__________________________________________________
Threat Analyst Ken Abramowitz is author of “The Multifront War”
Editor: Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, President, American Center for Democracy (ACD)
__________________________________________________
QUOTE OF THE WEEK –
_____________________________________________________________________
Negotiating with adversaries and resolving disputes is always challenging. In business, such disputes are generally resolved either by negotiation, or by walking away from deals, or by lawsuits.
In politics, there are two types of negotiations: negotiations between some of the 100 democracies in the world that are ruled by laws, whose outcome depends on compromise and reasonableness. These may entail some pressure tactics. However, when democracies negotiate with dictatorships, all the rules change.
Dictatorships do not believe in the Western concept of compromise. They believe in dictating their terms, whether dealing with their citizens or dealing with an outside foe. Dictators also rarely abide by their negotiated agreements, because dictators cannot afford any signs of weakness, as they are afraid that will lead to their own political and/or physical demise.
Democracies also find themselves negotiating with ‘frenemies’ – half friends and half enemies. Negotiating with ‘frenemies’ is like negotiating with dictatorships, but they are likely to be more reasonable and may be ready to accept compromise. Force projection is generally required, but actual force is rarely used.
Let’s look at three examples:
1) Negotiating with democracies such as Canada, Mexico, and the UK would not necessitate the use of force, as these countries are our allies. However, President Trump can use economic pressure, threatening Canada and Mexico with tariffs if they do not police their borders and if they do not reduce the size of their trade balances with America. In the future, the U.S. will probably be pressuring the UK Labor socialist/progressive human rights violating government to start protecting the majority of its Christian population and small Jewish population from attacks by the violent minority, radical Islamists.
2) Confronting dictatorships, such as China, Russia, and Iran must invariably involve threats that could lead to the use of force. When dealing with Russia, which has some 6,000 nuclear weapons, and China, which has about 1,000 such weapons, a direct confrontation is not likely. However, the US and Europe can provide extra military resources to Ukraine to bleed Russia and its economy. The US can also provide extra weapons to Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, India, and South Korea so they can stand up to Chinese threats. The US should also provide Israel with all the weapons systems it needs to allow it to directly challenge Iran.
3) Negotiating with ‘frenemies’ such as Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan is also challenging, but direct military force is not necessary. Turkey and Pakistan face huge economic challenges and always need our help. Qatar is very strong financially, but needs our military protection. All three countries can and should be pressured to stop financing and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Muslims worldwide, through Mosques, Islamist schools (madrasas), imams, teachers, universities, and think-tanks in the West to subvert Judeo-Christian values that are the basis of Western nations.
The Trump Administration is only one month old and is still in the formative process. However, decisions must be made NOW, because key national security agencies have to coordinate their policies as soon as possible.
For now, the new administration is sending mixed messages to our friends and foes. To clarify our foreign policy decisions, one manager must be put in charge. He could be Secretary of State Rubio, or a coordinating executive (such as Steve Miller, who plays this role in domestic policy).
The Administration must also come to grips with the fact that the foreign enemies are not just outside our borders. When dealing with US enemies, the Administration must also demand they stop infiltrating and meddling with our society and economy. After all, the objective of such negotiations is to win.
