Diplomacy & Crisis News

Paris is ramping up military spending. But critics worry it’s going to the wrong places.

The case for reimagining—not abandoning—globalization.

Ukraine needs a measured lustration policy to strengthen security and rebuild democracy.

Amid a financing push for modern infrastructure, existing problems may go overlooked.

From Quebec to Ukraine, nowhere on Earth is untouched by climate change’s catastrophic reach.

“We shouldn’t expect coherence on China policy when the United States is inherently incoherent on it.”

Washington DC was completely obscured by smoke on June 8; a consequence of Canadian wildfires occurring several hundred miles away. The situation was uncomfortably symbolic of the importance of foreign policy: something happening far away can still affect the daily lives of people in a separate country, including political leaders and decisionmakers.

But the smoke’s obscuring effect was also symbolic of the state of conservative foreign policy in Washington, best exemplified by, coincidentally happening at the same time, The American Conservative’s tenth foreign policy conference: somewhat unclear, though with a visible goal in the yonder distance.

The magazine’s history is reflective of American conservatives’ own evolution over the past few decades on foreign policy matters: it was founded by disaffected paleoconservatives and others who opposed the mainstream conservative movement’s endorsement of the Iraq war, its well known for consistently critiquing the current state of American foreign policy and related topics (globalization, mass immigration, neoconservative interventions, etc.), it aligned with Donald Trump’s populist movement, and it is now a leading publication—if not the unofficial voice—of the American “New Right.” Its annual conference—with Congressmen (arriving on time!), staffers, foreign policy experts, journalists, political activists, and students attending—is thus a rich opportunity to gauge the state of thinking on the U.S. political Right.

At present, that thinking is broadly critical of Washington’s current approach to foreign policy, along with the principles and ideas that underlie that approach—the universality of liberal (if not progressive) and democratic values, a conviction that illiberalism (in any measure) is an existential threat, a generous interpretation of what constitutes the national interest, an equally generous understanding of what means can be used to pursue said interests, and so on.

In contrast, New Right conservatives lean strongly toward realism—or rather, their values are more congenial to those that underline realism. These include: a conviction on the importance of national sovereignty and non-interventionism in the affairs of foreign countries (unless absolutely necessary, conservatively understood); an appreciation of power politics and the struggle between states; prudence and caution, preferring a stable international environment over pursuing idealistic but potentially risky endeavors that promote liberal values; a strong skepticism of global governance and international institutions; and a conservative understanding of human imperfection and our flawed nature, along with a deep apprehension of any endeavor that would seek to surpass or ignore such.

Much of this was discernible given the various speakers’ comments. “If you think wars end by good defeating evil, you’re not realistic,” declared Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), one of the conference’s featured speakers. Similarly, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), giving a keynote, stated that he identifies as “a constitutional realist” who sees “foreign policy first through the lens of our constitution,” including that Congress must reclaim its power to declare war. “The people who comprise the blob have been badly, consistently wrong,” he went on, calling for the inclusion of alternative viewpoints in the foreign policy discourse.

These views translate into a more realist and restraint-oriented policy. Consider the War in Ukraine. Attendees of this event expressed sympathy towards Ukrainians fighting against Russia’s invasion but do not believe that Kyiv should be given a blank check to “fight authoritarianism” all the way to Moscow. What is the American political objective in this conflict? To what extent are we willing to engage in a proxy war with Russia? When and how will the conflict end? Conservatives here note that such questions are going notably unanswered in the halls of power. Lee critiqued the politics surrounding the Ukraine debate, including that “anyone raising dissent or questions is immediately labeled a Putin apologist.”

Likewise, the topic of China and its challenge featured prominently. This is a particularly interesting issue, given that it was the Trump administration that emphasized the China challenge and forced the Washington foreign policy set to abandon its old approach to Beijing. Curiously, the roles are now somewhat reversed; neoconservatives and the foreign policy establishment, realists believe, are becoming dangerously hawkish. “Adopting a Cold War mindset regarding China would have horrible consequences here at home,” warned Dan Caldwell, the newish vice president of the Center for Renewing America. Meanwhile, Michael Anton, the famous/notorious (depending on your political inclinations) Trump administration staffer and essayist, counseled that “if the anti-Chinese rhetoric remains focused on security instead of economics, we’re going to wind up somewhere really dumb.” Sen. Paul was particular on this topic, acknowledging that if “you come to my Republican caucus and you’ll hear the beating of drums. These are drums for war with whomever, but primarily war with China. Everything is about war with China.” Paul warned against this trend, emphasizing that “strategic ambiguity has kept the peace for fifty years,” and overturning that would be courting disaster.

For realists and those oriented toward realism, this all sounds well and good. The goal of this movement is clear: a more sane, restrained, and cautious foreign policy that places America’s national interests (more strictly defined) first. The problem, however, is that there are two major obstacles to their ambitions.

The first is that conservative realists at this event (and further afield) share an unfortunate trait with their Washington DC blob nemeses: a Western-centrism that blinds them to events unfolding abroad. Outside of the principal spheres and topics of importance—China, Russia, Europe, and Middle Eastern forever wars—very little to nothing was said about what is happening in the rest of the world. Latin America is often mentioned in passing either as a component of the mass immigration question or in the context of having to reinforce the Monroe Doctrine to ward off foreign interference in the Western Hemisphere. Africa is barely talked about. Central and Southeast Asia goes unmentioned. One could retort this is being nitpicky or that these regions do not present a direct or strong challenge to American interests as Russia and China do. Yet the observation does raise a question: how do conservative realists and restrainers intend to dramatically affect U.S. foreign policy if they lack informed views, policies, or even experts on what happens outside of Washington’s typical narrow focus?

Consider, for instance, that in the coming multipolar world, where America jockeys with China and Russia for influence, Central Asia will assume outsized importance given its energy reserves, trade routes, and growing economic strength. U.S. policy toward the region will require knowledgeable individuals who understand Central Asian geopolitical dynamics, speak one or more relevant languages (Russian, Chinese, Kazakh, Uzbekh, etc.), and can articulate why the region merits more attention. Do realists, especially conservatives, have enough qualified people to fill these roles? If they do not, then their political opponents will fill these spots by default, some of whom might very well push non-realist views or enact more culture-war-oriented policies that conservatives are diametrically and virulently opposed to.

This dovetails to the second obstacle bedeviling conservative realists: how will they achieve their goals? The lesson the New Right took from the Trump administration is that even if you control the presidency, policy is ultimately executed by a vast army of staffers, appointees, and more—personnel that the New Right currently lacks. A few of suggestions were thrown up: the utilization of Schedule F to “shatter the deep state” and appoint realists to positions of power or to identify, train, and prepare a new generation of young Americans who can fulfill this role. It’s worth noting that young students and staffers—especially from American Moment, an organization whose explicit goal is to prepare the next generation of realist-oriented conservatives—made up a large proportion of the conference’s attendees. Yet given the vast numbers required to operate the U.S. foreign policy apparatus, fielding this new army of conservative realists will take years of preparation and significant resources.

Conservative realists know this and retort, not unfairly, that the primary focus right now is raising awareness and fighting for greater numbers. Adherents to this worldview, though rising, are still very much in the political minority; fighting to claim greater numbers to be able to properly challenge the pro-interventionist foreign policy establishment takes priority. Perhaps it was recently-elected, casually-dressed, Peter-Zeihan-reading, rather authentic Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ) who best captured this sentiment, expressing that the Republican Party has not yet fully grappled with the sheer number of geopolitical and technological changes that have occurred in only a few decades.

This is quite probably true, but not only must the Party grapple with these changes; conservative realists must also grapple with the reality that they face a long, uphill battle. They may have their eyes on the summit, but getting there will be harder than they anticipate.

Carlos Roa is the Executive Editor of The National Interest.

Image: Office of Sen. Rand Paul/Twitter.

The recent flare-up in northern Kosovo between NATO peacekeeping troops and ethnic Serbians has reminded the world that while the brutal war in Ukraine may be the greatest threat to European stability at the moment, it is by no means the only one.

On May 29, Serb protestors clashed with NATO troops after the authorities in Kosovo attempted to escort newly elected mayors into government administration buildings in the Serb-dominated northern municipalities. The ethnically Albanian mayors were elected in November 2022 with a meager voter turnout of 3.5 percent, as ethnic Serbians in the region boycotted the elections as part of their ongoing struggle with Kosovo’s government. This came on the heels of the July 2022 decision in Pristina, the country’s capital, to force Serbs in the region to adopt Kosovo license plates rather than Serbian ones.

Although the matter may seem trivial to outside observers, the move was interpreted by many as simply the latest example of Pristina’s overreach. Though Kosovo officially proclaimed its independence in 2008, it was a contentious move that many countries do not recognize. Although the four Serb-majority northern municipalities compose a relatively small portion of the country, with ethnic Serbs composing only 6 percent of the country’s total population, a 2013 EU-brokered deal was meant to allow for a degree of self-rule in the region. The Serbs living in Kosovo have grown increasingly discouraged by Pristina’s failure to implement the terms of the agreement, a fact that both the United States and the EU have acknowledged.

Back in July, protestors set up a number of roadblocks in northern Kosovo following the initial move to alter licensing and registration. Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić described the gravity of the situation by stating that “we [authorities in Belgrade and Serbs in northern Kosovo] have never been in a more difficult situation”—quite a statement considering the region’s notorious volatility.

Nonetheless, Pristina decided to move forward with the mayoral elections despite calls from both Washington and Brussels to delay the vote. There was further cause for consternation when the Kosovar government then went on to ignore Western pressure to have the mayors conduct government operations from a remote location in order to avoid a potential physical clash with demonstrators obstructing access to municipality centers. This is exactly what happened when Pristina decided to use Kosovo law enforcement to forcibly escort the “elected” representatives into official administrative buildings being blocked by Serb protestors. The subsequent attempt by NATO peacekeeping forces to manage the turmoil resulted in dozens of injuries, including eleven Italians and nineteen Hungarians who were a part of the peacekeeping contingent. Over fifty Serb protestors were additionally injured. Belgrade responded to the incident by raising the combat readiness of Serbia’s armed forces to its highest level.

Both the United States and the European Union were swift in their condemnation of the Kosovo government. U.S. ambassador Jeff Hovenier tweeted out his disapproval of Pristina’s actions, stating that “today’s violent measures should be immediately halted.” On June 2, Secretary of State Antony Blinken further laid the blame at the feet of the country’s leadership and its course of “escalating tensions in the north and increasing instability.” An EU-brokered agreement to hold new mayoral elections in the northern municipalities was subsequently reached at a meeting in Moldova attended by Vučić, Kosovo president Vjosa Osmani, and EU high representative for foreign affairs Josep Borrell. French president Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Olaf Sholz were also present.

It remains to be seen whether the decision to conduct new elections will be enough to lower the tensions in the region. The present situation is a reminder that the United States, for better or worse, remains the ultimate arbiter in guaranteeing Kosovo’s independence and maintaining general stability in the region. This means that the authorities in Pristina must understand the necessity of playing to international audiences, especially those located in the halls of Washington. Prime Minister Albin Kurti has certainly acknowledged as much: the U.S. flag is often seen at his rallies, side by side with Kosovo’s national flag (as well as that of Albania).

Kurti has also attempted to defend his government’s actions by utilizing the current lexicon of U.S. domestic politics. He has continually equated the protestors in northern Kosovo to “right-wing extremist groups,” and took to Twitter to state that “in a democracy there is no place for fascist violence”—language eerily similar to U.S. president Joe Biden’s multiple references to political opposition that still support former president Donald Trump as “semi-fascists.” The protestors, according to Kurti, are “extremists and militias,” and do not represent “the people.” In the past, the prime minister notably feuded with Trump-appointed special envoy for Serbia and Kosovo Richard Grenell, and eagerly endorsed Biden for president in 2020.

For her part, Osmani has also recognized the importance of political narratives and curating the proper international image. She has presented her country as a besieged nation in a similar situation to that of Ukraine and its ongoing war with Russia. Meeting with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy on June 1 at the EU summit in Moldova, she later tweeted that “No one understands Ukraine’s pain, struggle and resilience better than the people of Kosovo.” She concluded with the statement that “nothing can stand in the way of a people’s will to be free.”

Outside the government administrative buildings in the northern Kosovo municipality of Zvecan, Serb protestors carried signs displaying a similar message: “We are not criminals, we just want freedom,” as well as “You will not drive us out of our homes.” In fact, the political dynamics of the situation in northern Kosovo are in many ways similar to that of eastern Ukraine. Much like Ukraine, Kosovo is a historically disputed territory that’s secession from its former arbiter of political control has not been accepted by a significant portion of the citizens in the country which it seceded from. Ethnic Serbs who found themselves in the newly independent Kosovo (exacerbated after its official independence in 2008) felt displaced from their rightful political home, much like some Russians in the Donbas felt in relation to Moscow, particularly after 2014.

It is no coincidence then that Kurti would claim that the Serb protestors in northern Kosovo are Moscow sympathizers. In an attempt to tie his own struggle to that of Kyiv against the destructive war waged by Vladimir Putin, Kurti also made specific reference to the fact that many protestors displayed the “Z of Russian aggression in Ukraine.” He would go on to state that “the pro-Russian elements in Serbia and the north of Kosovo want to destabilize everything that has been agreed so far.” Many Serbs in the region have been seen displaying their solidarity with Putin and Russia in general, ostensibly as a means for appealing to Moscow for support in the current situation.

Regarding the Kremlin’s stance, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov commented on the situation in Kosovo to Russian state media, saying that “a huge explosion is being prepared in the center of Europe, in the place where, in 1999, NATO attacked Yugoslavia, violating every imaginable (international) principle.”

This is an analysis shared by many ethnic Serbs. The potential for a wider conflagration is certainly a real possibility. However, the relative strength of the United States and the broader transatlantic alliance which it controls is a powerful incentive for Serbia to remain within the bounds of Western-dictated behavior.

The war in Ukraine may very well end up as a type of frozen conflict similar to the situation between Kosovo and Serbia. And much like the latter situation, the United States will almost certainly end up as the ultimate guarantor of the Ukrainian situation as it is for Kosovo. Policymakers should keep this fact in mind as they try to reach a settlement that accounts for the much more significant security implications surrounding a direct military challenge with Russia.

Dominick Sansone is a Ph.D. student at the Hillsdale College Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship. Previously a Fulbright recipient to Bulgaria, his writing on politics in the Black Sea region has been published by The National Interest, the Euromaidan Press, The American Conservative, and RealClear Defense, among other publications. He also previously wrote as a contributing columnist focusing on Russia-China relations at The Epoch Times.

Image: Shutterstock.

The post-Western, multipolar international order is coming to pass. As the world grapples with the implications of this shift in power, the foundations of a great reckoning are taking shape. This reckoning will challenge the long-held beliefs and structures that have sustained Western dominance of the world for the past few hundred years, exposing along the way the nature of the West’s perceived entitlement to lead the global pecking order. The end result will be a significant re-evaluation of international relations as we know it.

This great reckoning will be driven by five major trends, which are compelling Western nations to confront and adapt to a future where power must be shared with the rest in a multipolar world. A failure to recognize, or attempting to strongly resist, these trends could pose significant risks not only to the West itself but also to global stability. Yet future conflicts can be avoided if this period of change is viewed as an opportunity to build a more equitable world, rather than as a crisis that threatens preferred and entrenched privileges.

Five Trends to Consider

What future awaits the West—a smooth transition toward multipolarity or a period of instability and potential conflict—will largely depend on how policymakers respond to the following five trends.

First is the unravelling of the hitherto telling of history. The West, across its colonial history, has practiced and perfected the selective interpretation and telling of events, choosing to portray itself as the originator of modern civilization and a benevolent guiding force. This is now changing; information technologies, such as the Internet and social media, have broken the monopoly over information and history once held by Western gatekeeping institutions (media companies, universities, book publishers, and more). As a consequence, people around the world are recognizing that history is no longer confined to Western interpretation—including its projection of benevolence.

A significant component of this has been the West’s frequent failure to acknowledge its own imperfect past. Despite amplifying the perceived wrongdoings of others, it has been silent about its own unsavory moments, such as early American pioneers’ destruction of First Nation cultures, European exploitation of the African continent, or Australia’s treatment of aboriginal peoples. Addressing these historical episodes matters all the more because they affect current behavior; Western nations also have problems admitting to contemporary mistakes and intentions. 

Non-Western nations can now make clear that their own countries and communities have long histories that not only exist despite Western interpretation, but these histories need to be explored, understood, and told. The West must grapple with this trend and its implications, rather than continue to obscure it in denial. Consider the ongoing diplomatic efforts of the Indian government to compel Great Britain to return the treasure stolen from India, including some of the crown jewels.

The second trend is the re-evaluation of the” rules-based” international order. Policymakers in Washington may not like hearing it, but the concept is the subject of much derision around the world and is widely regarded as a tool used by the West to control global affairs and maintain hegemony. There is ample resentment growing against Western nations given the repeated breaching of their own rules, meaning that the legitimacy of this order is being questioned despite its positive aspects.

Coinciding with this growing frustration is the reality that the distribution of power across more nations is transforming the current world order and creating new opportunities and challenges. China has assumed a more prominent position, offering global public goods such as peacemaking and addressing climate change in a manner Western nations are not willing, or able, to do. Similarly, India is beginning to assert itself, as are other smaller nations, like the UAE and Indonesia.

As more countries determine their own trajectories in the twenty-first century, the West must recognize that the international balance of power has shifted. It cannot continue to impose its will on others—the rise of China and other nations is evidence of such. The West must come to terms with this new reality and recognize that a new, more pragmatic, and multipolar approach is needed, where nations pursue foreign policies committed to co-existence, driven by their own best interests rather than aligning themselves with “one side” or the other.

Third is the unmasking of Western “peacekeeping.” Despite portraying itself as the guarantor of global security, much of the world now views the United States‚ and Europe to a lesser extent, as profiting from war rather than being interested in promoting authentic peace. The Western military-industrial complex—particularly the United States’—is so powerful that it is now well-known to drive U.S. foreign policy to the extent that it perpetuates conflicts to thus profit from war.

At present, the United States and its NATO allies are driving the rise in global military spending, with America spending more on defense than the next ten countries combined. It is similarly well known that almost half of the Pentagon’s budget goes to private contractors each year, and the military-industrial complex donates millions of dollars to U.S. Congressional races, resulting in state capture and significant increases in defense budgets.

The rest of the world has realized that the West alone cannot be trusted to lead global peace efforts, especially if a significant portion of their economies are geared to profit from conflict. In light of this, a positive change is occurring, with China brokering ground-breaking peace agreements—between Saudi Arabia and Iran, for example—while world leaders like Indonesia’s Joko Widodo, India’s Narendra Modi, and Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pitch peaceful resolutions to modern conflicts.

The fourth trend underway is the dethroning of the Western financial superstructure. That the West makes ample use of its financial might for geopolitical advantage and purposes is no great secret—policymakers and experts openly talk about the “weaponization of finance” and applying sanctions on countries that do not comply with Western intentions. Likewise, the ability of the United States and its allies to freeze and even confiscate the reserves of sovereign states—Afghanistan, Venezuela, Russia—sent shock waves across the world.

Because of this and the West’s own track record of financial greed and impropriety—which resulted in devastating crises such as the 2007–2008 financial crisis and the recent collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, which has had global reverberations—distrust in and a rejection of Western financial structures is growing.

Efforts are now underway to dismantle the exorbitant privilege bestowed on the United States via its currency. De-dollarization is very much happening, with the currency’s share of global reserves falling to 47 percent last year, down from 73 percent in 2001. Additionally, countries are seeking alternatives to the SWIFT system, which also has been used in aid of Western-based sanctions and thus alarmed the global majority. As countries with stable currencies gain influence, a more multipolar economic order emerges, reshaping geopolitical alliances, economic diplomacy, and the balance of power within international institutions. This change may grant developing nations greater flexibility in managing their currencies and monetary policies and limit the West’s capacity to unilaterally impose sanctions. Moreover, BRICS nations have recently surpassed the G7 in terms of GDP, signaling a redistribution of economic power and hinting at a future of cooperation in trade, investment, infrastructure, and development assistance.

Fifth and finally, there is the notable collapse of the Western press’ credibility. This comes at a critical juncture, as repeated shortcomings in the last few years have heightened global awareness of Western media’s role in perpetuating the West’s preferred aspects of the current world order—often to the detriment of other countries.

For instance, persistent China-bashing in Western headlines has perpetuated an unproductive and fear-mongering narrative of Beijing as a threat to its own citizens and the world at large. The geopolitical contexts of Hong Kong and Taiwan, though complicated affairs, have been particularly and selectively drummed up to push an “us vs. them” narrative, rather than encouraging understanding between the West and China.

Similarly, overwhelmingly one-sided coverage of the Ukrainian conflict regularly overlooks national and regional geopolitical complexities in the long-standing Russian-Ukrainian relationship and the history of NATO expansion in Europe. A lack of reporting on the Nord Stream bombing, which many believe was perpetrated by a Western nation—with reporting to back this claim up—is a glaring hole that has contributed to the lack of trust in Western media from both non-Western and Western readers alike. Only months later is the Western press quietly admitting potential Western culpability, or at the very least, knowledge.

Moreover, inadequate, and biased coverage of non-Western conflicts, such as those in Yemen, Myanmar, and Palestine, has led to global accusations of neglect, bias, and even racism.

The Writing on the Wall

Western governments operating in an echo chamber of denial need to reach out to their friends across the world and realize what is obvious to everyone except to themselves: that the world is not like what it was in the post-Cold War era. The old ways are finished, and the West simply does not have the political and financial power, not to mention the international legitimacy, it once did. Western nations must adapt to this changing international environment, rather than stubbornly insisting upon business as usual. Failure to do so will make the world a more dangerous place and erode the credibility and influence of the West even further.

Chandran Nair is the founder and CEO of the Global Institute For Tomorrow (GIFT). He is the author of Dismantling Global White Privilege: Equity for a Post-Western World.

Image: Shutterstock.

Russian efforts to manipulate American elections have made headlines in recent years. But China’s attempts at such have achieved more—largely because they have been overwhelmingly conducted via WeChat, an application popular among Chinese-Americans. As the 2024 presidential election heats up, campaigns, voters, and the federal government must be vigilant against CCP efforts to use the platform to influence American elections.

In February 2016, Chinese-Americans erupted in nationwide protests in support of Peter Liang, a Chinese-American cop convicted of manslaughter following the fatal shooting of an unarmed man in a dark stairwell in Brooklyn. The Los Angeles Times noted that the protests were organized through WeChat and reflected “a rare instance of collective political action by Chinese Americans.”

But far from being organic expressions of anger, significant evidence suggests Beijing’s involvement. David Tian Wang, one of the principal protest organizers, is a Chinese green card holder and activist who has long been associated with people and groups affiliated with the Chinese government. In February 2016, Wang used WeChat to help organize protests in dozens of American cities within one week, taking the lead in rallying as many as 100,000 people from, he claimed, forty-eight different states. “This is how powerful WeChat is,” said Wang. The fact that Chinese state-backed media outlets such as the Global Times and the United Front-linked China Qiaowang promoted Wang’s efforts suggests a relationship with Beijing.

Later that year, whether out of concern over the consequences of a Hillary Clinton presidency for China, or a belief that Donald Trump could be bribed or manipulated, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) threw its weight behind Trump’s candidacy. In March, Wang converted the numerous pro-Peter Liang WeChat groups into pro-Donald Trump groups. In the process, he established what would become the largest pro-Trump Chinese-American organization, Chinese Americans for Trump (CAFT). This group, which would eventually grow to over 8,000 registered members, started canvassing for the future president in battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Ohio as early as March 2016, eventually reaching 10,000 to 15,000 households in each of these states. Other groups, similarly organized on WeChat, sprouted up in places such as Missouri, where 300 Chinese-Americans canvassed for Trump. CAFT and these other Chinese-Americans groups also spent significant sums of money on the race.

Meanwhile, WeChat and Chinese internet sites were flooded with pro-Trump (and anti-Hillary) posts praising his wealth, business acumen, and unconventional style. Pro-Clinton material was consistently demoted, and websites such as the Asian American Democratic Club for Hillary were banned from the platform. The context for all this activity is that Beijing does not permit content on WeChat that runs against its interests.

The result of Beijing’s apparent influence seems evident in the Chinese-Americans community’s 2016 voting patterns. Whereas Chinese-Americans have historically leaned Democratic in previous elections, and almost all Asian-American groups increased their support for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 compared to 2012, Chinese-Americans moved in the opposite direction. Trump captured 24 percent of the vote, up from Mitt Romney’s 17 percent, meaning that 150,000–200,000 Chinese-Americans, roughly one-tenth of that community’s voting population, switched parties due to CCP efforts to influence American politics through WeChat.

However, the Chinese government badly misjudged Trump. He was a very different president than they had expected, confronting Beijing on many issues. The CCP thus changed course midway through his term and started promoting Democratic candidates. The CCP’s pro-Biden strategy was evident in influential WeChat public accounts, moderated chat rooms, and influential personal accounts, all of which flipped their narratives. For example, College Daily, Global Times, and Weinsight, among the largest public accounts focused on news, changed from pro-Trump to pro-Biden. WeChat promoted organizations such as Chinese Americans for Biden and enabled them to use the app in ways Democratic groups could not in 2016.

Meanwhile, group administrators bullied, ostracized, or banned pro-Trump voices. Sites run by progressives that previously had few viewers, such as Chinese-Americans, gained traction in a way that was previously not possible, with certain sites’ viewership levels growing by a factor of ten or even one hundred within a relatively short time. Groups that continued to support Trump, such as the Chinese American Alliance, Civil Rights, and Rainier Store, were banned. As Sam Ni, administrator of the pro-GOP “This Is the Way” account, told me, “WeChat and the arm behind it are too long. Despite focusing only on American issues, I am still under their crackdown. I don't know how to adapt to this and what rules we should follow. It's like a black hole.”

The result of WeChat’s pro-Biden tilt was evident in the 2020 Chinese-American presidential vote. Trump made significant gains among Asian-Americans, increasing his share of votes dramatically from 18 percent in 2016 to 30 percent in 2020. This increase in support included an especially large boost among Korean-, Vietnamese-, and Indian-American voters (twenty-eight, twenty-five, and thirteen percentage points, respectively). However, his increase in support among Chinese-Americans, which includes Taiwanese, was noticeably smaller: seven percentage points. While some may argue this dampening was due to the Trump administration’s proposed WeChat ban, the 5:1 ratio of petition signatories supporting the ban to those opposing it suggests that a significant part of the Chinese community was sympathetic.

Countering the CCP’s influence tactics in a free society like the United States will always be difficult. By leveraging a wide range of non-state individuals and organizations, the Chinese party-state penetrates society in ways that our democratic culture finds hard to grasp, much less confront. WeChat adds a powerful lever to this mix by enabling the Chinese party-state’s propaganda machine to manage the Chinese-speaking public square in America. Given the difficulties of divesting, fixing, and monitoring the app, Washington should simply ban it.

Dr. Seth Kaplan is a professorial lecturer in the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He lived in China for seven years.

Image: Shutterstock.

NATO is revamping defense plans that will be a whole lot harder to execute with Sweden on the outside.

A Cold War crouch is inimical to a free, open, and flourishing society.

Those born after the bloc’s founding charter was signed are overwhelmingly committed to its success.

Media saturation, manipulation of the economy, and culture wars helped the longtime leader hold on to his base.

Report after report after report warns of the pending “rematch from hell” that “few Americans want to see” pitting an 80 year old incumbent against a man currently being charged with multiple felonies– in truth, the octogenarian is hardly innocent, and the criminal defendant is hardly an image of youth. 

The reality that two deeply unpopular politicians are the frontrunners for a democratic election feels like a contradiction in terms. Isn’t democracy’s whole “thing” that representatives are elected to office by the people? How, then, is it possible for such a  “nightmare” scenario to materialize in the real world? 

The answer is more obvious than you might expect- that “nightmare” becomes real only if we become content with, or worse resigned to, that obviously undesirable status quo. 

There is no denying that the United States has lost some of its competitive edge since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This absence of a genuine threat has resulted in political decadence- entertainment shows are masquerading as news media, and incidental issues are elevated into the mainstream.

This surface level interaction with politics has simultaneously facilitated increased partisanship and reduced room for serious conversations. In turn, a so-called social war has emerged through which politicians on both sides of the aisle can increase their stature by taking fringe positions on issues with more media bark than policy bite.

As a result, more Americans than ever before are voting against politicians that they despise instead of for politicians that they genuinely support. Voters on the left are horrified by the prospect of migrant children being separated from their families. Voters on the right, meanwhile, cannot stand the idea that their own children may encounter a drag queen at the public library. Policy matters put to the side, you would expect that everyone is disgusted by the alleged amount of criminal behavior on both sides of the aisle.

Looking beyond American shores- Putin’s lashing out into Ukraine could be interpreted as evidence that would-be rivals are willing to test the durability of the Post-WWII rules based order. Additionally, as people on both sides of the Pacific come to the realization that China appears on the verge of reaching the apex of its capacity relative to the United States, efforts to prevent conflict between the two superpowers needs to be taken more seriously.

Despite this grim state of affairs, there are a number of important policies that are both impactful and popular among Americans Left, Right and Center. These issues go beyond bare bones ideas like infrastructure modernization, moderate immigration reform, and apple pie being delicious. In fact, some of these consensus building policies would bring about systemic change.

Policies like implementing term limits, establishing ethics standards for Supreme Court justices, and removing dark money from elections are both popular and transformative. Other good governance policies, even if they are less commonly discussed, also receive the occasional mention on the House floor (in one version or another).

Despite these obvious ways to improve the health of our political eco-system, it does not follow that one of today’s prominent figures is the right person to lead the charge. Frankly, it seems very unlikely that the best person to lead the United States into a new series of challenges is either Joe Bieden or Donald Trump- is it equally unlikely to be one of either man’s closest disciples.

The situation at hand begs for the United States to seek out a more unifying, and better equipped leader. The Constitution, and America’s standing as a Republic gives us the power to bring about the needed change. 

In order to correct course American voters will need to overcome the temptations of performative hopelessness and partisan bickering. The work towards preventing a nightmare scenario in 2024 begins now and it is ours to do. 

Americans have spent the last 30 years eating political sweets, now it’s time to eat our vegetables. 

–

Peter Scaturro is the Director of Studies at the Foreign Policy Association. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of the Foreign Policy Association.

Vieille tradition africaine : se réunir dans l'intimité familiale ou clanique des cases, ou, plus souvent encore, s'asseoir en cercle au pied de l'arbre à palabres, sous les étoiles, pour écouter la voix magique du conteur. Pendant des siècles, la tradition a ainsi transmis les contes et légendes du (...) / Tchad, Afrique centrale, Afrique, Littérature, Fiction, Langue, Autoritarisme - 2018/04

Kyiv needs a binding commitment before NATO membership.

Great-power competition makes it more relevant—not less.

Situated between Iran and Saudi Arabia, who are not threatening one another for the moment, Oman tries hard to remain neutral, walking a fine line, not overtly taking sides. The country’s foreign policy is to be a friend to all, an enemy to none. To that end, Muscat bends over backward to avoid any provocative actions or diplomatic initiatives that can get them into political hot water.

Yet this foreign policy approach has some inconsistencies, to the detriment of not just Oman but others as well. Consider, for example, that last week Oman signed a new “Strategic Document for Enhanced Bilateral Cooperation” with Iran, trying to appease their neighbor while advancing its economic interests. Muscat is particularly keen on maintaining good relations with the Islamic Republic, which is almost in view from its coast in the Persian Gulf. This new agreement, unfortunately, supports Iran’s resistance economy against American sanctions, which also benefits China and Russia, who have filled the American-created vacuum in the Middle East. One could argue that for a nation that doesn’t take sides, this could be interpreted to be such a case.

Such views don’t hold up, however, because Oman also maintains warm relations with the United States and its allies. Most notably, like many of the Arab states before they joined the Abraham Accords, Muscat is (discretely) conducting business with Israel, Washington’s premier partner in the Middle East.

This is where recent developments come into play. Unlike the nations that joined the Accords—the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco, which have all seen dramatic growth in trade with Israel, benefiting their economies and their people—Oman has opted to stay on the sidelines. This is despite the fact that Oman needs the economic investment and joint projects that Israel could offer. More broadly, the Gulf region would benefit from Oman serving as a trusted mediator between both sides. For the sake of such, both Washington and Jerusalem have an interest in facilitating the normalization of relations between Oman and Israel.

Explaining Omani Hesitancy

Ultimately, what truly matters to every Arab nation is what economic benefit they will derive from doing business with Israel. Secretly, Israel has done business with many Arab countries, often having to do with what the latter need most: expertise in water management, agriculture, technology, and security. In the Gulf today, over twelve hundred Israeli companies are doing business. Even the Qataris, whose government supports the anti-Israel Al Jazeera media empire, have an Israeli anti-drone system installed around Doha airport. A Qatari major-general [and] military and security advisor for defense affairs confirmed this to me.

So why did Oman, which would stand to benefit greatly, not join the Abraham Accords in 2020?

One reason was then Sultan Qaboos was dying, and the new sultan had yet to consolidate his power base. Oman under Qaboos was known to be, if not friendly, then politely neutral with Israel. During his reign, the sultan hosted not one but two Israeli prime ministers—Yitzhak Rabin in 1994 and Benjamin Netanyahu in 2018. Having recently been in the country now that the new sultan has established himself, I took the opportunity to meet with various Omani officials and believe they hold no hostility towards Jews or Israel. But given who their neighbor across the Gulf is, they are not in a position to join the Abraham Accords until the Saudis go first.

Another potential reason is that, like the Qataris and Saudis, the Omanis are sensitive to the Palestinian plight. According to Minister of Information Abdulla al Harrasi, who I met in Muscat, “ We hear the suffering of daily Palestinian indignations, but Israel doesn’t show any willingness to show good signs.” He said Oman won’t get involved until Israelis and Palestinians make the first gestures toward each other. Yet he also mentioned that the previous Omani minister of foreign affairs said, “We, the Arab world, must make Israel feel secure.” Unfortunately, he is personally in favor of a one-state solution, which means, in effect, no Israel.

Although Oman is proud to claim it talks to all sides, when I asked how it could not speak to Israel, the other party in the dispute, they danced around the subject, saying the time is not right. The Head of the Omani Ministry of Endowment and Religious Affairs told me, “Knowledge is not enough, we must get to know the other person, but not Israelis yet.” He said this not with animus but with a level of respect for Jewish people, if not the Jewish nation.

Moving Toward Normalization

The path for Omani normalization with Israel, which would greatly benefit them, is one of the small steps to lay the groundwork for further cooperation and diplomatic initiatives. The path to ruffle the least feathers is for Oman to champion trilateral projects between Oman, the Palestinian Authority, and Israel on issues that transcend politics, like water-related issues. Oman has a research center on desalination, while Israel is the world’s desalination expert.

A common complaint of the Palestinians is that they don’t have sufficient water resources for the future. This could be a way to help Palestinians on the ground and allow Oman to host Israelis and Palestinians to talk face-to-face with one another.

An additional option is for Oman to be actively involved in the Negev Forum of Arab nations and Israel, putting forward projects at the conference that would benefit them and could be financed by the United States and the more prosperous Gulf nations. The latter don’t trust the Palestinians as fiduciary stewards of their philanthropy. If Oman is more directly involved in monitoring the money, those nations may feel more confident that their resources don’t end up in the Palestinian kleptocracy.

The Omanis, Israelis, and the rest of the Gulf states know that trust is needed before friendship and normalization begin. This is where Washington’s assistance in shepherding new relationships is required. Unlike other Gulf nations, the Omanis practice a version of Islam that is neither Shiite nor Sunni but Ibadi, a moderate sect that holds freedom of religion dear.

A combined U.S.-Saudi initiative to cover Omani cooperation with Israel is in the interests of all the nations involved, as well as the Palestinian people. But that will take political capital to happen. Perhaps, if America cannot convince Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman to normalize relations with Israel at this time, involving the Omanis could be an intermediary step—Washington could provide economic incentives and security guarantees to alleviate Omani worries. This would be in America’s and its Gulf allies’ interests, as anything that stabilizes the region is a benefit for all.

Dr. Eric Mandel is the Director of MEPIN (Middle East Political Information Network). He regularly briefs members of Congress and their foreign policy aides. He is the Senior Security Editor for the Jerusalem Report. He is a regular contributor to The Hill and the Jerusalem Post. He has been published in The National Interest, Must Reads-Foundation for Democracies, RealClearWorld, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, National Cyber Security News, MSN, the Forward, the Messenger, JNS, i24, Rudow (Iraq), The NY Sun, Moment Magazine, The Times of Israel, Jewish Week, Kurdistan24, IsraelNationalNews, JTA, Algemeiner, WorldJewishNews, Israel Hayom, Thinc., Defense News, and other publications.

Image: Shutterstock.

While it will take years, if not decades, to sort through the wreckage of the Ukraine War to come to any kind of consensus, it does seem clear that the maximalist claims of alliance networks have an immensely destabilizing role in the international system. The failure to set up buffer states— nations that agree not to join the alliance network of any nearby power blocs—between NATO and Russia might have led to the outbreak of war. Often situated at places where potential contention could arise, these countries keep rival power poles from having direct contact with each other. The reasoning is that if two powers can agree that neither dominates a particular smaller country, they can accept that the lessened risk of a hand-off approach to that particular state is the best way to de-escalate rivalry in that region.

The concept of buffer states has been used many times in history, though with admittedly mixed results. The idea is quite rare in modern international relations discourse, however. When it is mentioned, it is often done so in a disparaging manner. This is not only because the most famous example of a buffer state in the modern mind is the extremely ineffective invasion highway known as Belgium in the early twentieth century, but also because alliance networks have become increasingly burdened with values-laden assumptions that they did not have before. NATO, infused with democratist ideology, cannot accept that a country that wishes to join and become part of its network might be better left outside for reasons of geographic cohesiveness and avoiding more potential flashpoints with Russia. Russia, on the other hand, was ostensibly supportive of a neutral Ukraine but probably expected to dominate it indirectly in some capacity. The inability of these outside parties to stay out of the country resulted in a significant conflict that could have been avoided. Diplomats should learn from this and get more serious about the concept of buffer states.

Despite famous failures, there have in fact been numerous successful buffer states in history; places that for long periods of time (geopolitically speaking) served as effective points of no-contact between otherwise rival powers. Some exploited natural geography to further reinforce the natural borders already in place. Nepal, between the British and Qing empires and now modern China and India, is an example of this. Austria in the Cold War, with the victorious powers of World War II all agreeing to a mutual military withdrawal, is another. Perhaps the longest and most surprising of such states to modern observers is that of late-nineteenth through mid-twentieth-century Afghanistan. Not wanting to rule the unprofitable and warlike territory itself, the British Raj nevertheless was consumed by the specter of a Russian invasion through the territory during the height of Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia, often referred to as “The Great Game.” After a succession of fruitless wars there, it was agreed to draw the boundaries of Afghanistan in such a way that Russian and British imperial interests would not directly collide with each other. The arrangement would bring a surprising amount of stability for the tribalistic nation, and only collapse when a series of coups and internal upheavals opened the way for a Soviet invasion in 1979 and subsequent Pakistani and U.S. intervention.

Lest it be assumed that a long-term successful stint as a buffer nation can only come about from circumstances of comparative stability, the experience of Uruguay offers one of the more remarkable transformations from instability to long-term success. Contested for centuries between the Portuguese and Spanish empires, the early independence of Uruguay was rocked with trouble. Both Argentina and Brazil attempted to dominate the country, and internal factions fought each other on the domestic front, sometimes in open civil war. These contests even helped spark South America’s deadliest war, the War of the Triple Alliance, which further seemed to relegate the region's smaller countries to domination by their larger neighbors. And yet it was the cost of that war, coupled with the desire to maintain some kind of balance in the region, that ensured Uruguay would be able to harness its natural agrarian bounty and access to ports in order to become one of the most developed and, eventually, peaceful Latin American countries. When Brazil and Argentina could both openly admit that they feared the space between them being dominated by the other, it became possible for them to mutually agree that neither would absorb the country into its security arrangements.

In today’s world, there are clearly regions that would benefit from taking a second look at the concept of buffer zones. Improving relations between Tehran and Riyadh could mean a new Saudi-Iranian understanding of Iraq that would have the potential to bring much-needed stability to that war-torn country. Myanmar’s precarious position between India and China already seems to be going for some degree of distance from each. Indonesia’s location as a large country right at the edges of U.S. and Chinese spheres of influence also implies the potential for it to exploit an independent niche between the two superpowers while reducing places where clashes could break out.

The history of buffer states is too complex to be an ultimate solution for every clashing great frontier, but it cannot be dismissed either as it often is in contemporary foreign policy commentary. Political geography can be shaped by policy to reduce conflict points between competing spheres of influence. With even the possibility of such policies creating opportunities for peace, it is worth giving the buffer state at least consideration in many troubled parts of the world.

Christopher Mott (@chrisdmott) is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy and the author of the book The Formless Empire: A Short History of Diplomacy and Warfare in Central Asia.

Image: Shutterstock.