Foreign Policy Blogs

The conflict taking place in Syria, initially concentrated solely in the Middle East has spread internationally in recent years. While the effects abroad are not of a violent nature as they are in the streets of Syria and Iraq, many communities in Europe are taking direct and immediate action within their own societies.

Approaches to create safe zones are being sought by Russia, Turkey and Iran in an effort to reverse the mass migration out of Syria. A similar policy position is also being promoted by the current U.S. Administration. While the plan is one that could diffuse mass migration from Syria, it is often those groups with the least protection and international consideration that would still be treated as low priority.

Issues abroad affect the fate of many individuals and groups in the Middle East. For those who are targeted for simply being born into a certain group and at risk of seeing its community go extinct, the situation is the most precarious. In those case, often assistance does not come, depending greatly on Western leaders foreign policy priorities. Unfortunately the essential foundations of humanitarian values are usually disregarded in the calculations of politicians seeking reelection.

Safe zones will be affected greatly by politics locally and abroad. The overwhelming pressure that will lead to decisive policy decisions in Europe will come from the two to three million additional refugees coming through Greece and eastern EU members into the heart of Europe.

European politics to a great degree may become dependent on a working safe zone and brokered peace in Syria. Two million migrants in Turkey could return home, or be pushed into another quagmire while passing through to Europe, contributing to the ever worsening of EU-Turkey relations in 2017.

The ones who will benefit from safe zones may be refugees who side with the stronger forces in the region, set up often by the same armies that created indiscriminate conflict in the first place. Refugees may be the ones fleeing attacks by the forces running those same zones, and enemies of those forces may be targeted again. The catalyst of the conflict in Syria and Iraq may persist in regions where it would be safe for those supporting the local government.

A safe zone cannot absolve itself from the larger religious conflict, or ignore the fact that minorities in the region are often targeted by both sides

Groups like Yazidis, Christians, and other minorities that are often targets of genocide remain safe. Without a concerted effort by the United States, Russia and European powers, the most vulnerable populations will remain in danger.

Resolving the humanitarian crisis in Syria today requires a holistic plan to end conflict between all active groups. Without safe zones it will be difficult to address both local and foreign concerns and succeed in stopping conflict in the region.

The post Decompressing A Crisis Through Safe Zones appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Students from Volgograd Institute of Management and American University.

With Kseniia Zheleznikova, assistant at the Department of Corporate Management and head of non-formal education in the Project Laboratory, at the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA)’s Volgograd Institute of Management.

While formal ties between Russia and the United States are uncertain, Kseniia Zheleznikova’s students at the Volgograd Institute of Management engaged American students in some diplomatic bridge-building.

Zheleznikova was a delegate to Open World Leadership Program last year. She spent a week in Cleveland, Ohio, living with an American family and working with political communications professionals. In Washington, she joined a tour of the Library of Congress with American University’s Jim Quirk. They decided they should get their students together on Skype.

Russian students asked their American peers about political engagement in student government and local government. American students asked about Russia’s perspectives on Syria, President Trump, and the economy. Students at both universities are engaged in climate change issues and the environment. Each campus has held recent clean-up activities near parks and rivers, and both universities recently held film festivals focused on the environment.

Students also talked about more relaxed topics, like what kinds of things they do for entertainment—sports, movies, music, parties, and more.

After the videoconference, each group talked about the benefits of this kind of event. For most of the American and Russian students, it was their first activity of this kind. The planned 30-minute call extended to over an hour, and the students were eager to continue the conversation.

Russian students were impressed with the American students’ direct involvement in international and domestic policy issues—many worked on the 2016 presidential campaign and intern with Members of Congress. The Russian students emphasized the importance of personal and professional development, through efforts such as the scientific extracurricular activities available on campus. They wanted more informal seminars, joint projects conferences, and perhaps online academic competitions.

Finally, they noted the value of these “face-to-face” meetings: broadening horizons, fighting stereotypes, establishing professional ties, and insights that help shape personal and career strategies.The American students were similarly excited by the personal and professional nature of the exchanges, and look forward to continuing the conversation.

President Trump has proposed massive budget cuts to the Department of State and other “soft power” programs. But programs like Open World that sent Zheleznikova and her colleagues to the United States, and other U.S. government programs that have sent Quirk to Bosnia, Serbia, and other Balkan nations, help form relationships at a personal level. Formal government and business relations are critical, of course. But connections among students—the future government, business, and cultural leaders in Russia and the United States—can help establish long-term relationships and shape positive opinions and perspectives of each other.

The students at RANEPA-Volgograd and American University are big beneficiaries from these kinds of conversations. The United States Government should work to make more of them, not fewer. The students of Zheleznikova and Quirk will do their part, at least.

Special thanks for expert translation during the videoconference go to Dr. Ekaterina Stepanova, associate professor of the Department of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Volgograd Institute of Management.

The post Soft Power: Russian and American University Students Find Common Ground appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Students from Volgograd Institute of Management and American University.

With Kseniia Zheleznikova, assistant at the Department of Corporate Management and head of non-formal education in the Project Laboratory, at the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA)’s Volgograd Institute of Management.

While formal ties between Russia and the United States are uncertain, Kseniia Zheleznikova’s students at the Volgograd Institute of Management engaged American students in some diplomatic bridge-building.

Zheleznikova was a delegate to Open World Leadership Program last year. She spent a week in Cleveland, Ohio, living with an American family and working with political communications professionals. In Washington, she joined a tour of the Library of Congress with American University’s Jim Quirk. They decided they should get their students together on Skype.

Russian students asked their American peers about political engagement in student government and local government. American students asked about Russia’s perspectives on Syria, President Trump, and the economy. Students at both universities are engaged in climate change issues and the environment. Each campus has held recent clean-up activities near parks and rivers, and both universities recently held film festivals focused on the environment.

Students also talked about more relaxed topics, like what kinds of things they do for entertainment—sports, movies, music, parties, and more.

After the videoconference, each group talked about the benefits of this kind of event. For most of the American and Russian students, it was their first activity of this kind. The planned 30-minute call extended to over an hour, and the students were eager to continue the conversation.

Russian students were impressed with the American students’ direct involvement in international and domestic policy issues—many worked on the 2016 presidential campaign and intern with Members of Congress. The Russian students emphasized the importance of personal and professional development, through efforts such as the scientific extracurricular activities available on campus. They wanted more informal seminars, joint projects conferences, and perhaps online academic competitions.

Finally, they noted the value of these “face-to-face” meetings: broadening horizons, fighting stereotypes, establishing professional ties, and insights that help shape personal and career strategies.The American students were similarly excited by the personal and professional nature of the exchanges, and look forward to continuing the conversation.

President Trump has proposed massive budget cuts to the Department of State and other “soft power” programs. But programs like Open World that sent Zheleznikova and her colleagues to the United States, and other U.S. government programs that have sent Quirk to Bosnia, Serbia, and other Balkan nations, help form relationships at a personal level. Formal government and business relations are critical, of course. But connections among students—the future government, business, and cultural leaders in Russia and the United States—can help establish long-term relationships and shape positive opinions and perspectives of each other.

The students at RANEPA-Volgograd and American University are big beneficiaries from these kinds of conversations. The United States Government should work to make more of them, not fewer. The students of Zheleznikova and Quirk will do their part, at least.

Special thanks for expert translation during the videoconference go to Dr. Ekaterina Stepanova, associate professor of the Department of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Volgograd Institute of Management.

The post Soft Power: Russian and American University Students Find Common Ground appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Sixty years after the 1957 signing of the Rome Treaties, on March 25, leaders of 27 EU member states united in Rome to celebrate the anniversary. Britain did not send a representative. The event took place in the midst an existential crisis that has infested the European project. Yet, despite all the pessimism that surrounds the European project, the meeting in Rome showed that leaders remain committed to a strong EU-27 that will play a major role in the 21st century international system. The success of this scenario is contingent upon a concrete internal reform program that includes all layers of society.

The problems facing the European Union since 2008 resulted from a combination of crisis mismanagement, partial institutional failure, and a highly unstable international environment. While these factors are closely intertwined, the focus of attention has gradually shifted to the last of these three issues. The alleged “end of history”, which invested neoliberal thought as the dominant and dominating narrative of the current world order and gave the European project a special momentum in the early 1990s, now seems to turn against its inventors.

Within Europe, the resulting sentiment of confusion and defeat has produced new societal divides that defy the traditional left-right spectrum. Denouncing the negative consequences of globalization, populist forces have emerged as part of the European political landscape. In their quest for power, populist parties prescribe protectionism and the reestablishment of national sovereignty as panacea to all of the EU’s ills.

In so doing they contribute to the widening ideological chasm between globalists on the one side and nationalists on the other. If the EU fails to address these divides as part of a larger reform process, the Union is likely to become bereft of both its cosmopolitan ideals and republican identity.

Aware of the looming danger, EU leaders portrayed the celebrations in Rome “as the beginning of a process for the EU-27 to decide together on the future of their Union.”[1] The message to which the 27 Heads of States committed to when signing the Rome Declaration, is clear: “Europe”, as Council President Donald Tusk put it in a statement reminiscent of the revolutionary language of a Benjamin Franklin, “as a political entity will either be united, or will not be at all. Only a united Europe can be a sovereign Europe.” Tusk shows himself expressively defiant, battling on two fronts—the domestic and the international—when making the case for unity being the requirement for stability, prosperity, and sovereignty.

After three days of high level exchanges in Rome, the EU-27 in their final declaration confirmed Tusk’s position and simultaneously acknowledged Europe’s declining influence on the international scene when stating that “taken individually, we would be side-lined by global dynamics. Standing together is our best chance to influence them, and to defend our common interests and values”.

Unity is portrayed as Europe’s last chance to remain at the table of the world’s major powers. For Europe’s leaders, the EU needs to overcome internal divisions to show external strength. The same message of unity was put to the forth more recently during the first EU Council summit meeting without a UK Prime Minister, during which the remainers agreed on “how to go into Brexit negotiations, set to start in June”. After the meeting, Council President Juncker shared his optimism by tweeting, “Unity in action:#EU27 adopt #Article50 Guidelines in less than 15 minutes. #Brexit”.

Transforming this abstract concept of unity into palpable policies is feasible, yet will take more time and energy than Juncker’s hashtagged tweet suggests. Most importantly, leaders need to concede that the concept of unity cannot be reduced to its intergovernmental meaning, referring to consensus among national governments. The functionalist logic according to which the forces of trickle down and spill over will eventually satisfy the European people as long as political elites agree has proven dangerously wrong.

In other words, it is not enough if the executive branches of the EU-27 are in agreement whilst representatives in national parliaments and citizens continue blaming Brussels for their relative deprivation. Instead, unity must be achieved along both the horizontal and the vertical dimensions of the public sphere, recognizing the needs of Europe’s diverse dêmoi. Only in so doing, the EU-27 will be able to defy populists and disintegrationists.

The challenge is huge. Even if Marine Le Pen is defeated in the second round of the French presidential elections on May 7, thus undermining populist momentum, the tasks the EU has to deal with in the immediate are still colossal:

The EU faces a rising current of populist nationalism in the eastern half of the bloc that puts its democratic values in question. It must deal with Russian aggression and with the flow of migrants across the Mediterranean. The architecture of the eurozone does not work as well as it should and its economic recovery remains uneven. Greece’s debts are still unsustainable; and Britain’s departure will inevitably consume energy and alter the balance of power between member states. [2]

To overcome these problems, the EU-27 agreed on a four-point strategy that envisions a safe and secure Europe, a prosperous and sustainable Europe, a social Europe, and a stronger Europe on the global scene. All four propositions place the European citizen at the heart of the solution. While it is too early to offer a final assessment of a reform that is projected to be realized by 2025, it is striking to see how much emphasis is being put on the military and security dimensions of the Union.

This move confirms earlier attempts of the European Union to refashion its identity as a new and powerful security provider on the international scene. Once and for all European leaders seem determined to bid farewell to the notion of Europe being “merely” a normative power. Instead, they acknowledge the existence of a Hobbesian anarchy and the need for hard power as the ultimate means to assure the survival of the Union. Being a “soft power”, the Commission argues, “is no longer powerful enough when force can prevail over rules”.

Whilst developing common hard power capabilities might indeed help strengthen the EU’s role in the world, leaders should be careful not to undermine Europe’s other commitments to global governance and cosmopolitan rule of law, two of the pillars that have made the EU the actor it is today.

Whilst the current phase of reflection and debate is crucial, the EU cannot stop there. It needs to rally the European people behind specific ideas that allow citizens to identify with this abstract supranational polity. As the Financial Times put it in a recent commentary, “far more important will be rekindling public enthusiasm for the EU. The original architects of the European union combined dry, technocratic pragmatism with a fervent belief, founded in personal experience, in Europe as a political project. This emotional attachment has largely been lost.”

Politicians carry a responsibility to defend the European project and to help create a Europe that speaks to its citizens and is carried not only by elites but also by the people. In order to achieve this situation, Europe needs to become the discursive environment that embeds all other debates. European citizens need to regain trust in this political project that governs so many aspects of their daily lives but seems too distant all the same. In other words, what is needed is a Europe of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Of course, defense is not the only issue area the EU can nor should consider when reinventing its identity as a 21st century superpower. Lots can be gained from constructing a new pan-European identity around issues such as renewable energies, smart cities, improved mobility, the promotion of efficient yet regulated market economies, and the image of a responsible third force be it in the UN or as a powerful member of the global financial institutions.

From a foreign policy perspective, for the EU to remain a successful and credible actor in the international system it eventually must transcend the nation-state. None of the other future scenarios the European Commission considered in a recent White Paper, such as a European Union of different speeds, a European Union re-centered on the single market, or a European Union of opt-outs and cherry-picking are likely to defend Europe’s place in the world to the same extent and with the same effectiveness as a federal Europe.

The transformation of the EU into a new political community transcending the nation-state is the toughest of the tasks lying ahead and likely to lead to major resistance on the part of the member states and their constituents.

However, the outlook for the future of “the only converging meta-national continental arrangement of its kind in the world” is brighter than most analysts currently are ready to admit. The EU experienced substantial crises before and pundits predicted its failure many a time. For sure, the EU needs to undergo a process of thorough reform and address the numerous flaws of its present institutional set-up, but if done so properly, the EU will remain an important global player in the future.

[1] European Commission. 2017. White Paper on the Future. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/white_paper_on_the_future_of_europe_en.pdf, accessed on 5 May 2017, p.26.

[2] Financial Times. 2017. The EU has much to celebrate – and to do. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/7c6116ac-1084-11e7-b030-768954394623, accessed on 5 May 2017.

The post The EU at 60: Between Globalism and Nationalism appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Sixty years after the 1957 signing of the Rome Treaties, on March 25, leaders of 27 EU member states united in Rome to celebrate the anniversary. Britain did not send a representative. The event took place in the midst an existential crisis that has infested the European project. Yet, despite all the pessimism that surrounds the European project, the meeting in Rome showed that leaders remain committed to a strong EU-27 that will play a major role in the 21st century international system. The success of this scenario is contingent upon a concrete internal reform program that includes all layers of society.

The problems facing the European Union since 2008 resulted from a combination of crisis mismanagement, partial institutional failure, and a highly unstable international environment. While these factors are closely intertwined, the focus of attention has gradually shifted to the last of these three issues. The alleged “end of history”, which invested neoliberal thought as the dominant and dominating narrative of the current world order and gave the European project a special momentum in the early 1990s, now seems to turn against its inventors.

Within Europe, the resulting sentiment of confusion and defeat has produced new societal divides that defy the traditional left-right spectrum. Denouncing the negative consequences of globalization, populist forces have emerged as part of the European political landscape. In their quest for power, populist parties prescribe protectionism and the reestablishment of national sovereignty as panacea to all of the EU’s ills.

In so doing they contribute to the widening ideological chasm between globalists on the one side and nationalists on the other. If the EU fails to address these divides as part of a larger reform process, the Union is likely to become bereft of both its cosmopolitan ideals and republican identity.

Aware of the looming danger, EU leaders portrayed the celebrations in Rome “as the beginning of a process for the EU-27 to decide together on the future of their Union.”[1] The message to which the 27 Heads of States committed to when signing the Rome Declaration, is clear: “Europe”, as Council President Donald Tusk put it in a statement reminiscent of the revolutionary language of a Benjamin Franklin, “as a political entity will either be united, or will not be at all. Only a united Europe can be a sovereign Europe.” Tusk shows himself expressively defiant, battling on two fronts—the domestic and the international—when making the case for unity being the requirement for stability, prosperity, and sovereignty.

After three days of high level exchanges in Rome, the EU-27 in their final declaration confirmed Tusk’s position and simultaneously acknowledged Europe’s declining influence on the international scene when stating that “taken individually, we would be side-lined by global dynamics. Standing together is our best chance to influence them, and to defend our common interests and values”.

Unity is portrayed as Europe’s last chance to remain at the table of the world’s major powers. For Europe’s leaders, the EU needs to overcome internal divisions to show external strength. The same message of unity was put to the forth more recently during the first EU Council summit meeting without a UK Prime Minister, during which the remainers agreed on “how to go into Brexit negotiations, set to start in June”. After the meeting, Council President Juncker shared his optimism by tweeting, “Unity in action:#EU27 adopt #Article50 Guidelines in less than 15 minutes. #Brexit”.

Transforming this abstract concept of unity into palpable policies is feasible, yet will take more time and energy than Juncker’s hashtagged tweet suggests. Most importantly, leaders need to concede that the concept of unity cannot be reduced to its intergovernmental meaning, referring to consensus among national governments. The functionalist logic according to which the forces of trickle down and spill over will eventually satisfy the European people as long as political elites agree has proven dangerously wrong.

In other words, it is not enough if the executive branches of the EU-27 are in agreement whilst representatives in national parliaments and citizens continue blaming Brussels for their relative deprivation. Instead, unity must be achieved along both the horizontal and the vertical dimensions of the public sphere, recognizing the needs of Europe’s diverse dêmoi. Only in so doing, the EU-27 will be able to defy populists and disintegrationists.

The challenge is huge. Even if Marine Le Pen is defeated in the second round of the French presidential elections on May 7, thus undermining populist momentum, the tasks the EU has to deal with in the immediate are still colossal:

The EU faces a rising current of populist nationalism in the eastern half of the bloc that puts its democratic values in question. It must deal with Russian aggression and with the flow of migrants across the Mediterranean. The architecture of the eurozone does not work as well as it should and its economic recovery remains uneven. Greece’s debts are still unsustainable; and Britain’s departure will inevitably consume energy and alter the balance of power between member states. [2]

To overcome these problems, the EU-27 agreed on a four-point strategy that envisions a safe and secure Europe, a prosperous and sustainable Europe, a social Europe, and a stronger Europe on the global scene. All four propositions place the European citizen at the heart of the solution. While it is too early to offer a final assessment of a reform that is projected to be realized by 2025, it is striking to see how much emphasis is being put on the military and security dimensions of the Union.

This move confirms earlier attempts of the European Union to refashion its identity as a new and powerful security provider on the international scene. Once and for all European leaders seem determined to bid farewell to the notion of Europe being “merely” a normative power. Instead, they acknowledge the existence of a Hobbesian anarchy and the need for hard power as the ultimate means to assure the survival of the Union. Being a “soft power”, the Commission argues, “is no longer powerful enough when force can prevail over rules”.

Whilst developing common hard power capabilities might indeed help strengthen the EU’s role in the world, leaders should be careful not to undermine Europe’s other commitments to global governance and cosmopolitan rule of law, two of the pillars that have made the EU the actor it is today.

Whilst the current phase of reflection and debate is crucial, the EU cannot stop there. It needs to rally the European people behind specific ideas that allow citizens to identify with this abstract supranational polity. As the Financial Times put it in a recent commentary, “far more important will be rekindling public enthusiasm for the EU. The original architects of the European union combined dry, technocratic pragmatism with a fervent belief, founded in personal experience, in Europe as a political project. This emotional attachment has largely been lost.”

Politicians carry a responsibility to defend the European project and to help create a Europe that speaks to its citizens and is carried not only by elites but also by the people. In order to achieve this situation, Europe needs to become the discursive environment that embeds all other debates. European citizens need to regain trust in this political project that governs so many aspects of their daily lives but seems too distant all the same. In other words, what is needed is a Europe of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Of course, defense is not the only issue area the EU can nor should consider when reinventing its identity as a 21st century superpower. Lots can be gained from constructing a new pan-European identity around issues such as renewable energies, smart cities, improved mobility, the promotion of efficient yet regulated market economies, and the image of a responsible third force be it in the UN or as a powerful member of the global financial institutions.

From a foreign policy perspective, for the EU to remain a successful and credible actor in the international system it eventually must transcend the nation-state. None of the other future scenarios the European Commission considered in a recent White Paper, such as a European Union of different speeds, a European Union re-centered on the single market, or a European Union of opt-outs and cherry-picking are likely to defend Europe’s place in the world to the same extent and with the same effectiveness as a federal Europe.

The transformation of the EU into a new political community transcending the nation-state is the toughest of the tasks lying ahead and likely to lead to major resistance on the part of the member states and their constituents.

However, the outlook for the future of “the only converging meta-national continental arrangement of its kind in the world” is brighter than most analysts currently are ready to admit. The EU experienced substantial crises before and pundits predicted its failure many a time. For sure, the EU needs to undergo a process of thorough reform and address the numerous flaws of its present institutional set-up, but if done so properly, the EU will remain an important global player in the future.

[1] European Commission. 2017. White Paper on the Future. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/white_paper_on_the_future_of_europe_en.pdf, accessed on 5 May 2017, p.26.

[2] Financial Times. 2017. The EU has much to celebrate – and to do. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/7c6116ac-1084-11e7-b030-768954394623, accessed on 5 May 2017.

The post The EU at 60: Between Globalism and Nationalism appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The outlook for the U.S. economy in the next 12 months is a picture of low but steady growth, at least according to U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The Treasury Secretary says his department is predicting that it will take the American economy two years to reach an annual growth rate of 3%(of full year growth). This would fit with the post-financial crash pattern for the American economy, which has not grown faster than 3% in any year since the end of the last recession in mid-2009, almost a decade ago.

But storm clouds are gathering on the horizon for the U.S. growth in the first quarter of the Trump presidency has been disappointing, with the first three months of 2017 seeing the weakest first-quarter growth in America in three years. But analysts blamed a mild winter and higher than usual inflation for depressing consumer spending rather than administration policy. But Mnuchin argues that a combination of planned regulation relief measures, tax cuts and a renegotiation of international trade deals which the Trump presidency has planned will see full year growth rise to 3% by 2019.

Opinion is certainly divided over how effective the administration’s plans will be. Critics generally believe they are not ‘revenue-neutral’ and will fail in their objective to get U.S. multinationals to repatriate their profits back to America. If this is the case then the U.S. budget deficit will again start to yawn alarmingly open as Trump struggles to combine implementing his campaign promises on increased infrastructure spending, a higher U.S. defense budget and his famous wall on the Mexican border with his plans to cut federal revenues.

Meanwhile experts worry that the controversial nature of the Trump administration has politicized analysis of the U.S. economic outlook for 2017 and sharply reduced the changes of bi-partisan cooperation on reform. Political opposition to Trump from Congressional Republicans on increased government spending and from progressives on his ‘tax cuts for the rich’ may mean that the White House struggles to pass its agenda. Gridlock in Washington will increase uncertainty about U.S. economic intentions and therefore depress growth in the final three quarters of 2017. All of which means efforts to boost the U.S. economy to 3% annual growth by 2019 could still flounder.

One ominous sign that all is not well in America is the news that Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello announced on Wednesday May 3 that he was requesting a Title III proceeding from the U.S. territory’s federal financial oversight board. Title III is an an in-court debt restructuring process akin to a U.S. Bankruptcy; the governor’s request comes a day after several large creditors started legal action against the territory’s government for defaulting on $70 billion worth of debts.

The post Outlook for the U.S. Economy is Shaky in the Trump Era appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The outlook for the U.S. economy in the next 12 months is a picture of low but steady growth, at least according to U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The Treasury Secretary says his department is predicting that it will take the American economy two years to reach an annual growth rate of 3%(of full year growth). This would fit with the post-financial crash pattern for the American economy, which has not grown faster than 3% in any year since the end of the last recession in mid-2009, almost a decade ago.

But storm clouds are gathering on the horizon for the U.S. growth in the first quarter of the Trump presidency has been disappointing, with the first three months of 2017 seeing the weakest first-quarter growth in America in three years. But analysts blamed a mild winter and higher than usual inflation for depressing consumer spending rather than administration policy. But Mnuchin argues that a combination of planned regulation relief measures, tax cuts and a renegotiation of international trade deals which the Trump presidency has planned will see full year growth rise to 3% by 2019.

Opinion is certainly divided over how effective the administration’s plans will be. Critics generally believe they are not ‘revenue-neutral’ and will fail in their objective to get U.S. multinationals to repatriate their profits back to America. If this is the case then the U.S. budget deficit will again start to yawn alarmingly open as Trump struggles to combine implementing his campaign promises on increased infrastructure spending, a higher U.S. defense budget and his famous wall on the Mexican border with his plans to cut federal revenues.

Meanwhile experts worry that the controversial nature of the Trump administration has politicized analysis of the U.S. economic outlook for 2017 and sharply reduced the changes of bi-partisan cooperation on reform. Political opposition to Trump from Congressional Republicans on increased government spending and from progressives on his ‘tax cuts for the rich’ may mean that the White House struggles to pass its agenda. Gridlock in Washington will increase uncertainty about U.S. economic intentions and therefore depress growth in the final three quarters of 2017. All of which means efforts to boost the U.S. economy to 3% annual growth by 2019 could still flounder.

One ominous sign that all is not well in America is the news that Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello announced on Wednesday May 3 that he was requesting a Title III proceeding from the U.S. territory’s federal financial oversight board. Title III is an an in-court debt restructuring process akin to a U.S. Bankruptcy; the governor’s request comes a day after several large creditors started legal action against the territory’s government for defaulting on $70 billion worth of debts.

The post Outlook for the U.S. Economy is Shaky in the Trump Era appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In the latest display of Beijing’s growing naval prowess, Chinese officials last month celebrated the launch of the country’s first home-built aircraft carrier. While the ship will not enter active service until 2020, the lavish ceremony surrounding the launch sent a clear message to the world that China’s burgeoning naval defense industry is becoming increasingly sophisticated.

Once fitted out with the latest seafaring technology and maritime weaponry, the ship will join a repurposed Soviet-era carrier China bought second hand from Ukraine and launched in 2012.

Together, these vessels will help Beijing boost its presence on the increasingly overcrowded waters in and around the South China Sea, where neighboring countries continue to squabble over natural resources, islands and shipping routes.

While the two carriers will be no match for those operated globally by the U.S. once they are both in active service, they will provide China with a distinct advantage over regional rivals. No other littoral country involved in the South China Sea territorial disputes is able to project a similar degree of force.

The U.S. still outweighs China’s navy with its 10 aircraft carriers currently in operation, but analysts have suggested the two vessels will allow Beijing to go toe-to-toe with the American navy in the Asia-Pacific region, owing to the fact that the U.S. has military responsibilities elsewhere in the world that consistently tie-up its resources. Lessons learned from the construction of its first aircraft carrier will likely help China build others, making the process of bringing future vessels to combat readiness in a shorter space of time much easier.

In a move that further augmented Beijing’s power projection capability, China also recently completed work on three major military bases on artificial islands in the South China Sea, allowing Chinese military aircraft to operate over all of its waters. However, for Chinese military experts these efforts are not nearly enough.

According to local media, the military is calling for at least six aircraft carriers and 10 bases across the globe to cement China’s foothold in other regions of the world and execute missions in tune with becoming a naval superpower. These bases would be located in regions were the Chinese have “concentrated interests”, such as Pakistan.

Yet thus far, Beijing has found only one country willing to allow the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to use its land for this purpose. China built its first military base abroad in the small African state of Djibouti, securing access to the Indian Ocean, and allowing the Chinese military to better protect the growing investments Beijing continues to make in a number of African nations.

The base represents the PLA’s move away from homeland defense to the protection of Chinese interests overseas, and is very much a symbol of things to come. When the base was confirmed, China’s regional rivals were quick to voice concerns that the development looked more like an aggressive military build-up, rather than the construction of a “logistics and fast evacuation base,” as claimed by Beijing.

Far from being a strategic outpost with little geopolitical significance, the building of China’s Djibouti base has pitched Beijing directly against the U.S, which has its own naval facility in the small African state.

Djibouti’s autocratic ruler Ismael Guelleh welcomed the building of the Chinese base after the Chinese government invested billions of dollars into his country, which helped him pay legal bills from pursuing a political rival abroad. Beijing also committed to pay $20 million annually for use of the site, while Guelleh forced the US to leave one of its naval facilities.

Unsurprisingly, U.S. officials are worried the close proximity of China’s base to its own Camp Lemonnier facility will allow Beijing to monitor U.S. counterterrorism operations in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.

For its part, Beijing insists the PLA’s expansionist behavior is merely defensive, and that the building out of its military capability and search for naval outposts serves the protection of China’s national sovereignty and interests overseas.

Despite this, developments within the military speak another language. It is becoming increasingly clear that China’s military is broadening its mission as China is no longer downplaying the role of its Djibouti camp as logistical and anti-piracy base, but hinting at roles beyond anti-piracy.

Simultaneously, the PLA is boosting its rapid deployment marine corps from 20,000 to 100,000 as part of a push to increase its military presence in the Indian Ocean. The move is one aspect of a wider plan to refocus the PLA’s resources away from land forces to specialized units able to respond to a range of security threats.

While it will likely be decades before China fulfills its ambition of rounding out its aircraft carrier fleet to at least six vessels and creating more overseas naval bases, the scale of its plans indicate that Beijing is behaving more and more like a confident great power.

By expanding its land reclamation activities in the contested waters of the South China Sea and rapidly improving the PLA’s global clout, China is reinforcing its claim to the title as the most powerful and influential nation in the Asia-Pacific. Make no mistake: this is but a prelude of things to come.

The post With Its Second Aircraft Carrier, China Extends its Global Reach appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In the latest display of Beijing’s growing naval prowess, Chinese officials last month celebrated the launch of the country’s first home-built aircraft carrier. While the ship will not enter active service until 2020, the lavish ceremony surrounding the launch sent a clear message to the world that China’s burgeoning naval defense industry is becoming increasingly sophisticated.

Once fitted out with the latest seafaring technology and maritime weaponry, the ship will join a repurposed Soviet-era carrier China bought second hand from Ukraine and launched in 2012.

Together, these vessels will help Beijing boost its presence on the increasingly overcrowded waters in and around the South China Sea, where neighboring countries continue to squabble over natural resources, islands and shipping routes.

While the two carriers will be no match for those operated globally by the U.S. once they are both in active service, they will provide China with a distinct advantage over regional rivals. No other littoral country involved in the South China Sea territorial disputes is able to project a similar degree of force.

The U.S. still outweighs China’s navy with its 10 aircraft carriers currently in operation, but analysts have suggested the two vessels will allow Beijing to go toe-to-toe with the American navy in the Asia-Pacific region, owing to the fact that the U.S. has military responsibilities elsewhere in the world that consistently tie-up its resources. Lessons learned from the construction of its first aircraft carrier will likely help China build others, making the process of bringing future vessels to combat readiness in a shorter space of time much easier.

In a move that further augmented Beijing’s power projection capability, China also recently completed work on three major military bases on artificial islands in the South China Sea, allowing Chinese military aircraft to operate over all of its waters. However, for Chinese military experts these efforts are not nearly enough.

According to local media, the military is calling for at least six aircraft carriers and 10 bases across the globe to cement China’s foothold in other regions of the world and execute missions in tune with becoming a naval superpower. These bases would be located in regions were the Chinese have “concentrated interests”, such as Pakistan.

Yet thus far, Beijing has found only one country willing to allow the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to use its land for this purpose. China built its first military base abroad in the small African state of Djibouti, securing access to the Indian Ocean, and allowing the Chinese military to better protect the growing investments Beijing continues to make in a number of African nations.

The base represents the PLA’s move away from homeland defense to the protection of Chinese interests overseas, and is very much a symbol of things to come. When the base was confirmed, China’s regional rivals were quick to voice concerns that the development looked more like an aggressive military build-up, rather than the construction of a “logistics and fast evacuation base,” as claimed by Beijing.

Far from being a strategic outpost with little geopolitical significance, the building of China’s Djibouti base has pitched Beijing directly against the U.S, which has its own naval facility in the small African state.

Djibouti’s autocratic ruler Ismael Guelleh welcomed the building of the Chinese base after the Chinese government invested billions of dollars into his country, which helped him pay legal bills from pursuing a political rival abroad. Beijing also committed to pay $20 million annually for use of the site, while Guelleh forced the US to leave one of its naval facilities.

Unsurprisingly, U.S. officials are worried the close proximity of China’s base to its own Camp Lemonnier facility will allow Beijing to monitor U.S. counterterrorism operations in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.

For its part, Beijing insists the PLA’s expansionist behavior is merely defensive, and that the building out of its military capability and search for naval outposts serves the protection of China’s national sovereignty and interests overseas.

Despite this, developments within the military speak another language. It is becoming increasingly clear that China’s military is broadening its mission as China is no longer downplaying the role of its Djibouti camp as logistical and anti-piracy base, but hinting at roles beyond anti-piracy.

Simultaneously, the PLA is boosting its rapid deployment marine corps from 20,000 to 100,000 as part of a push to increase its military presence in the Indian Ocean. The move is one aspect of a wider plan to refocus the PLA’s resources away from land forces to specialized units able to respond to a range of security threats.

While it will likely be decades before China fulfills its ambition of rounding out its aircraft carrier fleet to at least six vessels and creating more overseas naval bases, the scale of its plans indicate that Beijing is behaving more and more like a confident great power.

By expanding its land reclamation activities in the contested waters of the South China Sea and rapidly improving the PLA’s global clout, China is reinforcing its claim to the title as the most powerful and influential nation in the Asia-Pacific. Make no mistake: this is but a prelude of things to come.

The post With Its Second Aircraft Carrier, China Extends its Global Reach appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In Da Nang, a coastal city in the center of Vietnam, locals and tourists alike flock every night to Be Anh, one of the city’s most popular seafood restaurants. Many diners are oblivious to the toxic waste spill last April which killed over 100 tons of fish along a 200-kilometer coastline just north of the city.

The release of chemicals, including cyanide, phenols and iron hydroxide was eventually blamed on a steel mill waste pipeline in Hà Tĩnh owned by Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics Group. The steel mill was later cited for more than 50 violations, with the company promising to pay $500 million in compensation.

Vietnam’s environmental ministry has stated it will take at least a decade for the region to recover from the spill.

Others diners are mindful of the effects, but insist the pollution does not extend into Da Nang’s waters and the seafood they eat, as tourists flocked to the beaches over the holiday celebrating Vietnam’s Reunification Day (April 30) and International Workers’ Day (May 1). Still others have not forgotten, and continue the protests which rocked major cities throughout Vietnam in April and May of last year.

Marking the first anniversary of the spill, protesters in the town of Kỳ Anh blocked the country’s main highway the first week of April. Some 100 Vietnamese used fishing nets, bricks and heavy rocks to block the highway, reportedly delaying thousands of vehicles. Vietnam’s government promised to identify and prosecute protesters for “causing public disorder”. In Ho Chi Minh City, the streets were quiet that same week with few security personnel on guard.

While Vietnamese government officials promise to prosecute instigators of protests, such as Nguyễn Văn Hóa, a 22-year-old resident of Kỳ Anh (arrested for using a flycam to record and publish protests), they also punished four high-ranking government officials for their lack of supervision over environmental safety.

Nguyễn Minh Quang, the former environmental minister, was rebuked and two of his deputies were fired.  Võ Kim Cự, the 60-year old party chief secretary of Hà Tĩnh province, was also fired and has offered his resignation as a delegate of the lawmaking National Assembly, citing “health reasons.”

While the threat of punishment may help deter future environmental disasters and increase oversight, Vietnamese officials are also responding to citizens’ concerns over future pollution. Starting in April, officials in Ho Chi Minh City are installing a network of 53 outdoor LED boards throughout the city which will allow residents to monitor air and water quality in real time. The LED boards will display levels of nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, as well as the water quality of rivers and canals, and levels of noise pollution.

The U.S. Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City already publishes air quality readings from its own monitor on this website, as Vietnam experiences worsening air pollution, resulting in a rising number of Vietnamese being hospitalized for respiratory illnesses.

The city’s efforts to improve citizens’ access to information regarding their quality of living is laudable, but more effort needs to be done in other cities and poorer provinces to ensure local officials at the provincial level pay heed to environmental laws. Vietnam is growing quickly, drawing in manufacturing from many countries, including China, and will need strict vigilance to assure its residents that this developing country will not repeat the mistakes of its neighbor in the north.

The post One Year On From Vietnam’s Worst Environmental Disaster appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In Da Nang, a coastal city in the center of Vietnam, locals and tourists alike flock every night to Be Anh, one of the city’s most popular seafood restaurants. Many diners are oblivious to the toxic waste spill last April which killed over 100 tons of fish along a 200-kilometer coastline just north of the city.

The release of chemicals, including cyanide, phenols and iron hydroxide was eventually blamed on a steel mill waste pipeline in Hà Tĩnh owned by Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics Group. The steel mill was later cited for more than 50 violations, with the company promising to pay $500 million in compensation.

Vietnam’s environmental ministry has stated it will take at least a decade for the region to recover from the spill.

Others diners are mindful of the effects, but insist the pollution does not extend into Da Nang’s waters and the seafood they eat, as tourists flocked to the beaches over the holiday celebrating Vietnam’s Reunification Day (April 30) and International Workers’ Day (May 1). Still others have not forgotten, and continue the protests which rocked major cities throughout Vietnam in April and May of last year.

Marking the first anniversary of the spill, protesters in the town of Kỳ Anh blocked the country’s main highway the first week of April. Some 100 Vietnamese used fishing nets, bricks and heavy rocks to block the highway, reportedly delaying thousands of vehicles. Vietnam’s government promised to identify and prosecute protesters for “causing public disorder”. In Ho Chi Minh City, the streets were quiet that same week with few security personnel on guard.

While Vietnamese government officials promise to prosecute instigators of protests, such as Nguyễn Văn Hóa, a 22-year-old resident of Kỳ Anh (arrested for using a flycam to record and publish protests), they also punished four high-ranking government officials for their lack of supervision over environmental safety.

Nguyễn Minh Quang, the former environmental minister, was rebuked and two of his deputies were fired.  Võ Kim Cự, the 60-year old party chief secretary of Hà Tĩnh province, was also fired and has offered his resignation as a delegate of the lawmaking National Assembly, citing “health reasons.”

While the threat of punishment may help deter future environmental disasters and increase oversight, Vietnamese officials are also responding to citizens’ concerns over future pollution. Starting in April, officials in Ho Chi Minh City are installing a network of 53 outdoor LED boards throughout the city which will allow residents to monitor air and water quality in real time. The LED boards will display levels of nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, as well as the water quality of rivers and canals, and levels of noise pollution.

The U.S. Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City already publishes air quality readings from its own monitor on this website, as Vietnam experiences worsening air pollution, resulting in a rising number of Vietnamese being hospitalized for respiratory illnesses.

The city’s efforts to improve citizens’ access to information regarding their quality of living is laudable, but more effort needs to be done in other cities and poorer provinces to ensure local officials at the provincial level pay heed to environmental laws. Vietnam is growing quickly, drawing in manufacturing from many countries, including China, and will need strict vigilance to assure its residents that this developing country will not repeat the mistakes of its neighbor in the north.

The post One Year On From Vietnam’s Worst Environmental Disaster appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Venezuelans block a street in the capital Caracas in protest of President Nicolas Maduro and his increasingly autocratic rule. Protesters are demanding that open elections be held soon, although the regime is resisting this. (Marco Bello/Reuters)

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro continues to crack down on opposition and protests to his increasingly authoritarian government. As pressure mounts both inside and outside the country amid widespread protests and violent outbreaks, citizens continue to suffer as Maduro clings to power. The government also continues to try to delay holding elections, likely out of concern (and it is valid concern) that they might actually lose.

I wrote about the origins of the present unrest on April 13th. The country’s Supreme Court tried to assume powers of the National Assembly, and the regime declared a major opposition figure–Henrique Capriles, considered a front-runner in the next presidential election–ineligible to run for office. In the time since, marches and protests have become ever-present. Maduro regularly dismisses them as baseless efforts to foment violence and topple his government. Marchers are typically cut off by government-backed security forces. Also, Maduro has directed the Caracas subway system to be closed when protests are planned in order to make it more difficult for participants to gather.

The overwhelming majority of international response has been in support of the opposition. On April 19th, 11 Latin American countries issued a joint statement urging the Venezuelan government to set a timeframe for holding elections in order to “allow for a quick solution to the crisis that Venezuela is living through.”

Antagonism with the U.S. grew further on April 20th when General Motors announced it would be ceasing all operations in Venezuela. The move resulted from government authorities seizing control of GM’s auto manufacturing plant in the city of Valencia, along with bank accounts and other assets. This high-profile rebuke of a major American business is likely to have repercussions in both countries. GM employs almost 4,000 people in Venezuela, mostly at car and truck dealerships. On the same day, protests raged in Caracas and were met by tear gas and rubber bullets.

Shows of discontent against the Maduro regime continued on April 24th, when thousands of protestors in Caracas and other cities gathered on highways and other main streets, sitting down in the middle of roads and refusing to move, bringing traffic to a standstill. Violent encounters with security forces continued, bringing the total of Venezuelans killed since this wave of protests began to 23. The protests and ensuing violence have only increased in intensity in the month since the Supreme Court attempted its takeover.

By April 28th, the death toll rose to 29, as protests shifted in a different direction. On that day hundreds marched to the jail holding Leopoldo Lopez, a highly regarded opposition leader who was arrested in 2014 for instigating violence. Of course Lopez’s supporters maintain he is a political prisoner convicted on bogus charges. While state police blocked access to the prison, those supporting Lopez held a rally outside, shouting “Leopoldo” and holding signs saying “No to Dictatorship.”

***

While the violence perpetrated by government forces is deplorable and debilitating, it does like the opposition is gaining momentum. Protests show no sign of slowing down, and international support is largely on the side of the resistance. Plus according to Reuters, the opposition coalition in the National Assembly now has “majority support.”

Yet many challenges remain. Maduro seems unwilliing relinquish any power, and has done everything he can to prevent Capriles from running against him in the next election. Change will not be easy.

But it seems Venezuelans think change is worth fighting for. A presidential election must be held within a reasonable time, with support of independent monitors to ensure fairness. If the present is allowed to continue, it is hard to see how Venezuelans’ life will be able to improve.

The post Venezuela: Tensions High as Showdown Looms appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Venezuelans block a street in the capital Caracas in protest of President Nicolas Maduro and his increasingly autocratic rule. Protesters are demanding that open elections be held soon, although the regime is resisting this. (Marco Bello/Reuters)

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro continues to crack down on opposition and protests to his increasingly authoritarian government. As pressure mounts both inside and outside the country amid widespread protests and violent outbreaks, citizens continue to suffer as Maduro clings to power. The government also continues to try to delay holding elections, likely out of concern (and it is valid concern) that they might actually lose.

I wrote about the origins of the present unrest on April 13th. The country’s Supreme Court tried to assume powers of the National Assembly, and the regime declared a major opposition figure–Henrique Capriles, considered a front-runner in the next presidential election–ineligible to run for office. In the time since, marches and protests have become ever-present. Maduro regularly dismisses them as baseless efforts to foment violence and topple his government. Marchers are typically cut off by government-backed security forces. Also, Maduro has directed the Caracas subway system to be closed when protests are planned in order to make it more difficult for participants to gather.

The overwhelming majority of international response has been in support of the opposition. On April 19th, 11 Latin American countries issued a joint statement urging the Venezuelan government to set a timeframe for holding elections in order to “allow for a quick solution to the crisis that Venezuela is living through.”

Antagonism with the U.S. grew further on April 20th when General Motors announced it would be ceasing all operations in Venezuela. The move resulted from government authorities seizing control of GM’s auto manufacturing plant in the city of Valencia, along with bank accounts and other assets. This high-profile rebuke of a major American business is likely to have repercussions in both countries. GM employs almost 4,000 people in Venezuela, mostly at car and truck dealerships. On the same day, protests raged in Caracas and were met by tear gas and rubber bullets.

Shows of discontent against the Maduro regime continued on April 24th, when thousands of protestors in Caracas and other cities gathered on highways and other main streets, sitting down in the middle of roads and refusing to move, bringing traffic to a standstill. Violent encounters with security forces continued, bringing the total of Venezuelans killed since this wave of protests began to 23. The protests and ensuing violence have only increased in intensity in the month since the Supreme Court attempted its takeover.

By April 28th, the death toll rose to 29, as protests shifted in a different direction. On that day hundreds marched to the jail holding Leopoldo Lopez, a highly regarded opposition leader who was arrested in 2014 for instigating violence. Of course Lopez’s supporters maintain he is a political prisoner convicted on bogus charges. While state police blocked access to the prison, those supporting Lopez held a rally outside, shouting “Leopoldo” and holding signs saying “No to Dictatorship.”

***

While the violence perpetrated by government forces is deplorable and debilitating, it does like the opposition is gaining momentum. Protests show no sign of slowing down, and international support is largely on the side of the resistance. Plus according to Reuters, the opposition coalition in the National Assembly now has “majority support.”

Yet many challenges remain. Maduro seems unwilliing relinquish any power, and has done everything he can to prevent Capriles from running against him in the next election. Change will not be easy.

But it seems Venezuelans think change is worth fighting for. A presidential election must be held within a reasonable time, with support of independent monitors to ensure fairness. If the present is allowed to continue, it is hard to see how Venezuelans’ life will be able to improve.

The post Venezuela: Tensions High as Showdown Looms appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“On World Press Freedom Day, I call for an end to all crackdowns against journalists – because a free press advances peace and justice for all.” — António Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General(Flickr)

May 3th is World Press Freedom Day. The UN has been celebrating this international day annually since the 1993 proclamation that commemorated the 1991 Declaration of Windhoek. The Declaration of Windhoek is a statement of free press principles, a manifesto written by a group of African journalists. It was an outcome of a UNESCO seminar held in Windhoek, Namibia, calling for the promotion of independent and pluralistic journalism in post-Cold War Africa.

From May 1st to 4th, UNESCO and the Indonesian government will co-organize the main and side events of World Press Freedom Day in Jakarta. This year’s themes, titled Critical Minds for Critical Times will explore the ‘Media’s role in advancing peaceful, just and inclusive societies’. Unlike Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the 16th goal of the UN’s post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) recognizes the importance of the role of a free press in promoting inclusive and democratic governance. Reflecting this highlighted function of the free press in actualizing an agenda, the themes will focus on the three essential preconditions that shape the free press as a catalyst for the promotion of peace around the globe.

First, that a legal framework protecting investigative journalism must be built and secured. According to the UNESCO Director-General’s 2016 Report on the Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity, 827 journalists lost their lives while on duty over the last decade, and 8% of these cases remain unresolved. An institutional safety net protecting journalists’ welfare is, thus, in urgent demand. Likewise, as instances of hate speech and violent extremism are increasingly prevalent these days, the implementation of regulatory measures to pre-empt such harmful incidents are more pressing than ever.

Second, journalists must always comply with high ethical standards. They should always impartially convey the reality of conflict situations, free from the political influence of involved parties.

Lastly, tools that enable participatory democracy through Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) should be further strengthened. Online platforms not only provide low-cost access to information, but they also give the opportunity to exercise freedom of expression for netizens, thereby fostering transnational and intercultural democratization.

The fact that the free press’ current situation could be considered grave on a global scale, make it worth following up on the activities of this year’s World Press Freedom Day. According to the recently released 2017 World Press Freedom Index, an annual publication by Reporters without Borders, the global landscape of journalism has entered into a transitional phase in the post-2016 political climate, reaching a dangerous tipping point for the status of the free press.

Instances of state-sanctioned terror against the free press have soared 14% over the past five years, and nearly two out of three countries showed signs of deterioration in the quality of the free press compared to last year’s index. Remarkably, the index shows that the advent of so-called ‘post-truth politics’, fake news and ‘strongman’ leadership have greatly reduced the free press status of established democracies.

The post May 3rd: World Press Freedom Day appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“On World Press Freedom Day, I call for an end to all crackdowns against journalists – because a free press advances peace and justice for all.” — António Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General(Flickr)

May 3th is World Press Freedom Day. The UN has been celebrating this international day annually since the 1993 proclamation that commemorated the 1991 Declaration of Windhoek. The Declaration of Windhoek is a statement of free press principles, a manifesto written by a group of African journalists. It was an outcome of a UNESCO seminar held in Windhoek, Namibia, calling for the promotion of independent and pluralistic journalism in post-Cold War Africa.

From May 1st to 4th, UNESCO and the Indonesian government will co-organize the main and side events of World Press Freedom Day in Jakarta. This year’s themes, titled Critical Minds for Critical Times will explore the ‘Media’s role in advancing peaceful, just and inclusive societies’. Unlike Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the 16th goal of the UN’s post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) recognizes the importance of the role of a free press in promoting inclusive and democratic governance. Reflecting this highlighted function of the free press in actualizing an agenda, the themes will focus on the three essential preconditions that shape the free press as a catalyst for the promotion of peace around the globe.

First, that a legal framework protecting investigative journalism must be built and secured. According to the UNESCO Director-General’s 2016 Report on the Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity, 827 journalists lost their lives while on duty over the last decade, and 8% of these cases remain unresolved. An institutional safety net protecting journalists’ welfare is, thus, in urgent demand. Likewise, as instances of hate speech and violent extremism are increasingly prevalent these days, the implementation of regulatory measures to pre-empt such harmful incidents are more pressing than ever.

Second, journalists must always comply with high ethical standards. They should always impartially convey the reality of conflict situations, free from the political influence of involved parties.

Lastly, tools that enable participatory democracy through Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) should be further strengthened. Online platforms not only provide low-cost access to information, but they also give the opportunity to exercise freedom of expression for netizens, thereby fostering transnational and intercultural democratization.

The fact that the free press’ current situation could be considered grave on a global scale, make it worth following up on the activities of this year’s World Press Freedom Day. According to the recently released 2017 World Press Freedom Index, an annual publication by Reporters without Borders, the global landscape of journalism has entered into a transitional phase in the post-2016 political climate, reaching a dangerous tipping point for the status of the free press.

Instances of state-sanctioned terror against the free press have soared 14% over the past five years, and nearly two out of three countries showed signs of deterioration in the quality of the free press compared to last year’s index. Remarkably, the index shows that the advent of so-called ‘post-truth politics’, fake news and ‘strongman’ leadership have greatly reduced the free press status of established democracies.

The post May 3rd: World Press Freedom Day appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

North Korean military parade celebrating the 105th birthday anniversary of Kim Il Sung

The U.S. has recently attempted to leverage China in order to help it solve the North Korean situation. The thinking is that China is the only state with significant economic clout to affect North Korea’s policy-making process. Additionally, an improved trade treaty with China has been offered by the U.S. as an incentive. While the individual merits of this approach may be debatable, it doesn’t acknowledge the possibility of additionally utilizing Russia to help resolve the crisis.

Russia’s Place In Asian Security

Because of the current downturn in U.S.-Russia relations post-Crimea, Russia’s role in the Six-Party Talks process has been minimally acknowledged by the U.S., if it all. Certainly, while Russia doesn’t possess the economic heft of the Chinese in potentially dealing with North Korea, it does possess similar security concerns as China.

Russia has an implicit agreement with China not to interfere in one another’s respective spheres of influence, such as Chinese apparent deference to Russian security interests in Central Asia. However, it’s critical to remember that Russia has Asia-Pacific interests as well. Like the Chinese, one of these is eventual de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Succinctly, further nuclearization and militarization of the Korean Peninsula has the potential to start a cascade effect in the overall Northeast Asian security decision-making process. Japan has already started a review of its defense posture in the region in order to respond to China’s rise. What additional steps may it take if the North Korean Crisis continues on its current trajectory?

More fundamentally, Russia shares China’s concern that further North Korean provocations will only bring U.S. military forces closer to their borders. This is neither in Russia nor China’s ultimate interest. Lastly, Russia shares China’s concerns that any military conflict with North Korea has the potential to cause instability and increased migrant flows across their shared border.

A rough analogy can be made between Belarus in Europe and North Korea in the Asia-Pacific in terms of how both serve overall Russian strategic interests. As during the Cold War, both Belarus and North Korea currently serve as buffer zones between Russia and the West. This North Korean utility is the latest chapter in the book of Russian security interests in Asia going back 400 years to the initial era of Russian expansion into Siberia.

How, Then, To Approach Russia?

As with China, there may be an opportunity for the U.S. to leverage Russian unease with the proximity of U.S. forces on its Asian border in order to elicit its help in resolving the crisis. Russia is already uncomfortable with NATO forces massing on the border of its Kaliningrad enclave in Europe. However, the U.S. would have to make it clear to Russia how their mutual interests would be solved by working together. Any U.S. dialogue with Russia focusing only on how the North Korean situation affects the U.S., Japan, and South Korea would be a non-starter.

The economic component of this possible avenue must not be overlooked as well. The U.S. has apparently convinced China of the necessity of strengthening economic sanctions against North Korea. An example of this new approach is China’s recent refusal to accept North Korean coal exports, vital to China’s own economic stance.

However, with respect to Russia, any U.S. talk of strengthening sanctions against North Korea when Russia itself is still facing Western sanctions over Crimea would be an additional deal-breaker. Economic duress caused by continuing Russian sanctions has had ramifications all across Europe, surely impacting the current French Presidential elections, as an example. Russia definitely does not need any further sources of instability right now, politically or economically.

Japan As A Possible Middleman

Additionally, Japan may not share the U.S.’ current approach to confrontation with North Korea. Of course, North Korean nuclear ambitions are a concern to Japan. However, China’s rise outranks even this concern. In order to deal more effectively with China, Japan has realized that it needs to improve relations with Russia. Likewise, Russia realizes that cooperation with Japan would improve its overall Asia-Pacific security portfolio with respect to China’s ascendancy.

Because of this, there may be an opportunity for the U.S. to utilize Japan as a middleman of sorts in negotiations with Russia to attempt to resolve the North Korean dilemma. Certainly, the U.S. still has limited direct negotiations with Russia, such as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s recent visit to Moscow over the Syrian Crisis. However, while there still are disputes between Russia and Japan, such as the Kuril Islands, Russo-Japanese relations remain better than current U.S.-Russia relations overall.

It has been speculated that Russia inserted itself as a major player, both diplomatically and militarily, into the Syrian Crisis in order to gain concessions from the U.S., such as sanctions relief over Ukraine. If this is true, then from the U.S. perspective, there is a risk that Russia might try the same approach with the now-defunct Six-Party Talks to gain additional leverage with the U.S. (and Japan).

However, not seeking Russian help in resolving the Ukraine Crisis, Syrian Crisis, and now North Korean Crisis may ultimately prove unsustainable for the U.S.. A choice is going to have to made by the U.S. as to which of these various crises really threaten U.S. interests in the long-term. With the apparent answer being the North Korean Crisis, Russian assistance in resolving it will be even more indispensable.

The post North Korea Offers an Opportunity for U.S.-Russia Collaboration appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Shanghai Century Publishing Group meets with Shanghai Communist Youth League)

In a bid to raise student math scores while ingratiating itself ever more deeply with China, Britain will now import translated Chinese math textbooks and Chinese teaching methods for schools throughout the country. The wholesale adoption of Chinese teaching methods for math is the brainchild of Britain’s China-happy schools minister Nick Gibb; and emphasizes a “collective approach,” uniformity, and Chinese-style rote learning over individualized Western methods. Textbooks will be imported through a deal between HarperCollins Publishers and a publisher in Shanghai. The deal was lauded in Shanghai as a “delightful” soft-power boost for China.

What HarperCollins and the UK education department haven’t told the British public about “The Shanghai Maths Project” is that these textbooks come straight from a Chinese state-run publisher that operates under the direct authority of the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda and censorship apparatus. The publisher in question is Shanghai Century Publishing Group (上海世纪出版 [集团] 有限公司 or 上海世纪出版集团, SHCPG). As the SHCPG website clearly states in Chinese, the group was established in 1999 under the authority of the Communist Party’s Central Propaganda Department (中共中央宣传部), the Shanghai Municipal Communist Party Committee (中共上海市委), and the State Council’s Press and Publication Administration (新闻出版总署).

SHCPG’s subordinate relationship to these agencies is widely noted in Chinese media reports on SHCPG and its agreement with HarperCollins. SHCPG’s president, Gao Yunfei (高韵斐), is also the organization’s Communist Party secretary. As the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China observes, the Press and Publication Administration that oversees SHCPG is one of the primary agencies responsible for censorship in China.

SHCPG also works closely with the Communist Youth League (中国共产主义青年团 or 中国共青团), the party agency responsible for indoctrinating Chinese youth from primary school through university. The SHCPG website includes a section dedicated entirely to “Youth League Activities.”

In Shanghai in August 2016, SHCPG prominently took part in a state-run book fair to “promote the core values of Chinese socialism” and to commemorate the 95th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. Among the titles SHCPG promoted at the fair was: To Be Turned Into Iron, The Metal Itself Must Be Strong: How to Be a Member of the Communist Party (打铁还需自身硬: 今天如何做一名合格的共产党员). In 2015, SHCPG marked the 94th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party with awards for “outstanding party workers and party-building projects” within the organization.

Now SHCPG will be supplying textbooks to students in British schools. As China Global Television Network notes, “These textbooks, created for students in China, will be translated exactly with no editing to adjust them to the UK’s local curriculum.” Britain is simply importing Chinese government curriculum lock, stock, and barrel, with translated textbooks from a state-run Chinese Communist Party publisher.

Not everyone in Britain is as happy about this arrangement as Nick Gibb and HarperCollins are. “Why are we blindly following the Chinese approach to teaching maths?” asks British educational scholar Ruth Merttens, “A one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to improve children’s learning. Worse still, it undermines more important features of our culture and heritage, where we punch above our weight in creativity and celebrate originality and difference rather than uniformity.”

Merttens called the education department’s mandatory application of Chinese teaching methods “profoundly undemocratic.” No wonder, since China and the Chinese educational system that Britain so wishes to emulate are also profoundly undemocratic.

The Shanghai textbook deal follows a “disastrous experiment” in bringing math teachers from Shanghai to instruct British students according to Chinese methods. “I’m used to speaking my mind in class, being bold, giving ideas, often working in groups to advance my skills and improve my knowledge,” said one student, “But a lot of the time in the experiment, the only thing I felt I was learning was how to copy notes really fast and listen to the teacher lecture us.”

Beyond the issue of Chinese school textbooks and teaching methods, the British government has been broadly criticized for its starry-eyed approach to Sino-British relations and its apparent love affair with any and all things Chinese. Current prime minister Theresa May and former prime minister David Cameron have both been accused of  “grovelling,” “kowtowing,” and “sucking up” to China in pursuit of trade deals with the one-party state. Among Brexit fears is the concern that Britain will become only more dependent on China after leaving the European Union.

Math textbooks are of course unlikely to contain a great deal of overtly political content. But if it’s math textbooks today, one might reasonably ask, then what will it be tomorrow? Chinese language and culture programs at educational institutions throughout the UK are already run by the Chinese government’s Confucius Institutes, a noted part of Beijing’s “overseas propaganda” apparatus whose presence on Western campuses has been described as “academic malware” and as an educational “Trojan horse” due to their censorship practices and overtly propagandist character. Is it wise to give the Chinese government an even greater footprint in British education?

One might reasonably also question the moral acceptability of a publishing deal that directly profits and legitimizes a party-state apparatus recognized as one of the worst human rights violators in the world. To purchase textbooks from a Chinese Communist Party publisher is to enrich and validate the same party-state agencies that suppress freedom of expression, freedom of information, and academic freedom in China. “The Shanghai Maths Project” is one that educational stakeholders in Britain may wish to think twice about.

The post Britain to Import School Textbooks from Chinese Communist Party Publisher appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

When the Kremlin decided to meddle in the U.S. election in favor of Trump, it nurtured the hope of a reset in bilateral ties with Western Europe and the United States. The idea of a U.S. President as the leader of the populist movements rising in the West was seen as an advantageous scenario for Moscow.

As disillusionment over Trump’s alleged pro-Russian view is growing at home, Putin might return to the  “besieged fortress” narrative domestically in order to secure his upcoming reelection.

In Russia, the wave of populism throughout Europe and the United States was considered as a victory over the West.  Brexit, the rise of right-wing parties across the EU and Trump—all seem to be proof that the conservative ideology originated in the Kremlin to take on “false” liberal democratic values is partly shared with Western countries. As liberal values in the West were defeated, rise of populism was depicted as people’s rebellion against own corrupt governments thanks to Russia’s efforts.

The strike on al-Shayrat air base and Washington’s sudden interventionist approach to Syria caught the Kremlin’s strategists off guard. It seemed that Trump had distanced himself from his “America First” isolationism and for many in Russia it appeared as if Trump had reneged on his campaign promises.

Trump’s decision to get tough on Russia would be the ultimate failure of the Kremlin’s foreign policies goals and a personal defeat for Vladimir Putin. This is particularly worrisome considering next year’s presidential elections next year and the growing protests with already brought people on the streets last March.

Nevertheless, Trump’s policy towards Syria might bring both nations together, for a cause of a good war against ISIS, the scenario of a proxy conflict now seems more plausible. Many in Russia actually fearing that Syria might turn into another Vietnam when the Soviets fought along the Viet Cong against the Americans. With more American strikes possibly following, and presence of US ground troops expanding – the Kremlin grows cautious of avoiding a quagmire that will not go well domestically.

For the past year, Russian state-media consistently depicted Trump as a friend and one of “ours”, while its recent statements and actions put it into hot water. Regardless speculations that Trump decided to strike Syria because of its collapsing ratings domestically and sweeping accusations of his assistants’ connections to the Russian government – the new image of Trump is taking over the country’s media landscape.

State-media now draws Trump as incompetent in handling Russia and other global issues; while genuinely unfit to serve as a president. He is likewise presented as a victim of the neoconservatives such as Steve Bannon, or falling under the influence of America’s “deep state” or his democratic-leaning daughter – Ivanka.

During the recent evening with Vladimir Solovyev, Russia’s major and state-controlled political talk show, some of the participants even expressed feeling of missing Obama’s days while describing Trump.

Switching depiction of Trump goes along with new messages resurrecting for the Putin 2018 presidential campaign. As most of the media agenda is heavily regulated by the state, it is vital to stop presenting Trump as “one of ours” but rather as an incompetent president who might trigger the world war three, as also betraying Russia’s sincere hopes and benign efforts for better bilateral relations.

For the Russian state-media there are few options left now but to return to the “besieged fortress” imagery. In fact, the choice is a blessing in disguise for Putin.

Image of being a victorious leader could have secured an easy reelection but likewise made Russians to stop rallying around the flag and instead scrutinizing other troubling issues such as rampant corruption. Recently, Alexey Navalny’s, Russia’s major opposition figure, disclosed a massive corruption scheme of the Prime-Minister Dmitriy Medvedev by posting findings on YouTube. The public response was massive and caused a heated wave of protests countrywide that rattled the Kremlin.

If the West is finally defeated, it is going to be harder to deter attention from domestic problems. In contrast, resumed hostility augments opportunities for self-victimization and emergence of a public narrative of being under attack. Expressing the unquestionable support for the experienced commander-in-chief remains the sole option for withstanding enemies while fighting corruption could be postponed.

The post Trump’s Foreign Policy Helps Putin’s Reelection Plan appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana tours the Philippine-claimed Thitu Island during his visit to the Spratlys Group of islands off the disputed South China Sea in western Philippines Friday, April 21, 2017. (AP/Bullit Marquez)

After bowing to Beijing’s request to retract his threat to plant a flag on Pag-asa (Thitu) Island over Philippine Independence Day on June 12, the mercurial Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte has likely angered the Chinese again.

Immediately after his retraction, his military announced on April 16 its plans to hold ten days of joint military exercises with U.S. troops in May. Duterte then sent his defense secretary, Delfin Lorenzana, his military chief of staff General Eduardo Ano and about 40 journalists, to tour Thitu Island on April 21 in an apparent show of sovereignty over the disputed island.

Before landing, the Philippine C-130 military aircraft received a warning from Chinese forces to leave the airspace. In conjunction with the visit, plans were announced to invest $32 million in upgrading the island’s military infrastructure, including the upgrading of its runway. Filipino troops have been stationed on Thitu since the 1960s.

The move to again engage the Americans comes after months of heated anti-U.S. rhetoric from Duterte since he assumed office last summer. Duterte has long mistrusted the U.S., recently lambasted the presence of American troops, called for the end of joint military exercises, and even called for a “separation” from the U.S. while courting billions of aid and investment from Beijing last October. “I announce my separation from the United States both in the military… not social, but economics also,” he told the Chinese in Beijing, “so I will be dependent on you for a long time.”

The military exercises, known as Balikatan (Shoulder-to-Shoulder), are held every year, but this year will not involve any live-fire exercises or simulations of protecting territory, such as the disputed islands with China (China seized Mischief Reef from Manila beginning in 1994 and took Scarborough Shoal in early 2012). Rather, the exercises among some 5,000 American and Filipino soldiers will be limited to disaster and humanitarian responses and counter-terrorism efforts.

The toning down of the military exercises (and his promise not to plant a flag) are likely appeasements to Beijing, where Duterte intends to meet Chinese president Xi Jinping in May. But Beijing cannot be happy about the military cooperation with the U.S. and the defense secretary’s visit to Thitu island. For now, Filipino fishing boats, Chinese military vessels and Chinese industrial fishing boats are all operating in the Scarborough Shoal peacefully. But there are recent reports that Filipino fishermen were harassed and driven away by the Chinese Coast Guard from Union Bank in the Spratly archipelago of the South China Sea.

Any slight skirmish there (or elsewhere) could spark a military clash and draw in the U.S. military – which is bound by the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951 to protect its ally’s islands.

The post Manila Asserts Claims Over South China Sea Island appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

By Robert Elway Study the US economy and its relationship to other countries and you will see two effects of the Federal Reserve’s accommodative monetary policy: higher gold and lower US dollar purchasing power. From January 2003 to March 2017, the Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR) dropped by 36% while gold rose 169%, and dollar purchasing power reflects this low-rate environment. One 2017 dollar equals only seventy-five cents in 2003 dollars. The US dollar has remained at 75% purchasing power since 2014, making the nominal prices of goods and services more expensive in the United States than they were fourteen years ago. The Fed’s Impact on International Trade From the perspective of the US, the trade balance increased in 2009 and has remained above 2004-2008 averages since then. Our trade gap with China has gotten larger since 2012, mainly by rises in imports of consumer goods. At least for a time of mass appeal among American consumers, platform-based products like the iPhone can create more production in goods and services than the sum of their parts. In addition to the suppliers of the physical goods used in manufacturing the phone, there is also the platform it creates for an increasingly services-oriented environment indirectly fueled by easy money from central banks around the world. Especially in a low interest rate environment as the US has been experiencing since 2009, importing some goods can create growth in domestic industries like technology-based services. The Fed’s accommodative policies have led to a paucity of traditional returns from US government bonds, which tends to make venture capital and other, often riskier, forms of investing more attractive to the traditionally risk-averse. This leads to pension funds investing in venture capital firms which fund startups that support New Economy jobs. We’ve heard news stories about these jobs, especially with Uber and other apps-turned-employers in the United States–all created, or in the very least facilitated, by a platform that takes advantage of the Chinese-manufactured iPhone and an ever-larger amount of capital looking for above-average return. Rosland Capital’s chart below was compiled using this information on how a lower dollar purchasing power affects precious metals and gold IRAs as well as other dollar-denominated assets. The flat periods show times when the dollar was affected by Ben Bernanke’s monetary policy just before the 2009 recession, along with the Fed’s post-QE policy after 2014. Both resulted in a temporarily stagnating dollar purchasing power. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) controls for nominal price disparities that result in nations having a different cost of living, allowing for economists to compare multiple countries’ output, usually expressed in terms of International Dollars. This is a unit of currency based on the US dollar’s purchasing power during a specific year that is kept consistent throughout the comparison with other countries. For the example below, purchasing power parity can be derived from GDP or by equating the Consumer Price Indices of individual countries. The PPP exchange rate determines how many US dollars, Chinese yuan, Japanese yen, or euros consumers in their home countries would need to convert to International Dollars in order to equal the same purchasing power as consumers in other countries for a given year.

Using 2017 as a reference year for per capita PPP produces Charts 1 and 2 below.

Chart 1: Higher PPP Chart 2: Lower PPP Growth Back in 2006 and 2007, Chart 2 shows that total PPP per capita for the US, Germany, Japan and China was growing over 30%. In 2009, China, Germany and the US all had decelerating growth while purchasing power parity still grew in Japan. However, Japan’s shrinkage in growth from 2010-2015 had the greatest impact on the overall total. While the pre-financial collapse years saw over-15% growth just from the US and Japan alone, all four countries’ PPP growth barely amounted to this same benchmark by 2015. Robert Elway is a financial analyst at Rosland Capital, a precious metals company that tracks gold pricing, monetary policy and other financial news.

The post The Fed, Trade, and Dollar Purchasing Power appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.