The presidential primary season is winding down, and while Trump is in command of the Republican nomination process, Clinton is still trying to put Sanders away. One Clinton concern is that Sanders might win the California primary in a few weeks.
The growing violence at Trump rallies once again raises the question of civil unrest – especially if Trump wins the November election. Some scholars have questioned if the US is due for a breakup and a Trump win might be the event that causes the US to spin apart as some Democratic controlled states may opt to secede from the US rather than recognize Trump as president. We look at this issue in this week’s Monitor analysis.
Think Tanks Activity Summary
The Carnegie Endowment looks at the governing institutions in the Middle East and their need to evolve. They write, “Five years after the uprisings erupted, Arab citizens have little – in some cases, even less – voice in running their countries’ affairs. Moreover, they depend on rentier economies that are unable to create enough jobs for their young, educated populations. And they face an alarming absence of the rule of law, leaving them with no assurances that they will be treated equally, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, or religion. But poor governance today does not mean the Arab world is doomed to failure. Tunisia serves as a beacon of hope. After the 2011 revolution, it pursued a consensual, inclusive process to develop a new social contract that upholds all of its people’s individual and collective rights.”
The German Marshall fund looks at the differing perspectives of Turkey and Iran. They note, “Syria, Iraq, and Yemen today constitute the three major areas of conflict between Iran and Turkey. In each case, both are trying to shape events on the ground according to their opposite interests. Iran’s vision of Syria (or Yemen) is unacceptable to Turkey, as is Turkey’s to Iran. Meanwhile, the Arab Uprisings have destroyed many states, and statehood crises all over the region have fed a bourgeoning sectarianism…This has increased the role of transnational sectarian networks, transforming the Middle East into a post-modern zone of sectarian and ethnic wars and shaping the regional states’ foreign policies. A grand Sunni-Shia axis is in place today in Middle Eastern politics.”
As Erdogan turns Turkey into a dictatorship, the Hudson Institute thinks that Europe needs to look at its relationship with Turkey. They note, “And here comes the dirty little secret of the negotiations: Turkish accession is unlikely to ever happen. At every stage, the next step must be approved unanimously by all EU member states, with the possibility of referendum in some countries. It is highly doubtful a consensus could be reached. (Consider that voters in the Netherlands recently rejected closer ties with Ukraine, a Christian, undoubtedly European country.) Yet the talks with Ankara keep going, like a bureaucratic zombie, because the various European participants expect someone else — probably the French or Germans — to cast the final veto and take the blame. In the midst of a refugee crisis, some might be tempted to argue for keeping up the charade, if only to secure greater cooperation. But this does more harm than good.”
The Cato Institute argues America’s defense guarantees turn friends and allies into dependents. They note, “The president recently visited one of the targets of his ire: Saudi Arabia. The royals long ago assumed the U.S. military would act as their de facto bodyguard. The first Gulf War was more about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia than Kuwait. At least the KSA began putting more money into its military when it perceived the Obama administration’s commitment to Riyadh was waning. The kingdom was outraged at Washington’s nuclear negotiations with Iran and refusal to directly intervene in the Syrian civil war. Yet the “alliance” still has dragged the U.S. into the KSA’s war in Yemen, which has gone from local civil war to regional sectarian conflict.”
The CSIS looks at the political debate going on in the US about releasing 28 pages of classified information on Saudi Arabia’s involvement with 9/11 terrorists. They warn of the consequences and say, “At best, releasing the 28 pages out of context may give families that suffered because of 9/11 some money, but the 28 pages can only provide an illusion of closure. Releasing the 28 pages out of context will also trigger broad doubts in the United States about a critical strategic partner as a critical time, as well as create anger and hostility in Saudi Arabia against the United States, and feed the kind of al Qaeda and ISIS propaganda that charges the United States as the enemy of Islam and Muslims. It may well be too late not to address this issue, no matter how uncertain the content of the 28 pages may be. If the U.S. government is to address this issue at all, however, it must do so fully and release all of the relevant data now available, not simply 28 pages from a report written in 2002 with a narrow focus on the events of 9/11.”
The CSIS says tensions still remain high between the GCC nations and Iran. They note, “Even with inferior naval assets, Iran chooses to provoke its neighbors with asymmetric tactics. The United States must balance fostering the progress of renewed diplomatic relations with Iran, while easing friction among its Gulf partners. Preventing miscommunication, miscalculation, and dangerous provocation should be a priority. Policy prescriptions such as building tactical communication channels, developing crisis-management mechanisms, and enforcing rules of engagement in the Gulf will assist in this effort. Militarily, the U.S. must enhance its current force posture to deter aggressive activities in the Gulf, including conducting multilateral exercises with its allies and partners, promoting the acquisition of missile defense systems by GCC countries. Utilizing this multipronged approach will mitigate the risk of unintended conflict in the Gulf.”
The Carnegie Endowment looks at Lebanon’s sectarian power sharing. They conclude, “As far as Lebanon is concerned, today it is at a crossroads, facing three potential choices. For its first choice, the country could, once again, mend its system of political sectarianism in a way that addresses its imbalances and discrepancies, mainly those affecting the Sunni-Shia relationship. Yet such a possibility is not endlessly on offer. A revision of the political system needs to take into account the prevailing balance of power and reflect it as accurately as possible. Because the regional and domestic situations are in flux, it is almost impossible to conceive of engaging in such a process under present conditions…the second choice is that Lebanon will always be doomed to lurch from crisis to crisis for as long as it is cursed with a system that creates dissatisfaction at home and invites permanent interference from outside…The third choice is to put in place a more diffuse political system—running the gamut from forms of decentralization all the way to federalism and even partition.”
The Washington Institute sees ISIS targeting Syria’s Alawite homeland. They say, “Through the latest attacks, the Islamic State is attempting to send different messages. The first is for the Alawites — IS wants to show them that the Assad regime cannot protect them…Sending such violent signals to the Alawites could have multiple ripple effects. IS leaders likely hope that Alawite soldiers serving in hotspots on the eastern front (e.g., Deir al-Zour, Palmyra) will refuse to fight if their families back in Tartus and other cities are not given better protection; the regime might even decide to redeploy eastern troops to the coast. The group also aims to spark discontent against the regime and Alawite reprisals against Sunnis…Yet the Islamic State’s most important message is presumably to Moscow.”
The American Presidential Election and Growing Civil Unrest
Is a breakup in the cards?
Ever since two years ago, when several militias had a faceoff with the Bureau of Land Management at the Bundy Ranch, the level of civil unrest has grown. Since then, there have been riots in Ferguson and Baltimore, and standoffs at a immigration center in Murrieta, California and a wildlife refuge in Oregon. Just this week, rioters attacked police outside a Trump rally. And, Sunday, the Washington Post had an article on the growth of America’s militia movement.
Clearly, America is headed towards dangerous times as the presidential election nears. More civil unrest is expected and some even wonder if America is on the edge of a breakup.
In 2008, while President Bush was still in power, Igor Panarin, a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian foreign affairs ministry, said the economic turmoil in the US had confirmed his long-held belief that the country was heading for extinction in its present form. He said the country’s break-up would be accelerated by rising unemployment and Americans losing their savings.
Public dissatisfaction was growing and was held back only by the election and the hope that Barack Obama “can work miracles,” he said. “But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”
Although it’s been eight years since this prediction was made (Panarin thought the breakup would occur in 2010), America is still united. But, could the 2016 presidential elections be the event that causes a breakup or serious civil unrest?
Are Americans Willing to See the US Breakup?
19 months ago, during the run-up to the vote in Scotland to seek independence from the United Kingdom, Reuters commissioned a poll to see if Americans would want their state to secede from the US. The results were surprising as they showed one in four Americans interested in breaking their links with the US – a result that shocked Reuters and many politicians in Washington.
What’s more surprising is that this movement to secede doesn’t come from “racist” whites. It’s the minorities that are more upset with the federal government and this “post racial, black president.” And, as Baltimore and Ferguson showed, the tensions building up in some places in the US are greater than one may think.
In fact, Whites are less likely to want secession. According to the poll, 25.4% of minorities want secession, while 29% are undecided. Only 21.4% of whites want independence for their state. 20.2% of whites are undecided.
Where is the desire to secede greatest? Texas. Only about 4 in 10 Texans want to stay in the US. 6 in 10 either want secession or haven’t made up their mind about it. And, it isn’t just Whites that want independence. Although the number of Hispanic Texans was too small a population in this poll to give statistically firm numbers, the raw numbers show that Hispanic Texans mirror the opinions of White Texans. And, 56% of Texans between 18 and 29 either favor independence or are still undecided.
Interestingly enough, there are some Democratic states that have majorities favoring independence or who are undecided – California and Oregon. And, both of these states are very likely to vote against Trump by a large margin in November.
A tangible sign of this unrest has been the growth of organized armed groups in the US. While armed Black groups have been formed since Ferguson, most of the attention has been on militias, which have supporters numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
As the Washington Post wrote last Sunday, “there is a significant movement among US citizens that are demanding that the federal government adhere to the Constitution, and stop what they see as systematic abuse of land rights, gun rights, freedom of speech and other liberties.”
“One example of this movement is a group in Oregon that calls itself the Central Oregon Constitutional Guard. The group refers to themselves as patriots, and is made up of people from all walks of life. The organization describes itself as a “defensive unit against all enemies foreign and domestic”, mainly because they believe the government is capable of unprovoked aggression against its own people.”
“The group’s members are drywallers and flooring contractors, nurses and painters and high school students, who stockpile supplies, practice survival skills and “basic infantry” tactics, learn how to treat combat injuries, study the Constitution and train with their concealed handguns and combat-style rifles.”
“The group members are conservatives, do not like former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and generally support Donald Trump.”
Is a Breakup of the US Possible?
A breakup is possible, but not likely at this time. However, as Igor Panarin noted, the factors leading up to a breakup are present. And, this presidential election will stress the US as it hasn’t been stressed since 1968.
One problem is that both of the presumptive candidates, Trump and Clinton, have high negatives. An NBC News poll showed Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the most unpopular likely presidential nominees in the history of modern polling. Just 34% of registered voters have a positive opinion of Clinton, versus 54% who have a negative opinion. Trump’s rating is even worse: 29% have a positive opinion of him, while 58% have a negative opinion.
That means that whoever wins, there will be a lot of unhappy Americans – unhappy enough to take to the streets.
There are several flashpoints that could lead to nationwide civil unrest. Both Democratic and Republican conventions could start the unrest, although at this time the Democratic convention in Philadelphia has the greater likelihood of rioting.
Trump rallies are also a potential flashpoint since nearly any Trump event is a scene of Anti-Trump protests or riots.
A very big concern would be a close election like the one in 2000, where George Bush beat Al Gore for the presidency by winning Florida by about 300 votes. While that election was settled peacefully, given the level of unrest seen today, violent rioting around the vote counting could be expected. It’s even possible that rioters could storm the building and muddy up the voting results, which would lead to national unrest.
Even if Trump wins in a clear victory, the US can expect some rioting in large cities. But, it could be even worse.
The 1860 Scenario
This is called the 1860 scenario because it mirrors what happened in 1860, as America rushed into the Civil War. Lincoln (a Republican) wins the election and several states vote for secession before Lincoln becomes president. Meanwhile, the incumbent president, James Buchanan (a Democrat), did little to stop the secessionist movement.
Talk of succession isn’t unknown in the US. Several Democrats mentioned it after Bush’s reelection in 2004.
Considering the animosity for Trump, it most certainly would be mentioned after any Trump win in November.
Given its strong Democratic leanings and the polling that showed a majority of Californians either favoring secession or undecided, California might be the first state to talk of leaving if Trump wins. Since California is economically large enough to be its own nation and given the overwhelming Democratic majorities in its legislature, they could very well be in the vanguard of secession.
Like Buchanan before the Civil War, Obama might be unwilling to take strong action against any seceding state – especially given the animosity between Trump and Obama. He might even help by announcing that Social Security payments to California retirees would continue since the US traditionally makes these payments no matter what country the retiree lives in.
If California secedes, it is quite likely that they will be joined by Oregon and Washington State – both Democratic. At that point, the US could fly apart.
Now isolated from the US, Hawaii and Alaska, which both have strong independence movements, would likely declare their own independence. Texas would probably follow.
Native American nations throughout the West, who are already recognized as sovereign nations by the US government, may also decide to pull away. Their relations with the federal government are already strained and in fact, an Arizona tribe, the Tohono O’odham, closed off access to some of its land to the Border Patrol.
The relationship between the Border Patrol and the tribe has been stormy over the years, with accusations of human rights violations by federal agents and allegations that the agents’ presence has implemented a police state. Though only 75 miles runs along the Mexican border, the reservation is about 2.8 million acres or roughly the size of Connecticut and has about 30,000 members. The tribe’s official website says that nine of its communities are located in Mexico and they are separated by the United States/Mexico border. “In fact, the U.S.-Mexico border has become an artificial barrier to the freedom of the Tohono O’odham,” the tribe claims. “On countless occasions, the U.S. Border Patrol has detained and deported members of the Tohono O’odham Nation who were simply traveling through their own traditional lands, practicing migratory traditions essential to their religion, economy and culture.”
While many anti-Trump states are too small or surrounded by pro-Trump areas, they might try to gain some sort of autonomy. There might also be some parts of the US along the US/Mexico border who might want to rejoin with Mexico or create an independent Hispanic state.
Although such dissolution of the US might seem impossible, we need to remember how quickly the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991. A referendum for the preservation of the USSR was held on 17 March 1991 in nine republics (the remainder having boycotted the vote), with the majority of the population in those nine republics voting for preservation of the Union.
However, that quickly changed. In August 1991, a coup d’état was attempted by Communist Party hardliners. It failed, with Russian President Boris Yeltsin playing a high-profile role in facing down the coup, resulting in the banning of the Communist Party. Nearly immediately, Soviet Republics started declaring independence – beginning with Latvia and Estonia in August. 12 republics declared independence in the next three months. On 25 December 1991, the Soviet Union officially disappeared.
So, it’s important to remember that although Americans want a united US today, all it takes is a flashpoint event and a few months for a desire for unity to become a desire for independence.
Washington Turns Every Military Alliance into Welfare
By Doug Bandow
May 23, 2016
America’s international position is distinguished by its alliance networks. Presidential candidates decry today’s dangerous world, yet the U.S. is allied with every major industrialized power, save China and Russia. It is a position Washington’s few potential adversaries must envy. Unfortunately, littering the globe with security commitments is costly. The U.S. must create a much bigger military to project force abroad to protect countries that often matter little for this nation’s security. Moreover, while military tripwires are supposed to prevent war, they ensure involvement if deterrence fails. Equally important, America’s defense guarantees turn friends and allies into dependents. The principle is the same as domestic welfare. Why do it yourself if someone else will do so?
Navigating Gulf Waters After the Iran Nuclear Deal
By Melissa Dalton
Center for Strategic and International Studies
May 25, 2016
Iran’s maritime provocations have long been an irritant for the U.S. Navy and partners in the Gulf. Now, as the United States and other members of the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany and the European Union) enforce the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to curb Iran’s nuclear program, Iranian naval provocations pose a new challenge for the United States. Unintended maritime incidents could escalate and jeopardize a broader set of U.S. policy objectives vis-à-vis Iran, including implementation of the JCPOA; counterterrorism operations against the Islamic State group (ISG); stabilization efforts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen; and ongoing commitments to Gulf security. The dialogue that fostered the JCPOA now provides potential for U.S.-Iranian communication on other U.S. policy priorities. High-level U.S. officials may now pick up the phone and make routine calls to their Iranian counterparts—an option unavailable only a few years ago.
Dealing Fairly with a Key Ally: Releasing the 28 Pages
By Anthony H. Cordesman
Center for Strategic and International Studies
May 19, 2016
The United States needs to exercise extraordinary care in taking any action that could accuse a key ally of providing support for terrorism, particularly support for a tragedy as great as the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11. No real guilt for such action should ever be ignored for the purpose of diplomatic convenience. At the same time, no unsupported accusations that blame a country for the actions of its individual citizens should ever be made in ways that ignore the weight of evidence, giving the accusations the appearance of official legitimacy because they are issued out of context and without a full examination of the evidence. The United States risks doing this if it simply releases the 28 classified pages that were drafted
The Unraveling of Lebanon’s Taif Agreement: Limits of Sect-Based Power Sharing
By Joseph Bahout
May 16, 2016
Since the upheavals that began in 2011, states in the Middle East with pluralistic, heterogeneous societies have collapsed, driving a renewed interest in sectarian power-sharing systems as possible models for these countries’ rehabilitation. Lebanon has just such a system in which religious communities share power. Although it is flawed and unraveling in many ways, it has helped keep the country at peace and provides valuable lessons for the region.
Improving Governance in the Arab World
By Marwan Muasher
May 13, 2016
A recent survey of 100 Arab thought leaders conducted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace revealed a sweeping consensus about what underlies many of the region’s problems: a lack of good governance. Indeed, those polled emphasized domestic problems resulting from that failure – authoritarianism, corruption, outdated education systems, and unemployment – over regional concerns, including the threat of the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS) or interference by regional heavyweights or outside powers. This is not new information. The Arab Spring uprisings brought to the fore the inadequacy of the region’s outdated social contracts in the face of current political and economic challenges. Yet Arab governments still seem not to have gotten the message.
The Iranian Moment and Turkey
By Gökhan Bacik
German Marshall Fund
May 25, 2016
Turkey is in a critical position as a consequence of both its proximity to multiple crises and its unique exposure to deteriorating security relationships in both the south and the east. It must keep regional conflicts from further undermining the country’s internal security. It must also strengthen ties to NATO and EU partners whose demands on Turkey are set to increase, but whose cooperation will be essential to meet proliferating regional security threats. The prevailing atmosphere of mutual suspicion between Ankara and its Western allies suggests that this will not be an easy task. But relations with Turkey are set to become the most critical in NATO.
It’s Time for Turkey and Europe to Face Reality
By Benjamin Haddad
May 23, 2016
The surprise resignation of moderate Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu earlier this month has once again cast doubt on the future of the refugee deal signed in March between Turkey and the European Union. But, whether it moves forward or not, the agreement is just one aspect of the broader Turkish-European relationship. And, in light of political developments in both Ankara and Brussels, it’s high time to rethink what that relationship should look like.
The Islamic State Is Targeting Syria’s Alawite Heartland — and Russia
By Fabrice Balanche
May 24, 2016
On May 23, the Islamic State (IS) perpetrated suicide bombings in Tartus and Jableh, killing 154 people and wounding more than 300. This was the first time either coastal city had been targeted by such attacks since the beginning of the war. Tartus in particular had seemed like a haven up until Monday. It was still an attractive tourist destination because of its wide beaches, and it was in the middle of a construction boom given the arrival of internally displaced people (IDPs) from other parts of Syria — not just the Assad regime’s fellow Alawites from Damascus, but also members of the Sunni majority from all across the country. Many Syrian refugees had even returned from Lebanon to Tartus because they considered life to be cheaper and safer there.