Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has said there will be a vote on a war powers resolution next week that would end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, according to reporting by the Intercept today.
The move comes just two months after reports emerged that the Biden administration began a process of reevaluating the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia after the Gulf kingdom refused to increase oil production amid rising prices due in part to the war in Ukraine.
A UN-brokered ceasefire between the Saudi-led coalition and Houthi rebels in Yemen expired in October but violence between the warring parties has been relatively sporadic since.
Congress passed a war powers resolution on Yemen with bipartisan backing in 2019, only to have it vetoed by then-President Trump. Sanders told the Intercept that he believes his resolution this time will also have enough votes to pass the senate. Lawmakers in the House introduced a similar measure back in June.
“Enacting the Yemen WPR would fundamentally shift the U.S.-Saudi relationship by ending U.S. support for Saudi aggression in Yemen,” Hassan El-Tayyab of the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the Quincy Institute’s Annelle Sheline recently wrote in RS. “It would also demonstrate to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that U.S. support is not unconditional: if he pursues policies contrary to U.S. interests, Washington will reconsider security guarantees and military support to Saudi Arabia.”
A coalition of groups, including the Quincy Institute, will release a letter this week calling on Congress to vote on the Yemen war powers resolution during the lame duck session.
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
When the Ukraine aid bill hit President Joe Biden’s desk Wednesday, everything was already in place to speed up its impact. The Pentagon had worked overtime to prepare a massive, $1 billion weapons shipment that it could start sending “within hours” of the president’s signature. American officials even pre-positioned many of the arms in European stockpiles, an effort that will surely help get the materiel to the frontlines that much faster.
For Ukraine, the new aid package is massive, both figuratively and literally. Congress authorized roughly $60 billion in new spending related to the war, $37 billion of which is earmarked for weapons transfers and purchases. The new funding pushes Washington’s investment in Ukraine’s defense to well over $150 billion since 2022.
Beyond new weapons, the new outlays also provide a much-needed morale boost for Ukrainian soldiers, who have struggled to hold the line against Russia as their stockpiles have dwindled. But the key question remains the same as it did last week: Does Ukraine have a real chance to turn the tide and win the war?
Experts say it’s a mixed bag at best. On the plus side, the new aid dramatically reduces the chance of near-term disaster, like a collapse of the Ukrainian frontlines followed by a rapid Russian advance.
But the assistance has a limited impact on the fundamentals of the conflict, including Ukraine’s growing disadvantage when it comes to manpower. Put simply, the package can only help if Kyiv manages to dramatically expand the number of fighters at its disposal ahead of an expected Russian counteroffensive this summer.
“I would expect the situation to probably continue to deteriorate over the next three months, but if mobilization goes according to plan and the U.S. aid is unblocked then the situation should improve from autumn onwards,” a relatively optimistic Polish analyst told Reuters.
Ukraine recognizes this bind and is pulling out all the stops to swell the ranks of its military. Following the passage of a new law broadening eligibility for conscription, Kyiv temporarily suspended all consular services for military-age Ukrainian men living abroad — unless, of course, they need help to come home and join up. Ukraine is also offering incentives to boost voluntary recruitment, including new rules that allow recruits to choose their unit and specialization, as well as the length of time they will serve.
But none of these efforts will pay off before a likely Russian offensive this summer, meaning that Ukraine may well lose more territory this year. The outcome of Russia’s offensive will also provide an important indicator of Ukraine’s chances for long-term success, especially given the impact that even minor Russian advances could have on the internal politics of Kyiv’s backers.
When it comes to potential peace talks, the new aid package provides some notable upsides. “Importantly, it could reduce Russian optimism about the long game and thus make Moscow more inclined to compromise,” Samuel Charap of the RAND Corporation told Politico.
But that advantage remains hypothetical so long as both Kyiv and Washington remain committed to retaking all of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory, according to George Beebe of the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft.
“Additional aid would be justified — indeed, it would arguably be required — if it were to be used as leverage in a broader diplomatic strategy for negotiating a compromise settlement of the war,” wrote Beebe, who previously led Russia analysis at the CIA. “But it is tied to no such strategy.”
Beebe fears that, without a clear strategy for victory at the negotiating table, the new aid package “will almost guarantee that Ukraine will continue throwing its dwindling reserves of manpower into a war it cannot win.”
In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:
— Ukraine and Russia agreed to return a group of displaced children to their home countries following the countries’ first known face-to-face negotiations in months, according to France 24. The exact details of the swap remain murky. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said 16 Ukrainian children returned home via the Qatari-mediated deal, while Russian officials claimed that 29 Ukrainian minors and 19 Russian children would be repatriated.
The swap showed rare progress on a particularly thorny issue for the warring parties. Ukraine alleges that Russia essentially kidnapped Ukrainian children in Russian-occupied areas and forcibly shipped them out of Ukraine, a claim that has led to charges against Russian officials at the International Criminal Court. Moscow, for its part, claims that the children were mostly orphans who were sent away from the frontlines for their own safety.
— The Biden administration secretly sent long-range missiles to Ukraine after securing promises that the weapons would only be used to hit targets within Ukrainian territory, according to CNN. Washington had previously chosen not to give Kyiv the missiles due to fears about potential escalation as well as dwindling Western stockpiles. While the risk of escalation remains, increased missile production led the Pentagon to drop its readiness concerns.
— The Ukraine aid package quietly authorized the Biden administration to seize up to $5 billion in Russian assets held within the United States in order to help fund Ukraine’s war effort, AP News reported. In theory, the White House could start confiscating the money before the end of the year, though AP notes that Biden plans to work with allies on a coordinated set of seizures, which could delay the move. Such coordination would provide cover for European Union states that collectively hold over $200 billion in Russian assets. Moscow has pledged to fight any asset seizures in court and said it will retaliate in kind if the West moves forward with the plan.
U.S. State Department news:
In a Tuesday press briefing, State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel condemned Russia’s imprisonment of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich and called for his immediate release. “Russia should stop using individuals like Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, who has also been detained for five years, as bargaining chips,” Patel said. “Evan and Paul should be released immediately.”
keep readingShow less
Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops ground operation in Gaza on Nov 12, 2023. (IDF handout via EYEPRESS via Reuters)
Israel’s attacks in Gaza reflect a “systematic disregard for fundamental principles of international law” and “raise grave concerns regarding the [Biden] Administration’s compliance with both U.S. and international law,” according to an explosive new report from a prominent group of former U.S. officials and legal scholars.
“The Israeli government [has] demonstrated a clear pattern of negligent targeting along this campaign, [as well as] indifference and callousness to civilian harm and suffering and a disregard for international law,” Wes Bryant, an Air Force master sergeant and a targeting expert who contributed to the report, said during a Wednesday press conference.
“Their campaign has been executed in a manner wholly inconsistent with U.S. targeting methodologies and best practices,” Bryant added, noting that “the majority of strikes” that he has reviewed would not have been approved by U.S. officials.
The report, which the group submitted to the State Department last week, is meant to inform the administration’s thinking ahead of a May 8 deadline to determine whether Israel’s actions in Gaza have complied with U.S. law regarding arms transfers. Members of the task force also plan to brief members of Congress on the results of their inquiry next week.
The State Department’s report would force a suspension of certain U.S. weapons transfers to Israel if its findings reflect the publicly available evidence included in the task force’s report, the authors say. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is reportedly planning to block a notorious Israeli unit from receiving U.S. military grant aid due to allegations of human rights violations.
As the task force released its report, President Joe Biden was set to sign off on an additional $17 billion in military aid for Israel, part of a broader aid package for U.S. partners abroad. The package also blocks funding for the primary United Nations aid organization operating in Gaza, a measure that could further complicate the humanitarian crisis on the ground.
Josh Paul — a former State Department official who resigned in protest last year — led the inquiry alongside Noura Erakat, a Palestinian-American legal scholar. Other members of the task force include Bryant and Charles Blaha, who led the State Department’s human rights bureau until August of last year. Legal experts Adil Haque and Luigi Daniele also contributed to the report.
From a list of thousands of different incidents, the task force identified 16 cases in which it could conclude with high certainty that Israeli forces used American weapons in attacks that likely violated the laws of war or U.S. targeting standards. In 11 of the 16 cases, the report found that Israel has still not identified its intended target or justified its attack.
One alleged violation came on Oct. 10 of last year, when the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) flattened a six-story residential building in Gaza City with a U.S.-made bomb, killing 40 civilians and failing to hit the apparent target — a low-level Hamas militant who was not home at the time. A similar set of strikes killed at least 106 civilians near the Nuseirat refugee camp on Oct. 31, the report notes.
The task force also cited the recent killing of seven international aid workers from World Central Kitchen, as well as a November attack on a clearly marked ambulance that led to 21 casualties, including five children.
The task force found several Israeli violations of a U.S. law that bans the provision of U.S. weapons to any state that blocks the flow of American humanitarian aid. The report notes that Israel has repeatedly refused U.S. demands to increase the amount of aid entering Gaza, adding that the IDF has directly attacked humanitarian convoys on several occasions.
The aid-related violations are notable given the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, where famine has begun to take hold. Multiple members of Congress have called on the Biden administration to cut off certain military aid to Israel under the law.
Following the recent Israeli killing of Western aid workers, Israel says it plans to increase the flow of aid into Gaza. A United Nations tracker showed a slight uptick in the number of humanitarian trucks entering the besieged strip, but aid groups say the amount of aid entering the strip remains far too low to slow the growing famine.
The task force’s report highlights the difficulties of the Biden administration’s attempt to balance its desire to show ironclad support for Israel with widespread outrage at the IDF’s actions in Gaza, which have left at least 34,000 Palestinians dead and displaced nearly everyone living in the strip, according to local officials.
In response to pressure from prominent lawmakers, led by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), President Joe Biden issued a memorandum in February mandating that the U.S. get assurances from partners that their use of U.S. weapons does not violate U.S. or international law. The memo also forces the State Department to report to Congress by May 8 on whether those assurances are credible.
The White House may have hoped that the war would be over by the time it had to submit the upcoming report. But, with no ceasefire in sight, the administration will now have two options: ignore a mountain of publicly available evidence of Israeli violations, or acknowledge that the IDF’s actions should disqualify it from receiving U.S. weapons.
Paul says there is “room for skepticism as to whether” the Biden administration’s report will “accurately reflect” the available evidence of alleged Israeli violations, especially “given the constant assertions from podiums in the White House, the Pentagon and State Department that the U.S. has not identified any violations of international law by the Israel Defense Forces.” But he and his colleagues hope that their independent report will add pressure on the White House to recognize the impact that U.S. weapons are having in Gaza.
“In our report, we detail a number of clear, credible and compelling incidents that should certainly be included in the administration's upcoming reporting to Congress,” Paul said at a Wednesday press conference. “These are just the tip of the iceberg but demonstrate the inescapable truth of how U.S.-provided weapons and security assistance are being used by Israel.”
Americans give higher priority to countering the power and influence of Russia and China and finding a solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestinians than they did six years ago, according to a new survey released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.
Conversely, policies aimed at promoting human rights, protecting refugees, and strengthening the United Nations are not as compelling to many citizens as they were in 2018, according to the survey, which was conducted during the first week of April.
At the same time, the survey of 3,600 adults found big differences of opinion between respondents who identified as Democrats and Republicans or as leaning toward either party, and between younger and older respondents of what they consider to be “top priorities” for long-term U.S. foreign policy aims.
Democrats and younger participants in the survey were far more likely to rate climate change, defending human rights, and reducing U.S. military commitments overseas as “top priorities.” Republicans and older voters, by contrast, were far more likely to rate containing China and Iran, supporting Israel, and “maintaining the U.S. military advantage over all other countries” as “top priorities.”
At the same time, the survey found that foreign policy did not appear to be as important to the general public this year as it appeared five years ago. Asked which is “more important for President Biden to focus on,” 83% of respondents identified “domestic policy” over “foreign policy” (14% ). Asked the same question with respect to former President Trump in July 2019, respondents favored “domestic policy” by a narrower margin – 74% to 23%.
A second poll of the same respondents released by Pew Tuesday found that views of the United Nations have become somewhat more negative over the past year, with only a slight majority (52%) voicing an overall “favorable” opinion of the world body, down from 57% one year ago. As in the “priorities” survey, the poll found major differences in political and age differences in opinions about the U.N., with Democrats and Democratic-leaning and younger respondents having significantly more favorable views than their Republican and older counterparts. The poll also found that respondents with more education were also more likely to have a favorable opinion of the U.N. than less educated respondents, although the differences were not nearly as great as the partisan and age gaps.
In the first survey, respondents were asked to rate a total of 22 long-range foreign policy goals by whether they should be considered “top priority,” “some priority,” and “no priority.” Of the 22 goals listed this year, six had not been listed in previous surveys by Pew, so comparisons with past sentiment could not be made. Three of the new goals – “strengthening NATO,” “supporting Israel,” and “supporting Ukraine” – were directly relevant to ongoing conflicts that have dominated headlines but were far less salient three years ago when Pew last conducted a “priorities” poll.
As in previous surveys of this kind, particularly since 9/11, two of the three goals that were rated “top priority” the most respondents were “taking measures to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks” (73%) and “preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction” (63%). “Reducing the flow of illegal drugs into our country” – a new goal not previously listed – was rated as a “top priority” by 64% of respondents (although only 34% of the youngest respondents (18-29 years old) agreed with that assessment).
Other goals that were rated by a majority as a “top priority” included “maintaining the U.S. military advantage over all other countries” (53%), “reducing the spread of infectious diseases”(52%), “limiting the power and influence” of Russia (50%) and China (49%).
The biggest differences between the latest “top priority” goals and those that Pew found in 2018 included containing China’s influence and power, which rose from 32% six years ago to 49% ; finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict (from 18% to 29%); and containing Russia (from 42% to 50%). Support for maintaining U.S. military primacy also rose by a more modest 4% over the six years, although the goal of “getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order,” also rose two points to 42%.
The survey also bolstered the notion that younger Americans are significantly more idealistic than their older counterparts. Besides the goal of staunching the flow of illegal drugs, differences of 40 percentage points or more between the pool of respondents aged 18-29 and the oldest group (65 and older) were found with respect to containing China (28% versus 72%), “limiting the power and influence of Iran” (17% versus 61%), and maintaining U.S. military primacy (31% versus 71%). The youngest respondents were also considerably less concerned about containing Russia and North Korea, and “supporting Israel” was rated a “top priority” by only 7% of the youngest group.
Partisan differences were often almost as great, although the 55-percentage point gap between Democrat- and Republican-inclined respondents over “dealing with climate change” as a “top priority” (70% versus 15%) was particularly dramatic. Gaps of 20% or more were found on “supporting Israel” (8% Democratic versus 39% Republican), reducing illegal drugs (51% versus 79%), maintaining military primacy (41% versus 68%, “supporting Ukraine” (37% versus 12%), aiding refugees (30% versus 7%), fighting diseases (63% versus 41%), defending human rights (36% versus 15%), getting other countries to bear costs of maintain world order (54% versus 33%), strengthening the UN (40% versus 20%), and containing Iran (29% versus 49%).