The US-North Korea Summit: Deeper into the twilight zone

Monday, 28 May 2018

Text size A A A

Walid Jawad

Both US President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un appear eager to find a way to meet in Singapore, the second week of June.

The on-again-off-again, possible, maybe, meeting is facing serious challenges. Both Trump and Kim have dynamic personality traits and absolute decision-making powers over attending or canceling the meeting, putting the whole process at risk of imploding due to personality dynamics.

Unfortunately, not much can be done about their personalities. The other challenge is the “N” factor of foot-in-mouth syndrome plaguing US administration representatives. While nothing can be done about the personalities of either of the leaders, something can be said about the statements coming out of the administration, DON’T.

As in do not say, explain, or speak about the summit, unless it is being said directly to the North Koreans. Sure, there is curiosity around the event. The media is trying to do its job by understanding and communicating the information it gatherings, but the end goal of peace throughout the Korean peninsula is clear enough. There is no need to defend against the method or timing at this point.

The latest political break-up is a cautionary tale emphasizing the power of words highlighting its role in the subtle art of the possible

Walid Jawad

The Libya model

John Bolton, the National Security Advisor, said a couple of weeks ago: “we are looking at the Libyan model of 2003-2004,” as he explained the Trump administration’s options to denuclearize North Korea. The Libya model provides a roadmap for which a complete, verifiable, non-reversible denuclearization can be achieved, which is the US declared goal for the North Korea talks.

A debatable, yet seemingly sensible approach except when listening to the same statement through Kim’s ears. Kim would rightfully understand the Libya Model to mean the demise of his family’s reign in North Korea in a similar fashion to that of Muammar Gaddafi, shot to death, after denuclearization. 

In typical fashion, Bolton walked right into a communication twilight zone where his statement induces an unintended reaction, a very negative one at that. The US has been issuing ill-conceived statements over the decades, plunging the nation into nightmarish situations.

ALSO READ: Trump sees ‘brilliant potential’ in North Korea ahead of summit

The example that stands out the most was George W. Bush’s “crusade” comment in waging war on terror in the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attack on the US. The connotation “crusade” holds here in the west is positive, while it evoked the opposite in the mind of the Muslim world.

It caused a collective reliving of the historic trauma of the 11th to 13th century when crusaders waged war against Muslims. There was no escaping it, Muslims around the world understood Bush’s word to be a declaration of war against Islam. Not the intent, yet a negative and costly result.

Learning from mistakes

This is the type of lesson consecutive administrations try to avoid learning from its own mistakes. It is challenging to account for the possible contextual interpretation of the receiving party. What makes it more difficult is that many of these statements are intended for a specific audience not accounting for the law of unintended consequences in the age of social and mass media.

There are no longer messages exclusive to a specific audience. The reach of statements is wide and deep. Statements are magnified when they are perceived negatively by the target audience. They become counterproductive when such statements hit the receivers’ emotional cords as they trigger collective memories of suffering.

Particularly, when such statements fit well in the prevailing narrative of the day about the sinister intentions of the other. There is a short fable in the world of translation that goes like this: A translator was asked to translate the idiom, “out-of-sight, out-of-mind.” Once she was done, that translation was given to another translator to translate it back from the target language to English again. She handed in the translation, which read “the blind, the crazy.”

ALSO READ: North Korea’s Kim hopes Trump summit will ‘end history of confrontation’

At times, words are interpreted differently even within groups sharing many similarities including groups speaking the same language. On its face, speaking the same language avoids such pitfalls, in reality, there is such thing as misunderstanding due to a myriad of selective tendencies.

Moreover, the symbolism attached to each concept or word is not always agreed upon; same words defined by completely different historic, cultural, and emotional dictionary. Communication challenges are insurmountable.

With that in mind, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo failed to seize the moment during his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday to explain the “Libya model” comment when Sen. Ed Markey pressed him by asking “Why would you think that there would be any other interpretation than what happened to Qaddafi at the end of his denuclearization, which is that he wound up dead? Why think that that would not, in fact, elicit hostility from a negotiating partner only three weeks from sitting down across the table?” A very valid question.

Alleviating worries

Trump, on the other hand, attempted to correct the record by saying that “the Libyan model is not the model we have at all in thinking about North Korea.” But, was that enough to alleviate Kim’s worries? No, it was not. Kim continued threatening to pull out of the summit promoting Trump to abruptly cancel the anticipated meeting on Thursday. 

No doubt the goal of the Kim nuclear program is to guarantee his own survival. Kim is a calculating dictator with no tolerance for any real or perceived descent, who’s starving his own people.

Trump confirmed his understanding of Kim’s end goal when he said last week “I will guarantee his safety, we will guarantee his safety,” accepting the basic equation: complete and final denuclearization in return North Korea becomes prosperous without disrupting the countries power structure led by Kim.

ALSO READ: Trump tweets: Meeting with Kim on June 12 in Singapore 

The latest political break-up is a cautionary tale emphasizing the power of words highlighting its role in the subtle art of the possible. Military might only allows countries room to hold larger diplomatic space. It is inexcusable to squander the military advantage and diplomatic upper hand by overlooking the context of transmitted messages.

On Saturday, a new message was transmitted by Sarah Sanders, the White House spokesperson saying: “the White House pre-advance team for Singapore will leave as scheduled in order to prepare should the summit take place.”

It appears, for now, that Bolton’s Libya commit did not completely kill the chances of bringing peace to the Korean Peninsula. Enough said.
___________________________
Walid Jawad is a former Senior Policy Analyst at U.S. Department of State and a former Washington, DC correspondent. He covered American politics for a number of TV outlets since 1997. Walid holds an undergraduate degree (B.A) in Decision Science and Management Information Systems and a Masters in Conflict Analysis and Resolution. You can follow him @walidaj.

Last Update: Monday, 28 May 2018 KSA 20:22 - GMT 17:22

Santa Fe, Texas: Another ‘terrorist’ school shooting

Sunday, 20 May 2018

Text size A A A

Walid Jawad

The troubling thing about the latest school shooting is that it evoked minimal emotions; no horror, no rage. The Santa Fe high school shooting on Friday claimed 10 lives, and another 10 injured including a resource officer (the armed police officer assigned to the school), who was charged with the safety of the school. It's easy to make the case against the NRA mantra: “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” Although the argument came to mind, it was not the most dominant thought. I wondered why is it that no one calls the perpetrators of these atrocities terrorists?

It would be a different issue altogether if the shooter had been of Arabic origins or of Muslim persuasion. Similarly if that person had an Arabic/Islamic sounding name or was off-white on the brownish color spectrum. Inevitably, we would notice news channels move from discussing mental health issues and gun control to more sinister angles of homegrown-terrorist, lone-wolves, and Islamic Jihad.

When and if a school shooting would be carried out by a “brown kid” it would be a different national discussion. Immigration and border security would come to the fore. Perhaps assimilation and loyalty to foreign entities will become euphemisms for Islamophobic speech. I doubt most TV talking-heads will have the presence of mind to be politically correct. After all Islamophobia doesn’t appear to be a cardinal sin in this post 9-11 world.

Subconscious racism will be legitimized in the wake of such incident. We, as the “guilty” group, should not become indignant for the sweeping judgment. Instead of becoming defensive we should make sure to condemn these violent acts equating it to other school shootings. If one mass killing is a terrorists act, then all other incidents should be called terrorist acts, regardless of the ethnicity and beliefs of the perpetrator.

Islam was synonymous with terrorism post 9-11, when the Muslim world abdicated to Al-Qaeda criminals confusing the messenger for the purity of the Islamic message. It was a confusing time. The Muslim world bought into a narrative of victimhood where they were on the losing end in the perceived clash of civilizations of that period. Until the Muslim world claimed back their religion from its hijackers, Islam was the enemy of peace. Ironically when the word Islam is derived from the root word peace.

Terrorism: A judgment

Five hours into the news coverage, it dawned on Harris Faulkner, the Fox News anchor, that acts of violence in schools should be labeled by what they cause, terror. Surprisingly a couple of experts agreed with the classification.

Terror in its simplest definition is extreme fear. And in our prevailing narrative, is to instil fear in a community through anticipated random acts of mass violence. Nothing surprising there. School shootings have instilled fear in the heart and minds of American parents and students. Active shooter, lockdown, and shelter-in-place drills are common in most schools. Yet, the uncertainty of when, where, and how is frightening. The futility of these exercises deepens that sense of terror.

The average school shooting lasts 12.5 minutes, according to Homeland Security statistic. Casualties in this year's 22 school shootings were random targets of opportunity. In the last five years of school shootings, about 450 were shot of which 150 lost their lives. We don’t know much about why they do it. Some of the shooter are traumatized, psychopaths, or psychotic kids according to Peter Langman, the author of the book “Why Kids Kill.” Excluding mental disorders, I believe lack of resilience, the inability to overcome difficulties, is a big factor.

The recurrence of school shooting suggests a generation wide lack of toughness. Parents are to blame. Shielding kids from reality and babying them when they are challenged contributes to the problem. We know that these kids are capable and smart because they plot out their school shootings with meticulous detail. They overcome challenges and face uncertainty as they move into the execution phase of their sinister plan. Unfortunately, they’re unable to draw on that resiliency on daily basis under constant low-level adversity. When shooters reach the tipping point due to a slow but long build up, we get to discuss mental health and gun control around the clock on all news channels.

Kids and terrorism

The US had 15 juveniles brought to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, over the years. At the time of their arrest, some were as young as 14 (even a report of 13 year olds were arrested on the battlefields and detained in country). Couldn’t we explain their action in the same way we explain school shooters’, a result of trauma, psychopathy, or psychosis? I believe those explanations are not exclusive to school shooter. But there are other explanations, which are exclusive to battlefield youth. Some of them are recruited by virtue of their guardian’s decision to join the fight, or as an option to escape a worse reality (such as those orphaned by the violence they are embroiled in).

There is no justification for dubbing a 13 year old as a terrorist. Teenagers can be manipulated to advance a terrorist organization’s political goals, but the groups strategic goals has little bearing on what drives the kids. Long-term goal of the fight is irrelevant in an environment focused on daily tactics, survival among violent adults, and focus on avoiding death on the battlefield. A far cry from the reality of School aged killers here in the the States. In this environment, teenagers seem to be inspired by other school shootings, plot to avoid others mistakes, and one up the latest massacre.

The difference between the two youths is glaring. The duration of violent acts and frequency on the battlefield is long-term vs the very short duration of shoot-em up at schools. Once in motion, the battlefield kids are locked in risking their lives if they were to change their minds vs. school shooters who can abort their plans right up to the moment of brandish their weapons. Battlefield kids are led to believe they are committing violent acts in the name of righteousness while school shooting is selfish; a cry for help at best and sadistic pain inflecting rebelion at worst. Neither is acceptable. It is incumbent upon us, the adult, to understand the circumstances, which lead to such tragic ends. If both teenagers are terrorist. We must wonder if this classification is adequate. Describing all of these kids as terrorist is to expose this classification for what it really is, a catch all for any random violent act against a group.

Because we don't understand what motivates seemingly normal school kids to commit such atrocities, we are bound to focus on the tools used in their attacks. We keep talking about guns and the second amendment rights (It is ludicrous to discuss the second amendment, as it is not under threat on any level). As for access to guns, a student who is hell-bent on carrying out a school massacre will find a way to inflict the most damage. Let us be realistic, there is no control on pipe bombs or pressure cooker conversion to bombs and yet they are incorporated in some attacks. We can devise the most stringent controls over guns, yet school massacres will not end.

America will need to reexamine how it perceives the role of youth in society, how it treats them, how it educates them. Child protection must be redefined to protect children from self-destructive tendencies. Child rearing will need a revolutionary approach that is reflective of the technologically advanced world we live in.

There are conditions to be met; we must satisfy children basic needs of nourishment, shelter, and safety as a base from which we can build on. The second layer of this dichotomy requires cultivating a sense of purpose. Adults must assign appropriate responsibilities, to foster a sense of agency. Consequences for their actions should be an exercise in self-reflection at home and school. Society will need to devise new opportunities for children to be engaged in their communities.

Education needs to incorporate a much bigger out of the classroom component. We must reimagine the classroom. We must redesign schools to be open, not turn its walls to fortresses and the classrooms to panic rooms. Schools must become part of the community instead of exclusionary to it. Schools should no longer be daycare drop off points where parents outsource the responsibility of raising their kids to educators. If we are successful, our youth will possess a wider perspective allowing them to understand their role within society. Only then, school shootings will be part of a dark period in America’s history, and our children will become resilient and will lead us to the future we are hoping for them to embody.

___________

Walid Jawad is a former Senior Policy Analyst at U.S. Department of State and a former Washington, DC correspondent. He covered American politics for a number of TV outlets since 1997. Walid holds an undergraduate degree (B.A) in Decision Science and Management Information Systems and a Masters in Conflict Analysis and Resolution. You can follow him @walidaj
 

Last Update: Sunday, 20 May 2018 KSA 09:30 - GMT 06:30

Sacrificing 50 Palestinians to Bless the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem

The margin of interpreting President Donald Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is very narrow. In record time, the U.S. moved its ambassador's office to the counselor building. Over the next few years, the embassy will get its new building. This means the end an era of doubt over the U.S. role when the question loomed: is it operating as Israel’s agent in the negotiations or is it a neutral mediator between the two. Declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the U.S. to it is the last nail in the coffin of neutrality.

This new reality on the ground advances Israel’s goals in this vehemently contested Middle East conflict. The U.S. has the right to position itself to advance its own national interest within this conflict, yet it must adhere to the strict rules of balancing both sides of the equation to ensure the validity of the proclaimed goal of all parties; i.e., a sustainable and lasting peace.

Unpacking the peace assumption will show how this conflict will never be resolved and peace will never be an outcome of any negotiations. There is an exception to that, when and if the parties start negotiating over issues and not positions. The declared position of pursuing peace becomes a rhetorical exercise as actions are contrary to that goal. Because Israel has the upper hand, it behooves us to examine the reality it operates within. The key factor is to ask what would a sustainable and lasting peace look for the Israelis? We need to look no further than the definition of “Jewish and Democratic State.”  an oxymoron definition in and of itself, as democracy is never exclusionary operating only within the domain of religious affiliation. Democracy is equality and rights for all citizens of a nation. Once a litmus test is imposed to qualify for equal rights, be it religious, ethnic, linguistic, class, age, color etc a nation ceases to be democratic. Democracy is inalienable. Israel will have to choose whether its a Jewish state or a democratic one, it can not have both for they are mutually exclusive.

Americans must stop saying that Israel is a democracy unless they want to qualify it as an occupying force with an institutionalized apartheid-like system relegating 20% of its non-Jewish population to second-class citizens with diminished rights. Indeed, Israel is the closest ally to the U.S. due to a special bond. A bond that is religiously forged and one that is sustained by the ability of pro-Israeli lobbyist to entice candidates in U.S. national elections.  

It is a sad state of affairs when the U.S. foreign affair policies is concocted with religious biases and corrupt political intent. The entrenched religious brainwashing, not unlike the Jihadi belief that caused so much destruction, believes in a biblical interpretation whereby a sequence of events must take place for the end of days. It's noteworthy that Islam shares the same allegory with minor differences in details. Luckily, the biblical prophecy in its Islamic iteration is not leading the politics of the day. Unfortunately, it is influencing political decisions in the U.S. in no undetermined fashion. Lobbying and political activism is prevalent. More importantly, some politicians believe it's their religious duty to help the Jewish people establish their presence in current day Israel regardless of the price the Palestinians have to pay - how convenient.

But that is only one of the main two influencers, the other being the unparalleled effectiveness of the Israeli lobby. Politicians lineup to pledge their allegiance to the Jewishness of the Israeli state. It is shameful that no one questions the patriotism of these Americans yet they find it necessary to declare and then prove in action their loyalty to Israel. The annual AIPAC is very impressive to watch. It's a troubling situation when America's national interest doesn’t align completely with Israel’s. Alas, the U.S. takes it upon itself to advance the Israeli position causing the American people to end up footing the bill. As a result, America’s decisions don’t reflect a nation’s quest to advance its national interest, which is what the casual international observer would be satisfied with. This festering conflict has lead to so many frustrated Muslim youths to don on Superman’s cape to effect change. Unfortunately, most have ended up being used by evil charismatic leaders to induce terror.

The steady stream of terrorists hypnotized by the calls to liberate Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem has been fueling violence throughout the Middle East. The Al-Aqsa is the strategic goal while the fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and against western target is merely tactical to get closer to the goal. Even the concept of the Caliphate; i.e., Islamic based system of governance, is only a means to that end in their minds.

Many analysts try to add layers of complexity to camouflage the direct causation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and they have succeeded over the years. But the reality remains that resolving this conflict is the singular most important issue to be addressed if the U.S. is interested in laying the groundwork for a stable Mideast, which should advance U.S. interests. These three example of this conflict’s catastrophic effects are worth reflecting on: the 1973 oil crisis as it created a new energy reality and higher fuel costs, the 9-11 terrorist attacks making American’s trigger-happy relying on military might to address political problems, and depleting national treasure in the tune of trillions of dollars spent on fighting Jihadi activities over the past few decades.

The reality remains, Israel engaged in wars over the decades and won. There is no denying it, and it should be able to enjoy the spoils. The Arab world as a whole conceded to Israel by offering the 2002 Arab Peace Plan (the Saudi initiative), which was adopted and then re-endorsed in 2007 by the Arab League. Yet, this does not absolve Israel from finding a way to fulfill its responsibilities toward the original people of the land.

The disconnect between words and actions, between position and issues, leaves us to arrive at the only “practical” conclusion: the One-State solution is the only way to move forward. This is supported by the reality on the ground, which Israel, with the support of the U.S., has created. Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem is the latest example. Those who insist on a two-state solution are either naive, delusional, or using it as a tactic to keep the status quo. This unacceptable situation whereby the Palestinian people live their lives under occupation in the West Bank. Even worse, barely surviving in a confined space trapped within walls guarded by the Israeli military in Gaza is tantamount to imprisonment of a people based on their ethnicity. Many are numb to the killing of over 50 Palestinian demonstrators within the Gaza prison, on the day the U.S. embassy was opened in Jerusalem. This reality goes against human decency, justice, and fairness and should not exist, let alone be allowed to persist for generations. It is time for Israel to step up to the reality of what it won; the land and the people.

Trump Removes the Mask of Neutrality in Facilitating the Middle East Conflict

Thanks to Donald Trump’s blunt diplomatic style, the U.S. has lost any semblance of the role of the neutral mediator it once claimed in facilitating peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, not that it ever was. The political minefield, which virtually every American president had tried to navigate over the life of American engagement in the conflict ended up with political poralesses. Tallying up the scorecard reveals the abysmal progress over decades of prodding the parties toward a viable and lasting peace. The reality of the matter is that the double role the US has been playing, as a neutral mediator and as a secondary party to the conflict, made for a schizophrenic American role in the conflict.

Trump’s remarks on Thursday in Davos, Switzerland ahead of his meeting with Israel’s Netanyahu saying that “We'll see what happens with the peace process but respect has to be shown to the US or we'll just not going any further” is tantamount to inserting the US as a secondary party to the conflict. This statement forces Palestinian negotiators to redirect their attention to managing the hostile dynamic with the US instead of focusing on Israel, the other party to the conflict.

It would have been troublesome enough had the US became a third party to the conflict, but Trump’s declarations combined with cutting off aid to the Palestinians is nothing short of aligning the US with Israel dropping all and any pretence of neutrality. But is that a bad thing? I don’t think so. It is better for all parties to drop their masks and negotiate on truthful and realistic grounds. I would have given Trump credit for his courage to reposition the US role in a way that mirrors reality, but unfortunately he didn’t. He only switched roles; the facade of neutrality for the authoritative voice of the wizard of Oz; all show and no direction.

It seems that Trump in his attempt to break the cycle of failed U.S. policies toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict took Jerusalem off of the negotiations table, as it were. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which prejudice final negotiations between the conflicting parties. Further, he cut aid pledged to the UN fund for Palestinian refugees down to $60 million while aid to Israel continues at $3.8 billion (yes, that's with a “B”) a year. Trump summarizes the intent behind his policies by saying that the Palestinians are “going to have to want to make peace, or we're going to have nothing to do with them any longer.” Two things must be kept in mind here; one, that whatever the US policy is for now is tied to the Trump administration. The new American position will be revealed with a new president in 2020 or 2024. The challenge is for the Palestinians to avoid losing much ground until them. Two, that the court of public opinion has rendered its verdict judging for the Palestinians. This is a rare opportunity for them to present a different Palestinian face, one that is reasonable, calm and principled in achieving a better future for its citizens on the basis of justice and peaceful resistance.  The Palestinian cause has been overshadowed by violent resistance over the decades. The morality discussion over this point is irrelevant because violence was and continues to be a failed strategy on any level

Soft power is more effective in the digital age we live in. Perhaps it's a lesson that can be learned from nefarious actors, be it the Russian model in influencing American public opinion during the presidential elections or Jihadis decentralized digital warriors who created their own online strategy without getting clearances or authorizations from their leaders, some were not even members of any terrorist group.

Palestinians have a story to share and its time to create relatable human suffering and perseverance that people around the world, especially Americans, can sympathise with. Palestinians can look at the Jewish model in the US to see how they did it. There is almost not an American kid who doesn't know Anne Frank; the young Jewish diarist who was murdered by the Nazis in the holocaust, a story that we all have sympathy for.

No publishers needed. Create stories and visual materials through social media campaigns by empowering the people to tell their own stories. Once the word “Palestinian” conjures a human image of quiet pride and reasonable demands Americans will exert pressure on their elected officials to balance the political and financial support the US provides to Israel.

Although American sympathy for Israel remains around 46% while support for Palestinians at 16% according to the latest Pew Research Center poll published earlier this month, we notice a subtle change. There is an increased number of Republicans who are now in support of Israel while more Democrats are in favor of Palestinians; a noteworthy change that is not apparent in the overall percentage, which didn’t change much since 1978. The US will remain the most influential player beyond the conflicting parties and must be accounted for as such. Therefore, Palestinians must understand and approach the American political system with a strategic eye and should deal with Trump through his own framework and strategy.

Trump’s approach is confusing negotiating for money with negotiating for the dignity of a nation and the affirmation of Palestinians’ history and culture. The position of the Palestinians, as is that of the Israelis, is grounded in tangible demands that mimic positions negotiated by businessmen and women over bottom-line and monetary gains. But it couldn’t be farther from it. The oversimplification of the peace process by forcing a business-like approach upon the parties will inevitably cause the deepening of the conflict.

Engaging in peace negotiations is conditional upon parties’ voluntary willingness to come to the table. Otherwise, any possible agreement forced upon the process by coercing a party into negotiating under duress for the sole purpose of appeasing the facilitator becomes null and void. Palestinian negotiators have to answer to their people when and if an agreement is reached. Once the hopeful historic peace accord is signed the hard work of selling the agreement to the people will start; Trump is not the ultimate reference in any peace process.  

The two-state solution is increasingly becoming unrealistic. The latest Israeli position suggests institutionally legitimizing apartheid. If Israel wants the authority to control security over the Palestinians for the purpose of protecting itself, then it must balance its authority with an equivalent level of responsibility toward the Palestinians. Israel must accept its role as an occupying force. In light of its refusal to allow Palestinians the right of self-determination it must absorb the people of historic Palestine as Israeli citizens with full rights and responsibilities.   

How far is the Trump administration willing to fight for its travel ban?

Saturday, 28 October 2017

Walid Jawad

How far is the Trump administration willing to fight for its travel ban? Last week, the third iteration of the travel ban suspending travel from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen was struck down by a federal court judge in Hawaii; only a day shy of its enforcement. “The Department of Justice is resolutely focused on dealing with the terrorism threat we face; they are real” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. And resolute they appear to be.

READ ALSO: US judge blocks latest version of Trump travel ban 

This travel ban rigmarole is multifaceted and complex. Yet, the ten month push-and-pull can be distilled down to broad strokes. It started when Trump issued an Executive Order putting the order in effect a week into his presidency on January 27, 2017. This first ban of citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen was deemed to be, in fact, a “Muslim ban.” Once dubbed as such it became in violation of American Constitution.

The countries listed in the ban are Muslim majority nations, which only became an issue based on candidate Trump publicized position. His campaign press release stated that Trump “is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” The courts found the Executive Order banning travel from the listed countries tantamount to singling out Muslims, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Trump signed a new Executive Order making changes in hopes it would withstand legal scrutiny as it provides further clarity. The first order was plagued with confusion over the scope of the ban and how to implement it. Yet The Trump administration reasoning remained unchanged. National security was cited as the motivator. Sessions in his testimony said “the military tells us they can expect not a reduction after ISIS is defeated but maybe even an increase in attacks. The president's executive order is an important step in ensuring that we know who is coming into our country. It’s a lawful and necessary order that we are proud to defend.”

The Trump administration’s travel ban has been defeated by the courts time and again. The White House is not deterred. Trump can hang his hat, for now, on the option of moving the fight up to the Supreme Court.

Walid Jawad

The second travel ban replaced the first Executive Order with some notable changes including dropping Iraq from the list of banned countries, dropping the Syrian suspension of refugees, dropping the prioritization of refugees based on religious minority status. The order, on the other hand, renewed the suspension of the refugee program for 120 days. The courts struck down this version as well based on the same legal grounds as the first order. In response, the administration resorted to legal options to block the injunction. On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments to vacate the injunctions in October. 

As the Trump administration was worried of an unfavorable outcome by the Supreme Court it made adjustments to the updated/second Executive Order by issuing a Proclamation. This update altered the second ban in a few ways; one, the composition of the countries it listed dropping Sudan while adding Chad, Venezuela and North Korea. This change was widely viewed as a way to diffuse the court’s argument that the ban is a Muslim ban. In response to the 24 September Proclamation the Supreme Court canceled its scheduled hearing taking no action on any of provisions including the President’s refugee ban. 

Throughout the different iterations of the travel ban, the provision dealing with refugee stayed intact. The Executive Order suspended acceptance and relocation of refugees for 120 days, which expired days ago on October 24. The White House allowed the sunset provision to take its course without any new announcement. Yet, the administration was busy putting together new vetting procedures. In addition to more biographical data collected, social media posts will be mined to cross reference the stories applicant cite when submitting their request. The new, more stringent standard of vetting, will expand to women and children. The current vetting process can take upward of two years to conclude. There is no clear sense if “improved” vetting will cause a backlog and longer wait periods.

Ban defeated

The Trump administration’s travel ban has been defeated by the courts time and again. The White House is not deterred. Trump can hang his hat, for now, on the option of moving the fight up to the Supreme Court. That’s concerning the legal track, it’s a different fight that he has to wage against critics including those within his own Republican party.

The latest critique of Trump’s policies was by former President George W. Bush: “We have seen the return of isolationist sentiments - forgetting that American security is directly threatened by the chaos and despair of distant places” a broad stroke rebuke. Bush never mentioned Trump by name nor did he delved into the specific of anyone issue -- he didn’t ignore them either. When Bush said that “we know that when we lose sight of our ideals, it is not democracy that has failed. It is the failure of those charged with preserving and protecting democracy,” he seems to be addressing the travel ban. 

The saga of the travel ban will continue as part of a war over basic American values wrapped up in legal battles. If successful, this piece of the political puzzle will eventually promote the creation of a new norm. When and if this White House is able to move its different policies forward the lauded American value system will inevitably change. Thus, making the Trump presidency a fight for the soul of America and that’s how the voting public is perceiving it and what is guiding an increasing number of politicians on both sides of the aisle.

____________________
Walid Jawad is a former Senior Policy Analyst at U.S. Department of State and a former Washington, DC correspondent. He covered American politics for a number of TV outlets since 1997. Walid holds an undergraduate degree (BA) in Decision Science and Management Information Systems and a Masters in Conflict Analysis and Resolution. You can follow him @walidaj

Last Update: Saturday, 28 October 2017 KSA 13:32 - GMT 10:32