Posted: 3:29 am ET
01/17/18 Remarks on The Way Forward for the United States Regarding Syria; Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson; Hoover Institute at Stanford University; Stanford, CA
Posted: 3:29 am ET
01/17/18 Remarks on The Way Forward for the United States Regarding Syria; Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson; Hoover Institute at Stanford University; Stanford, CA
Posted: 3:11 am ET
RT @usun: “It’s easy for friends to be with you in the good times, but it’s the friends who are with you during the challenging times that will never be forgotten. Thank you to the 64.” pic.twitter.com/FiyIYuL3bS
— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) January 4, 2018
— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) December 21, 2017
The eight countries who voted with the United States include Guatemala and Honduras, countries with significant interest in migration policies and have large number of nationals on DACA status. Guatemala has already announced that it will follow the United States in moving its embassy to Jerusalem. We’re watching how soon Honduras will follow this move. Last November, DHS extended the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Honduras until July 5, 2018. We’ll have to see what happens next; state actions are in the country’s national interest, intentional, and never coincidental.
— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) December 28, 2017
UN vote to condemn USA Jerusalem declaration: 128-9
“The Big 8” that voted with the US.
Nikki Haley, if you’re taking names best to just write “everyone but these guys”
No one is afraid of the USA any more. pic.twitter.com/Ryxm6cIjjG
— Darren Sherwood (@darrensherwood) December 21, 2017
— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) January 4, 2018
USUN Ambassador Niki Haley’s shit list includes the top recipients of American foreign aid for years like Afghanistan, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and a host of other countries. How this will end? (see Snapshot: @StateDept Aid Allocation by Region and Top Recipients, FY2016 Request; Snapshot: Top 10 Recipients of US Foreign Aid in FY2012 and FY2013 Request; Snapshot: Top 10 Recipients of US Foreign Aid in FY2010, FY 2011 RQ; Snapshot: Top 10 Recipients of US Foreign Aid).
On January 4, the United States announced that it is suspending at least $900 million in security assistance to Pakistan according to Reuters “until it takes action against the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network militant groups.”
Some of the countries on US Ambassador Nikki Haley's shit list following UN Jerusalem vote:
— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) December 21, 2017
U.S. suspends at least $900 million in security aid to Pakistan https://t.co/jJS3d42mFd
— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) January 5, 2018
In 1975, the English author John Berger wrote about the political implications of immigration, at a time when one in seven workers in the factories of Germany and Britain was a male migrant – what Berger called the ‘seventh man’. Today, every seventh person in the world is a migrant.
Migrants are likely to settle in cities. In the United States, 20 cities (accounting for 36 per cent of the total US population in 2014) were home to 65 per cent of the nation’s authorised immigrants and 61 per cent of unauthorised immigrants. In Singapore, migrant workers account for 20 per cent of the city-state’s population. (Migrants continue to be a significant rural population. In the US, three-quarters of farm workers are foreign-born.)
Scholarship on migration tends to focus normative arguments on the national level, where policy concerning borders and immigration is made. Some prominent political philosophers – including David Miller at Nuffield College, Oxford, and Joseph Carens at the University of Toronto – also outline an account of ‘social membership’ in receiving societies. This process unfolds over five to 10 years of work, everyday life and the development of attachments. As Carens writes in ‘Who Should Get In?’ (2003), after a period of years, any migrant crosses a ‘threshold’ and is no longer a stranger. This human experience of socialisation holds true for low-wage and unauthorised migrants, so a receiving society should acknowledge that migrants themselves, not only their economic contributions, are part of that society.
Carens and Miller apply this argument to the moral claims of settled migrants at risk of deportation because they are unauthorised or because the terms of their presence are tightly limited by work contracts. In the US, for example, most of the estimated 11.3 million people who crossed a border without authorisation or are living outside the terms of their original visas have constituted a settled population for the past decade, with families that include an estimated 4 million children who are US citizens by birthright. In The Ethics of Immigration (2013), Carens writes that the prospect of deporting young immigrants from the place where they had lived most of their lives was especially troubling: it is ‘morally wrong to force someone to leave the place where she was raised, where she received her social formation, and where she has her most important human connections’. Miller and Carens concur with the Princeton political theorist Michael Walzer’s view of open-ended guest-worker programmes as ethically problematic. The fiction that such work is temporary and such workers remain foreign obscures the reality that these migrants are also part of the societies in which they live and work, often for many years, and where they deserve protection and opportunities for advancement.
Not all migrants will have access to a process leading to national citizenship or permanent legal residence status, whether this is because they are unauthorised, or their immigration status is unclear, or they are living in a nation that limits or discourages immigration while allowing foreign workers on renewable work permits. If we agree that migration is part of the identity of a society in which low-wage migrants live and work, whether or not this is acknowledged by non-migrants or by higher-status migrants, what would it mean to build on the idea of social membership and consider migrants as social citizens of the place in which they have settled? And what realistic work can the idea of social citizenship do in terms of improving conditions for migrants and supporting policy development?
Social citizenship is both a feeling of belonging and a definable set of commitments and obligations associated with living in a place; it is not second-class national citizenship. The place where one’s life is lived might have been chosen in a way that the nation of one’s birth was not; for a Londoner or a New Yorker, local citizenship can be a stronger identity than national citizenship. Migrants live in cities with a history of welcoming immigrants, in cities that lack this history, and also in cities where national policy discourages immigration. Considering how to ensure that social citizenship extends to migrants so that they get to belong, to contribute, and to be protected is a way to frame ethical and practical questions facing urban policymakers.
Considering migrants as social citizens of the cities in which they settle is related to but not the same as the idea of the city as a ‘sanctuary’ for migrants. Throughout the US, local officials have designated ‘sanctuary cities’ for undocumented immigrants subject to deportation under policies announced by the federal government in February 2017. This contemporary interpretation of an ancient concept refers to a policy of limited local cooperation with federal immigration officials, often associated with other policies supporting a city’s migrant population. Canadian officials use the term ‘sanctuary city’ similarly, to refer to local protections and potentially also to limited cooperation with border-control authorities. In Europe, the term ‘city of sanctuary’ tends to refer to efforts supporting local refugees and coordinated advocacy for refugee admission and rights. These local actions protecting migrants are consistent with a practical concept of social citizenship in which civic history and values, and interests such as being a welcoming, diverse or growing city, correspond to the interests of migrants. However, the idea of ‘sanctuary’ suggests crisis: an urgent need for a safe place to hide. To become social citizens, migrants need more from cities than sanctuary.
Local policies that frame social citizenship in terms that apply to settled migrants should go beyond affirming migrants’ legal rights and helping them to use these rights, although this is certainly part of a practical framework. Social citizenship, as a concept that should apply to migrants and non-migrants alike, on the basis of being settled into a society, can build on international human rights law, but can be useful in jurisdictions where human rights is not the usual reference point for considering how migrants belong to, contribute to, and are protected by a society.
What can a city expect or demand of migrants as social citizens? Mindful that the process of social integration usually takes more than one generation, it would not be fair to expect or demand that migrants integrate into a new society on an unrealistic timetable. Most migrants are adults, and opportunities to belong, to contribute, and to be protected should be available to them, as well as to the next generation. Migrants cannot be expected to take actions that could imperil them or their families. For example, while constitutionally protected civil rights in the US extend to undocumented immigrants, using these rights (by identifying themselves publicly, for example) can bring immigrants to the attention of federal authorities, a reality or fear that might constrain their ability to participate in civic life.
In his novel Exit West (2017), Mohsin Hamid offers a near-future fictional version of a political philosopher’s ‘earned amnesty’ proposal. Under the ‘time tax’, newer migrants to London pay a decreasing ‘portion of income and toil’ toward social welfare programmes for longstanding residents, and have sweat-equity opportunities to achieve home ownership by working on infrastructure construction projects (the ‘London Halo’). Today, the nonfictional citizens of Berlin are debating how to curb escalating rents so that the city remains open to lower-wage residents, including internal and transnational migrants. A robust concept of social citizenship that includes migrants who have begun the process of belonging to a city, and those who should be acknowledged as already belonging, will provide a necessary framework for understanding contemporary urban life in destination cities.
This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.
Posted: 3:40 am ET
Back in January, Ambassador Nikki Haley made her first appearance before the press as USUN ambassador prior to presenting her credentials. She made a huge splash with her opening salvo: “For those who don’t have our back, we’re taking names – we will make points to respond to that accordingly.” (see @USUN Ambassador Nikki Haley: Taking Names and Diplomatic Dustup).
Now, she’s taking names again of those who will criticize the impending US embassy move. The UN General Assembly is set to meet on Thursday for an emergency discussion on the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Haaretz is reporting that in an attempt to avoid embarrassment, “Israel has instructed its diplomatic missions to seek meetings with high-level officials to persuade them to direct their representatives at the UN to oppose, not to support, or at the very least not to deliver a speech at the General Assembly.”
At the UN we're always asked to do more & give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American ppl, abt where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thurs there'll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names. pic.twitter.com/ZsusB8Hqt4
— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) December 19, 2017
"What we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult. It won’t be forgotten. It’s one more example of the @UN doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
-Amb. Haley after vetoing a UNSC resolution on Jerusalem: https://t.co/ipDIorG7KY pic.twitter.com/rhRLzZXWFr
— US Mission to the UN (@USUN) December 18, 2017
.@USUN Ambassador Nikki Haley: Given the chance to vote again on Resolution 2234, I can say with complete confidence that the United States would vote no; we would exercise our veto power. pic.twitter.com/HZQ2YcjdVs
— Department of State (@StateDept) December 18, 2017
Haley stressed that the U.S. "was not asking for other countries [to] move their embassies to Jerusalem," but to simply "acknowledge the friendship, partnership, and support" behind the decision https://t.co/OBcqBXbCnV
— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) December 20, 2017
— Noa Landau (@noa_landau) December 20, 2017
Posted: 12:14 am ET
Ambassador-Designate to the Holy See Callista Gingrich was sworn in at the White House on October 27, 2017. She arrived at post on November 6. As of this writing, the embassy website lists a brief bio of Ambassador-Designate Callista L. Gingrich, as well as Chargé d’Affaires Louis L. Bono.
According to the press archive of the Holy See, the designated top representative of the United States to the Vatican is still waiting to present her credentials six weeks after she arrived at post. Since her arrival, the Pope has received the credentials of the ambassadors from Myanmar, Montenegro, Portugal, Ecuador, Nigeria; and last week, the ambassadors from Yemen, New Zealand, Swaziland, Azerbaijan, Chad, Liechtenstein and India to the Holy See.
On November 9, the Pope received the Credential Letters of the Ambassador of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar to the Holy See
On November 22, the Pope received the Credential Letters of the Ambassador of Montenegro to the Holy See
On November 25, the Pope received the Credential Letters of the Ambassador of Portugal to the Holy See
On December 4, the Pope received the Credential Letters of the Ambassador of Ecuador to the Holy See
On December 9, the Pope received the Credential Letters of the Ambassador of Nigeria to the Holy See
And on December 14, the Holy Father received the credentials of ambassadors from seven countries, the United States excepted. See the Credential Letters of the Ambassadors of Yemen, New Zealand, Swaziland, Azerbaijan, Chad, Liechtenstein and India to the Holy See.
At the December 14 credentialing ceremony, Pope Francis also delivered the following remarks:
I extend a warm welcome to all of you for this presentation of the Letters accrediting you as Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Holy See on the part of your respective countries: Yemen, New Zealand, Swaziland, Azerbaijan, Chad, Liechtenstein and India. I would ask you to convey to the Heads of State of your respective countries my sentiments of appreciation and esteem, and to assure them of my prayers for them and the people they serve.
At the beginning of your new mission, I am conscious of the diverse countries you represent, and of the various cultural and religious traditions that characterize the history of each of your nations. This gives me the opportunity to emphasize the positive and constructive role that such diversity plays in the concert of nations. The international community faces a series of complex threats to the sustainability of the environment and of the world’s social and human ecology, as well as risks to peace and concord stemming from violent fundamentalist ideologies and regional conflicts, which often appear under the guise of opposing interests and values. Yet it is important to remember that the diversity of the human family is not itself a cause of these challenges to peaceful coexistence. Indeed the centrifugal forces that would drive peoples apart are not found in their differences but in the failure to set out on the path of dialogue and understanding as the most effective means of responding to these challenges.
Your very presence here is a reminder of the key role that dialogue plays in enabling diversity to be lived in an authentic and mutually enhancing way in our increasingly globalized society. Respectful communication leads to cooperation, especially in fostering reconciliation where it is most needed. This cooperation in turn assists the progress of that solidarity which is the condition for the growth of justice and due respect for the dignity, rights and aspirations of all. A commitment to dialogue and cooperation must be the hallmark of every institution of the international community, as well as of every national and local institution, for all are charged with the pursuit of the common good.
The promotion of dialogue, reconciliation and cooperation cannot be taken for granted. The delicate art of diplomacy and the arduous craft of nation-building need to be learned afresh with each new generation. We share the collective responsibility to educate our young people about the importance of these principles that sustain the social order. Passing this precious legacy on to our children and grandchildren will not only secure a peaceful and prosperous future but will also meet the demands of intergenerational justice and of that integral human development that is the right of every man, woman and child.
Dear Ambassadors, as you take up your high responsibilities in the service of your nations, I assure you of the support of the various offices of the Holy See. I offer you my prayerful best wishes for your important work, and upon you, your families, and all your fellow citizens, I willingly invoke an abundance of divine blessings.
As Madam Gingrich awaits papal audience to present credentials, Francis tells newly appointed ambassadors, “promotion of dialogue, reconciliation and cooperation cannot be taken for granted”: https://t.co/411MZRbkMF pic.twitter.com/VvoE3ETgyx
— Rich Raho (@RichRaho) December 14, 2017
First, if Calista Gingrich has not presented her credentials she shouldn’t do anything in official capacity: tweeting or otherwise. 2/
— Moira Whelan (@moira) December 16, 2017
Ambasssador-Designate @CallyGingrich's preparations for her credentialing are underway. Check out her video to learn more about her background, the history of the US-Vatican bilateral relationship, and her priorities as the next US Ambassador to the Holy See! pic.twitter.com/FqXp8oonT5
— U.S. in Holy See (@USinHolySee) November 21, 2017
Meeting of the Ambassadors! It's great to have U.S. Ambassador to Italy Lewis Eisenberg right next door pic.twitter.com/3SZjZk7SJe
— U.S. in Holy See (@USinHolySee) November 9, 2017
— U.S. in Holy See (@USinHolySee) November 6, 2017
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) October 27, 2017
By Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.)
Not so long ago, Americans thought we understood the Middle East, that region where the African, Asian, and European worlds collide. When the Ottoman Empire disintegrated in World War I, the area became a European sphere of influence with imperial British, French, and Italian subdivisions. The Cold War split it into American and Soviet client states. Americans categorized countries as with us or against us, democratic or authoritarian, and endowed with oil and gas or not. We acted accordingly.
In 1991, the Soviet Union defaulted on the Cold War and left the United States the only superpower still standing. With the disappearance of Soviet power, the Middle East became an exclusively American sphere of influence. But a series of U.S. policy blunders and regional reactions to them have since helped thrust the region into chaos, while progressively erasing American dominance
In the new world disorder, there are many regional sub-orders. The Middle East is one of them. It is entering the final stages of a process of post-imperial, national self-determination that began with Kemal Atatürk’s formation of modern Turkey from the rubble of the Ottoman Empire in 1923. This process is entrenching the originally Western concept of the nation state in the region. It led to Gamal Abdel Nasser’s repudiation of British overlordship and overthrow of the monarchy in Egypt in 1952, Ayatollah Khomeini’s rejection of American tutelage and replacement of the Shah with the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, and the misnamed “Arab Spring” in 2011. Its latest iteration is unfolding in Saudi Arabia.
In the Middle East, as elsewhere, regional rather than global politics now drives events. The world is reentering a diplomatic environment that would have been familiar to Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, who served nineteenth century Britain as secretary of war, foreign affairs, and prime minister. In his time, the core skill of statecraft was manipulation of regional balances of power to protect national interests and exercise influence through measures short of war.
Palmerston famously observed that in international relations, there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. In the new world disorder, with its narcissistic nationalism, shifting alignments, and wobbling partnerships, this sounds right, even if national interests are also visibly evolving to reflect fundamental shifts in their international context. Palmerston’s aphorism is a reminder that the flexibility and agility implicit in the hedged obligations of entente – limited commitments for limited contingencies – impart advantages that the inertia of alliance – broad obligations of mutual aid – does not. One way or another, it is in our interest to aggregate the power of others to our own while minimizing the risks to us of doing so.
To cope with the world after the Pax Americana and to put “America first,” we Americans are going to have relearn the classic vocabulary of diplomacy or some new, equally reality-based version of it. If we do, we will discover that, in the classic sense of the word, we now have no “allies” in the Middle East. The only country with which we had a de jure alliance based on mutual obligations, Turkey, has de facto departed it.
Today, Ankara and Washington are seriously estranged. Turkey is no longer aligned with the United States on any of our major diplomatic objectives in the region, which have been: securing Israel, excluding Russian influence; opposing Iran; and sustaining strategic partnerships with Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. Americans can no longer count on Turkey to support or acquiesce in our policies toward the Israel-Palestine issue; Syria; Iraq; Iran; Russia; the Caucasus; the Balkans; Greece; Cyprus; Egypt, the Gulf Cooperation Council countries; the members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation; NATO; or the EU.
Having been rebuffed by Europe, Turkey has abandoned its two-century-long drive to redefine its identify as European. It is pursuing an independent, if erratic, course in the former Ottoman space and with Russia and China. The deterioration in EU and US-Turkish relations represents a very significant weakening of Western influence in the Middle East and adjacent regions. As the list of countries Turkey affects suggests, this has potentially far-reaching consequences.
Meanwhile, U.S. relations with Iran remain antagonistic. American policy blunders like the destabilization of Iraq and Syria have facilitated Iran’s establishment of a sphere of influence in the Fertile Crescent. Our lack of a working relationship with Tehran leaves the United States unable to bring our influence to bear in the region by measures short of war. U.S. policy is thus all military, all the time. The White House echoes decisions made in Jerusalem, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi. It no longer sets its own objectives and marshals others behind them.
For our own reasons, which differ from country to country, Americans have unilaterally taken under our wing a variety of client states, some of which are each other’s historic antagonists. Our commitments have not changed despite the fact that the regional context of our relationships with our client states and their orientations and activities are all in rapid evolution. Other than Turkey, the United States has never had a Middle Eastern partner that has seen itself as obliged to come to our aid or, indeed, to do anything at all for us except what might serve its own immediate, selfish interests. The obligations all run the other way – from us to them.
Posted: 3:27 am ET
Via Special Briefing with David M. Satterfield
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
December 7, 2017
QUESTION: As a veteran diplomat and representative of NEA, do you personally agree with the President’s decision?
AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Oh, now. I am an employee of the U.S. Government. I am a Foreign Service officer. We all – and I speak of my boss, the Secretary, and the other principals in the U.S. Government – we are all part of this team. This is a decision which we will work our best to execute and advance.
Posted: 12:21 pm PT
Security Message for U.S. Citizens: Temporarily Limited Public Services at U.S. Diplomatic Facilities in Indonesia on December 11, 2017. https://t.co/BLRPX8KKcU
— U.S. Embassy Jakarta (@usembassyjkt) December 10, 2017
#Algeria refused to authorize the sending of additional US Marines to ensure the security of the US embassy in Algiers following mass protests against #Trump’s #Jerusalem decision https://t.co/k2gEZ3xs0b
— SaadAbedine (@SaadAbedine) December 11, 2017
🇨🇱 Security Message notes a protest related to the recent #Jerusalem recognition will take place outside U.S. Embassy in #Santiago tonight beginning at 1930. Similar protests have been called in other cities across #Chile. https://t.co/95sPWFPiL0 pic.twitter.com/AMlHEymCdR
— OSAC (@OSACState) December 11, 2017
— Matt Lee (@APDiploWriter) December 11, 2017
— The Daily Star (@DailyStarLeb) December 11, 2017
Clashes broke out between hundreds of protesters and Lebanese security forces outside the U.S. Embassy in Beirut https://t.co/71SxWpxJUD
— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) December 11, 2017
Protests erupted outside the American Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey following US President Donald Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital pic.twitter.com/3tWnnX1Y2O
— CNN (@CNN) December 7, 2017
— CNN International (@cnni) December 7, 2017
— Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) December 7, 2017
Posted: 3:04 am ET
— POLITICO (@politico) December 5, 2017
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) December 3, 2017
— USCGJerusalem (@USCGJerusalem) December 5, 2017
Here is the statement of the OIC, the collection of 57 Arab and Muslim states, which met today in SAUDI ARABIA to slam the idea of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. https://t.co/UvlAOEa38f
— (((YousefMunayyer))) (@YousefMunayyer) December 4, 2017
Egypt, Jordan warn Tillerson over Trump's Jerusalem recognition plan https://t.co/2nCajRta6f
— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) December 4, 2017
Spoke with #US Secretary of State Tillerson on dangerous consequences of recognizing Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Such a decision would trigger anger across #Arab #Muslim worlds, fuel tension & jeopardize peace efforts.
— Ayman Safadi (@AymanHsafadi) December 3, 2017
— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) December 4, 2017
Saudi Ambassador to the US, Prince Khalid bin Salman:
"The kingdom's policy – has been – and remains in support of the Palestinian people, and this has been communicated to the U.S. administration." https://t.co/O4RY5T9y0H
— Mohammed K. Alyahya (@7yhy) December 4, 2017
— League ofArab States (@arableague_gs) December 4, 2017
No E Jerusalem capital, limited territory & partial sovereignty on W Bank, most Israeli settlers stay, no right of return: Alarmed & astonished Palestinian & Arab officials say Saudis floated these as possible items in a Trump Mideast plan. https://t.co/yfnGQCUkWV
— Anne Barnard (@ABarnardNYT) December 4, 2017
— Newsweek (@Newsweek) December 4, 2017