Can Tillerson still be Secretary of State after Trading with the Enemy?

After the American Century

The Newsletter 538 noted the following about an article that appeared in USA Today.

"Between 2003 and 2005, the oil and gas company Infineum reported $53.2 million in sales to Iran. During that time, Exxon Mobil had a 50 percent stake in Infineum. Also during that time, the U.S. had sanctions on Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. Rex Tillerson, a top Exxon executive at the time of the deal and later its CEO, is now President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to run the State Department."

So the nominee for Secretary of State broke the US sanction on Iran during George Bush's presidency. (Exxon Mobile also did business with Sudan through the same proxy company, but it was a much smaller transaction.) Iran was then well-known to sponsor terrorist and dissident groups in various parts of the Middle East, hence the sanctions, so there it is not possible for Tillerson to claim he didn't know. 

After this revelation, here are the problems with making Rex Tillerson Secretary of State:

1. He has broken the law in order to make a profit. The claim made in defense is that Infineum is based in Europe, and that no Americans were employed in making these transactions. To avoid violating US law, under this Secretary of State it would seem, it is just fine so long as you do it through a proxy. 
2. He has taken sides in the Middle East, trading with Iran during the time of sanctions.
3. He will not be trusted by an important American ally, Israel, which fears the Iranian atomic program.
4. He will not be trusted by Saudi Arabia, a second important ally, who is constantly in conflict with Iran over a great many issues.
5. He will be regarded with suspicion by a third ally, Turkey.
6. The worst suspicions of US critics, that its foreign policy is concerned not with principles but profits, specfically oil profits, will be confirmed.

That is rather a large amount of baggage to be carrying into confirmation hearings. Can his fellow Republicans stomach all that?

It seems the Republicans cannot stay away from making deals with the Iranians. That was their problem during the Reagan years, too. The original Irangate was also about trading with the enemy.  Is that the credential needed to be Trump's Secretary of State?

Might Japan Be the Broker to Negotiate Peace Between Israel and Palestine?

After the American Century

The Middle East has been the burying ground for American diplomatic missions for decades. Each new president and each new Secretary of State thinks peace is finally going to be attainable. Each is disappointed in different ways. Sometimes peace seems to have been achieved, with treaties signed and handshakes all around. That was Jimmy Carter's experience. Relations were better for a while, particularly between Egypt and Israel, but real peace did not emerge. It is too tedious to go through all the other administrations before or since then, but no one who has followed it all can help but be a bit depressed.

Not only is Israel seemingly no closer to peace with its neighbors than in the 1960s, but the entire neighborhood is in a worse uproar that usual. Syria is in a civil war, with millions of refugees, and none of the three (or is it four or five?) sides is a particularly attractive option.  Iraq is falling apart, along religious and ethnic lines, even in the face of the rise of ISIS, a new factor in teh region, which seeks to create an Islamic state. The Egyptians have gone back to military rule, after a brief experiment with democracy brought the conservative Muslim Brotherhood to power. Lebanon is struggling to remain out of the violence in Syria. The Palestinians are split into two factions. The one in Gaza continues to launch largely ineffective rockets at Israel, to show that they can do it. In return they are pulverized, and gain some sympathy outside the region. But the Hamas is bankrupt, economically speaking, part of the fallout from the Syrian civil war.  For decades Hamas has built complex systems of tunnels underground, which have now been destroyed. The other Palestinians are a bit less militant, but also unable to come to an agreement with Israel.

But perhaps because things are so bad, a negotiated settlement might be attainable. However, this requires a neutral broker to do the job. Who could that be?  When American diplomats attempt to negotiate peace, they are usually perceived to be Israel's allies, and it is hard to convince Arabs that Washington can be an honest broker. Yet Americans are even-handed, the Israeli government typically becomes upset and stirs up problems in the US, through its conservative allies. In short, the Americans are in many respects not well-positioned to broker a deal. Perhaps it is time for the US to step back from its direct diplomatic efforts and instead to encourage another nation to take the lead.

But if not the Americans, who? The EU would seem the obvious choice, but the EU does not have a shared foreign policy. Each member state has a somewhat different policy, and it cannot function effectively in such a negotiating situation. (Indeed, the EU is not good at handling international crises.)  Russia has strongly sided with Syria, where it has a major base, which makes it unacceptable to Israelis. What has long been needed is an honest broker whom both sides have no reason to distrust. The lone superpower manifestly cannot impose a settlement, or it would done so by now. Instead, a country like Japan, Brazil or South Africa might be able to do broker successful negotiations, though none of these three seems to have any inclination to do so. 

My own preference would be Japan, precisely because they are so far from the Middle East and have no obvious axe to grind. The Japanese are also patient negotiators, who take for granted that before a meaningful agreement is possible it is necessary to spend some time face to face. Wouldn't it be worth a try? Imagine Palestinian and Israeli representatives in a pleasant, remote Japanese hotel, with a view of the sea. Taken away from their familiar surroundings, immersed in the fascincating cultural world of Japan, they might gradually find some common ground.

What might be in it for the Japanese? Three things. (1) International praise for succeeding where all others have failed, with a very real chance to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. (2) National pride as Japan shows its importance on the world stage, pushing its economic stagnation and nuclear woes into the background. (3) Recognition as a force for peaceful coexistence, in contrast to Chinese muscle flexing in their own region.

As the US heads into another presidential election, it seems particularly unlikely that it can negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine. It is time to admit the obvious facts. The US is too entangled with its ally Israel to do the job, and it has so many complex and often conflicting interests in the Middle East that it will have trouble focusing on this single problem.  But will any other nation take up the challenge?

The Poor Use of Energy in the Middle East

After the American Century                                                                                                                  

The consumption of energy is a topic usually taken up when discussing China or the United States. Yet the Middle East is not only a major oil-producing region, but an important consumer of oil and natural gas. Unlike the United States or China, however, higher use has not been accompanied by improved energy efficiency.

Doha Qatar, night view

The following table shows the growth in CO2 emissions for OECD Europe, the United States, China, and the Middle East, from 1980 until 2000.  Recent statistics are more fragmentary, but they strongly suggest that the relative positions in this table (ranked according to how close they have come to sustainable growth)  have changed little since 2000. OECD Europe is still the only large region or nation that has come close to achieving sustainable growth, although the United States has begun to do better since 2008.

   Growth in CO2 emissions, selected nations and regions, 1980-2000

 

-->

Selected Region / nation	Population growth (annual)	GDP % growth (annual)	Energy Intensity Change (annual)	Carbon Intensity Change (annual)	growth CO2  Emissions (Annual)	20 year growth in CO2 emissions 1980 = 100
OECD Europe	0.53	1.73	- 1.00	- 1.06	0.18	103.7
United States	0.96	2.15	- 1.64	- 0.21	1.23	127.7
World	1.60	1.28	- 1.12	- 0.45	1.30	129.5
China	1.37	8.54	- 5.22	- 0.26	4.00	219.1
Middle East	2.98	0.04	2.45	- 1.14	4.34	233

The far right-hand column indicates the overall growth in CO2 for each region. It becomes immediately clear, The Middle East, aside from all its political problems, also has serious problems with energy misuse, in good part because oil and gas are abundant in the region. Their price is kept low, and with an annual population growth rate of almost 3%, there are millions more people using energy in the Middle East. More recent statistics show that between 1980 and 2010 Middle East use of oil and natural gas has quadrupled.

Moreover, in stark contrast to all the other regions listed, the Middle East is the only place were energy is being used more carelessly and less efficiently. Look at the third column, "energy intensity" which measures such things as whether cars get fewer or more miles per gallon, whether appliances use more or less electricity to accomplish a task, and so on. In the world as a whole, energy intensity is improving. In China, dramatic improvements in energy intensity do a great deal to offset the enormous increase in GDP. As a result of this factor and lower population growth,  CO2 emissions did not increase as fast in China as they did in the Middle East.

The Middle East has long been increasing CO2 pollution levels faster than Europe, the United States, or China, even though the region's economies as a group scarcely expanding. The population grows, but the economy scarcely holds even. Rising energy use is not part of a dynamic growth economy, as in China or East Asia. 

If one drills down to the national level, the Middle East  dissolves into contrasting oil-rich economies and oil-poor economies, and into sharply divided social classes. But that is not my subject. I merely want to emphasize the failure of the Middle East as a whole to develop efficient energy use. Despite a view highly-publicized solar projects and windmills, almost all energy consumption remains oil and natural gas. For thirty years the Middle East has gone down the path of unsustainable stasis, when most other economies have sought sustainable growth. 

See also: Technology: Energy Rationing or Quotas?  America vs. Europe, 2100 

Romney and the Middle East

After the American Century

There is no justification for killing people because of a film, nor is there any reason to label this film "American" when it was apparently made by a Coptic Christian, i.e. a man with Egyptian roots. Nor does it in any way express the views of the American people. Nor has the film even been seen by many people, much less been reviewed. That fanatics are prepared to blame the film on the US and to use it as a justification for killing people, attacking embassies, and violating the most basic of diplomatic rights, is totally unacceptable. But in the American political campaign, that is not the point. All Americans will agree.

This situation presented Candidate Romney with a simple test of his ability to respond to a crisis. He  failed this test. Admittedly, he has little foreign policy experience. His visit to Britain was a disaster, as he managed to insult his hosts with completely unnecessary crtiical remarks about whether the country was ready for the Olympics. All he had to do was smile and talk about the "special relationship" but he made a mess of it. 

This ineptness seems to have emerged again in his comments on the film that has provoked rage in the Muslim world. Romney was quick to condemn the murder of the US Ambassador and the attacks on US embassies. That was a no-brainer. But it took Romney four days to condemn the film itself, in vague terms.  He seemed reluctant to do so.

The Nation has investigated the origins of the film, and uncovered a network of Romney supporters and foreign policy advisers who have extensive contacts with anti-Muslim groups, with some indirect connections to those who made it. The Nation does not propose a conspiracy theory, nor do I. It is sufficient to point out that virulent stereotyping of Muslims, like that in the offending film, is rife on the far right. The current crisis will have the effect, intended or not, of motivating the most extreme, xenophobic voters. Romney seemed reluctant to condemn the film. His instinct was not to be a statesman.

On both sides – in the Muslim world and in the United States –  extremists who hate each other will seek to profit from the crisis the more severe it becomes. Moderation and dialogue is what the world needs, not demonizing stereotypes. We know that President Obama can keep calm and focused in difficult times. Would Romney be able to do that?

Obama in Egypt

After the American Century

Later today President Obama will make a major address to the Arab and Muslim worlds. I will not try to second-guess the content of this speech, which has been long in preparation, and which has benefited from the advice of Arab American business leaders, foreign policy experts, and his own staff. But the importance of the gesture and the symbolism should not be lost in thinking about the content. The gesture is a clear declaration that the United States wants a new relationship with the Middle East, and that he regards Egypt as the central player in bringing about change. Only if Egypt can help broker a peace, is it likely to have staying power. Of almost equal importance are the Saudis, whom Obama visited first. The gesture also includes the fact that the address will be given at arguably the most important university in the region and in the largest city of the region, Cairo. Obama thus appeals directly to intellectuals and to young people, both of whom are important, even crucial, to making the United States more popular (or at least less unpopular).

This gesture might have had little possibility of success were the speaker to be George Bush or John McCain. But because the speaker is a generation younger, because his father's family is Muslim, and because he has committed his administration to closing the illegal jails in Cuba and ending the war in Iraq, there is a chance that the speech will mark a turning point. Only a chance, but a real one. That depends on what he says later today, and also on proximate events, mostly beyond his control.

One good sign: extremists have attacked the visit beforehand, including Israelis determined to stay on the West Bank, and Al Queda. He must be doing something right.

Precision Bombing? Nonsense

After the American Century

Once again, official spokesmen are chanting a technological hymn. The words have been much the same for more than half a century. A serious, well-groomed person wearing nice clothing, who seems like a good middle-class person, tells us that the military must defend its civilian population. But not to worry, s/he continues, because with the fabulous new accurate weapons being used, the bombing is precise. Sometimes they say "surgically precise."

This is nonsense. The religion of accuracy was preached in Vietnam and again in every war since then, and in every case many more civilians die than enemy soldiers. In fact, the twentieth century was a disaster for civilians in warfare. During World War I civilians accounted for one out of every seven deaths. But then weapons got far more powerful (and accurate of course), and in World War II civilians accounted for two out of every three deaths - 67%. With each subsequent conflict the proportion rises further. In Iraq it appears that more than 90% of the dead are civilians.

I certainly hope that the weapons do not get any more accurate and precise, or we will no doubt reach that perfect state where the bombs always go where they are intended to go, and 100% of those killed are bystanders. We have almost reached this point now.

Some will read this column as a criticism of Israel, for invading the Gaza Strip, and for the "accurate attack" on a target which turned out to be a UN school. But my point is that all the world's powerful military establishments use these "accuracy" arguments. It is a comforting thought that shooting the bad guys resembles a video arcade game, and there is a nice euphemism for civilian deaths - "collateral damage."

Extremists on both sides are happy when the missiles start to fly and the heavy artillery wheels into place. Neither side can bomb its way to peace. But the arts of peace are more difficult and less glamorous in this action-film fantasy world than the martial art of war. Indeed, the New York Times recently reported that the US military is now using arcade games as a recruiting technique. The nice thing about video games is there is no blood on the floor, no matter how many precision shots are squeezed off.