The news of a meeting today between U.S., Japanese, and South Korean officials to coordinate on North Korea policy is welcome. Washington will hopefully be in listening mode and ready to adjust its North Korean policy review to reflect its allies' views and concerns.
While denuclearization remains one ultimate goal, the more near-term goal — and better starting point for negotiations — must be the building of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula that incorporates both conventional and nuclear arms reductions and credible, sustained confidence-building measures.
The notion that the United States has ‘been there’ and ‘done that’ with such a two-track approach is simply untrue. And, in any event, the environment is now very different. Pyongyang is reeling from COVID and likely to double-down on provocations if Tokyo, Seoul, and Washington opt primarily for sticks over carrots in dealing with it.
The notion, advocated by some, that Washington can work with Seoul and Tokyo to somehow use North Korea policy to maneuver against Beijing or to compel China to apply an unprecedented level of pressure on Pyongyang is fantasy. The allies (and especially Seoul, which wants to maintain good relations with China) won’t cooperate and Beijing will not be persuaded to facilitate the collapse of its troublesome North Korean “ally."
Thanks to our readers and supporters, Responsible Statecraft has had a tremendous year. A complete website overhaul made possible in part by generous contributions to RS, along with amazing writing by staff and outside contributors, has helped to increase our monthly page views by 133%! In continuing to provide independent and sharp analysis on the major conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the tumult of Washington politics, RS has become a go-to for readers looking for alternatives and change in the foreign policy conversation.
Michael D. Swaine is a Senior Research Fellow on East Asia at the Quincy Institute and is one of the most prominent American scholars of Chinese security studies.
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin participate in a Special Measures Agreement Initialing Ceremony with Republic of Korea Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong and Republic of Korea Defense Minister Suh Wook, in Seoul, Republic of Korea, on March 18, 2021. [State Department photo by Ron Przysucha]
Top Photo: Palestinians inspect their destroyed homes after an Israeli air strike on a house belonging to the Hassan family, in the Nuseirat camp in the central Gaza Strip, on May 19, 2024. Anas-Mohammed / Shutterstock.com
Today, Amnesty International became the first major human rights organization to accuse Israel of carrying out a genocide in Gaza, releasing a detailed report to substantiate this claim.
“Our research reveals that, for months, Israel has persisted in committing genocidal acts, fully aware of the irreparable harm it was inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza,” says Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International. “It continued to do so in defiance of countless warnings about the catastrophic humanitarian situation and of legally binding decisions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordering Israel to take immediate measures to enable the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.”
The Israeli foreign ministry has denied the allegations, calling them “entirely false.” Amnesty Israel also disagreed with the findings, saying that the “scale of killing and destruction carried out by Israel in Gaza has reached horrific proportions,” but that Israel’s war in Gaza does not meet “the definition of genocide as strictly laid out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”
For its part, the United States also rejects these findings. “We disagree with the conclusions of such a report. We have said previously and continue to find the allegations of genocide to be unfounded," said State Department deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel, adding that Washington disagrees with Israel's charge that Amnesty International is "deplorable."
“Israel’s actions following Hamas’s deadly attacks on 7 October 2023 have brought Gaza’s population to the brink of collapse,” said Amnesty International in its press release. “Its brutal military offensive had killed more than 42,000 Palestinians, including over 13,300 children, and injured over 97,000 more, by 7 October 2024, many of them in direct or deliberately indiscriminate attacks, often wiping out entire multigenerational families. It has caused unprecedented destruction, which experts say occurred at a level and speed not seen in any other conflict in the 21st century.”
The report highlights the level of destruction in Gaza, particularly that of civilian infrastructure, stating “there is consensus among UN agencies and experts and humanitarian organizations that the level and speed of damage and destruction caused to Palestinian homes and life-sustaining infrastructure across all sectors of economic activity has been uniquely catastrophic ….” Amnesty also pointed out that the U.N. estimated reconstruction would not be complete until 2040, “even under an optimistic scenario.”
Amnesty also points out the high levels of dehumanization seen in the Gaza Strip. The report states that “senior Israeli military and government officials intensified their calls for the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, using racist and dehumanizing language that equated Palestinian civilians with the enemy to be destroyed.”
In October, the Israeli human rights group, B’tselem, used the label “ethnic cleansing” to describe Israel's actions in northern Gaza. “For a year now, since the war began, the international community has shown utter impotence to stop the indiscriminate attack on civilians in the Gaza Strip,” B’tselem stated. “Now, when it is clearer than ever that Israel intends to forcibly displace northern Gaza’s residents by committing some of the gravest crimes under the laws of war, the world’s nations must take action.”
Amnesty says that “States that continue to transfer arms to Israel at this time must know they are violating their obligation to prevent genocide and are at risk of becoming complicit in genocide,” adding that “all states with influence over Israel, particularly key arms suppliers like the USA and Germany, but also other EU member states, the UK and others, must act now to bring Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza to an immediate end.”
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: DIEGO GARCIA, British Indian Ocean Territory – Sailors assigned to U.S. Navy Support Facility Diego Garcia watch as HMS Tamar (P233), the fourth of the five Batch 2 River-class offshore patrol vessels operated by the Royal Navy, arrives in Diego Garcia for a scheduled port visit Feb. 15, 2023. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jesus O. Aguiar)
Anti-China fearmongers on both sides of the Atlantic are pushing U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to overturn the rule of international law and a surprising recent victory for diplomacy — rather than military might — to resolve international disputes.
Backed by conservative and other news outlets, a campaign of disinformation, smears, and falsehoods is escalating to get Trump to try to tank a historic deal announced in October that actually gives the U.S. military exactly what it wants: control of its base on the secretive Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia for 99 years or more.
In his final days as president, Joe Biden should help formalize the Diego Garcia deal in a planned treaty while correcting the glaring error in the announced agreement.
Failing to finalize the deal could have grave consequences for emboldening Trump, undermining the rule of law, and further delaying justice for the long-ignored Chagossian people who were exiled from their homeland by the U.S. and UK governments during the creation of the U.S. base on Diego Garcia in the 1960s and 1970s.
The Diego Garcia deal
Diego Garcia is the tiny island, smaller than Manhattan, in the middle of the Indian Ocean that’s home to a major U.S. Navy and Air Force base. The military built the base thanks to a secret agreement with the United Kingdom, which has controlled Diego Garcia and the rest of the surrounding Chagos Archipelago since 1814.
In exchange for the Pentagon’s covert transfer of $14 million, the British government agreed to U.S. officials’ request that they remove the Chagossians. The people’s African and Indian ancestors had lived in the islands since the time of the American Revolution. During the deportations, British agents and U.S. military personnel even gassed Chagossians’ pet dogs to death, burning their carcasses. Chagossians quickly found themselves living in exile in profound poverty.
Diego Garcia shot into the news last month when the governments of the United Kingdom and the Indian Ocean nation of Mauritius announced an agreement settling their decades-old sovereignty dispute over Chagos. For the first time, the UK acknowledged the sovereignty of Mauritius, which previously was a British colony united with Chagos — until the U.S. military came looking for a base. Most in the international community have recognized Mauritian sovereignty since the International Court of Justice and the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly came to this conclusion in 2019.
For its part, Mauritius agreed to allow Britain to continue to exercise sovereignty rights over Diego Garcia for a period of at least 99 years to allow the continued operation of the U.S. base. In exchange the United Kingdom will make annual rental payments and provide other support to Mauritius.
The two governments further announced that Britain would provide a compensation fund for the Chagossians and for the first time in more than 50 years, the islanders would be allowed to return to all but one of their islands. To the people’s dismay, the agreement continues to bar them from living on Diego Garcia.
Right wing critics in the UK and the United States pounced on the Chagos deal to bash the new Labour Party government and the Biden-Harris administration. They spouted a range of bogus theories suggesting the agreement would benefit China because the Chinese government might establish a military or spy presence on the other Chagos islands or because Mauritius might somehow “give” Diego Garcia to the Chinese.
Both reputable and not-so-reputable news outlets repeated these claims without fact checking or questioning whether they have any factual basis.
They do not.
‘Baseless smear’
The idea that Mauritius will let the Chinese military build a base in some of the Chagos islands or give the base on Diego Garcia to the Chinese has no basis in reality. “Baseless smear” is how political scientist and Diego Garcia expert Peter Harris described an accusation he has repeatedly debunked.
“There is no evidence–none, zero, zilch–that Mauritius has any interest in hosting a Chinese base or that China has an interest in a Mauritian base. They’re not allies or security partners or particularly close in any way other than a trade deal. It’s a straight up smear,” Harris told me in an email.
It’s hard to overstate how absurd the critics' narrative is. The Chagos deal was clearly blessed by the U.S. government and demonstrates the deep alliance between the three countries. “I applaud the historic agreement,” President Biden said. The deal effectively gives the U.S. military, as well as the UK government, a 99-year lease on Diego Garcia, ending a decades-long political and legal headache for both.
This tall tale about Beijing taking over is particularly nonsensical because Mauritius’s other closest ally is not China but India, whose greatest rival (other than Pakistan) historically has been China.
The idea that Mauritius is aligned with or under the thumb of China is based on nothing more than the fact of Mauritius — like the US, UK, and almost every country on Earth — being a significant trading partner with China and receiving some Chinese loans. Mauritius is one of only two African countries that is not part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
In other words, opponents of the deal have grasped at the convenient straw of anti-China fearmongering to shamelessly support maintaining old school Anglo-American colonial control in Chagos. In an apparent sign of desperation, some opponents are now peddling a new and equally bogus theory that Russia is actually controlling the Mauritian government.The absurdity of all these attacks, particularly from those in Britain's Conservative Party, deepens given that negotiations to return Chagos to Mauritius started under Conservative Party Prime Minister Liz Truss in 2022.
Finalizing and fixing the treaty
President Biden, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and new Prime Minister of Mauritius Navin Ramgoolam should ignore the disinformation campaign and quickly finalize the Chagos treaty, which represents a rare, if partial, victory for international law and the decolonization movement.
In finalizing the treaty, the three governments must correct the major problem in the deal announced in October: Barring Chagossians from returning home to Diego Garcia perpetuates their exile and decades of injustice. Returning to the other Chagos islands, at least 150 miles away, is not the same as returning to Diego Garcia where most Chagossians were born and have their ancestors buried.
Continuing the Diego Garcia ban also violates the International Court of Justice’s ruling and a U.N. General Assembly resolution demanding the UK and other countries uphold Chagossians’ full human rights and aid their resettlement.
While U.S. and UK officials have long used “security” concerns to justify banning Chagossians from Diego Garcia, Chagossians could live on the other half of Diego Garcia, miles from the base, just as civilians live near U.S. bases worldwide, including at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Civilian laborers who are neither U.S. nor UK citizens already live and work on the base.
Before Donald Trump takes office, President Biden and the leaders of the UK and Mauritius must finalize their treaty recognizing Mauritian sovereignty over Chagos and allowing Chagossians to return to all their islands including Diego Garcia. For a president whose foreign policy record is a blight on his legacy, Biden has a chance to make a powerful final statement in support of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Biden should go farther by issuing a formal apology for the U.S. government’s leading role in exiling the Chagossians and commit the U.S. to assisting resettlement.
Once Trump takes office, perhaps his ability to question foreign policy orthodoxy and desire to cut government waste will lead him to ask why the United States is spending billions of dollars to maintain a military base in the Indian Ocean, thousands of miles from U.S. borders — and then take steps to close it.
Contrary to bogusclaims that Diego Garcia plays a “vital” security role, the base has been a launchpad for the catastrophic endless wars in the Middle East that Trump claims to oppose.
First and foremost, the simple truth is that President Biden can and must help Chagossians return home.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Puppeteer Walid Rashed performs a puppet show for Syrian children amidst the rubble of damaged buildings. (Dpa photographer Anas Alkharboutli who took this picture was later killed in the renewed fighting in Syria.) (Reuters)
The surprise offensive by Syrian rebels led by a radical Islamist group with roots in Al Qaeda dramatizes the enormous regional repercussions set off by Israel’s war against Lebanon’s Hezbollah.
Badly battered by Israel’s air strikes and ground campaign in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah’s inability, at least for now, to be a prominent player in defense of the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a real game-changer, as evidenced by the ease and speed with which the insurgents advanced on the ground after launching their campaign on Nov 27.
Having taken Aleppo and gained complete control of Idlib province, the HTP-led insurgents reportedly stormed Hama Thursday following the retreat of the Syrian army and allied forces, which had initially put up a fierce defense with the help of Russian airstrikes.
Their success to date poses a serious dilemma for the United States given that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, is leading the charge, although a number of Turkish-backed groups, including the “Syrian National Army,” are also involved. HTS is identified as a Salafi-Jihadist group and was formerly known as the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front and is designated by the U.S. and other countries as a terrorist group.
Of course, it was Al Qaeda which carried out the worst-ever attack on the U.S. homeland on September 11, 2001. While the leadership of HTS publicly split from Al-Qaeda and appears focused on the local situation in Syria, it remains committed to the Salafi-Jihadi ideology of its former parent organization.
The rebel offensive was launched the same day the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel took effect. The timing was no doubt linked to the weakened state of Hezbollah, which played a critical role in helping the Syrian government gain the upper hand against armed insurgents following the eruption of the civil war in Syria in 2011. Under the ceasefire deal with Israel, Hezbollah is obliged to end its armed presence in southern Lebanon, which could hence hinder the group’s ability to operate as an effective fighting force in Syria.
“They [the armed anti-Syrian government factions] wanted to take advantage of this ceasefire agreement that restricts the movement of Hezbollah,” explained Riad Kahwaji, founder of the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis in an interview with RS.
Meanwhile, there exists a broad consensus that the war between Hezbollah and Israel contributed to the successful staging of the rebels’ shock offensive. To confront the Israeli military, Hezbollah withdrew forces from the Syrian arena, thereby creating a gap in the pro-government forces which naturally gave the insurgents a major opportunity. Indeed, the insurgents themselves noted the strategic advantage they accrued by Israel’s operations against Hezbollah.
Aside from the ceasefire conditions, there are other factors which render it unlikely that Hezbollah will deploy in large numbers to Syria, at least for the foreseeable future. Chief among these is war fatigue, after having fought a grueling conflict with Israel in which the movement incurred unprecedented heavy losses.
“Hezbollah is no longer able to be heavily involved militarily in the events in Syria and has been exhausted by the war with Israel,” according to retired Lebanese Army Gen. Hassan Jouni in remarks to RS.
Moreover, the group’s immediate focus will be on the southern front with Israel where the ceasefire appears to be barely holding. “The priority now will be on the front with Israel,” a source close to Hezbollah told RS, adding that it was therefore more likely that other players will step up to support Assad.
Meanwhile, Iran has made it clear that it remains firmly committed to preventing the insurgents from prevailing against the Syrian government. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met Sunday with Assad in Damascus to discuss the latest developments, underscoring Tehran’s support for its traditional ally. Tehran has also pledged to keep military advisors in Syria, and fighters from Iran-allied Iraqi groups have crossed the border to help stall the advance of the insurgents.
These developments should hardly come as a surprise given that regional developments make it even more vital for Tehran to demonstrate its support of its Syrian ally.
“There is this belief that given the events in Gaza and Lebanon, the axis of resistance could be undermined in Syria, but Iran wants to show that this is not the case and will not happen,” said Abbas Aslan, senior fellow at the Tehran-based Center for Middle East Strategic Studies in a phone interview with RS.
What remains to be seen is how successful Tehran will be in propping up the Syrian government without relying so much as in the past on Hezbollah’s battle-hardened forces, notwithstanding Russian air operations against the insurgents.
That Tehran’s Iraqi allies will be able to fill the vacuum left by Hezbollah in Syria is questionable. The Lebanese Shiite movement’s battlefield prowess far exceeds that of the Iraqi armed Shiite factions. Moreover, experts believe that U.S. influence and pressure in Iraq limit how much manpower that the pro-Iranian Iraqi groups belonging to the “Popular Mobilization Forces” – otherwise known as the Hashd Al Shaabi-- can deploy to Syria.
“We saw that the Iraqi Hashd forces were only able to send very limited reinforcements (to Syria), about two-to-three hundred” explained Kahwaji, adding that the United States was pressuring Baghdad not to provide Assad with support.
Washington’s stance regarding the unfolding developments reflects a state of confusion that has characterized U.S. policy since the conflict in Syria started over a decade ago.In an interview with CNN, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan voiced concerns over HTS while also hinting that Washington does not necessarily see the events in Syria in a negative light.
"We don’t cry over the fact that the Assad government, backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, are facing certain kinds of pressure,” he remarked.
How the incoming Trump administration intends to deal with the situation in Syria is anyone’s guess. Given that the president-elect has chosen staunch Israeli supporters to occupy senior posts in his cabinet, there appears to be strong reason to believe that Trump 2.0 policy towards Damascus will be determined to a large degree by Israeli preferences. If so, Washington’s approach may be to weaken and possibly oust Assad from power given the latter’s longstanding alliance with Iran, which remains Public Enemy Number One for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“I think Israel sees Turkey’s role as kingpin in Syria as a good thing as it cuts the Shiite crescent in half,” said Joshua Landis, the director of Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute. “Given that Trump’s team is staunchly pro-Israel, Trump may therefore tolerate an Islamist takeover of Syria," he added.
Previous statements by the president-elect, however, suggest that he may opt to take a different path. Speaking on the campaign trail in 2016, Trump appeared to lend his support to Syria, Russia and Iran against ISIS, which shares with HTS the Salafi-Jihadist doctrine.
“I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS and Iran is killing ISIS,” he remarked at the time. He also wanted to pull U.S. troops out of Syria, but to this day they are still there.
While these statements were never translated into tangible policy there is an expectation that Trump himself, rather than his aides, will be running the foreign policy show in his second term. Eight years ago, he clearly saw Salafi-Jihadist forces as a greater threat to U.S. interests than Assad or Iran. Whether that remains the case has yet to be seen.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.