Memorandum on U.S. Policy in Georgia-South Ossetia

Memorandum on U.S. Policy in Georgia South Ossetia

TO: Mike Pompeo, Nominee for Secretary of State

FROM: Nicole Levesque, American Foreign Policy Student

DATE: March 17, 2018

SUBJECT: U.S. Policy in Georgia-South Ossetia

SUMMARY

Georgia and its South Ossetia region have been in conflict over South Ossetia’s desire for independence, which has been intensified by South Ossetia’s financial and military support from Russia, with which many of its residents identify.  The United States has not recognized the region as independent and has been sympathetic to Georgia’s fears about Russia’s intervention, but has not taken a strong policy stance on this issue.  The United States and NATO should determine a stance on this issue and act on it in order to contribute to an end to this conflict.  If the United States recognizes South Ossetia’s independence, it could become a tool to negotiate with Russia and encourage them to remove their troops from the region, thereby ending the military conflict between Georgia, South Ossetia, and Russia.

CONTEXT

The South Ossetia region has been contested internally and internationally, as the region initially declared itself independent from Georgia in 1992, shortly after Georgia’s independence from the Soviet Union, and has since been seeking recognition and sovereignty with little progress.  In 2008, this region was the location for the war between Georgia and Russia, and is known for its linguistic, cultural, and historical ties to Russia, although the region is officially under Georgian power.  In 2017, South Ossetia held a referendum to elect a new president and to change its name to the State of Alania, in an effort to further distance itself from Georgia and its historic oppression and to further establish its desire for independence.  Russia’s continual intervention and involvement in this case has sparked international interest as spectators argue that Russia is using this conflict to expand its power and influence in the region by using its geographic proximity and cultural similarities to involve itself in this conflict.  The Republic of Georgia and many other countries argue that Russia’s goal is to take back control of its former territories, as Russia currently has troops in the South Ossetia region, and has been providing economic support through times of financial struggles.  The United States and NATO have yet to take significant steps to help settle this conflict, as both have failed to recognize South Ossetia’s independence and have been quick to criticize Russia but have not acted to assist the parties involved or to ameliorate the conflict. 

EVIDENCE

The conflict between Georgia, South Ossetia, and Russia is especially complicated due to the differences in perception between the parties.  Georgia argues that Russia is using its power to interfere in the conflict and take over the region to expand its influence, while South Ossetians have declared themselves more Russian than Georgian and have been fighting for independence from Georgian oppression and for international recognition of their sovereignty.  The United States and NATO have yet to take a strong stance on this issue or act towards a resolution for the parties involved, although this issue is central to the workings of NATO due to Russia’s involvement, and the United States has repeatedly expressed an interest in supporting other states in their democratic processes.  The results of South Ossetia’s 2017 referendum have been largely ignored although they set clear changes for the region, including a name change and a new president.  Russia continues to be one of the few countries that recognizes South Ossetia’s independence, and many citizens of the region have been issued Russian passports and identify as Russian.  The lack of wider international attention to this conflict has contributed to its long duration and little progression towards a resolution, and as troops continue to occupy the region and the conflict is further intensifying, it is time for the United States and the international community to make a move.

TASK AND IMPLEMENTATION

As the Trump Administration has been working to establish a better relationship with Russia and has struggled to implement sanctions against them, interfering with Russia’s efforts in South Ossetia in the form of military intervention would stand in direct contrast to the recently established amicable relationship.  A potentially more effective way of diffusing the tension in Georgia would be to publicly recognize the South Ossetia region’s self-proclaimed independence, which could alleviate the need for Russian troops.  A coordinated effort of international support for South Ossetian independence, potentially involving other members of NATO, would strengthen the region’s power and make it so that Russian troops would no longer be necessary, which would appease Georgians and could decrease the violence between the parties.  Regardless of Georgia’s position on the independence movement, South Ossetia considers themselves to be separate, and international recognition of this stance would be beneficial for Georgia as well if Russian troops vacate the region and an end is put to the violence.  Negotiation with Russia from a position of solidarity with the South Ossetian region has the potential to end the conflict, as Russian troops have militarized the conflict and made it more dangerous for Georgians than when the disagreement was exclusively between Georgia and South Ossetia. 

CLOSING STATEMENT

The lack of progress in ending the conflict between Georgia, the South Ossetia region, and Russia signals that the time is now to change the foreign policy strategy and inspire a true resolution.  Recognizing South Ossetia’s independence and negotiating with Russia to remove their troops from the region would benefit all parties by putting an end to the conflict, or at least significantly decreasing the violence.  By accepting the results of South Ossetia’s declaration of independence and 2017 referendum would grant freedom to a group of oppressed people, could remove Russian troops and influence from Georgia, and could increase stability in the region.

NATO to US Foreign Policy

Adeline Tavarez

American Foreign Policy

Professor Shirk

March 16, 2018

How important is NATO to US Foreign Policy/National Interest?

Back when NATO was established in 1949, it had one purpose: to protect Western Europe from a Soviet invasion. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, many have questioned the US’s role in NATO. Many support the US in NATO, because of Article 5. According to Article 5, collective defense, it states “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” This statement basically outlines, that if there is an attack on any of the 29 members in NATO, it should be considered an attack on all 29 members. So, in that instance, wouldn’t that be beneficial to the US? Yet, many opponents to US involvement claim that the only time Article 5 has been in effect was after the 9/11 terror attacks and the war in Afghanistan.  

However, since then, NATO has deployed many more troops into Afghanistan in aid to the US. This is despite the fact that NATO typically does not engage in military operations, nor extend from their European region. Additionally, NATO is making efforts to grow exponentially in all different scoops of responsibilities and security. The US remains in NATO could strengthen US international security. This would be through alliance’s, military capabilities and overall assistance from threats. More than ever would the US involvement in NATO be wise. Russia is becoming a security threat, not only to European nations, but also the US. Russia is a threat to NATO’s 29 members, meaning if a threat were to occur, Article 5 would be implemented once again.

If NATO continues to expand its scoop outside the Europe region, expand their aid, and expand their assistance to humanitarian issues, then US involvement in NATO is crucial to maintain. The US should not be thinking of abandoning NATO because it is important for our national interest. Being part of NATO helps the US with its international commitments and global responsibilities. Additionally, a multilateral framework would provide the US with political and military resources that can strengthen US foreign policy.

What is NATO's purpose in the 21st century?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also known as NATO, was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada and other Western European Nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union. Today, NATO has 29 member countries with the common objective of guaranteeing the freedom and safety of its members through political and military needs. NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes and does all it can to prevent conflict.

NATO's role today has certainly changed from that of the past. NATO's original purpose was to defend the member nations from Communism and the Soviet threat. However, what do you do when that threat is no longer eminent? Today it can be argued it is an organization with no purpose. There seems to be a quarrel about what a military organization created to fight this threat should do now that the threat no longer exists.

NATO identifies its three main functions as: collective defense, crisis management, and collective security. Since the end of the Cold War their have been various shifts within the organization such as defense spending and the rise in power of non-state actors. In the 21st century what NATO needs is some sort of reform. In doing so NATO must redefine the goals of its organization and member states and what it stands for.

Memorandum on the Trump Administration's Foreign Policy

TO: John F. Kelly, White House Chief of Staff

FROM: Nicole Levesque, American Foreign Policy Student

DATE: March 16, 2018

SUBJECT: Trump Administration’s Foreign Policy Communication 

SUMMARY

The Trump Administration has demonstrated a notable distinction between Donald Trump's policy ideals and the administration's actions. The National Security Strategy reports often contradict what the president conveys to the public, which damages the credibility of both parties. The apparent lack of consistency and communication between members of the same group is harmful for the credibility of the United States' perception of its foreign policy initiatives by both the American people and foreign parties. 

CONTEXT

President Trump campaigned on strong foreign policy initiatives such as building a wall on the Mexican border to prevent illegal immigration and on stopping Islamic terrorism, both of which are complicated situations which require more complex solutions than what the president has proposed.  His administration has failed to build a wall, American troops are still actively fighting terrorist groups such as the Islamic State, and Trump's voters are still holding out for the policies for which they voted for the current president. This pattern is evident in the speeches that Trump makes and the language that he uses, as he appears impassioned and ready to take action when his constituents press for changes, but many of these changes do not take place.  This problem is consistent with several past presidential administrations, as American presidents are often perceived as being in more powerful positions than they are, but Trump's campaign depended on him breaking from the political norm and following through with promises where past presidents have not done so.  The inconsistency between the president’s communication with his constituents and the communication and actions of his administration creates confusion and a perception of illegitimacy.

EVIDENCE

An analysis of the foreign policy initiatives of this administration show several examples of this disconnect.  President Trump speaks about the importance of democracy and of protecting the international power that the United States has, but he and his administration have not implemented Congress' proposed sanctions on Russia, and he has publicly spoken positively about authoritative world leaders such as Vladamir Putin, Mohammad bin Salman, and Rodrigo Duterte.  The President has been a strong advocate for international trade and American dominance, but he and his administration has pulled the country out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which stands in contrast to his stated focus on trade. Recent efforts to protect American industry are expected to hurt international trade, but his administration is implementing the proposed tariffs although they do not support his stated support for trade.  President Trump campaigned on the premise that troops should be removed from active conflicts to focus on nation-building at home, and yet he has continued Barack Obama's End of ISIS policy, as his strategy for defeating foreign terrorism has not been effective, which has prevented him from shifting his efforts to domestic issues. 

TASK AND IMPLEMENTATION 

In order to bridge the gap between President Trump's rhetoric and the actions of his administration, there is a crucial need for consistency and the proper planning before press conferences take place.  In order to successfully compose and implement foreign policy with support of the American people, the Trump Administration needs to take steps to monitor President Trump’s public statements, and to prioritize foreign policy initiatives that correspond to previously stated policy goals.  As the National Security Strategy is a long-term plan that is prepared in advance to crises and to individual conferences and statements made by the President, better communication between the members of the administration could decrease the overall inconsistency and confusion that the American people experience when considering the current administration's stance on foreign policy issues.  This process could begin with closer supervision of the President's tweets and personal communication with his constituents, as to assure that it aligns with the released National Security Strategy and his Administration's stated stances on the issues that the President addresses. Crises and unexpected changes within Congress are inevitable, but with the proper planning and cognizance of the reoccurring issues could allow for a smoother and more consistent plan with less confusion for the American people.

CLOSING STATEMENT

The president’s public image and high expectations for sudden and effective policy changes can be harmful for the perception of the President's power and his relationship with his Administration.  The proper planning and dedication to a consistent National Security Strategy and the selection and portrayal of information made public would greatly reduce anger and confusion among Americans who are unhappy with unfulfilled promises, and a more favorable image of President Trump himself would make the United States more respected, both domestically and internationally.

Memorandum on U.S. policy on Jerusalem

Memorandum

TO: President Donald J. Trump

FROM: Joanna Vodola

DATE: March 15, 2018

SUBJECT: Memorandum on U.S. policy on Jerusalem

On December 6^th, 2017, President Donald Trump declared that he will honor the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and recognize Jerusalem as the official capital of Israel as well as move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. President Trump promised to allocate funding for this project through the protection of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. Despite warnings from many different nations, political figures, and other actors on the political stage, President Trump announced his decision. This memo was drafted to urge President Trump to reconsider his position on the issue to help protect U.S. international economic interests in the Middle East and elsewhere as well as the lives of the employees of the U.S. Embassy to Israel.

Context

On the morning of December 6^th, 2017, President Trump announced his decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in an effort to emphasize the United States recognizing Jerusalem as the true capital of Israel. After nearly three-quarters of a century, the U.S. Embassy in Israel will begin the process of moving to Jerusalem, the official capital of Israel. While the United State Congress has a long history of supporting this idea, there has never been a president who supported it. In 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in both houses almost unanimously. The Act stated that the United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and specifically allocated funds to begin building an embassy in Jerusalem. However, no president has followed through with plans for an embassy in Jerusalem until today.

Task and Solution

            While President Trump recognizes this occasion as “…nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do”, many other political leaders disagree including Pope Francis and the Chinese foreign ministry who came out against the decision almost immediately. The European Union, as well as NATO, came out against the decision as well insisting that these actions are a “threat to peace in the Middle East”. Without any formal resolution involving the city of Jerusalem and other controversial territories, such as the West Bank and Gaza, the United States has been premature in its decisions. The United States must encourage peace in the Middle East through different means such as encouraging the United Nations to pass resolutions definitively dividing the territories between Israel and Palestine. The United States Congress along with the President must act accordingly.

In order to defuse the tension that has already been caused by this decision, I urge President Trump to reconsider his position and look for a more peaceful solution to Middle Eastern affairs. According to the New York Times, President Trump already has been working towards a negotiation between the Israelis and Palestinians. However, the President undermined his own efforts by making this announcement. Peaceful and diplomatic solutions that work with all involved parties; i.e. the United States, Israel, and Palestine, and possibly the United Nations; are the only way to create lasting peace in the Middle East. With the recent decisions surrounding Jerusalem, which were made with consulting any nation of than Israel, there has been an increase in violence in the region which will escalate when the move has been made.

Evidence

Along with the Chinese foreign ministry and Pope Francis many other political actors have come out against President Trumps decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the United States embassy there. For example, Federica Mogherini, one on the European Union’s top diplomats said that, “We believe that any action that would undermine these efforts must absolutely be avoided,” when criticizing President Trump’s announcement. Furthermore, since the announcement in December, there has been increased terrorist activity in Gaza as well as inside the city of Jerusalem, including a recent attack which killed two Israeli Police Officers.

Many Arab nations have also been urged to cease trade with the United States until they retract the statement. The unstable nation of the region will soon force the economy to further destabilize creating greater issues without reachable solutions in site. Furthermore, the reason Jerusalem is at the center of great controversy stems from its religious symbolism, in all three Abrahamic faiths. Without a formal solution about the future of the holy sites in the city, the United States cannot infringe on the sovereignty of the nation of Israel or surrounding nations in making their decision for them.

Implementation

Should President Trump listen to my recommendations, the United States to postpone all efforts to build an embassy in Jerusalem until a peaceful solution has been agreed upon by both Israel and Palestine. The United States Diplomat to Israel should work with the Israeli government to find compromises that they are willing to take for the sake of peace and economic stability in the region. The Israelis and Palestinians need to come to a peaceful agreement facilitated by the United Nations or the United States before the United States starts making all their decisions for them.