Thread by @ambassadorbrief

Weekly Geopolitical Brief

Three stories:

A trade truce, dressed up as a deal? Trump asserted that the US & China have reached a phase one trade deal. The partial deal purportedly includes China buying more US agricultural goods. But, it hasn’t even been written down.

Stratfor argued that “the partial deal doesn't go beyond the low-hanging fruit previously on the negotiating table. With neither side seemingly willing to make any of the hard, structural concessions…this week's deal is likely fragile at best”.

They continued, “judging by the Trump administration's continued search for leverage — …including threats of divestment and capital controls— a future uptick in hostilities between the United States and China is not only possible but perhaps also inevitable”.

More troops to the Middle East: Pentagon announced that it has deployed 14,000 more troops to the Middle East since May. The latest deployment, of 3,000 troops and associated weaponry, will be sent to Saudi Arabia.

The Pentagon positioned the deployments as a “response to continued threats in the region” and condemned “Iran’s malign behaviour”. However, as many analysts have noted, Iran’s behaviour has been a predictable consequence of US withdrawal from the Iran Deal.

Even as Trump decries “endless wars”, his policies – in particular, the pursuit of “Maximum Pressure” against Iran are only dragging the US deeper into the Middle East. And these further commitments come as the US should, per many analysts, be focussed on China.

Xinjiang sanctions: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced “visa restrictions on Chinese government and Communist Party officials believed to be responsible for, or complicit in, the detention or abuse of Uighurs, Kazakhs, or other Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang”.

.@kroenig argued “This is an important step. From now on, Chinese Communist Party officials can either engage in ethnic cleansing, or have family members study and shop in the United States. But not both”.
Three thought-provoking articles:

.@stephenWalt argued that “given how badly [Trump has] managed U.S. foreign relations, one could argue that having [him] distracted by impeachment might be a good thing. The less time and attention he devotes to foreign affairs, the better off everyone might be”.

But there’s one important caveat: “Trump is likely to be tempted to see foreign policy as a way to distract, divert, or discredit the impeachment campaign…The most worrisome possibility would be an attempt to rally public support via some sort of…war”.

Jason Miklian, @jekatsos, & @BenedicteBull argued that it’s only going to “get tougher still” for Western companies that want to also do business in non-democracies. These companies’ carefully crafted brand identities, “built around moral agency” are going to be tested.

They continued, their research shows that companies “can’t force social change on recalcitrant regimes by themselves”. But companies can be effective when they line up behind broader collective action by the business community, which complements international political campaigns.

“The 1980s anti-apartheid movement in South Africa is a good example. The business community played a key — but subsidiary — role in ending apartheid. Businesses avoided direct criticism by joining a broader campaign, rather than by organizing their own activities”.

.@HalBrands argued that Trump’s recent Syria decision is a typical Trumpian mess, with rash, poorly planned presidential action leading to pernicious — & downright bloody — consequences. Yet it’s also part of “an effort..to bring about a paradigm shift in America's war on terror”

He continued, “Trump is trying to usher in a [new] phase of that post-9/11 conflict, in which the U.S. would accept greater security risk as the price of reducing the ongoing costs of involvement in the greater Middle East”.

He continued, Trump “is running head-on into opposition from many in his own party, who are still more inclined to pay higher costs to buy down the threat of terrorist attacks. Trump is so far getting the worst of the debate. But the underlying issue...is not going away”.

Three events to watch in the near future:

EU sharpening its economic sword: @jana_puglierin & @NHelwig argued that President of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has staffed her team for a “geo-economic” approach to foreign policy – focusing on “trade, competition, and regulation”.

They continued, as a former German defense minister, von der Leyen knows the EU is still a military dwarf & its security policy is often “a cacophony of diverging interests”. So, she’s decided to focus on where the EU is strongest & has a real competitive edge: geo-economics.

Turkey sanctions: per The Hill, “furious republicans” are working to impose sanctions on Turkey for its slaughter of the Kurds. US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has also threatened severe sanctions on the Turkish economy.

But, @Martin_Indyk argued, “it’s a little late for that…The Turks will have their way in Syria and sanctions will not persuade them to withdraw”. Further, sanctioning a NATO ally will drive it “into the arms of the Russians”.

.@MichaelJMorell noted that all the consequences of Trump’s Syria decision are already playing out, including: atrocities (killings of captured Kurdish fighters); flows of Kurdish refugees; escapes of ISIS prisoners & Turkish intimidation of US forces still in Syria.

.@RadioFreeTom added, “the Kurds will be just as dead, and Putin will laugh even harder as we sanction our own ally. Competent policy is about not ending up in no-win situations like this. But because we have an emotionally disordered president & a party of enablers, here we are”

Brexit talks: per The Guardian, “a breakthrough in the Brexit talks has failed to materialise after a weekend of intensive negotiations, with European Union capitals concluding that it may now be impossible for the UK to leave the EU by 31 October with a deal”.

Per Stratfor, the obstacles to an orderly Brexit by Oct 31 are basically two: (i) UK will have to soften its pledge to exit the customs union, potentially to allow Northern Ireland to remain in it (ii) Johnson will have to persuade a skeptical House of Commons to approve a deal

Thanks as always to everyone who has been liking, retweeting, and spreading the word. If you’ve learned something new in this thread, or appreciate your work being quoted, please consider giving it a retweet from the top.

Have a great week!

The Ambassador’s Brief Editors