Eliot Engel: Iran is an enemy of any peace-loving nation

Look on the bright side - and maybe even live longer

A Weekly Political News Magazine

Merkel's Last Stand

Asghar Farhadi about his Oscarnominated drama ‘The Salesman’

Issue 1632 - February 18/02/2017

Eliot Engel: Iran is an enemy of any peace-loving nation

Trump and World Order

Nita Lowey: We welcome Saudi-led Islamic Coalition against terrorism www.majalla.com

C

over story

Eliot Engel: Iran is an enemy of any peace-loving nation

The U.S. should maintain its friendly relations with Saudi Arabia Washington: Mostafa El-Dessouki

on the future of U.S-Russia relations in light of the attempted interference in the US elections.

New York Congressman Eliot Engel is the ranking < What do your experiences in Iran policy over the Democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs years bring to bear on present-day concerns about Committee. Together with the committee’s the country?

Republican chairman, Congressman Ed Royce, he was the main driving force behind Congressional - I think the U.S. needed and needs to take a tough legislation supporting the international sanctions line with Iran. I didn’t ever think that this Iranian regime imposed on Tehran prior to the Iran nuclear regime, or people from the Iranian regime – like deal – known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of [President] Rouhani – were moderates in any way, shape, or form. I think President Obama was well intentioned, but I disagreed and voted against the Iran bill and the JCPOA because I really don’t believe that the Iranian government can be trusted with any of this. Or the entire negotiation. They did not slow down the spinning of centrifuges, or the enrichment of uranium, and I felt we should have made that a prerequisite. This way it’s like they held a gun over our head. I opposed the agreement for a number of reasons, but two main ones are that Iran came to the Action [JCPOA]. He broke party ranks to robustly table to negotiate because the sanctions we put into criticize the JCPOA as a «bad deal,» and now, under place were hurting them. They had no money. Their the Trump Administration, has called for a more currency was practically worthless. robust American effort to counter Iran and its proxies.

A restive young population was unhappy with its In his interview with Majalla, Engel shares his views prospects for life. They couldn’t even have money on Iranian activity in Arab countries and the threat it to do basic things a government needs to do. With poses in the broader region and beyond. He calls for all of that, they still were the leading state sponsor a new coalition to counter Tehran. He also reflects of terrorism in the world. My thinking was that if

The U.S. should be wary of anything Russian President Putin says and does

4

18/02/17

Eliot Engel during a news conference in House Studio A introducing legislation that would require congressional approval to lift sanctions on Russia. (Getty)

they have no money, and they’re still the number one sponsor [of terrorism], imagine if they get as much as 150$ billion? They’ll be awash in cash, and have so much money to do worse.

The U.S. needs to take a tough line with Iran, which is at the center of trouble in the Middle East Hezbollah is their proxy. Certainly in Syria, it has affected the way the war has gone. There were a number of times when [Syrian President] Assad was on the ropes, and it looked like he’d be eliminated or thrown out of power. [But] Iran brought in Hezbollah, which fought on his side and helped him, then it was the Russians, with Russian air power in Syria to get at the Islamic State [ISIS] but really was trying to hurt the Free Syrian Army. So, I just think that Iran and Russia are playing negative roles.

Elliot Engel and Mostafa El-Dessouki at the Congressman’s offices in Washington

5

18/02/17

C

over story

< President Trump has called for a tougher line on < It has been observed in Washington that numerous Tehran, but also a better relationship with Moscow. countries in the Middle East are coming together out of shared concern about Iran, its proxies, and Is it possible to achieve both? other trans-state actors – and Saudi Arabia has been - After I found out what I did about Russia’s attempted especially proactive in pushing back on Iran. What do you make of these trends?

Iran and Russia are playing “negative roles” in the Syrian conflict

- I would hope that the U.S. would continue its friendly ties with Saudi Arabia. I think it’s very important. I also think that the Sunni Muslim nations are finding out that they have a lot in common with Israel. When you look at the view of who’s really making trouble in the Middle East, I think both Sunni Arab countries and Israel would agree that Iran is at the center of all interference in the U.S. presidential election, I this trouble, and they have much more in common wouldn’t trust [Russian President] Putin as far as I because of that than the disagreements. And I would could throw him. We should be wary of anything he hope the collaboration now being quietly behind the says and does. It’s clear they attempted to subvert the scenes can be brought into the open, because it’s election. Undermining American democracy is an important for those countries’ youth populations to see extremely hostile act, the most hostile act. Our foreign that the enemy is Iran, with its belligerent behavior– an enemy of any peace-loving nation. policy has to be wary.

6

10/02/17

Elliot Engel standing behind US President George W. Bush as he signs the United States - India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act in the White House. (Getty)

THE MOST AWARDED SUV EVER.

2015 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE LAREDO * ®

SR 119,999

• 3.6 L V6 Pentastar™ engine, 290 HP, 4x4 • Bi-Xenon Headlamps • 5.0 Touch Screen • UConnect Voice Command with Bluetooth • Keyless Enter-N-Go

Terms and Conditions apply. *Price applicable for Grand Cherokee Laredo white color only. The prices shown above do not include registration and insurance fees. The prices shown apply on select vehicle colors and may differ from the models advertised. UMC reserves the right to cancel the offers without prior notice. Offer is valid while stocks last. ©2015 FCA US LLC. All Rights Reserved. Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Mopar and SRT are registered trademarks of FCA US LLC.

Jeep KSA Western Region

Central Region Al Riyadh: SOLE DISTRIBUTOR FOR CHRYSLER, DODGE, JEEP®, RAM & MOPAR IN THE KINGDOM

For further information visit:

www.umc.com.sa

Customer Service Centre 920010098

Khurais Street: 011-233 2222 Dabbab Street: 011-416 3466 King Abdul Aziz Road: 011-299 3600 SRT Showroom: 011-254 4504 Al-Badi’ah: 011-812 0429 Al-Naseem: 011-810 9304

Al-Qassim: 016-383 9966 Hail: 016-558 2233 Najraan: 017-544 4452 Abha: 017-227 3322 Jizan (Dealer): 017-321 4077

Jeddah: Medenah Road: 012-682 9968 Auto Mall: 012-215 0000 Taif:

012-746 3333

Eastern Region Al Madinah: 014-848 3333 Tabuk: 014-423 9595 Yanbu: 014-390 1222 Jouf (Dealer): 014-626 6006

Dammam: 013-857 9666 Jubail: 013-361 4666 Hofuf: 013-584 5050 Qatif: 013-808 1676

C

over story

Nita Lowey: We welcome Saudi-led Islamic coalition against terrorism The best chance for Palestinian –Israeli peace will come from the Arab League and Israelis working together Washington: Mostafa El-Dessouki Democratic Congresswoman Nita Lowey was considered a top contender for appointment to Hilary Clinton›s vacated Senate seat after Clinton was nominated to be Secretary of State by then-U.S. President Barack Obama. She serves as the ranking

Peace between Palestinians and Israelis will not solve all the problems of the region Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

Lowey’s portfolio includes influence over funding of the U.S. State Department as well humanitarian and civil aid projects to foreign countries through such donor foundations as the U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID].

In her interview with Majalla, Lowey reflects on her recent meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan

and their discussion on the crucial role the King and the Arab league can play in reaching a peace agreement between Palestine and Israel. She shares her impressions of Saudi Arabia’s establishment of an “Islamic coalition against terrorism” as a united force for peace in the region. She also outlines how foreign aid for education can be an important tool in working towards peace. < King Abdullah of Jordan recently met with you and other members of your committee. What were some of the outcomes of the session?

- I have enormous respect for King Abdullah and am very fond of him. He’s now going to be chairman of the Arab League for the next year and I expressed optimism that perhaps he, working with responsible people, could work out a peace agreement [between Israelis and Palestinians]. I have been supportive of the two-state solution for a very very long time. I do believe very strongly that it has to come from negotiations with the two parties involved. But, as I was discussing with King Abdullah – having met with [Palestinian president]

8

18/02/17

US Representative Nita Lowey

Saudi-led Islamic Coalition to fight terrorism a “very positive step”

other countries of the Arab League, and bringing a proposal — many have been on the table for a very long time — to Abbas. If the Arab League and the Israelis were working together, then I think

Soft power is an important tool in working towards peace and avoiding wars this could be a stronger, real hope for negotiation.

US Representative Nita Lowey and Mostafa El-Dessouki at the Congresswoman’s office in The United States Capitol, Washington.

Mahmoud Abbas more than twenty times over the years – I don’t think Abbas has the political strength or commitment to negotiate an agreement.

So what we were talking about is the possibility of King Abdullah working with the Israelis and the

9

18/02/17

< Can you elaborate on why you feel Abbas would not likely reach a peace accord with Israel without the involvement of other Arab countries?

- This is the year 2017. President Clinton tried to bring

C

over story

the parties together, at the end of his administration.

George Bush tried at the end of his administration to bring the parties together. We know the Olmert proposal, where he gave so much and Abbas walked away. I’m not doing a psychoanalysis of Abbas. I can’t analyze whether Abbas the inclination [to do a

Mahmoud Abbas does not have the political strength or commitment to negotiate a peace agreement deal]. But it’s my view –having met him many many times, and understanding the tenuous situation — I certainly think he doesn’t have the political strength to be a willing partner in any negotiation. And no matter how many times I told him that I think having the Israelis as a partner would bring more stability

to him and the country rather than worrying about Hamas, I don’t think he has the strength to do it.

In my judgment, Abbas doesn’t have the political strength while his commitment is a question mark. I think that backed by the Arab League, working with King Abdullah of Jordan, working with the Israelis, I think Abbas would be more likely to find strength to be an active part of negotiations – if the Arab world supports it. < The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is alas dwarfed by bloodier conflicts in the region today. Is there a question of perspective?

- Many people say the lack of a two-state solution is what has led to turbulence around the world. I think that’s nonsense. And I don’t think, as some have said, that a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis will solve all the problems of the region. But with the fact that Iran just shot a ballistic missile the other day [February 1] – I think Iran should cause concern for Abbas, given that he’s surrounded by terrorist groups wanting to really take over the territory. Perhaps it will be an incentive

10

10/02/17

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives with Rep. Nita Lowey to a House Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs hearing on the State Department budget. (Getty)

It was an important step in dealing with nuclear activity, but imperfect because it didn’t deal with their ballistic missiles activity, nor did it take into consideration the support by Iran of other terrorist groups. It didn’t stop the genocide in Syria, which the world witnessed. People are dying all over the region. Until now, I don’t think there has been leadership in bringing all those parties together who are opposed to Iranian actions – whether it’s the Saudis or the Jordanians. I think that if a coalition could be established against terrorism, including the Israelis, then that would be a great foundation for the future. < As ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, you help steer decision-making about foreign aid. What are your aspirations and concerns with respect to foreign aid at the dawn of a new administration?

US Representative Nita Lowey arrives to speak during Day 1 of the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia. (Getty)

US Representative Nita Lowey and former US President Barack Obama

- I have been a leader in support of educating girls around the world. Education for girls and boys gives them not just the education, but also the self-confidence and leadership skills to be a force for good and for peace. I was very to be part of renewed peace negotiations, with the disturbed when this administration talked about encouragement of the Arab League. And I do think cutting foreign aid by forty percent. I hope that that we have an opportunity with King Abdullah as is not a policy that is implemented. I have been chairman of the Arab League to bring the parties a strong advocate of lifting people up through together. education, through health care, job training, skills training – I think soft power is an important < Last year Saudi Deputy Crown Prince tool in working towards peace and avoiding Mohammed bin Salman, announced the establishment of an “Islamic coalition against terrorism.” What impressions have you formed of this initiative?

- The Islamic Coalition is certainly welcome. I think it’s a step in the right direction. The SunniShi’ite divide has been part of history for a very long time, so I’m not going to comment on that.

But the fact that the Saudis having taken that action, hopefully means there will be a coalition which will take active steps in trying to bring some reasonable accommodations to the region. Certainly a coalition of those who are going to stand strong against terrorism is certainly a very positive action.

Now the Iranian nuclear deal has been signed. I didn’t vote for it because I thought it was imperfect.

11

18/02/17

Iran nuclear deal imperfect because it failed to address ballistic missile tests and Tehran’s support for terrorism

wars. And it’s more cost-effective than military hardware. I am very proud of the work that USAID has done throughout the world. I’m very concerned and apprehensive about the views of this administration. So it remains to be seen where soft power is on their agenda.

P

olitics

Trump and World Order The Return of Self-Help

By Stewart M. Patrick * Since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, 13 successive U.S. presidents have agreed that the United States must assume the mantle of global leadership.

Although foreign policy varied from president to president, all sent the clear message that the country stood for more than just its own well-being and that the world economy was not a zero-sum game.

That is about to change. U.S. President Donald Trump has promised a foreign policy that is nationalist and transactional, focused on securing narrow material gains for the United States. He has enunciated no broader vision of the United Statesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; traditional role as defender of the free world, much less outlined how the country might play that part. In foreign policy and economics, he has made clear that the pursuit of narrow national advantage will guide his policiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;apparently regardless of the impact on the liberal world order that the United States has championed since 1945.

That order was fraying well before November 8. It had been battered from without by challenges from China and Russia and weakened from within by economic malaise in Japan and crises in Europe, including the epochal Brexit vote last year. No one knows what Trump will do as president. But as a candidate, he vowed to shake up world politics by reassessing longstanding U.S. alliances, ripping up existing U.S. trade deals, raising trade barriers against China, disavowing the Paris climate agreement, and repudiating the nuclear accord with Iran. Should he follow through on these provocative plans, Trump will unleash forces beyond

his control, sharpening the crisis of the Westerncentered order.

Some countries will resist this new course, joining alliances intended to oppose U.S. influence or thwarting U.S. aims within international institutions. Others will simply acquiesce, trying to maintain ties with Washington because they feel they have no other options, wish to retain certain security and economic benefits, or share a sense of ideological kinship. Still others will react to a suddenly unpredictable United States by starting to hedge their bets.

Like investors, states can manage their risk by diversifying their portfolios. Just as financiers cope with market volatility by making side bets, so countries reduce their vulnerability to unpredictable great powers

Trump has promised a foreign policy that is nationalist and transactional, focused on securing narrow material gains for the United States by sending mixed signals about their alignment.

Confronting two great powers, the hedger declines to side with either one, trying to get along with both, placing parallel bets in the hopes of avoiding both domination and abandonment. Hedging is most common when great

12

18/02/17

U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for lunch with troops during a visit to the US Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base. (Getty)

powers are unpredictable and the global distribution of power is shifting fastâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;in other words, during times like today.

economics, and climate change. But in all, they would signal a dwindling faith in the post1945- liberal order and its longtime champion.

In recent years, hedging has been confined to Asia, where several of Chinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s neighbors have responded to its rise by welcoming a U.S. security presence in the region but have stopped short of signing treaties to become full-fledged U.S. allies. Indonesia, Myanmar, Singapore, and Vietnam have all adopted a variant of this strategy. But given the uncertainty about U.S. leadership in the age of Trump, hedging could now spread far beyond Asia.

INSECURITY SYSTEM

If this scenario plays out, what would be signs that traditional U.S. partners have begun to hedge their bets? Put differently, what are the canaries in the coal mines around the world that would signal an eroding world order? The warning signs look different in three categories of international relations: geopolitics,

13

18/02/17

Hedging would prove most dramatic in geopolitics.

Since 1945, the United States has acted as the ultimate guarantor of world order and of regional power balances.

Its forward-leaning military presence, nuclear umbrella, and defense guarantees have provided security for many countries that would otherwise have to fend for themselves in an anarchic global system. Trump may abandon all that. Before and after his election, he made provocative statements that caused foreigners to mistrust their long-standing assumptions about U.S. intentions. He called into question the reliability of U.S. alliance commitments and toyed with the prospect of encouraging U.S. allies, such as Japan, to get their own nuclear arsenals.

P

olitics

Think of the United States as an insurance agency. What would happen if Trump canceled its insurance policies, dramatically increased individual premiums, or cast doubt on payouts? In all likelihood, some policyholders would begin hedging their bets between the United States and the most relevant regional power—China in Asia, Russia in Europe, and Iran in the Middle East.

Such hedging would partly take place internally, as countries built up their individual capabilities for selfdefense and bolstered regional bodies. But it would also occur externally, as traditional U.S. partners accommodated U.S. rivals and made their own ultimate intentions unclear.

Hedging would serve as an important signaling device.

By increasing the ambiguity of their alignment, states could demonstrate to Washington that it is not the only party capable of pursuing strategic flexibility and imposing costs on former partners. Hedging would also suggest to the aspiring regional hegemon that new opportunities for cooperation were available, provided that certain limits were observed. Current U.S. partners would in effect be trading alignment with Washington—a diminishing asset given Trump’s unpredictability—for greater autonomy.

In Asia, hedging against U.S. unreliability could upend the regional security order. Although China now stands at the center of the Asian economy, the United States has, since World War II, guaranteed security through a network of alliances and partnerships. But this could change if the Trump administration increases uncertainty about Washington’s staying power in the region by reversing the Obama administration’s “pivot” to Asia, withholding U.S. security guarantees unless allies pay more for their own defense, or advocating nuclear proliferation in the region.

If U.S. partners in Asia decided to hedge, the signs would be obvious. Some of them might invest more in independent military capabilities, with Japan and South Korea, in particular, perhaps seriously considering starting nuclear weapons programs. States might seek to create some sort of regional security organization in which both the United States and China would be members but in which neither would dominate. They might make accommodating statements regarding Chinese

maritime claims in the East China and South China Seas and publicly criticize U.S. military deployments. They might attempt to bolster the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ limited security role, and Japan, South Korea, India, and Australia might enhance their security cooperation without involving the United States.

Vietnam could undertake a gradual rapprochement with China. Erstwhile U.S. partners, such as Singapore, might even start buying weapons from China and training with its forces. Japan and South Korea might enhance their trilateral strategic dialogue with China on North Korea and other issues. Meanwhile, the momentum behind U.S partnerships with India, Indonesia, and Vietnam might slow, and Asian states could increasingly resort to ad hoc coalitions of their own to deal with specific regional security problems.

In Europe, U.S. allies would hedge in response to weaker transatlantic ties, eroding U.S. commitments to NATO, or the prospect of a Washington-Moscow condominium that would transform European states into pawns. The continent’s big four—France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom—would likely increase their defense spending and security cooperation, perhaps including Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, too. Some European leaders would start employing Gaullist language, depicting the continent (and perhaps the EU as a body) as a natural balancer between the

Security hedging in the Middle East would accentuate Russian presence, grow rivalry between Iran and Sunni power and tighten links between Israel and Russia United States and Russia. Eastern European states could respond to growing vulnerability—and the declining credibility of NATO—by accommodating Russia, rearming their militaries, and reinvigorating the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy. The suddenly

14

18/02/17

A newly sworn in U.S. citizens takes a picture with a cardboard cutout of U.S. President Donald Trump during a naturalization ceremony held by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

(Getty)

vulnerable Baltic states could turn away from the United States and submit to “Finlandization,” a more neutral stance that would allow Moscow greater control over their policies. Ukraine, meanwhile, would likely adopt a more conciliatory policy toward Russia, perhaps flirting with membership in the Eurasian Economic Union or with acceptance of its own de facto partition. Turkey, an increasingly tenuous NATO member, would likely try to curry favor with both Russia and the United States, playing off each against the other.

at limiting its worst behavior.

Hedging is less likely in the Americas, given the scale of U.S. dominance. That said, the region’s countries could begin to elevate the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which excludes the United States and Canada, above the Organization of American States, which includes them. In sub-Saharan Africa, lastly, little geopolitical hedging should take place, since the region remains a marginal setting for great-power competition, relatively speaking.

Security hedging in the Middle East would accentuate trends visible during the Obama administration, including waning U.S. influence, an increased Russian presence, and growing rivalry between Iran and Sunni powers. Even Israel, whose right-wing government Trump has embraced, would tighten links with Russia as a hedge against U.S. retrenchment. Out of a fear that the United States would prove less willing to check Iran, the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council .would ramp up their defense spending, enhance their cooperation, and undertake discrete negotiations with Tehran aimed

THE RETURN OF MERCANTILISM

15

18/02/17

Economic hedging is inherently different from its geopolitical counterpart. After all, global trade and investment hold the promise of absolute gains for all, and national survival is not immediately at stake.

Still, given Trump’s campaign pledges to upend the open, liberal system of trade that the United States has promoted since 1945, traditional U.S. trading partners will surely hedge their bets.

Trump has pledged to tear up “horrible” trade deals,

P

olitics

including the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership; declare China a currency manipulator; and slap a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports. If his administration pursues such a mercantilist course, U.S. trading partners will rightly conclude that the United States is abandoning its global economic leadership and support for open markets. Beyond retaliating against U.S. protectionism and seeking remedies within the dispute-settlement mechanism of the World Trade Organization, they could respond to perceived U.S. exploitation in several ways.

Current U.S. trading partners would look to other major economies, particularly China, and blocs, such as the European Union, to become the new motor for the liberalization of global trade. They would likely shift their energies toward alternative arrangements that do not involve the United States—such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the Belt and Road Initiative, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, all led by China—to secure more promising markets for goods and fields for investment. U.S. trading partners might well diversify their foreign currency reserves away from dollar holdings and conduct more trade in euros, pounds, yen, and yuan. Emerging economies would redouble their efforts to reduce U.S. influence in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (and openly resist the informal U.S. prerogative to choose the head of the latter body). And developing countries seeking financing would increasingly look to nontraditional donors, such as Brazil, China, India, and the United Arab Emirates.

If the United States abdicates its global economic leadership, it will leave the world economy adrift at a precarious moment. Without a firm hand at the helm, the G7- group of advanced market democracies could risk fading into irrelevance. The more inclusive G20would look increasingly to Beijing for leadership. The BRICS coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa could find new purpose, particularly if its three emerging-market democracies perceived China as a better economic partner than the United States.

PLANETARY PERIL Finally, some countries will hedge against uncertain

U.S. leadership when it comes to preserving a sustainable planet. Global warming poses the biggest long-term threat to the survival of the human species.

As a candidate, Trump described climate change, which scientists overwhelming accept as real and largely manmade, as a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese, and he pledged to shred the 2015 Paris agreement, an ambitious emissions-reduction pact.

If the Trump administration does abrogate that agreement, some parties to it will push back, whereas others will simply consider it dead. Many, however, will hedge. Rather than repudiate the accord outright, they will make their own commitments to it more ambiguous.

They might extend the deadlines for their own cuts, shift their focus from mitigating climate change to adapting to it, or simply move it down their list of global priorities.

Countries that decided to keep climate change a priority might attempt to force Washington to address the issue regardless by inserting emissions targets and other climate commitments into unrelated pacts, such as ones concerning trade or agriculture. To get the United States to assume some of the cost of the environmental externalities created by its defection from the climate change regime, they could levy tariffs on U.S. goods based on how much carbon was emitted during their production. They might also engage directly with environmentally minded U.S. states (such as California) or even municipalities (such as New York City) to reach agreements on emissions reductions.

Attempts to expand the United States’ freedom of action and keep others guessing will benefit US rivals Unlike in the geopolitical and economic realms, hedging on climate change would prove deeply unsatisfactory for the countries that did it, since although they would be avoiding short-term sacrifices, their actions would increase the risk of planetary catastrophe. And because

16

18/02/17

U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump wait to greet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara Netanyahu at the White House. (Getty)

greenhouse gases have a global effect, countries disappointed or alienated by U.S. behavior would have no alternative system with which to align themselves— no climate equivalent to a Chinese-led security order, for instance.

TRUMP›S CHOICE A future in which other countries hedge as the United States abandons its decades-long leadership is not preordained. Whether it comes to pass will depend on the choices Trump makes as president. If he pivots away from his campaign pledges—in response to the advice of senior advisers, pressure from Congress, or pleas from foreign leaders—his administration could revert to a more standard U.S. grand strategy. But if he makes life riskier for longtime partners—by weakening U.S. alliance commitments, adopting protectionist economic policies, and shirking obligations to combat global warming—U.S. allies and partners will seek to advance

17

18/02/17

their national security, prosperity, and well-being through increased autonomy. In that case, the Trump administration will find that its attempts to expand the United States’ freedom of action and keep others guessing will be met in kind, to the benefit of U.S. rivals and to the detriment of U.S. economic interests and the health of the planet.

That would be an ironic outcome. A leitmotif of Trump’s presidential campaign was the need to reduce Americans’ vulnerability to international threats and unfair economic competition. And yet the steps Trump has endorsed risk driving away U.S. allies and partners, exposing Americans to global instability and economic retaliation, and accelerating the demise of the world the United States made.(This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs). * STEWART M. PATRICK is James H. Binger Senior Fellow in Global Governance and Director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program at the Council on Foreign Relations.

P

olitics

Merkel's Last Stand Letter from Berlin

By Paul Hockenos * At first glance, Germany’s upcoming national election in late September looks much like those of past years.

So far, the issues that will shape the contest appear to be standard fare, and thus overwhelmingly domestic: the German economy, security, migration, and jobs. The leading mainstream parties, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD), aren’t that far apart from each other on any of those topics, nor are they on foreign policy. All signs point to a resumption of the ruling CDU–SPD grand coalition, led

by Angela Merkel as fourth-term chancellor.

Yet much more is at stake in the German vote—and in the campaign—than initially meets the eye. The politicking will transpire against the background of a European Union sinking further into its deepest crisis since its founding. The wounds of the eurocrisis remain raw.

Unpredictable, autocratic leaders in Russia and Turkey are stoking conflicts on Europe’s periphery and, in the case of Russian President Vladimir Putin, attempting to sabotage the EU. Exacerbating it all, Donald Trump, the new U.S. president, is shaking the foundations of the Atlantic alliance and has poured fuel on the fire of European right-wing populism.

Germany isn’t prepared to take over the leadership of the Atlantic alliance from the United States, much less that of the broader international order that Washington has historically underwritten. But Europe’s biggest economy is nevertheless holding the continent together: Berlin, not Brussels, has become the EU’s true capital and the guarantor of its stability. Germany’s policies reverberate

far beyond its borders, and Germany, where the lessons of Nazi rule and World War II are inscribed in the public imagination, remains a bulwark against the illiberal forces tearing Europe apart. With Euroskeptics gaining ground in France and the United Kingdom tied up with Brexit, Germany now stands alone as the guardian of European values—a role it did not seek nor, in many ways, that it is suited for. Every country in Europe has a stake in Germany’s election campaign.

MERKEL’S PRINCIPLED STANCE Europe’s extraordinary circumstances are probably one reason why Merkel opted to run for another term, despite having already served as chancellor for nearly 12 years.

She remains highly popular, although her principled stance on migration has taken a toll on her support and that of her party. She has no obvious successor as the head of Europe’s premier Christian democratic party— and if she were replaced, her CDU successor might well

Germany now stands alone as the guardian of european values - a role it id not seek nor, that it is suited for not toe her liberal line on battleground issues, such as migration and Islam›s place in Germany, which strays from CDU orthodoxy.

The CDU’s arch-conservative Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), has already waded

18

18/02/17

other level. But the AfD’s almost certain entry into the federal assembly will itself be a seminal event in German politics: the first time since 1949 that a party to the right of the CDU and CSU—one using explicitly racist and nationalistic rhetoric—will win seats in that body.

“Nationalist parties may be popping up everywhere now,” Norbert Frei, a historian at the University of Jena, wrote in an email. “But in Germany, they’re striving to nullify an important element of the Federal Republic’s political culture, namely its self-critical engagement with the Nazi past.”

The AfD, originally a party of “polite populists” formed to protest the euro and Germany’s bailout of indebted southern European states, has in the last few years drifted rightward into volkish nationalism, its ranks filled with lower-middle-class Germans (mostly men) alongside a core of far-right ideologues. It has capitalized on the influx of refugees to survive internal divisions–many of the libertarian-minded academics who opposed the euro in the party›s early days have since abandoned it—entering state legislatures across the country and receiving up to 20 percent of the vote in Germany’s eastern states. Its leaders endorse Putin and Trump’s nationalist, anti-EU positions. The size of the vote the AfD receives in the federal elections will be an important measure of the health of Germany’s democracy—and thus of Berlin’s ability to hold Europe together.

The Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, arrives to meet with the President of Poland, Andrzej Duda, during her visit to Poland, at the Presidential Palace in Warsaw. (Getty)

For now, there’s probably a ceiling to the AfD’s support.

The party “is more radical than Austria’s Freedom Party,” said Hajo Funke, a German scholar of right-wing extremism. “In its present form, there’s no way the AfD is going to tap support from centrist burghers in Germany into populist waters, blasting Merkel’s refugee policies the way the Freedom Party or the National Front in in terms that echo and legitimize the stance of the far- France do.” Funke reckons that the party will garner right populist Alternative for Germany, or AfD. For the between 8 and 12 percent of the vote, gaining more only election campaign, though, Merkel has the CSU on board in the event of a successful terrorist attack. Critical to keeping the far right confined, Funke says, is Christian and largely mum on the issue.

Merkel wants to be certain that the CDU and CSU don’t democratic voters’ allegiance to Merkel. The CDU make the same mistake that Austrian conservatives remains the country’s dominant political party, currently did decades ago by opening the door to the Freedom polling at about 33 percent (the Social Democrats are a Party, the far-right populist party that served as the few points behind). Yet the CDU is considerably weaker conservatives’ junior coalition partner in Vienna from than four years ago, when it collected 41.5 percent of the 2000 to 2004 and nearly captured Austria’s presidency national vote. In state-level votes since then, the party late last year. (Elsewhere in Europe, in countries such as has suffered a string of defeats, as a slice of its voters Denmark, Italy, Poland, and Slovakia, far-right groups have peeled off to back the AfD. have also shared in power as formal or informal coalition partners.) Unlike in those countries, none of Germany’s CRITICS AND COMPROMISES parties entertain the possibility of teaming up with the AfD in coalitions, either in the Bundestag or on any As for the campaign’s content, “the biggest issues are

19

18/02/17

P

olitics

going to be fought out on the right side of the political spectrum,” said Mariam Lau, a columnist for the weekly Die Zeit, referring to migration, but also to the euro, the eurocrisis, security, and relations with Russia. The question is how far Merkel’s CDU and the CSU will go to lure voters who might otherwise back the AfD. Will the chancellor make further concessions on migration and integration, as she’s done many times before by, for example, imposing a burka ban (she has already proposed one), or will she stand up confidently for her migration policies and a diverse society, as she’s done at other times? Will she defend the EU or tactfully distance herself from it? Will she cut Greece slack or keep it pinned to the floor with debt? Will she promote a narrow conception of Germany as a state for German nationals or open it up to non-German nationals, such as people with migration backgrounds? Will she back yet more intense surveillance and policing methods? Much depends on how she approaches these sensitive issues.

Together with security, migration will be the campaign’s most important and divisive issue. The chancellor’s position on the refugee influx into Germany has come a long way from the de facto open-door position she took in the summer of 2015, when hundreds of thousands of desperate refugees and migrants where trekking toward Europe. Through a deal with Turkey, tougher legal requirements for refugees, and the refusal to accept asylum applicants from so-called safe states in the Balkans, Germany has cut the rate at which people are entering the country by nearly 75 percent since then.

Last week, Merkel took yet another step to appease critics by setting out a wide-ranging plan to more quickly repatriate failed asylum seekers. Nevertheless, she began the year by reminding U.S. President Donald Trump of the Geneva Convention’s refugee provisions, a sign that she’s determined not to betray Germany›s fundamental commitment to the right to asylum.

Merkel’s compromises, however, have not placated her critics. Indeed, against fierce pressure from within her own party and from populist challengers, she has resisted closing the border to refugees or capping the number of asylum applicants Germany will accept. She has held firm that all EU countries shoulder asylum seekers according to their size and wealth. And she has approached the right to

asylum, in the context of human rights in general, as a pillar of Europe’s liberal order, one whose erasure would diminish the continent’s democratic credentials and perhaps push more of its states onto the slippery slope of authoritarianism, as has already happened in Hungary and Poland.

THE CHALLENGE FROM THE LEFT

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez arrive to speak to the media following talks at the Chancellery in Berlin, Germany. (Getty)

Merkel’s primary opponent in the election is also an ally—and will probably be her deputy chancellor after the vote. A new arrival in German politics, Martin Schulz is a Social Democrat who, very unusually for

Together with security, migration will be the campaign’s most important and divisive issue a German politician, made his name in the European Parliament, rising to its presidency in 2012. Schulz took an unorthodox path to Brussels: he grew up in a working-class family in a coal-mining region of the Rhineland and, rather than finish high school, opted to play semi-professional soccer and later trained to be a book seller. After joining the SPD, Schulz served for a decade as mayor of a small town along the Dutch border, the most recent office in Germany he has held. Since the mid1990-s, he has moved in the rarified environs of the European Parliament as a face Germans know but not as

20

18/02/17

German Chancellor Angela Merkel allows Tunisian diplomats to shoot a selfie with her after she and Tunisian Prime Minister Youssef Chahed laid flowers at a memorial to the December Berlin terror attack in Berlin, Germany. (Getty)

a politician they’ve tested. Despite his EU credentials, many Germans consider Schulz a gritty, trade-unionminded advocate for the working class.

There has been a long line of Social Democrats who have tried and failed to stop their party’s electoral bleeding in recent decades. Now Schulz is on it, and initial polls show him close on Merkel’s heels. Upon Schulz’s unexpected nomination, the SPD jumped three points in polling and has continued to climb. Yet Germany’s left—the SPD, the Greens, and the Left Party—will likely still fall short of a majority. The CDU has only the SPD with which it can form a government, unless it forms a coalition with two parties—say, the Greens and the liberal Free Democratic Party.

In addition to contesting each other and countering the far-right, Merkel and Schulz will have to convince Germans that the EU has a viable future. If the Germans give up on it, Europe’s destiny is up for grabs. Trump’s proclamations on NATO and Putin’s provocations in Eastern Europe have believers in the European project scrambling to beef up the EU’s defense and security capabilities, rethink its foreign policy, create a single military command, and, in general, prepare for a life without their strongest ally. Yet neither Schulz nor Merkel appear to have a big-frame vision for the EU’s future that he or she can sell to German voters. And ultimately, they have to sell the EU beyond Germany, to the rest of Europe. Germany’s dominance in the union has grown since the eurocrisis, and Berlin is often seen as

21

18/02/17

promoting its own interests to the detriment of the union’s other members. Certainly, measures such as tempering Germany’s record trade surpluses or investing them to help buoy economies outside of Germany would be a step in the right direction. Germany can’t rally Europe while appearing to use the EU as a vehicle for its own interests—a criticism that Trump has made and many smaller EU countries have echoed.

A number of events between now and September could upend this fragile calculus. A National Front victory in France’s upcoming presidential elections, routs of the

Every country in Europe has a stake in Germany’s election campaign CDU in North Rhine-Westphalia, Saarland, or SchleswigHolstein in state contests, a terrorist attack, renewed trails of refugees, a major escalation in Ukraine, or the CSU’s defection from the CDU could cause Merkel and her party to sink in the polls. A Merkel-and-Schulz-led administration isn’t a bad option for Germany. If they end up governing together, both must be aware that the fate of Europe rests on their shoulders. (This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs). * PAUL HOCKENOS is a Berlin-based writer and the author of the forthcoming Berlin Calling: A Story of Anarchy, Music, the Wall, and the Birth of the New Berlin.

H

ealth

Look on the bright side - and maybe even live longer By: Kristen Rapoza*

lower risk of dying from infection.

Studies suggest that adopting a sunnier outlook may improve your health and even extend your life.

HOW YOU CAN ACQUIRE OPTIMISM

In these turbulent times, it›s sometimes a struggle to maintain a glass-half-full view of life. But if you can, it may serve you well. A growing body of research links optimism-a sense that all will be well—to a lower risk for mental or physical health issues and to better odds of a longer life.

One of the largest such studies was led by researchers Dr. Kaitlin Hagan and Dr. Eric Kim at Harvard›s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Their team analyzed data from 70,000 women in the Nurses› Health Study who, in 2004, had answered questions about how they viewed their futures.

The researchers found that women who scored higher on the optimism scale were significantly less likely to die from several major causes of death over an eight-year period, compared with women who scored lower. In fact, compared to the most pessimistic women, the most optimistic had a 16 % lower risk of dying from cancer, 38 % lower risk of dying from heart disease, 39 % lower risk of dying from stroke, 38 % lower risk of dying from respiratory disease, and 52 %

Even if you consider yourself a pessimist, there›s hope. Dr. Hagan notes that a few simple changes can help people become more optimistic.

«Previous studies have shown that optimism can instilled by something as simple as having people think about the best possible outcomes for various areas of their lives,» she says. The following may help you see the world through rosier glasses: Accentuate the positive: Keep a journal. In each entry, underline the good things that have happened and things you've enjoyed, and concentrate on them. Consider how they came about and what you can do to keep them coming.

Eliminate the negative. If you find yourself ruminating on negative situations, do something to short-circuit that train of thought. Turn on your favorite music, reread a novel you love, or get in touch with a good friend.

Act locally: Don't fret about your inability to influence global affairs. Instead, do something that can make a small positive change-like donating clothes to a relief organization, helping clean or replant a neighborhood park, or

22

18/02/17

Women do yoga on the precipice of Mount Song on March 2016 ,23 in Zhengzhou, Henan Province of China.

(Getty)

A young woman is training Pilates, holding and looking through the ring. (Getty)

volunteering at an after-school program.

Be easier on yourself: Self-compassion is a characteristic shared by most optimists. You can be kind to yourself by taking good care of your body-eating well, exercising, and getting enough sleep. Take stock of your assets and concentrate on them. Finally, try to forgive yourself for past transgressions-real or imagined-and move on.

Learn mindfulness: Adopting the practice of purposely focusing your attention on the present moment and accepting it without judgment can go a long way in helping you deal with unpleasant events. If you need help, many health centers now offer mindfulness training. There are books, videos, and smartphone apps to guide you. * (Harvard Health)

23

18/02/17

C

ulture

Asghar Farhadi about his Oscar-nominated drama ‘The Salesman’

It’s been a tumultuous winter for Asghar Farhadi

By Tirdad Derakhshani *

- And he can no longer really be an actor.

“The Salesman”, which has been nominated for an Academy Award for best foreign-language film, is a deceptively simple picture about two young actors, Emad (Shahab Hosseini) and his wife, Rana (Taraneh Alidoosti), who are preparing to star in a new production of Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman.” Their lives are turned upside down one night when a man breaks into their apartment while Rana is there alone.

< How are the two related?

-When we say someone is an actor, it means they can put themselves in another’s place, and in my story … Emad can no longer … put himself in another’s shoes and understand him. He can no longer empathize with another person such as (the intruder).

< He feels humiliated by the intrusion even though he wasn’t home when it happened. And the humiliation kills Farhadi, who won the Oscar for best foreign-language his empathy? film in 2012 for “A Separation,” spoke to me about “The -Yes, he can no longer even look at his own wife in the face. His gaze is turned only toward himself. And when he’s Salesman”. thinking about punishing (the intruder), he’s really thinking < “The Salesman” mixes two apparently heterogeneous of himself and his own humiliation, not his wife or her pain. elements. First there’s the intimate story of a relationship in crisis, a theme that runs through much of your work. < So she has no agency? He only sees her as a piece of Then there’s the theater angle. Where did the story come property that’s been damaged? from?

-Twenty years ago I was studying theater and I imagined -Yes. He acts as if his own dignity, his own property that I would spend the rest of my life in theater. I came has been attacked. His wife exists for him … only as an to the cinema, but this wish to go back to the theater has extension of himself. always remained with me. … On the other hand, I had a story of a couple where one night an intruder enters their < Do you think this dynamic is a constant across cultures home, but I felt the story was incomplete. Last year I had or only exists in certain paternalistic ones? the notion of making this couple actors and so my wish to -No, I think it’s a constant everywhere in the world. It’s part of the human condition. The thing we make the focus of our do theater came true in a way. love we feel belongs to us. Love and the sense of property < Even though Rana isn’t actually hurt, Emad changes always seem connected with each other. after the incident. He seeks revenge against the intruder, < Is there an alternative? while at home he can barely look at his wife.

24

18/02/17

Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi poses for a portrait in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 11. Farhadi is in town promoting his latest film, ‹Nader and Simin, A Separation,› which won the Golden Bear at the Berlin International Film Festival. (Getty)

We express love through language and poetry

they own God. They feel that God owns them, but they love God. < Speaking of love, I’ve noticed that men and women in Iranian films never touch. Even married couples. We never see them hug or hold hands, much less kiss.

Love and the sense of property always seem connected with each other -That is part of our censorship laws. But love in general isn’t a very touchy thing in our culture. We express love through language and poetry.

A scene from “The Salesman” movie.

(Getty)

-There’s this sentence I read by (German psychoanalyst) Erich Fromm: “Love is the child of freedom.” Which means that true love is to love something that does not belong to you, that you cannot hold, but that you continue to love. < It sounds very idealistic.

-It resembles the relationship that religious people have with God. Religious may not be the best word.

I mean people who have faith. They don’t feel as if

25

18/02/17

< So where in all of this does “Death of a Salesman” fit?

It seems such a quintessentially American play. Why did you use it?

- I read a great number of plays and I felt this one perfectly mirrors my main story. The principal theme in “Death of a Salesman” is humiliation. Willy Loman experiences humiliation at the hands of his son, society, his workplace, his family. That’s why he kills himself. Here too my character Emad feels just as reduced by his humiliation. * (This article was originally published in The Philadelphia Inquirer)