Foreign Policy Blogs

“America’s Diplomats”, a one-hour documentary produced by the Foreign Policy Association, presents the story of an institution that, as former Secretary of State James Baker says, is not easy to understand.

Visually and narratively attractive, packed with little-known facts and eye-catching clips, the film paints a faithful portrait of the U.S. Foreign Service while fair-mindedly probing a range of issues.

The documentary also poses the crucial question of how the Foreign Service can meet the challenges of the 21st century. By not giving facile answers, the producers portray a difficult situation honestly.

The documentary opens with an account of dangers and hardships so frequently faced by Foreign Service Officers, with many first hand accounts of traumatic events. This review in itself is a valuable reminder.

The program then imposes a certain context, raising the under-examined problem of balancing our diplomats’ security against their need to be out and about in countries where they serve. Our increasingly fortress-like embassies isolate our representatives, while mingling can incur deadly risks.

A lively historical review of early American diplomacy recounts Benjamin Franklin’s securing of French support for the Revolution, and the diplomatic coup of the Louisiana Purchase.

It proceeds to describe deleterious effects of the growing use of diplomatic postings for patronage. This led to the establishment of today’s professional U.S. Foreign Service, in the 1924 Rogers Act.

The first of several descriptions of core Foreign Service duties follows. Ambassador Frank Wisner cites the “maintenance of stability … the preservation of the peace, the protection of American interests …” in a segue to the story of George Kennan and the Containment strategy.

Kennan, a Russia expert, gave an analysis of Soviet and Russian behavior in his 1946 Long Telegram from the U.S. embassy in Moscow. His recommendation was not to attempt to roll back the Soviets’ influence, but to contain their efforts to expand it, which by his view of Russian history would either lead the Soviets to moderate their exploits, or cause their collapse.

The documentary does not spell out, perhaps because many Foreign Service Officers only sensed implicitly, how the Containment doctrine shaped basic expectations for the whole Service. This reviewer saw this in 1988 in Trinidad and Tobago, when the DCM asked an Embassy staff meeting to “take a step back and talk about what we are really trying to do here.”

As often happens in staff meetings, a hodge-podge of facts and concerns was bandied about. Then one officer piped up: “all the Caribbean islands could sink and no one in Washington would care, but there are Russians and Cubans competing with us for influence, and we have to win that competition.” No one had actually been told that officially, hence the prior hemming and hawing. But discussion ended, because everyone knew that Containment defined our overriding mission.

Kennan’s influence marked a high point in Foreign Service history. Former Under Secretary Thomas Pickering calls the story the “best known example” of a Foreign Service Officer “setting the course” for foreign policy. In fact Containment was the last systemic guidance U.S. foreign policy has had. Its comprehensive purpose disappeared with the U.S.S.R., and nothing has replaced it.

The documentary goes on to review the Foreign Service’s ongoing duties, with many fascinating vignettes. Regarding diplomacy in foreign policy, it describes Richard Holbrooke’s signal achievement, shaping the Dayton Accords that ended fighting in the former Yugoslavia.

An overview of the consular function features Fiorello LaGuardia—who knew he was a consular officer?—and Hiram Bingham, who flouted regulations in issuing visas to refugees fleeing the Nazis.

Accounts of diplomats’ business promotion efforts are punctuated by James Baker’s assertion that U.S. power is based on our economy, implying another core function for the Service. Baker then names one more “main responsibility” of our embassies: public diplomacy, the media, cultural, and other direct presentation of America to host country populations.

Those activities are described, along with the story of Edward Perkins, an African-American officer appointed as Ambassador to apartheid South Africa. A section on global issues includes discussion of terrorist and environmental issues.

The question of political appointees, a longstanding complaint of career officers, gets pointed attention. Two differing perspectives come out. Former Under Secretary Nicholas Burns says there are too many political appointees, citing career officers’ lifelong efforts. Secretary Baker points out that political Ambassadors’ familiarity with political leaders can make them particularly effective representatives.

This backdrop supports the documentary’s assertion that the Service’s challenges deserve better attention. Retired senior diplomat Linda Thomas-Greenfield says that the Service has to “do a better job … letting Americans know what we do …” But the problem may not lie in the telling. Since the Cold War, it is hard to say what the nation actually asks of its diplomats.

The review of Foreign Service duties shows officers handling consequential matters, but, in its straightforward portrait, it captures the sense that the various functions each have their own internal logic, and relatively little to do with each other. The role of the Foreign Service seems as diffuse as foreign policy itself.

The future promises to make the difficulties harder. Secretary John Kerry describes today’s volatility and new challenges, and Ambassador Prudence Bushnell observes that the Service must adapt to a global 21st century. Issues of diversity and training are discussed. Viewers certainly know how overwhelming the post-modern era’s complexities can be. The documentary itself portrays experts naming at least three undifferentiated ‘core’ duties of the Service.

Fittingly, the program does not present any comprehensive answers: none have been proposed. The Foreign Policy Association producers offer something unusual in public discourse: informing the viewer well, and leaving them facing an uncomfortable reality.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Review by George F. Paik appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Written by Jim Quirk

“America’s Diplomats”, a 2016 documentary produced by the Foreign Policy Association, may come at just the right time with just the right message.

In some ways, the hour-long film blends the literature of American diplomacy, such as Shuster’s The Strangling of Persia, Kennan’s Memoirs, and Holbrooke’s To End a War, with more recent insiders’ views, like Kopp and Gillespie’s Career Diplomacy, Morgan and Kennedy’s American Diplomats, and AFSA’s Inside a U.S. Embassy.

The film introduces the history of American diplomacy, well-known and less familiar personal stories, and challenges to the Foreign Service and its work. While much of the media attention on U.S. foreign policy and the Department of State today focuses on failures, scandals, or intra-agency turf battles, this film reminds us that the career personnel are talented, dedicated people whose commitment to public service and American interests includes considerable sacrifice.

“America’s Diplomats” begins with this focus on danger and sacrifice. The famous attacks on U.S. diplomats in Iran, Lebanon, Kenya and Tanzania, Benghazi and elsewhere are dramatic and tragic. But many diplomats and their relatives have also been lost to crime, disease, ship wrecks and other events in the course of their duties. The danger to diplomats has resulted in many changes to U.S. embassies and consulates, such as turning many into “fortresses” in the world’s capitals.

From here,”America’s Diplomats” begins its chronological and thematic sections. Benjamin Franklin went to France to help secure American independence. A quest for safety and prosperity, often through isolationism, characterized much of the diplomacy of the next hundred years.

Global changes in politics, technology, and economics in the last part of the 19th century and especially after World War I required changes to American diplomacy and to the American diplomatic corps. A key was the 1924 Rogers Act, which sought to introduce more professionalism and meritocracy to the State Department.

Kennan’s Long Telegram and Holbrooke’s shuttle diplomacy will be familiar to many viewers. But the consular side, which often touches Americans and others more directly than treaties or doctrines, is also highlighted.

The work of Hiram “Harry” Bingham, consular officer in Marseilles during World War II, alludes perhaps unintentionally to current issues. Bingham is credited with saving thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish refugees, issuing visas more generously than official policy allowed. It cost him his career.

Seven decades later, his story was revealed when hidden documents were found in his home. He was honored posthumously by organizations as diverse as the United Nations, Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem, the U.S. Episcopal Church, and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Bingham was even put on a U.S. postage stamp, as a Distinguished American Diplomat.

“America’s Diplomats” then transitions to contemporary challenges, reflecting recent changes in global politics, technology, and economics. The expansion of global trade and finance since the 1980s called for an increase in economic diplomacy. The 1987 Montreal Protocol on ozone-damaging CFCs serves as a model, the film argues, for multilateralism and environmental diplomacy.

The IT revolution of the past 30 years, in particular the growth of the internet has called for new kinds of public diplomacy. The film concludes with concern over the increase in the number of political appointees to ambassador posts, but the benefits of attracting more diverse and mature Foreign Service Officers to meet the new challenges.

These new challenges are one area in which the film might have gone into more depth. The State Department tweets in 11 languages, and many embassies use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube in their local languages. How effective is this? How do we know?

More broadly, how is the Foreign Service dealing with the huge range of non-state actors that have become so important in recent decades? And how does it balance its promotion of democracy, religious freedom, and human development (economic, education, health, etc.) with more “realist” state-vs.-state views of national interest.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Review By Jim Quirk appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“America’s Diplomats”, the Foreign Policy Association latest production is a must-see documentary for anyone interested in the history of American diplomacy or considering a career in the Foreign Service. Indeed, it chronicles the evolution of American diplomacy over the decades, the motivation behind America’s Foreign Service Officers, and both the successes and failures of U.S. foreign policy.

The documentary is narrated by the rich, gravelly voice of the actress Kathleen Turner, an American film and stage actress and director (whose father was a consular officer, her mother serving alongside him), and draws on extensive interviews from such notable past and present diplomats as current Secretary of State John Kerry, the former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, former Secretary of State James Baker, and former ambassador to Kenya, Prudence Bushnell.

As we learn, the history of American diplomacy stretches as far back as the founding of the nation, when Benjamin Franklin became recognized as “America’s first diplomat”, and carried on over the years as diplomacy secured peace after World War II and met the challenge of Communism.

Yet these successes are quickly put aside at the beginning of the narrative to reveal the grave dangers faced by American diplomats today. Featured in full details are the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, the 1998 bombings at the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the death of the ambassador Christopher Stevens and three embassy staffers.

The 1979 Iran hostage crisis also figures prominently, and helps belie any criticism that this is merely a rose-colored recruiting video. The harsh reality viewers will take from the film is that the Foreign Service is not for the faint-hearted. Those afraid of succumbing to diseases like yellow fever and cholera, being shot at by snipers, bombed, or held hostage while overseas need not apply.

Indeed, the documentary not only covers the physical threats but the intellectual challenges in diplomacy —for example the primary challenge of trying to convince a foreign population that you are not occupiers seeking to overturn their government, but rather a helpful presence intended to bring positive American values to the citizenry.

Oftentimes, the population is not convinced, and tragedy sets in, as portrayed during the aforementioned Iran hostage crisis, when 52 American diplomats and citizens were held hostage by a mob, who claimed that the embassy was a “den of espionage….plotting against the Iranian people.” The hostages were released only after a long captivity of 444 days.  Other times diplomacy succeeds, as shown in the film’s portrayal of the extensive efforts of Richard Holbrooke in bringing an end to Bosnia’s bloody civil war.

The documentary also covers the history of the foreign service, and the influence of the Rogers Act of 1924, which instituted series of competitive entrance exams bringing meritocracy to the corps.

Unfortunately, as the film dutifully points out, the influence of money, privilege and political influence “depreciates the process”, particularly with the appointment of prominent political donors to ambassadorships in some of the better postings like London and Paris. Roughly 30% of ambassadors since the Kennedy administration have been political appointees and not career foreign service officers, which can undermine morale.

Foreign Service Officers have also increasingly played an important role in the support of American commerce, largely since the Reagan years. The film features diplomats supporting such U.S. companies as McDonald’s and Starbucks, although it fails to mention that, in some countries, both U.S. companies have become negative symbols of American influence, despite their products being hungrily consumed by the local population

The role of the consular officers in approving visa requests for those wishing to come to the U.S. is also featured prominently, and raises important questions as to how this “nation of immigrants” should treat those refugees currently fleeing Syria and Iraq.

The film includes an interesting portrayal of such diplomats as Fiorello La Guardia, a consular officer who eventually became the mayor or New York. La Guardia was instrumental in getting shipping lines to implement health checks on immigrant families before they got on a boat, to help ensure families stay together.

Hiram Bingham, another consular officer in Marseilles, France, helped 2,500 Jews in ten months reach the U.S. during the Hitler years, defying orders from Washington and eventually costing him his career in the foreign service.

America’s role in public diplomacy has also grown since the 1960s, and is sometimes referred to as the “soft power” of American principles and values. One such highlighted example documents the role of Ed Perkins, U.S. ambassador to apartheid South Africa, and the challenges he faced as a black American in attempting to promote American values in a hostile environment.

What motivates an Ed Perkins or anyone to serve in the foreign service?  Certainly not the pay, which is far below what many of these highly talented Americans can earn in the private sector. Indeed they are driven by other motivations.  John Kerry believes “it’s done because people love the concept of serving their country, and they love the idea of taking American ideals abroad.”

Which raises the question, why does America get involved in the convoluted conflicts of foreign nations, far from home?  Why is the United States “the undisputed leader on the world stage”?

A foreign policy of isolationism has long been debated in American foreign policy—despite the American Revolution having almost been lost without diplomacy and despite the fact that “the United States would not have existed, without the French support.” In the early years of the nation, Americans really didn’t like the “European ideas” of diplomacy and having ambassadors in foreign countries.

Yet today, following the failures of the war in Vietnam, and limited success in Iraq and Afghanistan, debates over isolationism and America’s leading role in diplomacy are again back in the spotlight, especially among this year’s presidential candidates.

Some diplomats argue for intervention only when we have “a dog in this fight,” or when American interests are threatened at home. As the documentary illuminates, these are difficult decisions to make, with constantly changing parameters, often resulting in devastating consequences, including the death of diplomats.  

If there is one shortcoming of “America’s Diplomats,” it is the failure to examine the question of when and under what conditions America should go to war, and to address the argument in favor of isolationism.  Instead, the film takes it for granted that American involvement is necessary, and has been necessary, given that other nations “look to the United States for leadership.”

Where the documentary shines is in its history of American diplomacy and its well-deserved tribute to those courageous American heroes who are on the front lines of American diplomacy everyday, including the 12 whom Bill Clinton posthumously honored after the 1998 bombing by Al-Qaeda in Nairobi, Kenya, “Far from home, they endure hardships, often at great risk”.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Gary Sands appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“America’s Diplomats”, a new television special produced by the Foreign Policy Association, seeks to explain the world of professional diplomats to average citizens, people who, through no fault of their own, have little occasion to interact with Foreign Service Officers or to discuss the inner workings of the Department of State.

As is fitting of the Foreign Policy Association—and in keeping with reality—it offers a positive and hopeful message. A number of themes are woven in and out of the narrative. Among these are the tasks that diplomats actually undertake, popular American attitudes toward diplomacy, the evolution and professionalization of the field in the United States, and the need to balance our diplomats’ need for personal security with their need to accomplish their mission. Allow me to touch upon a few of these themes without repeating the details of the program.

Americans have long had a disdainful attitude toward diplomacy and diplomats, seeing the whole endeavor as something elitist, foreign, expensive, and possibly deceitful.

Ambrose Bierce, the author of The Devil’s Dictionary (1906), defined diplomacy at “the patriotic art of lying for one’s country” and a consul as “a person who having failed to secure an office from the people is given one by the Administration on the condition that he leave the country.”

Yet diplomacy was essential to the birth of the United States. Washington’s forces would never have prevailed without the alliance with France. France not only provided finances, troops, and a fleet, but it also distracted Britain’s attention by threatening its holdings in far-flung corners of the world. (Remember, the British army abandoned the occupation of Philadelphia because they suddenly needed the troops to defend the West Indies.)

From the beginning, the young American republic cut corners when it came to diplomacy. Unwilling to pay the salary of “ambassadors,” the United States sent “ministers,” diplomats of a lower rank, to represent it in foreign capitals.

This not only reduced the status and influence of American diplomats, it also created a dilemma for other countries. Based on the rules of reciprocity, European powers would not send ambassadors to a country that sent them ministers, but they were hard-pressed to find qualified diplomats who would willingly cross the ocean and live in “the American wilderness” for a minister’s salary.

Relative isolation made it easy for the United States to neglect diplomacy for a while. After all, the U.S. was hidden behind large oceans. The oceans were controlled by the British fleet, and the British—after the War of 1812, at least—found that they already had enough enemies and that life would be easier if they could just keep the Americans on their side.

Most U.S. contact with the outside world consisted of trade. American businessmen resident in foreign ports were asked by the government to act as consuls, looking after U.S. interests, in their spare time. Still, the Consular Service, being business-oriented, was held in somewhat higher esteem by the public than the Diplomatic Service.

The two services interacted little with each other, and both suffered from low salaries, nonexistent benefits, and the consequences of a spoils system of appointments, a system that Teddy Roosevelt denounced as “wholly and unmixedly evil,” “emphatically un-American and undemocratic,” and something that no “intelligent man or ordinary decency” could endorse.

As the U.S. grew—and its contacts with the outside world multiplied in number and evolved in kind—a greater sense of professionalism had to be forced upon its diplomacy. The Consular Service forged a merit-based system in the early 1900s.

Leaders of the Diplomatic Service, on the other hand, preferred to rely on men of independent means and saw low salaries as a way to weed out undesirables. With the onset of World War I, the pressures to modernize came in accelerated form.

A key turning point finally came with the Foreign Service Act of 1924, also known as the Rogers Act. The Rogers Act merged the Diplomatic Service and the Consular Service into the new Foreign Service of the United States; established a meritocratic personnel system, including standardized entrance exams; and created or extended allowances and benefits. The Foreign Service School was also established in 1924, which was replaced by the Foreign Service Institute in 1947.

Still, even today, the system is not fully professionalized. “America’s Diplomats” suggests that perhaps 30% of ambassadors are political appointees (albeit supported by professional diplomats). Some of these, even if not professional Foreign Service Officers, are highly qualified. Others, such as some campaign donors, are potential embarrassments.

The question of diplomats’ personal security is a key theme in “America’s Diplomats,” both early in the show and toward the end. The focus is clearly influenced by the Benghazi controversy.

Yet it is not presented as a straight-forward question of protecting personnel, as it is often depicted in Washington. Rather it is a trade-off. The Foreign Service does not want to leave its people exposed to dangers unnecessarily, but it also views excessive security measures as obstacles that get in the way of doing its mission.

It resists measures that separate its diplomats from the government and society that they are supposed to be reporting on. Finding the balance is an endless task, and one that does not always end happily.

Although, as many politicians have said in the past few years, no U.S. ambassador had been killed in the line of duty in over 20 years, they picked that number consciously. American ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty in 1988, 1979, 1976, 1974, 1973, and 1968.

Other, lower-ranking diplomats have been killed since then. (The American Foreign Service Association lists 247 State Department personnel who have died in the line of duty since 1780, although most of the earlier cases were lost at sea or died in epidemics.)

None of this is to dismiss the tragedy of Benghazi but rather to question the politicization of the event when the previous cases were not politicized, and the consequences for the future of diplomacy.

“America’s Diplomats” is an interesting and informative introduction to the things that diplomats do. It strives to use information to overcome the lingering disdain that people may carry toward diplomats and diplomacy. I suspect the producers would also like to see the process of professionalization completed and the politicization of foreign policy overcome, but those are even taller orders.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Scott Monje appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On January 11, Iran announced that it had removed the core of its nuclear reactor at Arak, a major part of the terms it agreed to under an international agreement reached in July. A few days later, representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) submitted a report stating that Agency inspectors on the ground had verified that Iran had carried out all measures required by the agreement.

In an official statement UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon remarked: “This achievement demonstrates that international proliferation concerns are best addressed through dialogue and patient diplomacy.”

Although these events were reported in the media, they were top news stories. This is due to the lack of understanding of the importance and value of diplomacy.

An engrossing and informative new PBS documentary, American Diplomats, produced by the Foreign Policy Association, addresses these and other issues head on. As elaborated on during the program, diplomats have three primary responsibilities: to maintain stability, preserve peace and protect U.S. interests.

The documentary weaves these themes together by showing the impact diplomats have had on our nation’s history, foreign policy, and economic interests. Of note, the documentary does not down play the challenges and shortcomings of the profession and the need to keep improving and stay relevant.

Benjamin Franklin was our first diplomat and without his success in securing an alliance with France, the U.S. might not have won the revolutionary war.

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson, sent Robert Livingston to New Orleans, then part of territory owned by the French, to see if the U.S. could buy the city. Jefferson wanted to ensure U.S. farmers had access to that port city to export their goods.

To Livingston’s surprise the French asked if the U.S. would be interested in buying not just New Orleans but the entire territory. For a cost of $15 million, the U.S. territory overnight expanded as far west as the Rockies and as far north as Canada.

The nature of their jobs has also allowed diplomats to play an important role in the formulation of foreign policy. If you asked me what single book on foreign affairs and national security has had the most impact on me, George F. Kennan’s Memoirs 1925 – 1950 would be at the top of the list.

As World War II ended, the U.S. expected to maintain a successful working relationship with the Soviet Union. Kennan had been stationed in the Soviet Union during the war and had observed up close the aggressive nature and intentions of Stalin’s foreign policy.

Concerned that Washington seemed to be in the dark, he sent a now famous 8,000 work telegram in which he concluded: “the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”

Kennan’s advice was heeded and he is considered the architect of the Cold War strategy. Today’s diplomats are still expected to provide the kind of expert advice on the social, political, religious, and economic issues that helps set the policy course for the nation.

This leads to one of the challenges discussed during the program: patronage or the practice of appointing someone to top jobs because of contributions made to political campaigns.

Although, there have been some talented and successful political appointees’ many didn’t perform well because they could not speak the local language and were not knowledgeable about the history, political, social, religious, and economics of the countries they’re serving in.

Currently about 70% of the top positions in the Foreign Service are held by Foreign Service Officers and 30% by political appointees.

Another challenge discussed during the program is that the profession is misunderstood. It is not easy to understand the implications of battles won in the field of diplomacy as the earlier example of Iran’s nuclear program shows.

During the program several former State Department officials discussed the need to better advocate and let Americans know what they do. Americans must learn about the risks and sacrifices Foreign Service Officers endure while on the job.

Public attention is currently focused on the unfortunate events in Benghazi, but there has been many other instances. In 1998 al-Qaeda blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing over 200 people. In 1983, terrorists crashed a truck bomb into our embassy in Beirut. The blast killed 63 and many others were wounded.

Foreign Service Officers do not just have to deal with the risks of being killed by terrorists but also the challenges of living in remote areas where needed medical emergency care for family members might not be available.

They also have to deal with frequent moves and family separation. In spite of the sometimes difficult challenges, the majority of Foreign Service Officers remain motivated and dedicated to serving their country.

In sum, I found “America’s Diplomats” to be an inspiring story and well worth the time.          

 To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Gail Harris appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

As someone who sat across the table from American diplomats, I must confess, I was reluctant to accept the invitation to write a review on the latest Foreign Policy Association, Great Decisions series documentary “America’s Diplomats.” It felt like one of those gifts that make one feel awkward.

After some consideration, and out of a general sense of curiosity, I watched the film. It was profoundly captivating, to say the least. Not because of my interest in  international relations, not because of the universally accepted collegiality that bonds diplomats and sometimes obliges certain courtesies, but because of the timeliness of the topic and its relevance to the challenges that diplomacy and international relations are facing today.

The film presents the viewer with portraits of men and women in the American Foreign Service who have helped shape history, yet in spite of that, whose services and achievements were seldom recognized and celebrated. It is a tour de force that captures defining moments immortalized in history—the jubilation of triumph and the agony of failure.

In dealing with the latter, one must bounce back and learn from past experiences: this resilience depends almost entirely on effectiveness of individual diplomats. The more informed the individual is on his or her diplomatic mission, the more effective he or she would be.

More importantly, the diplomat must be a strategic thinker who understands the difference between winning battles and winning wars; and that sometimes, what seems like losing could prove to be a winning outcome. In addition to genuine interest in serving one’s country and its national interest, diplomats must possess unwavering commitment to sustainable engagement.

Contrary to the ideological predisposition and rigidity that often restrain bureaucrats, effective diplomats prudently chart new territories and pave new ways.

The film highlights that in recent decades no diplomat has embodied these qualities better than Ambassador Richard Holbrooke who succeeded in the negotiation of the Dayton Peace Accord that ended Europe’s bloodiest conflict since the WWII and the Bosnian genocide.

Diplomacy is often associated with political interests, peace negotiation, commerce or economic advantage. “Diplomats today play a bigger role in advancing America’s economic interest overseas than it used to be” says former Secretary of State James Baker. “America’s power is based primarily…on our economy. As long as our economy has been in good shape…., (we’ve been) strong diplomatically, militarily and politically,” adds Secretary Baker. In the U.S., over ten million jobs are supported by international trade.

The discourse on challenges facing diplomacy in a world that is becoming increasingly volatile has been raging. In the U.S., due to the Benghazi tragedy that left an Ambassador and three other Americans dead, opinions came in the form of partisan rants and raves that have continuously deteriorated during the country’s current election cycle.

All in all, the film offers an insightful tour lead by seasoned diplomats and experts to whom diplomacy is “the first line of defense” and a powerful tool to learn about the dynamics that impact political relationships in a rapidly changing world.

The diplomat is a portrait of his or her nation. He or she is the image projected out to the world, often accepted as the values and aspirations of the country that one represents. There are many ways to enhance that image, and one of the most effective ways is what is known as digital diplomacy, or to employ social media to interact, to clarify misconceptions, and cultivate new relationships.

Ever since 9/11, counterterrorism has permeated U.S. foreign policy and often undermines diplomacy and opportunities to build a long-term relationship between states. Throughout the world, American embassies have turned into fortresses, though diplomacy does not function in seclusion.

Nevertheless, American diplomats remain at risk, especially in the Middle East and Africa where the U.S. foreign policy is in a downward spiral. Diplomats have no better protection than a sound foreign policy.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Abukar Arman appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The latest documentary in the Foreign Policy Association’s Great Decisions series is “America’s Diplomats.” It aims at shedding light on the vitally important but little understood role of diplomacy—representing the ideals and policies of the United States abroad.

While not easily definable, the actions and efforts of the US’ diplomatic corps—today, the State Department’s Foreign Service Officers—maintain U.S. relations with virtually every country on the planet.

As the documentary rightly points out, the dangerous situations in which diplomats are often placed only come to the forefront when something terrible happens. The storming of the U.S. embassy in Iran and the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi made national headlines.

Yet, every day diplomats put themselves in harms way and work tirelessly to advance American interests and strengthen ties between the U.S. and other governments as well as the local population—which is just as, if not more, important.

“America’s Diplomats” presents a brief history of American diplomacy, starting when the Continental Congress sent Benjamin Franklin to France in order to secure their support of the revolution. Major milestones of American diplomatic successes are presented, from negotiating the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon, to U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke’s efforts to establish peace in the Balkans, culminating in the 1995 Dayton Accords.

The film also discusses how U.S. diplomats have also taken on a larger role in developing American economic and trade presence abroad, as well as fostering cooperation on transnational issues such as protecting the environment.

Of particular interest is the coverage of how diplomacy today is changing, especially with regard to technology and the availability of instant communication. Imagine how the Cuban Missile Crisis might have unfolded differently in the era of constant and immediate communication. While diplomats are trying to adapt and utilize technology to provide better support, there seems to be more questions in this area than answers.

Hopefully “America’s Diplomats” will make more people aware of vital role diplomats play in “delivering” America to the rest of the world.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Scott Bleiweis appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

America’s Diplomats is a one hour documentary film from the Foreign Policy Association (FPA), part of its Great Decision series on PBS. The FPA’s flagship educational series is meant to bring to its viewers discussions, analyses and debates on issues of concern to U.S. policy-makers, and America’s Diplomats is no exception.

The documentary spends much of its time exploring the historical roles diplomats have played in shaping America, weaving in and out of past and present as it discusses the achievements of past generations and the challenging job of U.S. diplomats today, who confront challenges such as climate change, terrorism and the promotion of US economic interests abroad in a rocky global market.

This story is engagingly told by Kathleen Turner, who huskily narrates her way through a series of American officials from the 18th century onwards who have served their country. The stellar cast of interviewees who appear in the film ranges from former and serving U.S. diplomats and ambassadors, to top level officials.

Politicians making an appearance include Secretary of State John Kerry, UN Ambassador Samantha Powers, and James Baker, who served under Presidents Reagan and Bush Senior. The interviewees talk candidly about their work, the struggles and dramas they have faced, and how the service has evolved in the 21st century.

Particularly poignant are the moments when the documentary touches on the losses suffered by Foreign Service Officers and their families. The topic of terrorism features heavily in these, but we also hear of the less high profile risks faced by diplomats as part of their work. One man talks about the death of his son from illness, because top-quality medical care, which could have saved the boy in America, was unavailable in the host country in which he was serving.

Even diplomats cited in the documentary are not immune. Richard Holbrooke, who brought peace to war-torn Bosnia by crafting the 1995 Dayton Agreement, suffered the loss of three close members of his team.

Parts of the documentary touch on the gradual professionalization of American diplomacy until the creation of the Foreign Service under the 1924 Rogers Act, its diversification more recently, and how it remains misunderstood. Many of the diplomats interviewed seem to feel they do a better job of representing America abroad than they do of representing the diplomatic profession to their fellow Americans back home.

A great deal of time is spent covering the various aspects of the work undertaken by American Foreign Service members, such as their support of American companies and brands abroad, screening of visa applicants for terrorists and criminals, and their work with local communities wherever American diplomats are posted.

Some interviewees also touch on the hardships of being separated from spouses or families for years at a time, often in difficult or dangerous countries. As one dryly observes to the camera, not every overseas posting is “Rome, Paris or London”.

Overall I found America’s Diplomats to be a gentle, earnest and intelligent look at the work of the US Foreign Service and the concerns many of its members have, such as the reappearance of patronage in the appointment of US ambassadors.

This is not a hard hitting piece of documentary journalism, but rather a segment produced by insiders who are proud of their service and wish to explain it further to the American public. It highlights the importance of their work, its often hidden nature, and the dangers and drawbacks that a career in the Foreign Service involves.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Neil Thompson appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The outlook for many BRICS nations does not look positive in 2016. With the exception of India, Brazil and Russia’s commodities-based economies will fail to grow significantly as China’s once resource hungry economy continues to slow.

The effect of the 2014-15 oil crash has had a negative effect on many oil exporting countries, and along with the BRICS, slow growth seems to have become the norm in much of Latin America and many other developing nations.

The 2008 Beijing Olympics was seen as China’s festival that marked its return as a major player on the world stage. The Olympic Games were there to flaunt around its economic success, despite it not having any measurable factor in China’s growth.

FIFA and the Olympic Committee sought to bring crowds into Brazil in 2014 and now in 2016. Since 2014, corruption and scandals have turned Brazil’s once claimed economic miracle into a mess. Corruption within its national oil company executives with links to Brazil’s governing party has turned popular opinion against the current elected government.

The FIFA World Cup highlighted the rift between internationally oriented elites and average Brazilians. Although essential economic and social issues continue to plague the country, the Rio Olympics are still on schedule to happen this year, to the detriment of Brazil’s deep economic recession.

Organizing any sort of international event in the midst of corruption and economic troubles is an unacceptable decision that often leads to little benefit for the average citizens. While the Olympic Committee seeks to broaden its appeal and host events in developing nations, there is no justifiable or studied measure to plan or adjust the obligations on host nations that fall on bad economic times.

Brazilians do not ask for a party when the government is rapidly accumulating massive debt. If the political class and elites of a society seek such projects, it is a clear sign that international prestige takes precedence over local necessities.

No Olympics should be allowed to take place when local citizens lose their homes, their health care or their rights as citizens. If this basic moral obligation cannot be met by FIFA or the Olympic Committee, imposing costs locals while sending the benefits abroad, then the Olympic spirit may already be extinguished. The upcoming Rio 2016 Olympic Games makes this point excessively clear.

The post Meeting International Obligations at All Costs: Rio 2016 appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Iowa Caucuses open. Argentina to introduce settlement offer. U.S. economy slows. Nations of TPP sign pact. Peace efforts in Syria continue. All in this Week’s Risk Outlook.

Today, Iowa voters will head to schools, churches, and homes to cast their votes for the Democratic and Republican presidential Iowa caucus. Being the first state in the United States to hold the nominating contest for the presidential election, Iowa has always had an outsize influence in presidential elections and candidates in both parties have aggressively courted Iowa voters.

Donald Trump and Secretary Hillary Clinton, the respective frontrunners of the Republican and Democratic Party nominations, are both under significant pressure to eke out a victory in today’s caucuses. Should either of them fall short, the upstart challengers for both candidates (Senators Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders) would gain a significant media boost ahead of next week’s New Hampshire primary on February 9 and subsequent South Carolina primary and Nevada caucus.

Most recent polls have shown Donald Trump ahead of Senator Cruz in Iowa (although Senator Marco Rubio has risen in the polls too), with more moderate candidates occupying the next slots down. On the Democratic side, polls have been mixed: some have seen support for Senator Sanders exceed that of Secretary Clinton, while others have shown that she continues to maintain an edge. After the Iowa caucuses, however, Senator Cruz and Sanders face divergent paths. Although Sanders is the odds-on favorite to win the New Hampshire primary, Senator Cruz does not appear to be polling particularly well in the state, which tends to favor more moderate Republican candidates.

Some of the big questions to watch for as election results come in: will any Republican candidates drop out of the race following a poor showing? Will Senator Sanders be able to pick up sufficient support beyond the largely white states of New Hampshire and Iowa to create a broad coalition to gain the Democratic nomination? How will Secretary Clinton and Trump respond to their respective showings in the caucuses, and will this dent momentum for either of them?

On Monday, Argentina’s Secretary of Finance Luis Caputo will present a settlement offer to the holdout creditors of Argentina’s defaulted 2001 debts to the New York mediator between the Argentine government and major New York hedge funds. The holdout creditors may deliver their own offer, but were miffed during the last meeting when the Argentine government refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement regarding the offers.

The offer by the Finance Ministry represents the first serious offer by the Argentine government to resolve this issue, following multiple failed attempts by the Kirchner administration to work around the U.S. court system to pay non-holdout creditors. Should the offer by the Argentine government be accepted or a compromise reached, Argentina will be able to access international credit that has been shut off since Judge Griesa’s order freezing market access until the holdout issue is resolved.

This could allow Argentina to avoid a slip into recession this year as President Macri moves quickly to reduce Argentina’s trade and tax barriers to advance investment and growth in the country. Key commodity prices (including soybeans) have fallen in value over the past 6 months and have constrained government finances and consumer spending. Additionally, Argentina’s two largest trade partners, Brazil and China, are both experiencing economic headwinds, further limiting Argentina’s growth potential. A deal with holdout creditors could bring Argentina back to sovereign debt markets and move South America’s third largest economy forward.

On Monday, the U.S. Commerce Department will release consumer spending figures for households for December 2015, with many economists projecting a fall in growth momentum. This data will likely be paired with a further contraction in manufacturing in January for a third straight month, to be reported by the Institute for Supply Management.

Although a few world economies (including India and the UK) appear to be performing at or above economic expectations, the downwind forces affecting China, Brazil, Russia, Canada, and other major commodity producers has left the world economy in a relatively fragile position.

The strength of the U.S. economy is fundamentally important in preventing the world from descending into another major recession, making market reactions to such developments particularly important at this time. Stock markets have fallen precipitously over the past several months on continually falling oil prices and growth concerns in China.

Solid growth numbers (or at least numbers less pessimistic than estimates) could help bolster perceptions that the U.S. economy is improving following last week’s announcement that growth for the 4th quarter last year had been a disappointing 0.7%.

Otherwise, consumer spending and manufacturing statistics will support the argument that the world economy is slowing and may be headed for another recession.

Given the politically decisive timing (with presidential, congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative elections in November), poor economic figures could also have significant spillover effects into the U.S. political scene.

On Thursday, representatives of the 12 countries that constitute the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) are slated to sign onto the accord in Auckland, New Zealand. Legislative ratification, however, could be a complex affair for many of the Pacific Rim countries.

Canada’s new government has not yet indicated whether it will fully support the agreement’s ratification. Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland has said the government would sign the agreement to move the process forward, but has been non-committal on ratification.

The United States has congressional elections in November, and most major candidates in both parties for President have come out against the trade pact.

Additionally, Peru is slated to have April presidential and Assembly elections and Japan’s upper house will have its own elections in June. Left-leaning political parties in New Zealand as well as Australia are pushing members to oppose ratification of the agreement, and Malaysia’s ruling government is undergoing an expanding corruption scandal.

Ultimately, this means 12 countries with extremely complex political and economic obstacles will need to ratify this agreement, although it may enter into force if a sufficient number of countries (85% of GDP, meaning at the very least Japan, the United States, and Canada) sign it first.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Kerry, Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni and coalition partners will meet in Rome to discuss efforts to counter Islamic State forces in Iraq and Syria. This will be followed by a meeting of EU foreign ministers on Friday in Amsterdam to discuss peace talks in Syria and Libya.

It is difficult to gauge whether any serious developments may unfold in the course of talks, particularly considering many major opposition groups are concerned that the United States and Russia may seek to impose peace terms on the rebels. Significant roadblocks in peace talks have hardened, while the humanitarian situation in Syria has gained significant international attention and criticism. The Assad government has received condemnation over the blockades of several rebel-held cities, which has led to widespread starvation and may be a sign of war crimes by the government.

This article was originally published by Global Risk Insights and written by GRI analyst Brian Daigle.

The post Weekly Risk Outlook appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Talking with a Venezuelan seeking political asylum in the U.S., we asked her why she was leaving her country. “Venezuela does not offer a future anymore” she said. It once did.

Chavez’s 21st century socialism has failed and (sadly) has pushed Venezuela to the brink of one of the major humanitarian crisis in the region. There goes another lost decade for a Latin American country.

Between 2004 and 2008, Venezuela experienced an economic miracle. Its economy grew 10% per year on average, while GDP per capita expanded by 26%. Now Venezuela is going backwards. By 2018, the country is expected to return to the GDP levels of 2005, but with an additional 6 million people, a 20% population increase. Thus, GDP per capita will fall to 2000 levels by 2018, as if 18 years of economic activity had never occurred.

Venezuela’s economic crisis will have unprecedented consequences in terms of poverty. Encovi, a local survey on life conditions shows that in 2015, 76% of Venezuelans lived in poverty, up from 52% in 2014. The extremely poor increased by 9 million through 2015, or 25% of the population.[i] The local universities conducting the survey warn that this is a conservative estimate, for they are only assuming a 170% inflation.

Source: LATAM PM with data from IMF and ENCOVI 2015

On October 15 of 2014, surrounded by supporters of the PSUV and with a loud round of applause, President Maduro announced a 30% increase in the minimum wage bringing it in VEF$9,648.2 a month—or $9.95 taking the 968.8 USD/VEF exchange rate used in black market by most Venezuelans. The problem is that with the 205% inflation estimated for 2015 by the local think tank Ecoanalítica, a monthly food basket now costs eight times the minimum wage according to the NGO Center for Documentation and Social Analysis (CENDAS). The IMF estimates that inflation could reach 720% this year.

Venezuela based its economic model on public expenditure supported by oil revenues, which constituted 96% of the total country’s exports in 2014. According to ING Group, Venezuela needs a $125-dollar barrel to balance its budget, but its mix currently trades at around $24. Venezuela has no money; this is problematic in a country that imports pretty much everything. The port of Guaira, one of the main three trade ports in the country, now looks empty.

Source: LATAM PM with Google Earth images

Tariffs and price controls have also triggered shortages of food and essential products. CENDAS reported at the end of 2015 that 38% of the products that form the basic food basket are not available in the stores anymore. This includes milk, beef, poultry, sugar, wheat flour, pasta, sardines and canned tuna. Last year, the Venezuelan Pharmaceutical Federation reported that 70% of medicines are in short supply.

The drastic deterioration of life conditions is the reason why Venezuelans voted to end the hegemonic control of the PSUV, giving the opposition control of the National Assembly. However, in recent days, there has been an increasing confrontation between the two sides. The Assembly wants to pass an amnesty law for political prisoners. Maduro threatens to veto it. Following the initiative, Maduro declared a state of economic emergency—promptly blocked by the Assembly. The current political impasse has done little to provide any sign of relief for Venezuela’s economic implosion.

Now, the most important question is whether or not the opposition’s supermajority in the Assembly will call a referendum on Maduro’s continuity later this year. The opposition (MUD), formed by a coalition of more than 20 parties, is showing a lack of unity on the issue. Without the support of every single MUD’s deputy, the referendum will not be held. In the meantime, Maduro has threatened to take the fight to the streets, if necessary.

LATAM PM’s View: With or without referendum, the probability of a major social and political crisis will continue to grow, which in turn could have important implications for the region. Wealthy Venezuelans are already leaving their country in search of opportunities in Colombia and Ecuador. But as life conditions deteriorate fast, the risk of a mass exodus increases too.

[i] Extremely poor people are defined as those who do not have the income to eat 2,200 calories every day. Poor are those who cannot acquire that same basic basket plus essential services such as electricity and transport.

This article was originally published by LATAM PM

The post Going Backwards: The Crisis in Venezuela appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Old habits die hard for Hungary’s ruling elite.

If anyone thought 2016 would bring with it a change in approach by Hungary’s ruling Fidesz Party they were sadly mistaken. The arrival of the New Year in Hungary has been marked by surging public discontent and street protests opposing proposed constitutional amendments that would provide the government with sweeping anti-terror powers.

Draft proposals leaked to the media suggest the government is seeking to amend the constitution by creating a new category of emergency: a “terror threat situation,” which, if declared, would enable it to issue decrees, suspend certain laws and modify others. Among some 30 proposed changes are controls on the internet, deployment of the army domestically, closing of borders and the imposition of curfews in areas affected by a terrorist threat.

Critics, including several opposition parties and civil rights groups, describe the vaguely defined “terror threat” legislation as a thinly veiled attempt by the government to clamp down on civil liberties. Unfortunately, the latest proposals represent the continuation of a longer term trend that has seen the gradual erosion of civil liberties under Victor Orbán’s Premiership.

The motivations for the ruling Fidesz Party’s authoritarian approach are complex, but one factor is undoubtedly the volatile and turbulent shifts the country’s political landscape has witnessed since the fall of communist rule in 1989. Viktor Orbán is the country’s only post-communist Prime Minister to have completed an entire mandate and be re-elected.

Part of this political turbulence can be attributed to the economic uncertainty the country experienced following the collapse of communism. As with the USSR and other soviet satellite state, the collapse of the communist regime in Hungary left a void in terms of institutional infrastructure and regulatory oversight.

This vacuum created a ‘wild west’ that offered fertile ground for wealthy individuals and speculators keen to exploit the absence of effective regulatory oversight and plunder the region’s resources. Hungary was no exception. Well documented, the now infamous Russian ‘oligarchs’ were quick to capitalize on the wealth of opportunities created by the collapse of communism. Less well known however are the Western entrepreneurs who also flocked to the region.

One of the most notable is Ronald Lauder the son of Hungarian Jewish immigrant Estée Lauder who successfully founded the family beauty-products empire. Lauder’s older brother, Leonard, assumed the helm of the company when their father, Joseph, died in 1983. Leonard subsequently took the company public, making him and his brother billionaires.

Seemingly lacking the business acumen of his brother, Ronald was keen to emulate his family’s success. Following a failed run for Mayor of New York, and his ignominious failure to secure the Republican nomination in 1989, Lauder presumably spotted his chance in 1994: his moment to step out of the shadow of his successful family, and establish his own identity.

Ronald set about establishing a string of commercial media and entertainment ventures across the former Eastern bloc countries. It all began to unravel, however, when it was revealed that a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York was investigating Lauder’s television holding company, Central European Media Enterprises (CME), over allegations that the company had bribed state officials in Ukraine.

Perhaps most notably though was the media mogul’s dealings in Hungary. In 1996, Lauder was sued by his former business partner, Seymour Holtzman, for wrongful termination of their joint venture. Holtzman alleged Lauder had forced him out of their partnership in the Central European Development Corporation, the company he’d formed in Hungary in 1989. Describing Lauder, Holtzman explained to the Wall Street Journal that: “[Lauder] is mean-spirited …. He thinks he’s above everyone else.” The matter was eventually settled in court for an undisclosed sum.

But the Holtzman case was nothing compared with what was to come. In 1997, Perekhid Media, a Western-owned rival in Ukraine, brought a suit against Lauder and CME in New York, claiming that it had bribed Ukrainian officials, to essentially snatch from Perekhid a license which the company had obtained in 1993. Mr. Lauder had subsequently started a station called Studio 1+1 there using the license.

These questionable, some might say nefarious, business dealings by Western “entrepreneurs” help to demonstrate the aggressive business practices pursued by individuals across the Eastern bloc following the collapse of communism and help to illustrate how the economic turmoil fueled by the West has helped foster a culture of paranoia and an eagerness to hold on to power among Hungary’s political elite.

The post Any New Year’s resolutions Mr. Orbán? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In the past few years, Saudi Arabia has not managed to make a single foreign policy decision that makes logical sense to anyone outside the Saudi royal family. Things started to go downhill for Saudi Arabia when it decided to inundate the oil market by pumping excess oil to suppress prices and recapture the market share lost to U.S. shale oil and other producers with higher operational costs.

Previously, Saudi troops helped suppress the Shi‘a uprising in Bahrain. Then came along the threat of ISIS. Making things worse, Saudi Arabia started bombing the Shi‘a Houthi rebels in Yemen, dragging the country in a protracted conflict. Government finances have taken a hit and its first sovereign bonds sale in decades occurred a few months ago. And now finally, following years of rhetoric, Saudi Arabia and Iran are now literally at each others necks.

One might be surprised by how the execution of a prominent Saudi Shi‘a cleric has sparked outrage throughout the region. Indeed, Iran also has not been quiet. Iranian proxies have controlled the so-called “Shi‘a crescent”—a crescent-shaped territory comprising of Iraq, Syria and the Shi‘a militia Hezbollah in Lebanon—for a decade now. But within Saudi Arabia, the Shi‘a minority (~25% of the population) have been relatively calm, despite massive government oppression excluding it from the wider Saudi society. Thus, the Saudi Shi‘a have been a time bomb waiting to go off. The execution of the cleric might have marked the point of no return.

The manner in which protesters in Tehran behaved, attacking the Saudi embassy, portrays the long standing animosity. The Syrian conflict has degenerated into a Shi‘a-Sunni sectarian war. Iran is replacing its own troops in Syria with Pakistani Shi‘a volunteers.  The current standoff sparked off on January 4 is sure to define the path the region is going to take in 2016. And it is not going to be a pretty one.

Since protesters in Tehran set fire to the Saudi embassy, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Qatar have downgraded their diplomatic relations with Iran. They have not gone to the extent of cutting diplomatic relations with Iran because of the economic and demographic links they must sustain for their own stability. Iran replied by accusing the Saudi coalition of bombing its embassy in Yemen on purpose.

Some have come to speculate that the Saudi-Iran crisis has been engineered toward preventing Iran from releasing a further 500,000 barrels per day on the market over the next month as the sanctions are lifted. Further, some speculate that an all-out war between oil producing nations will finally cause long anticipated hikes in the oil price. High prices are essential to the proper functioning of the Gulf country finances if they are to maintain autocratic regimes supported by massive social transfers to their population. In that case, some parties do have an incentive to find ways to prevent Iran’s increased oil supply.

Iran strikes an uneasy balance between democratic institutions and its theocratic nature. A plethora of different factions are represented in its ruling elite. Rouhani comes from the more moderate faction who manage to take over power since the more hardline faction of Ahmadinejad almost destroyed the country’s economy. One can speculate that Saudi Arabia intends on increasing Sunni-Shi‘a tensions so that public support in Iran reverts back to the hardliners. The Saudi embassy on fire surely made the fundamentalists happy while undermining the moderates’ attempt to portray to the world a progressive Iran.

Iran has a dynamic and vibrant young population which has grown to favor more engagement with the West. The failed 2009 “Green Revolution” was an attempt by these youth to end the rule of the hardliners. If they return to power, they will have a lot of youth dissent to curb. That means a lot of additional human rights violations which will lead to new sanctions being imposed.

Iran badly needs economic growth to avoid being sidelined. For it to retain the title of defender of Shi‘a Muslims, it must have the ability to support Shi‘a governments and factions abroad. Indeed, Hezbollah, Assad and Iraqi Shi‘a militia all depend on Iranian support. Hence, ironically, the fundamentalists have to support the moderates to run the country efficiently in order to achieve their goals of regional hegemony.

Developments in the Middle East will depend heavily on how Iran and Saudi Arabia react to each other’s actions. Rouhani will have to ensure that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps does not carry out overt aggressions. The missile test in October and the recent detaining of two U.S. patrol boats near Qatari waters were risky. A country of Iran’s stature has the right to develop its own ballistic missile system and to detain trespassing naval vessels. Brazil has its nuclear-powered submarines and Pakistan has its nuclear weapons. No one is imposing sanctions on them for that.

The difference is that Iran has lost its reputation as a responsible member of the international community since 1979. It needs to rebuild it and the Rouhani government has taken a lot of positive steps toward that direction. Paraphrasing President Obama, Iran is too large a country to keep isolated from the rest of the world. The world also needs to understand that Rouhani cannot immediately act friendly with the West—Iranians have grown up to loathe the West for decades. To stay in power, Rouhani must be seen as protecting Iranian interests and its self-perceived power. If he is seen as a Western stooge, the fundamentalists will return to power.

The post Saudi Arabia-Iran: Tensions and Intertwined Futures appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Photo By Abdolreza Mohseni

Iran will present its new oil contracts during a scheduled conference in February 2016 in Tehran. By 2020, the country hopes to increase crude production to about 6 million barrels per day (bpd), an increase compared to levels produced before the sanctions imposed by the West in response to its nuclear program.

But Tehran will probably need much more time to achieve this desired level of production. To develop new oil fields and ensure better infrastructure, Iran needs an additional $100 billion in financing from foreign investors. And while lifting sanctions will open up possibilities for external financing, the country also needs international oil companies to establish activities on Iranian soil. This could be a challenge, as binding regulations have historically made it difficult for energy companies to operate in Iran.

The lifting of sanctions brought the oil price down: Iran is the second largest producer, behind Saudi Arabia for conventional oil, and is fourth behind Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Canada if we include unconventional crude. Beyond the impact of lifted sanctions, the slowdown in global growth, the strength of the U.S. shale industry and the global glut of oil supply (a surplus estimated at one million bpd) continue to fuel the downward spiral of the market.

Can a Public Private Partnership (PPP) provide the solution for the financing of energy infrastructure projects, at a time when Iran is facing declining revenues as a result of years of crippling sanctions? Iran’s new contract model is designed to gain the interest of international oil companies to participate in joint venture projects. Under the new Iranian Petroleum Contract, a foreign company would have several years to explore and develop deposits followed by 10 to 15 years of production rights. Meanwhile, the Iranian state oil company, The National Iranian Oil Co., would compensate the foreign company depending on the deposit, production volumes and oil prices.

Iran needs to consider a PPP and a legislative framework that would give more flexibility than the current contract in place.

Investments in the Energy Infrastructure

The introduction of a PPP in the new Iranian Petroleum Contract (IPC), would also allow the private sector to supply public services and infrastructure in the energy sector—both fundamental to the development and growth of Iran. The current oil price, which is at a record low, presents an excellent opportunity to create and maintain oil fields and, consequently, provides some scope for private and public sector. Crucially, it would allow the country to address its battered infrastructure, which have suffered from crippling sanctions and chronic underinvestment.

If companies are reviewing their budget in the development and exploitation of deposits, they have a chance to regain some of that capital through oil sales. If a project is technologically more difficult, it might gain higher income. So even if it requires more investment, it will yield greater returns. Investors will also be engaged in projects over a longer period, which should encourage greater production.

Management is key in the energy sector—partnering private and public actors will prove effective for improving service delivery. Reducing costs and time of executing projects is a priority in a very volatile market. The private sector has the ability to implement project within time and budget and eliminate cost overrun due to delays, a significant financial incentive.

The aim is not to prioritize the private sector but to balance risks in both sector associated with their own duties. This type of partnership mobilizes all the human and financial resources (public, private, international) and thus avoid costly disruptions in public investment programs, during periods of recession and budget cuts.

The PPPs are not a solution to a budget crisis led by its sanctions or simply low oil prices. But as a mean to optimize resources, PPPs are a contractual arrangement over the long term by which the public sector transfers to the private sector all or part of conception, financing, operation and maintenance responsibilities. Contrary to conventional wisdom, PPPs contracts enable government to determine the tariffs for users, standard levels to be achieved and met. The Iranian government will still be involved in the supervision of the PPP contract and ensure that public service objectives are met.

While Iran has huge economic and human resources, improving the economic situation will depend heavily on political reforms and major economic changes. The ideological nature of Iran’s system makes it difficult to bet on political and economic reforms capabilities.

A Competitive Edge for Iran?

Iran is at present estimated to hold about 157 billion barrels or 9.3% of world reserves. In comparison, Iraq has 150 billion and Saudi Arabia almost 266 billion barrels. Iranian production in late 2013 was 3.558 million bpd against 3.751 million bpd a year earlier, a 6% decrease relative to 2011. Iranian crude oil is light, with a low extraction cost. However Iranian deposits have low recovery rates (between 20 and 25%), which require investment and the injection of more gas into the wells.

 The new Iranian Petroleum Contract could potentially give an advantage to Iran over its competitors in terms of attracting new investments. If we look at it by sector, the most prominent one to benefit from such a partnership would clearly be Iran’s energy industry. The U.S. and other foreign investment in Iran’s energy sector should grow rapidly, allowing Iran to develop its production capacity and export oil, gas and petrochemicals.

Several international oil companies have already shown interest in the new contracts. Royal Dutch/Shell, Total and Eni were in Tehran during the last three months to discuss investment opportunities through the so-called ‘special conditions contracts’ to reserve ownership for exploration and development.

Immediately after the lifting of sanctions, European companies will probably be the first to invest. They have the most recent experience of doing business with Iran and will be less constrained by their own governments. It is common to see international players parterning with local businesses who have a good knowledge of the terrain.

Attracting Investors

Low oil price may have been the catalyst for the promulgation of PPPs. Iran’s new Petroleum Contract will be able to invite private companies and international investors to finance and operate energy assets at an attractive price. It will be interesting to watch the development of PPPs in Iran and evolution in the current volatile market as confidence will progressively build through an increase in the quality and quantity of projects coming in line.

To be viable in terms of attracting foreign investment, the new IPC should include four key things: appropriate risk allocation, a sound financial package, reliable concessionaire consortium and favorable investment environment. In order to do so, energy projects should be aligned with both public and private parties and ensure the appropriate management structures and procedure to obtain application of those four core aspects.

The success of the new Iranian Petroleum Contract model also depends on the specific fiscal terms of the agreement, which have not yet been finalized or announced. And even if Iran really managed to sign new contracts with foreign energy companies, these companies will still face major obstacles when it comes to actually investing, operating and advancing these contracts.

Iran can eventually return to production levels it had before the sanctions, but it will probably take much longer than the ‘immediate effect’ promised. Ultimately, fiscal terms that Iran will offer to foreign energy companies under its new contract model might be appealing enough to overcome the significant challenges that come with operating in the country.

In these partnerships, private companies can offer innovative design, project management skills and risk management expertise. A PPP IPC will require the private agent to take full responsibility for the performance of the asset over a long term, so that efficiencies arising from long term investment and asset management could be realized.

A diversified service can be adopted through these contractual relationships: concession contracts, lease-develop-operate, and build-operate-transfer among others. A collaboration between public and private sector for the purpose of delivering a project traditionally provided by the public sector.

The sole challenge will be to find the right balance between private sector capacity, government regulatory function and public satisfaction. Adding the political and social obstacles that will come through different phases of projects, the lack of legal framework and the rising of tariff to cover the costs of projects may face some important challenges. This new financing model will allow the presence of foreign investors in projects but in an operational and reasonable manner.

Only time will tell, but there are efforts being made to attract international investors in Iran. Future work is clearly needed before a PPP can be added to Iran’s economic model in a satisfactory manner. Partnership, if precisely planned and structured, can be a powerful tool not only to keep public company viable but also to address cost and investment challenges, improve efficiency and service quality, increase expertise, attract more rapid and substantial investments in infrastructure and new energy technologies.

The post A Public Private Partnership for Iran’s New Petroleum Contract? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Piraeus Port, Greece. By Jeffrey @flickr

After what seemed like never ending negotiations between the Greek government and the Troika—the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund—to settle Greece’s financial lifeline, the ordeal finally came to an end last August, and the gaze of the world drifted away from Athens.

Instead, all media pundits were fixed on the beaches of Lesbos and the human tide washing up on its shore, and on Syria, the source of so much of the misery from which the boatloads of refugees had fled.

But those with a vested interest in the successful implementation of the €86 billion bailout package agreed between Athens and its creditors, not least of all the Greek people, couldn’t afford to take their eyes off Greece. And in December, as Alexis Tsipras’ Syriza-led government finally passed the budget for 2016 and signed the first privatization deals required to access the bailout funds, some of the attention slowly began shifting back to the fortunes of this debt-laden economic basket case. And unfortunately, not many are happy with what they see six months since the signing of the deal meant to bring Athens out of the worst political conundrum the European Union has ever seen.

To begin with, let’s look at the relatively successful (and relatively painless) privatization of Greece’s airports, a key condition for the nation’s international creditors. In mid December negotiations concluded between the Greek government and a consortium consisting of Fraport, a German transport company, and Copelouzos, a Greek energy company, to lease and manage 14 airports.

Negotiations to lease the airports began under the previous government, but the deal looked to be dead in the water following Syriza’s rise to power on an anti-austerity platform. But now, having been force-fed a strong dose of economic realism, the radical leftists finally signed off on an agreement which will bring in €23 million in annual rental payments and over €300 million in investment in the airports´ facilities.

All in all, the deal is worth €1.4 billion over the 40 year length of the lease. Its final signing also marks a welcome sign that the Syriza government has woken up to the realization that if Greece is ever to extricate itself from its economic woes, it needs to make friends rather than enemies of parties who are willing to invest in its future.

But the privatization of Greece’s airports is only one side of the coin, as the debate over the future of the nation’s seaports still remains unresolved. The Greek shipping industry is the largest in the world, a major provider of employment, and is considered to be the very identity of the country; one of the few remaining symbols of national pride. But if Greece is to maintain its preeminent position as a world leader in shipping, then its ports and associated infrastructure will need continued investment and support.

However, given the country’s finances, the Greek government is clearly in no position to meet those needs using its own resources. Even Syriza has already come to this conclusion, and has agreed as part of the latest bailout program to sell a 51% stake in the port of Piraeus, the country’s largest. At least that was what investors were led to believe would happen, and while reports have emerged that the privatization would indeed go through, the road thus far has been far from smooth, leaving investors jittery about the government’s next steps.

After being postponed three times, bids were finally accepted on December 22 for the majority stake in the port. Maersk Group’s APM Terminals, and Philippines-based International Container Terminal Services have expressed interest in the offer, but China’s Cosco is thought to be the lead contender to seal the deal. That Cosco has continued in its pursuit of the share purchase despite the obstacles thrown in its way by the Greek government is testament to the value of the proposition on offer.

As well as the postponements, the whole process has been stymied by the announcement of the intention to bring all of Greece’s shipyards under a central public body (in other words: nationalization) as well as plans to increase taxes on local shipping operators. All these factors taken together paint an unsettling picture of a government that seems hell bent on scaring away foreign investors ,while at the same time removing existing ones from the country.

Exactly what the government hopes to achieve by exasperating the operators in an industry that is so vital to Greece’s recovery is anyone’s guess, but potential foreign investors will likely remain on their feet until Athens sends a strong signal that it is serious about privatization to dig its economy out of a manmade hole.

But what could really be the undoing of this government and push Greece right back to the precipice is the slow pace of reform of the pension system. The terms of the bailout require a reduction in pension payments, but the government, fearing the political backlash this would cause, claims that there have already been 12 cuts to pension payments since the beginning of the crisis and the system is already streamlined to the bone.

Instead of cuts, the government wants to set higher contributions from existing workers and employers. However, the fact so many people already pay and receive wages under the table in order to avoid paying any contributions in the first place will render such an approach unfeasible until the government cracks down on tax avoidance.

Whereas Syriza once stood against austerity and attracted the support of the majority of Greek people who also opposed it, the fact of the matter now is that whether they like it or not the Syriza-led government is an austerity government. The Greek people are all out of alternatives.

Apart from the Golden Dawn,or from Syriza’s point of view, the best way forward would be to leave the foot dragging and recalcitrance behind, be upfront with the public, and convince them that despite the tough road that lies ahead they are the best party to lead them on the path of economic recovery. Syriza must take a hard and clear stance with its population about the necessary reforms. If Greece wants to remain a member of the Eurozone, this is the road that must be travelled, regardless of the party in government.

When looking into the political history of many of the world’s most complex issues, often there is a strong sense of injustice in communities on both sides of a conflict. Injustice comes from the belief that one group or individual has a disproportionate amount of power, and abuses that position to its benefit, its family’s needs, or the needs of its interest group or political party.

In societies with little corruption, once the creation of unjust mechanisms and institution becomes entrenched, it is almost impossible to return  to a system of balanced and equal justice. In some cases, revolutionary ideals can change a corrupt system, but more often than not it leads to extreme violence and a new system that takes on their own forms of corrupt practices.

Politicking in the modern era reflects many of the same tactics that could rightfully be seen as spurning on absurd religious ideals of the past. Civil discourse has taken generations to develop as a means to have civil conflicts with fellow citizens with a difference of opinion.

This tradition is increasingly being lost. Modern political dialogue seeks to label an adversary as inherently evil. If someone is “evil”, then all ideas must come from a place where the individual, their family or group are acting against the greater good of the society. If the corrupt can claim their adversaries are corrupt, then there is no perception of justice. When every conflict great and small is taken in terms of good vs. evil, no progress can be made and corruption becomes more of a nuance than a lack of accountability.

With such a system in place, corruption will never face justice as powerful groups in black and white societies benefit the most when there is no room for truth and civil discourse. With entrenched corruption, it is inevitable that a nation’s finances will wane and debt will grow. Those in power act according to their self-interest, and if challenged by others in society, they promptly label their challenger as evil, discrediting him or her.

For generations in Colombia, revolutionary groups have claimed that their narco-business was a form of resistance against a corrupt government. The revolutionaries killed many innocent people, and the response by the government also produced civilian causalities.

In Mexico, with the current government being seen by many as not only being inherently corrupt, but having knowledge and perhaps a role in the death of dozens of protestors, the view is that an evil government gives rise to a Robin Hood. Justice is therefore seen as the only alternative, often by any means necessary. Sean Penn and other journalists who engage with narco traffickers take the position that, if they operate in a system where the government itself is inherently corrupt and unjust, then the alternative must be in some sense a righteous one. Often this impression leads to the death of many innocents, at the same time converts the narrative into one of justice against evil.

While this narrative is not unique to one region of the world, it divides discussions into those of “us vs. them.” It promotes not only the status quo, but often hurts those who need justice the most. In the big discussion of El Chapo and the Mexican government, the citizens of Mexico are almost never mentioned.

In a debate between Republicans and Democrats, the distain each side feels towards the other will do more to give rise to added corruption by an elite that has little regard for the people they wish to govern.

In Brazil, corruption scandals have triggered historic debt levels and suffering for its people, leading two million people to take to the streets and demand justice. If there is a method to dispel the dominant narratives, justice can perhaps relinquish the ills of corruption. However, this may only occur when finances are in shambles and debt is affecting each citizen personally. This is happening in Brazil, and only after there were no other choices left.

Trump’s “Making America Great Again” echoes Reagan’s “Let’s Make America Great Again” (Photo credits below)

Part 1 of 2: Can Trump win?

The United States is preparing to introduce a critically important new variable to its foreign policy: a new President. Despite continuing predictions of his campaign fading, Donald Trump remains a viable candidate and therefore important to the global community. President Ronald Reagan’s path to victory in 1980 might serve as a model for Trump’s eventual election. But if elected, will Trump’s foreign policy also echo Reagan’s?

Reagan was elected by reaching voters outside the Republican Party—”Reagan Democrats.” Like Trump, Reagan was already widely known before he ran in 1980. He was a film actor beginning in the late 1930s into the 1950s. He served as the president of the Screen Actors Guild during the Congressional inquiries in Communists in Hollywood. A former radio sportscaster, he bolstered his all-American image as a spokesman for General Electric in the 1950s. In the 1960s, he became a Republican, and gave a popular speech for presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Reagan himself ran successfully for California governor in 1966 and 1970, and unsuccessfully for president in 1968 and 1976.

Trump’s large personality, eponymous hotels, 1987 New York Times bestselling book, and popular television program, The Apprentice, have made him widely known. But in 2011, he also had the highest rates of unfavorability of any potential candidates. Trump lacks political experience, compared to Reagan and to most of his current rivals. But the other Republican frontrunners in the race so far have been a neurosurgeon with no political experience and a first-term Senator, while nine sitting or former governors from states like New York, Florida, Texas, and Ohio have been essentially non-factors.

The context in which Reagan ran in 1980 was also central to the election, though. The United States was at the end of two decades of upheaval: the assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, President Nixon’s resignation, and economic “stagflation.” The taking of American hostages by Iranian revolutionaries, two oil-price crises, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan made the Middle East a complicated and controversial political, economic, and security issue.

In 2016, the United States enters its 16th year of fighting in Afghanistan, and nearly as long in Iraq, while Taliban, ISIS, and other difficulties persist. The long, slow recovery from the 2008 financial crisis is threatened by the global stock market plunges of early January 2016. Police shootings, immigration, and health insurance are politically divisive social issues. The rise of China, Russia, and Iran increasingly erodes the hegemony the United States held for the decade after the Cold War ended.

Will the personality of Trump and the context of American and global politics create a dynamic like the one that elected Reagan?

The first step is within his own Republican Party. (Candidates of each party compete during this winter and spring for their party’s nomination, beginning in the rural state of Iowa on February 1. Parties could essentially make their choices by March 1, “Super Tuesday,” when 12 states hold their contests, or continue as late as June.) Trump leads a party that is older, whiter, more Christian, more Southern, and more male than the Democratic Party. His nationalism and brashness—he has made insulting comments recently about women, immigrants, Muslims, his own national party organization, and even American prisoners of war—appeal at least in tone to a plurality of Republicans. Each insult generates punditry on his imminent decline. But unlike the 2012 campaign where several Republicans cycled through the top spot and out of the race, Trump has so far held his lead over several months.

The next step would be in the general election, presumably against Hillary Clinton. She has a strong resume: active First Lady, U.S. Senator from New York, and Secretary of State, in the national spotlight for more than 20 years. She is potentially the first female president, following the first African-American president. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, was and remains very popular among Democrats, but the effect of his history with women is a wild card. Like Trump, though, she has high unfavorables, along with an open investigation into her handling of State Department email, and lingering questions about what happened during the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

What does Trump needs to defeat her? Reagan received 26% of the Democratic vote in 1980, compared to 10 and 7% for the Republican candidates in 2008 and 2012. Reagan got 54% of independents, 48% of moderates, and 36% of Hispanics—all much higher than the Republicans in 2008 and 2012. Trump doesn’t just need Republican turnout; Trump needs Democrats.

Turnout numbers are always difficult to predict. Presidential elections get higher relative turnouts among Democrats than during off-years: President Obama’s elections were followed by historic Republican Congressional gains in 2010 and 2014. Will Hillary Clinton be able to get Obama’s supporters to come out a third time?

It is the race to 270 electoral votes, not a popular majority, that ultimately matters. Democrats are seen as holding a big advantage in “safe states” months before any votes are cast. A December 2015 poll by CNN put Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton in the South and the Midwest, and behind in the Northeast and West. It put him ahead in rural areas, behind in urban areas, and tied in suburbia. The key “swing states” of Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Colorado are divided among these categories, not persuasively favoring either candidate. Can Trump win enough of these swing states with the help of Democratic voters? One recent poll offers that Trump could get 20% of the Democratic vote.

U.S. elections are typically close: The last seven presidential elections have been won by an average of 5% of the vote (49-44); the last three by 3.5% (50.6-47.1). Only once since World War II have Americans elected the same political party three times consecutively: Reagan-Reagan-George H.W. Bush, 1980-1988.

History suggests much stands between today and the November 2016 election. In January 2008, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll gave Hillary Clinton a 15-point lead (47–32) over Senator Obama. Throughout 2007 New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani led the Republicans, until Mike Huckabee and then John McCain took leads in early 2008. For the moment, it looks like Clinton vs. Trump—very different candidates, each with high negative ratings, and in a pattern in American presidential elections where the final popular vote is close. If Trump were to win the nomination, he has a chance at the presidency.

Part 2 will consider what a Trump foreign policy might look like.

Photo credits: Reagan poster , 1980 Republican Convention, Trump in cap.

Still photo from ISIS Indonesian recruitment video (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The start of 2016 has been a foreboding one for countries facing the threat of terrorism, following attacks last Thursday in Paris and Cairo, and again last Friday on the coast of Egypt’s Red Sea and in Philadelphia, all claimed by followers of the Islamic State (IS). Whether these attacks were coordinated or the acts of lone wolves is uncertain at this time, as is the extent of the IS networks operating in these countries.

While much of the media attention is focused on the threat of IS to Americans, Europeans and North Africans, less attention is being paid to the citizens of Southeast Asian nations. Southeast Asia is home to about 15% of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, many of whom have gone to fight in Iraq and Syria under the banner of IS, or have been radicalized while at home.  One such Southeast Asian country on the forefront of the battle against IS is Indonesia, home to the world’s largest Muslim population, which has over the past year successfully crushed militant cells.

In December, Indonesian authorities announced a string of raids had led to the capture of nine IS sympathizers suspected of planning bomb attacks and the seizure of bomb-making equipment found across the island of Java. Authorities suspect the bombs were to be used in attacks against President Joko Widodo, government offices, and public landmarks.

Borobodur, the world’s largest Buddhist temple and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, had seen increased security after an apparent bomb threat by IS-affiliated Islamists last year.  There are an estimated 1,000 Islamic State sympathizers across a population of 250 million in Indonesia, many of whom are returning from fighting with IS in Syria, radicalized and battle-hardened.  The IS representative leadership is thought to be based in Solo, a city in the center of Java, known as a hotbed for Islamic unrest.

Indonesia has banned support for Islamic State and warned its citizens against joining IS, although most of its Muslim population practices a moderate form of Islam. Indonesian nationalism is founded on the doctrine of Pancasila, which stresses pluralism and diversity and strongly opposes the establishment of an Islamic state.  The leader of the country’s al-Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), Abu Bakar Bashir, pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State from his jail cell in August (JI was behind the Bali bombings in 2002 that killed 202 people).

While Indonesia is not publicly declaring their support for airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, they are not dismissive of the threat which IS poses across the Indonesian archipelago. Some of their citizens have homegrown grievances and are likely to be emboldened by the success of IS and declare ties to the terrorist organization, potentially traveling to Iraq and Syria or carrying out terrorist actions at home.

More worryingly, battle-hardened militants returning from Iraq and Syria may bring both skills and networks with which to join forces with locals (or foreigners)—Malaysian authorities are already expressing concern over networks forming between Malay-speaking militants from Malaysia and Indonesia, who have formed a combined fighting unit in Syria, and whom may join forces once home.

Greater efforts at intelligence-sharing, such as that which took place in December among Indonesian authorities, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Australian Federal Police, should be encouraged throughout Southeast Asia. The potential of IS to threaten Indonesia and the rest of Southeast Asia is real and should not be minimized—after all, returning militants from the Afghan war against the Soviet Union from 1979–1989 were responsible for the founding of both Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines and JI in Indonesia, both of which are still active today.

There is often a great deal of information available about injustices done against groups that are in dire need of assistance. Most of these ethnic minorities are known to be in a predicament by the international community. The starkest failure after the lessons of the Second World War and atrocities in the Balkans was the incapacity of the international community to take actions to prevent a modern genocide in Rwanda.

With further atrocities taking place in Iraq and Syria, the international community must stop the oppression against certain groups. Indeed, the lesson of Rwanda has been almost entirely ignored in 2015. Political leaders actively obscure discussions on genocide and media coverage does little to prevent another humanitarian disaster. A defined obligation is required to cut through the rhetoric.

Not assisting those in need is not considered a crime in most legal traditions. It would be difficult to prove that an individual was aware of the need and level of care required in order to successfully help a victim. In the event that members of the international community would be legally obligated to help, there must be some definition of who would be deserving of such assistance.

The group in need first has to be known to be in a situation where a possible genocide may take place. The international community, once aware of the threat, must be shown that assistance can be provided to the group in need. Finally, the capability must exist for that assistance to be successfully administered by the international community. While many regulations and laws exist to prevent genocide in modern times, there has been a lack of humanity and legislation used to save minority groups in Iraq and Syria.

Kurdish forces have often been alone fighting for the liberation of many minority groups in Iraq and Syria. The severe lack of support by Western allies and the Iraqi government  has allowed for a well-known genocide to take place in the region. Assistance to Kurdish forces has been requested openly for an extensive period of time with little assistance coming with the condemnation of atrocities.

Small militias have been assisting Kurdish forces while Western powers and the Iraqi Army lag behind. With knowledge of the situation, and the ability to help, the success that could take place in the fight against genocide in the region is shown by the Kurds themselves. Their small, badly equipped forces are losing soldiers and civilians are being murdered while world leaders continue to bicker. The international community should be liable for its lack of support and the deaths of innocent civilians.

The Yazidi question is one for the international community, as their extinction would be eminent without the assistance of Kurdish forces. The current debate on which American President or Presidential candidate has encouraged ISIS more does nothing to stop a genocide. The entire world  has knowledge of men, women, and many children being subject to rape, torture and death. Some groups have been successful in rescuing girls and women from ISIS who were previously taken as slaves.

To stop this atrocity, the international community is capable of taking action beyond using planes or placing climate issues above the lives of many communities that have existed for centuries. Rwanda should be taken as a reminder to Never Forget, yet again. If humanity as a whole can clearly state that genocide should be stopped without fail, without red tape, qualifications or justifications, then there would be no need for a legal obligation to act in the advent of a genocide. Rwanda’s genocide is taking place again, but in Iraq and Syria.

Britain and China have been developing a closer relationship.

China and Great Britain have had a long but often fraught historical relationship with each other. The UK has been accused in recent years of sending the signal that it is willing to compromise its democratic values in its eagerness to deepen Chinese business ties with Britain.

Meanwhile, as a rising China has become the world’s second most powerful nation, the American-Chinese relationship has become more competitive recently, with pacts such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) seemingly designed to exclude China from membership. In turn China has launched its own charm offensive, the so-called ‘One Belt, One Road’ Eurasian development strategy, which it believes will see more Asian and Western countries follow in Britain’s footsteps and join Chinese-friendly institutions and trading blocs.

The UK wishes to participate in both China’s One Belt, One Road projects and remain close to America on matters such as European security or cross-Atlantic trade like the proposed Transatlantic Trade & Investment Pact (TTIP). While China’s rise is complicating the position of unbroken hegemonic authority the U.S. has enjoyed in East Asia for the last 70 years, Britain relinquished Hong Kong, its last significant position there, in 1997. It no longer possesses the strength to substantially alter the balance of power in the region and has more to gain from staying out of the numerous security disputes littering East Asia.

Above all the UK needs to avoid being dragged into controversies such as America’s hostility to China’s naval expansion in the South China Sea. Although Beijing’s position on the issue is in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which it has ratified, such territorial disputes should remain confined to the regional states which sustain them.

America and China will continue to compete with each other over security arrangements in the East Asian region and for economic influence globally. Despite the renewal of conflict in the Middle East and the return of Russian adventurism there and in Europe, in the longer term China is the state actor that matters and Asia is the battlefield of 21st century superpower rivalry.

East Asian relations in particular are often seen through a U.S.-China lens, with Beijing’s foreign policy interest towards European nations such as the UK thought of as being limited. Therefore the UK’s recent moves have surprised Western observers: London shocked its U.S. ally when it unexpectedly joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in March 2015. The UK government has made improving Sino-British relations a priority ever since 2013, when Beijing put UK-Chinese ties into the deep freeze in response to the Dalai Lama’s visit to Downing Street.

While the UK government has correctly gauged that China is an indispensable global partner, it has miscalculated the relative strengths of the two sides’ bargaining positions. The willingness of the UK government to allow Chinese investment into the UK in sectors such as nuclear power, ease visa restrictions, and reduce criticism of human rights has been causing increasing unease at home and abroad. As a second-tier global power Britain will exercise significant political influence with Beijing only if it works through its partners in Europe to negotiate the terms of its engagement there. The present solo negotiation with China, whilst trying ineffectually not to annoy its main America security partner, is a fragile policy which will crumble at the first serious crisis it encounters.

Instead the UK would achieve more of what it wants, and give away less political capital in the process, if it managed Anglo-Sino relations through a European mechanism such as the EU-China summits at Brussels. Much as Europe has come together to deal with Russia’s use of gas as a strategic weapon, this slow but collective foreign policy method is a surer way of dealing with an economically indispensable but politically awkward nation like China.

The UK remains a key financial centre for Chinese businesses and its firms still have close ties to the Chinese overseas territory of Hong Kong. But it is the European Union as a whole which is China’s largest trading partner, and Beijing is the EU’s second largest partner after the US. After Asia, Europe was Chinese people’s biggest destination for overseas travel, receiving 3.43 million Chinese visitors, an increase of 10.4%.

The EU has become China’s biggest source of imports, now trading at well over €1 billion a day. In short it is Europe as a whole, rather than any individual member state, which is an influential partner in Chinese eyes. While China is trying to diversify its economy away from reliance on manufacturing, the size of the EU’s market makes it too important for Beijing to simply ignore.

Britain has already been a great beneficiary of China’s economic rise over the past three decades and it is in the UK’s national interest for this blossoming relationship to continue. Over ten years alone imports grew from £11.4 billion in 2004, to £37.6 billion in 2014. China has become the UK’s second largest import partner behind America, now accounting for 7.0% of all UK imports in 2014, compared with just 3.3% in 2004.

As Beijing opens up its service sector to foreign investors, analysts have predicted Britain’s foreign direct investment (FDI) assets in China could rise hugely in worth from £6.6 billion in 2014 to a possible £25.6 billion by 2020. Indeed the UK’s Chancellor George Osborne has set himself a target of making China Britain’s second biggest trading partner by 2025.

China and Britain therefore have a joint interest in developing greater Sino-EU integration, despite the history of trading rows between the trading bloc and the superpower. The UK has been supporting Chinese efforts to develop the yuan as global trading currency, anticipating British financial services will be one of the main beneficiaries of the appearance of off-shore yuan trading markets.

Reflecting this, the UK government has proposed schemes to study connecting the stock markets in Shanghai and London, and to reach a free-trade pact between Beijing and the EU. Analysts speculate that with the UK’s specialization in financial services, health care, clean technology and life sciences, Britain is well positioned to gain from Beijing’s shift towards a more services- and consumption-based economy if Britain can leverage its position within the EU to tie China and Europe closer together.

By choosing the European route instead of the bilateral one to negotiate its trading relationship with Beijing the UK maximizes its leverage with both its European partners and China, which is useful for a medium-sized ex-colonial power. By minimizing the concessions it needs to make to China on sensitive issues such as Tibet or Xinjiang, Britain can also avoid alienating other important partners like Washington.

Irritants such as the long-running dispute over the South China Sea have been inflaming the US-Sino discourse again and hostile attitudes are always easy to find in a period in which US politicians are running for the Presidency. Beijing has also complicated matters for itself by adopting a strident and an uncompromising tone over its territorial issues that has alarmed its neighbors and international opinion in recent years.

China remains a difficult nation for Western governments to deal with politically, but a vital one for their companies and economies. The greatest diplomatic challenge for the EU in the 21st century will be how to harmonize Chinese-European relations without alienating America. London can play a pivotal role in this as the channel through which China’s currency and businesses reach the global status that its leaders crave for reasons of national prestige.

But in order to have the political muscle to do so it will have to work with other European leaders on the continent instead of seeing them as competitors for Chinese investment. For this reason Britain’s leaders may find their China goals achievable only if they focus their flexible bargaining skills much closer to home and ignore the temptations to head straight to Beijing to cut deals ahead of their European partners and rivals.