Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) has introduced three amendments to the FY2018 defense bill based on recommendations from the Pacific Council’s GTMO Task Force. In 2016, the Task Force published a report offering recommendations on how to fairly and transparently expedite the Guantánamo Bay military commission trials.

"I offered three amendments to the defense bill based on the work of the Pacific Council, and all three were made in order," said Schiff. "My thanks to the Council for their good work."

On July 14, 2017, H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (NDAA) passed the House of Representatives by 344-81 votes. According to the Republican Policy Committee, the NDAA has historically been the "key mechanism through which Congress fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, which grants Congress the power to provide for the common defense; to raise and support an Army; to provide and maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."

Schiff introduced these three amendments: 

• Expressing a sense of Congress that in the interest of justice and efficiency, military judges should provide victims of terrorism and their families the opportunity to provide recorded testimony.
• Allowing military judges to use video conferencing for any matter for which the military judge may call the military commission into session, to improve efficiencies of military commissions. Any party who participates through the use of video teleconferencing shall be considered as present.
• Requiring proceedings of military commissions to be publicly available on the internet.

His amendments were based on these three recommendations from the Pacific Council GTMO Task Force report:

• Invite survivors and victims’ families to testify now, creating a record of their loss for the court if and when sentencing occurs. 
• Permit stateside counsel to participate in routine pretrial matters and conduct attorney-client communication via secure videoconference. 
• Encourage engagement and accountability by making the Guantánamo proceedings available to the public via broadcast or internet streaming.  

The Pacific Council GTMO Task Force report’s central recommendation was to fairly and transparently expedite the Guantánamo trials by replacing the military judges presiding over the trials with sitting or retired federal judges. Skip the political impasse over trying detainees on U.S. soil, the Task Force says: take the federal judges to the island itself to move the trials forward.

"I would like to see the shutdown of the facility at Guantánamo. But as long as it exists, we’re going to have to explore more substantial changes to make it functional."

Adam Schiff

A Courthouse News article last year quoted Schiff as saying the Task Force’s recommendation has "the merit of having a judge full time in Guantánamo that can keep a close rein on the trial schedule. That may be possible for a military judge to do as well, but that has not been the case so far, so I think we should explore alternatives. It would be my hope that this would be a short-term solution in any event because I would like to see the shutdown of the facility at Guantánamo. But as long as it exists, as long as we’re making use of that process, we’re going to have to explore more substantial changes to make it functional."

Since 2013, the Pacific Council has held official NGO observer status with the Office of Military Commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, one of a select group of organizations with that designation alongside Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the American Bar Association. In this role the Pacific Council sends member representatives with relevant expertise to observe select proceedings at GTMO and report back. Previous observers have attended the Military Commission hearings for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, among others.

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

Members with legal expertise or other relevant background are invited to represent the Pacific Council as an official observer. Interested? Let us know: trips@pacificcouncil.org.

Despite President Trump’s intention to withdraw the United States federal government from the Paris Accord, U.S. cities, states, and corporations can still make an impact on climate change, Ms. Samantha Gross and Dr. Benjamin Lee Preston told Pacific Council members in a Situation Briefing teleconference.

Gross is a fellow in the Foreign Policy, Energy Security, and Climate Initiative at the Brookings Institution. Preston is the director of the Infrastructure Resilience and Environmental Policy Program and a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation. The discussion was moderated by Mr. Jesse Medlong, an environmental lawyer and litigator at DLA Piper.

"There won’t be a complete absence of U.S. action on climate change—only from the federal government," said Gross. "One bright spot in this gloomy outlook has been the reaction of U.S. state and local governments and U.S. businesses. Dealing with climate change requires a whole societal approach, and subnational governments and businesses have crucial roles to play. We saw several U.S. cities and states mobilize quickly to say they still support climate action."

On June 1, 2017, U.S. President Donald J. Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Accord. The global pact was agreed to by 195 countries in 2015 and aims to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions. The process of withdrawing could take up to four years.

"We’re still seeing a lot of commitment to action at the state and local level, which is where a lot of our actual emissions come from."

Benjamin Lee Preston

"We’re still seeing a lot of commitment to action at the state and local level, which is where a lot of our actual emissions come from," Preston agreed. "So it could be that we continue to make significant progress through those mechanisms even without federal leadership."

Preston argued out that the world already knew the Trump administration was not going to pursue aggressive climate action regardless of whether or not it remained in the agreement.

"What does the U.S. withdrawal mean for the climate system itself? The objective was to limit warming to less than 2 degrees, but the commitments that have been made by various nations that are party to the Paris Accord don’t get us to that particular objective," said Preston. "So we know more aggressive action is going to be needed down the road. Without the United States, that objective is certainly more difficult, but the real implications are unknown at this point."

Still, Gross said withdrawing the United States from the agreement was a meaningless gesture because it was nonbinding and voluntary.

"I’m really heartbroken at the administration’s decision to pull the United States out of the Paris Accord," said Gross. "It just didn’t need to happen. The agreement was structured to allow flexibility, and the national contributions that each country pledged are nonbinding. The president could have pursued his policy goals while still remaining party to the agreement. It was a serious foreign policy mistake to withdraw. It makes it harder for our allies to cooperate with us. There is no advantage in withdrawing because the United States gets absolutely nothing in return."

Gross said the flexibility and bottom-up approach to setting climate goals in the Paris Accord is what differentiated it from the Kyoto Protocol, which the United States also played a large role in negotiating.

"The Kyoto Protocol had more imposed goals than flexibility, which the United States had a hard time with," said Gross. "The other issue in Kyoto that was challenging for the U.S. government was that requirements were mandated for developed countries but not developing countries."

Preston believes the world can still make progress and take action on climate change even without the United States.

"U.S. leadership is relevant and important," he said, "but to what extent can the world collectively make progress on mitigation even if the United States doesn’t engage? What we’ve seen is that other nations have long been committed to this, so if the United States doesn’t lead on climate action, other countries can and will step into that vacuum."

"It’s harmful to U.S. credibility that we put a lot of effort into negotiating an agreement and then backed away from it so thoroughly."

Samantha Gross

Gross pointed out that from Washington’s perspective, however, its credibility is damaged by withdrawing from the Paris Accord.

"It’s harmful to U.S. credibility that we put a lot of effort into negotiating an agreement and then backed away from it so thoroughly," she said. "It definitely raises questions about our reliability on other sorts of agreements. There’s a broad understanding that we’ve had a serious shift in ideology of our ruling government, but that still makes us a difficult partner to work with or trust. The administration had the right to pull out of the Paris Accord, but I maintain that it was not our best move."

Preston added that this is just one of a number of areas where the United States has shifted its position in terms of its willingness to engage globally.

"It’s not just withdrawing from the Paris Accord, but the net effect of that shift in posture with respect to the international community that’s going to be important," he said.

Listen to the full conversation below:

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.

It is not clear what U.S. strategic objectives are in the Middle East, Dr. Jerrold D. Green told Pacific Council members in a Situation Briefing teleconference on recent developments in the region, including President Trump’s recent visit, Qatar’s ongoing conflict with an array of Arab states, and the terrorist attack in Iran. Green is the President and CEO of the Pacific Council on International Policy.

"Traditionally and historically, American policy toward the Middle East has been flawed," said Green. "This is not something that is unique to the Trump administration. Be it President Obama’s mishandling of Syria or President Bush’s misguided war in Iraq, history is replete with U.S. missteps in the Middle East. I can say with sorrow and confidence that President Trump is continuing that tradition."

Green said that the fundamental flaw in U.S. policy lies in a consistent misunderstanding of the region. In addition to Turkey, the Middle East has three significant actors: Israel, the Arab world, and Iran. The United States has traditionally had good relations with two of those sets of actors, but never simultaneously with all three which has caused endless problems and continues to do so.

"An effective U.S. policy to the Middle East needs to take into consideration the significance of Israel, the Arab world, and Iran. There is nothing to be gained by demonizing any of the three."

Jerrold Green

"An effective U.S. policy to the Middle East needs to take into consideration the significance of Israel, the Arab world, and Iran," said Green. "There is nothing to be gained by demonizing any of the three."

Green pointed out that despite the fact that Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson believe Iran is complying with the terms of the nuclear deal, the United States continues to shortsightedly undermine the agreement through hostility towards Iran. As a result, he said, President Trump may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"It is becoming increasingly difficult to make sense of U.S. policy toward the Middle East," explained Green. "The White House is not even in agreement with itself. What is our strategic objective in Iran? Would we like it to cease being an Islamic republic? Would we like the Iranians to abandon even semi-democratic electoral politics in favor of a military coup-type government like Egypt or a non-democratic traditional monarchy like Saudi Arabia? We have not made it clear to ourselves and to the American people what our expectations are, let alone to the region or to our allies."

As President Trump arrived in the Middle East for his first foreign trip, Iran held a presidential election. President Hassan Rouhani was reelected to a second term.

"Despite the fact that the Iranian electoral process is deeply flawed, it was noteworthy that no one was certain in advance who would win," said Green. "Elections where you do not know the outcome up front have a certain credibility to them. For Trump to be extolling the glories of Saudi Arabia while a relatively democratic election was taking place across the Gulf struck me as rather ill-timed."

"What is our strategic objective in the Middle East? We have not made it clear to ourselves and to the American people what our expectations are, let alone to the region or to our allies."

Jerrold Green

In regards to the recent terrorist attack, Iran accused Saudi Arabia of having ISIL carry out the twin attacks in Tehran early this month although there is no evidence to support this view.

"I thought the U.S. reaction to the terrorist attacks in Iran was inadequate, not constructive, and cold and cursory," said Green. "If Iran is the victim of a terrorist attack, this is one area in which all people of goodwill can agree and come together."

Green said he was also unclear as to the strategic objective of Mr. Trump’s trip to the Middle East.

"If Trump’s trip to the Middle East was a success as he claimed, what benefit do we derive from actions against Qatar, which is the home to 11,000 U.S. troops and a major U.S. airbase? Why would we undermine a small and comparatively weak country of 2.3 million people? I do not see the strategic logic," he said. "It was unclear to me what he hoped to achieve."

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates recently cut diplomatic ties with Qatar, accusing the country of sponsoring terrorism.

"Why would Saudi Arabia up the ante so dramatically when the Saudis have so much at stake as they launch significant economic and political reforms at home? I assume that they assume that this is something the Trump administration would support," said Green. "Something emboldened Saudi Arabia to take the lead in cutting diplomatic ties with Qatar. In part, this signified a significant change in U.S. policy in which we are now embracing the kinds of regimes of which we traditionally have been somewhat more critical."

"Defense Secretary James Mattis' promise that ‘the United States honors its commitments’ suddenly has incredible power and impact in a world that seems to have gone crazy."

Jerrold Green

A Pacific Council delegation, including Green, recently traveled to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to explore the region’s economy, culture, and political environment.

"Uniformly, we heard from high-level Emiratis and Qataris great enthusiasm for President Trump’s election," said Green. "Obama tended to overplay our relationship with Iran at the perceived expense of the Arab world. As a result, the Arab world was generally very happy about Obama’s departure and Trump’s election."

When asked about the potential for the United States to take military action against Iran, Green replied that as long as Secretary Mattis is in office, there is "little likelihood that this would happen. Despite being a critic of Iran, Secretary Mattis has noted that Iran is adhering to the terms of the nuclear deal and that ‘the United States honors its commitments.’ Those words suddenly have incredible power and impact in a world that seems to have gone crazy."

Listen to the full conversation below:

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.

No one wants war between China and the United States, but it is still a distinct possibility, Dr. Graham Allison told Pacific Council members in a discussion on how the two nations can avoid conflict.

Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government and the director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is the author of a new book, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? The conversation was moderated by Dr. Carol Wise, an associate professor in the School of International Relations at the University of Southern California.

"War between the United States and China could be the worst we’ve ever seen before," said Allison. "If we were to have a war with China, Walmart would have no goods to sell, Chinese factories would be making a bunch of stuff that nobody can buy, and the United States would not be able to get loans to cover our deficit. We are highly economically intertwined. War would mean Mutual Assured Economic Destruction."

Allison laid out the premise that China and the United States are set up to fall into "Thucydides’s Trap," a deadly pattern of structural stress that results when a rising power challenges a ruling one. Allison argued that unless China is willing to scale back its ambitions or Washington can accept becoming number two in the Pacific, a trade conflict, cyberattack, or accident at sea could soon escalate into all-out war.

"Just like World War I, one small thing can set off a chain reaction that could lead to war," he said. "Beneath the noise and news of the day—of which there will always be an infinite amount--there is a concept or lens for helping us look through that for the structure or even the substructure of international politics today, and that is Thucydides’s Trap."

"War between the United States and China could be the worst we’ve ever seen before."

Dr. Graham Allison

He added that the pattern of a rising power threatening an existing one has been repeated throughout history, with the result being war more often than not.

"In the book, I look at the last 500 years of history and I find 16 cases in which a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power," he said. "In 12 of those, the outcome is war. So war being ‘inevitable’ is an exaggeration. It’s just very likely. Business as usual, in the case of a rising China that’s on a collision path with a ruling United States, will likely produce history as usual, in which the case will be a catastrophic conflict."

The parallels between previous cases and the rise of China and its impact on the United States and the global order are too similar to ignore, Allison argued. However, he added, that does not mean China and the United States must make the same mistakes as previous competing powers. He identified the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership as one such mistake, because it will allow China to fill the vacuum in the region. 

"What Asia will end up with in terms of a trade agreement is, in effect, China writing the rules," he said. "And when China writes the rules, the rules will be more advantageous to China."

China has also been pushing for more influence on the international stage.  

"What we’re witnessing is the fragmentation of international institutions that were created after WWII and that have been the framework that provided the economic order that’s been fantastic for growth for everybody," he said. "But as China has entered the scene and become a bigger and stronger player, just as Thucydides will tell us, they’ve said the rules of the game—such as their shares in the IMF and other multilateral institutions—are not fair. They say, ‘We’re bigger, we’re prepared to pay more, we want more votes.’ And the United States has said, ‘No, thank you.’ My bet is that we’re going to see more fracturing of these international institutions as China demands and basically takes a larger role, especially if the United States clings to the status quo."

Allison pointed out that the rise of China happened so fast that U.S. officials have not yet had time to be astonished, let alone react.

"This man has iron in his soul. I think he’s the most impressive international leader I see on the stage today."

Dr. Graham Allison on Chinese President Xi Jinping

"China is the number one trading partner of everybody, and anybody it’s not yet, they will be soon," he said. "The Chinese development banks are four times as large as the World Bank. They’ve basically taken over that business. Every two years, the increment of growth in China has been bigger than the economy of India. The ‘slowing down’ China continues to grow more than three times faster than the recovering United States."

Additionally, Allison said nationalism is alive and vigorous in China, especially among the younger population who are very proud to be Chinese.

"They’ve seen their country—which was nowhere—become a very serious player," he said, in large part because of President Xi Jinping. "This man has iron in his soul. I think he’s the most impressive international leader I see on the stage today. He and his team have undertaken an unbelievably ambitious agenda."

For the United States, Allison said the temptation is to cling to the status quo, a strategy he does not believe will work.

"If the fundamental underlying structures have changed, you can’t hold on to the status quo," he said. "So you have to learn to adapt. Luckily Americans are extremely adaptable people. That’s one of the great assets of the United States."

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

Ahead of this event, Dr. Allison wrote an article for the Pacific Council’s Newsroom, adapted from his book, about the potential for conflict between China and the United States. Read it here.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.