Diplomacy & Crisis News

In discussions of artificial intelligence, commentary often focuses on how this technology may automate jobs, revolutionize war, or even lead to the collapse of humanity. However, a more immediate issue deserves serious consideration from national security policymakers. This is the potential for AI advancements—specifically generative AI—to turbocharge disinformation and flood our information ecosystem with untruths.

On the one hand, a new era of AI-powered disinformation could allow malign actors—particularly foreign adversaries—to manipulate the information environment and shape public discourse more easily, as Russia did successfully in the 2016 U.S. election. On the other hand, and perhaps more concerningly, the proliferation of content produced using this technology could erode public trust in the information we consume entirely, undermining the social fabric that holds societies together.

National security policymakers in the United States must recognize the threat these advancements pose to national and international security and prioritize addressing it. Given America’s role as a global leader in the development of AI, U.S. policymakers have a responsibility to coordinate an international response to the coming era of disinformation and work with partners to prevent the further breakdown of our shared reality that this technology threatens.

At the heart of this challenge is generative artificial intelligence. This type of AI helps create hyperrealistic content—including text, images, audio, and video—by learning from large datasets. Interest in generative AI has spiked in recent months largely because of its application in ChatGPT, a sophisticated chatbot developed by OpenAI that has exploded in popularity since its public release in late 2022.

Many people have found value in these AI tools. However, as a dual-use technology, generative AI can easily be abused. The potential harm that this technology poses, particularly to our information environment, is becoming increasingly clear. Researchers have raised the alarm for years about the risks of “deepfakes”—highly realistic, AI-generated depictions of real people doing or saying something that did not occur. Until recently, however, this technology was fairly primitive and not accessible to the general public. Today, with the proliferation of generative AI tools, it is becoming cheaper and easier to create synthetic media that seems authentic, lowering the barriers to entry for anyone who wants to spread disinformation.

This emerging crisis is closely linked with the market-driven arms race that is taking place in the AI industry. Many companies are moving aggressively to develop AI in pursuit of market dominance, despite concerns about how this technology could be abused.

With the rapid public deployment of these tools, AI-assisted disinformation is already beginning to appear online. While some cases have been good-spirited, there are multiple examples of politically motivated actors using AI technology to deceive and manipulate. AI-generated content has appeared in pro-Chinese influence operations and, more recently, in fictitious reports of an explosion at the Pentagon spread by Russian state media.

It is not hard to imagine how this technology could fuel genuine geopolitical crises and instability should it continue to advance and be publicly deployed without constraint. Consider, for instance, how the proliferation of deepfake audio and video content of U.S. political candidates during the 2024 presidential election could lead to the complete breakdown of trust in the political process and its outcome and, in turn, widespread civil unrest.

A future with AI-powered disinformation may be inevitable, but there is still time to mitigate the disruption that this technology causes.

The policymaking community in the United States is already somewhat aware of the issue. In 2021, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence reported that AI could “increase the magnitude, precision, and persistence of adversarial information operations.” Additionally, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued guidance for developing responsible AI systems earlier this year. More recently, the White House has taken steps toward developing a national AI strategy. To date, however, no enforceable action has been taken to shape or regulate the future of AI.

Although leaders like OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Google’s Sundar Pichai have called for regulation, some AI experts believe it is not feasible due to coordination problems. However, this position discounts the cases where norms and regulations born out of safety and ethical concerns have successfully regulated the development of emerging technologies. For example, the Asilomar Conference in 1975 produced guidelines for the safe development of gene editing technology, while international non-proliferation pacts have largely halted the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.

Another concern, particularly in the national security community, is whether regulating AI could harm the interests of the United States and its allies in the new era of strategic competition with China. According to some analyses, anxieties around AI are overblown and it is essential to do what it takes to win the AI arms race.

That said, safeguarding against the unfettered proliferation of AI technology would not necessarily undermine U.S. or allied interests but could, in fact, advance those interests. China reportedly relies heavily on overseas workers and technology transfer in its efforts to develop AI. Thus, regulatory or normative efforts to slow AI advances by the United States could slow those made by China as well.

In addition to recognizing the threats that AI poses to public discourse and, in turn, collective security, the national security community in the United States should consider a few specific actions.

First, the United States must address the issue at home. In the immediate term, Congress should ensure the responsible development and public deployment of generative AI tools, specifically those that empower next-generation disinformation. While compelling, a lot of what generative AI produces today is still clunky or flawed in some way. However, recent advancements are making these flaws increasingly difficult to spot. In the absence of action, AI tools capable of producing synthetic media that is indistinguishable from the real thing could soon be publicly available. Thus, enforceable standards for companies developing this technology should be put in place, building on the NIST framework, before the horse leaves the proverbial barn.

U.S. policymakers and social media companies should also work more closely together on addressing AI-powered disinformation through technical mitigations. Most importantly, the federal government should explore ways to help social media companies detect and remove synthetic audio-visual media as well as synthetic text. The U.S. Department of Defense has already started to fund technology to defend against AI-enabled disinformation, but more action is needed. Additional government funding could help develop new detection capabilities, while the development of common technical standards for companies would allow for greater transparency across platforms.

Alongside these measures, the federal government should work to increase awareness of and resilience against AI-powered disinformation among the general public. Just as cybersecurity largely hinges on individual behavior and proper cyber hygiene, strong media literacy is important for resisting disinformation. As some researchers have suggested, one way to improve resilience is to provide communities most vulnerable to information manipulation—such as members of historically marginalized groups—with tools to identify fake content. This could be done by partnering with state and local governments and by coordinating with foreign partners on best practices.

Finally, the United States must lead an effort alongside close allies to develop international standards and norms to regulate the safe development, deployment, and use of generative AI. Ideally, these would follow standards agreed upon domestically but necessarily require alignment with the international community. The European Union would be a natural partner here, having already indicated its own concern for this technology through its Artificial Intelligence Act.

Given its concerns over generative AI, there may even be potential to gain China’s buy-in on an international agreement. In recent months, the Chinese government has pursued efforts to regulate deepfake technology and require chatbots like ChatGPT to toe the party line due to concern over the chatbot’s uncensored replies.

In any case, the need for urgent action cannot be ignored. We are already seeing how this technology is accelerating the erosion of our shared reality. With generative AI expected to advance exponentially in the coming years, this trend will only get worse. And if policymakers wait too long to act, the consequences could be dire. For that reason, leaders in the United States must take this issue seriously to protect American national security as well as the security of the international system.

Tristan Paci is a research intern for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Washington, DC. He is a recent master’s graduate of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, where he focused on technology policy and security in the Indo-Pacific.

Image: Shutterstock.

Depuis deux siècles, des dirigeants de toutes tendances politiques ont réclamé la diminution du nombre d'agents de l'État. Pour des raisons parfois diamétralement opposées. / France, Économie, État, Finance, Fonction publique, Histoire - (...) / France, Économie, État, Finance, Fonction publique, Histoire - 2018/04

Opposer usagers et salariés des chemins de fer n'a guère de sens quand tous vivent la dégradation du service au nom d'un désengagement public que le gouvernement veut renforcer. Et que penser des proclamations sur la sauvegarde du climat quand on torpille le rail en faveur de la route ? / France, (...) / France, Économie, Finance, Région, Service public, Transports - 2018/04

Iran’s proxies have seized power in Baghdad—and are gutting the state.

Washington needs an endgame in Ukraine.

Now at 100, Henry Kissinger remains a larger-than-life statesman, strategist, and scholar. Alongside intellectual titans such as George Kennan and Zbigniew Brzezinski, his story intertwines with post-World War II American foreign policy. A recent flurry of articles and editorials that spanned news outlets, think tanks, and policy platforms were put out to celebrate Kissinger’s centennial and commemorate his legacy.

Kissinger, despite now being a hundred, is still known for his unending intellectual curiosity and scholarly pursuits, and he constantly demonstrates his exceptional ability to adapt and delve into new subjects, keeping himself dynamically engaged with the world. Nowhere is this more evident than in his most recent book, The Age of AI: And Our Human Future. In it, Kissinger teamed up with Eric Schmidt, the former executive chairman of Google, and Daniel Huttenlocher, dean of MIT’s College of Computing, to grapple with the latest challenge to our conventional lives: artificial intelligence, or AI as it is more commonly known.

Kissinger’s expertise in global politics and security lend credibility to the book’s analysis. Overall, the tome is an attempt to articulate a framework for the transformative nature of AI and its potential to reshape the dynamics of military engagements beyond merely augmenting existing capabilities, as AI itself fundamentally alters the strategies, tactics, and doctrines employed by armed forces worldwide.

However, what distinguishes The Age of AI is its profound exploration of how AI shapes human understanding and perception. Kissinger and his co-authors propose that AI’s capacity to access realms of reality beyond human comprehension carries significant implications for our traditional notions of reason, knowledge, and choice. They contend that the technology’s subtle influence on these foundational aspects of human cognition challenges the established worldview of the Enlightenment era and necessitates a reevaluation of our philosophical and ethical frameworks.

Some critics might contend that The Age of AI is merely an attempt by Kissinger to insert himself into one of the most trending topics of our time. Such assumptions would be incorrect; in a testament to his enduring intellectual vigor, Kissinger demonstrates a remarkable capacity to understand the broader implications of profound technological development upon multiple spheres of human and political life. He regularly works with Schmidt and Huttenlocher to elucidate the transformative impact that AI-derived technologies, like ChatGPT, will have on our lives. Together, they make a compelling case, rooted in the ideals of the Enlightenment era, for comprehending and embracing the immense changes that lie ahead.

For example, in a joint Wall Street Journal piece written in February of this year, the three co-authors claim that “the essential difference between the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of AI is thus not technological but cognitive.” They go on to explain that, “after the Enlightenment, philosophy accompanied science. Bewildering new data and often counterintuitive conclusions, doubts, and insecurities were allayed by comprehensive explanations of the human experience. Generative AI is similarly poised to generate a new form of human consciousness.” Similar to their previous work, Kissinger and his co-authors conclude their essay with a poignant reminder that AI poses numerous unanswered questions, and as humans, we have yet to adapt adequately and fast enough to the challenges of this new age.

As Kissinger crosses his centennial milestone, the world finds itself in a position to evaluate and contemplate the legacy of one of the most influential American statesmen of the twentieth century. Yet, true to his nature as a scholar and deep thinker, he has refused to stay behind in the twentieth century and has instead demonstrated a commitment to staying at the forefront of contemporary conversations. Kissinger’s willingness to delve into the complex and rapidly evolving realm of AI highlights his continued intellectual vitality and his dedication to understanding and grappling with the profound challenges and opportunities presented by this transformative technology. By engaging with the AI conversation, Kissinger exemplifies his enduring commitment to knowledge, growth, and tackling the most relevant intellectual topics in our ever-changing world.

Mohammed Soliman is the director of the Cyber Security and Emerging Technology Program at the Middle East Institute. You can find him on Twitter at @Thisissoliman.

Image: Shutterstock.

Launched in 2013, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—a global infrastructure and development strategy that aims to connect Asia, Africa, and Europe through a network of land and maritime trade routes—was a significant turning point in China’s foreign policy and has become one of the most ambitious and far-reaching development initiatives in history. It is also regarded by many in the West, the United States especially, as a not-so-subtle attempt by Beijing to reshape regional political orders in its favor.

In this light of this, it is worth considering the BRI’s impact in the Middle East. The region, home to a growing middle class, is home to several key international energy and sea trade routes. China’s heavy investment in the Middle East in recent years, including through the BRI, is thus of particular concern to Washington. Reviewing how such efforts have fared over the past decade may yield some interesting insights.

Why BRI Matters to the Middle East

The BRI is primarily a series of projects (comprising both traditional physical and digital infrastructure) designed to connect and integrate cooperating partners—cities, markets, and countries—across regions. Given this, a particular partner’s degree of connectivity plays a larger role than other factors, such as regime type or market share.

For Middle East countries, favorable geopolitical location and integration into key facets of the global economy play an essential role in China’s BRI framework. Consequently, China has developed a deep commercial presence in port cities and industrial parks that link the Persian Gulf to the Arabian, Red, and Mediterranean Seas. Myriad observers regard this presence as a way for China to secure its energy supplies, expand its trade, and gain a foothold in the region.

China’s engagement in the Middle East can be attributed to two primary drivers. First, it seeks to be recognized as a great power status domestically and by other states. The Middle East is a strategically important region, and China’s engagement is seen as a way to increase its influence and stake in the global order. Second, it aimed to secure its economic interests in the region through the BRI framework and continued access to energy resources on which it is heavily dependent. The BRI is thus a means for China to increase its channels for exporting goods, reduce trade friction, improve access to natural resources, build supply chains, and generate opportunities for Chinese companies to invest overseas and sell goods and services. To that end, over the past ten years, it has integrated the BRI framework with the Middle East countries’ national development strategies.

As the BRI is a long-term initiative that will continue to evolve in the coming years, Beijing will need to carefully assess the success and impact of its projects in the Middle East to make informed decisions on how to proceed. The success of the framework in the Middle East depends on several factors, including the economic and political stability of the region, the quality of the BRI projects, and the willingness of host countries to cooperate with China. More importantly, BRI projects are essential for underdeveloped Middle East states dependent on external creditors to establish critical physical and digital infrastructures. These projects are already in operation or are entering the second and third phases of development. Unless alternative creditors support further development, countries in the Middle East will continue to depend on and work with China.

Assessing BRI Projects in the Middle East

Currently, BRI projects span fifteen Middle East nations and include major infrastructural and digital projects on land and sea. The status of these projects varies, with some being planned, ongoing, completed, halted, or canceled, providing insight into the present overall situation of BRI. Developing a deeper understanding can be challenging, however, due to 1) deliberate opacity surrounding BRI projects on both the Chinese and host regional countries’ sides and 2) the sheer scale of the initiative, which spans large swathes of continents.

This lack of transparency is a major challenge for researchers and policymakers trying to understand BRI and its implications. Nonetheless, there is still a great amount of information available to consider. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) China Connects database, for example, provides a valuable overview of China's BRI investment and lending in the Middle East. The database also includes information on  Digital Silk Road (DSR) investments, which can be understood to be the BRI’s technological component—a digital bridge-building project intended to promote a new type of globalization via digital trade, digital infrastructure, cross-border e-commerce, mobile financial tools, Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies (big data, digital currencies, cloud computing, and so on).

In any case, the IISS China Connects data demonstrates that China is investing heavily in the Middle East, with 266 BRI projects between 2005 and 2022 (see Table 1). Most of those are either ongoing or have been completed, and there are only a few projects that have been canceled or halted (see Table 2). This is a positive sign for China, showing that the initiative is gaining traction in the region.

Of note is what is being funded. The data shows that China is investing heavily in digital infrastructure in the region, which will likely continue in the coming years as Beijing seeks to expand its global reach. Chinese companies invested in 202 DSR projects (76 percent of the total investment) compared to 64 traditional physical infrastructure projects (24 percent). These investments are likely to have a major impact on the region’s economies and societies, and it will be important to monitor the impact of these investments in the coming years.

 

Breaking down by category, we see varying levels of progress. In regards to traditional physical infrastructure endeavors, out of 64 BRI projects, there are 4 planned projects, 20 projects ongoing, 37 projects completed, and 3 projects canceled (see Table 3).

 

In regards to digital infrastructure efforts, out of 202 DSR projects, there are 29 planned projects, 49 projects ongoing, 122 projects completed, and 2 projects halted (see Table 4).

Looking closer at what types of digital infrastructure projects are being supported reveals that China’s most significant investment involves transferring technology, telecom, fiber optic cables, security information system, and financial technology (see Table 5).

As for physical infrastructure, China's most significant investments are in ports, railways, Special Economic Zones, trade agreements, and Health Silk Road projects—i.e., projects related to improving public health. (see Table 6).

Drawing Conclusions

What the IISS China Connects database shows is that, out of the billions of dollars in loans and investments that China has to Middle Eastern countries since the launch of the BRI, most of these have been for digital infrastructure projects, such as telecommunications and broadband networks. This illustrates that contrary to the popular conception that BRI is wholly focused on physical infrastructure projects, there is significant demand for digital infrastructure.

That is not to say there isn’t any physical construction going on: roads, railways, and ports are certainly being built

At the same time though, the IISS database also shows that Chinese lending and investments in the Middle East have declined in recent years. This decline is likely due to several factors, including the global economic slowdown and the coronavirus pandemic.

Ultimately though, the IISS database is probably incomplete. Despite the BRI’s ambitious goals, there is little reliable information about how it unfolds. This is partly because there is no agreed-upon definition for what qualifies as a BRI project. As a result, projects that started years earlier are often counted, and the BRI banner hangs over a comprehensive and ever-expanding list of activities. By design, the BRI is more a loose brand than a program with strict criteria. This lack of clarity has made it difficult to accurately understand the BRI’s impact accurately. The result is competing interpretations of its effects: some have argued that the BRI is a major driver of economic growth and development, while others have warned that it leads to debt traps and environmental degradation.

What is certain, however, is that China is still the largest foreign investor in the Middle East, and it is likely to continue to play a critical role in the region’s development. The emphasis on digital infrastructure is something that most Western observers are perhaps unaware of and would do well to consider. In the meantime, as the BRI’s tenth anniversary passes by, China will take stock of its original agenda and make necessary adjustments to align with its current domestic and global priorities. The Middle East will remain a key region for the BRI, and it is evident that Beijing will continue its engagement for years to come.

Dr. Mordechai Chaziza is a senior lecturer at the Department of Politics and Governance and the Multidisciplinary Studies in Social Science division at Ashkelon Academic College (Israel) and a Research Fellow at the Asian Studies Department, University of Haifa. He specializes in Chinese foreign and strategic relations.

Image: Shutterstock.

How time flies in the Middle East, where a regional alliance can be formed at sunrise and then—surprise!—break up at sunset.

From that perspective, the relative durability of what became known as the “alliance of the periphery,” an informal strategic alliance between four non-Arab states in the Greater Middle East—Iran, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Israel—during much of the Cold War was significant. However, the grouping is now eclipsed by Israel’s thawing relations with its formerly most implacable foes, the Arab states.

In particular, Iran and Turkey, two prominent Muslim states, were willing to cooperate with the Jewish State when the Arab-Muslim countries and most of the Islamic world refused to recognize that Israel’s existence was quite remarkable.

Historians have suggested that Israel’s success in establishing close military ties with Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia derived from the implementation of the so-called “periphery doctrine.” The idea was the joint brainchild of Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, and his advisor Eliahu Sassoon, himself the first Israeli diplomatic representative in Ankara.

The two believed in forming alliances with non-Arab states and forces with which Israel had no direct conflict. This not only included Turkey, Iran, and Ethiopia, but also religious minorities, like the Christian Maronites in Lebanon, and non-Arab ethnic groups, such as the Kurds in Iraq. Cultivating a cohort of partners with shared interests would allow the Jewish State to emerge from its regional isolation.

Indeed, offsetting the diplomatic and economic boycott of the Arab World could be seen as part of a traditional balance of power strategy aimed at countering Egyptian Pan-Arabism, which had dominated the region since the mid-1950s.

Hence, while the Arabs saw Israel as a foreign intrusion dividing the Arab Middle East, the periphery doctrine promoted the notion of the Middle East as a mosaic of national, ethnic, and religious groups, including Israel.

Moreover, the fact of Turkey’s NATO membership and Iran and Ethiopia’s close relations with Washington and the West in the context of the Cold War dovetailed with Israel’s goal of thawing ties with the United States, which until the early 1960s imposed an arms embargo on the Jewish State.

Although Turkey and Iran initially sided with the Arabs and voted against the 1947 United Nations partition plan, they soon saw the Arab-Israeli conflict as limited to Israel and the Arab states rather than a pan-Islamic one. Ankara and Tehran had territorial disputes with the Arab states and considered them rivals for regional dominance.

Ethiopia, led by the “Lion of Judah” Emperor Haile Selassie (who, according to legend, was a descendant of King Solomon and Queen Sheba), established diplomatic relations with Israel that helped his country in its fight against Eritrean rebels.

Turkey recognized the State of Israel in 1949, and Iran later became the second Muslim state to do so in 1950. Before these dates, the two had even established low-level diplomatic relations with the Jewish State.

Much cooperation between Israel, Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia occurred behind the scenes between the respective militaries and the security services that dominated politics and policymaking in Tehran, Ankara, and Addis Ababa. Nevertheless, the nexus of ties never amounted to a genuine “strategic alliance.”

Iran and Turkey regarded their relationship with Israel as a way of hedging their bets and providing them with additional diplomatic and military resources to resist the pressure from aggressive Arab nationalist states. Nonetheless, geographical proximity, economic dependence on, and religious connections to the Arab World significantly constrained the ability of Tehran and Ankara to upgrade their ties with Israel, especially during the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars.

At the same time, Gurion and his successors regarded the periphery doctrine as a temporary strategy that needed to be sustained as long as the Arab nations refused to make peace with Israel. However, the periphery could not substitute for the central tenet in Israeli policy: peace with Arab Israel’s neighbors. Nor could it be an alternative to a strategic relationship with a global power like the United States.

The periphery doctrine proved, at best, a cost-effective form of realpolitik for Israel and eventually as a strategic illusion. Israel’s close relationship with Ethiopia and Iran collapsed after the fall of their ancien régimes and the ensuing political turmoil that engulfed each country.

Nor did the occasional military cooperation with the Maronites in Lebanon or the Kurds help terraform Israel’s position in the Middle East. If anything, in the case of Lebanon, it led to the catastrophe of the Israeli invasion of that country in 1982.

In the case of Turkey and Israel, the end of the Cold War, the democratization process in Turkey, and the strengthening of the alliance with the United States after the first Gulf War opened the door to improving the ties between Ankara and Jerusalem.

But contrary to the high expectations of neoconservative strategists, the relationship between the two countries didn’t evolve into a strategic alliance.

In fact, demonstrating the continuing sensitivity of Tukey to its ties with Arab World, it was the positive atmosphere in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in the early 1990s (the Oslo Accords) that made it possible to raise the mutual diplomatic relations to the ambassadorial level. A Turkish ambassador presented his credentials to President Chaim Herzog, on March 23, 1992, in Tel Aviv. The Israeli embassy is located in the capital city of Ankara.

However, the 2002 landslide victory of the conservative Islamist Justice and Development Party and its leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan marked a turning point in the ties between Israel and Turkey. Erdogan insisted that his policies toward the Jewish State would be directly affected by its policies toward the Palestinians.

Interestingly enough, the collapse of the alliance of the periphery was taking place just as Israel’s relationship with the Arab World was beginning to change, starting with the Israeli-Egypt peace agreement and followed by the Oslo Process and the peace treaty with Jordan.

Indeed, one of the reasons for the effort made by the United States to accelerate the Arab-Israeli peace process has been the loss of Iran and Ethiopia as strategic allies and the threat facing the Arab oil-producing states following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

From that perspective, solidifying the Arab-Israeli core to counterbalance the Iranian threat and the challenge of an assertive Turkey created the strategic environment for the signing of the Abraham Accords. Israel has expanded its ties with four more Arab countries, along with reports about the possible normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

These changes in the balance of power in the Arab-Israeli core may explain why Erdogan is seeking to improve relations with Israel. In the long run, the current Saudi-Iranian détente could encourage the Iranians to reassess their relationship with Israel.

Israel may have established the periphery alliance in the 1950s as a tool against its Arab rivals. But it seems that today a return to that alliance goes through reconciliation with the Arab World. Or, to put it differently, to reach the second circle in the Middle East, Israel has to make peace with the first.

Dr. Leon Hadar, a contributing editor at The National Interest, has taught international relations at American University and was a research fellow with the Cato Institute. A former UN correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, he currently covers Washington for the Business Times of Singapore and is a columnist/blogger with Israel’s Haaretz.

Image: Shutterstock.

But the two countries’ defense chiefs won’t be holding a meeting on the summit’s sidelines.

One could be forgiven for throwing up hands in despair at the multitude, severity, complexity, and convergence of threats the United States and its allies now face. From China, Russia, and Iran striving together to subvert the world order, to the worldwide rise of authoritarianism, human rights abuses and religious persecution, to fast-growing nuclear and missile threats, to a deluge of propaganda targeting the West, challenges to the Free World are formidable. Add to all this the malign acts and actors in the domains of cyber, energy, and space, along with the menace of transnational terrorism and trafficking, and the picture becomes more concerning. Renewed great power rivalry, heightened grey zone warfare, and escalating hostilities and atrocities in global hotspots call for a resolute, principled, and wise American foreign policy.

Metastasizing threats expose both the erosion of the post-World War II American foreign policy framework and the inadequacies of post-Cold War policies. Reeling from the horrors and devastation of fascism and total war, America resolved to stop expansionist aggression in its tracks and counter extremist ideologies with ideas of political liberty and human rights. During the Cold War, inspiring presidential speeches for freedom, the Voice of America radio broadcast, and U.S. leadership in democracy initiatives and international organizations existed alongside robust military alliances. But, after the Cold War, democracies let down their guard while enemies of freedom seized the day. Insufficient deterrence and resolve; modern relativism and uncertainty about what the Free World stands for and why; and the susceptibility of open, digital age societies to demagoguery and disinformation created openings for anti-democratic powers.

Today, the ideas that we will “never again” ignore intensifying dangers to our humanity and our security and that a Pax Americana will preserve the rules-based international order have been overtaken by reality. Russia’s success (along with Iran and Hezbollah) in saving murderous Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, its war of conquest in Ukraine, and China’s rapid and massive military build-up and planned subjugation of Taiwan, are among the indicators that we live in a very different world from the one envisioned when the Berlin Wall collapsed. The fact that there are now prison camps in China, North Korea, and Russia to rival those under twentieth-century totalitarianism adds to the disheartening picture. So does the fact that China is steadfastly increasing its nuclear and missile arsenal while North Korean and Iranian nuclear and missile programs are progressing alarmingly.

Furthermore, China’s seat on the UN Human Rights Council and Iran’s leadership of the Council’s Social Forum are glaring reminders of the UN’s deviation from its stated ideals. So too is the way authoritarian regimes succeed in obstructing UN penalties for each other’s extreme human rights violations and breaches of international protocols.

Authoritarian Defense Cooperation

China, Russia, and Iran provide diplomatic cover for the foreign policy misdeeds of each other and constitute an anti-Western axis. Their expansive partnerships enhance the power of all three and impair U.S. influence. They benefit from trade, weapon and technology transfers, joint military exercises, and sanctions breaches. Their militaries recently participated in a third trilateral drill in the Gulf of Oman and the North Arabian Sea. Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian recently announced that the comprehensive strategic accord forged last year between Iran and China has entered into force. China and Russia implicitly support Iran’s brutal crackdown on brave protestors, and China provides Iran with technology for repression.

Iran supplies attack drones and munitions, while China provides dual-use rifles, body armor, drones, and financial support, for Russia’s ferocious assault on Ukraine. The only “peace” China wants in Ukraine will advantage Russia and strengthen Chinese influence over Europe. Trade between China and Russia rose to $190 billion last year, and China’s imports of Russian energy have increased to $88 billion since Russia launched a full-scale war. Building on Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin’s “unlimited partnership,” Chinese defense minister Li Shangfu recently pronounced that China and Russia would “expand military ties, military-technical ties and arms trade.”

Moreover, Pentagon officials have warned that Russia is providing highly enriched uranium for China’s rapidly expanding nuclear program, that Russia and China are producing space weapons to attack U.S. satellites and bypass U.S. missile defense systems, and that China’s overall military might is on a trajectory to surpass the United States.

Russia and China’s Growing Influence in the Middle East

In backing anti-democratic forces and dictators across the region, worst among them Syria’s murderous Bashar al-Assad, Russia and Iran have pushed the Middle East backward. China, until recently, acted behind the scenes to capitalize on the growing vacuum of U.S. influence. Now it energetically concludes commercial and strategic deals across the Middle East. The recent strengthening of energy, defense, economic and technological partnerships between China and Saudi Arabia and the détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran negotiated by Beijing are on everyone’s mind. Especially bad for human rights, the Saudi-led Arab League member states agreed to a statement endorsing China’s “efforts” and “position” in Hong Kong and “rejecting Taiwan’s independence in all its forms.”

China’s peacemaker status gives it another wedge against America’s hard and soft power and another step forward in creating a China-oriented world order. China’s trade with the Middle East now exceeds that of the United States.

The deterioration of U.S. relations with regional partners and allies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Iran’s brazen regional provocations and steadily advancing nuclear program are signs of the times. The United States must, on the one hand, stand firmly against aggressors and atrocity committers and, on the other, cultivate partnerships with countries that, while less than ideal partners from our democratic perspective, can help deter the Free World’s gravest threats. Developing these partnerships need not preclude applying behind-the-scenes pressure regarding human rights nor making arms deals contingent upon basic alignment with American priorities.

Recalling how disparate malign forces capitalized on the conflict in Syria is helpful as we consider how to deal with emerging and converging threats today: Obama administration officials and Arab and European leaders sat idle and quiet as Assad’s brutal crackdown on peaceful protests turned into a war on civilians. They continued to do and say little after Iran and Russia entered the war on Assad’s side and Damascus’ terrible hostilities and atrocities escalated. The White House even entertained Russia’s supposed “peace plans,” which only bought Assad time and cover for more aggression.

Neglect by the United States and the international community under the Obama administration allowed Iran, Russia, and extremist groups, such as al-Nusra Front, Hezbollah, and ISIS, to grow in influence. The Trump administration focused on defeating ISIS but not on the whole confluence of threats. Instead, President Donald Trump continued the moral and strategic retreat trajectory emphasized by the simplistic mantras of avoiding “endless war” and “America First.” Thus, Russia attained power broker status in Syria and military bases from which it tested weapons now used against Ukraine. Iranian militias wreaked endless havoc in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and elsewhere. Terror groups and drug traffickers gained new footholds. Today, Syria is not just a playground for extremists; it is a narco-state.

The appalling move of many Arab League countries and some Western countries toward normalizing relations with Assad, and President Joe Biden’s apparent acceptance of that trend, reveals an ongoing deficit of U.S. leadership. Making matters worse, the Biden administration failed to build on the Abraham Accords negotiated by the Trump administration and enacted the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. Pivots from one region to another that forget the worldwide interconnectedness of modern threats, simplistic equations of hard power with “boots on the ground” and soft power with “cultural appropriation” gave enemies vacuums to fill.

Global Infiltration

Iran, Russia, and China are not only united against the Free World: they’ve created worldwide partnerships with dictatorships and radical forces. Take Iran’s tangled web: Putin’s Belarusan ally Alexander Lukashenko recently visited Iran, where he and President Ebrahim Raisi signed a “cooperation roadmap document.” Iran arms and sponsors Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Shia militias in Iraq. To add to the complex inter-connectedness, Iran uses Syria as a hub for weapons proliferation, relies on bad actors in the UN to relieve pressure on its nuclear program, and benefits from a flourishing arms trade with North Korea.

China’s global network, combined with China’s formidable power, is particularly alarming. Having focused more on mutually profitable economic interaction than on the dramatic rise of China’s military might and geopolitical clout, the West now faces a significant threat to the Free World’s security and way of life. Western dependence on Chinese goods and supply chains and China’s major commercial agreements and loans on every continent augment Chinese power. China has spent over $900 billion on Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) infrastructure, transportation, and mining projects in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and beyond into Europe and the Americas. Despite setbacks, the BRI has led not only to new security agreements and ports and docking rights for China’s fast-expanding navy but also to the insidious expansion of Chinese information and surveillance technology. The China-Myanmar Economic Corridor and Cambodia’s Ream military base are among new avenues for China’s imperialistic drive.

With minimal pushback until recently, China embedded influencers in Western universities who advanced anti-American goals through Confucius Institutes, sinology programs, and joint scientific research. China has benefited from decades of aggressive espionage and intellectual property theft. Thus, another hazardous confluence we must address is that between certain Western elites and the Chinese government.

Russia, China, and Iran have all dramatically increased their footprint in South America with commercial investments, arms sales, and leasing deals that may lead to military installations. They, along with Cuba, support the extremist socialist dictatorships of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Russian militias and Iranian drones have helped Venezuela stamp out dissent. Venezuela even hosted Iranian, Russian, and Chinese war games in 2022. Honduras’s decision to drop diplomatic relations with Taiwan, Brazil’s enthusiasm for “deepening ties” with Beijing, and the spread of Confucius Institutes across the region, speak to China’s growing influence.

The alignment of diverse actors working against U.S. interests and the various methods they deploy compound the current challenge. Aggressors see proxy battles, cyber-attacks, energy blackmail, financial exploitation, political corruption, and criminal activity as weapons cooperating with military power. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea pose the world’s biggest cybersecurity threats, with relentless attacks on democracies. Russia is particularly adept at using paramilitary organizations and disinformation campaigns to destabilize, divide and dominate. China plays an especially strong hand in international organizations and fora. In addition to seeking predominance in, and corrupting, the UN, the WHO, the World Bank, BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean states, Xi recently formed “Global Development,” “Global Security,” and “Global Civilization” initiatives.

The United States must capitalize on cases where China, Russia, and Iran have proven dangerous and duplicitous partners. Although more and more governments have sided with China, the Chinese people are usually leery of authoritarian power. America must again become a voice for the oppressed, a beacon of freedom, and a steadfast ally. China’s human rights abuses, especially its genocide of Uyghurs, are horrific. U.S. leaders should stress to non-aligned countries the dire human rights implications for their citizens and others of aligning with the Chinese Communist Party. The United States and its allies must accelerate defense spending, modernization, and military-strategic cooperation. They must demonstrate willingness and capacity to fight for Taiwan if necessary while at the same time working feverishly to deter and preempt China and avoid war.

NATO’s 2022 Annual Report, released this March, cites “the gravest threat to Euro-Atlantic security in decades” and “a more complex and volatile security environment.” The Baltic and Balkan states, in addition to the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea zones, will be further vulnerable if Russia prevails in Ukraine. The Russian military has indeed suffered major setbacks and rejuvenated NATO, but Moscow and its allies see that Western military assistance was incremental. Moreover, the war in Ukraine has not stopped Russia from cyberattacks, information warfare, energy blackmail, and the cultivation of compromised leaders around Europe.

The Need for American Resolve

Adversaries have tested the U.S. resolve and found it lacking. Counting on Washington’s vacillation, they think they can outlast Washington. Indeed, the American response to fast-growing, often interconnected challenges to our security and way of life is too often lumbering, insufficient and unimaginative. Since the end of the Cold War, too few U.S. leaders can or do articulate what the Free World stands for and why. Too few accept the contingencies of hard power or appreciate the wisdom of “peace through strength.” Measures to deter Russia did not prevent hostilities, atrocities, and devastation. That should inform the American and allied deterrence of China and support for Taiwan.

China is pushing the idea of a new world order, and countless countries, international organizations, groups, and entities have, in one way or another, to a smaller or larger extent, signed on. In the meantime, the United States has lost momentum while remaining a great power. America too often appears uncertain or caught off guard. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs and increasing global human rights violations and aggression call for American foreign policy that prioritizes national security, global stability, defense alliances, economic initiatives, and human rights all at once.

It is tempting to ignore some threats for others, pivot away from some regions, or give adversaries the benefit of the doubt. But the Free World lacks that luxury, for enemies of freedom are separately and collectively relentless. Some wonder whether ambivalent and weary America has what it takes to rise to the current challenge. Post-Cold War American foreign policy has generally been reactive rather than preemptive, lacking grand strategy or inspiring rhetoric. The world suffers when American foreign policy is unwise or unreliable and would benefit from a foreign policy revival, one that builds upon America’s best post-World War II traditions and, at the same time, finds new-age solutions for post-Cold War challenges.

Anne R. Pierce is an author, commentator, and scholar of the American presidency, foreign policy, and society. With a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, Pierce is an appointed member of Princeton University’s James Madison Society and was a Political Science Series Editor for Transaction Publishers. Pierce has written three books and contributed to three others. Her articles have been published in The National Interest, USA Today, US News, The Hill, Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, Providence Magazine, Society, Fox News, Ricochet, World and I,  USEmbassy.gov, and elsewhere.

Image: Shutterstock.

Spare satellites are critical for national security—or so the Defense Department believes. In recent months, space policymakers have explored creating a reserve space fleet. They argue that owning backup satellites, rockets, and remote sensing equipment—what economists call “excess capacity”—is a prudent response to growing space threats, especially from China. “It is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it,” as the old maxim goes. However, it’s far from certain these policies achieve their desired results.

The idea behind excess capacity is simple: governments take steps to maintain larger stocks of important assets than private parties alone would create. For example, the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program, established by Washington after the Berlin airlift, allows the U.S. government to use planes owned by participating commercial airlines during a crisis. The government pays to use the aircraft and gives airlines preferential status when bidding for contracts. Undoubtedly, the program means there are more unused planes than otherwise. For those who fled on those planes during the Afghanistan evacuation, that’s a feature, not a bug.

Historically, excess capacity considerations featured prominently in naval policy. The British Navigation Acts of the seventeenth century are a prime example. A pillar of the imperial-mercantilist regime, the Acts required British goods to be shipped on British ships with British crews. This undoubtedly resulted in excess profits for shipowners at the expense of reduced trade and higher prices for consumers—including the American colonists, who eventually took such great umbrage at these policies (among others) that they separated from the mother country. But it also meant the government could prepare the navy for war faster. Given frequent conflicts with the Dutch, another great maritime power, policies ensuring an ample stock of seaworthy vessels and experienced sailors were prudent for national security.

Adam Smith, the godfather of modern economics, did the world a service by debunking the mercantilist argument that maintaining a favorable trade balance was the key to national wealth. But even he could not totally condemn the Navigation Acts. Although he recognized these protectionist measures were hotbeds of cronyism, he also believed they weakened the Dutch, making British shipping safer. Defense is “of much more importance than opulence,” Smith counseled in The Wealth of Nations. The logic of his argument is the same today as it was 250 years ago.

Similar to the Navigation Acts, the Jones Act in the U.S. reserves trade between American ports to American-made, American-owned, and American-crewed ships. There is no question this makes shipping more costly than otherwise. The justification for the law is maintaining a healthy domestic shipbuilding industry and a robust merchant marine to augment regular naval forces.

Most economists think the Jones Act is a lousy piece of legislation. But not all. Joshua Hendrickson, chair of the economics department at the University of Mississippi, has a contrarian perspective on U.S. maritime policy. Hendrickson finds merit in the classic argument that shipbuilders and the merchant marine, which “can be used for sealift and otherwise diverted or requisitioned for defense purposes,” provide a valuable service during conflicts. Hence the Jones Act should thus be interpreted as a strategic bargain between the government and maritime sectors to maintain national readiness.

Hendrickson claims Jones Act critics overestimate the costs of the law because they get the counterfactual wrong. Repealing the Act would require foreign-flagged ships to “be subject to the same tax, labor, and immigration laws as U.S.-flagged ships.” In a world of second-best policies, government-protected profits for the maritime sector are an adaptive response to the social benefits of having a ready naval auxiliary.

But many trade policy analysts deny this works in practice. Writing for the Cato Institute, Colin Grabow contends the Jones Act has instead caused “dwindling numbers of ships, mariners, and shipyards.” In other words, he claims that the law cannot be justified even on national security grounds. In place of the Jones Act, Grabow recommends establishing a civilian merchant marine reserve, subsidizing wages for merchant mariners, and using foreign mariners during wartime.

All of this is relevant to space policy. There’s growing consensus that space is a warfighting domain. Accordingly, the U.S. Space Force is considering a program called the Commercial Augmentation Space Reserves to ensure an adequate supply of space materiel. America’s armed forces increasingly rely on space-based assets, such as satellite communications networks, for force coordination and projection. What once was the realm of science fiction is now a live concern, as the importance of Starlink satellite internet to Ukraine’s defense recently showed. International rivals such as China and Russia are becoming increasingly adept at targeting space assets; as conflict looms, it’s more important than ever to ensure replacements can be mobilized quickly.

But investments in excess capacity might not be the right approach. Such investments may seem like an obviously desirable insurance policy. The problem is that humans are fallible, and sometimes policymakers act out of self-interest. Private businesses, too, regularly game the system to secure political profits. All excess-capacity policies ultimately grant such profits to privileged suppliers, who will not easily relinquish them even when required by the national interest. If the attempt to bolster supplies hollows out the industries it’s meant to protect, as Jones Act critics contend, we will get the worst of both worlds.

Government-created excess capacity has been a fact of economic and political life for centuries. It isn’t going away anytime soon. But that doesn’t mean we can wash our hands of the debate. As America confronts rising hostile powers and revanchist nations across the globe, we must determine whether these policies actually make us safer and freer.

Alexander William Salter is the Georgie G. Snyder Associate Professor of Economics in the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University, a research fellow at TTU’s Free Market Institute, and a Young Voices contributor.

Image: Shutterstock.

There is one thing on which seemingly every observer of the war in Ukraine can agree: this war isn’t ending anytime soon.

Russia’s hope—and much of the world’s expectation—of a swift victory was dashed by the stunning repulse outside Kyiv last winter. Despite combined casualties of perhaps 300,000 soldiers, both countries are still seeking victory. It doesn’t appear to be imminent for either side. Russia’s vaunted winter push was a bloody failure, while the recent Department of Defense intelligence leak included U.S. doubts about the prospects for Ukraine’s impending offensive. Vladimir Putin and Volodomyr Zelensky, politically hemmed in by their own ultra-nationalists, are both unable to make major concessions for peace right now, should either even want to.

But Ukrainian endurance for a long war relies almost entirely on outside aid. The majority of military aid—$47 billion of a total of $69 billion to date—comes from the United States. This situation is neither desirable nor sustainable for America, Europe, or Ukraine.

After fifteen months of fighting, Americans are increasingly divided about picking up the bill for this war. A Reuters/Ipsos poll has tracked a year-long decline in American public support for providing military aid to Ukraine, from 73 percent to 58 percent. With the stubborn persistence of inflation, the growing challenge of China, and a federal debt showdown in progress, American wariness about a major, long-term aid commitment to Ukraine is warranted.

President Joe Biden has provided calibrated but consistent support for Ukraine. His potential opponents in 2024 are unlikely to be as steadfast. Both of the leading Republican contenders, Donald Trump and Florida governor Ron DeSantis, view the war as a “territorial dispute” and seek speedy resolution. 

For the United States, Ukraine is not a vital national interest. Even liberal internationalists like the Brookings Institution’s Robert Kagan have conceded that the conflict “does not pose a direct threat to the ‘national interest.’” The Biden administration’s National Defense Strategy rightly labels China, not Russia, as the United States’ most “consequential strategic competitor.” For America, defeating Putin’s invasion is the right thing to do, but it is not an essential thing to do.

Ukraine is far more important to Europe, even if Russia’s manifest military incompetence means that the immediate threat to the rest of the continent is minimal. Four NATO members border Ukraine; the largest, Poland, has already seen ordnance land on its territory. But European nations remain unwilling and unable to check Russia on their own.

Although they contribute an almost identical percentage to global GDP as the United States and boast an additional 100 million citizens, European countries have struggled, collectively and individually, to meet the material demands of the Ukrainian war effort. Decades-long defense neglect has resulted in paltry munitions stockpiles. Germany and Great Britain, with two of the biggest defense budgets on the continent, face dire ammunition shortages for their own forces: each has about enough ammunition for a week of high-intensity combat.

Though total European Union defense spending surpassed €200 billion this past year, EU policymakers quickly learned that funding is moot without production capacity. The European defense industrial base comprises several dozen large firms and 2,500 smaller firms—tens of thousands fewer than the United States. The continent’s defense industrial base is shallow, unable to produce sophisticated equipment at scale. Europe, as the Ukrainians quickly learned, operates up to five times as many different versions of key weapons systems, like tanks and artillery pieces, as the United States. Europe’s target for a revitalized defense industrial base is 2030, but this is an extremely optimistic goal.

The U.S. defense industrial base has also struggled to meet Ukrainian needs, but America’s armaments producers are in better shape than Europe’s. The U.S. Army’s multi-year acquisitional contract model has driven upsurge efforts, creating a steady, augmentable, production stream. The United States entered 2023 producing 14,000 155mm artillery shells a month— 236,000 shells short of Ukraine’s monthly request. Changes in procurement policy have enabled a major expansion: 155mm shell production will increase six-fold within five years.

In the meantime, the United States has drawn on its stockpiles. While this induces a limited degree of strategic risk, the majority of these weapons and munitions were set aside for a potential war against the USSR and then Russia. If they can cripple the Russian military in Ukrainian hands, they are doing what they were meant to do.

While Europe’s defense industries begin the slow and painful path to sufficiency, European money can fill the gap, via American arms and ammunition. For example, Ukrainian tankers will soon begin training on the American M1 Abrams main battle tank. The United States has over 3,000 M1s in storage, far more than it will ever conceivably need, especially as Russia resorts to pulling T-54s and T-55s out of storage to equip its battered brigades. When Ukraine inevitably needs more tanks after the attrition from this coming offensive, European NATO members could purchase a chunk of America’s mothballed M1s and pay for their delivery to Ukraine.

For more squeamish alliance members, paying for most of the non-military aid, currently at $89 billion, is a good option. 

There is a good precedent for such an arrangement: during the First Gulf War, the United States was able to crowdsource over $50 billion from thirty-nine coalition members, though only sixteen countries had forces in the combat zone. Japan, constitutionally restricted from sending troops, paid $13 billion of the war’s cost.

In the long term, Europe needs a more robust defense industrial base and far larger munitions stockpiles. But for the immediate future, buying American can equip Ukrainian troops, attrit the Russian Armed Forces, and ensure Europe has the breathing room to rearm—as Russia surely will.

Training and logistical chokepoints have and will inevitably slow the provision of military aid to Ukraine. But greater European commitment will ensure that Western military aid to Ukraine will be politically, financially, and logistically sustainable. Germany’s recent $3 billion arms package was good news, but far more is needed. Europe is overdue to rearm and reassert itself on its own continent. Picking up most of the bill for Ukraine’s defense against Russia is a needed, and overdue, first step.

Gil Barndollar is a senior fellow at Defense Priorities and a senior research fellow at the Catholic University of America’s Center for the Study of Statesmanship.

Luke Cocchi is a research assistant at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship and a former Defense Security Cooperation Agency researcher.

Image: Shutterstock.

The world’s two largest economies are walking a tightrope between bad blood and good business.

Washington should start letting other countries take the lead.

Test yourself on the week of May 27: Another round of airstrikes batters Syria, a Senegalese opposition leader is arrested, and China makes another appeal for peace.

L'accès à l'eau dépend d'une vaste infrastructure technique. Les réflexions sur les conflits hydriques balayent bien souvent ce constat ordinaire au profit d'une idée générale et généreuse : il faudrait considérer cette ressource comme un bien commun, et il en découlerait un « droit à l'eau » qui (...) / Environnement, Eau, Infrastructures - 2023/06

Signaling neediness to an adversary has never been effective.

Kais Saied’s government refuses to reckon with the country’s rampant anti-Semitism.

As U.S.-China tension increases, so does discussion about whether European states are pulling their weight.

Moscow ramped up its efforts to make Ukrainians Russian. Ukraine is planning to fight back.