Diplomacy and International Politics

At the end of this week, President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet formally at the G20 Summit in Hamburg. The meeting comes at a time when there is growing consensus in Washington that the severity of Russian influence on the 2016 election should be dealt with more seriously by the current administration. At a hearing last week before the Senate Intelligence Committee, a panel of experts said they believed that not only Russian actors, but President Putin himself was behind the effort to undermine the election and urged the U.S. to work closer with its allies in Europe to stop future threats. Putin has denied any interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Nicholas Burns, a former ambassador to NATO and former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs for former President George W. Bush, and currently a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, testified at the recent hearing and shares his concerns.

On June 28, Nicholas Burns testified before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee on Russian interference in European elections. He called President Trump's response to Russia's cyber attacks on the U.S. democratic system both "dismaying and objectionable." He says it's the "president's duty to be skeptical of Russia and that his refusal to take action is "a dereliction of his basic duty to defend the country."

Former US Ambassador to NATO and Bush administration State Department official Nicholas Burns accused President Donald Trump of a "dereliction of the basic duty to defend the country" for his apparent disinterest in Russia's meddling in the 2016 US election.

Nick Burns talks with CNN Today regarding Russian interference in elections in Europe and the U.S., and the lack of response from the Trump Administration to contain this threat. 

"What happens when, after another dozen major attacks, the chain of their barbarism outpaces the chain of our human solidarity? When is the permissible moment to start asking if we can muster as much wisdom and realism to fight terror as we do to harness emotions of solidarity? The recent increasing pace and widening geographic scope of terror suggest we are dealing with a qualitatively new kinds of terrorists — but the policy responses of governments and the emotional responses of entire societies suggest we have no idea how to respond to quell this monster."

We are into the season when you will be flooded with articles and analyses on the 100-year anniversary of the Sykes-Picot agreement that was signed on May 18, 1916. That agreement between Great Britain and France, with Russian acquiescence, defined how they would divide the spoils of the crumbling Ottoman Empire in the East Mediterranean region.

"As 2015 comes to a close, the annual numbers of migrants smuggled to Greece and Italy and asylum claims lodged in Germany have passed a million, as well as the number of additional displacements produced this year by the conflict in Syria. Moreover, Europe’s Mediterranean shore has now the unchallenged title of the world’s most lethal border. Not only this. The migrant crisis is also putting to the test some of Europe’s most fundamental values, from the freedom of circulation within its territories, to international protection beyond..."

An audio recording of a public talk by Philippe Fargues, MEI Associate and Director of the Migration Policy Centre at the European University Institute.

"Regional actors will no doubt try to pass the buck and get Americans to do their fighting for them. U.S. leaders should reject such ploys politely but firmly and pass the buck right back. ISIS is not an existential threat to the United States, to Middle Eastern energy supplies, to Israel, or to any other vital U.S. interest, so U.S. military forces have no business being sent into harm's way to fight it."

"The agreement between Turkey and the United States on a yet-to-be-defined plan to establish a 60-mile-long zone in northern Syria adjacent to the frontier with Turkey anticipates that their troops, artillery, drones and jet fighters, working with selected Syrian rebels on the ground inside Syria, will keep the area free of “Islamic State” (IS) control. This move is at once decisive and dangerous. It positions two of the world’s and the region’s leading military powers, and NATO members, within half a dozen major local fighting forces of very different ideologies, and hundreds of smaller units with equally kaleidoscopic goals, identities and allegiances."