Author

Zach Emanuel

The West’s Religious Freedom Test

This article was published as part of our Spring 2019 print edition, the entirety of which may be found here.

On March 15^th, 2019, an Australian man opened fire in two New Zealand mosques, killing 50 Muslim worshippers and injuring 50 others. In the aftermath of the attack, officials discovered a manifesto written by the shooter which stated his desire “to show the invaders that our lands will never be their lands, [and] our homelands are our own” among numerous other rationales for killing Muslim New Zealanders.[1] The attacks cut right at the heart of the West’s tradition of—and commitment to—religious freedom, which for centuries has defined society not by blood-and-soil nationalism or adherence to a specific religious doctrine, but rather by a commitment to a shared set of values and ideals, among them religious freedom.

The roots of religious freedom in the West can be traced to the Magna Carta, a treaty between King John of England and a group of powerful barons in the year 1215. In it, the King promised to protect the Catholic Church’s rights in exchange for the barons allowing him to retain the throne. Although the charter failed to achieve all of its stated objectives and was thus unsuccessful in the short term, the agreement has since helped form the basis of religious freedom in the West.[2] In 1789, when James Madison was tasked with composing the Bill of Rights, the first right Madison enumerated was, by no coincidence, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Ever since, religious tolerance has held a unique place within the American ethos, as presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and George Bush, among numerous others, have praised the strength that freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and a diversity of opinions and cultures provides a society.[3]

The story is similar in Europe. In 1789, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, drafted by Abbe Sieyes and Marquis de Lafayette during the French Revolution proclaimed religious freedom across France by subordinating the Catholic Church to the newly established French government. Over a century later, in 1920, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was speaking glowingly of the British commitment to “defend freedom of conscience and religious equality,” and in 1950, Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), composed in the aftermath of World War II, specifically notes the “right to freedom of…religion,” including the “freedom to change…religion.” [4]

Yet for all the talk of religious freedom representing a fundamental underpinning of liberal society, the last ten years have seen the West’s political commitment to protecting such freedoms dwindle. The New Zealand mosque attack was simply the latest development in the West’s growing issue with religious diversity, manifesting most notably in a series of attacks, both verbal and physical, against both Muslim and Jewish communities. Like in the New Zealand attack, the attackers almost always tout their goal as ridding their native lands of religious “outsiders.” In Europe, as Muslim migrants flow in from the Middle East and North Africa, right-wing fascism has taken hold of conservative parties promising a return to the white, Christian majorities of old. In the U.S., Donald Trump’s presidency and his stranglehold on the American right can too be traced to many of the same fears. Although the West has spoken eloquently of its commitment to religious tolerance for hundreds of years, its faith in the ideal has never been truly scrutinized as the Christian majorities in European states and the U.S. have yet to come under threat. But in the globalized world of the 21^st century, when the cross-cultural movement of people from different faiths is becoming commonplace, the West’s commitment to the doctrine of religious freedom is, for the first time, truly being put to the test, and the results so far do not bode well for liberalism.

In December of 2015, following a terrorist attack by a Muslim couple in San Bernardino, California in which fourteen people were murdered and 24 more seriously injured, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”[5] As numerous legal scholars have argued, by specifically targeting Muslim-majority countries, the policy is in violation of Madison’s Establishment Clause, which bans Congress from making a law respecting the establishment of a religion. Nevertheless, a July 2017 POLITICO poll found that a whopping 84% of GOP respondents and 56% of independent respondents approved of Trump’s ban, numbers indicative of a departure from the American adherence to the doctrine of religious freedom.[6] From that moment forward, the “Muslim ban”—along with Trump’s promised border wall—have constituted the hallmarks not just of the administration’s immigration policy, but also of Trump’s presidency as a whole. As conservative political commentator Ann Coulter wrote in her 2016 book In Trump We Trust, “there’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven. Except change his immigration policy,” or in other words, Trump could change his mind on just about any issue without losing our support, so long as he retains his promise to bar any more Muslims and Mexicans from entering the U.S.[7]

In addition to the Muslim ban, in July of 2017 right-wing rally-goers in Charlottesville, Virginia marched with tiki torches and shouted, “Jews will not replace us,” and received almost a tacit endorsement from the president who noted the “very fine people” among the marchers.[8] Just over a year later in October of 2018, Robert Bowers murdered eleven Jews in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In the aftermath of the attack, Bowers was found to have posted online “There is no #MAGA (Make America Great Again) as long as there is a kike manifestation,” using a derogatory term for Jews.[9] Trump’s “Muslim ban,” which was upheld by the Supreme Court in June of 2018, along with the anti-Jewish rhetoric in Charlottesville and attack in Pittsburgh, demonstrate the U.S.’s faltering over its commitment to religious liberty in the face of both Muslims and Jews being incorporated more widely and permanently into the fabric of America. Trump, the face of the Republican Party, and much of his supporters no longer seem interested in the ideal either in practice, or even in theory. As the American Jewish and Muslim populations grow and individuals of those faiths begin to occupy the highest positions in American society, Trump’s presidency appears to illustrate that a vast swath of the U.S. is questioning whether or not it is religious tolerance or rather Christianity that is truly the fundamental tenet of American identity.

This very debate appears to be being held in Europe as well. Although Marine Le Pen, President of France’s right-wing National Front Party, lost France’s 2017 presidential election to Emmanuel Macron, she collected 34% of the vote and still today commands widespread support across the country.[10] Throughout the campaign Le Pen harped on anti-Muslim themes, proclaiming at a rally in Marseille:

“We are being submerged by a flood of immigrants that are sweeping all before them. There are prayers in the street, cafes that ban women…I will say when I become president that this is not the French way…If we carry on like this, the whole of France will become a gigantic no-go zone. …A multicultural society is a society that has multiple conflicts.”[11]

After an April 2017 attack on the Champs-Elysees, Le Pen demanded that, “Islamic mosques must be closed,” before promising to deport all foreign citizens on the terrorist watch list.[12] In 2017, about one-eighth of the French population was Muslim, the vast majority of whom are immigrants themselves, with the population expected to double in the next 20-30 years. Le Pen’s proposals to close mosques and to rid France of “multiculturalism” directly contradict the value of religious freedom. Moreover, even before Le Pen’s candidacy France made headlines for banning the “burkini” from its beaches. Since the French Revolution, France has boasted of a unique attachment to secularism and has prided itself on not including religion in public society, more so than in any other Western country. Nevertheless, the French government, via Le Pen and the “burkini” ban, has forced religion back into the public eye through blatant discrimination against Muslims in recent years. The support for both Le Pen and the ban amongst the French populace illustrate an additional Western nation’s waning commitment to religious tolerance in the face of a rising Muslim presence.

Le Pen’s anti-immigrant right-wing populism is not alone on the continent. In September of 2015, over 138,000 Muslim migrants entered Hungary, more than 1.5% of the country’s population.[13] In response, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban erected fencing along its borders with Croatia and Serbia, the entry points for most Syrian and Iraqi refugees migrating West, and refused asylum-seekers passage through Hungary.[14] Orban called Muslim migration “not a solution, but a problem [and] not medicine but a poison,” adding “we don’t need it and won’t swallow it.”[15] By the 2017 parliamentary election, opposition to immigration and migration was the centerpiece of the platform of Orban’s Fidesz Party, with the party “running a single issue campaign against immigrants.”[16] Yet as Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky notes, “Hungary isn’t really an anti-immigrant country,” as in 2016 “23,803 foreigners moved there” and up until March of 2017, the Orban government sponsored “residency bond programs targeted largely at Asians” where for a $370,000 “investment in Hungarian government bonds, permanent residency could be obtained.”[17] Budapest is, however, “fiercely against a certain kind of immigrant”: Muslims.[18] Despite a “right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion,” Hungary’s experience, like France and the U.S., is another example of the West’s loosening attachment to religious tolerance as a valued ideal.

And it is not just France and Hungary. Other European countries have shown similar tendencies. In Germany, where the Muslim population grew from 4.1% to 6.1% in just six years, the right-wing and anti-immigrant party Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) has gained ground electorally.[19] While the German constitution specifically guarantees “the undisturbed practice of religion” and a “freedom of faith and of conscience,” in March of 2016, the AfD’s Lower Bavarian branch called for banning mosques, minarets, and the muezzin, the individuals who recite the Islamic call to prayer.[20] In Poland, several members of the dominant right-wing Law and Justice Party have rejected plans to construct a Saudi-funded mosque in the Polish capital, Warsaw.[21] In the Netherlands, where 17% of Amsterdam’s population is Muslim, the right-wing Party for Freedom, which holds the second-largest number of seats in the Dutch parliament, recently proposed banning the Quran and shutting down all Dutch mosques, despite the Dutch constitution’s protections for all citizens “to profess freely [their] religion or belief…without prejudice…under the law.”[22] Finally, in Austria in June of 2018, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz announced plans to forcibly close seven mosques and expel 60 imams for not expressing a “’positive fundamental view towards [the] state and society.’”[23] Whether it be AfD, Law and Justice, the Party for Freedom, or Kurz, each action fundamentally contradicts a commitment to religious tolerance.

As Muslim populations continue to rise across Europe and the United States, the once strong Western commitment to religious freedom appears to be faltering. It is easy to praise the idea of religious liberty when a country does not have to implement it in practice. But as Christian majorities come under threat from demographics, a once pleasant ideal no longer appears so attractive to those who feel as though the country they know is disappearing, an understandably scary notion for those who have felt at home there for centuries.

Whether the West’s commitment to religious freedom will survive the globalization of populations is uncertain, but it is only a fraction of the threat that Western democracies face in dealing with migration and religious diversity. Anti-religious freedom policies are not the only authoritarian tendencies of right-wing parties across the U.S. and Europe. Trump, Orban, and the Law and Justice Party in Poland have attacked Islam repeatedly, but they have also derided the courts, rule of law, and other institutions essential to liberal democracy in the process. While many voters may prefer democracy to dictatorship, as Ann Coulter explains when she said that Trump could, in essence, do anything and still maintain his support so long as he did not change his position on immigration, the importance of democracy apparently matters little in comparison to ensuring that religious outsiders stay out. Westerners formerly committed to a depoliticized court system and rule of law appear ready to throw those values out the window so long as their religious majorities are retained. Mass migration is unquestionably causing many in the West to rethink their commitment to religious freedom, but in so doing it may also be causing many to rethink their commitment to democracy and liberal values altogether.

[1] Jane Coaston. “The New Zealand Shooter’s Manifesto Shows How White Nationalist Rhetoric Spreads.” Vox, March 18, 2019. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/3/15/18267163/new-zealand-shooting-christchurch-white-nationalism-racism-language.

[2] “Magna Carta,” Wikipedia. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta.

[3] NPR. “Transcript: JFK’s Speech on His Religion.” December 5. 2007. Accessed April 1, 2019, www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600.; Elisabeth Bumiller. “Bush, Calling U.S. ‘A Nation Guided by Faith,’ Urges Freedom of Worship in China.” The New York Times, February 22, 2002. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/22/world/bush-calling-us-a-nation-guided-by-faith-urges-freedom-of-worship-in-china.html.; Frank Weathers. “Abraham Lincoln on the Importance of Freedom of Conscience and Religious Liberty.” Patheos, June 10, 2012. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2012/06/abraham-lincoln-on-the-importance-of-freedom-of-conscience-and-religious-liberty.html.

[4] Andrew Roberts. “Churchill Proceedings – Winston Churchill and Religion – A Comfortable Relationship with the Almighty.” International Churchill Society, November 1, 2013. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-163/churchill-proceedings-winston-churchill-and-religion-a-comfortable-relationship-with-the-almighty/.; “European Convention on Human Rights.” Wikipedia. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights.

[5] The Associated Press. “How Donald Trump’s Plan to Ban Muslims Has Evolved.” Forbes, June 28, 2016. Accessed April 1, 2019, http://fortune.com/2016/06/28/donald-trump-muslim-ban/.

[6] Steven Shepard. “Poll: Majority of Voters Back Trump Travel Ban.” Politico, July 5, 2017. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/05/trump-travel-ban-poll-voters-240215.

[7] Ann Coulter. In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome, (New York City: Sentinel, 2016).

[8] Robert Tracinski. “The ‘Charlottesville Hoax’ Hoax.” The Bulwark, April 1, 2019. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://thebulwark.com/the-charlottesville-hoax-hoax/.

[9] Paula Ward, Rich Lord, and Liz Navratil. “29 Federal Charges Filed Against Suspect Robert Bowers.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 27, 2018. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2018/10/27/squirrel-hill-synagogue-shooting-suspect-pittsburgh-mass-officers-victims-casualties/stories/201810270072.

[10] Matt Bradley. “French Election: Marine Le Pen Loses but Propels Far-Right to Mainstream.” NBC News, May 9, 2017. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/french-election-marine-le-pen-loses-propels-far-right-mainstream-n756716.

[11] Yonette Joseph. “In Their Own Words: Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron.” The New York Times, May 5, 2017. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-marine-le-pen-quotes.html.

[12] ibid.

[13] Shane Savitsky. “Border fences and refugees bans: Hungary Did it – Fast.” Axios, February 1, 2017. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.axios.com/border-fences-and-refugee-bans-hungary-did-it-fast-1513300201-a344dd93-a4bd-4a34-85f7-10086f2ec678.html.

[14] ibid.

[15] Staff and Agencies. “Hungarian Prime Ministers Says Migrants Are ‘Poison’ and ‘Not Needed.’” The Guardian, July 26, 2016. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/26/hungarian-prime-minister-viktor-orban-praises-donald-trump.

[16] Leonid Bershidsky. “Hungary Is Winning Its War on Muslim Immigrants.” Bloomberg. April 13, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-04-13/hungary-is-winning-its-war-on-muslim-immigrants

[17] ibid.

[18] ibid.

[19] Pew Research Center. “The Growth of Germany’s Muslim Population.” November 29, 2017. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.pewforum.org/essay/the-growth-of-germanys-muslim-population/.

[20] Zoya Sheftalovich. “German Far-Right AfD Calls for Mosque Ban.” Politico. March 31, 2016. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.politico.eu/article/german-far-right-afd-calls-for-mosque-ban/.

[21] Jack Montgomery. “Polish Lawmaker Backs Burqa Ban, No Saudi Mosques in Europe Until Poland Can Build Cathedral in Saudi Arabia.” Breitbart, August 28, 2018. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/08/28/polish-lawmaker-burqa-ban-no-saudi-arabia-mosques-europe-build-cathedrals/.

[22] “Islam in the Netherlands” Wikipedia. Accessed April 2, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_Netherlands#Demographics.

[23] Tara Isabella Burton. “Austria is Closing 7 mosques and Licking Out 60 Imams.” Vox. June 8, 2018. Accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.vox.com/2018/6/8/17442240/austria-closing-mosques-kicking-out-imams.

September 21, 2019 0 comment

Featured Geopolitics Middle East Security and Conflict

Drip Diplomacy: Israeli Foreign Policy in the Climate Change Age

written by Zach Emanuel

Six. That’s the number of times Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has visited an African nation since being re-elected to his fourth term in March of 2015. That is only one fewer than the seven times Barack Obama visited an African country over the course of his entire presidency. It’s also six more than Bibi’s grand total of zero official visits throughout his first three terms as Prime Minister.¹ Add to this his two trips to China in the last five years, only one fewer than Obama’s three visits, and one begins to wonder what the Prime Minister of a country the size of New Jersey is doing in Africa and Asia as much as the former leader of the free world. A shrewd politician like Netanyahu, however, is not one to act without a purpose, and these foreign trips to nations one would hardly consider Israeli allies are not to be overlooked.

Over the last decade, Israel has continued its controversial construction of settlements in the West Bank, engaged in a costly war in Gaza in the summer of 2014 that left over 2,000 Palestinians dead, and as recently as last spring was criticized from abroad for an overly-aggressive military response to protests in Gaza following the move of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on the 70th anniversary of Israeli independence. Israeli actions against its neighbors- whether one believes them to be necessary or not- have begun to elicit increasingly serious reprimands from international bodies such as the United Nations.

For example, just prior to leaving office, Barack Obama’s Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power abstained on a U.N. Security Council vote that demanded the immediate end to all Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, a stark departure from the traditionally tight American-Israeli relationship.² Up until that point, Obama- like his predecessors- had wielded the U.S.’s permanent veto in the Security Council to ensure no anti-settlement resolutions passed. Additionally, since the creation of the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2006, the Council has resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined.³

Recognizing the need to reverse its status as a pariah at the U.N., Netanyahu saw the necessity in developing international allies in other places like Africa and Asia–allies who would vote alongside Israel at the U.N. and who wouldn’t be quick to meddle in its relationship with its neighbors. Netanyahu has even said as much. Before a visit to Liberia in the summer of 2017, the Prime Minister announced that the purpose of his trip was to “dissolve…this giant bloc of 54 African countries that is the basis of the automatic majority against Israel in the UN and international bodies.” ⁴ Although trade, technology, and security have too been cited as the ways Israel intends to deepen ties, perhaps Netanyahu targeted China and West and East Africa specifically because Israel could gain their support at the UN and in return give these nations something they so desperately needed: water.

Over the last 25 years, 28,000 rivers in China have disappeared. Groundwater levels have fallen by up to three meters a year, and the flow of the Yellow River, one of China’s leading water sources, is a tenth of what it was in the 1940s. China’s current Five Year Plan, which calls for halving per capita water consumption, is an idealistic goal at best. Moreover, in 2017, as a result of pollution and industrial waste nearly 10% of China’s water was unfit even for agricultural or industrial use.⁵

In Africa, the story is similar. The Sahel region in West Africa has experienced a string of deadly droughts over the last decade. In 2010, nearly 10 million Africans across four countries were left either hungry or highly food insecure due to the loss of livestock and crops. In 2012, the same story unfolded. Millions more found themselves without food and increases in crop prices only amplified the problem.⁶

On the other side of the continent, the 2011 East Africa drought, which hit Kenya and Ethiopia among other countries, was said to be “the worst in 60 years.” Crops withered, food prices rose, nearly 9.5 million East Africans were affected, and several hundred thousand lost their lives.⁷

As climate change worsens, droughts and water crises are only expected to worsen. Enter Israel. Like China, the Sahel, and East Africa, Israel too has experienced both droughts and water shortages. However Israeli advancements in water technology have kept pace with both climate change and a growing population. One notable example is the significant improvement of drip irrigation, the process of dripping a small amount of water directly onto a plant’s roots rather than flooding the field. Netafim, the Israeli firm that makes drip irrigation technology, claims the technique uses 75% less water than traditional techniques and allows farmers to use less fertilizer and fewer pesticides. In turn, crops yield at higher rates causing food prices to drop, and aquifers suffer from less chemical pollution.⁸

Additionally, take Watergen, another Israeli firm that produces 2,000-pound generators capable of extracting 600 liters of clean drinking water directly from the air each day. The generators simply require electricity, and their weight allows for easy transportation to rural areas that are often hit hardest by droughts and lack the necessary infrastructure to transport water.⁹

With just these two Israeli technologies, West and East Africa and China can drastically reduce the intensity of droughts, the cost of food, and the level of pollution in their waterways. Is it really any wonder then that China, Kenya, Ethiopia, Liberia, and Guinea are interested in receiving Netanyahu or that Bibi has targeted these countries as potential like-minded voters at the U.N.?

When Netanyahu visited in Kenya in February of 2016, he and Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta signed a joint agreement and established a bilateral committee to focus specifically on addressing water and agricultural issues.¹⁰ On the Prime Minister’s trip to Liberia, he too emphasized Israel’s commitment to investing in Liberian “water treatment…water purification,” while planning a visit to Israel for ten Liberian leaders to learn efficient and effective Israeli agricultural techniques.¹¹ Moreover, the city of Shouguang will also play host to Israel’s flagship “Water City” project in China. The plan is to “advance Israeli companies and incorporate Israeli technology” into China’s massive water infrastructure in an attempt to deepen ties between the two nations. The project has headlined Bibi’s multiple trips to the country since 2014.¹²

Climate change is precipitating a worldwide water crisis and it is clear that Israel has solutions. Netanyahu simply wants to be sure Israel gets something of equal value- in this case support at the U.N- in return for offering its extended assistance and investment. A canny politician like Netanyahu surely knows never to let a crisis go to waste.

And it isn’t just parts of Africa and China that Bibi has in his crosshairs. Vietnam has been experiencing a water crisis of its own as only 39% of the rural population has access to clean drinking water.¹³ It may be no coincidence then that in 2011 former Israeli President Shimon Peres visited Vietnam and in 2015 Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely did the same. In 2014 former Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang visited Israel, and last November Vietnam received its first Watergen generators- as gifts no less- for use across the country.^{14, 15}

Over the last decade Colombia has suffered from the “worst drought” in the country’s history, causing food prices to skyrocket and leaving farmers in economic straits. In 2015, the Israeli firm RWL Water completed construction of a major water treatment facility in the country and in 2017 Netanyahu attended a State Visit.¹⁶

In 2016 Paraguay declared a state of emergency during a severe drought of its own. Netanyahu made an official visit there too just before heading to Columbia.¹⁷ Back up five years to 2011 and Mexican farmers were suffering through their “worst drought in 70 years.” Bibi visited Mexico as well.¹⁸ Finally, in February of 2017 Netanyahu became the first Israeli Prime Minister to visit Australia, a country that has been racked by droughts for much of the last two decades.

Despite Bibi’s best efforts, this “Drip Diplomacy” has yet to yield results at the U.N. For all the traveling and water technology, these countries have so far declined to vote alongside Israel when significant resolutions come up for votes. But as climate change worsens, droughts increase in frequency, and Israel begins to play a much larger role in combating the crises, Netanyahu and his successors may well demand cooperation at the U.N. in exchange for continued cooperation. If Israel becomes one of Africa and Latin America’s most important international benefactors via their assistance in modernizing these nations’ water infrastructure and agricultural technology, several years from now it shouldn’t shock us when Liberia, Ethiopia, or Colombia all of a sudden have something to say about Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

However regardless of if Drip Diplomacy succeeds, the strategy says something about how Netanyahu views Israel’s status on the world stage. Since the advent of the U.N., the U.S has been able to wield its military and economic strength to coax and cajole allies into voting the way it wants them to at the U.N. The capability to do so however is unique to superpowers like the U.S. Even Beijing and Moscow don’t possess nearly the international influence that Washington does. Bibi’s continuing gamble to reject the U.N.’s reprimands and instead attempt to use Israeli technological power to change the votes of certain countries demonstrates his unwavering belief in Israel’s future as a global leader. Israel may be the size of New Jersey, but Bibi is betting that its influence can be just as large as that of the whole United States.

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, s.v. “List of International Prime Ministerial Trips Made by Benjamin Netanyahu,” (accessed December 3), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_prime_ministerial_trips_made_by_Benjamin_Netanyahu
Eric Cortellessa, “Choosing not to veto, Obama lets anti-settlement resolution pass at UN Security Council,” The Times of Israel, Published December 23, 2016. https://www.timesofisrael.com/choosing-not-to-veto-obama-lets-anti-settlement-resolution-pass-at-un-security-council/
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, s.v. “List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel,” (accessed December 3), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
Alexander Fulbright and Raphael Ahren, “PM heads to West African summit seeking support at UN,” The Times of Israel, Published June 4, 2017. http://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-heads-to-west-african-summit-seeking-support-at-un/
Charles Parton, “China’s acute water shortage imperils economic future,” Financial Times, Published February 27, 2018. https://www.ft.com/content/3ee05452-1801-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44
Xan Rice, “Severe drought causes hunger for 10 million in west Africa,” The Guardian, Published June 3, 2010. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/03/drought-hunger-west-africa
BBC News, “Horn of Africa tested by severe drought,” BBC, Published July 4, 2011. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14023160
Ruth Schuster, “The Secret of Israel’s Water Miracle and How It Can Help a Thirsty World,” Haaretz, Published July 4, 2017. https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/how-israel-can-help-a-thirsty-world-1.5392651
http://www.watergen.com/
Raphael Ahren, “Netanyahu to visit Africa, first Israel PM to do so in 50 years,” The Times of Israel, Published February 29, 2016. https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-to-visit-africa-first-israeli-pm-to-do-so-in-50-years/
Joaquin M. Sendolo, “Israel Celebrates 70th Anniversary, Underscores Relations with Liberia,” Liberian Observer, Published April 30, 2018. https://www.liberianobserver.com/news/israel-celebrates-70th-anniversary-underscores-relations-with-liberia/
Ora Coran, “Netanyahu’s China Visit is All About Business,” Haaretz, Published March 20, 2017. https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-netanyahus-china-visit-is-all-about-business-1.5450835
Sahisna Suwal, “Water in Crisis – Vietnam,” The Water Project, https://thewaterproject.org/water-crisis/water-in-crisis-vietnam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Vietnam_relations
Eytan Halon, “Hanoi to Benefit from innovative Israeli Air-to-Water Technology,” The Jerusalem Post, Published November 8, 2018. https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Hanoi-to-benefit-from-innovative-Israeli-air-to-water-technology-571377
Rose Lander, “Colombia suffering worst drought in recorded history,” Colombia Reports, Published September 22, 2015. https://colombiareports.com/colombia-suffering-worst-drought-in-recorded-history/
Vladimir Hernandez, “Paraguay declares state of emergency as drought shrinks economy,” BBC, Published February 26, 2012. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-17171858/paraguay-declares-state-of-emergency-as-drought-shrinks-economy
Noe Torres, “Mexican farmers suffer worst drought in 70 years,” Reuters, Published November 25, 2011. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-drought/mexican-farmers-suffer-worst-drought-in-70-years-idUSTRE7AO18Q20111126

April 25, 2019 0 comment

Uncategorized

Fights for Funding, Brexit Bedlam, & a Revanchist Russia

written by Zach Emanuel

In his commencement address to the 2016 graduating class at Howard University in Washington, D.C, then-President Obama declared that, “Democracy requires compromise, even when you are 100 percent right.” Few would dispute Obama’s observation, and yet, over the last two months, two of the world’s oldest and most stable democracies—the United States and United Kingdom—appear as if they have forgotten this is the case, and thus may be losing their ability to function effectively like the democratic states they are. The U.S. has been unable to keep its government open for more than a few weeks at a time, while Britain remains mired in a months-long controversy over how—or if—they should leave the European Union. Lawmakers in both Washington and London appear unable to find solutions with their respective oppositions in order to avert political chaos. Yet one individual who never lost sight of the necessity of compromise in democratic politics, and must be reveling in Moscow as the institutions of his adversaries crumble, is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

It was precisely this goal of fomenting chaos that Russia sought when it interfered in both British and American politics in 2016 via the Brexit referendum and the American presidential election. Britain’s Parliamentary Committee on Culture, Media, and Sport found Russian meddling in the June 2016 Brexit referendum via Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms to be for “the purpose of undermining public confidence and of destabilizing democratic states.” Similarly, Moscow’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was, as former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute Clint Watts described, done with the intention to “undermine democracy, [and] to make Americans lose confidence in democratic institutions and elected officials”. Russia’s means to achieve this was the use of social media ads that highlighted differences in societal makeup such as race, religion, and ethnicity. According to Watts, Russia’s tactic, both in the U.S. and abroad, was to turn “every crack…into a chasm and [to pit] different race, ethnic groups [and] socioeconomic groups” against each other. When political disagreements turn to ideological chasms, compromise becomes impossible, and, as Obama warned, democracy begins to fail.

The fight between a Democratic House and Republican president to keep the U.S. federal government running and the disagreements between hardline Brexiteers and pro-European Union internationalists over the future of Britain are increasingly illustrative of exactly what Russia intended for its democratic adversaries, and are already showing their threatening impact on both national harmony and even national security. On December 22, 2018, the U.S. Federal Government shutdown when President Donald Trump and the U.S. Congress were unable to reach a deal to fund the government. The shutdown stemmed from a standoff over Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion to fund a border wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, which the newly sworn in Democratic majority in the House of Representatives refused. This resulted in the the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. Roughly 380,000 federal employees were furloughed, while an additional 420,000 were expected to work without pay until the shutdown ended. Many of these workers held essential positions as Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspectors, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees, Coast Guard members, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air-traffic controllers.

The effects have been chaotic. Tom O’Connor, a special agent with the FBI told The Atlantic in early-January that the financial insecurities that faced the FBI, “equate[d] to a national-security issue.” With close to 5,000 agents furloughed, investigations and undercover operations were threatened, while the labs at the FBI headquarters in Quantico, which provide forensic-analysis to support those investigations, face a mounting backlog as those who operate them were forbidden from showing up for work. Additionally, FBI agents have lost access to undercover sources due to a lack of funds. One anonymous agent said that his unit had “lost several sources who have worked for months, and years, to penetrate groups and target subjects” because the Bureau cannot currently pay them.

Members of the U.S. Coast Guard, tasked with patrolling American waters and protecting U.S. ports of entry, were forced to work without pay. FAA employees, who ensure safety in the sky, began handing out leaflets describing their inability “mandate safety fixes in aircrafts” and the delay of the “implementations of new safety procedures”. The FDA halted food inspections. A superpower like the United States can’t be expected to compete with Russia on the world stage, let alone guard against international threats like Moscow when the very institutions that do so, the FBI and military, have to slow their operations, if not halt them entirely. Putin would love a weakened FBI and American military, and Washington is handing it to him.

It has not just been U.S. safety and security services affected by the shutdown. After the government reopened, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the shutdown cost the U.S. economy $11 billion. Formerly bipartisan traditions, such as the State of the Union address and governmental support for American troops abroad, were stunted after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi requested President Trump postpone the address during the shutdown. The President retaliated by cancelling Pelosi’s trip to visit troops in Afghanistan.

Even before these current crises, a December 2016 poll found only 30 percent of American millennials find it “essential” to live in a democracy, showing the calamity the U.S. faces. With the government’s current inability to compromise in pursuit of safety within its borders, along its coasts, or in its food, the latest shutdown is unlikely to improve an already bleak faith in American democracy and its institutions.

Across the Atlantic, democracy faces similar paralysis. The deadline for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union looms on March 29th. Prime Minister May has been working to negotiate a deal for the U.K.’s departure with both EU representatives and the British Parliament. Although the EU approved May’s plan for withdrawal in early December, May chose shortly after to delay the parliamentary vote on the deal for fear that it would be rejected.

The result was a rebellion within her Conservative Party, with hardline Brexit supporters seeking to oust her via a party-wide no-confidence vote, a rare move in British politics. May was able to survive the vote and brought her Brexit deal to a parliamentary vote a month later on January 15. Nevertheless, it was thoroughly rejected by a margin of 432 to 202, the largest defeat handed to a Prime Minister in modern British history. Shortly after, with no deal in sight, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn brought a Parliament-wide no-confidence vote against May, and yet she again skirted to victory by a slim 19-vote margin.

The Brexit deadline is less than nine weeks away with no deal in sight and no apparent change in government imminent. May announced her plan last week to return to Brussels to seek further concessions for a deal, but the EU is unlikely to budge. Other options include seeking a delay for Britain’s exit date or holding a second referendum, but both ventures seem unlikely to prosper.

If a deal is not reached before the March 29th deadline, it is very likely that Britain will be forced into a “no-deal Brexit”. Rather than maintaining certain economic and trading ties with the EU, as May has been trying to do, London’s relationship with Brussels will be severely damaged and the results potentially devastating. Economically it could be catastrophic. Many economists have said that a “no-deal Brexit” would be a “doomsday” scenario with Britain having to erect World Trade Organization trade rules at its borders. An International Monetary Fund projection said close to eight percent of Britain’s gross domestic product could be lost. British companies, with a variety of products ranging from wine to bicycles, have been stockpiling goods over fear that they may not be able to import them as quickly or as cheaply in the case of a “no-deal Brexit”. Britain’s National Health Service has stockpiled refrigerators as part of its contingency planning to ensure that imported drugs from Europe don’t go bad before they can reach their patients. Britain has even rehearsed a “traffic jam” scenario with trucks at some of its ports, to see how to handle the flow of goods coming into the country in the event of a British border closure. May appears now to have no good options. Like the country itself, her party is hopelessly divided between those who want out of the EU entirely and those who want to remain. No compromise or concessions appear imminent.

The current state of the U.S. and Britain, two of the world’s most powerful countries, is not what first-world democracy should look like. FBI agents unable to conduct their operations properly, planes unable to takeoff or land safely, ports and coastlines not protected adequately, and food not subject to the necessary scrutiny. Britons facing an economic “doomsday,” companies having to stockpile goods, and the NHS having to buy thousands of fridges in the event that they cannot import drugs fast enough. Meanwhile, citizens of two of the world’s wealthiest and powerful democracies must be looking on in disbelief.

The question now for the U.S. and Britain however is not if these two great nations are on a path headed towards disarray, but rather how far down it they are. While Brexit and the shutdown may seem to be unique and hence will go away soon enough, the root of the cause is that at present the right and the left in the West remain utterly and irreconcilably divided, and unlike Trump or Brexit, this situation is not going anywhere.

This is exactly what Russia wants: Americans and Britons exasperated at their governments’ sheer ineptitude. When Putin directed his intelligence operatives to intervene before the Brexit vote in the U.K and the 2016 Presidential election in the U.S, his goal was to undermine democratic institutions by stoking fierce division amongst their respective populaces. In a democracy, when people are sharply divided, the institutions of government cease to problem-solve effectively. The ideological gap becomes too distant to bridge through compromise, and passing legislation that the people want—the fundamental underpinning of a democratic country—becomes impossible. That said, Putin did not create this ideological divide, he simply exploited it. While it is worthwhile for the U.S. and U.K. to respond forcefully to Russian aggression, the real demons at fault for the chaos now engulfing Western democracy are internal, not external. Washington and London should deter Moscow to help quell their respective problems. But in the long run, it may require that they look inside their borders, not outside, to truly solve them.

February 4, 2019 0 comment

Cartoon Donald Trump Featured Geopolitics Human Rights Populism Russia United States Vladimir Putin

Conservatives and the Kremlin: An Emerging Alliance

written by Zach Emanuel

This past summer while leading a Congressional delegation to Moscow, Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama proclaimed in a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that the United States and Russia “don’t necessarily need to be adversaries” and that “the world is better off…if Russia and the U.S. have fewer tensions.” While it is tough to disagree with Shelby, such statements are often expected from the perpetrators of cyber-warfare and election interference, not the victims.

Among fellow Republicans, Shelby is not alone in his conciliatory and even flattering tone towards our former Cold War enemy. Vice President Mike Pence said that it was “inarguable” that Russian President Vladimir Putin “has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country.” Likewise, President Donald Trump has gone from calling Putin a “strong leader” and “very smart” to asking “wouldn’t it be nice if we actually got along with Russia”.

Ronald Reagan would recoil and reject his fellow Republicans’ words. In 1983, Reagan declared the Soviet Union to be an “evil empire” and “the focus of evil in the modern world.” Indeed, these recent statements are a far cry from the hawkish tone Republican leaders used under Reagan. They also differ tremendously from the way Republicans spoke about Russia just a few years ago when Barack Obama still occupied the Oval Office, such as when 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney famously called Russia our “number one geopolitical foe.”

To what can we attribute this sudden, yet strong change of perspective within the GOP leadership?

It might be that former Russia hawks who have reversed their positions have done so out of political necessity. In just four years, the percentage of Republicans who consider Russia an ally has nearly doubled to 40 percent, while just 10 percent now consider Russia the greatest immediate threat to the United States. Russia, like Trump, is popular with the GOP base and Senators, like Shelby, want to keep their jobs.

But if politics can answer the question of why Republican elected officials have changed their minds on Russia, then what can possibly explain the Republican base’s change of heart?

Surprisingly, the Republican base’s pivot towards Moscow began well before Trump entered the political arena, let alone the Oval Office. In August of 2013, Matt Drudge, the conservative pundit and founder of the right-wing Drudge Report, called Putin the “leader of the free world.” Later that year, Pat Buchanan, the same Pat Buchanan who was a senior advisor to both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, penned a column defending both Putin’s leadership and conservative record. And in 2014, evangelist Franklin Graham, long a prominent face on the religious right along with his father, Billy Graham, defended Putin on a host of issues ranging from LGBT rights to military engagement in Syria. What gives?

While Buchanan and Graham’s respective defenses of Putin have been tied to his crackdown on gay rights in Russia, the right-wing obsession with Russia extends beyond “homosexual marriage,” (Buchanan’s words) and into the broader culture war taking place in the U.S. and across the Western world. On issues such as racial diversity and multiculturalism, immigration, LGBT rights, and abortion, the left and right in America and in Europe are increasingly divided.

Where does Putin stand on multiculturalism, gay rights, abortion rights, and immigration? Firmly in the conservative camp.

When it comes to racial diversity and immigration, Russia represents a Trump-Republican’s dream. While whites in the U.S make up 61% of the population, in the next 20 to 25 years, the U.S will become a majority-minority nation. Russia’s population on the other hand is still over 82% white– and not shrinking. And there is no immigration to Russia. As of January of 2018, Russia has granted only one Syrian national refugee status since the Syrian Civil War broke out in 2011. To quote HBO’s “Real Time” host Bill Maher, “Russia is a honky oasis and Republicans love it.”

Putin’s record on gay and abortion rights is similar. In advance of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia famously passed a law banning “the propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations,” and threatening stiff penalties for those who “promote homosexuality to anyone under 18.” Same-sex couples in Russia are ineligible for a number of legal protections available to heterosexual couples and there are no laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Finally, in the Russia republic of Chechnya in 2017, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov was accused of rounding up and detaining over 100 men suspected of being gay, three of whom were killed. In the aftermath Kadyrov denied the claims and Putin appeared to back him up.

Restrictions on abortion are similarly harsh. In 2011, the Russian Parliament passed a law banning abortions after the twelfth week of pregnancy and instituted a mandatory waiting period of two to seven days to allow the woman to “reconsider her decision.” Moreover, the law mandates that abortion providers devote “10 percent of any advertising to describing the dangers of abortion to a woman’s health” while making it illegal to “describe abortion as a safe medical procedure.”

With bans on public expressions of homosexuality and restrictive abortion laws, its no wonder Christian conservatives in the United States like Franklin Graham and Mike Pence find Vladimir Putin to be a strong and admirable leader. Many Republican voters overlooked Trump’s anti-democratic tendencies when voting for him in 2016 simply so they could finally overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s not a leap to say that those same Republicans could overlook Putin’s despotism for similar reasons.

The Republican base no longer views Russia as an “evil empire” but rather as the “leader of the free world” because the battle lines dividing our world are no longer ideological, but cultural. Communists and dictators are no longer the enemy, liberals are.

The consequences of viewing the world through a cultural lens rather than an ideological one are nothing short of profound. If the features that unite people with one another are their race or policies on abortion and gay marriage rather than their commitment to American values, then it’s no wonder Republicans view Russia, rather than Democrats, as a more natural ally.

At the summit meeting between Russia and the United States in Helsinki this past July, President Trump was asked whether or not he believed America’s intelligence agencies or Vladimir Putin when it came to Russian meddling in the 2016 election. He sided with Putin. While even GOP leaders chastised Trump for his comment and came to the defense of the FBI and CIA, his decision to believe and defend the Russians over fellow Americans is a sign of what’s to come if cultural values continue to supersede democratic ones. To avoid this fate, Americans must again find a way to replace partisanship with patriotism, and commitment to our causes with a commitment to our country.

October 23, 2018 0 comment

Source

Featured Journalism

A Budding Bipartisan Consensus on the Liberal World Order

written by Zach Emanuel

On June 26th, Democratic Representative Joe Crowley of New York was defeated in a primary challenge from the left by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a twenty-eight-year-old former organizer for Senator Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential run and member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Ocasio-Cortez’s victory shocked many as Crowley, the powerful chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, had been named as a potential replacement for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and led in several polls in the weeks leading up to election day. Yet despite the upset, Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez said Ocasio-Cortez “represents the future of our party;” and based on her support amongst younger voters, he would seem to be correct.
In addition to running on a progressive platform similar to that of Senator Sanders in 2016, Ocasio-Cortez’s policy positions are indicative of a larger trend within the Democratic Party. Over the last eighteen months, Democrats have begun pivoting to the left of their Obama-Era stances as a result of President Donald Trump’s actions in an effort to oppose him as strongly as possible.
Take immigration for instance. President Barack Obama famously deported more people than any of his predecessors and called for tough and secure borders, while simultaneously supporting a path to citizenship and implementing the DACA program, which protected minors who were brought to the U.S illegally from deportation. All of which were at the time moderate. Obama called them, “common sense” solutions. Yet Trump’s rhetoric and actions on immigration, regardless of how disrespectful and inhumane they may be, have caused Ocasio-Cortez to call for the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, and a number of other high-profile Democrats are now doing the same. The policy represents a strong shift to the left from Obama’s positions. Thanks to Trump, Democrats who used to back Obama’s “common sense” immigration reform and strong border security measures would be hard pressed to utter any sort of support for them now.
The same is happening in healthcare. Before Trump, Democrats supported working to improve the flaws within the Affordable Care Act. Regardless of what many in the Republican Party may say, President Obama’s signature legislative achievement was both a moderate plan and a compromise solution to one of the nation’s toughest and most divisive issues. However Trump’s efforts to strip Americans of their health insurance and wreck the Obamacare market through repeal of the individual mandate have led rising Democratic stars such as Ocasio-Cortez to instead call for a more radical Medicare for All plan. Again, due to Trump, attempting to fix the flaws in Obamacare is seen as outdated while support for a Single Payer system has now become a litmus test for Democratic presidential hopefuls in 2020.
Across many issues, the pattern remains. Democrats under Obama supported moderate policies and positions. Along comes Trump, and Democrats move to the left to oppose him as strongly as possible. Ocasio-Cortez and her campaign platform embody this trend, and now it “represents the future of [the] party.”
Yet when it comes to foreign policy and support for the U.S-led liberal, international order, the pattern stops. On domestic policy, Ocasio-Cortez’s platform is filled with aggressive stances opposing Trump, and yet there is no mention of his tariffs jeopardizing the global network of free trade, no position on Russian election interference constituting a threat to American democracy and democracy worldwide, and no reference to Trump’s rhetoric and actions against NATO threatening the Western-democratic alliance. What explains the dichotomy?
Given the lack of criticism Trump has received from Ocasio-Cortez for his actions, it has become clear that the far left is willing to go along with the President in renouncing America’s role as the world’s leading economic, democratic, and military power. For instance, Ocasio-Cortez’s lack of opposition to Trump’s tariffs and potential instigation of a global trade war can be explained because, like Trump, progressives have their own issues with free trade. President Obama championed trade deals through pursuit of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the U.S-Korea Free Trade Agreement. In contrast, Bernie Sanders said in 2015 that agreements like these “have been a disaster for the American worker,” because “corporations that shut down here move abroad.” Later in a Democratic primary debate, Sanders even touted his “being on the picket line in opposition to NAFTA” in the 1990s. And Sanders is not alone. A number of left-leaning economists such as J.W Mason and Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Policy and Economic Research, have also spoken out strongly against the benefits of free trade. Therefore, Ocasio-Cortez’s lack of criticism towards- and agreement with- the President’s trade policy is actually in line with her fellow progressives. What’s notable is that just as Trump’s victory represented the triumph of protectionism within the GOP, Ocasio-Cortez’s has done the same for Democrats.
Second, similar to her silence on trade, there is not a word in Ocasio-Cortez’s platform, criticizing Russia’s efforts to sway the result of the 2016 Presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. Likewise, I have yet to hear her denounce President Trump’s denials of what unquestionably constitutes a foreign threat to the strength of American democracy, or comment on how the President’s partisan attacks against the Justice Department, FBI, and the media over investigating those threats are eroding public faith in American institutions. Moreover, Bernie Sanders– for all his vocal support and outspoken appeals for progressive policies–has not really spoken strongly either about the dangers Russian meddling poses to democracy worldwide. Why is that?
I suspect it stems from the fact that many on the far left have long seen American democracy and its institutions as intensely flawed, and therefore don’t view them with much essential value. If the American political system was not valuable to progressives to begin with, then attacks by foreign adversaries against it are not perceived of as being particularly threatening. Similarly, if the U.S can’t reasonably claim to represent democratic ideals, then it has no moral right to tout democracy around the world. Though conservatives always questioned whether or not President Obama “loved America,” he never failed to speak glowingly about the country and its political system, saying “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being,” and “in no other country is my story even possible.” Certainly those statements illustrate a belief in a system worth protecting from foreign threats. Yet as Peter Beinart noted in The Atlantic on July 4th, it is hard to imagine Ocasio-Cortez, or any progressive of her caliber for that matter, saying something similar. Thus, unlike Trump’s immigration policy, his passivity regarding defense of democracy and actions in assistance of its demise have failed to provoke Ocasio-Cortez and others on the far left to speak out.
When President Woodrow Wilson announced America’s entrance into World War I with the intention of making “the world safe for democracy,” he became the first U.S. President to articulate a belief in defending the American system of government both at home and abroad. Trump’s victory however symbolized the end of a Republican Party that cared about Wilson’s conviction of protecting American ideals and institutions in the face of foreign threats. Apparently this view now constitutes “the future” of the Democratic Party as well.
Third, Ocasio-Cortez’s platform lacked criticism of Trump’s dismissal and undermining of American multilateral military alliances such as NATO. Additionally, she has not discussed in any of her post-Election Day interviews the effect those actions have had on weakening and eroding the U.S.-led liberal order that every post-War President, including Barack Obama, has strongly supported. On the campaign trail Trump consistently complained about NATO, lamenting the fact that our European allies weren’t paying their fair share towards their defense and that the distribution of costs was “unfair, economically, to us.” Just this past week in advance of the NATO summit in Brussels, the President levied criticism at German Chancellor Angela Merkel, claiming Germany free rides off U.S security guarantees and threatening to pull back the 35,000 U.S troops deployed to Germany. Such actions are indicative of Trump’s belief that America is getting a raw deal when it comes to NATO and that the U.S would be better off avoiding the international entanglements and obligations that come with the alliance.
When it comes to scaling back U.S military commitments abroad, progressives like Ocasio-Cortez often agree with Trump. Bernie Sanders has long sought to cut American defense spending and once criticized President Obama’s plan to combat ISIS for not encouraging Middle Eastern states to “step up their military efforts and take more responsibility for the security and stability of their regions,” a statement with echoes of Trump’s rhetoric towards Europe. To quote Reihan Salam, the executive editor at the National Review, Ocasio-Cortez is actually “keeping with the fact that many on the hard left have their own objections to the status quo in U.S foreign policy.” Whether it be military interventions or alliances, progressives aren’t shy about their belief that the U.S should take a less activist role. So just as Trump has cowed the GOP into reversing and renouncing its history of support for multilateral agreements and mutual defense, if Ocasio-Cortez’s politics truly constitute the future, then the Democratic Party will soon do the same.
In 1947 when Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Arthur Vandenberg declared that partisan politics should stop “at the water’s edge,” he solidified a bipartisan consensus behind Democratic President Harry Truman’s proposals to drag the U.S from its isolationist past towards an internationalist future. However President Trump’s takeover and transformation of the GOP into an inward-looking party hostile to globalization has threatened the strength of this internationalist consensus. Moreover, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the likely soon-to-be Democratic-Socialist Congresswoman from New York, who openly and proudly opposes Trump on domestic issues, has yet to criticize the President and GOP for this radical shift. If the Republicans are the party of Trump and Ocasio-Cortez is the Democrats’ future, then there may yet be a bipartisan consensus on foreign affairs. It just isn’t the one Truman and Vandenberg had in mind.
The belief that the U.S should abdicate its world leadership arises for different reasons on the Trumpian Right and the Progressive Left. While Trump believes America is better off when it doesn’t concern itself with the interests of the rest of the world, progressives believe the world is better off when America doesn’t. Both positions however are intensely flawed. There is widespread agreement amongst economists on the benefits of free trade for all parties involved. American democracy, imperfect as it may be, is a stronger force for good in the world than Russian or Chinese autocracy. And without military alliances to defend Western liberalism from Moscow and Beijing, there is no way to guarantee its survival. Hopefully one of America’s two parties will recognize this reality before it’s too late.

July 22, 2018 0 comment

Donald Trump Featured Geopolitics Middle East Nuclear Deterrence Security United States

The Art of “No Deal”

written by Zach Emanuel

After many months of debate within the executive branch, on May 8th, 2018 President Donald Trump formally withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. The agreement, more commonly referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal was reached in 2015 and later signed onto by Iran, the U.S, China, Russia, France, the U.K, and Germany. The intent was to limit the advancement of Iranian nuclear capabilities. The deal mandated that Iran reduce its uranium-enrichment activities for the next fifteen years and agree to increased inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure compliance with the agreement. Assuming Iranian cooperation, the other parties agreed in exchange to terminate the United Nations Security Council’s economic sanctions against Iran for its past nuclear activities, freeing up billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets, and to provide Iran with economic relief. While much has been made of the deal’s shortcomings, the overwhelming consensus is that the agreement is the best option available for avoiding either a nuclear arms race in the Middle East or another American-led war in the region.

Yet despite the consensus, Trump has long railed against the deal as a poor choice on the part of his predecessor, President Barack Obama, calling the agreement “an embarrassment” and “the worst [deal] the U.S ever entered into”. In both his speech withdrawing the U.S from the agreement and his campaign rallies before that, Trump justified and encouraged America’s exit from the agreement on the basis of three points. First, the President claims that the deal does little to limit Iran’s access to a nuclear weapon. Second, he maintains that it encourages Iranian meddling in the Middle East, such as support for the Assad regime in Syria and Houthi rebels in Yemen, threatening the region’s stability as well as U.S and Israeli national security. Third and finally, President Trump claims that withdrawing would demonstrate a renewed sense of American strength and leadership to the world, as it shows that the U.S will not be cowed into compromise. Unfortunately for Trump, the U.S, and the rest of the world, he is wrong on all three fronts. In fact, on each point, Trump’s decision to leave the JCPOA will have the opposite effect than the one he claims.

At the beginning of his speech announcing America’s intent to withdraw, Trump justified his decision by saying that if the deal were not to be altered or adjusted, then “in just a short period of time, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapon.” Contrary to his claim, this assessment is false. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst government officials and nuclear experts that the current deal is, and remains, the best available option to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities. According to a poll of international relations experts conducted by the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) organization, an astonishing 94% of international relations scholars agree that remaining in the deal is the U.S’s best chance of limiting Iran’s access to a nuclear weapon. Jeffrey Lewis, for instance, the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, has said that pulling out of the deal will actually allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons faster, a sentiment often echoed by President Obama. Kingston Reif, the director of Disarmament and Threat Reduction Policy for the Arms Control Association agrees, saying that the move will actually “[increase] the risk of an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program.” Additionally, General Joseph Dunford Jr., Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, has maintained that the deal “has delayed the development of a nuclear capability by Iran.” Moreover, despite a barrage of criticism leveled at the deal by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who recently accused Iran of cheating on its commitments, Israeli Defense Forces Chief-of-Staff Gadi Eisenkot has noted that Iran has yet to violate the deal and that the agreement, so far, “is working…putting off realization of the Iranian nuclear vision by 10 to 15 years.”

Even many officials within Trump’s inner circle have argued on behalf of the constraints the deal places on Iran’s nuclear activities. Dan Coats, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, said in May 2017 that the JCPOA has “enhanced the transparency of Iran’s nuclear activities” and “extended the amount of time Iran would need to produce…a nuclear weapon.” Defense Secretary James Mattis has also advocated for remaining in the deal, calling the inspections the deal requires “pretty robust” and the text written “almost with an assumption that Iran would try to cheat.” Finally, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also disagreed with his former boss on the deal, and lobbied hard for the U.S not to renege on its commitment. Thus, despite Trump’s constant stream of claims that the deal assists Tehran in its quest for a bomb, scholars, military officials, and even members of Trump’s administration believe that leaving the deal will actually result in a stronger Iranian nuclear capability.

The second argument Trump made to justify America’s exit from the Iran Deal was that remaining in the agreement would cause a “nuclear-arms race in the Middle East,” and would allow Iran to continue its “destabilizing” and “menacing activities” in the region and across the world. These assertions too are false. Mark Fitzpatrick, the former U.S Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for nonproliferation has said that allowing Iran’s nuclear program to proceed without the limits and transparency the deal creates actually increases the potential of an arms race in the Middle East. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson concurred. Appearing on Fox News just days before Trump’s announcement, the former London mayor warned that pulling out of the deal would cause “an arms race in the Middle East…the Saudis wanting [a nuclear weapon], the Egyptians wanting one, the Emiratis [wanting one].” Thus, contrary to Trump’s claims, a Middle Eastern arms race is now much likelier following America’s exit from the agreement.

Moreover, the U.S’s best bet to deal with Tehran’s “destabilizing” and “menacing” activities in the Middle East is to empower moderate factions within Iran, including the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani who struck the deal back in 2015. This will have the additional effect of bolstering American and Israeli national security. Elected on a promise to spur the economy, Rouhani and his Moderation and Development Party’s gamble was that an end to the U.N sanctions and the subsequent growth that ensued would be enough to convince ordinary Iranians of the deal’s merits and his decision to engage with the West. Therefore, the U.S’s exit and its choice to reinstate sanctions discredits Rouhani and the moderates while empowering the religious and political hard-liners who have been actively attacking the agreement. In the words of one Iranian diplomat, having lost the support of the people Rouhani is now operating essentially as a “lame-duck” president. These hardline factions will destabilize the Middle East– through ramped up Iranian intervention in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen– and threaten American and Israeli national security more than Rouhani will. The effects of this can already be seen with the recent missile exchanges between Israeli forces and Iranian militias along the Syrian-Israeli border; the first time Iranian forces have fired directly on Israeli soldiers. As the Washington Post reported on May 10th, America’s exit from the agreement gives Tehran “less to lose by retaliating” against Israel and has “served to embolden hard-liners…who want to show strength.” Iranian missile launches against Israel are both destabilizing, menacing, and a threat to the national security of the U.S and its Middle Eastern allies. Therefore, despite Trump’s supposed desire to bring “peace and stability” to the Middle East, pulling out of the deal has already, brought about the exact opposite and will likely continue to do so.

The third and final justification Trump gave to defend his decision to leave the JCPOA was demonstrating a renewed sense of American strength and leadership to both Iran and the rest of the world. In his speech Trump said, “America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail,” that “we will not allow American cities to be threatened with destruction,” and that the U.S “no longer make[s] empty threats.” In Trump’s eyes, refusing to compromise shows strength and acting unilaterally, and independently from our allies, constitutes leadership. Unfortunately for the United States and the rest of the world, the President’s understanding of what makes America strong is flawed. Since the end of World War II every President- Republican and Democrat- has supported the international-liberal order in which American-led multilateral action has been the response to international crises. This belief that the U.S, given its overwhelming economic and military might, has a unique responsibility to lead on global issues has not only guided American foreign policy for the last 70 years but has been of tremendous benefit to the world. Trump’s choice to pull the United States out of the Iran deal, and his previous decisions to do the same with both the Paris climate agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free-trade deal, demonstrate an end to this consensus. While the President may believe that pulling out of these agreements show strength, breaking promises, cheating commitments, and acting without regard for any country but our own are hardly traits indicative of a strong, consistent, reliable nation, nor ones that other nations are likely to look for in a leader.

Furthermore, while Trump may believe that leadership is demonstrated by independent action, such an understanding is only valid when there is actual action being taken. Despite references to a better deal, there is no strategy within either the administration or the State Department on how the U.S plans to improve on it. Taking an axe to international agreements with no concrete movement towards correcting the flaws that inevitably arise from negotiation does not constitute leadership. On the contrary, it simply shows laziness.

If Trump was truly committed to limiting Iranian nuclear capability, a peaceful and stabilized Middle East, and American strength and leadership, he would proudly keep the United States in the Iran deal. It is to the detriment of both the U.S and the world that his decision to pull out of the agreement will likely contribute to the loss of all three.

May 16, 2018 0 comment

Donald Trump Featured Geopolitics Middle East Security and Conflict United States

Broader Regional Implications of Trump’s Jerusalem Embassy Move

written by Zach Emanuel

In one of the more contentious decisions in a presidency already packed with controversy, President Trump’s announcement in December of 2017 to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the U.S Embassy there remains one of the more diplomatically significant choices he has made so far. Yet not for the reasons most would think. While many express fear over disrupting the potential for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it is rather America’s broader goals in the Middle East that are threatened by the decision.

Despite near-unanimous passage of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 mandating the move of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Trump’s predecessors have continuously delayed the decision citing fears of disrupting peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Unsurprisingly, in the wake of Trump’s precedent-breaking announcement, similar concerns were raised. The New York Times called the move “destabilizing,” saying that it “would make achieving peace even more difficult.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson echoed that concern by claiming that recognition would further disrupt peace talks. Moreover, other allies and editorials alike expressed fear that the decision would jeopardize American credibility as an honest peace broker between the two parties.

Although these desires for peace- and therefore the concerns about endangering its success- are genuine, the fear that recognition of Jerusalem’s status will be the decision that triggers a breakdown in the peace process are naïve. Rather, negotiations are at a standstill and have been for years. Ever since the 2000 Camp David Summit between President Bill Clinton, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat ended without an agreement, there has been little to no meaningful discussion of peace between the parties. Trump’s decision will do little to change that. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas have rarely met during their lengthy tenures and the leaders never developed a framework for furthering the peace process. Negotiators on both sides, such as former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and former Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, have said the peace process is “ended” and “dead”. As Israeli society continues to move to the right and the last bastion of Palestinian officials involved in genuine peace talks have aged, both sides seem to be losing the political will to make the necessary sacrifices for peace. As both peoples are increasingly tolerant of the deadliness of the status quo, peace is becoming impossible.

Thus, while recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital will have little impact on an already moribund peace process, America’s broader goals in the Middle East are seriously threatened by the decision, specifically the U.S’s objective of building a Sunni Muslim alliance to confront an budding Iranian menace. With a centuries-old religious rivalry between the two main Muslim denominations– Sunnis and Shi’ites– construction of a Sunni alliance to limit Shi’a-led Iran’s power would seem to appeal to the region’s majority-Sunni states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. In the eyes of the State Department, such an alliance would ideally be led by these nations, with the goal of luring other Middle Eastern states such as Qatar, Oman, and majority-Shi’a Iraq away from Iran’s grip. The objective would be to construct a military, economic, and diplomatic coalition that isolates the Iranians by locking them out of the region’s affairs, and in the process, effectively reduces their regional power and influence.

The goal of a Sunni bloc to confront Iran is an admirable one on the part of the U.S given Tehran’s growing influence in the Middle East over the last two decades. Prior to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Tehran’s sole ally in the region was fellow Shi’ite Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite government in Syria. Yet after the invasion, dominoes began to fall in Iran’s favor. The first was the election of a Shi’ite-led government in Iraq in 2006 following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, once an Iranian adversary. Additionally, the political power of Hezbollah- the influential and militantly anti-Israel political party- and its Shi’a allies in Lebanon has grown since the 2008 Doha Agreement granted the Iranian-proxy veto power in the Lebanese national legislature. These two changes, while seemingly small, have left Iran with a crescent of control from Tehran, through Baghdad and Damascus, to the Mediterranean.

Furthermore, relations have warmed between the Iranians and several Sunni states as well. In April of 2017, joint-military exercises were conducted between Iran and Oman, an American and Saudi ally. Likewise, Qatar has signaled intentions to increase ties with Tehran following a falling out with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies due to its support for Islamist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Qataris announced in August of 2017 that they would be returning an ambassador to Tehran while also expressing interest in improving bilateral ties. Therefore, as Iran’s diplomatic power in the region has grown, U.S officials increasingly view a Sunni coalition as essential to curbing Tehran’s influence and protecting American allies and regional interests.

Yet as the U.S. pulls its military and economic resources from the Middle East, it is clear that many of these nations see more opportunity in aligning themselves with a regional player who’s power and influence seem to be growing– such as Iran– as opposed to waning. Additionally, the religious citizenry that makes up a vast majority of the Sunni states will undoubtedly question allying with the outwardly pro-Israel Americans to confront a fellow Muslim state.

Thus, even as construction of an alliance is already tenuous, Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem will only serve to make a difficult job more challenging. As both The Washington Post and The New York Times noted, the embassy move dealt a blow to the U.S’s credibility of being a fair mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as it outwardly showed America’s bias in the negotiations. This bias will not be lost on the Sunni allies that Trump seeks to persuade to join him in confronting Iran. For the Saudis and Emiratis, among others, actively associating and cooperating with the Americans to work against a Muslim nation is already politically risky. Doing so in the wake of American recognition of the third holiest city for Muslims as Jewish in nature however, will not only prove to be an even tougher case to sell to their respective populaces, but also damaging to their credibility within the anti-Israel Arab world.

Additionally, a country such as Qatar, whose support is crucial for any anti-Iran coalition, will be harder pressed to align with the Americans following the Jerusalem decision. Given Qatari aversion to Israel’s very existence and its financial support for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah which openly seek the state’s destruction, the embassy move will only hinder American attempts to win Qatar’s support. Similarly, Iraq– another nation whose backing is critical– will be further discouraged from supporting any coalition as well. Having to maintain support from a majority Shi’a population, Iraqi President Haider al-Abadi will find few reasons to challenge Iran and ally himself with the Americans as doing so would threaten political credibility with his constituency. On the contrary, abandoning an alliance with the “American imperialists” in favor of aligning with a Muslim country like Iran that strongly supports the Palestinian crusade and is increasing its military and diplomatic role in the region will be a safer bet for countries such as Qatar and Iraq.

If Trump is truly committed to an American-led alliance of Sunni states to lock Iran out of the Middle East, he must provide every incentive for these countries to align themselves with the U.S. Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital however only serves to show where America’s real interests lie, and thus the decision jeopardizes American attempts to gain the support of countries whose backing is essential for the coalition’s success. While U.S officials may debate the consequences of the embassy move on the peace process, Trump’s decision on Jerusalem unquestionably threatens the larger and fundamentally more important American objective in the region. In a Middle East fraught with civil wars, failed states, and shifting power dynamics, a unified stance against Iran is more important than a unified capital in Israel.

April 11, 2018 0 comment

#MeToo Europe Featured United States Women's Rights

#MeToo Movement: A Comparison of French and American Gender Equality and Secularism

written by Zach Emanuel

When film producer Harvey Weinstein was accused by dozens of women last November of sexual assault and predatory behavior, an outpouring of comparable claims and allegations arose against other high-profile men, subsequently launching the #MeToo movement. American social activist Tarana Burke, who is credited with the original hashtag, states that the goal of the movement is to let victims of sexual assault and harassment know that their experiences are not uncommon and thus they should not be shamed into remaining silent about them. After My Name is Earl actress Alyssa Milano tweeted the hashtag, the movement gained popularity and female movie stars such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Uma Thurman, and Viola Davis all expressed sympathy or shared stories of sexual exploitation. Even Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Claire McCaskill of Missouri joined in and tweeted about the movement. Women and men of all backgrounds in America have expressed support.

Conversely, the #MeToo movement has recently experienced backlash from across the Atlantic in France, where a public letter signed by over 100 prominent French women, including actress Catherine Deneuve, have criticized the movement’s “puritanism” and its claim to “promote the liberation and protection of women” when actually “enslave[ing] them to…eternal victim[hood] and reduc[ing] them to defenseless preys.” While criticism from other women, who appear as though they should be natural allies, may shock at first glance, the disagreement over proper sexual norms between French women and their American counterparts comes as no surprise when accounting for the cultural differences regarding sex and gender between the two nations. Given France’s more progressive history of gender equality as well as a proud tradition of secularism amongst its citizens, the more accepting attitude of sexual advances and unwanted intimacy expressed by Deneuve and others is, upon closer inspection, not so unexpected after all. One of the letter’s chief criticisms of #MeToo was that although the movement claims to empower women by shielding them from unwanted sexual advances, by “demand[ing]” protection, its supporters are instead suggesting that women lack the individual agency and ability to speak up for–and defend–themselves without help. This distinction between American supporters and French doubters regarding the rights and abilities of women can be traced to the countries’ differing histories on the subject.

By multiple metrics and measurements, France has achieved higher levels of gender equality than the United States. For instance, the French parliament is currently 38.6% female, with women holding 233 out of a total of 577 seats. In contrast, 21% of U.S Senators and only 19.1% of U.S Representatives are female, with women holding 106 out of 535 total seats. Additionally, while France appointed a female Prime Minister in 1991, the U.S has yet to elect a woman to its highest office, and only in the most recent 2016 election was Hillary Clinton named the first female major party presidential nominee in American history. This seemingly trivial discrepancy among representation in government should not be dismissed out of hand. Women in France may very well feel as if they have more political power because their representation in Parliament is significantly higher and because they have seen women occupy the highest offices of government.

In addition to political representation, women in France also retain a number of cultural and workplace advantages that their American counterparts lack. First, France permits up to four months of paid maternity leave, while the U.S. only allows for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Furthermore, French women are allowed unrestricted access to abortion throughout the first trimester of pregnancy. In contrast, in the U.S., states are allowed to make their own decisions on abortion access so long as the regulations do not cause “undue interference.” This wording has been interpreted broadly and many states have implemented mandatory waiting periods, state-mandated counseling, and numerous other roadblocks to delay and impede access to abortion. Women’s rights have also been one of the central focuses of French President Emmanuel Macron’s campaign and presidency. The French government even pressures the media to refrain from posting sexist or demeaning images of women. Finally, the Global Gender Gap Index which measures gender inequality across economic, political, educational, and health-based criteria ranked France 12th in the world in 2018 while the U.S ranked 49th–between Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

These significant differences in gender equality between France and the U.S. demonstrate two fundamentally unique female experiences which can help explain the backlash to the #MeToo movement expressed by Deneuve and others. In a country where women are nearly equally represented in their government, that has laws and regulations seeking to level the playing-field in the workplace, and that maintains high female educational and economic achievement, women may feel as though there is less of a disparity of power when men make unwanted sexual advances. French women would thus perceive an advance as flirtation between equals and therefore feel as though they have the agency to either continue or put a stop to such actions. In comparison, American women may feel uncomfortable with similar types of advances due to a greater power imbalance between men and women in society. Such imbalance would likely lead to women feeling as though they lack the ability to speak up about how they feel, especially if sexual advances are unwelcome. The French letter’s critique of American women seeking to be “protected” and maintain “eternal” victim status may stem from these cultural divide. Understandably, French women–coming from a culture that consistently affirms their belief of themselves as equals to men–will have a different perspective from their American counterparts, who have grown up under a political, economic, and educational imbalance that undoubtedly seeps into their sexual and romantic lives.

In addition to a demonstrable difference in gender equality between France and the United States, the variation of the role and importance of religion also helps shape distinct sexual attitudes amongst citizens of these respective nations. For instance, a Pew Research study from 2015 found that 53% of Americans say that religion is “very important” in their lives. In contrast, only 14% of French adults said the same. Moreover, the U.S is an outlier among wealthy, Western countries when it comes to the importance of religion. 21% of the populations of both Germany and the United Kingdom say that religion is “very important” in their lives, and other developed nations such as Australia and Canada also came in well below the U.S. at 18% and 27% respectively. This disparity unquestionably creates divergent societal understandings of sex.

One manifestation of this discrepancy in religious attitudes can be found in the differences between French and American sexual education programs in schools. In an analysis of sex-ed programs in the U.S., France, and several other Western nations, author Kelly Bell noted that as a result of its religious citizenry, the U.S. views sex in more “puritanical” and “moral” terms as opposed to the “open, matter-of-fact attitudes” found in the other countries studied. This perspective naturally has led to lobbying by churches and religious groups across the U.S. on behalf of abstinence-only programs, fearing that a more comprehensive education in schools will lead to promiscuity (although this fear has been proven to be false). The result is that the American school system is failing to give teens an understanding that sex and sexuality are a “normal and positive part of human development,” an understanding that sex-ed programs in Western Europe reaffirm. Again, the connection between these differences and the views expressed in the letter is clear. When there is a tendency to see sexual advances and activity as taboo due to poor sexual education, the reaction to such experiences when unwanted will unquestionably be harsher than if they were viewed as a normal and natural experience.

Another cultural difference between the two countries can be found in interpretations of flirting. Alex Giami–co-author of a study on sexuality in France and the U.S–found that French women on the whole do not view “‘flirtation and seduction and romance as a direct sexual approach, and that flirtation does not necessarily lead to sexual intercourse.” In other words, “the language of seduction is not an explicit language of sex.” This understanding differs dramatically from American attitudes which tend to view flirtation and seduction almost exclusively as sexual advances. When flirting is recognized as separate from sex, the notion that men should be “disciplined” for such actions and placed in the “same category as sex offenders” would seem troubling and puritanical.

If the disagreement between French and American women over the #MeToo movement surprised some, it shouldn’t have. As a result of a more progressive history of gender equality, the female experience in Nice is fundamentally different from that of New York. Furthermore, the variation of the importance of religion between these countries creates two profoundly different understandings of sexual activity and flirtation. Yet cultural disagreement is not unique to France and America. Instead, the French letter and the American reaction to it represent a failure of cultural relativism: The idea that one’s actions and opinions should be judged by their own culture standards rather than someone else’s. Such instances are not unique. Supporters of the movement in both countries are failing to recognize that there are clear cultural differences that led to this disagreement. They are thus making judgements and assumptions based on their own morals and standards. This misunderstanding serves as an important reminder that, given the array of cultural variation found in every corner of the globe, social movements are not always exportable, however beneficial they may be to their country of origin.

March 6, 2018 0 comment

Asia Featured International Trade The International Economy

Trump’s Isolationist America

written by Zach Emanuel

Swept into office almost a year ago now, Donald Trump was elected in part because of his foreign policy promise to restore American dominance and leadership to the world. A key component of this proposal was his assurance that the U.S would no longer be manipulated by China, and would bring the budding world power down to size. Rally attendees shrieked in support at then- candidate Trump’s commitment to no longer “allow China to rape our country.” He promised that once elected, it would be the United States that “would start winning again” on the world stage.

And yet an illustration of China’s leader Xi Jinping graced the cover of the October 14, 2017 issue of The Economist with the caption “the world’s most powerful man.” The description was derived in part from Xi’s speech that week at China’s Communist Party Congress in which he called on China to the lead the world on issues political, economic, military, and environmental. Additionally, the Congress’s decision to enshrine Xi into the country’s constitution, the first Chinese leader gain this privilege since Mao Zedong, further demonstrates his dominance. The Economist’s description of Xi is one that over the past 60 years has been used almost exclusively to describe America’s chief executive. Moreover it is the opposite of what Trump ensured would follow under his tenure.

So what went wrong? Since taking office last January, President Trump’s actions on the world stage have featured an isolationist bent. He has pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, slashed funding for international aid and investment, and left the landmark Paris Climate Agreement. These moves have consistently undermined his promise to restore America as the dominant player in international affairs and on the contrary have left a power vacuum which Xi and China- both stronger now than ever before- are ready to fill.

On his third day in office, President Trump signed an executive order pulling the U.S out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement after asserting that it was bad American manufacturing. Trump claimed the deal would have continued the process of outsourcing to Asia and Latin America while reducing wages at home. The twelve-country pact- the largest in history- was signed with the goal of promoting economic growth, job creation, and innovation. While one can argue over the economic merits of the agreement, there is no question that the original deal would have put both economic and geopolitical pressure on China by projecting a message of American dominance in both East and South Asia. As Barry Naughton, an expert on Chinese international affairs at the University of California, San Diego says, the TPP has the potential to ensure that the “rules for the global economy will be written under predominant U.S. influence” and this makes China “extremely uncomfortable.” Moreover, by increasing trade with China’s neighbors such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Singapore, the TPP would have drawn those nations “economically closer” to- and made them more dependent on- the U.S, hence reducing what Naughton calls “Chinese economic preponderance.” This maneuver would have given America more leverage and power in its dealings within the Asian Theater, effectively containing Chinese influence. Such action was therefore antithetical to Trump’s campaign promise to stop China’s growth as an international player and restore America’s “winning” tradition.

In addition to pulling out of the TPP, President Trump’s 2018 budget proposal slashed aid and investment to developing countries by 29%. As the largest development donor in the world, cuts to American aid will adversely affect the economies and stability not only of just neighboring Latin American states but developing countries in East Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia as well. Likewise, cuts to foreign investment further signal an American retreat on the world stage and threaten Trump’s pledge to maintain the U.S’s role as the one indispensable nation. Even if aid fails to benefit the U.S economically, as the President claims, the cultivation of strategic partnerships that aid and investment can foster across the world are of the utmost importance to America if it wishes to maintain international authority. It should come as no surprise that states receiving American aid have an incentive to stay on good terms with the U.S. by voting alongside it at the UN and other international bodies or adopting American-oriented foreign policies. By cutting aid however, Trump is encouraging these allies to seek out other foreign powers- specifically China- for which to tailor their policies towards. For instance, after lashing out at Pakistan on Twitter earlier this month for not doing enough to crackdown on terrorism in its midst, the State Department announced a suspension of aid to the long-time strategic ally in the War in Afghanistan. Already China is pouncing on the opportunity to draw the nuclear-power closer into its orbit by praising Pakistani anti-terror efforts, reiterating Chinese commitment to Pakistan’s safety and security, and reminding the nation’s leaders of China’s pledge to invest $57 billion into rebuilding the country’s infrastructure over the next several years.

Furthermore, if developing nations, as a result of cuts to American foreign aid, feel they can no longer depend on the U.S. as a reliable partner in their quest for growth, they will seek out other economic benefactors that are. In the midst of President Trump’s cuts to such activities, over the next decade China intends to invest well over a trillion dollars in critical transportation and energy infrastructure across the developing world via its One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative. OBOR projects include the New Eurasian Land Bridge, a railway that seeks to link China to Central Europe, as well as the construction of a number of ports in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Djibouti, and numerous others throughout Southeast Asia and Oceania. However as Christopher Balding, an economics professor at Peking University tells it, the project’s purpose is not so much to bring economic benefits to recipients of Chinese aid but “more like a diplomatic effort for [Beijing] to win friends and influence people.” Yet again, by cutting foreign aid and investment, Trump is playing into the hands of Xi and the Chinese to the detriment of American interests.

Finally, Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the landmark Paris Climate Agreement is also incompatible with his assurances to rein Chinese influence. With climate change being the issue that leaders see as the biggest threat to our world today, the Paris agreement was a prime opportunity for the U.S. to demonstrate its commitment to, and leadership in, solving a global problem. By pulling the U.S out of the agreement, Trump is proving America’s unwillingness and inability to keep its promises as well as a reluctance to lead. By reneging on our commitments to the international community, an opportunity is again left for the Chinese and Xi, who just before Trump’s inauguration called on all signatories to the agreement to “stick to it instead of walking away…as [it] is a responsibility we must assume for future generations.” President Trump’s decision to pull out of the deal cast a pall over the prospect of American leadership on the most important of global issues.

If the President truly wanted to live up to his foreign policy promise to restore American authority in international affairs and stop China’s rise as a global superpower, he would strengthen the U.S.’s economic and diplomatic ties with East Asia by remaining in the TPP, demonstrate American commitment to its allies as well as the growth of the developing world by bolstering foreign aid and investment, and remain an active member of the Paris Climate Agreement as a way to prove America’s ability to lead on the defining issue of the 21st century. By backing away from these commitments however, Trump’s actions have consistently undermined his assurances as he leads the U.S further away from the international dominance he seeks to restore, and instead leaves a void for a nation he calls our “enemy” to fill.

January 18, 2018 0 comment