Diplomacy & Crisis News

Tribunaux d'exception, torture, prisons secrètes, Parlements phagocytés par les exécutifs, écoutes illégales, etc. : au nom des impératifs sécuritaires, les acquis de la démocratie libérale sont, un à un, rognés aux Etats-Unis et au Royaume-Uni. Rarement la distance entre démocratie réelle et démocratie (...) / États-Unis, France, Royaume-Uni, Démocratie, Droits humains, Terrorisme, Torture - 2006/09

The Reformer’s View?

On April 27 the Department of State announced a fundamental change to its process for selecting new career Foreign Service Officers.  Where candidates have long had to pass the written Foreign Service Test for consideration, that test would now be one of a number of considerations that would be considered by a panel.  Exact criteria and explicit objectives for the panel to follow were not announced.  The new process would take effect for the June application cycle.

 

It is hard to discern exact motives for this change.  Those who noticed did not generally hold a strong brief for the old test, but noted its original intent to promote professionalism.  Few see particular merit in the new process as announced.  One comment suggested using the old test to screen politically appointed ambassadors.  While few wanted to say so, one media outlet did cast the change as a diversity promotion move.  The possibility for polarized politics to dominate any consideration of new processes certainly exists, whatever the exact motives behind the change.

 

The change is a case of carts before horses.  Particularly for a people-based function such as the conduct of diplomacy, new personnel should be suited to the demands of the function.  Those demands should follow from an institutional understanding of what, in this case, diplomacy is and how it should work.  Traditional ambassadors knew their kings personally, and even in the post-industrial age any permanent official representative of a sovereign should know that sovereign intimately, to represent it and provide counsel.  America’s is the people, defined in the Declaration of Independence as “we” who hold certain “self-evident” truths.  U.S. diplomats need an engrained sense for, and clear fluency in,  that identity and its nuances, first inculcated as a pillar of their professional formation.

 

The Department of State needs to ascertain its institutional character, so that any formative process or intake process create a body of diplomats who know their fundamental mission.  A   two-paragraph announcement on short notice that changes something as significant as the selection process might well signal that other basic functions might also undergo far-reaching, summarily-declared, overhaul.  The Department of State could end up remaking itself from the ground up without naming its mission and with no deliberation in public discourse.   Someone needs to ask that first question.

The global economic order and the myth of sovereignty.

How much power do economists really have?

The long shadow of British colonialism.

Russian T-90M, its most advanced tank on the battlefied in Ukraine was destroyed by possible artillery strike.

Russia seemed to have pulled back many of its forces to the eastern regions of Ukraine in order to consolidate the takeover of the eastern regions of Lugansk, Donbas and the surrounding area. It is difficult to measure what the end goal of the Russian forces may be at this point. Ukraine’s response in moving forces south to retake Kherson and moving their forces protecting Kyiv into the area around Kharkiv may lead to quickly shifting battle lines or produce a stalemate as Ukraine takes to the offensive. The fate of many of Russia’s armoured units may burden Ukraine’s forces if Ukraine chooses to enter fortified urban areas that are filled with anti-tank equipment that has proven very effective against BMPs, T-72s, T-80s and even T-90s, systems that both Russia and Ukraine use in this conflict.

While modern tanks and weapons systems started the conflict, many of them were beaten by Cold War era technology with significant numbers and tactics to defeat modernised tanks and aircraft. Much of the success in this conflict comes from a tradition of defending the territory with weapons designed mostly for defense. The advanced missile technology developed over generations was built around keeping a Second World War type invasion out of the Soviet Union, with Ukraine being the most likely battleground for the fate of the Soviet Union. Taking out Ukraine’s Servant of the People and his Cabinet was never a simple task, and Ukraine was designed as the best defense structure in the world in the 1990s apart from Moscow itself.

What seems to be occurring is that Moscow will want to claim some sort of victory and will try to keep the eastern regions and maintain its hold on Crimea. Ukraine’s push to retake Kherson and protect the flank around Odessa is important as Russia may try to bottleneck Ukraine’s Black Sea access, which would mean Ukraine would become landlocked and will suffer economically in the long run as a result. While Poland has made agreements to help Ukraine remain competitive as an export economy by proposing a shared customs regime and opening its northern sea access to Ukraine in good faith, a Russian move to dominate the Ukrainian coast is likely a strategic long term goal besides claiming Eastern Ukraine for Russian backed forces.

The weakening of Russia’s view worldwide will likely have a massive effect on Putin and Russia if countries surrounding Russia see them as a Paper Bear. If Russia ends up losing Crimea for example, there is little keeping Putin in office after that act. Countries that are dependent on Russia’s protection will likely be challenged further as well. Actions in the Caucasus region may flare up as they did recently between Azerbaijan and Russian backed Armenia. India may try to source more of its defense equipment from France or other NATO allies as confidence in their T-90MS tank force diminishes with pictures of burning T-90M being shown in Ukraine.

China, that always shared a border with Russia in a Cold Peace may look to consolidate old conflicts with the knowledge that the PLA could likely stand up to modern Russian equipment in the field. The conflict in the Middle East will likely have the biggest result, as Russian forces supporting President Assad in Syria may have to re-engage in the region with less funds, less equipment and less of an appetite for the loss of young Russian soldiers in a foreign war. Iran’s S-300 systems and first generation TOR missiles may no longer be seen as the threat they once were, and knowledge in defeating those systems will leave a gap in their air defense.

Much of the prolonged conflict may simply be a result of saving face where losses have become hard to spin as a point of national pride. Diplomacy may serve the world well here as stability becomes questionable from Europe, through the Middle East towards much of Asia. A perfect storm of negligent policy decisions has lead to tragedy, applying further such policy decisions to quell the first fire will make it much worse. What is a universal truth in 2022 is that voting matters, as these issues will certainly affect your daily life to some degree.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reveals the limits of military power.

Anxious nations are dangerous nations.

The Social Divisions That Hold Countries Back

The limits of economic power.

The real drivers of rise and fall.

The United States and China are on quests to win hearts and minds.

Shireen Abu Akleh, a well-regarded Palestinian journalist, has become the next martyr in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. On May 11, she stood with her colleagues in the occupied West Bank. While wearing her blue press vest, which discerned her from combatants, Abu Akleh was struck in the head by unexpected gunfire.

Unsurprisingly, both sides of the conflict have spun clashing narratives following her death. Israel claims she got caught in crossfire initiated by Palestinian fighters. Palestinians claim Israel Defense Forces murdered Abu Akleh.  Accounts from eyewitnesses at the scene, as well as video footage, seem to support the latter. According to multiple sources, no Palestinian fighters were present at the time of her death. Satha Hanaysha, a journalist working alongside Abu Akleh, told CNN that IDF targeted the group intentionally. According to Hanaysha, the press followed regular protocol on the morning of the attack. This protocol consists of making themselves known to Israeli forces before approaching a scene. Despite identifying themselves at the entrance to Jenin Refugee Camp, the group of journalists were greeted by gunfire. An independent Dutch organization found that Israeli forces likely fired the bullet that killed Abu Akleh.

The United States has forged a strong relationship with Israel over the last fifty years. U.S. leaders have continually hailed Israel as a “vibrant democracy” and “one of the most successful democracies in the world.” These words ignore Israel’s long history of violence. The unjust killing of Shireen Abu Akleh has reminded us of the fragility of Israel’s “moral character.” She is sadly yet another in a long line of tragedies brought on by Israel’s poor human rights record. In 2021, Palestinian journalist Yusef Abu Hussein died in an Israeli air raid. He worked as a broadcaster for the Voice of al-Aqsa radio station. Al-Jazeera reported that his home was intentionally targeted. In 2018, Israeli forces shot Palestinian journalist Ahmed Abu Hussein while he covered protests in Gaza. Like Shireen Abu Akleh, he adorned his blue press vest when he died. These stories are not isolated events – Israeli forces have killed at least 45 journalists since 2000.

Israel has contended with its own violence by leading self-investigations. It is not difficult to imagine why an accused party cannot credibly lead their own investigation. However, Israel has done so for years. In 2018, Israeli police reacted violently to Palestinian protests in the Gaza Strip. They opened fire on hundreds of unarmed civilians, killing over two hundred Palestinians. The international community demanded Israel allow an investigation of the mass casualties. Israeli leaders obliged; they opened an investigation on their own military. The investigation indicted one Israeli soldier for the murder of a 14-year-old Palestinian. The other 214 victims received no justice.

In 2021, the International Criminal Court launched an investigation into the events of 2018. Israel refused to cooperate, instead firing claims of anti-Semitism. Bringing justice to victims of state-sponsored violence is not anti-Semitic. Rather, it contributes to the creation of a safer environment for those on both sides. Israel cannot be a contributing member of the international community if it continues to oppose international bodies. The United Nations, for example, has attempted to launch multiple probes into alleged Israeli crimes. Israel repeatedly refuses to cooperate. This only prevents transparent investigations and aggravates the conflict.

Israel claims it possesses the ability to conduct its own investigations – if this is true, it should have no problem allowing an international body to oversee. If Israel can address these incidents with full transparency, perhaps it can move one step closer to ending the violence. As for the United States, President Biden should advocate for a U.S.-led investigation into Abu Akleh’s death. If the United States wants to continue to support human rights across the world, it cannot turn a convenient blind eye to Israel.

Indo-Pacific power hinges on Taiwan.

Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald is hoping her party will claim the most seats in the assembly election

In mid-May the Irish political party, Sinn Féin, won the plurality of seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Many American readers might not fully understand the significance of Sinn Féin’s political victory- but rest assured that subjects of the United Kingdom and a wide range of political movements the world over have heard the message loud and clear.

For those unaware of Sinn Féin’s origins, a bit of history is necessary. 

The early years of the 1900’s saw the planting of many of the most important seeds that would grow to shape the politics of the coming century- perhaps the most important of these is the idea of national self-determination. The concept of national self-determination is straightforward – it is the idea that groups of people who view themselves as a distinct nation have the right to create government institutions that materialize their shared belief. This view was espoused by political figures as varied as American President Woodrow Wilson and Soviet Premier Vladmir Lenin at the time, and the principle of national self-determination remains enshrined in the UN charter today.        

Inspired by this political philosophy and justified by a history of imperial repression, men and women throughout Ireland came together to forge a band that would pursue, and if necessary fight for, a nation made up of the whole of Ireland that would be fully independent from Britain rule. That movement, over the years that followed, materialized into two nominally distinct but regularly overlapping efforts. The more internationally famous of these two groups is the Irish Republican Army (IRA) which participated in a gorilla conflict against the British military with the goal of making “crown rule” in Ireland ineffective. The second group to emerge from this turmoil was the political party known as Sinn Féin. While Sinn Féin shared many of the IRA’s political objectives, Sinn Féin differentiated itself from the IRA by focusing its efforts on the political liberation of Ireland without employing military force.

It must be said that while the IRA and Sinn Féin were founded as separate institutions, the two groups have generally worked together as if they were a common body. Many of the most prominent Sinn Féin representatives, including Gerry Adams who was Sinn Féin’s President from 1983 to 2018, were allegedly members of the IRA before making a transition into political life. This collaboration was given its rhetorical foundation through IRA volunteer and Sinn Féin Public Director Danny Morrison’s infamous 1981 proclamation that both the “Armalite rifle and the ballot box” would prove necessary in securing full Irish independence. English politicians used this overlap in order to discredit Sinn Féin’s efforts to earn political legitimacy, going so far as to bar Sinn Féin members from appearing in media throughout the British Empire despite Sinn Féin’s grounding as an entirely legal political organization. 

The point of my writing here is not to provide a historical overview of the conflict between Ireland and England- others have covered this topic with more nuance than I could hope to achieve here. Instead, for our purposes, it should suffice to say that the IRA took up arms, and occasionally employed terror tatics, in an attempt to resist the British government’s wrongful killing of Irish citizens, unjust interference with Irish politics, and refusal to allow for Irish territorial sovreignty. This conflict reached its apex beginning in the late 1960’s and raged consistently through 1998 during a period commonly known as The Struggles. 

During this time, the IRA’s militant approach figured more prominently than Sinn Féin’s political efforts in the quest for full Irish independence- the rifle took precedence over the ballot box. Ultimately, despite earning meaningful concessions, the IRA failed to achieve its objective of Irish unification as Northern Ireland was to remain part of the British Empire following the Good Friday Agreement, which formally ended the armed conflict between British forces and Irish republicans. 

While the Good Friday Agreement put a stop to the IRA’s military activism, Sinn Féin’s work at winning the ballot box was in truth just beginning. In the roughly twenty-five years that have passed since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, Sinn Féin took up the work of proving themselves a legitimate political party both in Ireland proper and in the disputed territory of Northern Ireland. Ultimately, this entailed maintaining the fervor that comes with being the IRA’s political successor while generating sufficient distance from the IRA’s violent heritage. In doing so, Sinn Féin abandoned the rifle in favor of full dedication to the ballot. Following the aforementioned election results in Northern Ireland, there is reason to believe that these efforts are beginning to bear fruit. 

Sinn Féin’s electoral victory in Northern Ireland may prove a necessary condition in order for Irish unification to be achieved, but it is not sufficient in and of itself. Sinn Féin will now need to take on the challenge of directing its newfound political power towards actually achieving the desired policy results. 

In either event, the rise of Sinn Féin as a peaceful stand-in for the political ambition of the IRA is a win for the Irish, the British, and the entire peace loving world. Should Irish unification be achieved, one would hope that it would be through exclusively political means.

A similar line should be taken as it applies to other militant groups the world over. According to a study conducted by Rand, more modern militant conflicts are resolved through political integration than by any other means. Notably, the second largest set of conflicts in this study have not truly ended but instead are managed only through sustained efforts at policing militant organizations. 

The challenge of allowing militant groups to participate in the political process is obvious – it means overcoming long standing hostilities and ceding credibility to groups that were once restricted to the fringes. More directly- it means extending sympathy to people who have proven themselves “our” enemy. I contend that the price of integration at the ballot box is far cheaper than the loss of human lives through the rifle.

Kurds, Palestinians, and other subjugated people around the world see their political rights repressed by their imperial holders. Without the opportunity to meaningfully participate in local politics, these groups might feel that violence is the only way to guarantee a seat for themselves at the decision making table. 

Political inclusion is preferable to political violence- the American genesis reaffirms this fact. Repressed people in all corners of the world will continue their struggle for honest representation and national sovereignty- through the ballot box or, if political participation is barred, through the Armalite. 

–

Peter Scaturro is the Director of Studies at the Foreign Policy Association. The opinions expressed here are his, and not necessarily the opinions of the Foreign Policy Association.

NATO, Swedish and Finnish flags are seen in this illustration taken May 12, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

The unexpected assault by Russia on Ukraine adjusted the view most Western Europeans had overnight of a peaceful Europe. At the same time, Central and Eastern Europe’s weariness of Russian Realpolitik since the fall of the Cold War was legitimised. Much of their relatively new NATO based equipment and Warsaw Pact updated equipment was put on high alert since Feb of 2022 as Poland and their neighbours feared a repeat of history defending a mass invasion from the East. Germany’s energy policy and military policy changed almost completely, and former neutral countries who would have never considered joining NATO even as late as last year, are now poised to become significant new members.

While NATO members in North America dither on whether or not to provide an appropriate energy solution to Europe during an active conflict that depends on that policy, European powers that are currently not part of NATO have broken with their official traditional neutrality.

Finland stood as one of the only nations to successfully repel an attack by the Soviet Union in the 1930s and held a position of neutrality since the end of the Second World War. Neutrality in Finland’s case was committed to in order not to illicit a response from their Eastern border with Russia. The avoidance of conflict kept Finland in relations with their Scandinavian allies, with a strong Navy and technical and political support from their Western neighbours without being a NATO member. At the same time, Finland kept lines of communications open with their Eastern neighbours, even purchasing Soviet and Russian military equipment from them for Finland’s own defense. Finland’s border with neutral Sweden likely accommodated this political approach as well.

Sweden’s approach since the end of the Second World War was to build a strong local defensive structure in order to repel any attack coming from the Soviet Union. While NATO produced a combined arms approach, countries like France and Sweden took to building on their own defense industry focused on their own territory and geographical challenges. Sweden often designed defense equipment suited for a war in Sweden, with tanks designed to hide and hit invading Russian tanks in the Swedish forests, and planes designed to land and take of from highways and local roads. The contribution of Swedish anti-tank weapons to Ukraine are a reflection of generations of weapons designed to blunt a Russian invasion force.

The strengthening of NATO is surprising as since the end of the Cold War, decades of peace turned NATO into an organisation that was a reminder of a past long gone. The invasion of Ukraine was a result of policy errors and egos that could likely have been avoided or managed, with a wake up call that has not sounded for a generation. The study of European defense during my education was seen as an empty field, as trade agreements and post-Soviet reconstruction dominated International Studies discussions at that time. The result of bad policy may have come from the limited number of experts making decisions that created the possibility of conflict in Europe. Right now, those who have spent time vacationing in Kyiv and Moscow, married people from both regions and have family who speak those languages are still shocked by their peaceful lives turning into the hard times endured by their grandparents.

It will likely be the case that poor decisions during the current conflict in Europe will result in increased conflict in other parts of the world. Bad policy decisions have hard consequences, something our grandparents learned in the most difficult of ways.

/ Armée, Défense, Conflit du Darfour, Somalie, Conflit, Afghanistan, Bosnie-Herzégovine, Macédoine, Pakistan, Guerre du Kosovo 1999, Irak, Guerre d'Irak 2003-2011, Guerre de Bosnie-Herzégovine 1992-1995, Guerre d'Afghanistan 2001-2021, Kosovo, Libye, Conflit afghan, Soudan du Sud, Soudan - Armées & (...) / Armée, Défense, Conflit du Darfour, Somalie, Conflit, Afghanistan, Bosnie-Herzégovine, Macédoine, Pakistan, Guerre du Kosovo 1999, Irak, Guerre d'Irak 2003-2011, Guerre de Bosnie-Herzégovine 1992-1995, Guerre d'Afghanistan 2001-2021, Kosovo, Libye, Conflit afghan, Soudan du Sud, Soudan - Armées & armement

À la fin des années 1930, face à la guerre qui ravage leur pays, de nombreux Espagnols cherchent l'asile en France. Tandis que le Front populaire, arrivé au pouvoir en 1936, impose un accueil solidaire des réfugiés, les derniers gouvernements de la IIIe République mettent en place une législation (...) / Espagne, Europe, France, Histoire, Immigrés, Réfugiés, Solidarité, Guerre d'Espagne 1936-1939, Droit d'asile - 2017/05

Le grand public connaît bien les activités du Secours populaire français dans le domaine alimentaire en France ; en revanche, ses activités dans le monde sont moins connues. Et pourtant ! Chaque année, il vient en aide à plus de 450 000 personnes dans une cinquantaine de pays. / Enfance, ONG, (...) / Enfance, ONG, Réfugiés, Solidarité - 2017/05

A supporter of presidential candidate Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. holds up a newspaper with the winning of Marcos Jr. on the headline, as people gather to celebrate as partial results of the 2022 national elections show him with a wide lead over rivals, at the candidate’s headquarters in Mandaluyong City, Philippines, May 10, 2022. REUTERS/Willy Kurniawan

On Monday, May 9th, the Philippines held a presidential election to replace President Rodrigo Duterte. Critics characterize Duterte’s presidency as ruthless and authoritarian, moving the Philippines away from a democratic culture. Duterte gained a legacy for using brutal tactics in his approach to countering crime. His violent war on drugs resulted in tens of thousands of killings by state security forces, leading to an investigation by the International Criminal Court. His foreign policy focused on building stronger relationships with Russia and China, while drifting further away from a strong relationship with the United States. Duterte’s decision to retire from politics left a vacuum in Filipino politics. In the May 2022 elections, two candidates became the frontrunners to replace him: Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and former Vice President Leni Robredo. The two ran on opposing platforms. While Robredo promised accountable and transparent governance, Marcos Jr. built his campaign around the legacy of his father. Ferdinand Marcos Senior ruled the Philippines as a dictator for over 20 years, until a revolution ousted him in 1986. Marcos Sr.’s dictatorship marked one of the darkest periods in the Philippine’s history. It was marred by extrajudicial killings, tortures, forced disappearances, corruption, and economic turmoil. Marcos Jr. has utilized his campaign platform to rewrite that history, framing his father’s time in office as a “golden era” for his country. Marcos Jr. claimed a victory on May 9th, winning the election in a landslide. With the Philippines back in the hands of the Marcos family, the Biden Administration should beware of implications this election may have on U.S.-Philippine relations. The troubled history between the United States and the Marcos family may impact the Philippines’ foreign policy decisions. In a country caught between China and the West, the Marcos administration could facilitate the slow decay of democracy.

The relationship between the United States and the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos Senior ended tumultuously. In the early days of Marcos’ presidency, he took a strong anti-communist stance that appealed to the Reagan administration. The two countries forged positive diplomatic relations. However, as his presidency evolved into a dictatorship, Marcos moved away from the United States. In 1975, his administration oversaw the establishment of diplomatic relations with China. Given Marcos’ shift in foreign policy, and mounting accusations of human rights violations, the United States began to rethink its initial support for Marcos. In 1985, the Reagan Administration took an “open view” about the removal of Marcos Senior from power. A year later, President Reagan reached out to Marcos and personally asked him to step down. It was under this increasing internal and international pressure that Marcos abandoned his post. The United States played a critical role in removing Marcos, which complicated the relationship between his family and the United States. This complicated relationship could be worrisome for today’s administration, as ill feelings may plague Marcos Jr.’s foreign policy. Even more pressing is the outstanding court order from the United States calling the Marcos family to pay millions of dollars in damages to the victims of human rights abuses

In 1995, a court case implicated the Marcos family in a series of human rights violations from the 1970s and 1980s. The U.S. 9th Circuit of Court Appeals affirmed a 1996 verdict labeling Ferdinand Marcos Senior “command responsibility” for the human rights abuses committed under his leadership.[1] The court called for a $2 billion payment from the Marcos family. However, it has been a decades-long struggle to collect that compensation. In 2012, a court upheld a contempt judgement against Marcos Jr. and his mother for failing to provide the compensation ordered in the 1996 verdict. The Marcos family continues to evade payment, despite the existing court order that has been extended until 2031. The outstanding order complicates the new administration’s ability to visit the United States on any official diplomatic business. Unless Marcos Jr. visits as part of a UN-sponsored event, or gains special permission from the United States court system, he runs the risk of being subpoenaed to face the court.

The strenuous circumstances surrounding the Marcos family’s relationship to the United States increases the motivation for Marcos Jr. to turn towards China. Despite disagreements over the South China Sea, Marcos Jr. recently called for shifting the Philippines’ relationship with China “to a higher gear.”[2] He has made promises to strengthen trade and diplomatic ties, as well as increase educational and cultural exchange. A new Philippines under the leadership of Marcos Jr. brings with it new fears. His father’s troubled humanitarian record, his family’s evasion of court orders, and his positioning towards Beijing have all raised concerns that he may bring in an era of democratic backsliding. For the United States, Biden will have to address the legal issues surrounding diplomatic relations with the Marcos family. The outstanding court order should not be abandoned in light of Marcos Jr.’s election; this is a crucial moment for the United States to maintain its commitment to human rights and to democracy worldwide. However, the Biden Administration’s approach to the Philippines will need to deeply consider how to engage with such a complicated figure.

 

Julia Sackett is an intern at the Foreign Policy Association and a ForeignPolicyBlogs contributor.

 

[1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-12-18-mn-10301-story.html

[2] https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Philippine-elections/Marcos-says-Philippine-China-ties-set-to-shift-to-higher-gear