Foreign Policy Blogs

The Trump administration’s ongoing trade spat with China went another few rounds in recent days, spooking investors as headlines once again framed the issue with big numbers. Some previously threatened tariffs are now scheduled to take effect on July 6, and if the administration makes good on its latest threat, more may be in the offing. Yet our view is unchanged: Even with the latest developments, the scope and impact of all tariffs implemented or threatened thus far remains too small to derail the US, Chinese or global economies—or wallop the bull market.

The latest tit-for-tat started last week, when the US government released the list of Chinese goods (primarily industrial products benefiting from the “Made in China 2025” policy) that will be subject to 25% tariffs. Lost in most media coverage, however, was that tariffs on only $34 billion in goods are expected to take effect by July 6. The remaining tariffs on $16 billion worth of goods (largely related to semiconductors) likely face another round of hearings before implementation. In response, China’s government immediately provided further detail about its retaliatory tariffs on $50 billion of US goods. Mirroring the US’s approach, tariffs on only $34 billion in goods (mostly agricultural goods and autos) are scheduled for implementation on July 6, with the adoption of tariffs on the remaining $16 billion (largely energy products, chemicals and medical equipment) to be determined.

This week, in retaliation against China’s retaliation, President Trump replaced his prior April threat of a 25% tariff on an additional $100 billion in Chinese goods with an order to draw up plans for 10% tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods. If these take effect, a total of $250 billion in goods would be subject to tariffs. Since the US exports only about $130 billion in goods to China, the Chinese government can’t respond with an equivalent threat. Consequently, Beijing said it will respond with both quantitative and qualitative measures, which presumably means a combination of import tariffs and regulatory actions against US companies operating in China.

While not completely comprehensive, Exhibit 1 chronicles the major tariff-related events of the Trump administration along with Chinese retaliation. Last year and early this year, the administration implemented a variety of small tariffs on solar panels (30% rate applying to about $4.5 billion in imports), washing machines (20 – 50% rate applying to about $1 billion in imports) and Canadian lumber (21% rate on $5.6 billion in imports). These tariffs are in effect, but a US International Trade Commission (ITC) panel struck down a 300% tariff on Canadian jetliners. On the steel and aluminum front, these metal tariffs launched in March on a small scale due to major exemptions. However, after the temporary waivers expired, the tariffs hit the EU, Canada and Mexico on June 1. Overall, these tariffs currently apply to roughly $40 billion in imports. As mentioned above, tariffs on China aren’t in effect yet, but the initial tariffs on $34 billion are scheduled to take effect July 6. A few weeks later, public hearings about potential auto tariffs will occur. Apart from President Trump’s tweet threatening 20% tariffs on EU auto imports, the details about potential auto tariffs are vague, but the US imported $192 billion worth of vehicles in 2017 that could potentially be subject to tariffs.

All told, presuming the July 6 implementation goes ahead as scheduled, the Trump administration will have applied new tariffs to approximately $85 billion worth of goods, representing 2.9% of imports and 0.4% of US GDP—tiny.[i] The future threats don’t change the calculus dramatically for the worse. If the tariffs on the remaining $16 billion of those initial $50 billion in Chinese imports, the additional $200 billion in imports and a theoretical $192 billion of auto imports were to take effect, the total goods subject to tariffs would be roughly $493 billion—16.9% of US imports and 2.5% of US GDP. Yet even these scaled figures probably overstate the impact. Applying tariffs to 2.5% of GDP doesn’t automatically delete that economic activity. Rather, it adds taxes that consumers or businesses must pay. The amount of those tariff payments, as Exhibit 2 shows, is much smaller than the big numbers being thrown around—amounting to less than half a percent of GDP, which is nowhere near large enough to spark a recession in the US or global economy or knock the bull market off course. A true wallop requires shocking, huge measures capable of wiping trillions of dollars off the global economy. Tariffs, though a small negative, don’t come close.

Exhibit 1: A Brief History of Tariffs

Source: US Trade Representative and China Ministry of Commerce, as of 6/19/2018.

Exhibit 2: Scaling the Tariffs

Source: US Trade Representative, China Ministry of Commerce, the American Action Forum and US BEA, as of 6/20/2018. Based on nominal GDP in 2017.

This post was originally written by Luke Puetz for FisherInvestments.com. Puetz is a research analyst with Fisher and has been at the company since 2005.

The post Your Obligatory Tariff Update appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Contrary to the common perception, US President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to transfer the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem could have an unintended consequence that could profoundly alter the current, one-sided dynamic. So far, this decision has revealed to the world that U.S. is not an honest broker and that the so-called Israel-Palestine peace process is the mother of all scams. However, whether or not this would undermine the U.S. national interest in the Middle East and beyond is a debate for another day.

Distorted narratives energize toxic polemics from all sides. Historical or faith-based contexts are deliberately manipulated to keep any joint claim fluid or frustrated. The unholy competition for the holy land is in full force.

And though Palestinians have been compromised, if not betrayed, by their conventional supporters, their case has never been stronger or more legitimate. Ironic as it may sound, a solution has never been closer ever since the nuclear option of nonviolence was set in motion.

Second Coming Bullet Train

Right-wing evangelicals are inspired by misinterpretation of Biblical verses (Genesis 12:1, 2, 3) in which God promised Abraham to make him a nation and bless him. They disregard the fact that orthodox teachings of all Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are in agreement on that, and they omit that God granted Abraham such privilege because of his faithful devotion to the will of God.

‘God’s foreign policy’ is pretty clear, they argue.  ‘If you bless Israel, you will be blessed. If you curse Israel, you will be cursed’. Therefore, calling Israel an Apartheid state or Zionism an oppressive racist system is simply blasphemous. To these evangelicals, the number 70 is the prophecy of Prophet Daniel in the Bible, therefore, declaring Jerusalem the capital city of Israel is not mere symbolism but a necessary action “To bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy.”  That, according to Pastor Jeffries, Jews will finally come back to their senses and embrace Jesus as their messiah.

Zionism Hara-kiri

This is a ‘let’s not talk falsely’ moment in history, for the hour is getting late. Zionism is a genocidal enterprise conceived to rid the indigenous Palestinian people out of their homeland to establish an exclusively Jewish state. Neither its leadership nor its supporters attempt to hide that objective.

Regardless of the prevailing narrative in the U.S that Israel is the only secular democracy that upholds Western values in the Middle East, in actuality, Israel is neither secularist nor democratic.

Western secularism as expressed in the American and the French revolutions was intended to separate powers of the church and the state. They wanted to prevent the church from extending its authority to undermine the state power and to prevent the clergy from imposing their doctrines on others.

Today, politics in Israel is overwhelmingly dominated by religious zealots with an apocalyptic worldview. The two faces of that body politic are expressed in the land piggishness of the settlers that systematically uproots the indigenous Palestinian population with mob violence, targeted destruction of their agricultural livelihoods and their homes, and also by the political hubris of the state that has a surrogate veto power at the UN Security Council which allows her to break more international laws and commit more human rights violations than all the countries of the world combined. Its 70-year record that created human catastrophe known as Nakba speaks for itself.

Carrying state condoned war crimes, Israeli snipers have been executing what is according to Amnesty International a shoot-to-kill-or-maim policy. There are a number of videos showing these snipers celebrating their assassinations that are circulating on social media. More than 100 Palestinian civilians, including journalists and babies, have been killed since March 30 and more than 10,000 injured; many by live ammunition.

Behind the jubilant façade, some of the Zionist intelligentsia strategists are nervous about the global consequence of the current brutality and how it may be perceived in the court of social media.

Israeli Knesset and the Israeli Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, are pushing a repressive undemocratic bill that criminalizes the documentation of human rights violations against Palestinian citizens by Israeli soldiers. Shooting a video or taking a picture of a soldier committing war crimes could get a journalist a minimum of a 5-year prison term. The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate and other civil society organizations have issued a statement of condemnation.

The Millennial Might

Today, the most serious ‘existential threat’ facing Israel is not some Arab coalition armies that might invade it and ‘throw the Jews into the sea’; it is not Iran or Turkey; it is the unarmed Palestinian men, women, and children of all ages who put their lives on the line protesting against the ruthless oppression of Zionism in a broad daylight. Their resilient spirit is more of a threat than any missile.

Now that the boycott of Israel campaign spearheaded by conscientious millennials has found traction, the endgame for the last Apartheid system in the world may be near. How long before these socially conscious and politically enlightened students become America’s policy-makers and opinion-shapers? Ask the U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, about her excruciating embarrassment on stage at the University of Houston.

“Nikki Haley! The blood is on your hands! You continue to sign off on the genocide of a native people!” roared the auditorium as she started her talk. Ambassador Haley was the person who made the case for the US to block the independent UN human rights commission to investigate whether or not Israel committed war crimes at Gaza buffer zone. Since then, on the very day Israeli snipers cold-bloodedly shot dead a 21-year-old Palestinian nurse in uniform, the US has vetoed a resolution calling for the “protection of Palestinian civilians”, making it the only UN Security Council member state to vote ‘No’.

Imagine when these millennials who transcend faith, ethnicities, and nationalities organize a persistent campaign of civil disobedience or sit-ins at Israeli embassies around the world that trigger mass arrests.

Diminishing Support

Israel is not sustainable mainly because it is a case founded on a moral argument emanating from Biblical history and Nazi victimhood that is protected by repressive realism and an Apartheid model.

A growing number of the American political elite are coming to terms with the fact that U.S. geopolitical interest and that of Israel are not one of the same. And with one of the highest GDP per capita in the world and the largest, most equipped and most technologically advanced armies in the world, Israel neither needs overprotection nor financial welfare from the U.S.

Likewise, a growing number of celebrities—including Jewish ones—are protesting Israel’s genocidal policy toward Palestinians with boycotts or conscientious disinvites.

The last Apartheid regime in the world must either accept one-state-solution with equal citizenship rights or succumb to a looming endgame.

The most widely used counterargument against the one-state-solution is one of sociopolitical eugenics that goes like this: ‘considering the birthrate of the Palestinians, it is a sure way to wipe out our Jewish identity.’ In order to maintain the superior race, the reproduction of the undesired or the inferior race must be controlled.

It is time to break the ethnocentric and faith-based shackles. The holy land cannot be a sacred space exclusive to a single faith. It belongs to all Abrahamic faiths — Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Nowhere is that fact more established than in the Qur’an where the connection of David, Jesus, and Muhammad to the holy land is prominently enshrined.

The post Palestinian Millennial Activists and Israel’s Diminishing Support appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

A young John McCain after being captured by the NVA after he was shot down in 1967. He spent 5 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.

PBS in the United States is airing an intriguing broadcast this summer: a documentary series called The Vietnam War. The viewer can take many perspectives from this documentary when comparing it to modern times in the United States and abroad. A memorable moment was when one of the ex-Marines, who you become familiar with throughout the series, tells you the story of how he was conscious with a massive hole in his chest and discounted for dead, despite his brother at arms doing everything they could to get him to safe treatment – even putting their own lives at risk to do so. Because of the courtesy and kindness of one surgeon, who placed humanity above the situation where a morass of patients made for an impossible situation, the soldier survived to tell his story.

Armed conflict should always be avoided until it is necessary or essential to respond in order to stop acts of human rights atrocities. During the Cold War there was a starting point in discussions where a return to pre-1945 Europe was seen as a situation that was to be avoided by both sides in the conflict. When the Americans went into Vietnam and the Soviets into Afghanistan, a reminder of the terrors of open conflict were amplified, and it changed the countries that fought in those wars forever. Arms treaties followed and, while a return to passive warfare did not take much of a pause after the end of the Soviet Union, fear of open conflict and respect for an earned peace was paramount. It was understood that great powers would always challenge each other, but that a strong and intelligent defense would keep your country safe and secure as a whole. Any perception of a lack of defense or an inability to stop the interests of a foreign power may alter the perception and give way to further conflict.

The last few years have given rise to a view of opponents that do not meet the criteria of the Cold War era nor the immediate post-Cold War era. A lack of understanding of the Middle East for example has led to not only a genocide tantamount to the worst atrocities of the Second World War, but also has allies and former opponents who formally cut through political barriers to fight the Wehrmacht working against their own interests. For the Kurdish fighters that were the tip of the spear in fighting against ISIS, little support was received and there was almost no attention given to their fight in helping to prevent further genocide against minority groups in their region. The end result was that Western allies allowed a NATO ally to bomb their positions in Syria and Iraq. While there are no ties linking Western support in the region going to ISIS, the lack of support for the men, and sisters in arms that were the Kurdish women’s brigades fighting against ISIS should have wholly prevented any NATO member from attacking the small community that have fought for every free citizen of the world. While there are strong political differences between Turkey and the Kurdish communities, the end result is that Western allies were not supported, and in an even more horrific turn of events, genocide victims who have made it to safe countries are now finding their torturers living with them as neighbours, with local aid telling them to forget who they saw on their bus. We were always taught to never forget.

It would be hard to justify another Vietnam, and certainly the ex-Marine and those women who fought to free themselves from sure torture, rape, and horrific execution by taking up arms against ISIS share a bond in that they have seen the worst of humanity and have been ignored by those who think opening up a further conflict will resolve their political disputes. In the end, any advance by one country’s interests should be checked through defense, whether it be a missile or a computer or a simple series of discussions. To push for a greater conflict when we cannot even prevent a genocide or protect those who protect us all should be a sobering realization. Accelerating a conflict will just lead to another Vietnam. We would be hard pressed to find any average citizens in Europe or the United States that wishes to donate more of their family member to a battle in the fields of Ukraine. Enough have died there needlessly already.

The post We Don’t Need Another Vietnam appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets with the 10th President of Israel Reuven Rivlin and Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces Gadi Eizenkot.

The Hindus of Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan are being forced to flee to India but are not receiving Indian citizenship. The time has come for this to change.

Many Pakistani, Afghani and Bangladeshi Hindus living in India face a dire situation. Even though they share the same faith and culture as Hindus in India, they are not being granted Indian citizenship. Instead, they are being treated like stateless refugees. Furthermore, the Times of India recently reported that within the last three years, over 2,000 Pakistani Hindus who fled to India have been forced to return to Pakistan because they have been denied citizenship. According to the report, many of the returning Hindus have been forced to convert to Islam.

Pakistani dissident Natharam Bheel added in the Times of India: “Pakistani Hindus who are coming to India that are leaving everything in Pakistan are not getting anything here as well. They are coming here with the hope of leading a good life but eventually, they are losing all hope. Waiting period is getting longer. They are coming here on a religious visa and due to a lack of papers and documents, they are forced to go back.”

This is a great tragedy not only for the Pakistani Hindu community but also for the entire Hindu world and global civilization at large. Anyone who cares about minority rights in the greater Muslim world should be outraged. The time has come for this charade to come to an end! The Indian government should immediately adopt Israel’s right of return policy, so that oppressed Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and other parts of the world will have a refuge to flee to.

The Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are in a horrible bind and are in desperate need of such a refuge. According to Shipan Kumer Basu, President of the World Hindu Struggle Committee, many Muslims in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh claim that India is the country of the Hindus and that all Hindus should go there: “From a religious perspective, India is our holy land but if we go to India, we are not treated as equals. There we do not receive citizenship nor jobs so why should we leave our ancestral lands, property and relatives behind to live in India?” However, countless Hindus from Muslim countries have nevertheless gone to India because they were compelled to leave their homelands due to atrocities implemented by various Islamist individuals and groups, who are backed by the local government.

The BBC claims that Hindus in Pakistan are treated like second class citizens. According to the report, their children are forced to read the Quran in Pakistani schools and are often mocked due to their religious beliefs. In addition, the Tribune reported that a study analyzing Pakistani textbooks from grades 1-10 concluded that “Hindus are repeatedly described as extremists and eternal enemies of Islam whose culture and society is based on injustice and cruelty, while Islam delivers a message of peace and brotherhood, concepts portrayed as alien to the Hindu.” According to the Movement for Solidarity and Peace, around 1,000 Hindu and Christians girls in Pakistan are kidnapped, forcefully converted and married to Muslim men against their will every year.

Due to facing such indignities, the Hindu population in Pakistan has rapidly declined. According to the Diplomat, at the time of the partition of British India, Hindu’s constituted 15% of Pakistan’s population but today, less than 2% of the Pakistani population is Hindu. Furthermore, the report noted that every year about 5,000 Hindus leave Pakistan in order to avoid persecution. Basu reported that a similar trend is occurring among the Hindus of Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who also are systematically being ethnically cleansed from their ancestral homes.

The Hindus of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Many policy makers in the West do not care about their plight because they are not white, lack the possession of numerous natural resources and do not have the backing of rich oil producing states. Furthermore, their enemies aren’t Jewish so there is no predetermined bigotry against their enemies, which can lead to an international call for them to obtain the justice that they deserved. Meanwhile, with the rise of radical Islam in the Indian subcontinent, their status in countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan is getting more perilous by the day. And so long as India does not offer them refuge just as Israel does for Jews from Muslim majority countries, the Hindus from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh won’t benefit from having a national homeland for all Hindus, where they can be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. Therefore, the time has come for India to stand up for its historic responsibility and to transform India into a national homeland for all Hindus.

The post India should adopt Israel’s right of return policy appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Donald Trump’s message and views on Iran have been remarkably consistent throughout his time in the public sphere. Even immediately following the deal’s successful negotiation, Trump came out against it, hurling a line many would become very familiar with: “Never, ever, ever in my life have I seen any transaction as incompetently negotiated as our deal with Iran.” After being persuaded to comply with the terms of the deal in the short term, “hawkish” advisors Mike Pompeo (Secretary of State) and John R. Bolton (National Security Adviser) began wielding more influence in the White House. With less internal resistance stopping him, Trump was finally able to fulfill an old campaign promise and he withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in Early May.

The completion of the deal involved a long and arduous negotiation process. In the end, President Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry were able to strike a deal with the Iranian government, led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, President Hassan Rouhani, and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, and five other countries (Russia, China, France, Germany, United Kingdom) to “ensure that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful” in exchange for economic relief. Specifically, the deal, in its own words, would “produce the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme, including steps on access in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy.” Iran, on the other hand, agreed to a bevy of restrictions on their ability to enrich Uranium and obtain weapons grade Plutonium as well as gave international inspectors access to their nuclear sites. All reports indicated that Iran had been complying with the terms of the deal. In fact, the deal had other positive effects as well. Iran’s (slow) reintegration back into the Western world was certainly a factor in their more moderate foreign policy decisions. For example, Iran refrained from intervening in both Libya and Iraq following the signing of the deal. In fact, the Huffington Post reported that the government was actually encouraging diplomatic solutions to end the Libyan conflict.

Critics of the deal argued the United States was conceding too much economically for such a poor return from the Iranians. While those attacks are unfounded, as the deal without question significantly delayed Iran’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon, they are also irrelevant. Trump’s withdrawal from the deal has created more detrimental impacts than even critics of the deal argued existed in the first place.

Part of the reason critics disapproved of the Iran deal was due to its front loaded nature. Essentially, Iran received many of the economic benefits it was promised before it completely fulfilled its end of the bargain. However, this very fact is one of the reasons why pulling out of the deal was especially miscalculated. Eric Lorber of the ForeignPolicy dot com reported in November of 2016 that “Iran [had] already received approximately $100 billion” in economic relief. The deal was lopsided when Trump pulled out because the United States had negotiated for long term benefits in stopping Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. Trump never gave us the ability to see the benefits materialize. Abandoning the deal when Trump did provided Iran with significant economic concessions while only setting their nuclear program back two years.

Most notably, Trump made this decision on the heels of his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. It is downright absurd that the Trump administration thought it would be a good idea to back out of one nuclear agreement right before it went and tried to negotiate another. In fact, I’d argue the only reason the North Koreans did not back out of the summit immediately is because they believed it would be an opportunity to extract concessions from the Americans like they have in the past. In fact, North Korea has violated eight agreements since 1994 while gaining “concessions [like] being removed from the U.S. list of regimes that sponsor terrorism, shipments of food and fuel, the promise of light water plutonium reactors and the removal of crippling economic sanctions.” Indeed, the 2018 negotiations ended with Trump agreeing to stop US military exercises with South Korea for almost nothing in return, a decision that seemingly surprised South Korean President Moon Jae-in.

The long term implications of this decision are incredibly severe. Iran now has two realistic options. First, it can pivot harder to Russia and China, solidifying their alliance with those two global powers and rely on them for economic aid, as they had before the deal. In the meantime, they would continue to develop their nuclear weapon capabilities. In fact, Iran’s relationship with China has tightened since Trump’s withdrawal. China has been eager to work with Iran, some hypothesize, because of the access the country would give to Middle Eastern markets. East Asia Forum reported in June that “an ability to rapidly traverse the Iranian plateau lies at the heart of Beijing’s geostrategic and economic ambitions in the 21st century.”

Iran’s second option is cracking under the economic pressure. A letter from the Trump administration admitted that they will aim to put “unprecedented financial pressure on the Iranian regime.” There is a scenario in which Iran returns to the table and agrees to a more favorable deal with the Trump administration to escape economic ruin. This outcome is certainly possible, with economic impacts in the country already being seen. But as was the case in North Korea and Iran, historically, economic sanctions hit the citizens the hardest while leaving high ranking government officials unaffected. The only real consequences will be to President Hassan Rouhani, whose pivot towards the West unquestionably backfired due to Trump’s election and who will inevitably be blamed for the country’s economic hardship. Furthermore, Trump’s antagonization of Iran makes it unlikely any member of the government wants to come to the table while Trump holds the oval office. Even more importantly, Trump’s hardline diplomacy tactics have already been undercut by European officials who promised to stay in the deal to their best of their abilities and tried to convince Trump not to enforce secondary sanctions (the administration declined to agree to that framework). Critically, Iran knows support of the JCPoA still exists.

The Trump administration has taken an incredible risk, hoping Iran’s hardliners will crack under the economic pressure. The far more likely outcome, however, is nuclear proliferation to strengthen Iran’s negotiating hand and a stronger alliance with Russia and China.

Nader Granmayeh is a senior at Horace Mann High School where he is the co-Student Body President. He is currently an intern with Foreign Policy Association blogs division and is working on Zephyr Teachout’s attorney general campaign.

The post On Trump’s Decision to Withdraw From The Iran Deal appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

President Trump’s pronouncements always generate froth, by his words and in the reporting and recrimination that follows.  But in Brussels, before his Helsinki meeting with Putin, he did, again, call NATO obsolete. Once any President raises it, the question takes on a life of its own.  And if NATO’s value is in doubt, who should be our allies?  That in turn raises the question: just what do we need for security?  While the President’s view about NATO is unsettling, raising the question should lead policy makers to examine their assumptions, and answer based on something beyond historical inertia.  The public deserves a considered discussion about NATO, alliances, and security, starting from the ground up.

Security is hard to define: so many developments in the world might pose threats.  The cyber realm can by itself transmit destruction; it also carries information and disinformation that can amount to attacks.  Aside from that infinity of hazard, who might take to terrorism against us, and what collapsed states might house them?  Which rising powers might overtake us, and will they employ military, economic, cyber, cultural, or some as-yet unimagined effort?  What about my job, and what about climate change?

Amid all the fears people seek security against, public discourse says little about what we need security for.  Absent an answer to that question, anything at all could pose a security hazard, and countering everything requires infinite resources.

Possible answers, after excluding everyone’s laundry lists of motherhood and apple pie, will range widely.  Americans might need only physical safety and equal market access throughout the world.  Some would hope to protect man’s capacity to find nirvana.

Presumably, most definitions would give democracy and other liberal principles high priority. Hopefully, most Americans would list living by our founding creed, the “self evident” truths over which the signers of the Declaration of Independence divorced their ethnic motherland — unalienable rights equally imbued in all, and government created to secure those rights.

A nation defined by a principle depends for its existence on validation of that principle.  Validation of our creed includes the traditional security that allows a free society to stay free, but also requires that measures to protect society comport with its principles.

What defense and diplomatic policies would serve this type of security need?  A range of configurations might work.  Anna Simons of the Naval Post Graduate School advocates a minimalist foreign policy, butting out of other nations’ sovereignty while punishing any transgression of ours.  John Ikenberry would revive the current Liberal World Order, as the best expression of America’s values.  Barry Posen of the Naval War College would revamp force structures to limit our commitments to certain key needs.  Zalmay Khalilzad sees room to make NATO more viable for the 21st Century.

A concern that has not been addressed is that today’s communications technology makes it possible actually to attack a country’s national narrative.  Narrative is not only the words expressing your values.  It includes actions and arrangements that fit your claims, and your ability to keep to them.  Security for America, and the shape of alliances, must reinforce America’s national narrative.

NATO membership includes many of the world’s firmly democratic nations, but a few that are moving toward authoritarian government.  It also excludes a number of deeply liberal democracies, most of them friendly to the U.S. and some formally allied but outside of NATO.  The premises of all those alliances are diverse, but none names the common commitment to liberal democracy.  Yet this is the basis for alliances that would fit our national narrative.  NATO itself may not — but, combing out the most egregious backsliders from liberal values, and asking the other liberal democracies to join, it could form the heart of a fitting alliance structure.

The grouping would likely comprise NATO members minus Turkey and Hungary, plus Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland and perhaps Chile.  It could only be assembled in a strategically defensive orientation, protecting the needs of members’ liberal lifestyles and limiting its geopolitical power projection.  The group should encourage other nations to develop toward deeper liberalism, and tighten relations with any that do.  Countries that become deeply compatible, as, say, Indonesia, Ghana, or Brazil might in coming decades, should be offered membership.

Any arrangement of this sort is hypothetical and speculative.  But reflections of this nature are needed now, to look through fresh eyes at basic questions we already face.  Those questions will not abate, and enduring answers will require that we take them up with open minds.  But those answers should, in this new and disorienting age, start from our founding principles.

The post What If NATO Really IS Obsolete? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Presented by Intelligence Squared U.S. in partnership with Georgetown University live at the first Georgetown University Women’s Forum

The post Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates – The proposition “Globalization Has Undermined America’s Working Class” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Disruptors are becoming ever more prevalent as bold solutions are offered for global problems. In health, transport, and agriculture big ideas are at the centre of fierce debates about reform and innovation; nowhere is this more evident than in education.

In developing countries, quality education for the poor is rare:  263 million children are out of school and 330 million children are in school but not learning. 69 million more teachers are needed. With many calling for more funding to meet demand, it is only now that the global community is unifying around ‘outcomes’ rather than ‘access’ as a benchmark for success and calling for innovationto help solve the learning crisis.

Sadly, at the moment nearly 600 million children are being failed; enabling those 600 million to go to a school where they actually learn is a mammoth global task and underpins Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG4). Re-building weak public school systems; putting in place capacity building programs; re-invigorating teacher training programs and enabling governments to generate enough financing to fund all this will take many years, if not decades.

Providing high quality schooling for all children clearly requires innovation, partnership and collaboration from all sectors that have the expertise and commitment to contribute. Yet many anti-reformists vehemently argue that SDG4 should not be pursued in partnership with the private sector. Their justification for this is often ostensibly rooted in Article 26 of the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The 1948 UDHR ‘strives to promote these rights and freedoms and secure universal and effective recognition’; but 70 years on; 600 million children are proof that the approach taken to fulfilling Article 26’s goals so far, has failed. Section one of the Article has five clear components a) Everyone has the right to education b) Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages and c) Elementary education shall be compulsory d) Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and e) higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Many educators, including Bridge, believe that a strong free public school system delivering real learning for each and every child is the ideal. However, we must be pragmatic as well as idealistic if we accept the fundamental urgency of the learning crisis.If we believe that a) education is a right then we must strive to help fulfill that right urgently. If c) education must be compulsory, then we must urgently build and develop enough schools, classrooms and teachers for 600 million children to be served. If these rights, outlined in Article 26, cannot be urgently met by existing public systems then they must be met using other models. Otherwise, parents must wait until all governments build the will, the resources, and the capacity to provide the poor the education their children deserve. This is an unacceptable position and offers families no hope. Therefore, the ability to compromise on clause b, in the short term, is essential; a failure to do so will perpetuate the cycle of educational death for another generation of children. Clause b is often arbitrarily proclaimed by status quo defenders as most essential: education must be free. They argue, compulsory education for all (clauses a and c) must be delivered by existing public sector frameworks without any social impact investment; returns based financing or public private partnership models. According to them, governments must deliver the holy grail of strong, regenerated and reinvigorated public schools from within a failing system. Despite good intentions, this has been unachievable for the last 70 years.  This argument locates them firmly in the realm of the ideologues who place theory above the immediate needs of children.

It is only through embracing new, innovative, scalable and sustainable models that clause b will ever be achievable. The clear alternative to private sector assistance is that hundreds of millions of children remain uneducated for the years or decades it may take for all governments to reform and develop a strong primary education system. It is the verhement resistance to this logic which leads education reformers to talk about an ideological divide.

This ideological divide is increasingly visible through coordinated public attacks on the private sector and its innovations. Often driven by those that have no constituency in the communities or the countries benefiting from private sector interventions; by those that have neither experienced first hand the innovations they critique nor reviewed the materials they condemn. Perhaps, more importantly by those that do not offer any practical solutions to ensure that the 600 million can urgently learn.

Against this backdrop there are millions of parents who are choosing schools like Bridge. In Kenya alone, there are two million children alone attending ‘informal schools’. These parents are from communities living in extreme poverty, often in slums. These parents are choosing not to send their child to the nearby public school, for which they often pay, because their public school is failing; only 51% of Kenyan parents rated the quality of free to attend schools in Kenya as good.Children are not learning; teachers are struggling and parents are frustrated that their children are being failed. A parent with school aged children cannot wait for the rebuilding of public school systems; capacity building programs; re-invigorated teacher training programs. They have to send their child to school today. They choose schools where they can be intimately involved:  chairing regional and national PTAs; sitting on school boards; attending workshops. They are invested in their child’s education in every sense, as are their communities, and their children thrive. They are the living embodiment of Article 26’s section three: ‘Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.’

At the heart of parental choice is a parents’ desire for good teachers and  an environment that supports their child’s learning. However, teachers in developing countries face considerable challenges; they themselves struggle with literacy and numeracy; they often do not have materials with which to teach let alone good materials; they have overcrowded classrooms; often they are not paid on time, if at all; in remote communities with poor infrastructure there is no support or guidance and teacher absenteeism levels are extraordinarily high. This is the plight of many teachers and because of this, it is unfathomable that activists who claim to support teachers would seek to protect the status quo. They seek to protect labor and agitate against a focus on teacher performance. Whereas , teachers themselves are actively seeking environments where they have access to professional development opportunities and can practice their chosen profession with pride.

Nearly all primary schools in sub-Saharan Africa are failing their pupils. Solutions that utilize a wide range of partners is essential and using Article 26 to undermine these partnerships is nonsensical.

Joanna Hindley is the Vice President of Bridge International Academics. 

The post Education Is A Right That Must Be Fulfilled Urgently appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

At any given time, India contains an estimated 18.4 million victims of modern slavery. Of that number, 26 percent, or 5.5 million, are children.

India is no exception to the trend that trafficking and subsequent slavery are shown to be most prevalent in countries producing consumer goods through low-cost labor, as the rural elite have used slavery to augment their industrial financial gains for generations. Forced labor – debt bondage, indentured servitude, caste-based slavery, trafficking, enticement, abduction – is distinctly used by the rural elite to increase production in agricultural or textile industries. Often, at the mercy of the rural elite, the victims of slavery belong to poor families, a low social strata of the society, or from low caste poor families and mainly work in rural areas. Unfortunately, this is no surprise. Approximately 70 percent of trafficking victims in India belong to Scheduled Castes or Tribes – also called ‘Dalit’ classes – and are among the most disadvantaged socio-economic groups in India.

Though most in the Dalit classes are prone to economic and social vulnerability, they are the most susceptible to trafficking and other forms of slavery because of opinions of the rural elite. The rural elite may see control of lower classes as their divinely ordained, seigniorial right over people they view as serfs. To make matters worse, those in lower classes face the pressure of making wealth to survive, the need to repay debts, illiteracy and the lack of education, all of which may serve as driving forces in their vulnerability to elites who view them as lesser beings.

There is also an increasing trend of children being trafficked for domestic labor for the rural elite, who also have been shown to subject entire villages to debt bondage. Further, children forced into slavery, either from their villages or captured individually, by the rural elite may have previously been kicked out of shelters, forced beggars, gang members, or trafficked by illegal placement agencies.  

The market of sex slavery in India best illustrates the exploitation faced by victims of human trafficking. Close to 80 percent of the human trafficking is done for sexual exploitation and India is considered as the hub of this crime in Asia, with young girls also being smuggled from neighboring Nepal and Bangladesh. More than half of total commercial sex workers in India are from Nepal and Bangladesh, which can be attributed to prevailing abject poverty and ignorance in both these countries compared with India. Thus, India is not only a destination for human sex trafficking, but also a transit country for trading these victims internationally.

The prevalence of sex trafficking has additional implications for the status of women in India. Female victims with a lower social status, little to no possessions, or financially desperate have been historically easy targets for traffickers. Additionally, social pressures compel women to remain within the confines of the domestic sphere and the restricted movement, lack of education, and prevention from social and economic activities deprives the women from accessing justice, equality, and subjects them to abuses of human rights. As a result, traffickers are able to coax women into giving in to commercial sexual exploitation in order to support themselves or their dependents, as well as better their financial situation despite their circumstances. These empty promises often result in kidnapping, forced marriages, selling or bartering women for opium, wealth, or labor, and recurrent rape. Women who are sold – specifically to brothels, placement agencies, or as child brides – are bought through dealers on the black market. Once sold as sex slaves, particularly to brothels, victims seldom come back to normal life, as the impact of the suffering is so intense they often lose their mental balance and accept life as prostitutes. Those who try to escape are either killed or punished so brutally they become permanently mentally or physically scarred. These horrifying realities faced by millions of women and girls is a product of one of the fastest growing organized crimes and most lucrative criminal activity in the world that is increasing annually.

Actions taken by the Indian government and intergovernmental organizations, individually and in collaboration, to combat human trafficking have yielded mixed results. The 2008 Vienna Forum, a United Nations conference bringing together Member States, other international organizations, the business community, academia, and civil society, was planned to address different dimensions of human trafficking. The Forum examined existing definitions of and practices related to the prevention of trafficking and, by focusing on decreasing vulnerability, planned to broaden the strategic impact of existing prevention efforts.

While the global community addressing the issues of human trafficking is a stride towards preventing the crime, especially as it included the business world, limited actions were taken following this conference. In India specifically, identifying those vulnerable is not an easy task, as poverty alone cannot be the sole criteria to identify the poor. In addition to the lack of material resources, one needs to include indicators such as lack of power and choice. Reduction of vulnerability for the poor, therefore, is difficult for the government alone to accomplish.

Instead, the Indian government has looked towards crime prevention as an approach to combating human trafficking. This includes toughened criminal penalties for child prostitution and forced marriage, as well as improvements to protect victims, as well as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2016 demonetization scheme. This plan, announced in November of that year, was aimed, among other things, to hit out at black money, parallel economy and criminal activities to specifically impact industries run by the rural elite, as they thrive on illegally obtained income.

While this demonetization scheme will likely deal a severe blow to human trafficking activities, the India government will likely need to do more to aid victims and crack down on officials who are involved in human trafficking. In the meantime, the rural elite still profit from human labor and human rights violations continue to go undisturbed. The cycle of human bondage in India must be broken, and only time will tell if the efforts, past and present, of the Indian government and other outside organizations will pay off.

The post Human Trafficking in India: Abuse from the Rural Elite and the Wider Implications appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

A New Study Documents Meticulously a Wide Range of German Expert Opinion on Ukrainian Affairs and on Their Current Perception in Germany

Germany is Western Europe’s demographically and economically most significant country, while Ukraine has, in the post-Soviet period, become a geopolitical pivot state of Eastern Europe as well as the territorially largest exclusively European country (Russia and Turkey have parts of their territories in Europe, but most of them in Asia).

There are deep historical links between Ukrainians and Germans. One of many such connections was facilitated by the adoption of the famous Magdeburg Town Law by several Ukrainian cities – including Ukraine’s capital Kyiv, which holds a monument to the Magdeburg Law – during the 15th-19th centuries. During the pre-Soviet period, a multitude of close Ukrainian-German cooperation schemes in such fields as business, development, science, education and culture were and continue being implemented. For these and many other reasons, it is surprising how little attention the nature of the relationship, links, and feelings between the two large European nations have been received so far, in the study of European history and international relations.

While Ukrainian interest in Germany has always been very high, German interest in and information on Ukraine has only recently started to grow. In 2006, the Research Centre for East European Studies at the University of Bremen started to publish its regular German-language electronic bulletin (with the?) Ukraine-Analysen– publishing 201 issues so far. Two further specialized German-language websites, Ukraine-Nachrichten (News on Ukraine), founded in 2007, and Ukraine verstehen (Understanding Ukraine), founded in 2017, are improving German understanding of Ukraine today.

Systematic reflection on German-Ukrainian relations has also been improving, though more slowly. In 2010, Hamburg historian Frank Golczewski published a large volume on German-Ukrainian relations in the inter-war period (Deutsche und Ukrainer 1914-1939. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1058 pp.). A number essays and papers have since explored Ukraine’s presentation and misrepresentation in German media, as well as Germany’s involvement in Ukraine’s ongoing transformation.

With its new study Ukraine in Germany’s Eyes: Pictures and Perceptions of a Land in Transition, the Ukrainian program of the German Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ) provides an extremely informative and partly revealing documentation of German views on today’s Ukraine. The investigation follows the methodology of an earlier GIZ project on the perception of Germany across the world, which asked international experts on Germany and how the German nation is perceived in their home countries. The GIZ’s 2017 Ukraine study is not a broad statistical survey of German attitudes towards Ukraine, but a deep qualitative survey of German images, interpretations, opinions, evaluations, stereotypes, knowledge, and expectations related to Ukraine. These features are drawn from 1014 statements made by 44 Germans who are, to one degree or another, especially familiar with, or interested in, Ukraine. They comprise – partly, prominent – of scholars, entrepreneurs, civic activists, journalists, artists and politicians, among the latter, for instance, the Green Member of European Parliament Rebecca Harms and the former Minister-President of Saxony and current G7 envoy to Ukraine Professor Georg Milbradt.

As the project’s initiator and supervisor Andreas von Schumann makes clear in his introduction, the purposes of this investigation was not to “search for [objective] truth” about Ukraine; rather, “[w]e wanted to distil the commonalities that can be established in various perceptions [about Ukraine] among different persons [in Germany], which contours these pictures of Ukraine have, [and] what kind of profile as well as distortions are recognizable.” Von Schumann extracts two fundamental features in the evaluations of the 44 German specialized interview partners. The consulted German experts, first, perceive the German “view on Ukraine as being too narrow, the knowledge [in Germany about Ukraine] as too sketchy, and [Germans’] attention to [Ukrainian developments] as too volatile as well as their evaluations [of Ukrainian matters] as too slimly grounded.” The surveyed German specialists, second, express, according to von Schumann,

A deep desire that Germany and the Germans would engage, with Ukraine, more frequently and intensely. This hope is grounded on several motifs: historic responsibility of the Germans, the cultural diversity of Ukraine, the economic potential of the country, the necessity to provide for stability in Europe’s East and the possible impulses [of this engagement] for the further development of the EU. Yet the most obvious motif, among our conversation partners, was their excitement about their own rapprochement with Ukraine. Independently of the concrete occasion that let them make Ukraine their central interest, most of [the interviewees] emphasized the ‘clean sheet’ at the beginning which was to quickly transform into a ‘colourful canvas.’ p. 7.

Since 2014, the German view on Ukraine and the study documents has become dominated by three negatives “K’s” – Krieg, Krise, Krim (war, crisis, Crimea). This image is only marginally improved by two older positive “K’s” for the once celebrated football team “Dynamo Kyiv” and for Klitschko, the surname of the two famous boxing world champions Viktor and Volodymyr, who used to live and are still popular in Germany. Apart from reporting common German stereotypes such as these about Ukraine, the GIZ study offers a multitude of insights into the scale of different German perceptions: topics such as Ukraine’s regime changes, reforms, corruption, nationalism, foreign affairs, European aspirations, cultural divisions, relations with Russia, and relevance to Germany.

Thus the study finds that, for instance, in German assessments of today’s Ukrainian changes, “hardly any other sector is mentioned as many times as an example for lacking reform efforts as the justice system. This is because a reform of the electoral law and the creation of an anti-corruption court – both major demands of the reformers – will decide the future division of power in the country. It is crucial that the rule of law is implemented in all public affairs” (pp. 58-59).

With regard to foreign affairs, the answers of the various experts are more diverse and partly contradictory. One interviewee cited in the study asserts: “To join NATO is not a good idea for Ukraine because this means the formation of new blocks. Ukraine has to behave neutrally and try to find a common language with Russia.” A respondent assesses that “NATO cannot fulfill the role of guarantee power for Ukraine.” Yet, the conclusion from this is that “the EU has to get ‘teeth’ and become a security actor, on the European continent. The EU and Germany, to be sure, have through negotiation of the Minsk Agreements already taken upon themselves considerable responsibility, and the German government supports ‘resolutely’ the [Ukrainian] reform process. ‘But’ – asks a respondent rhetorically – ‘does this solve the conflict – especially if Russia plays upon time?’” (p. 76).

The study is not only valuable in that it well illustrates various German interpretations of these themes, but also – by documenting the views of many of Germany’s leading experts on Ukraine and how they talk about their country of interest – the booklet provides insights on how the German public will be informed about future developments in and around Ukraine. In view of Germany’s importance to the course of EU foreign affairs, in general, and policies towards Kyiv, in particular, this dense investigation of German interpretations of Ukrainian matters will become essential reading for everybody interested in Ukraine’s current and future international relations and gradual European integration.

Andreas Umland is Senior Fellow at the Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation in Kyiv, and editor of the ibidem Press book series “Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society.”

The post How Germany sees Ukraine appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Everything is ready for US President Donald Trump to land on Tuesday in Brussels where he will later participate in the NATO summit. A meeting where the tensions instigated by the White House among the rest of the 28 countries will serve as a reference for the face-to-face meeting scheduled for next Monday in Helsinki between the president and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin.

While the administration of the Republican sought last week to relax the growing nervousness among the members of the transatlantic alliance, Trump himself did not hesitate to instigate anew discord by remembering that the United States pays “between 70 and 90 percent to protect Europe and that’s fine. Of course, they kill us on trade.” In this way, there will be two main themes – the trade deficit of 151,000 million dollars with the European Union and the fact that countries like Germany only pay 1 percent of their GDP to the budget of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Before the meeting at NATO headquarters on July 11–12, the US president reminded European allies of the need to strictly implement the agreement and increase military spending. Last year, the United States accounted for 51.1 percent of the combined GDP of NATO members and 71.7 percent of its defense spending. The largest economy in the world contributed more funds to the Alliance than Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and Canada combined. Leaving aside the United States, only five countries have met spending standards, including Greece, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Poland and Romania.

Even so, the US ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchison, said during a press conference that although some countries still have to do more in this regard, more than half of the members are on track to achieve the goal of spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense by 2024. Hutchison used the occasion to make clear that there were no plans to make changes among the 32,000 American troops located in Germany, as part of the Alliance and other missions, as had been rumored. “We will talk about the biggest increase in defense spending by our allies since the Cold War,” said the ambassador, who insisted that all members “are increasing defense spending.”

Indeed, during the weekend, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said that the NATO countries were aimed to maintain reasonable relations with Russia. “Of course, we want to have a responsible relationship with Russia,” Merkel said in the statement, adding “that’s the reason why we will continue to have talks in the NATO-Russia Council.” At the same time though, the alliance “has to show determination to protect us,” she said.

The relations between Moscow and the West reached a critical turning point in Ukraine and the accession of Crimea to Russia after the 2014 referendum, in which more than 96 percent of the voters supported this decision. That year, the EU, the USA and several countries responded by imposing sanctions against Russia for its supposed role in the crisis, something that Moscow denied, hence it chose to activate an agri-food embargo to those who imposed restrictive measures against it.

That said, even when Washington has imposed severe reprisals on Russia and has expelled Russian diplomats, Trump at all times refuses to criticize Putin directly, something that some implicitly consider undermining NATO’s confidence. “The alliance faces a new set of challenges. Some analysts warn of a Cold War redux, pointing to Russia’s military incursions into Georgia and Ukraine as well as its efforts to sow political discord in NATO countries,” highlights Jonathan Masters, analyst of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Trump’s lukewarm support of NATO has led some European allies to question the US commitment. Before the Wednesday and Thursday summit, many members of the Alliance suggested that any sign of disunity will only fuel Moscow’s aggressiveness. “The alliance has responded by reinforcing defenses in Europe, but political rifts between members, some opened by the United States, have thrown NATO unity into question,” explains Masters.

Jeremy McCoy is a freelance journalist published in such media outlets as History Today, Activist Post, Veterans Today, Global Research, OffGuardian and Ground Report.

The post Trump Raises Doubts in NATO Allies appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On 2 April 2018, Ethiopia’s restless new Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was sworn into power. Since then the Federal Republic of Ethiopia has found itself in a whirlwind of reform. Ethiopia is undergoing its most significant changes since the 1991 birth of the EPRDF ruling coalition under its controversial leader, Meles Zenawi. The last two months have witnessed the realigning of Ethiopia’s economy and bilateral relations with previous foes such as Eritrea and Egypt.

Prime Minister Ahmed has hit the ground running in terms of political reforms with the overdue lifting of the State of Emergency that has existed since the abrupt resignation of his predecessor in February 2018. In a landmark move, Ethiopia’s government has released thousands of dissidents in an olive branch to the opposition. This is part of the Prime Minister’s new policy of opening the political space which has included the release of leaders of the opposition. These policies have proved widely popular amongst Ethiopia’s population, especially in the Oromia region where the Prime Minister hails from.

Of all the reform policies by Prime Minister Ahmed the one that has captured the imagination is his policy of rapprochement towards Eritrea. In 2000, Ethiopia under its late Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi signed an agreement with Eritrea to end the bloody border war between the neighbouring states. The agreement came to be subsequently known as the Algiers agreement and it demarcated the boundary between Ethiopia and Eritrea. On 5th June 2019, Ethiopia’s new, reformist Prime Minister Dr Abiy Ahmed agreed to “fully implement” the Algiers agreement and cede land back to Eritrea.

This is a monumental shift in Ethiopia’s political consensus forged under the transformative Meles Zenawi. The risks in the long term are that such a deal may empower other ethnic groups within the Federal regions to agitate for changes in boundary demarcation now that the new government is seen as responsive. However, it is worth noting that Prime Minister Abiy is universally popular in all regions of Ethiopia and especially his home region of Oromia, which was at the epicentre of anti-government protests from 2014 onwards.

In another landmark move, Prime Minister Ahmed recently met with his Egyptian counterpart, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi where both discussed the ongoing tensions over the Nile. Egypt has long been opposed to Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam, a $4 billion hydroelectric project that harvests the Blue Nile to power Ethiopia’s economy.  For years, negotiations between Ethiopia and Egypt have been deadlocked with the latter believing the Grand Renaissance Dam would harm Egypt’s access to the Nile which is critical for its industrial and agricultural sector.

For the first time, in a landmark statement, an Ethiopian leader has promised that Egypt’s share of the Nile will be preserved by Ethiopia. As part of the ongoing agreement, both sides (along with Sudan) will also set up an infrastructure fund for investing in the three countries. In the medium term such a policy of deescalating tensions with Egypt allows Ethiopia’s government to devote political capital on more pressing domestic concerns such as the liberalisation of what is considered Africa’s fastest growing economy.

On 6 June 2018, Ethiopia’s new government announced that the state will end its decades old monopoly in key sectors such as telecoms, energy and aviation. Reformist Prime Minister Ahmed is keen to modernize Ethiopia’s economy by privatizing key state-owned enterprises and limiting the state’s tight control on all aspects of the economy.

Ethiopia’s government hopes such increased inward investment will allow the state to create jobs for its increasing numbers of unemployed young people. In a country of 105 million people, absorbing more disaffected youth into its labour markets will prove crucial to Ethiopia’s future stability. Of interest to foreign investors is Ethiopia’s telecoms monopoly, Ethio Telecom which will be part privatised. Already major foreign operators such as MTN Africa have already signalled their interestin Ethiopia’s thriving telecoms sector.

Another lucrative asset to be privatised is Ethiopian Airlines which is considered Africa’s most successful airlines in terms of operations and profits. That the Ethiopian government is willing to privatise its previously untouchable cash cows shows how serious Prime Minister Ahmed’s administration is towards structural economic reform.

If done correctly, the liberalisation of Ethiopia’s economy offers substantial opportunities for the state and investors in the long term. According to the IMF, in 2017, Ethiopia’s economy was among the fastest growing in the world and it is set to expand 8.5% this year. The risks of privatisation to Ethiopia’s economy are minimal as analysts have long argued that Ethiopia’s economy requires an injection of competition to fulfill its enormous potential.

Going forward, Ethiopia’s target to attain lower-middle income status by 2025 will only be reached when it is able to limit the outsized role played by its large, state-owned enterprises. Finally, Ethiopia’s opening up of key sectors was in response to the visit of the IMF Managing Director in December 2017, where Ethiopia was advised to abandon its strategy of debt financed growth to maintain its impressive annual growth rates. Although such a strategy enabled Ethiopia to record impressive growth rates for the last several years, it is not sustainable in the long run as state-owned enterprises have not been able to create enough jobs for Ethiopia’s population of 105 million.

This article was first published on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Bashir Ali. 

The post Ethiopia Between Risk and Reform appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Anti-Access/Area-Denial capabilities (A2/AD)—the ability to prevent an adversary from entering an area of land, sea, or air—have become a major component of military force postures for powers around the globe, but Russia is the most committed to advancing their development. Russian A2/AD capabilities are shaping NATO’s neighborhood and the Alliance needs a comprehensive strategy to counter them effectively in times of peace, crisis, and conflict.

Russian A2/AD capabilities include traditional air power, unmanned aerial vehicles, maritime capabilities (including submarines and offensive mining), offensive and defensive missile systems (such as the Iskander, Bastion, Kalibr, and S-400), offensive electronic warfare, special operations forces, and cyber capabilities.

During last year’s major military exercise, Zapad-2017, Russia practiced creating three A2/AD bubbles—in the High North, the Kaliningrad Oblast, and Crimea—to limit NATO’s freedom of maneuver and hinder the deployment of large US military formations.

The whole territory of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, as well as parts of Norway, Romania, and Turkey, are within range of different elements of this Russian A2/AD architecture, which will make it much harder for NATO to defend these areas. A scenario where allied forces must break through Russia’s A2/AD system is highly probable.

Russia’s A2/AD systems are important for two other reasons.

First, a leaner chain of command and streamlined decision-making system mean Russia can act much faster than NATO allowing it to achieve escalation control.

Second, nuclear weapons remain a crucial element of Russia’s escalation dominance strategy. In a situation when allied forces would consider breaking through Russia’s A2/AD system, Russia could threaten to use its nuclear capabilities as a deterrent. Russia’s careful calculations of thresholds and escalation triggers have been more a matter of preference than necessity in a larger military strategy. Through this approach, Russia can control the level of conflict escalation, dominating the mechanism and circumstance of escalations where nuclear elements play a fundamental role.

The NATO summit in Brussels on July 11 and 12 will be the third consecutive one to address the Russian A2/AD threat. Since 2014, NATO has adopted several steps to mitigate some of the challenges linked to A2/AD. NATO’s counter-A2/AD strategy should be based on a strategic six-pack.

First, NATO needs improved advanced defense planning to reflect the constantly changing nature and integration of Russia’s A2/AD capabilities. The Alliance must plan now for entry operations into a non-permissive environment in the future.

Second, NATO’s decision-making processes, including both political and military elements, also must be streamlined. If there is anything the Russian A2/AD systems are vulnerable to, it is the speed of NATO’s actions in the early phases of a crisis. Increasing the speed of recognition, decision, and assembly of forces could considerably diminish the effectiveness of Russia’s A2/AD capabilities.

Third, NATO should increase the number of forces and equipment on allied territory covered by the Russian A2/AD bubbles. There is no better way to deter the A2/AD threat than by stationing additional forces in the theater. This process should be preceded by strengthening the concept of pre-positioning of additional military equipment.

Fourth, readiness, deployability, and sustainability of large military formations, especially ground forces, should be enhanced. NATO’s reinforcement strategy should envisage plans for such formations to break through and operate in an A2/AD environment.

Fifth, the NATO Defense Planning Process should prioritize capabilities, including heavy ones, to counter A2/AD systems on land, in the air, and at sea. These should include electronic warfare, anti-submarine warfare, air defense, Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, as well as precision-guided artillery. These capabilities should be embraced by the cross-domain fires concept.

And, sixth, allied formations must regularly train in a non-permissive environment to practice for potential deployments. Moving troops into a zone covered by A2/AD specifically should be an important element of NATO’s training and exercises.

NATO’s deterrence and defense posture is based on credibility. The Alliance must be able to counter Russia’s A2/AD capabilities if it is to remain a reliable defense alliance and security actor.

This article was originally published by the Atlantic Council.

Dominik P. Jankowski is the newly appointed political adviser and head of the political section at the Permanent Delegation of the Republic of Poland to NATO.

The post Six Ways NATO Can Address the Russian Challenge appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Mexico’s President Elect, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, as his best animated self.

After decades of one party rule under the PRI, two standard six year Presidential terms under the PAN and a brisk return to the PRI to remind voters why they ejected them in the first place, Mexicans came out en masse to vote for the ex-mayor of Mexico City, Manuel Lopez Obrador. As the ex-mayor of Mexico City, Mexico’s new President led from the left of the political spectrum as is often the case in many large cities, but won as an independent, apart from Mexico’s main established parties. He challenged the regional and national governments to become a well known quantity running one of the largest cities in the world, and is said to have done a pretty decent job with Mexico City’s transit system during his time as mayor. He is Mexico’s new populist President, and as predicted at the end of populist driven elections, the comparisons to their northern neighbours have begun.

While comparisons to populist leaders lead many to conclude that all populist electoral victories may reflect a US experience, the popularity of Obrador comes with the experience of him as a well-established political voice in Mexican politics. He is well known as a left leaning political voice, but also may likely have to tack back to the centre on several policy files unlike his Canadian counterpart, but remain in the realm of socially oriented policies, unlike his French counterpart. Lopez Obrador’s policies seem to reflect a regional and social division of how they are applied and who they need to serve. He is well aware that raising the cost of business along the border regions and on international firms operating in Mexico will damage their competitiveness as US tax rates have significantly declined. This is not the case in Canada where taxes seem to give birth to more taxes despite the competitive reality of a lower taxes across the border. While this type of policy may seem right of centre, it addresses economic challenges to Mexico is a realistic fashion.

The victory of President elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, often referred to as AMLO, seemed to soak up the political will of those that were tired of years of problems that never seemed to be successfully challenged by established political parties. Like Macron in France, AMLO ran apart from the establishment, also running apart from any record that may be tied to them. Challenging corruption and security issues was paramount, as it always is in Mexico since the PAN turned up the heat on security issues during their time in office and the metaphorical kitchen caught fire, mind you it was a PRI built kitchen. While Macron swiftly moved to the centre in his policy approaches post-election, Lopez Obrador may have to have a creative response to the current NAFTA negotiations if he wishes to maintain his socially oriented policies. Negotiating with an aggressive American side and a Canadian side that are blind to most issues facing Mexico will be a challenge as local politics in the US and Canada are pushing NAFTA and Mexico into dangerous territory. While the North American economy is strong, working out the best deal for Mexico while maintaining a socially balanced agreement that serves the Mexican economy and the unique state of Mexico’s population compared to their NAFTA partners will be an enormous challenge.

Corruption is often why many well established parties lose the electorate, but once elected, the problems that plagued or were even created by the last governments lay on the shoulders of the current government. The characteristic one term, six year Presidential term for Mexican Presidents give a lot of time and opportunity to challenge the status quo, but it is a great challenge that anyone who sees themselves as valuing their country can support if the end of corruption is made into a possibility. The problem with corruption however is that once it is entrenched, it is almost impossible to eliminate. This will be the greatest challenge to AMLO and has been to all government in modern Mexican history.

The post Mexico’s New Six Year Presidential Experiment appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Summit

Not too long ago, President Trump was promising “fire and fury”, while Kim Jong-Un was assuring a “super-mighty pre-emptive strike”. On June 12, 2018 as cameras flashed and hands shook, both leaders significantly changed their tune with flattery and promises. The Singapore Summit was indeed a historic moment, with North Korea’s promises of denuclearization. However, this seemingly good cheer and cooperative attitude prompts the skeptic to consider what North Korea actually wants and what concessions they will actually make.

This is hardly the first time that North Korea has promised to disarm. In 1985, North Korea signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but by 2003, the nation had withdrawn from their agreement. Since then, North Korea has flip flopped between agreeing to dismantle nuclear weapons, all the while continuing to test and develop nuclear weapons. Even with the recent treaty, it is necessary to look at why Kim Jong-Un signed the agreement in the first place.

Kim Jong-Un’s motive in light of recent negotiations is vital to explore. Typically, with two nations at odds with each other, when something appears too good to be true, it is. Kim Jong-Un’s propaganda over the years has shown missile launches and extreme nationalism. Threats leveraged at the U.S., even up until a few months ago do not indicate the actions of a man who will actually give up the leverage he has. It is natural to conclude that there is a reason for Kim Jong-Un’s seeming cooperation with denuclearization and it becomes important for the interests of national security understand why and how.

It’s Economics, Baby

China’s influence over North Korea has been striking and should not be overlooked. Indeed, it is almost a surprise that China came on board with the rest of the international community in imposing said sanctions. China has had relations with North Korea and maintained their support of stability within the Korean Peninsula. China has even gone as far as to promise to return any escapees who make it across the border back to North Korea. Additionally, there have been reports indicating that over 90% of North Korea’s food and energy supply come from China. China has been working both sides and it is interesting to say the least that they would begin applying pressure to North Korea now.

China’s recent display of economic hegemony and restricting trade of fuel and food vital to North Korea’s survival seems to have largely influenced North Korea’s recent compliance. Combined with condemnation from the international community, threats from the United States, and Kim Jong-Un’s own personal ego have also contributed to the talks with the U.S. and South Korea. Whether or not Kim Jong-Un will follow through on his end of the bargain, although doubtful, is yet to be determined. The agreement both parties signed only provided an outline of goals without a strategy of implementation.

Each player in this game has a clear stake. South Korea wants a united Korea and stability in the region. China wants power and probably nuclear weapons of their own. The United States wants North Korea to denuclearize. Lastly, North Korea wants a lift to the economic sanctions applied to the, and the power that comes with being a world player.

It is this last point that is striking. For a country that has been closed off to most of the world to now emerge and aim for peace is quite interesting. The timing is indicative of the result of economic pressure coming largely from China. Until recently, China seemed to turn a blind eye to the humanitarian crimes of North Korea. This past year, however, China has condemned the testing of nuclear weapons and applied sanctions. China’s massive influence should not be ignored.

Although the Kims have previously indicated that their regime’s survival is based on the development of nuclear weapons, Kim Jong-Un has wisely decided to take a separate approach through diplomatic measures. Yet even with the seemingly positive outcomes of the summit, sanctions will not be lifted until weapons are denuclearized.

The Humanitarian Factor

Under the best of circumstances, Kin Jong-Un will put into action his promise to denuclearize. Economic sanctions will be lifted and North Korea will continue importing gas and exporting coal. Jobs will increase in North Korea and the country may begin to prosper. Perhaps the hotel President Trump believes could be developed will come to fruition and the world will see an increase in tourism in the once restricted nation.

It would be so easy for the world to turn a blind eye to the injustices inflicted upon Kim Jong-Un’s own people. President Trump has stated that economic sanctions will not be lifted until Chairman Kim denuclearizes. Should there also not be some written emphasis on the requirement for North Korea to end their humanitarian crimes? Gulags, reeducation camps, travel restrictions and intolerance of religious groups are just a few examples of oppression that the world knows takes place in North Korea. Just as striking is the mass brainwashing that has taken place. North Korea is a country without choice and without opportunities. Kim Jong-Un may not have established the system, but he has maintained it.

Kim Jong-Un became Supreme Leader of the “Democratic” People’s Republic of Korea in 2011 upon the death of his father Kim Jong-Il. As such, he cannot plead ignorance to the crimes under his regime. With the county’s total control, nothing is done without Kim Jong-Un knowing about it. Surveillance, testimony from survivors and escapees, and credible intelligence all bear testament to these crimes.

It may not be in the immediate best interests of world leaders for Kim Jong Un to be held accountable for the crimes against his people. Despite promises and a signed document, Kim Jong-Un does not have any organization or person to enforce his part of the bargain. If it is the goal of the international community to see North Korea disarm, they will not begin to criticize how he rules his people. This does not mean that light should not be shed on the fact that the international community may be failing the interests of the people of North Korea. A way to start looking out for the interests of the people is to consider what the international community cando.

There is no easy method to address the human rights abuses in North Korea within the immediate future. If admittance is the first step to recovery, North Korea has a long way to go as the Kim Jong-Un dictatorship does not even recognize the human rights abuses taking place. China, again, may have the leverage to play a significant role in the humanitarian cause. Escapees from North Korea into China are known to be returned. China should consider these people as refugees rather than prisoners and find a way to provide asylum. International and human rights organizations could work with bordering countries like China and South Korea in order to provide the aid and resources necessary enable survivor’s recovery and prosperity.

The international community now has the opportunity to begin discussions on the human rights abuses that have taken place within North Korea. Part of the economic discussions should without a doubt include the shutting down of the concentrations camps within North Korea and allowing asylum to survivors. The process of reuniting blood relations between the two Koreas is also a necessary measure of good will that should be emphasized and not forgotten.

Now that North Korea has emerged promising peace and an effort for stability in the region, perhaps negotiations may begin surrounding humanitarian issues. It is not the sole duty of the United States to condemn the action of the North Korean regime, but the responsibility of the international community as a whole. The immediate concern is whether or not Kim Jong-Un will live up to his word and begin to denuclearize. Even if he does follow through on his promise, it will be a long while before Kim Jong-Un is recognized as a legitimate world player.

The post Is North Korea Actually Disarming? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Another day, another crisis. North Korea, despite the international community’s cautious optimism following the Trump-Kim summit, appears to be moving full steam ahead with its missile program, all while the last vestige of the Iranian Nuclear Deal is swept away by hawkish White House advisors calling for regime change. It has become alarmingly clear that, to the chagrin of all those unfortunate enough to be living on planet Earth, the role of nuclear weapons in the 21st century will be a prominent one. Through its presidential proclamations on twitter, the Trump administration has demonstrated its eagerness to open up avenues of conflict from horrific to traverse. Its actual policies, however, offer little comfort. On February 2nd, the Pentagon released its Nuclear Posture Review to little fanfare and, in doing so, announced its intention to give its nuclear arsenal a competitive edge in a new arms race with Russia and China. In a radical departure from the 2010 NPR, which concluded on the optimistic sub-chapter titled “Towards a World free of Nuclear Weapons,” the Trump-era NPR consistently compares arsenal sizes with that of its geopolitical rivals and startlingly calls for the first  increase in America’s nuclear capabilities since the Nixon administration. Viewed as a starting pistol, the NPR is the launch of a Trumpian missile–measuring contest that has reinvigorated the debate over the role of nuclear weapons in the world at a time of increasing instability.

When the first draft of the NPR was published by Huffington Post in January, response to the broadened nuclear response scope was so negative that the Doomsday Clock nauseously lurched 30 seconds closer to midnight. In its final form, the NPR seems to have scaled back some of the more troubling phrases like “supplementary low-yield weapons” or “enhance[d] deterrence,” the paper itself remains unnervingly vague on several matters.  

This macho march towards bigger arsenals risks normalizing what should be unthinkable. It is a radical shift not only in US policy, but it breaks with a global trend of non-proliferation and disarmament, best displayed by the tireless work of people like recent Nobel Laureate Beatrice Fihn of ICAN and Ambassador Jan Kickert, Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations, both of whom worked on the recent Nuclear Ban Treaty, which was passed by the United Nations in 2017.

Even worse, the NPR has encouraged some to consider weapons of mass destruction as a legitimate strategic option. Armchair-proponents of nuclear weapons are likely to laud the focus on the so-called realist perspective of the NPR, which in its first draft touts that its authors “view{s} the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” This adolescent nihilism ignores that policies that encourage increasing arsenal sizes and disproportionate responses actually shape the world into the terrifying form they are supposedly protecting us from. By making nuclear weapons a deployable option in a greater number of possible scenarios, the United States is increasing the likelihood of either nuclear war or the one-sided slaughter of foreign civilians, outcomes often glossed over by tacticians, amateur and professional alike. What this strategy fails to acknowledge is that both options are almost inconceivably horrible, and their implementation should only be considered in the direst of circumstances.

More serious discussions regarding nuclear policy frequently focus on the stability enabled by America’s superior military capabilities. Scholars like Daryl G. Press and Kier Lieber have credited the mild climate of the Cold War to Mutually Assured Destruction, which admittedly may be correct. So stable was the world under constant threat of total destruction, some academics have even taken to calling the period following WWII, ‘The Long Peace.’ To do so, however, ignores the many mishaps, miscommunications, and stand-offs between the 1950’s and the 1980’s that all potentially could have killed millions. In any case, yesterday’s balancing act does not guarantee stability today, and be it by accident or intention, the probability of a nuclear incident gradually increases to a certainty over time should more countries continue to create nuclear weapons. As the saying goes, we only have to be unlucky once.

Despite the posturing of the Trump administration, a nuclear arms race is one no else seems eager to run. Instability, braggadocio, and the ability to wipe out all life on Earth is a nitroglycerine mix, and by pursuing such a short-sighted policy, Donald Trump has finally delivered his followers back into their fetishized 1950’s. Just maybe not as advertised.

Adam J. Camiolo is the Director of Membership for the Foreign Policy Association. He currently oversees the FPA Associates program, as well as numerous lectures, conferences, and events in New York City. He also works on building strategic partnerships, various task forces, and research conducted by the FPA.

Mr. Camiolo has a Master’s degree in Public Administration with a concentration in International Economic Policy and Management/International Politics from the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University, as well as a BA in History from SUNY Geneseo.

The post On the Nuclear Posture Review appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

News about the 2018 World Cup in Russia will dominate sports headlines and television screens throughout the summer months as fans come out of the woodwork to support their nation’s soccer teams. And while the World Cup is a great way to unite people, it is important to think of the broader implications of this major international sporting event, and specifically, hosting it in one of the most politically controversial countries in the world. At the opening ceremony, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed Russia wanted to host the event due to the country’s adoration for the sport: “In our country, football is not just the most popular sport. People genuinely love football … We prepared responsibly for this major event and did our best so that fans, athletes and specialists could immerse themselves in the atmosphere of this magnificent football festival and, of course, enjoy their stay in Russia – open, hospitable, friendly Russia.”

The World Cup is a large public relations opportunity for Putin, as leaders around the world are forced to temporarily forget and minimize the actions of his administration while their countries participate in the sporting event organized by his country. Russia is currently embroiled in controversies ranging from continued backlash over their annexation of Crimea to their support of the Syrian government in the Syrian Civil War, and even more recently controversies relating to their alleged intervention in the United States’ 2016 elections. This thick fog of controversy has seemed to escape the minds of people around the world – which is exactly what the Putin administration would want. Events like these serve to help coerce the population into believing in the legitimacy of their governments and soccer players are sadly being used as pawns for propaganda. Infamous Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who was recently sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for human rights violations, was seen taking photos with Egyptian soccer star Mo Salah at Grozny stadium, while also giving the player a personal tour in front of the press. According to Rachel Denber from Human Rights Watch, “This is Kadyrov trying to capitalise on Chechnya being a team base to boost his own profile…it was 100 per cent predictable.”

Now, don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love the World Cup. I’ve spent the past two weeks watching every single game (go England!), and it’s been a great talking point for everybody in my town. International sporting events like these are always a fun experience for the citizens of the host nations and those cheering abroad. These events are also always an opportunity for leaders to gain public support which is particularly noticeable this year. I think it’s important to keep politics out of stadiums and kept in parliaments.

Dominic Floreno is a high school student and 1st prize winner of the FPA’s 2018 student essay/video competition. 

The post Politics and the World Cup appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Given the seemingly relentless flow of news over the last several months, a perception no doubt augmented by the whiplash nature of today’s 280-character policy making process, the recent events in Spain have generally been relegated to the sidelines of political and foreign affairs discussions. Impending trade wars, immigration crises on multiple continents, and a turbulent political climate for some of Spain’s own European neighbors all figure into the geopolitical outlook; it’s no surprise, then, that an internal shift in the Iberian nation’s politics has garnered relatively few headlines. Nevertheless, Spain’s new Prime Minister, the socialist Pedro Sanchez, finds himself in a unique position to assume a strong domestic and European leadership role. Despite a relatively weak government and lack of an electoral mandate coupled with an environment of growing international uncertainty, Sanchez has a chance to consolidate not only his government, but also Spain as a multicultural, humanitarian-minded, and modern European democracy.

Sanchez rose to the premiership on June 1, 2018 after a successful vote of no-confidence in parliament the previous day. The vote brought together a smattering of left-wing and regional parties and allowed the socialist Sanchez, whose PSOE (Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party) holds only 84 of the 350 total seats, to unseat longtime conservative leader Mariano Rajoy, whose PP (People’s Party) maintains a proportional majority with 134 seats. Undoubtedly,the downfall of the PP-led government came down to several domestic issues: most immediately, an enduring corruption scandal, cited as the principal cause for the censure vote of May 31, that Rajoy was ultimately unable to distance himself from; and, most importantly, the protracted, and often chaotic struggle over Catalan independence.

Understanding the importance of the Catalan situation is critical to seeing Sanchez’s, and Spain’s, path forward in Europe. For his part, the ousted prime minister Mariano Rajoy demonstrated a general antipathy towards Spanish regional autonomy, most notably spearheading a successful constitutional challenge to the Catalan New Statue of Autonomy in 2006. This particular case lasted four years in the courts, and the 2010 decision, although a relatively limited revision of the statue, notably stripped language referring to a “Catalan nation” from the document, sparking outrage and setting the stage for a series of referendums and heightened discord during Rajoy’s premiership, which began one year later in 2011.

Rajoy’s handling of the independentist movement has been less than harmonious: a hardline stance by the PP that has included the application of Article 155 of the Spanish constitution, effectively suspending Catalan autonomy and bringing the region under direct control of the national government in Madrid; and, most contentiously, the imprisonment of eight separatist leaders, charged with “rebellion,” and the hurried exile of the Catalan ex-president, Carles Puidgemont. The fate of these prisoners will likely influence the willingness of Catalan moderates to negotiate in good faith in the freshly awaited dialogue with the new government in Madrid. Notably, it was some of these moderates who helped catapult Sanchez to power in the censure vote, seeing in the rise of the socialist an opportunity to reset a political discourse that has become increasingly quarrelsome, not only nationally but also at home in Catalonia. As Spain continues its recovery from the devastating global financial crisis that was exacerbated by a sovereign debt crisis in 2012, regularizing the situation in Catalonia, which accounts for around a fifth of national GDP, will prove essential to continuing the economic rebound in the face of renewed pressures.

Economically speaking, the ousted Mariano Rajoy deserves much credit for the generally steady recovery since the downturn. Spain is in its fifth straight year of economic growth, the third straight with GDP growth over 3%; largely credited by observers to Rajoy and his conservatives’ unflinching commitment to a harsh austerity program that has helped stabilize the nation’s industries and recuperate a severely handicapped labor market (unemployment is hovering around 16%, up from the pre-crisis low of around 8.4% and down from the post-crisis high of 24%). While Catalonia looms large, Sanchez will also have to navigate the consequences of long-awaited tightening in monetary policy from the ECB, and the threat of an increasingly quarrelsome international trade environment on the economic front.

If Sanchez is able to guide Spain through these challenges, the most telling and pressing of which will be the Catalan situation, then he will be uniquely positioned to solidify Spain’s liberal multicultural democracy. Politically, despite the recent upheaval, Spain remains relatively stable in comparison to some of its European neighbors; notably Italy with the unusual alliance between the Five Star Movement and the right-wing League, and even Germany given the reemergence of a right-wing political force in the Alternative for Germany and the internal strife in Merkel’s coalition over immigration policy. Despite the emergence of two new national parties, center right Citizens and the far-left Podemos, Spain has been largely spared from the global populist resurgence. As a recent Economist piece states: “Crucially, Spain has no significant movement on the nationalist right, unlike Italy, France and many others, including Poland and Hungary. Indeed, tolerance of refugees and migrants has been an impressive feature of Spanish democracy.” As European leaders continue to clash over immigration policy, Spain, then, an autochthonal and multicultural nation, may be in a position to bridge the ideological gap over immigration in Europe, a duality coincidentally embodied by Germany and Italy as demonstrated at the “informal” immigration summit of European leaders this week.

Sanchez, then, in dealing with the Catalan issue and providing clear European leadership on immigration, will have an opportunity to consolidate his left-wing leadership after nearly a decade of conservative governance and to raise Spain’s profile as a European leader. To do this,Sanchez first must act decisively in the Catalan negotiations and take steps to ensure continued economic growth and political confidence domestically (a restructuring of regional financing and a political transparency law both find themselves on the socialists’ agenda). His success will no doubt depend on his ability to maneuver his fractured parliamentary coalition, a job not dissimilar to the task of creating a European consensus in today’s geopolitical conditions (specifically, an essential prerequisite to progress on immigration in the face of a potential humanitarian crisis). If Sanchez plays it right, a strong Spain and a stronger Europe will result and Spain’s conservatives will have much work to do if they hope to regain control; his, and his party’s ability, however, remain very much an unknown. As the summer continues to heat up, Spain’s future, and its place in Europe, will be at play.

Joe Greaney is a recent graduate of the College of the Holy Cross with a degree in Political Science and Spanish. Views expressed are his own. 

The post One To Watch: Spain’s new PM Pedro Sanchez appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Joseph Kabila (Photo from The Guardian)

Current Political Crisis

The Democratic Republic of Congo has been plagued with political instability ever since independence from Belgium in 1960. This instability has contributed greatly to widespread government corruption, due to limited mechanisms of accountability. In 2006, the first democratic elections were held in over four decades and Joseph Kabila, the son of former President Laurent-Désiré Kabila, was elected. After his five-year term had expired, he was reelected in 2011. Though there were widespread allegations of voter fraud, Joseph Kabila served a second term that officially ended in 2016. Congo’s constitution allows a president to serve for only two terms, which Kabila had completed. However, rather than organizing a free and fair election and preparing for a new administration, the Kabila administration postponed elections. The administration began to suppress political opposition groups and arrest prominent civil society leaders. This marked a clear shift to a new political landscape – reminiscent of a dictatorial regime. Kabila has maintained a stronghold on power, reaping the monetary benefits of Congo’s resources, while widespread poverty among the general population continues, promulgating food insecurity and high infant mortality.

Responses

Kabila’s abuse of power and disregard for the constitution has sparked large-scale protests, many of which have been spearheaded by youth activists. Thousands of Congolese citizens have been, and continue to be, active in protests in Goma, Kinshasa, Mbandaka and other cities in Congo. Youth activists have been instrumental in mobilizing civil society throughout the country. Groups like Lucha and Quatrieme Voix have both generated and sustained international attention regarding the human rights abuses being committed by the Kabila administration. Both Lucha and Quatrieme Voix are groups that have committed themselves to pro-democracy efforts and ensuring that youth are integral to the political dialogues that transpire in Congo. The Kabila administration has targeted high-profile leaders of these groups, allegedly detaining and torturing them.

Unfortunately, Kabila has been adamant to dismantle these protests using any means necessary. Security forces deployed by him have beaten, arrested, an even killed peaceful protestors. In 2017 alone, upwards of “300 opposition leaders and supporters, journalists, and human rights and pro-democracy activists were arrested and jailed”. Pressure from Western countries have prompted the release of some of the arrested individuals, but many are apparently still being held against their will. The exact number of people who have been detained since December 2016 is undetermined but has been estimated to be as high as 600. Over the past three years, Congolese security forces have killed over 300 people engaging in political protests. However, this has not deterred civil society from continuing to push for elections and accountability. The Catholic Church has also become involved in mobilizing the population, organizing protests in conjunction with the Lay Coordination Committee, a spiritual group. In response, security forces have attacked churches with tear gas and ammunition while civilians attended Mass.

The Kabila administration had originally stated that elections would be held at the end of 2017. This did not occur, however, and the administration blamed the delay on financial and logistical obstacles. Now, elections have been set for December 23, 2018, but it is unclear if Kabila will actually follow through with this plan. There is also speculation that he may add himself to the ballot, which would violate the constitution. With the upcoming elections quickly approaching, tensions continue to rise.

The political crisis in Congo has sparked multifaceted international responses. On March 27, 2018, the UN Security Council unanimously passed resolution 2409 extending MONUSCO’s mandate, the largest peacekeeping mission in the world involving approximately 20,600 personnel, with the aim of protecting civilians from violence arising from political turmoil. Furthermore, the United States has publically articulated its support for free and fair elections. On June 21, the US Department of State imposed visa bans and sanctions on high-level Congolese officials with prior ties to electoral corruption and fraud.

Promising Future

With half of the country’s population under the age of 24, there is a new generation of youth that are pushing for change in Congo. While the world often focuses on the wide-scale violence and human rights abuses occurring in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the heroism and resilience exhibited by everyday citizens is often overlooked. It is this heroism that almost inevitably will change the trajectory of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Youth activists in Congo should be supported in whatever ways possible so they can continue striving for transparency, accountability and self-determinism.

The post  Youth Activists Push for Political Accountability in The Democratic Republic of Congo appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

I first visited South Africa in 2008, when Thabo Mbeki was being outmaneuvered by Jacob Zuma, who forced out Mbeki and ascended to the presidency in spite of sexual assault and corruption charges. No one then understood how catastrophic Zuma’s eight years in power would be—but a report the other weekend demonstrates how he undermined critical democratic institutions, behaved as though he is not beholden to the law, and used the state to employ a Western accounting firm to create and spread fake news before the term was en vogue here. As President Trump forsakes allies and negotiates with North Korea, it is critical that we do not miss the forest for the trees, lest we find ourselves ten years from now, like many South Africans today, wondering why we did not stop him sooner.

Jacob Zuma, aided by KPMG, accused South Africa’s tax authority of politically motivated investigations and illegal spying as a precursor to asserting control of the tax authority and later the treasury. He waged a war on a government department to protect himself, his family, and his cronies and to hide illegal activity. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan briefly confirmed this week that the FBI did not illegally or inappropriately spy on the Trump campaign, only to talk back his statement under political pressure, as Trump continues to undermine the entirety of the FBI. Donald Trump, aided and abetted by the Republican Party, has led a public war against Mueller, so it should come as no surprise public approval of Mueller’s non-partisan investigation is at an all-time low, along partisan lines. Mueller is successfully identifying and prosecuting criminal acts; Trump is working to delegitimize our entire justice system in service of his personal interests.

Under South Africa’s post-Apartheid government, the number of people paying taxes quadrupled, surpassing even the United States for the rate of collection. The South African public did not know Zuma himself refused to pay taxes, but they resented endemic corruption while watching Zuma incapacitate the tax authority, driving down collection rates. Not only has Trump lauded tax avoidance like Zuma, but also the unfettered indulgences of Cabinet members Ben Carson and Scott Pruitt support the false narrative that such corruption is politics-as-usual, fostering cynicism about governance while the politically connected abuse power for personal gain. Endemic corruption of this nature undermines democracy at its core.

In perhaps the darkest of parallels, Zuma once mused to his tax commissioner, “Why must I go and answer questions in Parliament? Putin doesn’t go to Parliament to answer questions.” Trump’s admiration for Putin and Russia are well documented, as is his legal team’s argument for not answering the questions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Trump and his team argue they are above the law, with self-pardon power and the authority to end any investigation at any time. Trevor Noah’s early segment on Trump becoming our first African dictator is more prescient now than when it aired in October 2015, with Trump’s total disregard for transparency and democracy.

My first night back in the United States after I returned from South Africa included the infamous debate in which Donald Trump implicitly referenced the size of his genitals. Yes, that happened. Yes, he is President. Here’s the thing: I’m still optimistic about South Africa and its new President, Cyril Ramaphosa. I think he may be able to right the ship. But initial optimism has given way to recognition of the depth of the hole created by Zuma’s corrupt presidency (the currency has dropped more than 30 percent since the initial bounce after Zuma’s ouster). The question, then, is how deep of a hole will we let Trump dig us? Congressional Republicans have not exercised oversight, Trump may succeed in undermining Mueller’s investigation, and the Trump family continues to profit on executive decisions. How deep will we let him dig this hole before we reclaim our identity as the leading democratic nation on the planet?

Steven Leach is a conflict and development expert who lived and worked in sub-Saharan Africa for five years; he is also a Security Fellow with Truman National Security Project. Views expressed are his own.

The post On South Africa appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.