the delay in any firm announcement suggests the issue is still unresolved.

She travels to US this weekend to try and meet the new US secretary of state.

'World will carry on'

Ms Espinosa said it would be more damaging for the US to leave the on-going climate talks process altogether than to stop funding the clean energy programme.

The US pays approximately $4m towards this programme every year - and often an extra $2m in voluntary funding.

But she said the rest of the world would carry on tackling climate change without the US, if necessary.

She said China’s stated willingness to lead the world in curbing emissions might cause American diplomats to ponder the implications of allowing China a role of global moral leadership.

“We are of course worried about rumours that the possibility of the US pulling out of the Paris agreement and the convention on climate change,” she said.

“It would be very bad if there were a change of position in the US. That’s why I’m looking forwards to engaging with the US as a partner.”

She did not explain how the US would be able to remain within the Paris framework whilst scrapping action on its own emissions strategy that helps underpin that process.

Embracing green action

But she drew hope from the vast number of firms and cities looking towards a low-carbon future – in the US and round the world: "A lot of US businesses are really going into the agenda of sustainability and some are making their own commitments in emissions reductions in their own operations."

“An incredible amount of cities have embarked on ambitious goals; some states like California have been for many years in the forefront of this agenda.

“In International Petroleum Week, I was very encouraged to hear how much some of the oil and gas companies are realising that the future of their industries is in a transformation into clean energy companies - and they have embraced this in their own interest.

“The transformation has started. I think it’s unstoppable.”

Ms Espinosa smiled at the irony of dealing with Mr Trump as a Mexican, a woman, and someone who works in climate change.

She said her trip to the US would include meeting businesses and civil society groups and - hopefully - a senior member of the administration. She is anticipating a meeting with the new secretary of state Rex Tillerson.

The former CEO of the oil giant Exxon Mobil warned recently that climate change is a genuine risk, and said the US should stay at the table of UN talks.

Other nations have responded differently to the new situation presented by Mr Trump. China has offered to lead and India has surprised many with its new level of ambition.

Saudi Arabia has expressed support for a slower rate of decarbonisation and Russia - the fifth largest emitter - has not yet ratified the climate deal from Paris.

Mexico warns US over border wall funding

Mexico has warned the US against imposing a unilateral tax on Mexican imports to finance a border wall, saying it could respond in kind.

Go to Original

Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray said the government could place tariffs on selected goods from US states reliant on exports to Mexico.

Earlier, US President Donald Trump vowed to start building the wall "soon, way ahead of schedule".

The US government says it will start accepting design proposals next month.

The US Customs and Border Protection Agency says it will ask companies to submit proposals "for the design and build of several prototype wall structures" on or around 6 March.

A shortlist of the best designs will be drawn up by 20 March, after which bidders will be asked to cost their ideas.

Contracts are expected to be awarded by mid-April.

Addressing the Conservative Political Action Congress (CPAC) in Maryland on Friday, President Trump vowed to always put American citizens first and build a "great, great border wall".

"We're building the wall," he said. "In fact it's going to start very soon. Way ahead of schedule. It's way, way, way ahead of schedule."

Mr Trump has pledged that Mexico will pay for the wall, which could cost up to $21.5bn (£17.2bn), according to Reuters, which cited a Department of Homeland Security internal report.

The figure is much higher than Mr Trump's estimated price tag of $12bn (£9.6bn).

The president has proposed to levy a 20% tax on Mexican imports to pay for a border wall.

In a radio interview on Friday, Mr Videgeray said that "Mexico believes in free trade", but "would have to respond" if the US tried to fund a border wall by imposing a tax on Mexican imports.

"What we cannot do is remain with our arms crossed," he said.

"Mexico will face this as a reality and not just as a rhetorical threat because we have realised that rhetorical threats come and go."

According to reports, the foreign minister has previously identified states including Iowa, Texas and Wisconsin as possible targets for retaliatory tariffs.

Mexico is by far the top destination for Texan exports, with goods worth $92.4bn exported there in 2015, according to the US Department of Commerce.

The wall is a sensitive political subject in Mexico. President Enrique Pena Nieto cancelled a trip to meet Mr Trump last month over the dispute and has said Mexico will not fund the wall.

On Thursday US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly met their Mexican counterparts in Mexico City.

Neither side made any mention of the wall in Thursday's news conference after their closed-door meetings.

President Trump needs Congressional approval for funding before moving forward with construction of the wall.