Cato Institute: "The Failure of Forcible Regime-Change Operations" Talk presented by Ben Denison

The presenter, Mr. Ben Denison, Postdoctoral Fellow at Tufts University surveyed a century of attempts to bring about regime-change through the use of force to rid illiberal regimes and supplant them with something better.  Supplementing his presentation was Prof. Lindsey O'Rourke, Boston University paper on covert regime-change attempts during much the same time period, last Century till now.  Professor Alexander Downes of George Washington University provided comments on these offerings.  The moderator was Cato's own Vice President, Christopher Preble.  The event occurred at Cato, February 26, 2020.

The topic was well-chosen though over the years analysts on the issue have come to much the same conclusions:  such forced regime-changes tend to unleash political confusion even to the point of civil war--at least does not advance the cause of democracy among all peoples.

I found the material these two authors cited thoroughly digested and well analyzed.  We don't know the precise success record of covert regime-change efforts, but I think the United States State Department and the many Presidential Administrations are aware of the many problems encountered from the many tries to achieve it over time.

I would think those interested in the topic would agree with Denison and O'Rourke that these attempts constitute learning lessons when contemplating any further ventures into supplanting a  regime. I take it is vacuous to add "forced" to any regime-change that is implemented by some other government than the one in power, since a government that is being deposed is likely to take it as a hostile act.

My response to this lively discussion: 
1.  I think it is widely recognized that the time a President is in office, especially, if for only one term, is just too short to successfully wage a regime-change.  And, if a two-term Presidency, there are plenty of competing goals other than some government's regime change that would vie for top priority consideration.

2.  Yet one would hope some government or some international organization would be responsive to a moral demand for regime change.  It is unconscionable that mankind would allow millions of people to be displaced as in the instance of Venezuela or Syria or Yemen because of tyrants and despots who have seized control of government for their own ends, causing devastation and migration and, yes, famine.

Africa has the African Union, which has seemed a viable mediator to bring about peace, e.g., in the Sudan; but the Americas' OAS organization has no military group to work for the cause of peace and governmental stability on its continent save the military and the State Department of the US--acting as the moral agent on behalf of the cause of peace.  Europe has benefited over the years of the services of NATO to stand for justice and peace to the very border of Russia.  May there be always some organization to stand up for the cause of mankind's existence and well-being on earth!

3.  I am cognizant that those interested in doing regime-change for the moral good know from the US bitter experience through the years that the new leadership must be well-trained and receive the very best education in the use of technology as is offered here in the States.  Indeed, the current batch of leaders in China were, by and large, educated here at our very distinguished colleges and universities to take their place thereafter among China's high echelon of administrators and business entrepreneurs.  Years ago, however, a leader was propped up in these foreign countries who had very little education and little experience in what he was being called on to do!  (As I attempted to clarify in the Q/A, those who pursue regime-changing have learned a lot from the past tries and embarrassments.) 

Thanks to the Cato Institute for a needed discussion of this issue.


 

Nobody knows best than our USA political Administration!

We citizens are living through the caronavirus scare.  We are looking from evaluation on how bad it is for us to endure, but we are told that we must take the word of the Administration, in particular, Vice President Pence; and that there should be no communication with the experts, even those on the committee to advise Pence.  Pence will tell us about the situation as it pertains to the US and not them, though we are told that they, not the US President nor his Vice President, is a recognized expert in the medical field. 

All this is a warning of what it means when politicians hog what will be told to the people over the airwaves to include their--the politicians'--own desires to control all forms of  mass media!

Shocking: The US President is viewed as a Putin sympathizer; and the Military isn't instructed to remove him!

The leader of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said right to the President's face at a meeting aired on TV not long ago that he, President Trump, is a Putin sympathizer, defending his (Putin's) positions and denying Russian interference in the 2016 election process; and yet, nobody asks the Military to remove him from office, pending determination of his loyalty to the US.  After all, the US has just spent years of the Cold War, during which Russia had been viewed as a world aggressor yet now, today, the USA President is ignoring Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 and 2020 elections and seemingly decries the US intelligence's community reports of fact that contradict his opinion.

And seemingly, the whole Republican Party stands by his declaration of loyalty, despite his going along with Russia's support of the Venezuelan President that impoverishes and starves the people of that country and sends millions of its citizens in flight--when Russia is transgressing on the Monroe Doctrine that a US President enunciated over a century ago and that President Kennedy may have been defending during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Giving credence to President Trump's dictum, "Times--they are a-changin'!" 

   

BBC reports: Good news--Malaysia has started retraining Muslim radicals successfully

Ending the violent outbursts and hatreds against members of their society.  I wonder if the Chinese are aware of the Malaysian attempts to change extremest behaviors to crumble the power structure of their nations.  That de-radicalization is possible is an acknowledgement that the Christian message of rehabilitation works.

To my mind, the Saudis have instigated a large measure of the violence in the Middle-East against Muslims who don't subscribe to Sunnai religious principles.  Particularly, in contiguous Yemen.     Nevertheless, Muslims must live together regardless of sect differences in beliefs.

Maybe, Indonesia, rather than Saudi Arabia, could lead as the paradigm of  a Muslim life of virtue and morality.

Brookings Institution: Book Review of "Fateful Triangle: How China Shaped US-Indian Relations" by Madan

The session was held at the Brookings, February 12, 2020: Introduction: Suzanne Maloney, Intrim Vice President, Brookings; Remarks by the author: Tanvi Madem, Brookings; Panelists: Thomas Wright, Brookings, and Kurt Campbell, The Asia Group.

The book traces how US-India relations have proceeded, recognizing that China has had friendly relations with both in trade and in military partnerships through the years since India's independence from Britain.  Both India and China trade a lot together, reaching nearly 50 billion dollars in 2013-14.  India buys military weaponry mostly from Russia, but understands that nuclear proliferation worldwide is not good for the planet.  Its official position is one of nonalignment with any political bloc, maintaining a certain autonomy, free to pursue its own national interests.

Now China has just recently had to adjust its trade with the United States because of Trump's tariffs imposed on Chinese manufactured goods, etc. But up to recently, China was benefiting from its trade agreements with the US--Trump thought by implementing some illegal practices that were not censured significantly through the WTO court system. His administration has been encouraging US companies interested in manufacturing abroad to consider India as a place to invest their overseas specialized equipment and factories.

The point is that the US may regard India in terms of the experiences that China has had with India.  Using the prism of China's perception, India may come to regard the US as an unreliable partner in the long run.

That is to say, what I think India may gain from China's recent turnabout in trade is how unreliable the US is in trade and commerce, particularly with Donald Trump as its President and chief negotiator.

In any case, commenting on India's current stance of nonalignment, Mr. Campbell pointed out that India has successfully maintained a posture of meeting its own needs by taking advantage both of what the West and the Russian communists have to offer in goods and services to India and other nonaligned nations in that region.

       

Cato Institute: Discussion of topic: "Future of Progressive Foreign Policy: 2020 & Beyond" --My Critique

The discussion was held at the Cato Institute, Washington, DC on January 28, 2020:  Moderator--Trevor Thrall of Cato and discussants--Kate Kizer, Win without War; Loren Schulman, Center for a New American Security; Mena Ayazi, Alliance for Peace building; and Professor Dan Nexon, Georgetown University.

Right off the bat, some discussants questioned whether the United States should pursue its foreign policy with a threat of US military intervention.  But the US does not simply say to some country, "Do as we say, or we'll take military action against you!"  There has to be some incident, in which the US is confronted with a hostile situation; in which military action is an option among others.  The US' forces are currently in some 190 host countries, engaging in an advisory capacity to keep the peace and maintain stable governmental regimes against violence and aggression that would escalate hostilities in some region and state, e.g., against Al Quaeda.

Discussants were quick to point to issues that the US voters are concerned about: healthcare, homelessness, jobs, climate change; issues, be it noted, that several of the Democratic presidential candidates have proposed remedies for.  They know that their solutions proposed must reach widespread acceptance by the voting public, since adopted recommendations would necessarily mean structural and procedural changes.

However, most plans being discussed in these citizen forums are not new: many have been tried and indeed successfully implemented here and in other countries, particularly, in Europe.  It's only that the US public has been subject to stories of their deleterious unintended consequences.  But the price of hesitating to forge ahead into what is for us uncharted territory is to accept populism, as in Trump's living by what has netted good results in the past, e.g. by relying on fossil fuels like coal.

I would encourage progressives to keep forging ahead developing new proposals to handle our problems and make for greater growth opportunities.  They will be successful in gaining acceptance for them the more innovative they become.  After all, they will be adding to our current US prosperity (which is consumer driven, by the way).   

Foreign Policy Issues

Actually, I didn't hear the country of Iran mention, nor Turkey, China nor Russia, so I am not sure that this was really a discussion of foreign policy stances into the future!  But in concentrating upon getting our troops out of Iran and Afghanistan, Trump has set up a straw man to take pot shots at.
The point is, I don't believe we're getting out of the Mideast, no matter what he does to divert our attention to home front issues alone.  There will be troops there, THANK GOD AND THE UNITED STATES MILITARY!  And, I have assurances that once Trump and his minions are out of office, we will assume the rightful position in trade organizations, such as the TPP.  And, there is nothing wrong with a little competition from S. Korea's car industry for global penetration of that market, despite his fear generating among US manufacturers. He has done a modicum of good; and a lot of his actions have caused worldwide consternation.  So, the Democrats are right in saying, the top issue in this Fall's campaign is a foreign policy effort:  Show President Trump the door!

Trump's alliance with the dictators of the world will not last long, despite his efforts at regulating oil production worldwide, a little recognized endeavor of his.