Foreign Policy Blogs

There are a few tricks to surviving an epidemic of Hyper-Inflation that some have learned in those countries that have suffered from it over the last few decades. Unfortunately, much of it involved being so wealthy that you are able to shift your assets overseas using professional services that are only available to few people, and there being a asset or country where your investments would be safe from the inflationary pressures. The rest of us do not have this kind of access, and are dependent on effective policies to sustain our affordability of food, shelter and heat.

Three policy approaches that are likely to transform the inflationary situation into a harsh reality are already being applied. As you read this, in whatever country you currently reside, you are likely noticing it daily.

When a government begins focusing on a new crisis post Covid, even when Covid is still an effective burden on most countries, there is likely the motivation to change from a formally stable economic and political situation to one that benefits a few individuals. While these late 2021 crises are a surprise to many in the community, they always seem to be characterised by a sensational and immediate problem often not realised during Covid or to any great degree before Covid. They almost always tend to try and bypass any regulatory measures and oversight in the rapid application of these virtual emergency policies. While some of these quick applications may benefit the community, any policy that seeks to work around established policies and laws that were formed over time in a democratic and measured process will almost always fail to a degree, and likely will benefit few in a society.

An appropriate Government measure during a time of uncontrolled and severe inflation is to try and reduce the costs of living for average people. Policies by law should not add pressure to families and individuals that may drive them further into poverty, as it will likely keep them there for many years to follow. They effectively have no consideration for the basic needs of their citizens. Any country that has planned tax increases for any reason at this time of worldwide inflation are likely not going to recovery from it quickly and will enshrine a lost generation. A balanced budget is always important, and a measured response to economic pressures is the principal job of community leaders. If a government doesn’t care about you basic costs of living, they don’t care about your family, your shelter, and in cold countries, your heat in winter. Those who offer policies such as these should not be in charge of taking care of anyone. A policy producing added economic pressures on top of inflation is more often than not a corruption tax.

In the past, most countries that suffered from endemic inflation also suffered from systemic corruption. While inflation is not a direct cause of corruption, the measures to control the regulatory and legal structures of a society can be manipulated during these economic struggles to permanently harm a democratic and fair political, economic and legal system. Everyone worldwide is either in an early recovery phase of Covid or are presently dealing with great challenges due to Covid, and are at a weak point in their personal lives. If a government seeks to change society in any major way while its population is distracted and approaching an impoverished state, they are more often than not doing it for their own political and economic benefit. There should be a moratorium on drastic measures to change a society until we have had a few years to return to normalcy.

The post-Covid era is not much different than other eras where we have struggled, and we strived and reconstructed societies back to stability. There are no individuals who will miraculously better a society when it has had hundreds of years of successful and established democracy and diminished poverty by applying a grand policy at the weakest point held by a society. A country spending more in the last two years, than it has in the last century and through two World Wars is not a country that appreciates it own evolution of freedom and democratic stability. Keep your focus on your leaders, and do not allow them to turn your community into their new projects in the coming years.

If one seeks peace in the Caucuses, then there should be cultural and educational exchanges between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, not boycotts of Azerbaijan.  

Since they declared independence from the Soviet Union in the 1990’s, Azerbaijan has been a strategic partner of the United States.  Although too many Americans may not realize it, Azerbaijan is perhaps the one remaining friendly country that America has in the Caspian basin.  

As a secular multicultural majority Muslim nation that prides itself on its pluralism and religious tolerance, Azerbaijan sent soldiers to help the United States fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Furthermore, Azerbaijan has also been a full ally of the United States in the struggle against Islamist extremism, serving as a major transit point for American military supplies to Afghanistan and elsewhere. 

Azerbaijan has also been a strategic partner against Iranian hegemony in the Middle East, as their recent war against Armenia fundamentally weakened Iran as Armenia’s main road to the Islamic Republic was cut off, which adversely affected the mullah’s economy, forcing the Iranians to contemplate creating alternative trade routes.    It is critical to note that only an economically weakened Iran can be convinced to end its nuclear program that threatens the entire world.  Thus, the results of the Second Karabakh War where Iran got weakened in the Caspian Sea worked to America’s advantage.   

Yet following the recent border tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan, American Senator Bob Menendez, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called on the US to cut military aid to Azerbaijan despite all of these important facts.  However, to take such a measure would be detrimental to the United States.  

According to the Armenian lobbyist group ANCA, “The amendment (#4177) is one of three amendments to the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that moves all references to presidential waiver authority of Section 907, a provision first put in place in 2001, and utilized by successive U.S. presidents – including President Biden.  Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act is an Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) -backed measure that would effectively block U.S. military aid to Azerbaijan.” 

However, much of America’s aid to Azerbaijan very much serves American interests.  In recent days in an interview with Jam News, American Ambassador to Azerbaijan Lee Litzenberger stated that a number of American companies have expressed interest in helping Azerbaijan to demine the Karabakh region and he hinted that this is important for America’s national security as well: “They are ready to invest where there are appropriate conditions, and above all, open tenders.” 

According to him, American aid has been instrumental in helping Azerbaijan to not only demine but to engage in other defensive actions: “Azerbaijan has been provided with appropriate scanners, X-ray machines and other equipment. They are used not only on land borders, but also in the Caspian to protect marine infrastructure and oil platforms. This equipment allows Azerbaijan to protect its coast and its sea borders.”  The ambassador noted that this these defensive measures are important, as they help Azerbaijan to block the flow of drugs into Europe and other areas of the world, and defend the vital oil industry in the region: “We are interested in maintaining stability on Azerbaijan’s borders.”  

Thus, if US military assistance is cut off to Azerbaijan, then this would adversely affect not only demining efforts, but also Europe’s struggle against the drug trade, jeopardize energy security in the region and would weaken the recently signed peace agreement, which would adversely affect regional security as a whole.  It should be emphasized that one cannot build a stable peaceful secure society if any child who strays from the road to play soccer can get killed in a landmine.  One cannot build up a stable oil industry in the region that imports to America and Europe if there are landmines throughout vast areas of the country.  And most importantly, no peace agreement can last if one side is encouraging boycotts against the other side.

If America truly wants to encourage peace and stability in the Caspian region, then they should ignore Armenian calls for boycotts of Azerbaijan’s military and instead call upon both Armenians and Azerbaijanis to build up academic exchanges between both countries, so that Armenian and Azerbaijani students can study each other’s culture and language.  Only via the existence of cross-cultural exchanges like this can the peace last between both sides.  Encouraging boycotts just undermines peace, demining efforts and the security of Azerbaijan and the region, as it struggles against radical extremism.   Thus, I call upon America to continue to support one of its few allies in the Caspian Sea and to ignore the ANCA initiatives. 

A Yazidi Refugee in 2016 in Northern Iraq.

It is not the first time someone like Nadia Murad was ignored by those in an institution, a city or a country when they wanted to make them aware of their experiences. Societies did not develop in an instant, and rights for individuals and within a community took generations to develop. Constitutions and modern states were born after others failed, and even then, people moved forward to improve basic rights and educate others on what being human means. In that process, we learned how to value others.

During those generations, the people that are the ancestors of Nadia Murad endured hardship just trying to survive in what we now refer to as Northern Iraq. In 2021, those who call themselves educators want to make sure that her culture, one of the oldest in the world, disappears from the world by silencing her in a country that claims to be a benefactor of those generations of rights.

Nadia Murad is the United Nations representative of the women and girls of the Yazidi people. Nadia, and those like her are the most brutalised women in modern history. Speaking up about the atrocities endured by her and her people won her a Nobel Prize, but a school board in Canada’s largest city does not want to hear anything from her. It appears that they never understood why Never Again matters. They are the most uneducated group of individuals in modern history it seems, and while this story has gone international in order to shame them into a moral position, in their own country it is not considered that newsworthy.

Should we be disturbed that a Western democracy that was built on the ideas of human rights can treat the victims of Genocide in such a fashion? Perhaps looking at their recent track record of ignoring another Yazidi refugee that was silenced by those who should help her when she ran into her torturer in a Canadian city should surprise us, but it was not a major story. A plan to create a Covid vaccine with China’s military was approved by the Government while knowledge of human rights atrocities against the Uyghurs was evident, but Concentration Camps in 2020 wasn’t newsworthy either it seems. A day that was created to recognise their own county’s past acts of human rights abuses against Indigenous children was ignored by their own leader while he went on a vacation of privilege, even though his own father may had a role in those acts. Could it be possible that these attitudes permeated into the Toronto’s District School Board when they wanted to silence Nadia Murad as well? Sadly, there are many more examples that makes those who are tied to refugees in that country feel unwelcome and unsafe.

The Holocaust Museum in Washington DC was established to not only educate others on how the Holocaust came to be, but also to acknowledge and promote education on other atrocities that have taken place in modern history. The purpose of it is clear:

Never Again applies to all victims of Genocide.

This education is important because it acts as a barrier to future Genocides. Responding by silencing victims further entrenches the act itself, as Genocide is committed to silence and exterminate a people, their culture and their lives. Its purpose is to erase history, and the educators in Toronto responsible for silencing Nadia Murad are re-victimizing all of the Nadias in every community that have ever experienced acts of discrimination and extermination. Ignoring brutality are why Human Rights Atrocities become a reality. The reason why the Armenian Genocide did not stop further crimes against humanity only a few years later is because even in 2021, some nations deny it ever took place.

This concept is so crucial that Germany decided to enshrine Holocaust Denial into their legal system as a criminal act. The German people did not all believe in the tenets of Fascism, but assuming that an education on those facts would be offensive to Germans is to assume all individuals had an interested role in the application of that Fascism. The real offense is to presume their acceptance of falsehoods. Unfortunately, some educators in Canada still do not grasp this concept.

The creator of Mosul Eye, Professor Omar Mohammed lived in Mosul, Iraq when ISIS took over his beloved city. A professor that was ejected from his university under ISIS, he secretly lead a video protest and online campaign to bring hope to the people of his city living under the fascism experienced after the takeover of Northern Iraq. He and most people in Mosul did not accept a life under fascism. Iraqis who experienced what he did are not ever going to silence Nadia Murad or anyone like her. This is true because he is a real educator and a survivor.

The border crisis between Poland and Belarus is more complex than a dispute between two sovereign nations. The extension of the EU border into the former Warsaw Pack area and towards the former border of the Soviet Union was always a source of tension as Poland was seen as a barrier to large armies coming from Western Europe. The trauma of the Second World War on Soviet citizens is notable in foreign policy arrangements since that time, and mirrors much of the history of Central Europe as a bulk-ward against the Wehrmacht, The Grand Armee of Napoleon, and many other historical disputes that placed the Polish people in the middle of wider conflicts.

The resulting Realpolitik that motivated the West and East of Europe to be weary of sharing a direct border with each other placed the Polish people into a revolving wheel of suffering and of erased identity. While the Polish people and culture survived and thrived in the areas known as historic Poland, the maintenance of a nation state was often determined by outside forces, making the Polish people strangers without a nation of their own in their historical homelands. The Poland once ruled by Medieval kings was not the same one that Napoleon stepped foot in, and was still drastically different than the Poland that came out of the Second World War. The end result is that Poland was a nation that often remained nameless despite having a rich culture and history. Poland is one of the oldest nations in European history, but remained absent as a state within Europe for much of the last 800 years.

The irony of citizens from Iraq, Syria and Yemen being trapped between the Belorussians and European Union at the Polish border mirrors much of European history as well as their own. As Poland was always the target of power politics in its region, the people of Iraq, Syria and Yemen are now often seen to be citizens of countries in a power vacuum, victims of political agents at home and now abroad that are used as a part of a larger conflict. When negotiations are taking place between Western Powers and those in the region, a missile launched at Iraq that murders its citizens is not mentioned or considered by any negotiators. Despite being indigenous peoples in their own lands, their nations are always at risk of disappearing due to external factors and foreign interests.

In reality, the conflict on the border is not between the Polish people and those from Iraq, Syria and Yemen. This latest clash has mostly been orchestrated by outside forces, wishing to keep their treatment of nameless nations maintained and who deem inequality as the norm. This is an experience Polish, Iraqi, Syrian and Yemeni people have always shared, and negotiations between these nations should reflect their own culture and experiences, not those of the real outsiders.

Haiti has a long history of natural, political, and human catastrophes. What do Haitians do now?

The Port-au-Prince neighborhood of Bel Air. Photo credit: Marcello Casal, Jr., Agencia Brazil, CC BY 2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EscombrosBelAir7.jpg

A State Department warning to Americans to avoid travel to Haiti follows the kidnapping of 17 foreign aid workers and family members in a long line of tragic stories from Haiti in 2021. Beginning decades ago but accelerating this year with political unrest, natural disasters, and economic and social problems, any prospects for progress in Haiti seem to be demolished by the next catastrophe.

The political earthquake of the year was the July 7 assassination of President Jovenel Moïse. Moïse replaced an interim president in 2017, who had replaced a president who stepped down for constitutional reasons, who himself came to power after 2010 earthquake that killed hundreds of thousands of Haitians and left more than a million homeless. The fallout from this summer’s assassination of Moïse continues, with the arrests of Columbians and former Haitian police officers, questions about former Ministry of Justice official Joseph Badio, and the current interim prime minister’s connections to Badio.

In August, Haiti suffered an actual earthquake, a 7.2 magnitude quake that killed more than 2,000 people and left more than 650,000 people in need of humanitarian aid.

This natural disaster built on years of similar ones. A partial list includes historic storms in 1935, 1954, and 1963, a series of devastating storms in the 1990s, four major storms in 2008, and Hurricane Matthew that destroyed 200,000 homes in 2016. Weeks after this summer’s assassination of Moise and two days after the earthquake, Haiti was hit by Hurricane Grace. Damaging flooding and landslides also hampered relief efforts for earthquake victims.

These political and natural disasters amplified the ongoing economic and social problems in Haiti. USAID assessed that more than one-third of Haitians live with “severe acute food insecurity.” Even before 2021’s troubles, the World Bank called Haiti the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and one of the poorest in the world, with a negative growth in 2019 and 2020. Sixty percent of the country live in poverty and nearly a quarter in extreme poverty.

Together, these conditions have facilitated the rapid growth of violent gangs in Haiti. Gangs are not new to Haiti, but they are alleged to act with unofficial “governing powers” in some regions and with extrajudicial violence with the cooperation of government officials.

Drack Bonhomme is founding director of Haiti’s international relations think tank and graduate school, L’Ouverture Institute for Diplomacy & Global Affairs (LIDGA). Bonhomme spoke about these natural, political, and social crises at The Catholic University of America’s Institute for Policy Research (IPR).

“The kinematics of Haiti are catastrophic, the picture is really disastrous,” Bonhomme began. The indigenous people called the island Haiti, meaning mountainous land, and now “the problems are like mountains.”

Bonhomme described natural disasters – especially Hurricane Hazel in 1954 – as devastating the economy. Hazel damaged sugar and coffee production as well as tourism. In subsequent decades, disease and natural disaster, including HIV/AIDS and the 2010 earthquake, have had a continuing series of negative impacts.

Haiti’s political troubles also have deep roots, including the family dictatorship of François and Jean-Claude Duvalier. Haiti today faces an “unprecedented constitutional crisis,” said Bonhomme, where “the three branches of government are non-existent.”

Bonhomme believes the limited international responses to Haiti’s current problems are worsened by the all-consuming nature of the Covid-19 pandemic. The international community is too busy with the pandemic, Bonhomme said, to focus on more traditional questions like natural disasters and political crises.

But he believes there is more that Haiti can do to help itself. First is working with donors and aid agencies to help Haitians figure out a way forward themselves – as the Marshall Plan offered reconstruction aid in postwar Europe based on what each country’s own plans were. Second is to draw more from the successful diaspora. The Haitian constitution limits the ways diaspora can contribute, other than remittances, to the re-development of the country.

But Bonhomme is optimistic. “The Haitian people are very resilient, a religiously spiritual people,” he concluded. There is a “hope within the soul of the Haitian people, they keep looking for the light…and that sense of hope is still shining inside of them.”

Watch Drack Bonhomme’s full presentation

There is no planet B

When Congress makes a mistake in determining important economic policy like setting the tax rate or implementing a new trade policy, the results can be pretty awful. Unexpected inflation might take place, jobs might be lost, and personal savings might crumble. In the most severe cases, these disruptions might result in economic recession, or worse, a more sustained depression. It goes without saying, this can be devastating- on a personal, national, and even global level.

However, in the aftermath of even the most severe of these crises, individual people have proven resilient. We “Keep Calm and Carry On”, as the saying goes. Even when the most sensitive economic policy goes awry, the consequences are usually constrained to economic matters. A mistake in tax policy can certainly cause suffering, but it cannot result in the end of the world.

This principle applies for many of the most important matters in the American political landscape. Immigration, education, healthcare, and of course economic policy are critically important, but our collective resilience allows for politicians to gradually tweak policy to match the nation’s needs and mood. The American political system is designed to process these sorts of changes incrementally at the national level while giving local decision makers the ability to implement policy in a way that suits their constituencies. Put another way- for most things in American political life, policy makers have the opportunity to “muddle through” policy making decisions, honing and (hopefully) improving policy over time.

However, there are some policy matters where tinkering around the edges or “finding the middle ground” simply will not do. Climate change is perhaps the most obvious and most pressing of these. There is a strong scientific consensus, backed by the United Nations IPCC report, that in order to avoid reaching the point where climate change becomes self-reinforcing, the global community must become carbon neutral by the year 2050. This is only twenty-eight years away.

To the extent that the world’s governments and the individuals that they represent ignore these warnings, we are gambling with the fate of the whole of humanity. The idea that we can be protected from the worst consequences of climate change by making only incremental adjustments does not fit with intellectually honest political discourse.

Of course, there is still plenty of room for debate regarding the best course of action to address climate change. It is entirely reasonable to debate if the bulk of the responsibility for addressing climate change falls on nations that have emitted larger total sums of greenhouse gases over time but have already begun to reduce their harmful emissions, or if it lies with nations that are currently the world’s chief greenhouse gas emitters. In either case, it is appropriate to shame Russia and China for failing to attend the COP26 climate conference, and it is reasonable to question the follow-through of leaders like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he pledges that India will be carbon neutral by 2070 despite currently working to expanding coal mining operations.

More than that, it can be wise to weigh the virtues of a carbon tax against those of a cap and trade system in our own country. Local decision makers will know far better than distant bureaucrats if subsidies for solar panels or a heightened focus on local agriculture suits your local community’s needs better.

These questions, however, ask which actions and policies are best suited to address climate change- they are elevated beyond the basic question of whether or not drastic action is necessary in the first place.

This is what separates climate change from the other important issues in American life. A failure to address growing inflation is bad, while a failure to appropriately address climate represents a potentially existential threat. More than that, the action that appears necessary to avert the worst of the harm done by climate change remains fully outside of the Overton Window. Forget actually curbing emissions, the United States gives something to the effect of $14.5 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil and gas companies- those subsidies outnumber investments in the renewable sector by 7 to 1.

Democrats and Republicans alike need to make dramatic progress in their willingness to take on climate change if they are serious about the current administration’s stated goal of achieving carbon neutrality by the year 2030. Additionally, American political discourse needs to commit itself to curbing climate change regardless of other important policy making, and regardless of our confidence in the follow through of other nations that are sometimes untrustworthy. Without the United States on board, there is little hope for avoiding the worst consequences of climate change. This is true for the United States even as it is true for Russia, India, and China- however, a failure by any of those nations to fulfill their responsibility does not excuse failure by the United States.

The time is now for us to fully shift the conversation from “do we need to address climate change” or “under what conditions should we make a full commitment to addressing climate change” to “what is the most effective way to address climate change”. Despite this somewhat liberal sounding call to action, this sentiment finds roots on both sides of the aisle. Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, “the [global warming] debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat, and we know the time for action is now.”

The time for action is now.

—

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

The Economist recently published an article on the overarching power of the European Council, a government body of the European Union that was designed to facilitate the discussion and application of policies throughout the EU. The problem that has always persisted in the European Union is how you can get consensus between so many differing ideas, cultures and interest groups that can be applied fairly and transparently throughout all 27 Member States. Part of the solution has been to reduce the number of voices in the process as not to make it so incredibly cumbersome, but many see this as a move towards systemically reducing democratic values in the process.

My experience studying the framework of the EU at a time when Accession was a major topic of the day was characterised by the expansion of the EU into Central Europe along with the addition of new cultures and former Warsaw Pact nations. These countries accepted entrance into the EU at the cost of what many see as an unfair burden on their agricultural sector and shared economic values. Many of those countries who over the last two generations overthrew the tyranny of fascism and the long slow decline of their societies under the Iron Curtain are naturally weary of outside pressures being put on their societies, and the top down structure of the European Council has the very real power of being able to tread on grassroots movements in Member States.

Countries like the United Kingdom always sat uncomfortably within the EU. This was always the case despite being at the top of its power structure and possessing parts of the UK that were happy to have the support of other regional Governments in the application of policies within the UK and EU. While The Economist article humourously compares the power of the European Council to that of a neo-Monarchic power structure, it was always the case that many English people saw themselves apart from Continental Europe, and were proud of their unique British cultural and democratic institutions and in some fashion had longed mourned their lost Empire. While the irony of the British Government having a Queen Monarch as Head of State would be lost on no one, the British Parliamentary system’s culturally based Constitution, assumed Customary Laws and invisible Constitutional etiquette would be hard to codify outside of British Society, and the grumbles against EU power within the UK was ever-present. One of the major factors that lead to Brexit that is often not spoken on is the feeling that democracy could not survive the whims of those not directly elected representing British citizens in a city with no connection to Britain’s culturally based democratic system. The Queen herself, while having the ability to technically apply Absolute power, culturally is at the sidelines and is well aware that interference in party politics may sour the public to the idea of having a Monarch altogether. This wise balance was not possible with UK representatives in Brussels, and it degraded the idea of Britain being in the EU for generations.

To see what the end result could be from those at the top ignoring grassroots politics and using their power to quell democratic traditions, you only need to look at how Canada’s Federated Government took to announcing policies that would greatly affect specific regions of its own country, in an international forum, and not within the region being affected or even Canada itself. The recent announcement of a cap on energy sales at a time where inflation hit record highs and cost of living is placing many in risk of losing their homes in winter is seen as needlessly aggressive policy. With a closed Parliament and no manner to answer to policy, the British Parliamentary system cannot function when Parliament is closed at a time of major policy development. In addition, ignoring the Customary laws of that traditional system means that people may feel their voices are muted, at a time when life is difficult and leadership is required. As the European Council slowly alienated British voters, no region of the world would tolerate a foreign power limiting their ability to produce an income, afford social programs and have an open voice in their own democracy. To keep a union of states or even a nation united, it should not be able to harm to itself as part of its own democratic system. As history has noted, then it is not really a full democracy.

The “Free Tibet” shoes worn by Enes Kanter

Enes Kanter has reemerged on the political stage.

The eleven year NBA veteran made waves after wearing a pair of speakers expressing support for Tibetan independence. The game between Kanter’s Boston Celtics and the New York Knicks was being broadcast around the world, until the feed was abruptly cut off for Chinese consumers by Tencent, the Chinese media conglomerate that is licensed to show NBA games in the Chinese market. On that same day, Kanter posted a three minute video to his twitter feed in which he condemns China’s repression of Tibet, and wore a shirt featuring the Dalai Lama- something that is considered a crime in China.

Despite backlash from Chinese state media, two days after this first public demonstration, Kanter made another post to his twitter in which he highlighted the horrific treatment of the Uyghurs population in China and damned Xi Jinping as a brutal dictator. In the following days, he has continued to make posts directly challenging Xi and condemning the slave labor that he believes takes place in Chinese reeducation camps. 

I highly encourage each of you to listen to Kanter’s statements yourself.

This is far from Kanter’s first serious venture into politics. He has long been a vocal critic of the Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who Kanter considers a dictator, and wears his arrest warrant as a badge of honor. As a consequence of his political activities, Kanter has suffered a tragic personal cost- his father was sent to prison in 2018. 

Additionally, Kanter has been outspoken regarding his views on American politics. Alongside athletes like Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James, Kanter has participated in protests against racist policing in the United States. Earlier this year, Kanter expressed his support for the Covid-19 vaccine, saying that players have a responsibility to be role models and work to promote public health. 

In order to understand what makes Kanter’s public statements on China so interesting, it is important that we understand the tremendous popularity of the NBA in China. Over 500 million Chinese watched an NBA game last year, and the sport has seen tremendous growth following the popularity of stars like Kobe Bryant, Steph Curry, and Yao Ming in China’s domestic market.

Despite the nationalistic rubmilings that appeared on social media in the wake of Kanter’s comments on Xi’s regime, there is reason to believe that the Chinese people continue to love the NBA and its biggest stars. Some 40 million Chinese fans play the NBA 2k basketball video game, and video recordings from NBA games held in Chinese arenas suggest major fan support.

Given the huge support (through both fans and finances) for the NBA in China, and given the wide-reaching censorship employed by the Chinese government, Kanter’s public position could present a problem for both the CCP and the National Basketball Association. China’s dedicated NBA fans will surely notice that all Boston Celtics games have been removed from their servers, and even in the face of Chinese misinformation many fans will become aware of the censorship. More than that, the NBA stands to lose some $1.5 billion in broadcast rights alone over the next five years if China were to completely ban the showing of NBA games. Kanter’s tweets and sneakers have certainly put a lot of very important people on their toes- this is the benefit of speaking truth to power.

Given Kanter’s consistent support for other types of social justice issues, the NBA, Nike, and other groups that do business with China will have a difficult time ignoring his criticism of their behavior. Dismissing Kanter as a consequence of this particular set of political activities -condemning China- would highlight the inconsistency that groups may have regarding their commitment to human rights- like support for Black Lives Matter.

All of this takes place in the foreground to the 2022 Winter Olympics which will be held in China. There are real questions about how the repressive elements of the CCP will respond to athletes who have become increasingly outspoken about social justice and human dignity. Should China respond in traditional “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy fashion to Kanter’s comments, other athletes will surely take notice, and hopefully work to resist the attempt at censorship. 

Politics and sports have long been interconnected. Jackie Robbinson, Jesse Owens, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, Muhammad Ali, Colin Kaepernick and now Enes Kanter, there is tremendous power when public figures use their platforms to fight against injustice and repression. Kanter’s ongoing activism protesting the cruelty of Xi’s government in China is the next leg in this proud legacy.

—

Please join the Foreign Policy Association today, October 28th, in welcoming Mr. Carl Gershman, who was President of the National Endowment for Democracy from its foundation in 1984 until 2021. Mr. Gershman will be delivering the annual John B. Hurford Memorial Lecturetitled, “Reflections on NED’s Past and Democracy’s Future”.  If you are interested, please register for the event here. 

—

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

Please join the Foreign Policy Association in welcoming Mr. Carl Gershman, who was President of the National Endowment for Democracy from its foundation in 1984 until 2021. Mr. Gershman will be delivering the annual John B. Hurford Memorial Lecture titled, “Reflections on NED’s Past and Democracy’s Future”.  If you are interested, please register for the event here. 

In August, U.S. President Joe Biden announced his administration’s plan to host the “Summit for Democracy” with the first one set to take place from December 9th through 10th of this year, and the second to take place the same time in 2022. The summit will focus on challenges and opportunities facing democracies and will provide a platform for leaders to make both individual and collective commitments to defend democracy and human rights at home and abroad. With democracy around the world under threat, we are pleased to welcome Carl Gershman, who has championed democracy as the first president of the National Endowment for Democracy. Mr. Gershman will share his story on the founding of the NED and his work for nearly three decades as its president, as well as the important role the NED serves in protecting and fostering democracy around the world. 

BEIJING, CHINA – OCTOBER 25: Chinese President Xi Jinping speaks at the podium during the unveiling of the Communist Party’s new Politburo Standing Committee at the Great Hall of the People on October 25, 2017 in Beijing, China. China’s ruling Communist Party today revealed the new Politburo Standing Committee after its 19th congress. (Photo by Lintao Zhang/Getty Images)

Before getting into any of this, I feel that it is important to say that my intention here is to calm tensions between the United States and China, not to heighten them. I believe that the probability of direct military conflict between the United States and China over the next few decades is relatively slim – over the next few paragraphs I will explain why.

Yes, Chinese President Xi Jinping has begun speaking in a more aggressive, perhaps even Maoist tone. Some say that the attention being paid to Taiwan’s current vulnerability is exacerbated by America’s blunder in Afghanistan. Still, despite these potentially troubling indicators, a closer look highlights a string of mounting domestic problems that China must overcome before seriously looking outward. Xi’s famed Belt and Road initiative has resulted in mixed results at best, and the Evergrande real estate crisis highlights the ways in which China remains a developing economy- especially when partnered with the slowing of economic growth in China over the last number of years. Not yet mentioned are the Covid-19 pandemic,  the horrific treatment of China’s Uyghur population, or the broad repression of China’s social and civil sphere.

Under domestic circumstances like these, it is no surprise that an authoritarian leader will use fiery rhetoric to inspire the domestic base. As Americans are well aware, even stable democratic nations are prone to this type of behavior. A careful observer should recognize the difference between outward facing rhetoric that is meant for domestic consumption and serious international messaging that can be understood as strategic signaling.

Certainly, China will look to establish itself as a diplomatically-influential regional power in Asia. However, even these more modest efforts will run into the challenge presented by the rise of a democratic India and strong American alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and other nations in Asia. These partnerships short-circuit the idea that China might achieve a military victory without real consequence. With this context in mind, in order to establish itself as a well respected and influential power in the region, China will likely work to pursue diplomatic and economic options, both within Asia and around the world.

Over the last few years, polling shows that Americans have become increasingly skeptical of China- over 85% of Americans view China as an enemy as opposed to a partner. This, in part, is due to the common belief that the United States and China are on an inevitable collision course given China’s rapid rise to power. This idea is known as the Thucydides Trap– coined when Greek historian Thucydides wrote that, “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.” This idea is strengthened by the important historical fact that twelve of the last sixteen cases in which global leadership has changed hands, armed conflict has occurred as a result. Notably, the Cold War is not one of those instances that resulted in direct conflict.

To get to the point, we need to consider what China’s prospective rise to global hegemony would actually entail.

First, China’s rise to power would mean that China is able to escape the notoriously sticky middle-income trap. Without getting too much into the weeds, the middle-income trap is the theory that “wages in a country rise to the point that growth potential in export-driven low-skill manufacturing is exhausted before it attains the innovative capability needed to boost productivity and compete with developed countries in higher value-chain industries. Thus, there are few avenues for further growth — and wages stagnate.” Unless China can transition its economy in a way that promotes the growth of a true middle class, the Chinese state might struggle to find the tax revenue to fund its global ambitions.

This obstacle is challenging enough to overcome in its own right – people were asking this same question of China ten and twenty years ago- but avoiding the middle-income trap while inching toward active competition with an entrenched global superpower is unlikely at best. To the extent that the Chinese government is fully dedicated towards supporting economic growth, it might be difficult to seriously expand China’s military capacity- and to the extent that China is focused on expanding its military capacity, the nation would be forced to ignore pressing economic realities domestically.

Second, China would need to overcome the United States as the chief diplomatic partner for many of the other significant powers in Asia. The United States is, however, actively, if somewhat controversially, working to strengthen military and diplomatic ties with Australia. Additionally, despite the occasional bit of turbulence, America maintains close ties with Japan and South Korea. Beyond that still, the United States has long maintained good trade andmilitary relations with India, and the two democratic nations appear much more likely to work collaboratively than competitively.

If we are willing to grant that military action against one of these close American partners is off the table, then China’s remaining route towards increased regional influence is through shrewd diplomacy and increased economic ties. If China is able to win the confidence of its neighbors, so be it. Doing so will likely require increased democratization and economic openness. If China succeeds in this way, it highlights a victory for the values that the United States works to endorse. Still, the United States could work to complicate these efforts by preemptively working to further enhance its relationship with existing American partners in Asia.

And third, China’s rise would mean overcoming the legacy of social and civic repression that has long been associated with communism. If economic growth in China stagnates, the long-standing unspoken agreement between the Chinese people and their government falls apart, perhaps resulting in serious domestic disturbances. On the other hand, if China is able to overcome the middle income trap and establish a vibrant and educated middle class, those increasingly worldly and educated individuals will become less tolerant of social and civil illiberalism.

Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman challenged readers to “find any example of a country that has achieved a large degree of political and civil freedom that has not also used private markets and capitalism as the major way of organizing its economy.” More modern research supports Friedman’s suggestion that nations that employ free markets tend to have more liberal political and civil spheres than nations that do not. In this way, China appears trapped between its aspirations to become a larger voice in the international community and its present unwillingness to liberalize the civil and political sector of Chinese life.

Put more directly- either China will need to adopt policies that are more in line with traditional Liberal values, and follow the proven pathway towards increased prosperity and full acceptance in the international community, or China will need to buck the trend and prove that communism and social illiberalism are capable of out-competing an entrenched global power with a generally free market and society. To the extent that a similar set of efforts failed in the post-WWII years, the spread of the internet and crowdsourced communication makes the burden of enforcing  social repression even more costly.

From the perspective of a believer in free markets and democracy, real fear over China’s rise is filled with numerous contradictions. Either communism and social illiberalism are capable of providing a serious challenge to Liberal nations with market economies or they are not. It is my view that free markets and free people will win out. If China achieves global hegemony by adhering to Liberal principles, so be it.

George Kennan made a similar point years ago while writing the Long Telegram. The United States and its network of allies already has China reasonably well contained in Asia, and given the diplomatic authority that comes with being a leading democratic nation, the United States has already worked to insure that in order for China to rise to the status of peer power, China would need to prioritize its diplomatic efforts and open its economy. These two things would likely need to coincide with increased social and civil liberalism. In this way, China’s rise might ultimately be dependent on its ability to sustain economic growth while gradually adopting a more liberal and democratic state. Without development of this nature, China’s economic growth might stall, and civic unrest may follow in the pattern of the USSR in the 80’s and 90’s.

–

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

The are a number of increasing stories about how this Holiday season will be met with shortages of the things that make this time of year precious for many. Crucial things for the holidays such as festive foods and even children’s toys are predicted to be in short supply, brought on by many competing factors no one truly expected. In the UK, shelves and fuel supplies are already in short supply due to visa restrictions yet to mature in the post Brexit era, clashing with the tail end of Covid policies that limited the proper flow of goods and fuel.

The United States is also starting to experience many backlogs as well, with ports and shipping containers being queued longer than normal while waiting to unload their often prompt and measured deliveries. While already a matter of discussion in the UK for a few weeks, Americans are now starting to view the end of the year with some fears of a ruined Christmas. With the product driven Holiday season being driven by commercial backlogs at the time of year when retailers make a good portion of their yearly profit, the post Covid retail industry needs this season to return to profit after two years of shut downs.

Part of the problem for auto sellers as well as many other technological products is the shortage of semi-conductors needed for their production. Production of many items are now done overseas, and a strategic push to increase production cannot be done by one Government alone, nor is possible to coordinate many of these companies without their expressed consent to focus their efforts in improving one national economy. While the push by the US, UK and EU Governments enabled companies like Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca to produce vaccines in record time when needed, it was done inside many countries who coordinated these efforts and had local production located outside their windows.

With much of the semi-conductor market being dominated by producers in Taiwan, the recent military escalation with China may exacerbate these shortages even further. It is unclear why this strategic move by China is being done at a time when consumers in the US and EU depend also on Chinese goods for their markets. The negative affect it may have could finally focus public attention on China’s aggressive policies against Western interests while also limiting China’s own manufacturing sales of high end goods via chip shortages, and lower end goods via shipping delays.

Driving up the costs of everything, when the costs are already high, affects people personally. When you see the price of everything going up rapidly, as you likely do wherever you are in the world right now, you eventually start to ask questions and begin to notice who is pressuring you personally. With Covid still scarring many people’s lives after two unforgettable awful years of this disease, the only focus many have is to get out of a life of shortages and depression. While the messaging on who to focus on has become in a way its own industry, many now see politics as personal to limitations in their own lives.

One can imagine that the outgoing German chancellor is unhappy with her legacy in Eastern Europe. In Berlin as well as in Brussels, Angela Merkel leaves considerable headaches about the future of the post-Soviet space.[1] Above all, many East Europeans in Warsaw, Kyiv or Tallinn are likely to be more or less unsatisfied with Merkel’s heritage. In 2005, Germany’s first female chancellor took office at a time when the political situation in Eastern Europe was relatively relaxed and Moscow was still on good terms with the West. Russia was a G8 member, involved in a special council with NATO, and engaged in negotiations for an expanded cooperation treaty with the EU.

Since 2014, much German commentary has insinuated that nationalist Ukrainians, with American support, have destroyed this former harmony. Discussions of Eastern European geopolitics in recent years have been often debates about Ukrainian internal affairs as well as Western errors regarding the recalcitrant country. In fact, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and intervention in the Donets Basin were merely continuations of older Moscow policy patterns in the post-Soviet space, however. The Kremlin’s neo-imperial ambitions that have become manifestly evident in 2014 were earlier observable in its policies regarding, among other countries, Moldova and Georgia.

A paradoxical legacy

In late 2021, Europe’s most important and experienced politician by far will leave her government post at a time when not only most Russian partnerships with Western organizations and states have ended, been damaged, or frozen. Today, Moscow is – as it was before the February Revolution of 1917 or before the late Soviet democratization of 1987 – once again in a fundamental normative conflict with the West. The Kremlin’s new aggressiveness vis-a-vis liberal democratic states has been expressing itself by, among other things, Russian subversion of Western political processes, such as Moscow’s interventions in the presidential elections of the United States in 2016 and – less successfully – of France in 2017.

In particular, old and new confrontations between Russia and its post-Soviet neighbors – most notably territorial disputes with Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova – continue to simmer until today. Moscow is also highly present in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, while the EU, involved in the South Caucasus with a special Eastern Partnership program, has since the second Karabakh War of 2020 played only an observer role. The signs in Russian-Ukrainian relations are once again pointing to a storm. In the worst case, an open inter-state war could break out between Europe’s two largest territorial states. To what extent can Merkel be blamed for the manifest failure of Germany’s and the EU’s Russia and Eastern Europe policies over the past decade and a half?

The paradox of the outgoing chancellor’s apparent failure is that her biography before she took office and her commitment to Eastern policy since 2005 suggested rather good things to come. Merkel was more prepared than any other leading German politician for the challenges facing the Federal Republic and the EU after the end of the Cold War in Eastern Europe. Having grown up in the former GDR, the future chancellor had lived in the Soviet Union as a visiting student and learned Russian. In 1989-1990, she participated in the Velvet Revolution in East Germany. Merkel understood better than most other Western politicians the upheavals in the post-Soviet space of the last twenty years, such as the Georgian Rose Revolution of 2003 or the two Ukrainian uprisings of 2004 and 2013-2014.

As a convinced European and Atlanticist, as well as balancing force within the EU, Merkel has earned a high reputation among Germany’s Western partners. For these and other reasons, the chancellor was able to take an unchallenged leadership role in shaping Western relations with Russia after 2014. Since then, she has been particularly deeply involved in with the lowering of political tensions in Eastern Europe and, above all, with the Russian-Ukrainian war. Despite these and other favorable omens, the Federal Republic’s and EU’s policy toward Russia today stands before shattered remains.

To be sure, the Merkel period also saw a number of achievements in post-communist Southeastern Europe, such as the accession of some Balkan countries to the EU and NATO. The three particularly large EU association agreements concluded in 2014 with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine can also be considered successes. However, much of this progress can only be attributed to limited extent to the German government in general and Merkel’s activities in particular. At best, the chancellor can be credited with the fact that her high level of commitment to eastern policy and her enormous diplomatic engagement in trying to resolve the Russian-Ukrainian conflict since 2014 have prevented worse.

The measure of German responsibility

Are the many good preconditions, intentions, and activities of the German chancellor from 2005 to 2021 sufficient to absolve Germany from all responsibility for the serious domestic and foreign policy aberrations in the post-Soviet space during the past decade and a half? Was the Federal Republic, in the face of major geopolitical shifts outside Berlin’s competence, condemned to a secondary and mediator role, form the outset, that Merkel then filled as best she could? Were the Germans willy-nilly doomed to be spectators of fateful international macro-trends in Eastern Europe that Berlin could have neither hoped to prevent nor been able to steer?

Such flight from liability contradicts the high political influence, international prestige, and economic weight of the Federal Republic in Europe. In addition, the EU – and within the Union, Germany – continues to play a key role in Russia’s foreign trade and thus in the composition of her state revenues, economic subsidies, political rents, and bribery circuits. These and other internal and transnational Russian cash flows are fed primarily by profits from huge exports of Siberian energy to Europe.

For these and other reasons, Germany is a rather large elephant in the East European china shop. It would be inappropriate for Berlin to merely point the finger at other actors in Washington, Kyiv or Brussels to explain why so much has gone wrong in the post-Soviet space over the past decade and a half. A German middle finger to the East is also inapt in view of the World War Two history of, for instance, Ukraine. So why did Merkel’s combination of large experience, considerable wisdom and notable efforts with Germany’s political, cultural and economic power not produce better results in post-Soviet Eastern Europe?

In Germany’s mishandling of Moscow, three Berlin policy decisions stand out that set German-Russian relations and Ostpolitik on a wrong path early before or early on in Merkel’s 16-year chancellorship. These are a German invitation to Putin to speak in the Bundestag in 2001, the start of the infamous Nord Stream projects in 2005, and the unfortunate treatment of Georgia in 2008. The strange tragedy of Merkel’s Ostpolitik was that the highly intelligent and committed chancellor showed herself incapable of departing from the wrong track in Germany’s Russia policy that Berlin had already taken before she took office. It is symptomatic that none of the early German mistakes vis-à-vis Moscow was directly related to Ukrainian affairs, yet that the conflict surrounding Ukraine since 2014 has been marking the fiasco of Germany’s Ostpolitik in the new century.

A fateful Bundestag appearance

Berlin made a momentous blunder long before Merkel came to power and early on in the succession of Putin’s reigns of, so far, two premierships and four presidencies. In September 2001, the Federal Republic’s government invited Russia’s newly minted second president, Vladimir Putin, to address the assembled Bundestag. No other Russian head of government or state has ever received such an honor. This was true for Mikhail Gorbachev as indirectly elected USSR President of 1990-1991 as well as for Boris Yeltsin as the first Russian head of state elected by the people ruling from 1991 to 1999 and for Dmitry Medvedev who was Putin’s liberal stooge in the presidential office in 2008-2012. In light of their world views, these three presidents would have all been more worthy speakers to the German parliament than Putin. At least Gorbachev spoke, as a private citizen, in the Bundestag in 1999 – long after his departure from politics. 

Taken on its own, Putin’s relatively pro-Western 2001 Bundestag speech, delivered in German language, was largely uncontroversial to be sure. But the circumstances surrounding his effective performance in Germany’s national parliament were dubious. The Bundestag reacted with ovations to the courtship of a Russian politician who, as a KGB officer in Dresden, had only a few years earlier been part of Moscow’s occupation machinery in Eastern Germany. Even more worrisome was that Putin had gotten an invitation to speak and was celebrated in Berlin at a time when Russian forces stood illegally in another country.

Unwanted Russian troops were stationed in the Transnistrian region of Moldova during Putin’s 2001 visit to Berlin.[2] They had been there ever since the disappearance of the USSR in 1991, and until today remain illegally in Moldova. In 1994, Moscow had agreed to withdraw its military from Transnistria in a bilateral treaty with Chişinău after it had, in 1992, unlawfully intervened in an internal Moldovan conflict. At a November 1999 OSCE summit, at a moment when Putin was as prime-minister already de facto ruling Russia, Moscow committed itself once more, in the multilateral so-called “Istanbul Document,” to withdraw its remaining troops from Transnistria.

This had not happened, however, by the time Putin gave his speech to the Bundestag in 2001. Nor was there any indication that Moscow would any time soon fulfill its bi- and multilateral obligations vis-à-vis the non-aligned Moldovan state. Merkel attempted to reach a solution to the Transnistrian problem with then-President Medvedev in 2010-2011 as part of the so-called Meseberg Process. However, Merkel’s considerable efforts were unsuccessful. That was because Putin – and not the relatively pro-Western Medvedev – continued to hold the reins of power in Moscow, as Russia’s prime-minister during 2008-2012.

Another questionable aspect of the invitation to the Bundestag was that it happened after Putin had, in September 1999, broken off the Second Chechen War with thousands of civilian casualties. Moscow started this war against the backdrop of some strange terrorist attacks in central Russia after Putin had taken over the chairmanship of the Russian government in August 1999. Apparently, these apartment bombings that were used to justify Putin’s escalation in the North Caucasus had been orchestrated by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). As detailed in books by John B. Dunlop, Yuri Felshtinsky, Alexander Litvinenko, Vladimir Pribylovsky, and David Satter, the FSB as the KGB’s main successor organization, headed by Putin until then, had blown up several Russian residential houses.[3]

The cold-blooded mass murder of over three hundred Russian civilians was intended to provide Putin, who had just advanced from the position of FSB Director to that of Prime-Minister, with a pretext for a punitive action against separatist Chechens. Above all, the new head of government and future president was to be given a propaganda template for his incipient accumulation of power in Moscow. Notwithstanding such and other disturbing developments from 1999 onward, the Russian head of state was publicly celebrated two years later in the German parliament by most of the deputies present.

The considerable domestic and foreign policy regressions under Putin, already visible by September 2001, were not a topic of his visit to Germany, to be sure. This omission constituted exactly the problem of Putin’s appearance in the Bundestag and his talks in Berlin at the time. The invitation of the German parliament as well as the reaction of the MPs to Putin’s speech sent a fatal signal to Moscow: Ongoing violations of international and human rights are of secondary importance when it comes to the relationship between the two largest nations of Europe. The chemistry between Moscow and Berlin is more important than the principles laid down in such documents as the 1975 Helsinki Final Act or 1990 Charter of Paris. At least that is how many Russian politicians and diplomats have seemingly understood Berlin’s loud silence on Transnistria and Chechnya in 2001. East-West trade, good personal relations, and fair-weather rhetoric take precedence over Western values, the international order, and European security.

Against this backdrop, a bit of so-called Russland verstehen (Russia understanding) would be appropriate. In light of the applause for Putin in the Bundestag in 2001, one can understand that Moscow was surprised in 2014 when Berlin suddenly displayed a certain firmness regarding Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Why could to Crimea and the Donbas not the same principles be applied as to Transnistria, Abkhazia or South Ossetia (on which more below)? The latter territories were, after all, of much lesser interest to Moscow than the former.

How exactly is the Kremlin supposed to understand the German political class when comparing its reaction to the relatively similar Moldovan and Ukrainian situations of 2001 and 2014, respectively? The Bundestag applauded a Russian president when Moscow troops stood illegally in Transnistria and after they had killed thousands of civilians in Chechnya. Yet, for more than seven years now, Berlin has been supporting EU sanctions in response to Moscow’s activities in Crimea and the Donets Basin. These regions are more obviously part of the “Russian World” than Transnistria which is far away from Russia. “Where is the much-vaunted German stringency and logic?” some in the Kremlin may have asked themselves.

Berlin’s destructive pipeline policy from 2005 onwards

A second fateful decision by Berlin that predetermined the eastern policy of Merkel’s chancellorship was made in 2005, around the time she took office. In the final weeks before the end of Gerhard Schröder’s term as Federal Chancellor as well as in the months that followed, the first Nord Stream project was initiated. Schröder’s subsequent employment by Gazprom (and later Rosneft) and the, since then, massive propaganda of Europe’s allegedly dire need for Russian undersea pipelines set the course for Merkel’s future Ostpolitik. These developments created legal, informal, and discursive frameworks at the beginning of Merkel’s reign that had a lasting impact on her approach to Russia. The serious repercussions of these early decisions continue to shape the German foreign economic and policy debate as well as Berlin’s relationship with Moscow as well as Warsaw, Kyiv or Vilnius until today.

The underwater projects initiated by the outgoing Chancellor Schröder in 2005 and subsequently promoted in his function as chairman of the supervisory boards of Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 were resolutely implemented despite their energy redundancy. In the apologetic narratives, the projects are presented partly as purely commercial, partly as clever geo-economic, and partly even as smart security policy initiatives. Such stories have broad appeal, even though the ridiculous overcapacity for transferring Siberian natural gas to Europe and serious geopolitical consequences of the new pipelines are now readily apparent.

Reducing Moscow’s crippling dependence on the Ukrainian gas pipeline system by commissioning the first two Nord Stream strings in 2011-2012 was from the outset more than a new Russian foreign trade strategy. As misleading as the thesis of an alleged need for the Nord Stream projects for European energy security was and is, as real was and is the need for the Kremlin to reduce Ukraine’s role as a transit country for Siberian and Central Asian gas flowing into the EU. Only the partial achievement of this goal with the full start of operation of the first Nord Stream pipeline in October 2012 made it possible to continue in Ukraine the Russian policy revanche for the collapse of the USSR, which had been previously implemented in Moldova and Georgia, now also in Ukraine.

Gazprom’s alternative, available from late 2012, of bypassing Ukraine for much of its export to the EU was not a sufficient condition, but a necessary one, for the subsequent increase in Russian aggressiveness toward Ukraine. The Kremlin’s new intransigence manifested itself even before the Euromaidan revolution began. Over the course of the last peace year of 2013, there were a number of belligerent signals and actions by Moscow vis-a-vis Kyiv.

For example, in August 2013, the Kremlin imposed a complete and mutually losing blockade of all trade between Ukraine and Russia that lasted several days. Moscow’s escalating rhetoric and sanctions policy led to rising tensions in Russian-Ukrainian relations before the Kyiv protests began in late 2013. This occurred even though Ukraine was still under an explicitly pro-Russian leadership with then-President Viktor Yanukovych and Prime Minister Mykola Azarov (an ethnic Russian), and their imminent loss of power was not yet in sight. The pro-Russian president was removed from office not by the Maidan revolutionaries, as is often collocated, but after the street fighting had ended, by the Ukrainian parliament on February 22, 2014, which until then had been loyal to Yanukovych, on February 22, 2014.

In response to Yanukovych’s ouster, Moscow shifted its Ukraine policy to the strategy it had pursued years earlier vis-à-vis Moldova and Georgia. Following years of rhetorical, political, and economic attacks on Kyiv, Moscow began a partly military, partly paramilitary intervention and occupation of Ukraine in February 2014 on Crimea and in March 2014 in the Donets Basin, as it had done earlier in Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia.

It is surprising that to this day many Western interpreters of Putin fail to recognize the regularity in the Kremlin’s behavior. Despite the older examples of Moldova and Georgia, some commentators known as experts on Eastern Europe, insist on an alleged exceptionality of the Ukraine case as well as key role of wrong EU policies for the escalation in Eastern Europe in 2014. Long before Russia’s attack on its Western-oriented brother state, the republics of Moldova and Georgia did not need to be parts of Eastern Slavic culture or involved in association negotiations with Brussels for a receipt of military punishment by the Kremlin. The two post-Soviet republics had lost control of larger portions of their state territories in the 1990s than Ukraine did in 2014. Chişinău and Tbilisi met their sad fate earlier than Ukraine in 2014, allegedly incited by radical nationalism and Western stupidity.

What is also perplexing about the Berlin debate on the dramatic deterioration in Russian-Western relations since 2014 is that the obvious historical parallels to the results of the New Ostpolitik of the 1970s remain in the background. In 1970, Bonn concluded the largest West German-Soviet financial deal to that date with the Kremlin in the form of the Röhrenkredit-1. Nine years after this agreement to build new gas pipelines, Moscow invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. The Soviet intervention ended the relative détente of the 1970s and ushered in a period of tension in international relations 1980-1985.

The first Nord Stream agreement in 2005 launched Europe’s largest infrastructure project to date at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. Nine years after the German-Russian agreement, Moscow invaded Ukraine in 2014. To be sure, as in the 1970s, today also other developments around the world are disrupting the West’s relationship with the Kremlin. But Moscow’s military intervention in a neighboring country was a major factor in the rise of its tensions with the West in both 1979 and 2014.

One could spin this story into a forecast for the near future of Eastern Europe: In 2015, the Nord Stream 2 deal was concluded. If we add nine years – following the formula of 1970+9 and 2005+9 – to this figure, we arrive at 2024, a year in which not only the currently valid Russian-Ukrainian gas agreement will expire. The regular presidential elections of both Russia and Ukraine are scheduled for 2024. Notorious Russian TV propagandist Dmitry Kiselyov might comment such quirks with his famous conspiracy formula “Sovpadenie? Ne dumaiu!” (“A coincidence? I don’t think so!”).

There is more to such parallels than providing an opportunity for ironic oracles. Moscow’s interventions in Afghanistan in 1979 and in Ukraine in 2014 illustrate the limited effectiveness of Germany’s allegedly new Ostpolitik. The eventual repercussions of large-scale energy projects contradict the pacifist claims of the interdependence theory usually invoked to justify lucrative business ventures with authoritarian states. Not peace, but wars of expansion and escalation of tension followed the 1970 and 2005 starts of Berlin’s mammoth energy projects with Moscow in 1979 and 2014.

The well-known German formula of “Annäherung durch Verflechtung” (“rapprochement through entanglement”) has taken on a meaning that goes beyond a mere metaphor, in recent years. Germany and the Russian sphere of control have since moved closer together not only economically and politically, but also geographically. The almost fateful correctness of Berlin’s popular interdependence formula is confirmed by the fact that not only economically intertwined countries are moving closer together. As practice shows, the reverse conclusion of this law of international relations is also true. Those new gas volumes which since 2011 – via the Baltic Sea – have brought Germans and Russians ever closer together, are correspondingly lacking for the maintenance of Russian-Ukrainian proximity.

As both interdependence theory and the entanglement formula predict, not only does the development of economic ties lead to more peaceful relationships between the countries involved. A parallel reduction of economic ties with third countries may mean less peace for them. As a result of Germany’s increasingly deep energy interdependence with Russia since 2005, the transit states for Siberian gas flows that were simultaneously disentangled suffered a reciprocal alienation from Moscow. In particular, Ukraine’s economic untying from the Russian Federation after completion of the first Nord Stream pipeline in late 2012 led to an increase of tensions between the two countries during 2013. Ultimately, this escalation led to Moscow’s occupation of first southern and then eastern Ukrainian state territory in 2014.

The relative gain in national security from the Nord Stream projects is small for Germany as a NATO state that is located far away from Russia. In contrast, the equivalent reduction of Russia’s dependence on its former colony and neighbor state Ukraine proved be fatal for the integrity of the latter. The all-European loss of stability as a result of Moscow’s Crimea annexation and Donbas intervention in spring 2014 far exceeds the marginal security gains for the EU from the completion of the first Nord Stream pipeline.

While Merkel bears little responsibility for the ill-fated Bundestag invitation to Putin in 2001, she is partly to blame for the Nord Stream projects and their consequences. Merkel may have been no longer able to prevent the completion of the first Nord Stream pipeline in 2012, if she ever to wanted to do that. But the start of construction of Nord Stream-2 in 2015 is a puzzle and creates an impression of cognitive dissonance in Berlin: Had the Kremlin not made its intentions sufficiently clear with regard to Ukraine in 2014?

The double error regarding Georgia in 2008

In 2008, Berlin made two further mistakes that – in contrast to the two Nord Stream projects – have been hardly discussed in Germany, with regard to Georgia. The German signals sent to Moscow at that time were to have far-reaching consequences for Russia’s Ukraine policy, as had been the case with the Bundestag’s invitation to Putin in 2001 and the signing of the Nord Stream contract in 2005. Germany’s double snub of Tbilisi within a year added to the impression already created in Moscow that Berlin tacitly respects Russian hegemony in most of the post-Soviet space.

When Georgia and Ukraine jointly applied for NATO membership in early 2008, they were in different starting positions. In Georgia, more than two-thirds of the population at the time supported the country’s entry into the North Atlantic alliance. At the same time, in Ukraine, nearly two-thirds still opposed NATO membership – a Ukrainian attitude that turned into its opposite only after the Russian attack in 2014.

Also, unlike Ukraine at the time, Georgia had not been a fully sovereign state for some time in 2008 and had sustained troubled relations with Russia. In the regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali – also known as “South Ossetia” – Moscow had already installed separatist satellite regimes in the 1990s that control approximately 20 percent of Georgian state territory. (The Ukrainian territories that came under official or de facto Russian control in 2014 are larger in area than the corresponding Georgian parts of the country; however, they account for only about 7 percent of Ukrainian state territory in total.)

Last but not least, preparations for NATO membership in Georgia were already advanced in early 2008. They had begun the usual process of reforming a country before joining the alliance. At that time, Kyiv had also already fixed the goal of NATO membership in law, to be sure. In 2003, Ukraine’s Law on the Fundamentals of National Security – adopted under pro-Russian President Leonid Kuchma and Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych – stipulated not only accession to the EU but also to the Atlantic Alliance as a state goal. However, the corresponding transformation of the Ukrainian army and legislation by the time of the NATO Summit in April 2008 lagged even further behind the results of the impressive Georgian reform successes.

Against this background, the Bucharest NATO summit marked another unfortunate milestone in Western policies towards the post-Soviet area which was largely due to Berlin’s influence in the alliance and was, above all, Merkel’s doing. During the controversial internal Western deliberations on the alliance’s reaction to the two membership applications in the Romanian capital, Berlin could have proposed a differentiated treatment of Georgia’s membership application as well as that of Ukraine as a compromise. Instead, Germany insisted on a de facto rejection not only of Kyiv’s membership application but also of Tbilisi’s.

Georgia’s advanced preparation for NATO membership could have been rewarded in 2008 with the start of a so-called Membership Action Plan. This would have brought the country directly under the influence of the West and swiftly into the alliance. In the Georgian accession agreement, the non-government-controlled regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali could have been exempted from the Washington Treaty’s mutual assistance Article 5, as is the case for special territories of old NATO member states, such as the United States (Guam, Hawaii), the United Kingdom (Falklands) or France (Reunion). Also, a military reconquest by Tbilisi of the de facto Russian-controlled parts of Georgia could have been ruled out.

Instead, the NATO member states agreed on a contradictory compromise formula for the final declaration of the 2008 Bucharest summit. The alliance did explicitly state that Georgia and Ukraine “will become members.” However, there was no indication of when or how the officially announced entry of the two post-Soviet states into the alliance would actually occur. It remained unclear on what conditions the accession processes of Georgia as well as Ukraine would depend and whether they would proceed in a package or separately. The middle ground the alliance found in 2008 was ultimately worse than an outright and official rejection of Georgia’s and Ukraine’s applications would have been. The membership pledges distracted Kyiv and Tbilisi from pursuing other security-enhancing strategies and created a sense of urgency in Moscow.

The Kremlin intensified both its Georgia and Ukraine policies in response to the Bucharest NATO summit. While Moscow still had sufficient levers of domestic political influence in Ukraine at the time, Georgian domestic politics was already happening largely autonomous. Therefore, in early summer 2008, Putin thawed the frozen conflict in the Tskhinvali region thereby provoking a hasty response from then President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili and the Russian-Georgian Five-Day War. The Russian invasion of Georgia was ended by the so-called Sarkozy Plan. In the EU-brokered cease-fire agreement, Russia committed in mid-August 2008 to withdraw its regular troops that it had stationed in the Tskhinvali and Abkhaz regions during previous week.

However, in the following weeks, months and eventually years, the Kremlin repeated regarding Georgia its older, above-described pattern of behavior toward Moldova. As in the case of the bilateral and multilateral documents signed by Russia regarding Transnistria in the 1990s, Moscow did not implement the Sarkozy Plan of 2008. In violation of the treaty, Russia left its troops on Georgian territory.

Moreover, the Kremlin transformed the two Georgian separatist regions into the pseudo-states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Unlike the so-called “Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic” (and later the “Lugansk” and “Donetsk People’s Republics”), Russia even recognized its two satellite regimes on Georgian territory as independent countries; the two quasi-states were also recognized by Venezuela, Nicaragua, Nauru, Syria and Vanuatu. With Moscow’s official confirmation of the statehood of the Russian artificial entities in northern Georgia, the Kremlin went beyond its previous neighborhood policy and entered new territory in its foreign policy and interpretation of international law.

Had a NATO Membership Action Plan begun with Georgia in April 2008 and the country been admitted to the alliance by August 2008, both Moscow and Tbilisi would have behaved differently in the summer of that year. The Kremlin’s risk calculation regarding a NATO accession candidate or member state would have been different. It is likely that the Kremlin’s approach to Georgia would have instead aligned with its patterns of behavior toward the Baltic republics. The Georgian leadership, in turn, would also have been in a different behavioral mode during an ongoing accession process with NATO or after obtaining membership in the alliance; such a context would have limited Tbilisi’s reaction radius regarding Russian provocations.

Instead, NATO – largely at the instigation of Berlin – sent a risky signal to the Kremlin in April 2008. According to the German implicit message, even elementary security interests of Russia’s neighbors who are pro-Western but not integrated with the West are secondary to the Kremlin’s preferences. With its Georgia policy in 2008, Merkel’s government reaffirmed an impression that Berlin had already left on Moscow in 2001 under Schröder with its neglect of Moldovan security interests. For Putin & Co., this – it can be assumed – established a pattern of reassuring continuity in Germany’s eastern policy behavior under different governments.

Worse, Moscow’s manifest violation of the Sarkozy plan and military dismemberment of Georgia into three states officially recognized by Russia remained inconsequential for the Kremlin. Brussels ended the already minimal European sanctions imposed to punish Russia for its war in the North Caucasus. The EU continued its negotiations of a new cooperation treaty with Russia, which had been interrupted in August 2008.

Germany went even further. At the 8th St. Petersburg Dialogue conference from September 30 to October 3, 2008 – i.e. only a few weeks after the Russian-Georgian war and shortly after Moscow’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia – a “Joint Declaration of the Petersburg Dialogue on Shaping the Partnership for Modernization” was signed by the Chairman of the German Steering Committee of this bilateral organization, Lothar de Maizière, and by the Deputy Chairwoman, Liudmila Verbitskaia, the Rector of St. Petersburg University, i.e. Putin’s alma mater. In 2010, the initially German project of a so-called Modernization Partnership with Russia was elevated to the European level and adopted by both the EU and subsequently many member states.

Curiously, after Russia’s invasion, bombing and dismemberment of Georgia, relations between Berlin and Brussels, on the one hand, and Moscow, on the other, did not cool down but warmed up. Of course, the German and other Western European advances toward the Kremlin did not contain any explicitly affirmative signals regarding Russia’s violations of international law and human rights in Moldova, Chechnya or Georgia. On the contrary, both Berlin’s and the EU’s so-called Strategic and Modernization Partnerships with Moscow officially aimed to bring Russia closer to Europe in normative terms by means of hoped-for positive political after-effects of an economic rapprochement.

However, Berlin’s noble intentions and strategic calculations were misguided, as we now know. From the outset, they could not compensate for the high costs of Germany’s rapprochement and interdependence strategy vis-à-vis Russia. The tacit neglect of elementary interests of small successor states of the USSR, such as the Republics of Moldova and Georgia, and implicit acquiescence to the Kremlin’s increasing undermining of principles of international law in the post-Soviet space could not have ended well. German and European forbearance toward Russia’s behavior on the Dniester and in the North as well as South Caucasus have borne no fruit in either domestic or foreign policy terms. While Berlin apparently thought to promote a pro-Western change of direction in Moscow with its undiminished willingness to cooperate, the opposite has been the result.

Ukraine as an aftermath

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine in 2014 appear to many observers as unprecedented aberrations in the course of East European geopolitics after the end of the Cold War. In fact, these developments were mere continuations of older trends. In some respects, they were logical outcomes of earlier domestic political dynamics within Russia, their repercussion for Moscow’s foreign affairs, and inappropriate Western responses to them. With Merkel’s assumption of the chancellorship in 2005, Germany had, what seemed at the time, an ideal occupant in its highest office of government to respond adequately to the new challenges in Eastern Europe after Putin had come to power in 1999.

As it gradually became clear, however, the new chancellor was unwilling or unable to abandon the wrong track Germany had taken in its Russia policy under Gerhard Schröder. Merkel’s diplomatic engagement in Eastern Europe did increase and was particularly notable in 2014-2015. It may be thanks to Merkel that Putin did not push deeper into Ukrainian territory at that time. However, the need for a paradigm shift in Germany’s Russia policy, which became obvious in 2014, failed to materialize – a sad fact that became manifest with the start of the Nord Stream 2 project in 2015.

That Merkel, despite her high level of competence and obvious disappointment with Putin, was unable or unwilling to make the long overdue shift in German Ostpolitik away from Schröder’s approach toward the Kremlin is depressing. Instead, Berlin’s mode of behavior toward Russia’s authoritarian regime remained and remains characterized by fateful decisions of a man who is a political friend of Putin and has been an official employee of the Russian state since 2005. Perhaps, the Eastern European and Caucasian blood toll will have to further rise in order for Berlin to turn away from this position.

[1] A variety of conflicting comments on Germany’s Ostpolitik during Merkel’s first three terms as Federal Chancellor, on which I focus here, have been published over the years. See, among many other contributions, the following statements: Rahr, Alexander: Germany and Russia. A Special Relationship, in: Washington Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 2, 2007, pp. 137-145; Chivvis, Christopher, Rid, Thomas: The Roots of Germany’s Russia Policy, in: Survival, vol. 51, no. 2, 2009, pp. 105-122; Szabo, Stephen: Can Berlin and Washington Agree on Russia? In: Washington Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 4, 2009, pp. 23-41; Stelzenmuller, Constanze: Germany’s Russia Question, in: Foreign Affairs, vol. 88, no. 1, 2009, pp. 89-100; Timmins, Graham: German-Russian Bilateral Relations and EU Policy on Russia. Between Normalization and the “Multilateral Reflex,” in: Journal of Contemporary European Studies, vol. 19, no. 2, 2011, pp. 189-199; Heinemann-Grüder, Andreas: Wandel statt Anbiederung. Deutsche Russlandpolitik auf dem Prüfstand, in: Osteuropa, vol. 63, no. 7, 2013, pp. 179-223; Mischke, Jakob, Umland, Andreas: Germany’s New Ostpolitik. An Old Foreign Policy Doctrine Gets a Makeover, in: Foreign Affairs, April 9, 2014, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/western-europe/2014-04-09/germanys-new-Ostpolitik; Frosberg, Tuomas: From Ostpolitik to “Frostpolitik”? Merkel, Putin and German Foreign Policy toward Russia, in: International Affairs, vol. 92, no. 1, 2016, pp. 21-42.

[2] In fact, there was, in 2001, a second similar case on the territory of Georgia were the legality of a Russian military base in Abkhazia was also questionable. See Vladimir Socor, “Russia’s Retention of Gudauta Base – An Unfulfilled CFE Treaty Commitment,” Eurasia Daily Monitor 3 (99), 22 May 2006, jamestown.org/program/russias-retention-of-gudauta-base-an-unfulfilled-cfe-treaty-commitment/.

[3] Yuri Felshtinsky and Alexander Litvinenko, Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror (New York, NY: Encounter Books, 2007); Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky, The Corporation: Russia and the KGB in the Age of President Putin (New York, NY: Encounter Books, 2007); John B. Dunlop, The Moscow Bombings of September 1999: Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin’s Rule (Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag, 2014); David Satter, The Less You Know, the Better You Sleep: Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship under Yeltsin and Putin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016).

An edited, somewhat different version was first published by the Center for Liberal Modernity in Berlin

Foreign policy education has been said to be lacking in the modern curriculum. While not as fascinating as it was during the Cold War era, and perhaps dragged out to the point of frustration during regional wars since 1991, error is policy approaches have created serious consequences.

Recently the United States was able to have a prisoner swap with China for a Chinese national who was detained in Canada in exchange for two Canadian nationals kept in poor and confined conditions in a Chinese jail. While the US stands out as doing a great job in this case, Canada was completely dependent on US support for its citizens. Canada made no headway in ensuring the security of its citizens after years of throwing carrots to China. The amount of friendly gestures Canada gave to China while detaining its citizens bordered on the absurd at times. This went from giving them much of the national emergency stockpile of PPE at the beginning of Covid, to inviting Chinese PLA soldiers to train in Canada, trying to reward China with a vaccine development deal while knowing of concentration camps being operated in China, and ignoring a vote by the sitting Parliament on the condemnation of the Uyugur Genocide once it was forced into the legislature by opposition members and human rights groups. While there are still other Canadian nationals in Chinese prisons, some awaiting the death penalty, the narrative has turned to an internal rights focus, one that the Prime Minister ignored, deciding to take a vacation instead.

The United States’ shining light helping two nationals from Canada is only temporary, as they formed a security coalition in Asia leaving out allies like Canada and France, destroying a French Australian submarine purchase deal worth billions. France had some of the biggest casualties fighting alongside the Americans in Afghanistan since the early 2000s and is often the tip of the spear in fighting terrorist groups in Africa. This comes on the tail end of the US repeating the history of their hasty withdrawal from Saigon, now taking place in 2021 in Afghanistan, a historical event that shadowed US foreign policy until the 1990s GPS infused war in Iraq. The loss of Kabul will not get its own soundtrack or award winning movies made about it, as the Afghan withdrawal has mostly disappeared from the public narrative. There are still supporters of Western nations and their allies trapped there, there are reports of human rights atrocities taking place as you read this post.

This week a major challenge has struck relations between China and Taiwan, with China’s Air Command and Navy pushing into Taiwan’s air defense perimeter. While no shots have been fired, it looks as if China is trying to measure the capabilities and responses of Taiwan and its US allies in support of the island. With so many foreign policy errors in such a short period of time, the lack of focused coordination by the US and unwise rifts with its allies has shown the US to be weak on the world stage in regards to threats to its interests. The United States is the only country that can stand up to larger powers. When the US eventually returns to their position in the world, it will be a much more complicated and dangerous place.

CREDIT: EDUARDO MUNOZ/POOL PHOTO VIA AP

U.S. President Joseph Biden’s debut speech at the seventy-sixth session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adamantly declared to the world that U.S. leadership is “back at the table in international forums.” Ushering the world into “a new era of relentless diplomacy,” President Biden firmly confirmed to the world that such leadership will seek neither a “new cold war” nor “world divided into rigid blocks” yet “oppose attempts by stronger countries to dominate weaker ones.” At this “inflection point” of leadership, the U.S. will continue to actively engage in both multilateral and minilateral institutions to defend democratic values and visions that are not only stamped into the nation’s DNA but also enshrined in the UN charter. Today, such values and visions, which have ensured “more than seven decades of relative peace and growing global prosperity,” face complex authoritarian challenges that “cannot be solved or even addressed through the force of arms.” Thus, the U.S. is determined to build a better future for the world by creating new multilateral security mechanisms to address urgent issues in global health and climate action.

With respect to global COVID response, in addition to re-engaging with World Trade Organization (WTO) and the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility (COVAX ) in continuing donations of lifesaving vaccines around the world, the U.S. proposes to exert multilateral efforts to establish a Global Health Threats Council, a global-level disease control tower overseeing concerted multilateral response toward future pandemic outbreaks. As for global climate action, the U.S. aims to be a leader in global public climate financing. Last April, in pursuant to the February declaration to rejoin the Paris agreement, the U.S. announced a new ambitious carbon emission reduction target (a new National Determined Contributions (NDCs)  of 50–52% below 2005 levels by 2030) at the multilateral convention of the Leaders’ Summit on Climate. Since then, the U.S. has showed its intention to work closely with the private sector, G7 members and Congress to attain the goal of mobilizing $100 billion to put forward to the Build Back Better World agenda. The basic idea behind the agenda is to raise sustainable, transparent environmental and labor standards in low-income and middle-income countries’ infrastructure projects for the future and for the human rights of these countries’ citizens and workers. Such standards would allow the countries to better cope with the exacerbating climate crisis and to stay democratically resilient in “the new era of new technologies and possibilities that have the potential to release and reshape every aspect of human existence.” This November’s the twenty sixth UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26 ) in Glasgow, U.K. was highlighted in the speech as the next critical step in global climate action, of which President Biden expects every nation to bring their highest aspirations to attain the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Throughout the speech, President Biden prioritized revitalized diplomatic relationships with regional allies and partners over force of arms in facilitating the above multilateral engagement agendas. Starting with NATO , the U.S. will not only remain committed to Article 5 of the “sacred” alliance but work closely with the alliance in devising a new strategic concept to better respond to evolving threats. It was also emphasized that the U.S. will bolster diplomatic re-engagement with the European Union (EU) in tackling today’s imminent global challenges, as well as with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)  and the African Union and the Organization of American States, to improve the health and economic situations of the people living in these regions. What was most striking about the alliance revitalization agenda briefed in the speech was the elevation of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (or simply Quad) with India, Australia, and Japan. Quad, as the geostrategical foundation of the U.S.’ pivot into the Indo-Pacific, has been long perceived by many pundits simply as part of the Pacific nations’ China containment strategy. However, the expanded range of the partnership’s cooperative agendas beyond maritime security, as it was both mentioned in President Biden’s speech and discussed during last week’s first Quad meeting, demonstrates its augmented role in global and regional governance.

Credit: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

First Quad Summit Reached Consensus for Open and Free Indo-Pacific

The Quad between the U.S., India, Australia and Japan had its kick-off summit at the White House on September 24 during the UNGA. The joint statement issued after the summit indicated that the four founding member states are committed to “promoting the free, open, rules-based order, rooted in international law and undaunted by coercion, to bolster security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.” In doing so, the member states are determined to “stand for the rule of law, freedom of navigation and overflight, peaceful resolution of disputes, democratic values, and territorial integrity of states” and to “work together and with a range of partners,” especially ASEAN and the EU. Throughout the summit, the member states discussed cooperative initiatives on a wide range of issues, from pressing global challenges like the global COVID response and climate change to emerging regional governance opportunities in new technology supply/value chain management, cybersecurity, space, etc. Quad members’ long-term endeavors to commit themselves to the partnership’s values were met with strong affirmation, especially in cooperative, shared-values-based management of supply/value chains for vaccine production, semiconductors and their essential components, and new technologies, such as clean-energy, clean-hydrogen, and green (decarbonized) shipping. Overall, the Quad summit was successful not only in aligning the member states’ long-term endeavors to contain China but also in strengthening U.S.-India relations and further revitalizing the partnership’s engagement with ASEAN and the EU.

Despite this success, the Quad faces future hurdles when it comes to U.S.-India relations and the partnership’s further extension. As U.S.-India relations increasingly become the crucial geostrategic key to resolving global and regional governance issues according to the auspice of U.S. interests, concerns are emerging over how the U.S. could placate India’s economic desire to nourish domestic industries in the context of India’s Act East policy while constraining India’s security ties with Russia. In addition to these bilateral relations, the ongoing controversy over the minilateral institution’s further extension is another hurdle. Some argue against further extension of the Quad on the grounds that it might complicate agenda-setting processes and reduce member states’ political flexibility, resorting to the Quad’s networked engagement with new separate coalitions as a more effective alternative to its extension. In contrast, others call for further pluralization of the Quad into “the Quad Plus” to strengthen regional security and governance cooperation between the Quad and non-Quad nations based on the premise that the very act of strengthening regional cooperation itself incentivizes Quad countries to cooperate.

Mq-9 Reaper Drone – the weapon that was used to carry out the tragic attack

On August 29th, just two days before the Biden administration’s deadline to complete America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, an unnamed official from the newly established “Over-the-Horizon Strike Cell” authorized a strike from an MQ-9 Reaper drone that killed ten Afghan civilians, including seven children. 

This is a tragedy. Individual Americans, myself included, should be ashamed that our government carried out this sort of indiscriminate violence. The military officials who authorized the strike should be held accountable both publicly and privately. 

As opposed to responding with the sort of transparency that one might expect from a nation that aspires to be a beacon of liberal democracy and good governance for the world, American military officials and their representatives to the media continued to perpetuate lies and misinformation about the strike’s consequences for weeks before conceding that the attack that they authorized resulted in the murder of children and aid workers. Not only are these sorts of misinformation campaigns corrosive to the trust that individual Americans have in their government, but these murders and lies destroy American credibility around the world. 

Despite this series of lies and indiscriminate violence, General Milley, who not long ago referred to the strike as “righteous”, would now like to recognize that his actions were a “mistake” and offer his “sincere apology” to the surviving family of the children killed  in the operation he authorized. Other officials in the United States military have offered similar apologies for the role that they played in this murder of children and aid workers. 

At this point, it is important to note that since the launch of the war in Afghanistan some 900 civilians have been killed by American drone strikes, and some 45,000 Afghan civilians have been killed as a consequence of other elements of America’s military operation in their country. This is hardly America’s first apology for the killing of civilians in the Middle East. Well over 350,000 civilians have been killed as a consequence of the generalized violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and Yemen over the last twenty years and four presidential administrations. 

Despite this horrific loss of life, in the days following the attack much has been written questioning America’s capacity to continue to strike military targets in Afghanistan without boots on the ground. This is the wrong question- instead, we should be asking if America’s plan to sustain military efforts in Afghanistan are precise enough to avoid murdering civilians and children. 

In order to address the threat of terrorisim over the long term, it is important that we understand what motivates terrorisim. Here, we can look at a two pronged study conducted by James Payne, who has taught at Yale, John Hopkins, and other well respected institutions. 

First, Panye goes through the journals and public statements of Osama Bin Laden, a man whose ideology undeniably shaped modern terrorisim, in order to develop a better understanding of what incentivises Al-Qaeda and other similar groups. Over 70% of these statements were classified as “Criticism of American aggression, oppression, and exploitation of Muslim lands and peoples”. On the other hand, only 1% of bin Laden’s recorded remarks are “criticisms of American society and culture”, an even smaller portion advocates “Spreading Islam to the West”. 

On the basis of these findings, Payne argues that the approach of “taking the fight to the terrorists” that the United States has employed since 2001 is, “… a mistake.  (As) The size of terrorist ranks are not fixed. Their numbers are a function of the perception of American intrusion.” The murder of children and aid workers, then, serves as “ideal” recruting material for groups like ISIS-K that would work to further destabilize Afghanistan and work against other American interests.

The fact that these attacks were carried out by unmanned aircraft while the United States was in the process of a nominal withdrawal from Afghanistan likely contributes to the notion that the United States is unwilling to apply proper restraint to its actions and will continue its pattern of recklessly striking out against targets, military and otherwise, in Afghanistan and beyond.

In order for the United States to eliminate the threat of terrorisim, much less help the people living in terror afflicted nations, American military strikes simply cannot continue to kill civilians- this recklessness is exactly the sort of behavior that creates terrorosim. 

If the United States wants to be given the benefit of the doubt by non-aligned people in the region, we need to prove that we are the “good guys”. When the “good guys” fight wars, they typically don’t kill kids- America’s military has failed in that, and as a consequence local populations are faced with a difficult question when evaluating America’s actions in the region. To quote Anissa Ahmadi, the wife and mother of some of those killed by the drone strike, “America used us to defend itself, and now they’ve destroyed Afghanistan, whoever dropped this bomb on our family, may God punish you.” 

Here, we are made to grapple with the sad reality that even the best possible intentions do not guarantee good outcomes. 

There is little reason to doubt the power and reach of America’s military might.  The question is not, “ is the US military the most capable in the world?”, the question is, “are our leaders capable of using that military might without inspiring future generations of anti-American terrorism?”.  It clearly remains to be seen whether or not American political and military officials are capable of wielding that power responsibly.   A drone strike that kills innocent civilians would suggest our military tools are, unfortunately, far superior to our ability to decide when and where to use those tools constructively. 

With great power comes great responsibility.   The recent drone strike in Afghanistan did not live up to that responsibility.

—

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

The conclusion of Nord Stream 2’s construction through the Baltic Sea poses a range of geo-economic and security challenges – and not only to Eastern Europe.

Whether the Biden Administration’s surprising approval of Nord Stream 2 this summer means that the pipeline will soon start operation remains an open question. The US Congress seems to be about to introduce new sanctions against the company operating the pipeline. However, the imminent completion and remaining certification process by European authorities will increase pressure for the pipeline to start operation.

Whether Nord Stream 2 will go online or not, its emergence raises questions about the EU’s future relationship with Kyiv, as well as Ukraine’s role both as a transit and storage country for natural gas and as a potential alternative energy exporter. Russia sees the completion of the controversial pipeline not only as a commercial and technological achievement, but as a major geopolitical victory for Moscow.

If it starts operation, Nord Stream 2 will remove the remaining leverage that Ukraine had as a major transit country for the export of Siberian and Central Asian gas to the EU. This is not mere conjecture: Russia’s onetime economic dependency on Ukraine was reduced with the start of the first leg of the original Nord Stream pipeline’s operation in 2011. After Angela Merkel opened the second string of Nord Stream in October 2012, Russian-Ukrainian relations deteriorated rapidly.

With its annexation of Crimea and intervention in Eastern Ukraine in 2014, Russia began to treat Ukraine in the same way as it had been treating Moldova and Georgia for many years before.

These two countries had already been dismembered by the Kremlin, because Chisinau and Tbilisi never held any significant economic leverage over Moscow. The activation of Gazprom’s TurkStream pipeline via the Black Sea in early 2020, and the completion of Nord Stream 2 via the Baltic Sea in September 2021, conclude Russia’s energy-industrial disentanglement from Ukraine. It gives Putin a free hand to continue his aggression against Russia’s presumed “brother nation”.

Ukraine is an important partner for the West. Compared to most other post-Soviet republics, it has become a beacon of relatively free and pluralistic democracy. While not yet a fully liberal and consolidated state, and continuing to grapple with issues in the rule of law, Ukraine is far more open, pro-Western and democratic than authoritarian Russia and Belarus.

It is often forgotten that Ukraine emerged in 1991 as a new state with the world’s third largest atomic arsenal, comprising more nuclear weapons than France, the UK and China then held combined. In 1994, the Ukrainian leadership handed over all of its warheads and joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a fully non-nuclear weapons state.

Twenty years later Russia, a founder and guarantor of the non-proliferation regime as well as an official nuclear weapons state attacked Ukraine. In 2014, Moscow undermined the entire logic of the international system to prevent the spread of arms of mass destruction. Ever since, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has been creating international security risks that have global implications.

Against this background, strengthening Ukraine’s security, and the Ukrainian energy sector in particular, is a political responsibility and should be high on the agenda of the West. There are a number of ways in which the EU and US can come to Ukraine’s aid while also boosting long-term European energy security. Brussels – and not only the US Congress – should exploit all possible legal instruments to either prevent or limit the geo-economic impact of Nord Stream 2 and its use within Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine.

One of the opportunities for the West to help Ukraine is to take full advantage of the country’s significant renewable energy potential, in particular with regard to blue and green hydrogen, as well as offshore wind capacities. This has already been recognised in the EU’s Green New Deal, and the US-German Green Fund for Ukraine. It is a trend that will – and should – continue, in order to both protect Ukraine’s importance as geopolitical player in Eastern Europe, and to match the expected further rapid growth of green energy demand in Europe.

The Ukrainian state gas company Naftogaz has gone through major reforms in recent years. It has successfully navigated a turn-around from a famously corrupt drain on public finances to a poster-child of corporate governance. However significant foreign investment will be needed to ensure an adaptation and modernisation of Ukraine’s already significant capacities. A further updating, expanding, and converting of the existing gas transportation and storage infrastructure in Ukraine is an urgent priority. New facilities for the production of green and blue hydrogen as well as renewable energy will need to be planned and constructed.

In order to achieve rapid progress in these areas, both governmental and corporate investors need to step in, providing the necessary funding, expertise, and institutional backing. This investment will not only secure significant financial and environmental returns, but would also counter-balance the negative impact of a possible start of operation of Nord Stream 2 in the EU’s eastern neighbourhood and beyond.

Australian Dassault Mirage IIIs, the result of one of the first major defence projects between Australia and France.

The United States and France have always had a symbiotic relationship, as much as people today would not acknowledge it or recognise it. The French Navy supported the Americans in their revolution against the British in the founding of the United States, and continued to be a model of progressive government in the formation of the American Republic and Presidential system of Government. These two nations formed much of the modern systems of democracy and fought shoulder to shoulder during the First World War paying homage to Lafayette and their shared past. Americans fought to re-entrench French democracy during the Second World War and while France set themselves apart from NATO in the following decades, France, the US and NATO allies worked together to promote democratic values worldwide.

The recent spat that lead to France recalling their ambassador to the United States requires a great deal of context to explain fractures between France and the US. French industry, namely its aircraft industry, was decimated during the Second World War, so much so that the post war period was defined by re-establishing France’s technological prowess and national pride along with competing internationally. France’s largest aircraft manufacturer at the time, Dassault(named after its founder’s Partisan code name during the war), first gained its international reputation by beating out the UK and US competitors selling Mirage III fighter jets to Australia. Australia’s connection with the French defence industry allowed France to expand that sector greatly over the years, and likely lead a culture and relationship that created the submarine deal set a few years back, promising to injecting $66 billion into France’s economy.

The US and France however were always in intense competition in heavy industries. The success of Dassault and relationships with other European countries lead to the creation of Airbus, an airline manufacturer that has been in heavy competition with Boeing over the last 30 years. The intensity of competition between those two mega-corporations dragged in their respective governments over the years, along with thousands of lawyers and dozens of legal conflicts regarding competition, unfair trade practices and contract disputes.

A fracture in policy was also in play since the 1960s when France decided to leave NATO, produce its own defense industry and challenge US hegemony on the world stage. The 1956 Suez Canal crisis put the UK and France at odd with the US in the post-colonial era, and the following years lead France to focus on policy challenging what was seen as American colonial expansion. Since the Syrian War post-2015, France was also pushing for a more assertive stance against the Assad regime, while the US often was more passive and confused in their approach. The recent high pressure evacuation from Afghanistan, where hundreds of French soldiers lost their lives, also created fissures between the US and its allies, soon to be met with the new submarine deal and AUKUS defense pack with Australia, the UK and US a few short weeks later.

France has been a strong defence ally of the United States, UK and Australia, and with the loss of the $66 billion submarine deal to dump conventionally fuelled French submarines for nuclear powered American submarines, French employment in that industry will be harmed greatly. The bitterness of the Boeing-Airbus disputes over contracts and jobs may be shadowing this move by the Biden Administration. While bad faith disputes between governments regarding Airbus and Boeing were more common, Australia is also likely reacting to foul relations it has had with China directly and hopes to become a more active participant in limiting the power of China’s ever expanding navy. While China has had a strong response to arming Australia with nuclear powered submarines, those submarines will not carry nuclear weapons and is a logical response to China’s Navy, that has doubled in size and have produced Aircraft carriers since 2015. Under the spirit of Lafayette, the US and France should come to terms over their dispute regarding Australia and its new defence pact and integrate France economically and strategically into the fold in the region. France has been the strongest US ally against international terrorism and had dedicated the lives of its soldiers more than any other nation in the world along with the United States. The new AUKUS may displace much of the focus on the Five Eyes relationship, and while France is not a part of it, they also are not acting like one of the Five Eyes that have been shut. France have not been making questionable security decisions lately like Canada has done over the last few years. France and the United States are democratic cousins in the best possible manner, and this tradition should be honoured.

U.S. foreign policy thinkers say that foreign policy starts at home.  So what drives U.S. policy today?

Domestic division is a major theme throughout U.S. history.  But in the 21st Century, politics has evolved from two-party competition to intransigent bipolar confrontation.  A zero-sum trench war inexorably sucks in resources and emotional energy.  As one business analysis puts it, “Republicans focus their energies on pleasing far-right voters and Democrats on addressing … the far left.”  On a given legislative act, one side will “spen(d) every second trying to repeal it and the other side (will spend) every second trying to defend it at all costs.”  The polarizing dynamic goes beyond politics to permeate American culture.  If this is home, what country does foreign policy represent?

Public discourse speaks of “left” or “right” as though they define America’s political spectrum.  There are “far” or “moderate” versions of each, and “independents” fall somewhere between the two, but all sit on the same line, leaning toward one pole or the other – but along that line.  It may help to see those poles are not the only possible ones, and need not define American politics.  

Journalist George Packer, in a recent Atlantic article extracted from his new book, sees the nation fragmented into “four Americas” – Free, Smart, Real and Equal – carrying four contentious mindsets.  The four align with Walter Russell Mead’s Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, Jacksonian and Wilsonian schools of U.S. foreign policy thought.  Hamiltonian, Smart America drives the institutions and industries that have generated much of the nation’s wealth and power.  It speaks in economic and scientific rationality.  The Jacksonian, Real America fights for its own, seeing the world as a dog-eat-dog place where not winning is losing.  Free America sees our national order as freedom’s font, a view captured in Jefferson’s image of an Empire of Liberty.  The Wilsonian school seeks to realize ideals and right wrongs much as Packer sees Equal America driven to expose and eradicate inequality – he suggests calling it Unequal America.

The four schools/Americas do not account for every American impulse.  The issue of racism is only addressed directly in Unequal, Wilsonian America.  Older drives have faded or morphed, e.g. for territorial expansion or religious utopias.  A ‘state’s rights’ view supporting slavery was rejected and defeated.  New social patterns and new technologies may generate entirely new schools.  But the Packer/Mead framework raises an overlooked point. 

The different drives are pursued without restraint, often in self-righteous conviction.  Any voice for any American drive will invoke the unalienable rights and government by consent of the governed.  Each will bend these tenets of the Declaration of Independence to its own interpretations.  Packer wouldn’t want to live in an America that is exclusively any of the four, and the divisions among them worry him.  Mead notes how steering the U.S. “raft of state” is made cumbersome and frustrating by the four schools’ crosswinds and eddies.  But all rest on a common base.  Mead’s raft doesn’t sink, none of Packer’s ‘Americas’ would ever cede the name. 

Americans carry several drives, not just two.  The Packer/Mead framework shows them as interpretations of the same creed rather than fundamentally different identities.  And an overview reminds that while these four schools/Americas have deep roots, other have gone away and new ones can arise.  The four drives reflect cultural, historical nuances, not the stuff of desperate political conduct.

Will America reaffirm commonality over political interpretations?  In one arena, we really need to.  In foreign policy a nation acts as a unit.  However any competing schools or Americas may drive politics, foreign policy is carried out by “America” as a single entity.  If foreign policy starts at home, can the people and institutions who shape that policy do better than the politicians?  Will they carry the buoyancy of the raft, even as they are buffeted by foreign crosswinds and whiplashed by domestic politics? 

The question is not which of today’s two sides (or four or more, or current or new) will prevail, nor even whether a balance can be struck among them, but whether the shared touchstone shows through.  Can factionalized Americans exhibit the common page under their doctrines? 

In an age of mind-bending new developments, soul rending disruptions, and unlimited possibilities, any principles come under scrutiny and question.  Factions may well exploit the uncertainty to cement their base’s allegiance, so that division becomes all the harder to heal.  America’s creed offers a common, psychic bedrock, rigorous in concept and morally appealing.  American national conduct also needs to validate that basis of national legitimacy.

Alignment of conduct to principle always requires an art.  In an art of American policy everyone does share the same starting premises.  In foreign policy, one institution needs this art in order to function.  That is the permanent body of official U.S. representatives, the U.S. diplomatic service.  If they cannot display a consistent spirit across different administrations, they cannot really say what nation they represent.  For credibility in their job, U.S. diplomats need language that belies today’s bipolar partisan rhetoric.  Packer and Mead offer an image that might diffuse the standoff, to liberate the diverse Americas to see each other as fellow Americans rather than “us” or “them.”  U.S. diplomats who are fluent in the Declaration’s creed will see the image.  If they operate by this ethos, they can give Americans, ourselves, a picture of our founding creed in operation.  America will then project its core nature, as vessel of hope and catalyst for opportunity, to the world. 

The legacy of the Cuban Revolution that marks the daily life of Cubans to this day has taken a blow as Cuban citizens fight for their freedoms. The past narratives, posters, painting and songs of the fight against the Capitalists was always a draw for those outside of Cuba to defend and actively support the Cuban Revolution. Many a time during my own work in Western countries that excelled with virtues of freedom and democracy were colleagues who not only wore Che proudly as their work clothing, but encouraged visiting Cuba to take advantage of the advantages Cubans did not have in their daily lives. At one point a colleague who was an expert on Cuba had to be put on undetermined sabbatical as she had a long diner with Fidel Castro himself. While it was an impressive tale, it did not reflect well on an organisation that often had discussions with Cuban exiles living in the US at the time. Their rebels were seen as the heroes for most of the latter half of the 20th Century, but that might have changed recently.

Power to the people can only really come from grassroots movements that gain a certain level of strength, often based on valid grievances towards an established system. While Latin America has spent the last one hundred years flowing between Capitalism and Socialism, the trend often was linked to cults of personalities, namely since the 2000s Chavismo and faith in the Castros. The connections movements had to these personalities often propelled some awful and abusive policies towards those citizens that did not agree with their leadership. Whether their flag was red or blue did not always determine more rights to average citizens, in many cases, it turned them into refugees. With many of these refugees now living for a few generations in places like the United States, and more recently in Colombia, an aversion to anything that looks like support for similar movements creates a healthy aversion to similar outcomes.

When listening to discussions outside of Cuba, on Cuba, you will notice that it often is shaded by local politics and best/worst case scenarios. Often an accelerated narrative is created where Cuban protesters are compared to those that protest in fairly healthy democracies. While many of these claims can be seen as valid, they must accord with the reality of the situations at hand. Romanticizing a movement in places where rights are sacrosanct is not the same as analyzing a situation where Romanticizing the narrative eliminates the ability for protesters to seek their basic essentials in life.

In more extreme examples, the Romanticism of a situation is used to justify horrific acts by governments over their own people. Havana seems to have a soldier with a rifle in every intersection in calm times, and if we are honest towards ourselves, it is not the same as most cities where we reside. The almost wholly ignored plight of the Yazidis, especially women and children does not benefit from a romanticized narrative, so they are almost wholly ignored despite suffering the worst atrocities since the Second World War and brutal acts by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The silence by many democratic countries over the Uighurs being systematically eliminated is heard from young footballers before Prime Ministers, even though they make daily pronouncements against Genocide in the past that they barely recognise in the present. It is simply the worst thing you can do as a political leader in a democratic country.

When a narrative is used to violate human rights, it is no longer a narrative, but a tool of violence and oppression. It seems like Cubans are sending us all a message: Romanticizing dictatorships will put you on the wrong side of history. We should listen.

The Constitution

Even following America’s hasty and disorganized withdrawal from Afghanistan, the United States remains involved in prominent military conflicts in Libya and Syria (and, frankly, Afghanistan) – not to mention many smaller combat operations in other nations around the world. In these conflict zones, the United States conducts armed drone strikes, and occasionally participates in standard manned operations. While some might be hesitant to formally designate these conflicts as “wars”, these sorts of military operations undeniably cost the United States both lives and treasure. Each of these ongoing conflicts is authorized either through the notoriously vague 2001 AUMF or has no formal authorization at all. 

The Constitution grants the legislature the power to declare war and authorize military conflicts- Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War. However, over the last eighty years, the legislature has adopted a strategy of passing legislation that authorizes spending on military objectives like counter-terrorisim or regional security as opposed to direct declarations of war as prescribed in the Constitution. As a consequence, despite being at war for nearly half of the time between the 1940’s and the present day, the United States legislature has not voted to authorize a war since 1941at the start of American involvement in World War II.

Despite being a broadly known and well established problem (the legislature did not vote to authorize the War in Korea or the War in Vietnam), the wounds that come from the legislative branch’s unwillingness to take responsibility of foreign policy decision making are still being inflicted today. President Obama famously begged Congress for authorization in Syria.  S.J. Res. 21, the legislation proposed in order to consider the military authorization, was never brought up for a vote. Even without the legislature’s approval President Obama went on to authorize a conflict that is still resulting in American casualties today. 

The legislature shunned the wisdom of its collective 535 members in favor of one single person’s judgment- in my opinion, this sort of decision making process is akin to begging for mistakes to be made. It forces us to ask if our representatives are taking their responsibilities in foreign affairs seriously. 

With this context in mind, it is important to think about the oversight being conducted by the legislative branch in foreign affairs. According to research conducted by Linda Fowler, a professor of political science at Dartmouth, the legislative branch is conducting oversight hearings at a historically low rate. More than that, when oversight hearings do take place, Fowler’s research suggests that hearings have become increasingly about performative rhetoric as opposed to serious consideration or problem solving.

To amplify this problem further, research suggests that as the public becomes increasingly aware of the costs and outcomes of the conflicts their countries are involved in, they become less supportive of continuing those conflicts. Without the signaling from the legislature that today’s conflicts deserve serious attention, the media does not provide consistent coverage of ongoing conflicts, and the citizenry at large remain uninformed about truly pressing issues. As a consequence, conflicts with questionable authorizations can quickly become quagmires. 

Given the fact that the 2001 AUMF was voted on in, well, 2001, and wars being waged without congressional authorization are obviously a major cause for concern – Americans of all political persuasions should be frightened by this. More than that, the legislative branch should live up to its responsibility to conduct consistent oversight. This becomes even more important given the contradictions between the legislation that is currently being used to authorize many ongoing conflicts and America’s new posture in Afghanistan with the Taliban returning to control of the country. 

The bulk of the conflict in Afghanistan might be coming to an end, but we need to keep a careful eye on the future -as well as today’s continuing conflicts- in order to avoid this sort of mess down the line.

—

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