Foreign Policy Blogs

With less than five months until the 2022 World Cup, Qatar is making final preparations to host millions of fans. FIFA permitted Qatar to host the 2022 games back in 2010. Since then, Qatar has spent an estimated $220 billion on new stadiums, roads, hotels, and other necessities to accommodate incoming fans. The burden of labor to create this infrastructure has fallen on migrant workers. Migrant labor dominates economies in the Gulf – it constitutes an average of 70% of all labor in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.  In Qatar, it constitutes an astonishing 95% of all labor, according to Human Rights Watch. For the last decade, Qatar has faced increasing criticism regarding its system for migrant labor. The Kafala System, utilized by all Gulf countries, leaves employees extremely vulnerable to the will of their employer. By perpetuating uneven power dynamics without much oversight, this system exposes millions of workers to exploitation and abuse. This exploitation and abuse runs rampant amongst workers hired to build infrastructure for the 2022 World Cup.

The Kafala system invites exploitation by giving employers permission to act as a sponsor for individual workers. The employer covers all travel and housing expenses for the migrant. In return, employers have relatively unregulated control over employees’ autonomy. Employers control migrant workers’ legal status, visa status, and often retain important documents such as passports. Employers also have control over workers’ ability to change jobs. By refusing to transfer documents to the new employer, previous employers can essentially force workers to remain in place. Employers can also render employees as illegal migrants by refusing to renew visa documents – upon discovery by authorities, an undocumented migrant can face severe fines and jail time. The extremely unequal power dynamic gives the employer, or sponsor, full control over the worker’s mobility, autonomy, and livelihood. Additionally, migrant workers regularly face issues of delayed wages, long hours, and extremely dangerous working conditions. Since 2010, over 6,500 migrant workers have died in Qatar.

In 2017, the International Labor Organization (ILO) acknowledged these issues. They entered into an agreement with Qatar aimed at tackling the country’s labor problems. This agreement looked to reform the Kafala System, increase workers’ access to justice, improve health and safety for workers, and regulate wages. In return for these changes, the ILO promised to withdraw its request for the World Cup to be moved elsewhere. Qatar passed several new pieces of legislation in line with the agreement. While the situation has improved over the last five years, much of the new legislation addresses the situation in name only. Migrant laborers still face a multitude of life-threatening issues. Of the 6,500 workers who have died in Qatar, many died during dangerous construction jobs, from heat-related incidents, in road accidents, or from unsafe living conditions in labor camps. The World Cup will occur as planned in November, despite this devastating human toll. FIFA appears to be taking little to no action. Major international players, including the ILO, UN, and governments like the United States, need to acknowledge the reality of the situation. The enjoyment of soccer fans across the world comes at the cost of abused and exploited workers. The international community needs to do better.

Qatar’s new legislation has addressed some of these issues. It removed the exit permit requirement, which gave employers control over migrants’ ability to leave the country. New legislation also removed the ability of employers to prevent workers from changing jobs. Qatar established a new minimum wage, a wage protection system, new labor dispute committees, and a workers’ insurance fund. However, weak implementation requirements have left millions of workers without knowledge of their rights. Many employers continue to utilize unsafe practices. Passport confiscation continues to occur, employees still experience harsh working conditions, and wage theft is common. In July 2020, Amnesty International found that around 100 employees who built Al Bayt Stadium had been denied their wages for nearly seven months.

The 2022 World Cup will occur only thanks to the hours of dangerous labor completed by underpaid and mistreated migrant workers. While the 2017 ILO agreement marginally improved labor rights in Qatar, it did not successfully defend the two million individuals it was created to protect. It seems as though everyone, including the ILO, has turned their backs on some of the world’s most vulnerable. Amnesty International has called for FIFA to donate around $440 million to the migrant workers who worked on the World Cup. This money would be intended to cover the “loss and abuse” they suffered over the last ten years. FIFA acknowledged Amnesty International’s request but only promised to implement a “due diligence process.” It seems unlikely migrant workers will ever receive any reparations. The World Cup provides a massive platform to raise awareness for migrant labor issues. The governments of participating teams should take the opportunity to voice concern over working conditions and the general status of human rights in Qatar. If FIFA refuses to acknowledge its complacency with labor exploitation, participating governments need to step up.

Last week, I traveled to Azerbaijan together with former Israeli Communication Minister Ayoob Kara, who visited Agdam, a city in the war-torn Karabakh region and Baku, where the Honorable Kara was one of 22 foreign experts who gave a talk at Ada University as part of a panel titled “Development in the post-conflict period in the South Caucuses.”   Other speakers included Hikmet Aliyev, the special advisor of Azerbaijan’s president, Fuad Muradov, the chairman of the State Committee on the Work with the Diaspora, and a number of other Azerbaijani government ministers.

In the tour of Agdam, the Honorable Kara saw the ruins of a city, where 100,000 people used to live in the Soviet period.  He saw the ruins of the historic Bread Museum, which used to house a loaf of bread that was preserved by Soviet soldiers dating from the Second World War.  All that remains of that museum is a half-destroyed mural.   He saw tombs dating from the Karabakh khanate, a world heritage site which were partially destroyed.  He saw a mosque, which until recently housed pigs and goats, and was used as an Armenian watch tower.  And he saw the remnants of a cemetery, where all of the bones were thrown away, with the tombstones and gold teeth in the graves being sold for use in the Islamic Republic of Iran.  And until relatively recently, all of these areas were covered in landmines.     

After seeing that, Kara gave an interview to Eurasia Daily, where he declared: “I witnessed terrible destruction.   Mined areas are the greatest disaster of our time.  During our visit, we stated to the government of Azerbaijan that we could provide technological support to Azerbaijan in the field of mind clearance.  Israel has invented a new robotic technology to clear landmines.   With the help of these robot machines, any type of mine can be safely removed from various depths of the earth without manual interference.  We have informed the Azerbaijani government about this in detail and made our proposals.” 

According to him, all of these robots will be able to clear off landmines without the need for landmine maps.   For Azerbaijan, this is critical, as officials in the Azerbaijani government claim that only 25% of the landmine maps that Armenia gave them are usable.    Presently, there are up to a million mines that were planted in the Karabakh region.   

At the conference, Vugar Suleymanov, the chairman of the Mine Action Agency of Azerbaijan, proclaimed: “Azerbaijan is one of the most landmine contaminated countries in the world.    Mines are indiscriminate.   Since the end of the war, there were 228 landmine incidents, which injured 184 and killed 39.”   

However, the Honorable Kara believes a better future is within reach.   In the interview, the Honorable Former Minister also related that he would like to support the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan.   Kara proclaimed in his speech: “Azerbaijan has the land of Karabakh.  It is legitimate. Armenia has to accept it.  Different people have to push to find a solution that the two states can be in a better relationship.  Peace is the right way to go.  It is not easy.   It will not happen tomorrow, but it could happen in the next several years if we work hard on it.”

According to him, “The State of Israel can help with different innovations, technologies that both sides need.  For that reason, we can influence.  We have the power to do it as we crossed the same thing in different states in the Middle East.  Peace can happen if you influence that and convince the other side to support that.”

The Honorable Kara declared that this is what happened with the Abraham Accords, when Israel succeeded to make peace with four different countries: “Step by step, after Trump was elected, this has become a reality and the same thing could happen here.   I think that after I visited Shusha last year with Rachel, we understand that you need different things to support the Karabakh area.   I can help you to find a solution for everything that is necessary there.  I know that there are a lot of people coming from Israel here to help but I think as the former Minister of Communication, Cyber and Satellite, I have the connections needed to help Azerbaijan.”

The respectable former minister called upon the State of Israel to use all of its power in order to help Azerbaijan obtain the conditions needed to make peace with Armenia.  He also called upon the foreign experts at the conference to do everything in their power to help Azerbaijan: “Slowly, slowly, the conflict will subside if we work together.   If the world says something together, it will be more powerful than just Azerbaijan or Israel saying something.” 

Peacekeeping operations have become a fixture within the international arena and core practice of international organizations since the end of the Cold War. However, these operations, particularly those run by the United Nations, have had a torrid relationship with intelligence collection and analysis. There has been consistent opposition by member states to establishing an intelligence office within the UN, and, up until 2017, the UN had no procedures for acquiring and analyzing information in support of their peacekeeping operations. Despite this improvement, not having a standing office capable of independently deciphering and combing through the piles of information has severely limited the ability of the UN to prepare and support its peacekeeping operations. The current policy is too reliant on the kindness of its member states which does nothing but create a situation where vital information is given based on national interest. However, a permanent office capable of doing so in a way that protects civilians and the reputation of the UN is not only easily conceivable but entirely feasible.

Two reports commissioned by the UN Secretary-General have begged the UN to establish an office for acquiring and analyzing information pertinent to the operation’s success. The Brahimi Report, which debuted in 2000, detailed an office capable of collecting and analyzing data for the Secretariat to plan peacekeeping operations and identify potential conflicts. The Brahimi Report notes that an information analysis office would allow for developing short-term and long-term mission planning and crisis response. Had this office been implemented, it would have allowed several peacekeeping operations to possess adequate resources and prevented disasters like the kidnapping of over 200 UN peacekeepers in Sierra Leone, which happened that same year. The UN was again warned of the dangers of being unable to independently analyze information in the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO Report) report, which further pleaded for the UN Secretariat to expand its analytical capabilities to support peace operations. The UN took these cries for reform and formulated an intelligence and information analysis policy that relied upon member states willingly turning it over to the UN, potentially exposing their sources, methods, and collection from peacekeepers.

The unreliability of the status quo therefore necessitates the creation of an office as described by both reports and addresses any potential concerns laid out by UN member states. This office must be impartial, assist in the planning of peacekeeping operations, and make use of emerging technologies.

Covert and clandestine operations have been a prominent feature within states’ intelligence agencies since their very inception. This is likely a feature that has probably led to the opposition of an intelligence analysis service. However, the rise of social media platforms and the Internet have led to the expansion of open-source intelligence (OSINT) tools that make information gathering and analysis accessible to even the average person. Therefore, an intelligence analysis office that the UN would not need to rely on secretive methods; instead, they would be utilizing techniques and practices widely available worldwide. The only real need for classification by a UN information office would be to protect human intelligence (HUMINT) sources for their safety.

Intelligence needs to be politically independent and free of bias to be effectively understood and respected by decision-makers, especially when coming from the UN. Moreover, since this office would need to be constantly analyzing information to plan for peacekeeping operations, states may feel threatened by being labeled as a threat to international peace and security. As such, an office meant to support peacekeeping operations would need to be professional and adhere to the same recruitment and hiring practices that all UN employees go through. Of course, maintaining the utmost professionalism is crucial to any intelligence agency. Still, it will be incredibly essential to one serving at the bequest of the UN; an international organization meant to support international peace and security.

Being able to assess and take action on information accurately is crucial to the success of any operation, especially peacekeeping ones employed by the UN. Without a longstanding office, the ability of peacekeepers to conduct themselves will eventually diminish and render them unable to protect civilians, one of their highest priorities effectively. However, new technologies and robust professionalism by analysts can make for the perfect early warning system for crises that may require the presence of UN peacekeepers. As a result, these operations will be better resourced, planned, and overall more effective.

—

Peter Roberto is a M.A. candidate at Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relations where he is the Incoming Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Diplomacy & International Relations and conducted research with the National Security Fellowship.

For United States citizens, policy developments in the Americas were always tied to the belief that the United States saw the region as their own geographical backyard. The ascent of the United States as a world power following the Spanish-American Wars and their relative economic stability compared to Europe following the First and Second World Wars turned them into a powerful hegemony in the Americas.

Balancing the hegemony of the United States through Soviet ties was done on a few occasions during the greater Cold War era. The trend of Left wing dictatorships, often based around narcotics or energy expropriation followed in the post 2000 era. The last decade and a half enshrined these divides and saw them diminish internally as US policy remained as paper projects never implemented. Foreign actors entered the region during this more recent and somewhat lost period of US policy towards Latin America. While a lack of US influence in the region has had its positive and negative results, the current policy approach doubles down on mediocrity as regional crises are challenged by local hegemons in Latin America.

The recent Summit of the Americas was hosted by the United States who clearly had other regions on its mind in 2022. While health policy was a focus of the Summit, the real challenges faced by one of the hardest hit regions by Covid will have little impact as Covid numbers wain. Like for all of us, inflation and employment is dominating their focus as economic chaos and recovery create new challenges and harm citizens in the US, Canada and Latin America simultaneously.

While these more serious issues were not the main target of policy approaches during the Summit of the Americas, they already are having a grand effect on the region itself. Countries excluded during the Summit have already taken to increase ties with Russia as a buffer against the US. Venezuela has been upgrading its military with some of the most advanced Russian jets and missile systems for a generation at this point and has close ties with Iran and China. Venezuelan refugees in Latin America make up one of the largest displaced populations in the world, and while they did give some funding for those issues at the Summit, there was little focus on the cause of the Venezuelan refugee crisis and Human Rights crisis taking place within ballistic missile striking distance of the United States.

The Summit did little to change the policy of restricting North American energy while a displacement of Russian energy is a key tool to ending the War in Ukraine. Openly dropping human rights based restrictions on OPEC members like Venezuela and Iran in order to displace Russian oil is simply fuelling more abuses against Venezuelan refugees, human rights activists in Iran and those in their regions being affected by funding further conflict. Without North American oil and gas displacing Russia’s funding source for weapons of war, they are just displacing conflict. Adding conflict in Latin America and other regions with the intent to help Ukraine will simply result in more atrocities and acts of war in other parts of the world. There is no point in holding a Summit of the Americas if the two biggest economies, the USA and Canada, do not intend to enact policies to reduce conflict in the region and abroad.

China’s economic investment in Latin America has been taking place for over a decade and a half at this point, tying even US allies like Colombia, Brazil and Argentina to Chinese infrastructure projects and natural resource dependency. While diversifying their economies away from the United States is a logical and beneficial decision, linking to only one other producer will likely have a similar effect as in the past where agro-economies rise and fall with the international price of their natural resource goods. The focus of industrialisation in one form or another was the strategy they used to ensure a flexible and diverse economic base in many Latin American countries for generations. It seems like the stability of long term policies have waned, diversifying customers as opposed to creating more economic opportunities for citizens in Latin America. This has not been as much of an issue in IT hubs in Brazil and manufacturing in Mexico, but the economic situation in those countries can change rapidly with the US Administration challenging Brazil’s leadership and Mexico’s President declaring himself absent from the Summit of the Americas altogether.

In 2022, the United States should focus on re-balancing their role in the region with that of China and take serious steps to reduce added conflict in Latin America. While agreements fade and alliances break apart, at the bare minimum the United States should act as an engine for economic diversity and a cap on added international conflict in Latin America. At this point at the end of the Summit, they have barely achieved any of those essential goals.

The Reformer’s View?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently, I visited Shusha in the war-torn Karabakh region in order to partake in the International Food Festival that was hosted in Azerbaijan’s cultural capital city. After visiting the area last summer together with Ayoob Kara, who served as Israel’s Communication, Cyber and Satellite Minister under Netanyahu, I was pleasantly surprised to discover how much the area has improved over the past year.

For starters, there are now proper roads where one can travel from Baku to Shusha.  These roads did not exist last summer.  When I visited the area last summer, we had to travel on landmine-infested dirt roads, with multiple potholes in them. As a result, we had to zigzag as we drove and we saw many cars that broke down along the way due to these conditions. We ourselves got into a bus accident and were stranded for several hours in a landmine-infested area, till we were rescued by the Azerbaijani government and military.

But now, thanks to the better roads, what was an eight-hour journey became a five-to-six-hour journey from Baku to Shusha. On top of that, the area along the way has significantly improved.  For starters, the Azerbaijanis have rebuilt the city of Fizouli, which was nothing but a ghost town last year. This means that one can stop and eat in a café or go to get gasoline in Fizouli along the road between Shusha and Baku.  

Thus, instead of having our meal along the way on an Azerbaijani military base, we were able to dine in a nice Azerbaijani tea house. For me, this was a major development, as I keep kosher.  On my last visit, I literally starved on the journey, as the military base and convoy of Russian journalists lacked vegetarian options. So, I barely ate till we reached Shusha. But at the Azerbaijani tea house, I found myself in a more vegetarian friendly atmosphere.      

On top of that, all of the fires that were still raging last summer have been put out. Furthermore, the nature is beginning to recover from the fact that the area was left on fire, with uprooted trees, destroyed homes and burnt agricultural fields.  Now, one can see greenery and flowers along the road to Shusha, even though one can see that many homes still remain in ruins. 

Upon entering the city, we had to pass through a checkpoint manned by Russian peace-keepers. That did not exist last year. But upon entering the city, we were surprised to discover that we would be staying in the five-star Karabakh Hotel, which had a lovely gift shop that sold souvenirs connected with the historic city of Shusha, instead of a run-down leftover Armenian hotel, which lacked electricity in our rooms.

While staying at the Karabakh Hotel, we were able to attend concerts, puppet shows and other performances at the International Food Festival in Azerbaijan’s cultural capital city.  Foods from various regions of Azerbaijan were represented, as were a number of countries including Israel, Turkey, Georgia, China, Japan, France, Italy, Malaysia, etc. I was even able to purchase wine, cookbooks and other trinkets at the festival, in addition to meeting people from various parts of the world.

Last summer, they were putting the final touches on the Shusha Fort, but now it is open to the public and even has a market selling kebabs to Azerbaijani soldiers. That did not exist last summer. They also renovated a number of other buildings.  For example, the local elementary school is now totally renovated and I saw them putting the final touches upon a number of mosques.   With one exception, all of the mosques in Shusha last summer lay in ruins. Thus, after visiting Shusha, I am hopeful that within five years, the area can begin to flourish once again as Azerbaijan’s cultural capital city.     

In recent days, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan sent a congratulatory letter to Israel’s President Isaac Herzog ahead of Israeli Independence Day.  In the letter, he said: “On the occasion of the National Day of the State of Israel, I extend congratulations to Your Excellency and the people of Israel on behalf of my nation and myself.”

“In the new period in our relations, heralded by Your Excellency’s visit to our country in March, I sincerely believe that the cooperation between our countries will develop in a way that serves our mutual national interests, as well as regional peace and stability,” he added.  Erdogan also extended his wishes “for the health and happiness of Your Excellency, and for the well-being and prosperity of the people of Israel.”  This was the third time in recent weeks that Herzog and Erdogan spoke over the phone.  The question remains, what role did Azerbaijan play in improving Turkish-Israeli relations?  

Lev Spivak, head of the Aziz organization, believes that Azerbaijan played a major role in this: “If you pay attention, when Herzog was in Turkey and spoke with Erdogan, Aliyev was also there.  They also wrote in the media that he was there, but did not say anything.  I think that Azerbaijan does everything to improve the relationship between Israel and Turkey because it is also good for Azerbaijan.”

According to him, “I believe that the gas between Israel and Europe should also include Turkey and Azerbaijan.  That is the basis of the reconciliation.   I think that Israel and Turkey can return to having good relations.  It will take some time.  But the mess between the two is only political.  The economic and trade relations are good.   Everything is fine except in the political arena.  Thus, it will be very easy for things to return to being good.”

Rabbi Shmuel Simantov concurred: “First of all, the president of Azerbaijan and the president of Turkey are close friends, like brothers.  Thus, Azerbaijan can help a lot.   Aside from that, there are many other things that can be utilized to improve the relationship.   The Turks and Azeris view the Jews to be loyal people.   Anti-Semitism is not a part of the culture.   That is why it is easy for Israel to make peace with Turkey.   The Diaspora of Turks and the Azerbaijan Diaspora influence each other all over the world.”

Turkish journalist Rafael Sadi added: “Good relations are a positive thing and there must be good relations with everybody.   Now, it sounds like a dream but if we do not dream, we will never progress.   Also Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream.   For this to be realized, first Israel and Turkey must normalize the relationship and exchange ambassadors.  Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu is expected to visit on the 24th of this month in Israel.  From there, we will see if the relationship is moving in the right direction.”

Zali De Toledo, who served as Israel’s Cultural Attaché in Turkey and used to chair the Association of Turkish Jews in Israel, emphasized: “Azerbaijan is a sister country of Turkey because of the language and religion.   There is a 20,000 strong Jewish community in Azerbaijan living in peace.   We also have a good relationship with Azerbaijan.  Azerbaijan can improve the relationship between Turkey and Israel.  Improved relations are long overdue.”  Nevertheless, she noted that Turkey will have elections in 2023 and this could influence Turkish-Israeli reconciliation: “We don’t know what will happen in the 2023 elections.”       

From the end of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to their status during the Napoleonic Wars and Interwar period, Poland has always tried to achieve their own true independence. The post Soviet era gave rebirth to Poland as an independently governed nation state, separate from the direct influence of empires of the past like the Austro-Hungarians and Soviets, and persistent powers like Germany and Russia.

While freedom did come with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the position of Poland between two European powers meant that it had to always survive strategically, knowing that its borders will be challenged perpetually. This focus on tactical survival also gave rise to creative solutions in challenging great power struggles, with some notable successes that have influenced the rest of Europe and the world.

No one would doubt the great humanitarian relief effort Poland has engaged in helping their neighbours in Ukraine. Polish sympathies lay in the knowledge of their own history and risks to their nation. Ukraine has been affected recently by Putin’s Russia as Poland had been in the past, by both German and Russian invasions alike. Poland knows that much of the catalyst for this current conflict comes from their position in Europe and the world as well as a history of Realpolitik that has targeted Poland, and now Ukraine.

A struggle can be won in the long term through soft power, as much as it can be with tanks and artillery. Pope John Paul II was respected and loved by Catholics and non-Catholics alike through his peace initiatives in the 1980s and support for Polish freedom and a life outside of Communism. His movement encouraging his native Poland and Eastern Europeans to push away from communist values helped greatly in the peaceful protest against Soviet control in the region.

The Solidarnosc Movement in the early 80s helped tremendously in the defeat of Communist in Poland and Europe, but was the culmination of years of grass roots activism. The gradual gaining of support of workers unions due to higher living costs and food prices established the Solidarity Movement, one of the largest political challenges to Moscow in the last years of the Soviet Union. This workers movement against Communism lead to the leader of the movement, Lech Walesa, and the Solidarity Party to lead Poland out of the Soviet era and helped put Poland in line for EU membership.

Poland knows what can come from threats to their borders and that their borders have not always been where they now stand. Much of the humanitarian relief at the Polish border is connected to cities like Lviv that used to itself be a part of Poland before it was annexed by the Soviets. Along with humanitarian aid that has stressed the capabilities for assistance for Poland and its people, military aid from Poland’s older Soviet era military stocks have been dedicated to Ukraine’s War effort. Despite some hiccups in the past in rearming its defense capabilities, Poland is now due to receive US made M1 Abrams tanks to displace its T-72 types donated to Ukraine, along with the more modern anti-missile versions of the Patriot PAC-3 missile systems. Poland will most likely have its military rearmed and upgraded while giving its current inventory to Ukraine. This will result in one of the most powerful and modern militaries in Europe.

Turning Poland into a defensive fortress and protected humanitarian settlement while supporting Ukrainian fighters shows that Poland likely understand more than any other nation the suffering at the hands of a foreign power in Europe. This achievement may look short term, but it is the result of generations of Polish leaders and citizens working to keep Poland free from influence and enshrine its place in Europe and the world.

Despite strong sanctions from the West, the Ruble has begun to show signs of a recovery.

The first wave of the Russian offensive in Ukraine has fallen short of Russian autocrat Vladmir Putin’s ambitions. Most analysts deduced that Putin had hoped to achieve a decapitation strike of the Ukrainian government- taking Kiev and replacing Ukrainian President Vladimir Zolinski with a pro-Kremlin voice. Kiev has been threatened repeatedly through the course of the invasion but it has consistently remained in Ukrainian control, and despite Putin’s desire to make Zolinski “disappear”, Zolinski has risen to the level of international acclaim where, even if he were killed in the defense of Kiev, he would sooner rise to martyrdom than be forgotten.

Despite failing to achieve its initial objectives, the Russian military has suffered heavy losses. At the time of this writing some 850 Russian tanks have been destroyed by drones or towed off by Ukrainian tractors. Some 180 Russian planes have met similar fates at the hands of Ukrainian anti-aircraft systems or Ukrainian fighter pilots who have well outperformed their initial expectations. Over 2,000 armored transport vehicles and other units of supply infrastructure have been knocked out on the front lines. More than that, the flagship of the Russian navy in the Black Sea, the Moskva, was sunk by Ukranian weaponry dealing a significant blow to both Russia’s capacity and morale.

The Ukrainian military achieved these early results by targeting the Russian military’s most notorious shortcoming- thin logistical supply lines. During the first few weeks of the invasion there was regular reporting of abandoned Russian tanks and artillery pieces- this was in part due to Russia’s minimalist approach to logistics and in part a consequence of the Ukrainian military’s decision to target supply shipments and Russian logistical hubs. For every six Russian combat units in Ukraine, only one unit is employed in supporting roles- in comparison, the U.S. employed a ratio of six supporting personnel for every individual American fighter during its counter-insurgencies in the Middle East.

None of this yet mentions Russia’s enlisting conscripts, or the almost 22,000 Russian soldiers who have been wounded or killed in action. Among these casualties are a large number tactical commanders, including at least five generals. These sorts of losses among commanding officers have not been seen since the Second World War, and unstable leadership surely exacerbates the problem of managing already stressed supply lines.

If we can believe the reports that Putin has become increasingly isolated from his advisors and ill-informed about the situation in Ukraine, then each of these problems become more severe for the Russian military. The less accurately informed the autocrat is, the less likely it is that he will be able to implement the sort of tactical adjustments that would allow for greater Russian successes.

By decapitating Russian tactical command and disrupting resource shipments, the Ukranians have made it difficult for the Russian military to put the full volume of its military to bear.

We must celebrate the early success of Ukraine’s resistance. In earning these early victories Ukraine’s fighting men and women likely guaranteed that their homeland will continue to exist as an independent and democratic nation.

However, it is important to keep the larger context in mind. Large swaths of eastern Ukraine are occupied by the Russian military and only 16% of the world’s population live in nations with governments that have actively condemned Russia’s invasion. In truth, we have achieved little more than avoiding the worst case scenario and forcing Putin to reevaluate his strategy. More to the point, there is a chance that the Russian military’s many early mistakes give Putin the opportunity to make the necessary strategic adjustments before even more of Russia’s fighting capacity is rendered useless.

Yes- Ukrainian forces have survived the initial shock of the invasion, much of the early commitment of Russian heavy weaponry has been taken out of the field, and Russian tactical command structure is shaken. However, as a consequence of these Ukrainian successes, the Russian military may have begun to adapt. Since mid-April, the Russian military has carried out a retreat from some of the most far-flung battlefields in order to restructure command of the military operation and refocus firepower in eastern Ukraine where the Kremlin employs the trumped-up casus belli of liberating the “breakaway republics” of Luhansk and Donetsk.  

This refocused military strategy coupled with some indications that the Russian economy has adjusted to the impact of sanctions and apparent growing support for the conflict within Russia should create anxiety among those of us who wish to see a free and prosperous Ukraine. This anxiety should be amplified by the fact that the American public has a short memory as it pertains to foreign policy issues- this is particularly the case when other concerns (both real and hyperbolic) come increasingly into focus with the 2022 elections on the horizon.

We cannot allow ourselves to believe that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is mere days or weeks from ending- to do so would be to make the same mistake that Putin apparently made when first authorizing the conflict. As any student of foreign policy knows, occupations (and the counter-insurgencies they beget) are long-term commitments that are costly in terms of both blood and treasure. Unless we are willing to believe that Putin launched his invasion without this knowledge, we must believe that he is prepared for a long term conflict that takes numerous twists and turns.

Putin’s initial attempt to strike at the heart of Ukraine has failed, but we should not be lulled into the sense that this war is over. The war will continue to rage in eastern Ukraine much as it has for the last eight years in Crimea. The United States and its global partners should continue to apply economic pressure and focus the international community on Russia’s imperialistic behavior. In addition, anti-imperial nations around the world should continue to supply the Ukrainian military with the information, supplies, and weaponry needed to sustain the fight for Ukrainian independence without risking escalation into an even more destructive war. 

Not only is the principle of national self-determination at stake in Ukraine, but so too is our shared commitment to democratic values and our opposition to violent expansionism. We cannot afford to avert our attention just as Putin corrects the missteps of his initial invasion.

—

Peter Scaturro is the Director of Studies at the Foreign Policy Association

This month, Azerbaijanis marked the 29th anniversary of the Bashlibel massacre, which took place in 1993 following the Armenian occupation of Kalbajar.   In early April 1993, 62 residents of Bashlibel sought refuge in the mountains as the Armenian forces advanced in the area. 

Ismat Azizov, a resident of Bashlibel, told the Azerbaijani media the following about the attack: “From April 5 to April 18, 1993, we were able to hide inside caves from the Armenian militants.  When the Armenian armed groups found out we were hiding in the mountains, they opened fire on us.”    14 residents were taken hostage and 18 others were ruthlessly slaughtered.   The remaining 30 managed to escape. 

Another massacre survivor Salim Mehydiyev recounted that the Armenian militants callously told the women and children to come out of the cave, claiming that they would be safe, and then shot at them: “I witnessed Armenian militants torturing not only people but cattle in the village.”  

Vasif Huseyiv, another survivor, wrote in the J.CA: “Picture a remote village nestled in a valley surrounded by rugged yet scenic mountains. A prosperous and peaceful place with a population of fewer than 2,000 living in an ideally natural place. As in the neighboring villages, most residents subsist by farming and beekeeping. They export a bountiful surplus to the rest of the country. The villagers are fond of reading verses aloud, often poems they have written themselves. They are proud of the achievements of their school, one of the largest schools in the region, and the aspirations of their young people to go to university, in the national capital or further afield.”

“Such was Bashlibel, at the southeastern edge of the Kalbajar district of Azerbaijan,” he continued.  “But it is now necessary to talk about this beautiful village in the past tense. That is because Bashlibel, together with hundreds of other villages in the Karabakh region, fell victim to the full-scale war launched by Armenia in the early 1990s. Within a short time, the village had been all but razed to the ground.”

According to him, “It is particularly hard, even heartbreaking, for me to tell the history of the occupation to which Bashlibel was subjected, as it is the place where, in 1989, my mother gave birth to me and where I lived in happiness until, in 1993, the armed forces of Armenia swept in.  As a 4-year-old child, I had no clue what was happening, why people were leaving their homes in panic, or where we were heading on foot in the cold morning.”

“I hardly remember the shock my family experienced then, but, retrospectively, I can see how traumatic it must have been for my mother, then seven months pregnant with my sister, and my disabled grandmother, who could not walk without assistance,” Huseyiv added.  “The residents of Bashlibel had no access to the helicopters and only a few automobiles to save their families from the horror that Armenian troops brought to their village.”

In conclusion, he proclaimed: “Nevertheless, we had to reach the other side of Murovdag on foot. Fortunately, there were two horses at our disposal; my mother and one-year-old brother used one, my grandmother the other. Halfway, some of us – my grandparents, mom, me and my brother – were taken by a Soviet-made car whose Bashlibeli driver Tahir Samadov was driving back to Bashlibel to help people. Thanks to him, we safely arrived in Khanlar district in unoccupied Azerbaijan, where many other Kalbajari people, already termed internally displaced people (IDP), came together to wait to be provided with “temporary” shelters. Tahir left again for Bashlibel to help others but never came back. My dad, together with my uncles arrived in Khanlar a few days later; they had walked all the way from Bashlibel, like many others.”

In honor of the 29th anniversary of this massacre, Azerbaijani Human Rights Commissioner Sabina Aliyeva declared: “We believe that those responsible for numerous crimes committed by Armenia against peaceful Azerbaijanis including the Bashlibel massacre will soon be brought to justice and answer before the country.   Villagers including children, women, people with disabilities and the elderly were tortured to death and some of them were even burned alive.”

It should be added that following the Second Karabakh War, the Azerbaijani government inspected Bashlibel village by a drone and discovered that all of the homes in the village were ruined during Armenia’s occupation of the area.   According to reports in the Azerbaijani media, the remains of 12 unarmed Azerbaijanis including a 12-year-old child, a 16-year-old teenager and six women, were unearthed around the village.

On the weekend of March 26th, the notorious MS-13 gang went on a massive killing spree in El Salvador which left more than 70 people dead by Sunday. Even for a country where powerful gangs hold massive sway, this recent tragedy stands out considering that it was the bloodiest day on record since the civil war ended 30 years ago. The current president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, campaigned and won the election three years ago on a strict law and order platform. Mr. Bukele, only 40 years old, is largely well liked in his country, with an approval rating of 85 percent. Until this recent killing spree, violence in El Salvador had dropped significantly, from 105 homicides per 100,000 in 2015 to 17.6 homicides per 100,000 in 2021. Bukele was credited as contributing in large part to this drop in deaths, which makes these recent events a potential upset to his public image. The government reacted swiftly and firmly to the massacre, arresting more than 1,000 suspected gang members, cutting food rations in the prisons, and seizing inmates’ mattresses. In addition, El Salvador’s Congress declared a state of emergency that suspends constitutional guarantees of freedom, allows police to conduct deeper searches, and restricts suspects’ rights to legal representation.

The real question is, why would gang members embark on such a bloody rampage? Many of the victims had no real connection to any Salvadoran gang, which leads many to assume that the killings were intended more as a means of sending a message to the government. If there is a message which the gang members are intending to send, it is likely related to allegations that President Bukele’s government established a truce with the gangs MS-13 and Barrio 18 back in 2019. The US government as well as major media sources such as El Faro claim that Bukele’s administration gave gang leadership financial incentives and perks for imprisoned gang members in return for assurances “that incidents of gang violence and the number of confirmed homicides remained low.” While President Bukele denies that any conversation and truce ever happened, many believe that the killing spree was an attempt by the gangs to let the government know they want to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. If these allegations are true, it calls into question the success Bukele appeared to have with reducing gang violence, as well as the ethics surrounding the negotiations.

While negotiating with criminal organizations is morally and legally frowned upon, there have been instances of it resulting in a drop in violence in other Latin American contexts. In Brazil, negotiations between the state of São Paulo and the gang First Capital Command (PCC) in 2006 resulted in homicides falling for years afterward. Similar negotiations between the government and gangs have occurred in Colombia, Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, and Mexico. The fact that these talks are not a rarity is tantamount to the sheer power of the gangs, as well as the inability of officials to combat them with official means. The recent killing spree clearly shows that such negotiations are not failproof when it comes to stopping gang violence. However, the brief drop in violence during Bukele’s first three years in office demonstrates that there may be some merit for entering into such negotiations in the first place.

–

Graham Nau is the Assistant Editor at the Foreign Policy Association.

About thirty years ago, the Armenians seized control of the Kalbajar district of Azerbaijan and attacked the village of Agbadan, burning down 130 homes and torturing 779 civilians in one night, with 67 slaughtered with particular cruelty.  Some of the women were even burned alive.  Meanwhile, the Armenians desecrated cemeteries and destroyed historic manuscripts of Azerbaijani poetry and other cultural landmarks belonging to Azerbaijanis in Agdaban.

Around this same period of time, one fifth of the Azerbaijani population was ethnically cleansed from the Karabakh region and the seven adjacent Azerbaijani districts, which led to one million people becoming refugees.    Around the same period of time, the Khojaly genocide happened, leading to 613 innocent Azerbaijani men, women and children getting slaughtered for the crime of being Azerbaijani.  

However, despite the thirty-year anniversary of the Agdaban massacre occurring over the past week, not many members of the international community have much to say about it.   French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian is ready to mediate peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and calls for stability in the Caucuses, yet did not mention what happened in Agdaban, even though the thirty-year anniversary for this massacre occurred around the same period of time.    

Within the past few weeks, US President Joe Biden pledged $24 million in foreign aid and $600,000 in military assistance to Armenia, the nation that perpetrated a horrific genocide against Azerbaijanis in Agdaban, Khojaly, Agdam and other areas of Karabakh in the 1990’s.   Biden says that what the Armenians suffered during World War I was genocide.   However, he is mute on what happened in Adaban, Khojaly and other atrocities that the Armenians committed against Azerbaijanis more recently in the 1990’s. 

Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid recently welcomed the Armenians back in Israel, as they just decided to reopen their embassy in the country after it was closed following the Second Karabakh War.  He discussed what could be done to improve Armenian-Jewish relations, yet made no mention of what the Armenians did to Azerbaijanis in the 1990’s. 

In fact, Lapid is on record calling upon the State of Israel to join Biden in recognizing that what happened to the Armenians in 1915 as genocide, yet he does not make a similar call concerning the classification of Armenian crimes in Agdaban, Agdam, Khojaly and other areas of Karabakh as genocide.   It should be stressed that former Israeli President Reuven Rivlin recognized what happened in Khojaly at the UN General Assembly as a crime against humanity and genocide, but this Bennett government has been mute on the topic.   

Azerbaijan’s late President Heydar Aliyev once stated, “The acts committed against our people should be characterized as a crime against humanity and their ideologists and organizers decently punished.  We have no right to forget these actions and their lessons.   Historical absent-mindedness and forgetfulness can result in a bad ending for our nation.”    However, it appears that the community of nations has forgotten the lessons that history has to teach us and are effectively ignoring the crimes against humanity that the Armenians perpetrated against the Azerbaijani people. 

Yet, as concerned citizens, we have a duty to stand up and object to this reality.  As famous Holocaust scholar Elie Wiesel once stated, “Without memory, there is no culture.  Without memory, there is no society and no future.  We must take sides.  Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.  Silence encourages the tormenter, never the tormented.”  Therefore, the community of nations must remember what happened in Agdaban, Khojaly, Agdam and other areas of Karabakh and the seven adjacent Azerbaijani districts, for forgetfulness only invites future atrocities.   

–

By Rachel Avraham

Russia has some of the largest natural gas and oil reserves in Europe. The future of European development may rest on Russia’s energy supply to the heart of the continent. MAP BY VIRGINIA W. MASON, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

Many Western countries decided to put themselves in a poor strategic defensive position when they decided to push technologies that were not yet refined for their energy needs, while depending on countries and regions of the world where energy and human rights abuses sometimes went hand in hand. Europe is currently struggling to find alternative energy sources so they can move their internal economies and the well being of their citizens off Russian oil and gas. This is being done while some leaders are still failing to embrace the reality that gave Vladimir Putin the leverage to act while still being funded by Western Europeans and their allies.

While many economies have tried to move away from their dependence on Russian Oil, many have only done so partially, or will only be able to make such a maneuver over a few months or even years. The inability for oil producing allies of the West not mired in their own human rights issues and their own refugee crises to act have been hampered by the same policy decisions that is currently fuelling Russian tank and missile production. The issue of a lacking infrastructure to integrate North American oil and gas into European ports needs to be given the same level of precedence that is given to supporting Ukraine, as without this displacement, we are funding Russia’s tanks and artillery with our energy needs. Without a clear and realistic acknowledgment of the strategic value of oil and gas in addressing the crisis in Ukraine, the war will be greatly funded by their Euros, Dollars and Pound Sterling.

The approach that has been made was that the West has given funds and an ethical hall pass to countries that fuel human rights abuses with their revenues from oil. While this might displace Russian oil, it will not displace human rights atrocities. These atrocities will just change their location in the world, still being subject to our catalysts. While the resistance to using oil and gas from stable nations means it is being red taped out of existence in our communities, it also means that the refugee crisis currently taking shape in Ukraine will just occur in another part of the world. It guarantees that another aggressive Authoritarian will use their oil revenues to attack innocent civilians, although we have known for years that this is already occurring.

The history of resource conflicts is the history of war. One of the catalysts that lead Japan to entering the Second World War was the lack of natural resources held by the islands of Japan. Japan’s subsequent invasion of mainland China and eventual assault on European supported nations in the region at the time was partly done to secure added wealth and resources. The notable Battle of Stalingrad during the Second World War was over a small city named after a tyrant that was a valuable transport point for resources from the Caucasus, needed by both the Soviets and Germans if their were to continue fighting towards victory in Eastern Europe. While oil and gas is not the only catalyst for conflict, it is often one of the main elements that people need to survive and thrive at that time, and for much of the current era as well. We can see this in the recent past during drug conflicts in Mexico. When it became difficult to transport narcotics over the border, cartels and interested individuals took to tapping oil pipelines. Shortening the supply of a needed resource is the catalyst for conflict, in many cases they are related to resources that fuel, heat and feed our communities. Unfortunately, we still use and require oil and gas, even in 2022.

We know what must be done, because we are not much different than our parents and grandparents nor are we better or more capable than those that came before us. The evolution of technology is shared by all, and clean and cheap energy has been sought since the time the first steam engines pushed trains across the continent and windmills ground wheat and corn to feed the ever growing human expansion on Earth. What was known back then is that the rights and civility of people must come first, and that achievement can only be sought with justice and freedom for all.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been going on for well over a month. Those of us who live in nations with a commitment to free speech and the free press have become accustomed to seeing articles with headlines like “At the Edge of Kyiv, Ukrainians Show Off Their Counteroffensive”, “Putin ‘Misinformed’ by Advisers on the War, White House Says”, and “Russian troops ‘drive tank over commander’ amid anger at high casualties”. Upon reading those articles, the overwhelming majority of Americans choose to believe that the information they provide us with is correct.

More than that, we see a flow of more casual information through the guise of social media that highlights the struggle of everyday life for individual Ukranians, Russia’s targeting of civilian buildings, and even the resistance music that plays on radio stations in Kyiv. This further validates the information we receive from traditional media outlets. 

Many Russians, and countless other individuals who do not have their right to free speech and a free press actualized are not granted access to this information- instead, citizens of repressive countries are stuck tuning in to state media for most of their information. In Russia this media diet consists of the state television channel Rossiya, well known (but scarcely trusted) sources like Russia Today and Sputnik News, and whatever scatterings of international media can weave their way through the various censorship blacklists that have restricted the content that Russians can consume both online and through their television screens for well over a decade.

VPNs and apps like Telegram provide greater access to Russians who use them, but doing so comes with legal risks. More than that, these people make up a small portion of the Russian population and are overwhelmingly young and urban. Many of them, presumably, are already in jail for demonstrating against the war.

The West often misunderstands the purpose of Russian disinformation both in how it shapes political discourse in Russia and how it impacts the larger world. The goal is not to persuade Russians that the Kremlin cannot tell a lie, nor is it to completely censor all narratives that might push back against the Russian position. Frankly, individual Russian citizens are too smart to fall for such obvious propaganda.

Instead, Russians are given the impression of a semi-free media through the occasional sample of some of the West’s most controversial political personalities, “what about-isim”, and the frequent exaggeration of otherwise honest stories. This maelstrom of political repression and half-truths serves to discredit the media in its entirety in the eyes of the Russian people- leaving the Kremlin as the last remaining viable narrator. Similarly, Russian disinformation within the United States is designed much more towards facilitating distrust and political disengagement than it is towards the benefit of one political party over another.

Putin and his crownies know that Russia is too deeply integrated in the international community to pursue a full “Hermit Kingdom” strategy. Putin also knows that the strength of the American free press will make it all but impossible for reasonable Americans to be outright duped by his lies. So, in lieu of this, Russian officials have adopted a strategy of sewing confusion and general distrust.

Eventually, the Kremlin hopes that this distrust will turn to disinterest. That the public’s attention will shift away from Putin’s atrocities, and that Ukraine-aligned governments will decide that cheaper gas and grain is more desirable than a drawn out (economic) conflict with autocracy. 

What can those of us in the West do to thwart Putin’s efforts? We can continue to pay attention to what is taking place in Ukraine, we can continue to seek out information from a broad range of sources, and we can inspire our fellows to do the same. More than anything else we can keep the pressure on elected representatives and media outlets alike to shine a light on these critically important issues. 

Putin does not need to persuade you of his lies to win out in Ukraine, all he needs you to do is stop caring.

Peter Scaturro is the Director of Studies at the Foreign Policy Association

Former-President Trump’s decision to remove the United States from the JCPOA was misguided. Now President Biden negotiates with Iran after years of obscure nuclear development. It is time to reconsider foreign policy objectives for Iran’s nuclear program.

Trump argued the nuclear deal failed to address Iran’s motive for nuclear weapons, and he stands correct. Trump abandoned the deal and Iran doubled their nuclear stockpile near weapon-grade attainment. However, Trump’s objectives lied in binary conclusions of prevention and attainment. Such objectives have two fundamental challenges: extreme binary measures generate lower levels of success and greater tension between outcomes. Prioritizing motives as an element of the JCPOA’s success was misguided. Iran’s nuclear program made considerable progress and the U.S. is now pressured to restore a deal.

Restoring a nuclear deal comes with two caveats. Any agreement will not eliminate Iran’s years of added technical knowledge and skills. Consequently, restoring a deal now only stretches Iran’s breakout time to roughly half of the original 1-year timeframe. Developed expertise leverages negotiation and Iran is a greater threat today with or without a nuclear deal. A shortened breakout time has prompted senate republicans to warn any weakened deal will prompt a red line.

A viable solution to incapacitate Iran’s nuclear program may not exist.

Airstrikes on nuclear infrastructure do not yield promise. Iranian retaliation would be expected and can incentivize bolder nuclear development. Economic sanctions prove ineffective. Integrating the global economy is not an Iranian priority and sanctions impact medically conditioned civilians to suffer most. Iran devotes itself to absorbing sanctions and depicting itself as a guardian from Israel and the West. Prioritizing an immediate solution to Iran’s nuclear program will be to no avail.

Failure to incapacitate Iran’s nuclear program will further complicate its unstable region. The response to strengthen regional defense systems as Russia invades Ukraine exemplifies how Iran’s nuclear weapon attainment will prompt the region. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey is likely to declare or develop their nuclear arsenals. U.S. foreign policy ought to force Iran to prioritize long-term motives rather than attainment ability.

Detecting secret nuclear facilities is a greater threat to U.S. interests. Iran’s Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities remained undeclared until western intelligence, suggesting Tehran intended secrecy after beginning operations. Now IAEA is barred from accessing a centrifuge manufacturing site as of 2021. The U.S. must depend more on its intelligence apparatus without a deal; meaning, the threat of secret facilities outweighs the threat of declared facilities.

The U.S. has leverage should Iran induce a breakout dash with declared facilities. IAEA inspections complicate Iran’s ability to operate in secrecy. Iran would need to bar inspectors, transport nuclear material and build a weapon prior to a U.S. response. A considerable level of confidence or accepted risk of disaster would be required. Expect Iran to continue mastering its nuclear program. However, weaponizing nuclear material without prompting a military response is unlikely.

Successful U.S. foreign policy ought to accept Iran’s developed nuclear expertise. Over a decade of diplomatic, economic and military efforts have led Iran to years of technical advancement and near weapon-grade attainment. Deter motives to weaponize nuclear material. Israel’s former national intelligence chief once declared, “In the Middle East, a decade is eternity.” Prevent political wins in the region and continue to monitor nuclear operations.

Leaving the JCPOA put the U.S. in an inadequate position to monitor Iran’s nuclear program. President Biden must now realign political strategy from prevention to containment. Sanctions on Russia elevated oil prices and Iran is keen to strike a deal that would allow benefitting from oil exports. Leverage Iran’s potential revenue for greater U.S. intelligence capacities.

—

Rafael Prado is an analyst with the U.S. Department of State. He is an alumnus from The Pennsylvania State University and continues to study security policy at George Washington’s Elliott School of International Affairs. Follow him on Twitter @_pradoiii.