Resilience & Society - Atlantic Council

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Recent steps to limit access to YouTube are seen as somewhat risky due to the video sharing platform’s status as the most popular social media site in Russia. Indeed, it came as no surprise when the apparent shutdown of YouTube sparked significant alarm and anger on Russian social media. Notably, no genuine alternative currently exists in Russia. The Kremlin has promoted similar domestic platforms such as VK Video and RuTube, but these options have not been able to rival the popularity or audience reach of YouTube itself.

There are additional indications that the Kremlin may now be seeking to strengthen its control over the information space and further cut Russia off from the outside world. On August 9, Roskomnadzor blocked access to Signal, a messaging app that allows for end-to-end encrypted communications. Reports also continue to circulate that the Kremlin is preparing to take similar steps against messenger platform WhatsApp.

Recent measures to prevent Russians from accessing YouTube represent the latest escalation in the Kremlin’s campaign to dominate the domestic information space and eliminate all independent media in today’s Russia. Over the past twenty-four years, Vladimir Putin has created a powerful propaganda machine that has proved instrumental in legitimizing his own increasingly dictatorial rule and mobilizing public support for the invasion of Ukraine. Popular social media platforms like YouTube remain outside of Moscow’s control and therefore pose a significant threat to the Kremlin censors. With Ukrainian troops now advancing inside Russia itself, it would seem that this threat can no longer be tolerated.

Mercedes Sapuppo is a program assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

—María Ángela Holguín is a former foreign minister of Colombia and a senior advisor to the Atlantic Council’s Venezuela Solutions Group.

The situation in Venezuela is deeply alarming, especially given the fact that the government has not presented detailed results for each polling station to back up its figures. Transparency in the process of counting votes is essential. A thorough verification of the election results must be carried out to ensure that they faithfully reflect the will of the Venezuelan people. This verification must include a complete count of all tally sheets, which the CNE must provide without further delay.

—Miguel Vargas is a former foreign minister of the Dominican Republic and a senior advisor to the Venezuela Solutions Group.

2. What exactly is the issue with the election results?

The voting, counting, and tallying system used in Venezuela includes a mechanism for verifying its operation and auditing its results through what is known as the “paper trail.” This paper trail consists of physical records and voting receipts that verify whether the results announced by the CNE reflect the valid will of the voters. The paper trail includes several components, such as the receipt given to each voter after casting their ballot. This receipt allows voters to confirm that it contains the candidate’s name and the organization they supported. This is the first step in the verification process. Voters then place this receipt into a secure box.

At the end of the voting process, the machine immediately prints out the voting record. For the presidential election on July 28, 30,026 voting machines were deployed for the CNE, each corresponding to a separate voting table. Consequently, 30,026 original voting records were printed and kept in the custody of the Plan República military personnel. Once the machine transmits the results, copies of the voting records are printed for all witnesses. These witnesses must verify that these copies are accurate reproductions of the original records printed by the system.

Additionally, each voting record features a QR code summarizing the data printed on the record. Following the transmission, up to 54 percent of the machines are audited by manually opening the boxes containing the printed voting receipts to ensure that the data on the records is accurate.

Starting on Monday, July 29, the opposition began publishing digitized images of the voting records collected by its witnesses. It is important to note that in many cases, Plan República agents prevented opposition witnesses from accessing this material. As of the time of this report, the opposition has managed to collect, validate, and digitize 83 percent of the election records.

However, the CNE has reported hacking of the 30,026 private transmission lines for the machines (one encrypted line per machine) and has refused to disclose the results broken down by center and table. This has made it impossible to compare the opposition’s copies with the results released by the CNE. Additionally, the telecommunications audit and phase II verification, scheduled for July 29 and August 2, respectively, were suspended. These reviews are crucial for assessing the consistency of the announced results.

Trust in an automated voting system is not a matter of faith. Trust is built through auditability, and to date, the Venezuelan government has obstructed the auditability of the results. After more than two weeks, there are also reasonable concerns about the custody of physical electoral materials and databases. The initial international request to present the voting records is proving to be inadequate.

—Eugenio Martínez is the director of Votoscopio, a Venezuela elections specialist, and a member of the Venezuela Solutions Group.

3. What role can other countries in the region play?

Latin American countries have a crucial responsibility at this moment. It is necessary to support efforts to promote credible negotiations that will lead to a peaceful and democratic solution in Venezuela. However, it is imperative that any negotiations incorporate the desire of both the Venezuelan people and all of Latin America to respect the rule of law and democratic order in Venezuela. Only through a firm commitment to these principles can we move toward a solution that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people.

—Miguel Vargas

Faced with this reality, it is imperative that Latin American countries continue to demand electoral transparency and condemn repression and the violation of human rights. It is essential to increase diplomatic coordination and demand transparency, independent auditing, and respect for the popular vote. Only with a firm and coordinated position in the region will we be able to engender a way out of the deep crisis in Venezuela, which must occur through a credible and realistic negotiation process with the accompaniment of guarantor countries.

—María Ángela Holguín

4. Is there any hope the Maduro regime will negotiate a transfer of power?

We must start from the premise that Maduro’s government made a political decision in ignoring the results of the presidential election. This implies a radical break with popular sovereignty, which Chavismo proclaimed as the foundation of its legitimacy. The cost of this rupture is as high as the associated costs of international isolation and of reversing steps taken toward economic stabilization, because it enshrines the divorce between the ruling coalition and its popular bases. However, the dominant coalition perceives that it can stay in power if it manages to deflate the strong feeling of change and, above all, unity, through the weakening of the leadership of María Corina Machado and González, in a kind of repetition of the resistance-attrition strategy it used to address the 2019 crisis with the interim government of Juan Guaidó.

The ruling coalition tries to do so through repression and self-isolation. It is attempting to prevent an internationally supported negotiation from forcing it to recognize the opposition’s victory. And it is doing so with a degree of open, articulate, and express support from the military that had not been necessary to exhibit in the past. The efforts of Colombian President Gustavo Petro and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva are geared toward opening a crack to move Maduro from his position, which at this time is completely insensitive to the usual list of incentives. Thus, it is not foreseeable that in the short term an effective negotiating body can be built to ensure the verification of results. Perhaps it is necessary to start, as in serious armed conflicts, with more basic areas of agreement, such as advancing mutual guarantees and respect for human rights.

—Colette Capriles is an associate professor and researcher in philosophy, politics, and social sciences at Simón Bolívar University and a member of the Venezuela Solutions Group.

5. How is the US working to advance a democratic transition?

On August 11, the Wall Street Journal reported that Washington is engaged in secret talks with Maduro, and may be offering him and those around him an amnesty from US narcoterrorism charges in exchange for a democratic transition. This news may be a sign that the Biden administration is trying to preserve space for negotiations behind the scenes. However, Maduro is a serial abuser of dialogue and, should these efforts fail, it is likely that the White House’s patience will run out. The good news is that the United States still holds considerable leverage, which can be used to shape elite interests and maximize opportunities for a democratic solution.

For the Biden administration, the challenge lies in finding a balance between applying targeted, effective pressure on elites and preventing Venezuela from drifting further into Russia’s and China’s spheres of influence. Some in Washington fear that a return to “maximum pressure” could drive Maduro closer to the United States’ geopolitical rivals. Individual sanctions may be a more appealing strategy, but it will be crucial to focus this pressure on fostering a democratic opening while avoiding actions that strengthen regime unity. More than 160 regime members have already been sanctioned—many of whom have been celebrated in public ceremonies and awarded replica swords of Venezuela’s liberator, Simón Bolívar. Bringing pressure to bear while avoiding anything that helps unify Maduro’s coalition at his weakest moment in years will be absolutely crucial.

—Geoff Ramsey is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center.

The post Will Maduro negotiate a transfer of power? And four other questions about Venezuela’s political crisis. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The UN finally advances a convention on cybercrime . . . and no one is happy about it

Lisandra Novo — Wed, 14 Aug 2024 20:47:22 +0000

On August 8, a contentious saga on drastically divergent views of how to address cybercrime finally came to a close after three years of treaty negotiations at the United Nations (UN). The Ad Hoc Committee set up to draft the convention on cybercrime adopted it by consensus, and the relief in the room was palpable. The member states, the committee, and especially the chair, Algerian Ambassador Faouzia Boumaiza-Mebarki, worked for a long time to come to an agreement. If adopted by the UN General Assembly later this year, as is expected, it will be the first global, legally binding convention on cybercrime. However, this landmark achievement should not be celebrated, as it poses significant risks to human rights, cybersecurity, and national security.

How did this happen? Russia, long opposed to the Council of Europe’s 2001 Budapest Convention on cybercrime, began this process in 2017. Then, in 2019, Russia, along with China, North Korea, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Syria, Cambodia, Venezuela, and Belarus, presented a resolution to develop a global treaty. Despite strong opposition from the United States and European states, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution in December 2019, by a vote of seventy-nine in favor and sixty against (with thirty abstentions), that officially began the process. Already, it was clear that the member states did not share one vision. Indeed, they could not even agree on a name for the convention until last week. What they ended up with is a mouthful: “Draft United Nations convention against cybercrime: Strengthening international cooperation for combating certain crimes committed by means of information and communications technology systems and for the sharing of evidence in electronic form of serious crimes.”

This exceedingly long name reveals one of the biggest problems with this convention: its scope. At its heart, this convention is intended to allow law enforcement from different countries to cooperate to prevent, investigate, and prosecute cybercrime, which costs trillions of dollars globally each year. However, the convention covers much more than the typical cybercrimes that come to mind, such as ransomware, and includes crimes committed using technology, which reflects the different views as to what constitutes cybercrime. As if that were not broad enough, Russia, China, and other states succeeded in pushing for negotiations on an additional protocol that would expand the list of crimes even further. Additionally, under the convention, states parties are to cooperate on “collecting, obtaining, preserving, and sharing of evidence in electronic form of any serious crime”—which in the text is defined as a crime that is punishable by a maximum of four years or more in prison or a “more serious penalty,” such as the death penalty.

Rights-respecting states should not allow themselves to be co-opted into assisting abusive practices under the guise of cooperation.

In Russia, for example, association with the “international LGBT movement” can lead to extremism charges, such as the crime of displaying “extremist group symbols,” like the rainbow flag. A first conviction carries a penalty of up to fifteen days in detention, but a repeat offense carries a penalty of up to four years. That means a repeat offense would qualify as a “serious crime” under the cybercrime convention and be eligible for assistance from law enforcement in other jurisdictions that may possess electronic evidence relevant to the investigation—including traffic, subscriber, and even content data. Considering how much of modern life is carried out digitally, there will be some kind of electronic evidence for almost every serious crime under any domestic legislation. Even the UN’s own human rights experts cautioned against this broad definition.

Further, under the convention, states parties are obligated to establish laws in their domestic system to “compel” service providers to “collect or record” real-time traffic or content data. Many of the states behind the original drive to establish this convention have long sought this power over private firms. At the same time, states parties are free to adopt laws that keep requests to compel traffic and content data confidential—cloaking these actions in secrecy. Meanwhile, grounds for a country to refuse a cooperation request are limited to instances such as where it would be against that country’s “sovereignty,” security, or other “essential” interest, or if it would be against that country’s own laws. The convention contains a vague caveat that nothing in it should be interpreted as an obligation to cooperate if a country “has substantial grounds” to believe the request is made to prosecute or punish someone for their “sex, race, language, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, or political opinions.”

Russia claimed that such basic safeguards, which do offer some protection in the example regarding LGBT activity as “extremist,” were merely an opportunity for some countries to “abuse” the opportunity to reject cooperation requests. Those safeguards, conversely, could also be abused by the very same states that opposed them. The Iranian delegation, for its part, proposed a vote to delete that provision, as well as all other human rights safeguards and references to gender, on the day the text was adopted. These provisions had already been weakened significantly throughout the negotiation process and only survived thanks to the firm stance taken by Australia, Canada, Colombia, Iceland, the European Union, Mexico, and others that drew a red line and refused to accept any more changes.

The possible negative consequences of this convention are not limited to human rights but can seriously threaten global cybersecurity and national security. The International Chamber of Commerce, a global business organization representing millions of companies, warned during negotiations that “people who have access to or otherwise possess the knowledge and skills necessary” could be forced “to break or circumvent security systems.” Worse, they could even be compelled to disclose “previously unknown vulnerabilities, private encryption keys, or proprietary information like source code.” Microsoft agreed. Its representative, Nemanja Malisevic, added that this treaty will allow “for unauthorized disclosure of sensitive data and classified information to third states” and for “malicious actors” to use a UN treaty to “force individuals with knowledge of how a system functions to reveal proprietary or sensitive information,” which could “expose the critical infrastructure of a state to cyberattacks or lead to the theft of state secrets. Malisevic concluded that this “should terrify us all.”

Similarly, independent media organizations called for states to reject the convention, which the International Press Institute has called a “surveillance treaty.” Civil society organizations including Electronic Frontier Foundation, Access Now, Human Rights Watch, and many others have also long been ringing the alarm bell. They continue to do so as the final version of the convention adopted by the committee has failed to adequately address their concerns.

Given the extent and cross-border nature of cybercrime, it is evident that a global treaty is both necessary and urgent—on that, the international community is in complete agreement. Unfortunately, this treaty, perhaps a product of sunk-cost fallacy thinking or agreed to under duress for fear of an even worse version, does not solve the problems the international community faces. If the UN General Assembly adopts the text and the required forty member states ratify it so that it comes into force, experts are right to warn that governments intent on engaging in surveillance will have the veneer of UN legitimacy stamped on their actions. Rights-respecting states should not allow themselves to be co-opted into assisting abusive practices under the guise of cooperation. Nor should they willingly open the door to weakening their own national security or global cybersecurity.

Lisandra Novo is a staff lawyer for the Strategic Litigation Project at the Atlantic Council specializing in law and technology.

The post The UN finally advances a convention on cybercrime . . . and no one is happy about it appeared first on Atlantic Council.

I was imprisoned and tortured by the Taliban for protesting gender apartheid in Afghanistan

Zholia Parsi — Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:59:39 +0000

On August 15, 2021, Kabul fell to the Taliban. Zholia Parsi, who was in Kabul at the time, had spent fourteen years as a teacher before joining the last republican government of Afghanistan as a member of the Supreme Council for Reconciliation. After the Taliban took over, Parsi helped create the “Spontaneous Women’s Protest Movement of Afghanistan” to demonstrate against rising gender apartheid in her country. For this, the Taliban imprisoned and tortured her, a story she recounts below.

The last day I went to the office was August 15. On that day, I was dismissed from my job and told that the Taliban had entered the city. Out on the streets, the city was gripped with terror: people running everywhere, cars stuck in traffic, policemen removing their uniforms, and parents frantically trying to pick their children up from school and rush to their houses. When I finally got home, I found my daughters in despair and the neighbors hoisting a Taliban flag over their gates. Overnight our lives had changed.

It took me three days to venture outside after the Taliban’s military takeover. With a friend, I walked through the Shahr-e Naw neighborhood and posted on social media, encouraging other women to come out, so that the Taliban could not deny our existence. Nearly three weeks later, on September 3, I participated in the first protest at Fawara Aab, or “Water Fountain,” square in Kabul. As I published photos and videos on social networks, I began receiving messages from friends seeking to join. I created a WhatsApp chat group and, after adding those I trusted, we organized another protest the following day. This time, however, the Taliban were prepared and quickly suppressed our rally, beating people and firing tear gas into the air. Most protesters dispersed but some of us continued on to another location, growing along the way to include men and women from the public. We felt so energized we decided to organize more protests.

With no previous experience in organizing protests, I learned quickly that it was a lot of work. We began coordinating through the WhatsApp chat group I had started while also establishing media contacts and trying to get our voices heard inside and outside the country. At first, we were a loose coalition of many different protest groups, at least fifty, but soon we operated under one large umbrella group, united as a movement in our opposition against gender apartheid, tyranny, restrictions, and the exclusion of women.

I was held in solitary confinement in a damp room for nearly two months and routinely interrogated and tortured for a confession.

Taliban members responded to our growing protests with ever more suppression and violence. They knocked us to the ground, punched and kicked us, and destroyed our phones and property. Many of us were detained for days and subjected to threats and insults. Some were imprisoned and tortured for longer. Until I was kidnapped and imprisoned by the Taliban, I participated in thirty-eight protests against its oppressive apartheid regime.

Over time, Taliban intelligence infiltrated our organization, and the regime knew about our protests before they even took place. On September 19, 2023, I received a call alerting me that the Taliban had kidnapped a fellow organizer along with her husband and child, and warning me that I could be next. I fled my home that day, leaving my daughters with my mother for their safety. But when I secretly returned a week later to attend a funeral, I was accosted on my street by a man who shouted, “It’s her.” Within minutes, twelve Taliban military vehicles arrived. The men put a black hood over my head, forced me into a car, and took me to a police station with my hands tightly and painfully bound for hours.

On arrival, they pointed a gun at me and demanded the password for my mobile phone. I resisted at first but relented when they threatened to torture and arrest my children. They threw me into a room where I sat, worried for my fellow female protesters who were unaware that my phone was now in Taliban hands. Half an hour later, the person who arrested me entered the room with my son’s and daughter’s phones. When I saw my nineteen-year-old son’s unlocked phone, I realized that he too had been arrested and I collapsed to the ground.

I was held in solitary confinement in a damp room for nearly two months and routinely interrogated and tortured for a confession. They would show me videos of my son, wearing a prison uniform and growing weaker by the day. I later learned that he was also being held in solitary confinement. Twice during my imprisonment I was hospitalized, once due to severe pain and swelling, the other because I broke down after witnessing the suicide of a young boy who took his life after being tortured.

Still, I was lucky compared to other prisoners, who were subjected to whipping, electric shocks, and forced starvation. They didn’t torture me in these ways. Instead, they inflicted psychological torture, placing my room across from the men’s torture chamber where I lay awake listening to their screams for days. During my interrogation sessions, I was forced to sit upside down with my hands tied to the arms of the chair. At one session, I overheard the Taliban interrogators say, “If she is released, she will talk about this. After all, she is the leader of these movements.” I realized then that they were afraid of my voice, just as all apartheid regimes fear the voices of their citizens.

On the forty-fifth day, I was allowed to see my family for five minutes. They told me they had been searching for me and submitted endless petitions to the Taliban before the regime finally confirmed my detention. This was the first time I was allowed to see my imprisoned son, though only for five minutes.

About eighteen days later, I was returned to the general cells, where other women prisoners recounted their stories and those of other friends, including one who repeatedly tried to escape and fought fiercely every time Taliban soldiers took her for interrogation. She was eventually released after nine months.

I too was desperate for release and to see my family, but I never showed my despair to the prison guards. Even when they punched and kicked me—or worse, when they called my son “de caper zoi” (son of the infidel), I kept my composure. No one was willing to bail me out of prison because they feared becoming targets as well. Eventually, however, a former Taliban governor agreed to be my guarantor, and I was released into my family’s custody.

Although free, I was confined to my house, the streets of my city closed off to me. Taliban fighters kept a constant watch on me and my home. They also offered me a proposition: Spy for them, and I could live comfortably wherever I wanted in Afghanistan. Betraying my homeland and the freedom of its women was never an option for me.

Ultimately, I was forced to accept exile. Late one evening, I received an email notifying me of my transfer outside the country. I cried through the night, mourning the loss of my home and homeland. When I crossed the border out of Afghanistan, I screamed in anguish. I considered staying behind and secretly working under an assumed identity, but it was not a viable choice for my family.

I am now a stranger in a foreign land, without a home and without an identity. I count the minutes until I can return to Afghanistan and witness the fall of the Taliban. In exile, my greatest hope is that our protests, our sacrifices, our rebellions were not in vain.

Zholia Parsi is a member of the leadership of the “Spontaneous Women’s Protest Movement of Afghanistan” and was imprisoned and tortured by the Taliban for protesting against gender apartheid. This article was edited from an interview with Parsi by Nayera Kohistani and Mursal Sayas.

This article is part of the Inside the Taliban’s Gender Apartheid series, a joint project of the Civic Engagement Project and the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center.

The post I was imprisoned and tortured by the Taliban for protesting gender apartheid in Afghanistan appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Belarus’s political prisoners must not be forgotten

Hanna Liubakova — Tue, 13 Aug 2024 17:32:28 +0000

As Belarus marked the fourth anniversary of the fraudulent August 2020 presidential election that sparked nationwide protects and a brutal crackdown, the United States, European Union, and United Kingdom all unveiled new sanctions targeting the regime of Belarusian dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka. In a joint statement that was also signed by Canada, the three called on the Belarusian authorities to “immediately and unconditionally” release the country’s almost 1,400 political prisoners.

These steps are encouraging and indicate welcome Western awareness of the repression that continues to define the political climate in today’s Belarus. Nevertheless, there is still a sense that not nearly enough is being done by the international community to challenge the impunity enjoyed by Lukashenka and members of his regime.

These concerns were amplified recently when the largest prisoner swap between the Kremlin and the West since the Cold War went ahead without featuring any Belarusian political prisoners. Lukashenka himself was closely involved in the complex negotiations behind the exchange. The Belarusian dictator agreed to free German national Rico Krieger, who was being held in Minsk on terrorism charges, as part of efforts to convince the German government to release Russian secret service assassin Vadim Krasikov.

Many have questioned why prominent Belarusian pro-democracy leader Maria Kalesnikava, who had previously lived for many years in Germany, was not also freed as part of the trade. Kalesnikava was jailed amid nationwide protests following Lukashenka’s rigged 2020 election. One of the figureheads of the anti-Lukashenka protest movement, she has reportedly been suffering from deteriorating health for the past year and a half. Similar questions were also asked regarding fellow political prisoners Ales Bialiatski, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022, and Ihar Losik, a prominent blogger and journalist for RFE/RL’s Belarus Service.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Four years since the sham ballot that sparked the biggest protests of Lukashenka’s three-decade reign, he appears more comfortable than ever with the idea of holding large numbers of political prisoners as hostages. This must change. With no regime-linked Belarusians in Western custody who are anything like as valuable as Krasikov was to Putin, other approaches are clearly needed to increase the pressure on Lukashenka and convince him to release political prisoners.

Economic measures can be used to target the largely state-controlled Belarusian economy, but this is more likely to have an impact as part of a long-term strategy. One alternative approach would be to engage third parties such as China, which has considerable influence in Minsk. Earlier diplomatic efforts succeeded in securing the release of US citizen Vital Shkliarau, indicating that negotiations of this nature can yield results.

Finding the right formula to keep up the pressure on individual members of the Lukashenka regime is crucial. At present, comparatively few of those involved in repressive measures are subject to international sanctions. For example, I was recently sentenced in absentia by a Belarusian court to ten years in prison alongside nineteen other independent Belarusian analysts and journalists. The judge in our case has a history of handing down lengthy sentences to prominent opposition figures, but has yet to be sanctioned.

During the past four years, only 261 Belarusians have been placed on the EU sanctions list. While the work of sanctions teams is commendable, their capacity is limited. Past experience has also demonstrated how sanctions can be sabotaged, as was the case in 2020 when Cyprus was accused of blocking the introduction of new restrictions against Belarus. There is also room to improve cooperation between Western partners, with a view to developing a more unified approach to sanctions.

Eurasia Center events

Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Strikingly, the quantity of Belarusians currently facing Western sanctions is far less the almost 1,400 political prisoners in the country’s prisons. According to human rights groups, tens of thousands of Belarusians in total have been detained in recent years for political reasons. Behind these arrests and prosecutions stands an army of enablers including government officials, security personnel, and judges. The vast majority of these people have yet to be held accountable by the international community for their role in the repressive policies of the Belarusian authorities.

There are some indications that Western policymakers are looking to broaden the scope of sanctions and increase individual accountability. However, while the recent round of sanctions included new measures targeting officials responsible for regime propaganda, other representatives of the Belarusian state media received international accreditation to cover the Olympics in Paris.

The West already has powerful tools at its disposal that can realistically make Belarusian officials consider the consequences of their actions. Standard personal sanctions such as travel bans and asset freezes go far beyond mere symbolism and are capable of creating problems that can have far-reaching practical implications in everyday life. However, more leverage is required in order to maintain the pressure on the regime and on the individuals responsible for specific abuses.

Looking ahead, the West needs to make the issue of political prisoners far more uncomfortable for the entire Lukashenka regime. There is no single solution to this problem; instead, a range of options should be explored including broad economic restrictions, personal sanctions, and diplomatic pressure. Crucially, sanctions should be applied to thousands of officials rather than just a few hundred. The end goal must be to significantly raise the costs of the repressive policies pursued by Lukashenka and all those who enable his regime.

Hanna Liubakova is a journalist from Belarus and nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Summer isn’t over. Here’s our recommended reading list.

Thu, 08 Aug 2024 19:04:32 +0000

It’s that time of year, when all you want to do is lounge by the beach or pool and read. Our team has you covered with their recommended reads related to the Middle East and North Africa for the dog days of summer. We promise you won’t be disappointed.

‘I’jaam: An Iraqi Rhapsody’ by Sinan Antoon

I’jaam offers a poignant glimpse into 1980s Iraq under Saddam Hussein through the eyes of a prisoner. As part of the rich tradition of prison literature, it vividly captures Iraqi life under constant surveillance and the resilience of a community striving to escape torture. In this oppressive environment, only writing that “serves the cause of the Leader and the military establishment” is permitted. Thus, writing in defiance of this regime becomes an act of resistance. The imprisoned protagonist—an admirer of the famous Iraqi poet Muhammad Mahdi al-Jawahiri, whose work is considered subversive in Saddam’s Iraq—uses writing as a means of survival.

This intimate portrayal also serves as a crucial window for Western policymakers, providing insight into the lives of those in the region who bear the brunt of their policy decisions. Often treated as collateral damage or mere casualties in the pursuit of a greater good, the populace—be it in Iraq, Gaza, or Sudan—deserves to be better understood to shape policies with human rights in mind.

—Manal Fatima is a program assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative.

‘Killing a King: The Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and the Remaking of Israel’ by Dan Ephron

In Killing a King, Dan Ephron recounts the two years between the signing of the Oslo Accords in Washington and the murder of Yitzhak Rabin on a Tel Aviv street, juxtaposing the Israeli prime minister’s final acts with those of his murderer, Yigal Amir. Rabin’s murder came at a time of intense internal political debate in Israel over its future relationship with Palestine, feeding into existing divisions and making it a highly consequential moment in the country’s history. This retelling by Ephron helps explain the divisions in Israel that led to that fateful moment and how they linger today.

—David Maloney is the program assistant to the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Programs.

‘Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books’ by Azar Nafisi

Reading Lolita in Tehran is an intimate and captivating look through Azar Nafisi’s lived experiences of revolutionary Iran, the Iran-Iraq war, the formation of a clandestine book club, and eventual emigration. The memoir also delves into historical reversals, the loss of rights, and the plight of women across the country. Despite receiving its fair share of criticism since its 2003 publication, the book is arguably more relevant today, two years on from the beginning of the Women, Life, Freedom movement, offering readers an account of the early period of the Islamic Republic and the legacy of Iranian women’s struggles to regain the freedoms lost. And for those who love literature, the author—a professor of Western literature—delves deep into some of her favorite writers, including Vladimir Nabokov, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Jane Austen, and Henry James.

—Masoud Mostajabi is a deputy director of the Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council.

‘Syrian Dust: Reporting from the Heart of the War’ by Francesca Borri

A raw and powerful account of the Syrian war by Italian correspondent Francesa Borri, Syrian Dust provides a compelling personal account of events in Aleppo and surrounding areas from the chemical attacks of August 2013 through the following months. Borri hides with dozens of terrified civilians, scavenges to survive, meets with officials, observes the development and fracturing of warring parties, and provides a human lens for an inhumane time. Syrian Dust provides a view from inside the conflict itself—focusing on the human realities for a conflict and region so often discussed from 30,000 feet.

—Emilia Pierce is the deputy director of operation and finance for the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East programs.

‘The Sheltering Sky’ by Paul Bowles

My favorite read this Summer (thus far) has been The Sheltering Sky by Paul Bowles. While written over seventy years ago, its themes, structure, and language seem surprisingly contemporary. The story follows a young American couple and their third-wheel friend who initially appear to be stereotypical wealthy “travelers, not tourists,” the kind of self-regarding intellectuals that pride themselves on their cultural openness but still disparage any local accommodations that don’t meet their standards. Over time, however, it becomes clear that exploring foreign lands is a convenient way for each to avoid their responsibilities, including to each other, much less confront their underlying alienation. As they travel through French-controlled North Africa—mainly Algeria—moving farther into the continent, their repeated efforts to escape their existence into environments that they don’t understand produces catastrophic results.

—William F. Wechsler is the senior director of the Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council.

‘No One Prayed Over Their Graves: A Novel’ by Khaled Khalifa

No One Prayed Over Their Graves was the last novel by Syrian writer and poet Khaled Khalifa before passing away in Damascus in 2023. The author is the Victor Hugo of the Arab World, known for his poignant realism, his vivid depiction of “Les Misérables” of subaltern Syria, and his criticism of the Baathist regime. The novel recounts the story of Christian and Muslim friends, Hanna and Zakariya, from a village near Aleppo in 1907 and how their lives were altered after a massive flood leveled their homes, businesses, and places of worship, and took the lives of their loved ones. The book that was long-listed for the 2023 National Book Award for Translated Literature is also a sweeping tale of religious diversity, coming of age, and class mobility in the hubbub of Aleppine society at the turn of the twentieth century. This novel was a particularly emotional read for me, as Khaled was a personal friend, and a living witness of the socio-political hardships and transformations in modern-day Syria that he immortalized in lush and elastic storytelling in novels like In Praise of Hatred, No Knives in the Kitchens of This City, or Death Is Hard Work.

—Sarah Zaaimi is the deputy director for communications at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East programs.

The post Summer isn’t over. Here’s our recommended reading list. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The future of digital transformation and workforce development in Latin America and the Caribbean

Isabel Chiriboga, Maite Gonzalez Latorre, Diego Area — Thu, 08 Aug 2024 14:00:00 +0000

The sixth of a six-part series following up on the Ninth Summit of the Americas commitments.

An initiative led by the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center in partnership with the US Department of State continues to focus on facilitating greater constructive exchange among multisectoral thought leaders and government leaders as they work to implement commitments made at the ninth Summit of the Americas. This readout was informed by a private, information-gathering roundtable and several one-on-one conversations with leading experts in the digital space.

Executive summary

At the ninth Summit of the Americas, regional leaders agreed on the adoption of a Regional Agenda for Digital Transformation that reaffirmed the need for a dynamic and resilient digital ecosystem that promotes digital inclusion for all peoples. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the digital divide globally, but these gaps were shown to be deeper in developing countries, disproportionately affecting women, children, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable and/or marginalized individuals. Through this agenda, inclusive workforce development remains a key theme as an avenue to help bridge the digital divide and skills gap across the Americas.

As part of the Atlantic Council’s consultative process, thought leaders and practitioners evaluated progress made in the implementation of the Regional Agenda for Digital Transformation agreed on at the Summit of Americas, resulting in three concrete recommendations: (1) leverage regional alliances and intraregional cooperation mechanisms to accelerate implementation of the agenda; (2) strengthen public-private partnerships and multisectoral coordination to ensure adequate financing for tailored capacity-building programs, the expansion of digital infrastructure, and internet access; and (3) prioritize the involvement of local youth groups and civil society organizations, given their on-the-ground knowledge and role as critical indicators of implementation.

Recommendations for advancing digitalization and workforce development in the Americas:

Leverage regional alliances and intraregional cooperation mechanisms to accelerate implementation of the agenda.

Establish formal partnerships between governments and local and international universities to broaden affordable student access to exchange programs, internships, and capacity-building sessions in emerging fields such as artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. Programs should be tailored to country-specific economic interests and sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, and tourism. Tailoring these programs can also help enhance students’ access to the labor market upon graduation.
Ensure existing and new digital capacity-building programs leverage diaspora professionals. Implement virtual workshops, webinars, and collaborative projects that transfer knowledge and skills from technologically advanced regions to local communities. Leveraging these connections will help ensure programs are contextually relevant and effective.
Build on existing intraregional cooperation mechanisms and alliances to incorporate commitments of the Regional Agenda for Digital Transformation. Incorporating summit commitments to mechanisms such as the Alliance for Development in Democracy, the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, the Caribbean Community and Common Market, and other subregional partnerships can result in greater sustainability of commitments as these alliances tend to transcend finite political agendas.
Propose regional policies to standardize the recognition of digital nomads and remote workers, including visa programs, tax incentives, and employment regulations. This harmonization will facilitate job creation for young professionals and enhance regional connectivity.

Prioritize workforce development for traditionally marginalized groups by strengthening public-private partnerships and multisectoral collaboration.

Establish periodic and open dialogues between the public and private sectors to facilitate the implementation of targeted digital transformation for key sectors of a country’s economy that can enhance and modernize productivity. For instance, provide farmers with digital tools for precision agriculture, train health care workers in telemedicine technologies, and support tourism operators in developing online marketing strategies.
Foster direct lines of communication with multilateral organizations such as the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank. Engaging in periodic dialogues with these actors will minimize duplication of efforts and maximize the impact of existing strategies and lines of work devoted to creating digital societies that are more resilient and inclusive. Existing and new programs should be paired with employment opportunities and competitive salaries for marginalized groups based on the acquired skills, thereby creating strong incentives to pursue education in digital skills.
Collaborate with telecommunications companies to offer subsidized internet packages for low-income households and small businesses and simplify regulatory frameworks to attract investment in rural and underserved areas, expanding internet coverage and accessibility.
Enhance coordination with private sector and multilateral partners to create a joint road map for sustained financing of digital infrastructure and workforce development to improve investment conditions in marginalized and traditionally excluded regions and cities.

Increase engagement with local youth groups and civil society organizations to help ensure digital transformation agendas are viable and in line with local contexts.

Facilitate periodic dialogues with civil society organizations, the private sector , and government officials and ensure that consultative meetings are taking place at remote locations to ensure participation from disadvantaged populations in the digital space. Include women, children, and persons with disabilities to ensure capacity programs are generating desired impact and being realigned to address challenges faced by key, targeted communities.
Work with local actors such as youth groups and civil society organizations to conduct widespread awareness campaigns to help communities visualize the benefits of digital skills and technology use. Utilize success stories and case studies to show how individuals and businesses can thrive in a digital economy, fostering a culture of innovation and adaptation.
Invest in local innovation ecosystems by providing grants and incentives for start-ups and small businesses working on digital solutions. Create business incubators and accelerators to support the growth of digital enterprises, particularly those addressing local challenges.
Offer partnership opportunities with governments to provide seed capital, contests, digital boot camps, and mentorship sessions specifically designed for girls and women in school or college to help bridge the gender digital divide.

Download pdf

Related experts

Staff

Isabel Chiriboga

Assistant Director

Colombia Corruption

Staff

Maite Gonzalez Latorre

Program Assistant

Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center

Americas Education

Staff

Diego Area

Deputy Director, Strategic Development

Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center

Crisis Management Democratic Transitions

Subscribe to LAC Source Newsletter
Get monthly updates on Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) to receive the latest developments of the region, upcoming public events and recaps, new reports, and more.

The Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center broadens understanding of regional transformations and delivers constructive, results-oriented solutions to inform how the public and private sectors can advance hemispheric prosperity.

IV. Wartime policies undermine population growth

The post The future of digital transformation and workforce development in Latin America and the Caribbean appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Hasina is out. Yunus is in. Here are the three biggest factors to watch in Bangladesh.

Ali Riaz — Wed, 07 Aug 2024 18:05:45 +0000

The spectacular and rapid fall of Sheikh Hasina and her regime, followed by her ignominious exit from Bangladesh on August 5, is not only unprecedented in the history of the nation, which has previously experienced several, albeit less dramatic mass upsurges and downfalls of dictators in its turbulent history. It also surprised many Bangladesh watchers. The aura of invincibility that she and her party created over the past decade and a half crumbled in a matter of hours. A few weeks of demonstrations led by students and joined by people from all walks of life brought down the state’s administrative edifice. Moreover, the demonstrations did so despite the fact that the most lethal state apparatuses—the police, the Border Guard Bangladesh, the Rapid Action Battalion, and Awami League activists—were unleashed against the protesters with shoot-on-sight orders during the state-imposed curfew. The country, which was standing at the crossroads of closed autocracy and a democratic turnaround since the stage-managed election in January, suddenly watched a groundswell that appeared to be unthinkable even days ago.

Such dramatic developments have put the country in uncharted territory. Three aspects of the developing situation warrant attention.

What will the interim government look like?

On August 6, a day after Hasina fled Bangladesh, the country’s only Nobel Prize winner, Muhammad Yunus, was selected to lead the interim government. His name was proposed by the student protesters, who have spearheaded the movement. The choice of Yunus is a clear testimony that unlike on previous occasions, when political parties, in consultation with the military and bureaucracy, decided who would head the government, a new political force is making the decision this time around. The students have emerged as the center of power, and will seek to exercise that power in the selection of the interim government’s cabinet.

It is notable that the appointment of Yunus is beyond the purview of the existing constitution. While the political actors and army leaders appear to be operating with the understanding that Bangladeshi President Mohammed Shahabuddin is the chief executive, they seem to recognize that under the circumstances, all actions draw their legitimacy from the student-led movement.

How the remainder of the interim government will be formulated is unclear. While the cabinet is expected to reflect the country’s broad political spectrum and its civil society, it must represent the aspirations of the mass upsurge as articulated by the students, who have made it clear that this is not only about deposing an autocrat but also about creating a system that will prevent the rise of a future autocrat. In its language, this movement seeks to change the existing political settlement.

Can the interim government tackle the immediate challenge?

That the interim government will face enormous challenges is an understatement. Indeed, over the medium term, the country’s economic challenges will be the most formidable. But those pale in comparison to what the new government will face in the coming days. The most immediate challenge is to restore confidence in the administrative structure, including law enforcement agencies, while ensuring that those who committed transgressions are held accountable.

In the fifteen years that Hasina was in power, the state’s administrative apparatuses were too often filled with party loyalists who served the party first and acted beyond the remit of the law. Officials persecuted the opposition, siphoned off money from the country, and participated in a kleptocratic system. In a similar vein, many in law enforcement agencies have been involved in gross violations of human rights, including extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

The same goes with leaders and officials in previous regimes. Holding them accountable for their alleged crimes is necessary for the sake of justice, but so too is the need to assure the public that this is something more than just one government replacing the old one with no other changes. Many Bangladeshis, including those from the business community, have either fled or are trying to flee. The government will have to act swiftly but avoid any impression of seeking revenge. It is a delicate balance to maintain, but imperative for going forward.

As an immediate aftermath of Hasina’s downfall, there were reports of looting, arson, and attacks on religious minorities from around the country. Roving mobs ransacked houses and offices. The situation is improving now, but a worrying development was reports of attacks by weapon-wielding individuals in various places. The death toll mounted. The identity of these attackers remains unknown, but the indiscriminate nature of these attacks gives the impression that they were intended to create an apparently lawless situation and destabilize the country. While some of these incidents can be described as settling personal scores, the scale makes it suspicious.

In the weeks leading to the demise of the regime, especially since the middle of July, when then ruling Awami League Secretary General Obaidul Quader threatened that the party activists were enough to confront the demonstrators, party loyalists had used lethal weapons in broad daylight. Individuals loyal to Hasina and her party might now see it as in their interest to create the impression of widespread chaos.

How will India react?

While the sudden change in Bangladesh has implications for the wider international community, its impacts are most immediately pertinent in neighboring India. Hasina’s decision to take refuge in India was not only predicated by its geographical proximity but also was due to her close connection to the Indian establishment. Since 2009, India has supported the Hasina regime and helped it to survive adverse situations. India’s business interests and desire to keep the country within its sphere of influence shaped India’s policy toward Bangladesh. Indian policymakers, analysts, and media have for years insisted that a change in the government in Bangladesh will create a security threat. They have tacitly suggested that stage-managed elections delivering victory to Hasina were preferable to free and fair elections that would have reflected Bangladesh’s popular will.

At the same time, Indian media has portrayed Bangladesh’s legitimate political opposition parties, including the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, as conspiring with Pakistan’s main intelligence agency. Even though anonymously sourced and devoid of any real evidence, such allegations are quickly becoming a mainstay of Indian media discourse. In the final days of her rule, Hasina insisted that the movement against her government was orchestrated by “militants” and “terrorists”—a message that several Indian news outlets have amplified in recent days.

This approach has now become a central element of Indian media discourse and policy making. Since Hasina landed in India, the mass movement that toppled her has been portrayed as an Islamist upsurge, and some in the Indian establishment are highlighting the violence in Bangladesh since her departure more than the autocratic nature of her governance. The statement of External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar to the Indian parliament on August 6 is a case in point. The meeting between Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Hasina at Hindon Airbase near Delhi upon her arrival also sends the message that India is most concerned with the security aspect.

As the situation in Bangladesh is unfolding, the Indian establishment will be better served if it revisits its Bangladesh policy and acknowledges the underlying causes that led to Hasina’s downfall. In recent months, an “India Out” movement, akin to a campaign that emerged in the Maldives several years ago, has gained attention in Bangladesh. A large segment of Bangladeshis seem to feel that Indian policy since 2009 had deprived them of their right to freely choose their leaders and that an unequal relationship was forged with Hasina. The sooner that Indian policymakers acknowledge the necessity to recalibrate their country’s policy, the sooner a better relationship with the interim government can emerge.

Ali Riaz is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council South Asia Center and a distinguished professor at Illinois State University.

The post Hasina is out. Yunus is in. Here are the three biggest factors to watch in Bangladesh. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

A Russia without Russians? Putin’s disastrous demographics

Harley Balzer — Wed, 07 Aug 2024 14:00:00 +0000

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 challenged much of the common Western understanding of Russia. How can the world better understand Russia? What are the steps forward for Western policy? The Eurasia Center’s new “Russia Tomorrow” series seeks to reevaluate conceptions of Russia today and better prepare for its future tomorrow.

DOWNLOAD PDF

Introduction

I. Addressing the Soviet legacy

II. Pre-war policies

III. The ethnic variable

V. Conclusion

About the author

Russia’s future will be characterized by a smaller population. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war has virtually guaranteed that for generations to come, Russia’s population will be not only smaller, but also older, more fragile, and less well-educated. It will almost certainly be ethnically less Russian and more religiously diverse. While some might view diversity as a strength, many Russians do not see it this way. In a world with hordes of people on the move to escape war, persecution, poverty, and the increasing impact of climate change, xenophobic political rhetoric sells well.

Putin has spoken frequently about Russia’s demographic problems, beginning in his first months as president. Despite spending trillions of rubles on high-profile “national projects” to remedy the situation, population decline continued. Putin’s choice of timing for military aggression in Ukraine might have reflected an understanding that Russia’s demographic (and economic) situation would not improve in the next two decades. However, the war is turning a growing crisis into a catastrophe.

The demographic consequences from the Russian war against Ukraine, like those from World War II and the health, birth rate and life expectancy impact from Russia’s protracted transition in the 1990s, will echo for generations. Russia’s population will decline for the rest of the twenty-first century, and ethnic Russians will be a smaller proportion of that population. The ethnic and religious groups that embrace the “traditional family values” Putin favors are predominantly non-Russian.

United Nations scenarios project Russia’s population in 2100 to be between 74 million and 112 million compared with the current 146 million. The most recent UN projections are for the world’s population to decline by about 20 percent by 2100. The estimate for Russia is a decline of 25 to 50 percent.

While Russia is hardly unique in facing declining birth rates and an aging population, high adult mortality, and infertility among both men and women, increasingly limited immigration and continuing brain drain make Russia’s situation particularly challenging. Population size is determined by a combination of natural factors—birth rates and life expectancy, along with the emigration-immigration balance. Putin’s war on Ukraine has undermined all the potential sources of population growth.

There have been four important inflection points in demography policy since Putin became president. The first came in 2006, when Putin’s rhetoric about demography finally resulted in specific policies: demography was one of the first four national projects he launched at that time. The second significant change came following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. The reaction to that aggression in Ukraine, Moldova, and other former Soviet republics narrowed the number of countries providing labor to Russia.

A third key moment was the Crocus City Hall terrorist attack near Moscow in March 2024. Tajiks made up half of the immigrants to Russia in 2023, but that has become politically problematic in the aftermath of the Crocus attack. The most recent policy shifts accompanied the formation of a new government in May 2024. Initial reports promise a long-term approach that perhaps begins to recognize Russia’s new demographic reality. It comes too late, and the measures proposed fail to offer new solutions.

The paper begins with a summary of the demographic problems the Russian Federation inherited from the Soviet Union and its ineffective initial response. The second section reviews the deteriorating situation after 2013. The third section focuses on ways Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine is exacerbating all of these challenges. The conclusion suggests what impact population decline will have on Russia’s future.

Addressing the Soviet legacy

The Soviet Union experienced multiple demographic shocks in the twentieth century. Following Joseph Stalin’s death, recovery appeared possible. Yet by the 1960s, Russia’s high infant mortality and low adult life expectancy were outliers compared with most highly industrialized countries.

The population shock from World War II echoed for decades. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s anti-alcohol campaign in 1986–1987 generated a brief improvement in life expectancy, but this was hardly enough to change the dynamic.

Economic disruptions, beginning with Gorbachev’s perestroika and continuing into the 1990s, resulted in fewer births, higher mortality, and significant emigration. The dissolution of the Soviet Union spurred massive population relocation, as millions of Russians and non-Russians returned to their titular homelands. Every former Soviet republic became more ethnically homogeneous. This trend has continued within the Russian Federation, as some non-Russian republics continue to become less Russian. Russians relocating within the Russian Federation have reduced the population in the Far East.

Russia’s immigration-emigration balance involves several population flows. Russians have moved back to Russia from newly independent former Soviet republics. As Russia’s economy improved, labor migrants, primarily from former Soviet republics, have found formal and informal work in Russia. Prior to the war, the immigrants compensated for the multiple waves of (mostly Russian) people emigrating from Russia.

The breakdown of the Warsaw Pact —and then the Soviet Union itself—disrupted economic linkages and supply chains that had existed for decades. Economic insecurity reduced already-declining birth rates across much of the post-Soviet space. Russia’s total fertility rate (TFR)—the number of births per woman—dropped from just below replacement level in 1988 to 1.3 in 2004. Maintaining a population level requires a TFR of at least 2.1 without positive net immigration; Russia’s high adult mortality rate requires one even higher.

In his initial inaugural address in August 2000, Putin warned that Russia could become “an enfeebled nation” due to population decline. Despite the warnings, little was done. Russia’s TFR increased from 1.25 in 2000 to 1.39 in 2007. This slight improvement reflected better economic conditions due to rising oil prices, and a (temporarily) larger number of women in the 18–35 age cohort.

One reason for persistent difficulty in achieving higher birth rates or TFR numbers has been the legacy of Soviet polices. Lack of access to effective birth control and male resistance to condom use resulted in abortion being the widely used solution for unwanted pregnancies. Murray Feshbach calculated that the Soviet-era abortion rate averaged seven per woman. Far less attention has been devoted to male infertility. Alcohol and substance abuse have resulted in unusually high infertility rates among Russian men.

Low birth rates are only one part of the population problem. Unhealthy diet and lifestyle, binge alcohol consumption, and accidents contribute to the high adult mortality numbers. When Putin was first elected president in 2000, Russian men aged 18–64 were dying at four times the rate of European men. Russian women were perishing at about the same rate as European men.
Until early 2005, Putin’s public position was that Russia could offset its population decline by attracting more Russians living in former Soviet republics to return to Russia, bringing with them needed skills while augmenting the ethnic Russian population. This immigration offset much of the population loss in the 1990s but has increasingly declined since Putin became president. Significantly, non-Russians became the dominant labor migrants.

Data from the Russian state statistics service Goskomstat indicate legal immigration peaked at 1.147 million in 1994 and declined each year thereafter, shrinking to 350,900 in 2000 and 70,000 in 2004.

Despite the declining numbers, the Russian government adopted a highly restrictive law in 2002 limiting legal immigration. When the Security Council discussed immigration again in 2005, Putin called for a more “humane approach,” dropping the racial and religious criteria. Yet he followed this with a “clarification” prioritizing Russian speakers. It is possible that Putin understood the situation but adjusted his rhetoric in accord with public opinion.

Russian media reports of a massive influx of Chinese immigrants in the 1990s were wildly exaggerated. By 2000, as oil prices rose, workers from Central Asia, Ukraine, and Moldova found formal or informal work in Russia. Russia incorporated the populations of Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014, and additional territories since 2022, which accounts for official claims of a larger “Russian” population.

Immigrants to Russia have come overwhelmingly from former Soviet republics, which account for 95–96 percent of the total. Just five countries that were part of the Soviet Union (Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) had population growth between 1989 and 2004. Migrants from two former Soviet republics with declining populations, Ukraine and Moldova, continued to provide labor until 2014. Putin reiterated the importance of demography in his inaugural addresses in 2012, 2018, and 2024, and in many of his annual call-in programs. Several times he has acknowledged the failure to achieve promised increases in births. Yet there appears to be no learning curve regarding policies. Putin’s 2024 address promised more of the same: paying Russians to have larger families, accompanied by invoking the need for more soldiers to defend the motherland.

Pre-war policies

As the price of oil increased in the 2000s, Putin’s government debated how to use the windfall to address persistent demographic challenges. As in many countries, immigration remains politically fraught. Russian nationalist groups adopted “Russia for the Russians” as a campaign slogan. Improving life expectancy is an ideal solution, but it is slow and expensive, depending on adults taking care of their health. Putin’s government opted for pro-natal policies. In his presidential address in 2006, Putin cited demography as “the most serious problem in Russia today.” Rather than listening to advisers familiar with the basket of diverse policies that improved birth rates in France and Sweden—prenatal and postnatal care, parental leave, daycare, preschool programs, housing support, and other incentives—Russia’s government emphasized “maternity capital.”

The initial maternity capital program offered incentives to women for the birth or adoption of a second or additional child. The funds, paid when a child turned three, could be used for housing, the child’s education at an accredited institution, the mother’s pension, or assistance for children with disabilities. Over time, changes have included payment for a first child and improved housing. The annually indexed funding was enough to encourage additional births in rural areas and smaller towns but had little impact in higher-priced urban areas that are home to 70 percent of the population. Moreover, many women who experienced giving birth in a Russian maternity hospital decided once was sufficient.

The pro-natal policy coincided with slightly higher Russian birth rates, raising the TFR from 1.3 when the maternity-capital program was launched in 2007 to nearly 1.8 in 2015. Most demographers, however, attribute the higher numbers to a (temporarily) larger cohort of women in prime child-bearing years, economic growth due to higher oil prices during Putin’s first two terms, and hopes that nationwide protests over the 2011–2012 elections augured real change. After 2012, the reduced number of returning compatriots offset the gains in births.

Despite the augmented maternity-capital program, Russia’s TFR dropped back to 1.5 by 2019, prior to COVID-19 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russian official sources continued to report the rate as 1.8. Without immigration, even a TFR of 1.8 would result in Russia’s population decreasing by about 20–25 percent in each generation.

The other endogenous factor in natural population change is life expectancy. Russia is hardly an outlier in experiencing lower birth rates. Most countries outside of Africa are projected to have smaller populations in the coming decades. Yet Russia continues to be exceptional among developed countries in the rate of mortality among adults aged 18–64. Russia’s economic recovery during Putin’s first two terms as President did lead to some improvement. While Russian men died at four times the rate of European men in 1990, by 2022 the rate was merely double the European rate.

The modest improvements during Putin’s first two terms were due to the economic recovery, greater stability, and efforts to improve healthcare. Yet the major focus of the healthcare program was not the badly needed primary and preventive care. Instead, most of the funds were used to purchase expensive new equipment, creating opportunities for graft.

The improvements in life expectancy began to reverse by 2019. Russia’s COVID-19 response was deeply flawed, resulting in the highest per-capita death rate among industrialized countries, though official statistics have consistently concealed the impact.

Economic benefits from people living longer are double edged. The impact depends on individuals’ capacity to work and the related dependency ratio for the population. Societies need enough able-bodied workers to support the young, the old, and the disabled.

Russia’s demographic issues involve quality as well as quantity. Even before Putin opted to invade Ukraine, Russia was experiencing another significant brain drain. Just before the war, Valerii Fal’kov, Russia’s Minister of Science and Higher Education, told Putin that the number of scientists in Russia was declining. Outside of atomic energy and the defense industry, Russia’s best specialists preferred to work in the US, Europe, and “even China.” Nikolai Dolgushkin, Academy of Sciences Chief Scientific Secretary, reported that emigration by scientists had increased from 14,000 in 2012 to 70,000 in 2021. Russia was the only developed nation where the number of scientific personnel was shrinking.

The challenges have become more serious, as the war on Ukraine has resulted in as many as half a million young men killed or wounded, women choosing to forego having children, women being sent to fight in Ukraine, and more than one million mostly young and highly educated people choosing to leave Russia.

Replacing them has been increasingly undermined by shortsighted government policies. In a country with a history of claiming to be multinational while viewing Russians as the system-forming ethnicity, recent government policies are creating additional difficulties. One of the great ironies of the situation Putin has created is that, in addition to poor rural villagers, the demographic groups best matching his August 2022 decree advocating “preservation and strengthening traditional Russian spiritual-moral values” are Russia’s non-Russian and non-Russian Orthodox populations.

The ethnic variable

Russia’s birth rates vary across regions and ethnic and religious populations. The rates in major urban centers resemble those of Central Europe, with later marriages, widespread use of birth control, and a large number of single-child families. Rural regions and small towns tend to retain more traditional values around child-rearing. People in these venues marry and begin having children earlier and are far more likely to have two or more children. Yet 70 percent of Russians live in the urban centers. The citizens most likely to have large families live in villages, small towns, and Russia’s non-Russian regions and Republics. In 2023, the non-Russian share of the population was about 30%.

Putin-era policies have persistently undermined the principles of federalism enshrined in Russia’s 1993 constitution. Some non-Russians believe the assault on their special status stems, in part, from Russians fearing their higher birth rates.

Significant differences in birth rates among ethnic and religious groups within Russia pose serious policy challenges. Some groups have been more resistant to the “demographic transition” than others. The predominantly non-Russian and Muslim republics of the North Caucasus are experiencing the “demographic transition” more slowly than most Russian regions. The Chechens in particular have responded to their deportation to Central Asia during World War II with a strong pro-natal ethos.

Comparative studies find relationships between high birth rates and traditional religious beliefs in multiple places. Some accounts emphasize higher birth rates among Muslims, despite wide variation across communities. Religious conservatives in many faiths record higher birth rates: evangelical Christians, Mormons, Hindus, Orthodox Jews, and others. Some groups have historically been known for large families. In Russia, some non-Russian ethnic groups have higher birth rates than Russians. The birth rates in the largely Muslim North Caucasus have been a particular concern for Moscow. Despite birth rates among many ethnic populations declining, births in many non-Russian communities continue to remain higher than those of ethnic Russians.

Several analysts call attention to a phenomenon of ethnic groups that feel threatened responding with high fertility rates. Russia’s “punished peoples”—those accused of sympathizing with the Germans during World War II and deported from their homelands—have received particular attention. Marat Ilyasov, a scholar from Chechnya who now teaches in the US, makes a strong case for the Chechens, one of the groups that managed to return to their ancestral territory, striving for high birth rates to guarantee the nation’s survival. They have the highest birth rates in the country.

Chechens are hardly the only ethnic group in the North Caucasus with birth rates higher than the Russian average. Some official sources intentionally downplay the numbers of Chechens and other non-Russian groups in an attempt to emphasize “Russianness” and downplay the significance of non-Russian populations.

Some Russian demographers suggest that non-Russians are increasingly experiencing the “demographic revolution,” but at a slower pace. While this is plausible, complaints about changing definitions and undercounting in recent Russian censuses provide ample grounds for skepticism regarding the official numbers.

Even the official data show that birth rates continue to be higher among many of the non-Russian groups in Russia. Many leaders of non-Russian peoples claim that these populations are being sent to fight in Ukraine in far larger numbers than ethnic Russians. Russian officials try to emphasize that it is the rural population that provides most of the soldiers, due to the high wages the military offers.

Data show that individuals from ethnic republics in Russia’s far east and south have a far higher chance of being mobilized for combat. While proving intent is complicated, the numbers are shocking. Men living in Buryatia have a 50- to 100-percent greater chance of being sent to fight in Ukraine than a resident of Moscow or St. Petersburg.

It is too early to gauge whether the high numbers of deaths and injuries will stimulate a response by some groups to try increasing birth rates. It does appear that the war is resulting in a more serious decline in births among ethnic Russians in urban centers than in both Russian and non-Russian rural communities. Russia’s non-ethnic-Russian citizens increasingly perceive their populations as being singled out as cannon fodder in Ukraine.

Immigrants have also been pressed into military service, causing a precipitous drop in immigration.

Wartime policies undermine population growth

Russia’s natural population growth has been curtailed by mobilization, casualties, emigration, and widespread reluctance to have children. Illegally annexing Crimea added 2.4 million people to Russia’s population, but significantly reduced immigration from Ukraine and Moldova. After 2014, labor migration to Russia was limited to five countries in Central Asia. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine stalled, the Kremlin has consistently needed more troops, forcing increasing numbers of these workers into military service.

Offering high salaries has attracted mercenaries from Cuba, Syria and elsewhere, but devious tactics have discouraged many labor migrants. In 2023, half of Russia’s labor migrants came from Tajikistan. The Crocus City Hall terror attack in March 2024, which Russian law enforcement alleges was carried out by Tajiks, is curtailing this pipeline. Tajiks have been rounded up for deportation and subjected to physical violence. Efforts to develop new sources of labor migration from Southeast Asia have been undermined by Russia continuing to send labor migrants to Ukraine.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine also provoked another large exodus of Russians from Russia. Some families had their bags packed and were ready to leave when Russian troops crossed the border in February 2022. Mobilization in September 2022 caused an additional exodus, primarily by young men. Many information technology (IT) specialists left, believing they could continue to work while abroad.

A man walks past banners in support of the Russian Army in Saint Petersburg, Russia. (Anton Vaganov via REUTERS)

Emigration by hundreds of thousands of young men, and an unknown number of young women, is reducing the already small cohort of Russians in prime reproductive years. Hundreds of thousands of men being sent to serve in Ukraine further limits reproductive potential. Russian women have increasingly opted to avoid pregnancy in the face of economic difficulties and growing uncertainty. In the first half of 2023, a record number of Russians applied for passports for travel abroad “just in case” (na vsyaki sluchi).

The regime has responded with efforts to prevent abortion and limit birth control. This comes at a time when abortions are less frequent. Some Russian women are choosing sterilization instead. This represents an ironic shift from the Soviet-era legacy of many women being unable to have children due to multiple abortions. Births in 2023 reflected the lowest fertility rate in the past two or three centuries.

The declining value of the ruble and raids on immigrant communities to conscript workers to fight in Ukraine have reduced the number of Central Asians seeking work in Russia. The number willing to become paid mercenaries is limited.

Russia’s leadership apparently did not anticipate the need to recruit additional soldiers for a protracted war in 2022. Doing so now represents a serious challenge. Data in 2015 indicated that Russians were pleased that Crimea was under Russian control. However, fewer than 20 percent of Russians surveyed thought their government should spend large sums to rebuild occupied areas of Ukraine, especially the Donbas region. Fewer than 10 percent said it was worth risking Russian lives to keep these territories.

The Russian government’s polling consistently reports approval for the war as high as 70–80 percent. Some Western analysts accept these numbers, and some have commissioned their own polling that confirms strong support for the war. Others are dubious, reporting data similar to those of 2015, when respondents were asked about financing reconstruction or the need to suffer casualties.

One indication that Russia’s leadership understands the problem of sending Russians to fight in Ukraine is an increasingly desperate and shortsighted attempt to find alternatives to mobilizing more Russians. After the February 2022 invasion provoked a large exodus of Russians of all ages, the “partial” mobilization conducted in September 2022 resulted in tens of thousands more, primarily young men, leaving the country. No one has precise data, and many of these Russian citizens have moved on from their initial refuge. If seven hundred thousand Russians now registered as living in Dubai is any indication, the émigrés may number far more than one million.

The people mobilized are overwhelmingly from low-income rural and non-Russian regions. Stories have emerged about recruits needing to provide their own equipment, including bandages in case of injury. Some received less than a week of training before being sent into combat. These conditions confirm the belief that the authorities view them as expendable cannon fodder. The result is widespread efforts to evade serving.

In an attempt to reduce the need for mobilization, other tactics were developed. Yevgeny Prigozhin, founder of the paramilitary Wagner Group, toured Russian prisons to offer convicts the opportunity to serve six months in Ukraine in return for presidential pardons. Tens of thousands took him up on the offer and died at the front. Survivors have returned to Russia, with some resuming their criminal activity, including rape and murder.

Prigozhin perished when his plane was shot down a few months after he staged an aborted march to Moscow to convince Putin to fire military commanders the Wagner leader deemed incompetent. But his program lives on, and recent reports indicate it is being expanded to include female prisoners.

Ironically, while the convicts who survive their six-month contracts have been allowed to return home, Russians who have been fighting for two years or more are still on active duty. Their families are furious. One of the few significant protest groups left in Russia, “the Council of Wives and Mothers,” that has protested the length of time their husbands and sons have been forced to serve, was declared a foreign agent in July 2023 in an effort by Putin to stifle public awareness of the treatment of soldiers and overall casualties in the war.

Despite major recruitment efforts, Russia is not experiencing a major influx of new immigrants or returning compatriots. The full-scale war has further limited the already diminishing prospects of inducing a large share of the 30 million Russians living outside of Russia to return home. In 2006, Putin signed a decree establishing a program to encourage Russians to return, and some eight hundred thousand did so between 2006 and 2018. The number of both applications and returns declined in 2020 due to COVID-19. The numbers recovered slightly in 2021 but declined after the start of the full-scale war in 2022. In 2023 the number applying to return was the lowest in a decade. The number who did return dropped below the 2020 COVID-19 level:

Legislation designed to prohibit Russians—especially mobile IT workers—from working while abroad has provoked sharp battles between security services and Russian companies that depend on these employees in a tight labor market.

Treatment of Central Asian and other foreign labor migrants has increasingly shifted to forced labor and sometimes outright slavery. Central Asians working in Russia have been rounded up and sent to join the war on Ukraine. A study of the Uzbek community reports that many Uzbeks have been arrested for minor or contrived offenses and sentenced to terms of fifteen, twenty, or even twenty-five years. Once in prison, they are offered the Wagner option of “volunteering” to fight in Ukraine.

Predatory practices have extended beyond Russia’s usual sources of migrant workers. Individuals from Nepal, Syria, and India have been recruited to work in factories or as guards at various venues in Russia. After they arrive, their passports are confiscated and they are sent to fight in Ukraine. As during World War II, punishment squads are deployed to prevent soldiers from retreating. These predatory tactics differ from the treatment of Cuban and African mercenaries who are attracted by the money.

In addition to money, another inducement to attract foreign fighters is the offer of Russian citizenship. If these commitments are honored, the result will be to add more non-Russians to the country’s population. The disastrous long-term impact of the predatory recruitment policies is clear. As information (and bodies) reach families, word spreads. Russian programs to increase labor recruitment in Southeast Asia are being undermined as word of these tactics spreads.

Conclusion

Why would a leader who has proclaimed demography to be one of the most serious threats to a nation’s future launch an unprovoked war against a neighboring country that was a significant source of labor before 2014? We may never be able to answer this. We can conclude that Putin has turned a daunting crisis into a cataclysm.

Putin’s policies cannot solve these demographic problems. He has been reiterating the importance of Russia’s dire demographic situation for a quarter-century. Manipulating demographic data, adding people in occupied Ukrainian regions to Russia’s population, and omitting war casualties from the census do not generate sustainable population growth. These tactics cannot meet the needs of employers who report serious labor shortages in nearly every sector of the economy. Russia’s defense industry is operating “three shifts” by requiring workers to work sixty to seventy hours per week. The sustainability of these measures and the impact on quality raise significant questions. Financial incentives are undermined when workers are compelled to make “voluntary” contributions to fund the war effort.

In 2022–2023, the most serious labor shortages were reported in agriculture and construction, sectors that rely heavily on Central Asian migrants. Now Russia’s government is endeavoring to attract labor from India, Pakistan, and North Korea to replace the war casualties and émigrés. Firms involved in production, retail, logistics, and e-commerce face labor shortages. While manufacturers continue to prefer Russian workers, one company told journalists that bringing workers from India required paying salaries at the same level as those for Russian staff, plus the cost of transporting and registering the workers. Yet the company was looking for a contractor to arrange providing five hundred workers from India. The reasoning was that workers who lack Russian language are less likely to be recruited by competitors, while foreign workers who know Russian are more mobile.

A Russian entrepreneur noted that labor brokers in Kazakhstan smuggle thousands of workers from Bangladesh into that country in containers each year. They are now offering their services to Russian employers, suggesting that the same tactics can be used to bring workers from India. Others point out that labor from India remains crucial in several Middle Eastern countries where wages are higher, making Russia the option for the least skilled and least desirable migrants.

Sources of labor globally are increasing due to population growth in developing countries that face serious impacts from climate change. Demographers project that the major growth in global population during the rest of the twenty-first century will be in Africa. Yet the six African countries with the largest populations also appear on most lists of the places likely to face the greatest threats from climate change. As in Latin America, this will result in “green migration.” These are not traditional sources of labor for Russia, and the regime may choose to rely on these countries for mercenaries.

Putin’s government has not evinced visible concern that Russia’s population might be cut in half by century’s end. Unless Russia’s leaders can develop and finance a more effective set of policies, the only solutions to population decline will be a combination of incorporating non-Russian territory and/or immigration from Asia and Africa.

If Putin truly believed that demography is an existential problem for Russia, he might have calculated how many Ukrainians lived or worked in Russia before annexing Crimea and launching an invasion.

Putin’s regime is both seeking and discouraging repatriation by compatriots. On February 1, 2024, Russian media reported new legislation allowing the government to seize property belonging to Russians outside the country who criticize the war on Ukraine. Multiple instances have been reported of Russian diplomats and security personnel demanding that other countries detain and repatriate Russians who speak freely. Threats to seize their property in Russia are a logical extension of policies threatening family members still living in Russia.

At the same time, Russia’s policy does encourage compatriots to return, even as other citizens continue to depart.

One possible solution to the problems compounding Russia’s labor shortage would be to decentralize policy, allowing Russian regions to make their own decisions about attracting foreign labor. The resulting competition could go a long way toward improving conditions for foreign workers. Regional development was the prime mover in China’s massive urbanization and industrialization after 1978. While this involved horizontal mobility within the country, the model would resemble the significant influx of immigrants that, at least thus far, has kept the US population at well above replacement level. As Russia’s population continues to decline, immigrants will be increasingly vital to economic recovery.

Invading Ukraine while facing a catastrophic demographic challenge appears to have been a massive folly for the Kremlin. Hubris based on an astonishing intelligence failure might account for the miscalculation. Another possible explanation is that Putin understood that Russia’s economic and demographic challenges mean the country would not be in a more favorable condition any time in the coming decades.

Every corner of Russia’s economy is experiencing personnel shortages, while war casualties continue to shrink the able-bodied population. Russians and their leaders must learn to value diversity, or Russia will have an increasingly smaller and older population. Either way, there will be fewer ethnic Russians.

About the author

Harley Balzer retired in July 2016 after 33 years in the Department of Government, School of Foreign Service, and associated faculty member of the History Department at Georgetown University. He was founding director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian, and East European Studies from 1987-2001. Prior to Georgetown he taught at Grinnell College and Boston University, and held post-doctoral fellowships at Harvard’s Russian Research Center and the MIT Program in Science, Technology and Society. In 1982-83 he was a congressional fellow in the office of Congressman Lee Hamilton, where he helped secure passage of the Soviet-East-European Research and Training Act (Title VIII).

In 1992-93 Balzer served as executive director and chairman of the board of the International Science Foundation, George Soros’s largest program to aid the former Soviet Union. From 1998 to 2009, he was a member of the Governing Council of the Basic Research and Higher Education (BRHE) Program, funded by the MacArthur Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, and Russian Ministry of Education. BRHE established 20 Research and Education Centers at Russian Universities, and was significantly expanded by the Russian government using their own resources.

His publications have focused on Russian and Soviet history, Russian politics, Russian education, science and technology, and comparative work on Russia and China.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to promote policies that strengthen stability, democratic values, and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe in the West to the Caucasus, Russia, and Central Asia in the East.

Russia is destroying monuments as part of war on Ukrainian identity

Yevhenii Monastyrskyi, John Vsetecka — Tue, 06 Aug 2024 20:14:30 +0000

Throughout Russian-occupied Ukraine, efforts continue to systematically erase all traces of Ukrainian national memory. This campaign against monuments and memorials is chilling proof that Russia’s invasion goes far beyond mere border revisions and ultimately aims to wipe Ukraine off the map entirely.

The modern history of a single park in east Ukrainian city Luhansk offers insights into the memory war currently being waged by the Kremlin. In 1972, the Communist authorities in Soviet Luhansk decided to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the USSR by transforming a local cemetery into a Friendship of Peoples Park. Once construction got underway, workers soon began uncovering mass graves of people murdered during the Stalin era. This news was suppressed until 1989, when it was belatedly reported in the local newspaper. One year later, a memorial to the victims of Stalinist mass killings was erected at the site.

This initial monument was part of a broader movement for historical justice that emerged in the twilight years of the USSR as local historians, journalists, and officials sought to document the crimes of the Communist authorities in the Luhansk region. Following Ukrainian independence, the opening of national archives made it possible to identify and honor victims of the Communist regime and end decades of censorship that had suppressed knowledge of Soviet crimes against humanity including the Holodomor, an artificially engineered famine in 1930s Ukraine that killed millions of Ukrainians.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

During the early years of Ukrainian independence, Luhansk’s Friendship of Peoples Park remained a space of contested memory. While retaining its old Soviet era name, it gradually acquired a range of new memorials including a monument to Soviet soldiers who fought in Afghanistan, a cross marking the grave of the city’s former mayor, and a memorial to the victims of the Holodomor.

In 2009, following decades of public pressure, the park was renamed as the Garden of Remembrance. At this point, it seemed as though the long task of restoring historical memory in Luhansk was finally complete. However, the onset of Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2014 transformed the memory politics of the region once again and revived many of the darkest chapters of the Soviet years.

When Kremlin forces occupied Luhansk in the spring of 2014, they soon began attempting to transform remembrance of the Soviet era. While monuments to Lenin were being dismantled elsewhere in Ukraine, the Russian authorities in Luhansk were erecting new monuments glorifying the Soviet past and celebrating the “liberation” of the city from Ukrainian rule. This mirrored similar processes that were underway in other Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine, including nearby Donetsk and the Crimean peninsula.

Curiously, many memorials in Luhansk honoring the victims of the Soviet era initially remained untouched. This changed with the full-scale invasion of February 2022, which led to a more aggressive approach to the eradication of Ukrainian historical memory. In the second half of 2022, the Holodomor memorial in Mariupol was demolished. By summer 2024, the Russian occupation authorities had also dismantled monuments in Luhansk honoring the victims of the Holodomor and the Stalinist Terror.

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

The occupation authorities in Luhansk have attempted to justify these measures by framing the Holodomor as a Ukrainian propaganda myth and positioning memorials to the victims of Soviet crimes as “pilgrimage sites for Ukrainian nationalists.” They have also argued that the dismantling of monuments is in response to grassroots demands from the local population.

Russia’s selective monument removals are part of a deliberate strategy to rehabilitate favorable aspects of the Soviet past while whitewashing the crimes of the Communist era. A similarly partisan approach has been adopted toward the historical role of Tsarist Russia. Throughout occupied regions of Ukraine, the Kremlin seeks to craft a narrative glorifying Russian imperialism that legitimizes Moscow’s land grab while suppressing any traces of a separate Ukrainian national identity. In this manner, Putin is weaponizing the past to serve his own present-day geopolitical ambitions.

The demolition of memorials is only one aspect of Russia’s war on Ukrainian national identity. In areas of Ukraine under Kremlin control, anyone deemed pro-Ukrainian is at risk of being detained or simply disappearing. Speaking Ukrainian is considered a serious offense. Ukrainians are pressured into accepting Russian citizenship, while thousands of Ukrainian children have been abducted and sent to Russia, where they are subjected to indoctrination in camps designed to rob them of their Ukrainian heritage.

Unlike earlier attempts to erase entire nations, today’s Kremlin campaign to extinguish Ukrainian identity is taking place in full view of international audiences in the heart of twenty-first century Europe. This poses fundamental challenges to the entire notion of a rules-based international order and represents a major obstacle to any future peace process. As long as Russia remains committed to the destruction of Ukraine, a truly sustainable settlement to today’s war will remain elusive.

Yevhenii Monastyrskyi is a PhD student of history at Harvard University and a lecturer at Kyiv School of Economics. John Vsetecka is an assistant professor of history at Nova Southeastern University.

However, this outage is not just a technology error. It also reveals a hidden world of digital public infrastructure (DPI) that deserves more attention from policymakers.

What is digital public infrastructure?

DPI, while an evolving concept, is broadly defined by the United Nations (UN) as a combination of “networked open technology standards built for public interest, [which] enables governance and [serves] a community of innovative and competitive market players working to drive innovation, especially across public programmes.” This definition refers to DPI as essential digital systems that support critical societal functions, like how physical infrastructure—including roads, bridges, and power grids—are essential for everyday activities.

Microsoft Windows, which runs CrowdStrike’s Falcon Sensor software, is a form of DPI. And other examples of DPI within the UN definition include digital health systems, payment systems, and e-governance portals.

As the world scrambles to fix their Windows systems, policymakers need to pay particular attention to the core DPI issues that underpin the outage.

The problem of invisibility

DPI, such as Microsoft Windows, is ubiquitous but also largely invisible, which is a significant challenge when it comes to managing risks associated with it. Unlike physical infrastructure, which is tangible and visible, DPI powers essential digital services without drawing public awareness. Consequently, the potential risks posed by DPI failures—whether stemming from software bugs or cybersecurity breaches—tend to be underappreciated and underestimated by the public.

The lack of a clear definition of DPI exacerbates the issue of its invisibility. Not all digital technologies are public infrastructure: Companies build technology to generate revenue, but many of them do not directly offer critical services for the public. For instance, Fitbit, a tech company that creates fitness and health tracking devices, is not a provider of DPI. Though it utilizes technology and data services to enhance user experience, it does not provide essential infrastructure such as internet services, cloud computing platforms, or large-scale data centers that support public and business digital needs. That said, Fitbit’s new owner, Google, known for its widely used browser, popular cloud computing services, and efforts to expand digital connectivity, can be considered a provider of DPI.

Other companies that do not start out as DPI may become integral to public infrastructure by dint of becoming indispensable. Facebook, for example, started out as a social network, but it and other social media platforms have become a crucial aspect of civil discourse surrounding many elections. Regulating social media platforms as a simple technology product could potentially ignore their role as public infrastructure, which often deserve extra scrutiny to mitigate potential detrimental effects on the public.

The recent Microsoft outage, from which airlines, hospitals, and other companies are still recovering, should now sharpen the focus on the company as a provider of DPI. However, the invisibility of DPI and the absence of appropriate policy guidelines for measuring and managing its risks result in two complications. First, most users who interact with DPI often do not recognize it as a form of DPI. Second, this invisibility leads to a misplaced trust in major technology companies, as users fail to recognize how high the collective stakes of a failure in this DPI might be. Market dominance and effective advertising have helped major technology companies publicize their systems as benchmarks of reliability and resiliency. As a result, the public often perceives these systems as infallible, assuming they are more secure than they are—until a failure occurs. At the same time, an overabundance of public trust and comfort with familiar systems can foster complacency within organizations, which can lead to inadequate internal scrutiny and security audits.

How to prevent future disruptions

The Great IT Outage of 2024 revealed just how essential DPI is to societies across the globe. In many ways, the outage serves as a symbolic outcry for solution-oriented policies and accountability to stave off future disruptions.

To address DPI invisibility and misplaced trust in technology companies, US policymakers should first define DPI clearly and holistically while accounting for its status as an evolving concept. It is equally crucial to distinguish which companies are currently providers of DPI, and to educate leaders, policymakers, and the public about what that means. Such an initiative should provide a clear definition of DPI, its technical characteristics, and its various forms, while highlighting how commonly used software such as Microsoft Windows is a form of DPI. A silver lining of the recent Microsoft/CrowdStrike outage is that it offers a practical, recent case study to present to the public as real-world context for understanding the risks when DPI fails.

Finally, Microsoft has outlined technical next steps to prevent another outage, including extensive testing frameworks and backup systems to prevent the same kind of outage from happening again. However, while industry-driven self-regulation is crucial, regulation that enforces and standardizes backup systems, not just with Microsoft, but also for other technology companies that may also become providers of DPI, is also necessary. Doing so will help prevent future outages, ensuring the reliability of infrastructure which, just like roads and bridges, props up the world.

Saba Weatherspoon is a young global professional with the Atlantic Council’s Geotech Center.

Zhenwei Gao is a young global professional with the Cyber Statecraft Initiative, part of the Atlantic Council Technology Programs.

The post The Great IT Outage of 2024 is a wake-up call about digital public infrastructure appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Russia’s Black Sea defeats get flushed down Vladimir Putin’s memory hole

Peter Dickinson — Tue, 06 Aug 2024 13:51:05 +0000

There was much pomp and pageantry on display recently in former Russian imperial capital Saint Petersburg as Vladimir Putin presided over the country’s annual Navy Day festivities. In truth, however, Putin and his assembled admirals had very little to celebrate. Over the past year, Russia’s once-vaunted Black Sea Fleet has been decimated by Ukrainian drones and missiles in what must rank as the most remarkable series of naval defeats in modern military history.

Despite barely having a navy of its own, Ukraine has managed to sink or severely damage approximately one-third of Putin’s fleet, forcing the bulk of his remaining warships to retreat from occupied Crimea. The war at sea has gone so badly for Russia that by spring 2024, Britain’s Ministry of Defense was already declaring the Black Sea Fleet “functionally inactive.”

The details of this year’s Russian Navy Day program provided some hints of the inglorious reality behind Moscow’s efforts to project naval strength. Tellingly, the traditional parade of Russian warships along the Neva River to the Kronstadt naval base, which usually serves as the centerpiece of the entire holiday, was canceled due to security concerns. In its place, a reduced flotilla took part in a significantly scaled down event that featured around half as many vessels as in previous years.

Despite being by far the smallest Russian Navy Day since the holiday was reinstated in 2017, this year’s event nevertheless represented an excellent opportunity for Putin to honor Russia’s fallen sailors and vow retribution for the country’s unprecedented losses in the Black Sea. In fact, he did nothing of the sort. Throughout his official address, Putin barely mentioned the casualties suffered or the sacrifices made by the Russian Navy during the invasion of Ukraine. Instead, the Kremlin dictator preferred to flush Russia’s Black Sea defeats down the memory hole. He was aided by the loyal Russian media, which carefully avoided any awkward references to the disaster that has befallen the country’s Black Sea Fleet.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

All this brings to mind an old Soviet joke that begins with Napoleon, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great looking down from heaven at a Red Army parade on Red Square. Caesar indicates the endless rows of Soviet troops and says, “with so many men, I could have held Germania.” Alexander points to the tanks and missiles and declares, “with such weapons of war, I could have conquered all India.” Napoleon, meanwhile, completely ignores the parade and is instead engrossed in a copy of Pravda. “If I had such a newspaper,” he proclaims, “nobody would have heard of Waterloo.”

Many Soviet jokes have not aged well, but this particular punchline remains as relevant as ever in modern Russia, where Putin has succeeded in creating a propaganda machine every bit as potent as its Soviet predecessor. Today’s Kremlin-controlled multimedia ecosystem is far more sophisticated than its Communist forerunner, but it serves the same basic function of bending reality to suit the whims of Russia’s ruling elite.

For the past decade, Putin has used this unrivaled information weapon to fuel the biggest European invasion since World War II. Kremlin propagandists have managed to convince millions of ordinary Russians that democratic Ukraine is actually a “Nazi state” whose very existence poses an intolerable threat to Russia. Ukrainians have been demonized and dehumanized to such an extent that genocidal anti-Ukrainian rhetoric is now a routine feature on prime time Russian TV.

The success of these efforts is all too apparent, with a wide range of opinion polls, research, and anecdotal evidence pointing to consistently high levels of Russian public support for the invasion. Meanwhile, there is no meaningful anti-war movement in the country, despite widespread knowledge of the horrors taking place in neighboring Ukraine. This is not surprising. After all, as Voltaire once warned, those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Putin’s ability to distort Russian reality is genuinely terrifying, but the sheer scale of his propaganda operation could also inadvertently offer hope for the future. Many commentators have argued that failure in Ukraine would lead to the fall of the Putin regime and quite possibly the breakup of Russia itself, but these concerns may be exaggerated. While a third Russian collapse in a little over a century cannot be ruled out, the experience of the past two-and-a-half years gives good cause to believe that Moscow’s disinformation industry is more than capable of rebranding any future retreat from Ukraine in a favorable light, or of burying it completely. In other words, if the Russian media can manufacture a major war, it can also fabricate a suitably plausible peace.

Anyone who still doubts the Kremlin’s capacity to whitewash military defeat in Ukraine hasn’t been paying attention. We have recently witnessed Putin hosting the biggest naval event of the year while studiously ignoring the historic humbling of his southern fleet. It was the same story in 2022, when he ceremoniously announced that Kherson had joined Russia “forever,” only to order his beaten troops to abandon the city just weeks later. Likewise, when Russia lost the Battle of Kyiv during the initial phase of the invasion, the Kremlin refused to acknowledge defeat and absurdly insisted that the retreat from northern Ukraine was a mere “goodwill gesture.” If Putin is eventually forced to end his invasion, it seems safe to assume he will downplay this humiliation in similar fashion.

Since February 2022, Western leaders have found numerous reasons to limit their support for Ukraine. Some are restricted by modest defense budgets and competing domestic priorities. Most are afraid of possible escalation and have allowed themselves to be intimidated by Putin’s talk of Russian red lines. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says many of his country’s Western partners are also reluctant to arm Ukraine because they fear the unpredictable geopolitical consequences of a Russian defeat. This Western alarm over a possible Russian collapse is exaggerated and fails to account for the power of Putin’s propaganda.

If Russia suffers a decisive defeat in Ukraine, past experience indicates that the Kremlin will almost certainly seek to move the goalposts, change the narrative, or devise some other way of rewriting history and claiming victory. Any embarrassing evidence of failure would simply be flushed down the memory hole, along with all the sunken Russian warships of the Black Sea Fleet.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Imane Khelif is a woman, contrary to what the internet says

Yaseen Rashed — Mon, 05 Aug 2024 19:10:32 +0000

This article was updated on August 6 in part to clarify details about Khelif’s boxing matches, past disqualification from the Women’s World Championships, and gender identity.

Algerian Olympic boxer Imane Khelif made international headlines on August 1, when she knocked out Italian boxer Angela Carini just forty-six seconds into their match. After two forceful strikes to the head, Carini quit and fell to her knees in tears before walking away, refusing to shake Khelif’s hand. At one point, Carini could be heard on camera telling her coach, “It’s not right, it’s not right,” before exclaiming to the media that she had never been hit this hard in her career. Shortly after this, the hashtag #IStandWithAngelaCarini started to trend on social media.

Prominent public figures, like former US President Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, accused Khelif of being a transgender athlete and promised to keep “men out of women’s sports.” Others have called on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to ban her from competing in future matches, noting that she was disqualified by the International Boxing Association (IBA) from the Women’s World Championships in New Delhi last year. The IBA said recently the disqualification was for failing to meet eligibility criteria.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Some have erroneously claimed that the disqualification was because Khelif was biologically a male, despite the fact that Khelif was born female. The IBA stated that, ahead of the world championships in 2023, Khelif underwent a test (the nature of which is confidential, but the IBA stated it was not a testosterone examination). The IBA president later told Russian news agency Tass that her disqualification was because “it was proven they have XY chromosomes.” (There is no evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes.) IOC spokesman Mark Adams told reporters that the committee could not confirm the IBA test results and that “this is not a transgender issue.” (The two organizations no longer work together.)

Although Carini has since apologized for not shaking her opponent’s hand and said she felt badly that an online debate had transpired as a result, it wasn’t enough to stop the personal attacks on Khelif’s gender identity.

Several media outlets have speculated that Khelif could have differences in sex development (DSD), a group of rare medical conditions, but there is no verification that she has DSD or any medical condition related to sex traits. Khelif is not transgender and does not identify as intersex, contrary to what many have claimed about her on social media. In the face of criticism after her disqualification last year, Khelif responded, “To say that I have qualities and abilities that do not qualify me to compete with women is illogical. I did not create myself. This is God’s creation.”

Middle East and North African (MENA) social media users were quick to stand behind Khelif, using the English and Arabic hashtags #IstandWithImaneKhelif and #إيمان_خليف (#Iman_Khelif) and calling her “brave” for standing her ground. The themes of discourse found online, mainly in Arabic, highlighted colonial-linked narratives about the “West” attempting to steal this win from an Arab athlete by fabricating lies about her gender identity. This also comes at a time when transgender rights in the West remain a highly contentious topic, especially in the lead-up to the US presidential election in November.

Iman Khelif #JO2024 #Algerie pic.twitter.com/YQWYacNcfP
— Nime_BD (@Nime_BD) August 1, 2024

Some Algerian fans, in particular, have described the West’s reaction to Khelif’s win as “anti-Arab,” maintaining that Western notions of Arab womanhood remain entrenched in a profoundly Eurocentric and racist understanding. On X, Algerian cartoonist Nime posted a drawing of Khelif with her boxing shorts pulled down to reveal her pink undergarments to affirm her identity. Meanwhile, Algeria’s official football X account posted a picture of Carini at the press conference with the caption “cry more,” which has now gone viral with 59 million engagements.

Many Algerians have highlighted the hypocritical nature of the accusations, noting that other Olympic female athletes, like US rugby player Ilona Maher, have been praised for taking a stand against body negativity and supporting women of “all the different body types,” while Khelif was harassed online for hers. Maher told her fans stories about how she was shamed for her masculine body type in a now-viral TikTok post with the caption, “All body types can be Olympians.” Yet, that same understanding was not extended to Khelif. Unfortunately, as the Associated Press noted, “Female athletes of color have historically faced disproportionate scrutiny and discrimination when it comes to sex testing and false accusations that they are male or transgender.”

Shortly after Khelif defeated Carini, far-right Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni posted a picture with Carini on X, stating, “I know you won’t give up, Angela, and I know that one day you will earn with effort and sweat what you deserve in a finally fair competition.” Other conservative public figures, like X’s Elon Musk, reposted videos of Khelif’s match and commentary warning US voters that “Kamala Harris supports this” in a bid to link the incident to domestic right-wing narratives about sexual identity amid a critical election cycle. Author J. K. Rowling, who has made transphobic comments in the past, also posted a picture of the match on X with the caption, “Could any picture sum up our new men’s rights movement better? The smirk of a male who’s knows he’s protected by a misogynist sporting establishment.” This strain of Western discourse portrays a bigoted understanding of womanhood, one rooted in anti-LGBTQI sentiments.

The contrast between both sides of the discourse highlights gaps in the social understanding of womanhood and sexuality. By denying Khelif’s womanhood and leveraging her win to disseminate miseducated narratives that fuel anti-LGBTQI sentiments, critics are essentializing the definition of gender and perpetuating stigmas.

This dangerous narrative, coupled with a rise in anti-Arab sentiments amid the ten-month Gaza war, has brewed the perfect storm for right-wing figures to launch baseless attacks on Khelif’s gender identity.

Analyzing the sentiments behind these narratives can paint a picture of how divisive gender and sexuality discourse can be, especially amid a global election cycle. With the backdrop of race and nationality, these sentiments can be used to sustain a limited understanding of gender and LGBTQI identities. There is no “one box fits all” definition of these themes. Instead, using a nuanced approach to these complex issues could help shed light on the many unique experiences of womanhood. Like all Olympians, Khelif has dreamed of this moment since she was a young girl, growing up in an impoverished neighborhood where she and her family used to sell bread and plastic to afford her boxing lessons. Having beat Carini, Khelif won the quarterfinals against Hungarian boxer Anna Luca Hamori and is set to advance to the semifinals on August 6. With thirty-seven victories and nine defeats in her career, Khelif has earned her spot at the Olympics. Barring Khelif’s participation would only let misguided ideologies concerning gender identity win.

Yaseen Rashed is the assistant director of media and communications at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East Programs.

The post Imane Khelif is a woman, contrary to what the internet says appeared first on Atlantic Council.

As sixteen of Putin’s prisoners come home, don’t forget the millions of hostages who remain

Mikhail Zygar — Fri, 02 Aug 2024 17:35:40 +0000

I never doubted that the United States would not abandon Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan in their time of need, but I did not expect their release to happen so quickly. My sources in Moscow did not believe that an agreement could be reached before the elections in November or even before the inauguration of the new US president next January.

I am very happy that some of the hostages, including Russian citizens who were captured solely because of their honesty and courage, have been freed. They stood against the war in Ukraine and fought for freedom. Until the moment they were released, I feared that some of them would end their lives in prison.

Who gained freedom thanks to these efforts?

One is seventy-one-year-old Oleg Orlov, a legendary Soviet human rights defender and one of the leaders of Memorial, an organization that received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022. Orlov publicly called the Putin regime totalitarian and fascist, and for this, he was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison this year.

There is also Sasha Skochilenko, a thirty-three-year-old artist from St. Petersburg. At the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, she made a small art performance in which she replaced price tags in a grocery store with anti-war slogans. For this, she was sentenced to seven years in prison. Her imprisonment posed a direct threat to her life: Sasha has a heart defect and bipolar disorder, and in the conditions of a Russian prison, she could have died.

Another example is the schoolboy Kevin Lik, who is now nineteen years old but was arrested while still a minor. He was accused of photographing military equipment and sending the photos to someone abroad. He was accused of state treason. Obviously, the Russian authorities themselves did not believe that a schoolboy could be a spy, and in the end, he was sentenced to only four years in prison, whereas in Russia, espionage usually results in much longer sentences. However, this is practically a child, and he was sentenced to four years in prison.

Vladimir Kara-Murza, a prominent activist and journalist whom Russian special services tried to poison, sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. Ilya Yashin, probably the most famous opposition figure in Russia after Navalny’s death, sentenced to eight-and-a-half years.

Now Evan, Paul, Oleg, Sasha, Kevin, Vladimir, Ilya, and other hostages of Putin’s regime have gained freedom.

But even on such a day, I cannot stop thinking about the thousands of people who remain in Putin’s prisons. About the poet Zhenya Berkovich. About the politician Alexei Gorinov, who protested against the war from the first day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and is now dying in prison. About Daniil Kholodny, an information technology specialist who was imprisoned for eight years for creating a website for now-deceased opposition leader Alexei Navalny. About thousands of other people.

I do not call them all “hostages” by chance.

I am sure that most people living in Russia feel like hostages. About twenty-five years ago, power in Russia was seized by a gang of terrorists led by Vladimir Putin. All these years, they have been terrorizing the country’s population, imprisoning people for any disobedience, teaching citizens to think that resistance is impossible and useless, doing everything to make Russians develop Stockholm syndrome. It is impossible to help all of them; it is impossible to exchange millions of people. But it is important to remember that thousands of hostages are sitting in Putin’s prisons. And over the years, Putin has successfully turned the whole country into a gulag. And many people feel like hostages, even if they are not behind bars.

Mikhail Zygar is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. He is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker, and the founding editor-in-chief of Russia’s only independent news television channel, Dozhd (TVRain). He was recently sentenced in absentia by a Moscow court to eight and a half years in prison for criticizing the Russian army.

A version of this article originally appeared on Zygar’s Substack, the Last Pioneer.

The post As sixteen of Putin’s prisoners come home, don’t forget the millions of hostages who remain appeared first on Atlantic Council.

A violent crackdown has put Bangladesh at a crossroads

Ali Riaz — Fri, 02 Aug 2024 13:36:40 +0000

After eleven days of internet blackout, several days of continuous curfew, and a complete shutdown of offices, the Bangladesh government has started to ease some restrictions hoping that it has quelled the popular mobilization that has rocked the country since July 18. But protests have continued and students and people from various walks of life are now staging demonstrations across the country.

At least two hundred people have been killed and thousands more injured in protests that included law enforcement firing on protesters, as Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her government face the most serious popular challenge of the past decade. Many Bangladeshis have been arrested, and cases against thousands of people have been filed.

Two weeks of heightened violence has left visible damage to property in cities across the country. Burned buildings stand as testimonies to anger and mayhem, but what remains unknown is the exact number of deaths, injuries, and missing. The extent of the lethal force used by members of law enforcement agencies is unprecedented in the history of the country, which has all too often experienced bouts of political violence since its inception in 1971.

Despite the claim of a gradual return to normalcy, an overwhelming number of police and soldiers are patrolling the streets of major cities, and a shoot-on-sight order is still in place for curfew violators. The government is on edge, economic activity has stalled, and many citizens are in a state of shock and uncertain about what will come next. For Bangladesh watchers, the question is whether Hasina has weathered the political storm or if the current situation is a larger tempest in the making.

How did it begin?

This episode of protest began in early July as peaceful student demonstrations demanding reform of the quota system in public service. This quota system, which reserved 56 percent of government jobs to various categories, was widely considered by students to be discriminatory and was allegedly used by the government as a means of patronage dispensation. The system was scrapped in 2018 after students launched a movement against it, but it was reinstated by Bangladesh’s High Court in June 2024. The government appealed, and the Supreme Court suspended the verdict, scheduling a hearing for August 6. However, students demanded that the system be reformed by enacting a law. The government insisted that there was nothing it could do while the issue is being litigated. The students felt that this was a stealthy way of reinstating the system.

The situation took an ominous turn after activists aligned with the ruling party swooped in on the demonstrators as they protested Hasina’s comments at a press conference on July 14. In that press conference, Hasina likened the demonstrators with collaborators of the Pakistani army during the war of independence in 1971. As the quota system reserves a percentage of government jobs for the descendants of war of independence veterans, Hasina portrayed opposition to the policy as demeaning to veterans. In the following days, the students organized street protests and called for a general strike, which was confronted with force by police and ruling party activists, leading to the deaths of some students. On July 16, the government closed all educational institutions for an indefinite period.

The situation further deteriorated on July 18, as thousands of protesters joined the students on the street; at least twenty-five people died throughout the country and various public buildings were set ablaze in the capital and elsewhere. The government stopped services. Then the government backtracked and offered to negotiate, but by then the protests had transcended the quota issue.

On July 19, demonstrations engulfed the entire country. The number of deaths, the extent of the spread of protests, and the ferocity of police response made it one of the worst days in the history of the country. Curfew was imposed, the military was called in, a shoot-on-sight order was issued, and internet and broadband services were completely shut down. Yet the violence continued for days, and the death toll continued to mount.

In the meantime, the government met a delegation of the agitating students, and the Supreme Court voided the High Court verdict, issuing guidance to drastically reduce the quota to only 7 percent. However, the government resorted to heavy-handed measures, including allegedly abducting six student leaders of the movement and detaining them without charges. While detained, the student leaders issued a video message on July 28 calling off the movement, but other leaders continued the organize protests.

A perfect storm?

The peaceful student protest transformed into an antigovernment upsurge because of simmering discontent among younger Bangladeshis, as well as in a large segment of the wider society. Economic and political disenfranchisement drove the youth. The economic growth they have heard about for a long time seems to have left them behind. They see very little prospect of a decent job while they witness unbridled corruption and the extravagant lifestyle of a new wealthy class. According to official accounts, unemployment among youth is 15.74 percent and at least 41 percent of youth between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four are not in school, employed, or engaged in job training.

Bangladeshi youth were supposed to be the kingmakers in a free and fair electoral process, the role their predecessors played in the election of 2008. But that opportunity was taken away through fraudulent elections. The government’s disregard for their demands regarding quota reform was symptomatic of a system that cares little for them. Violence perpetrated by the student wing of the ruling party was the instigation that unleashed the anger within the student community.

As for the larger population, resentments originating from rampant corruption by the cronies of the ruling party, impunity enjoyed by party henchmen, utter disregard to the sufferings of the common people, and concentration of power at the hands of one person—Hasina—all came together.

While the regime has a support base, it is bereft of moral legitimacy due to rigged elections. Increasingly, the government also lacked performance legitimacy as the development narrative has been unraveling since summer 2022. Skyrocketing inflation and dwindling foreign reserves have put the government in a precarious situation. In the past decade, Hasina has increasingly relied on force, leading many international organizations, including the Varieties of Democracy Institute, to describe Bangladesh as an autocracy.

What is next for Hasina?

This week, the city streets in Dhaka were filled with cars and buses, and shops and offices are being opened once again. A semblance of normalcy may return in the short run. But the political ground has shifted, and the possibility of a return to the status quo is unlikely. As such, the country is standing at a crossroads.

The number of deaths and the extent of police actions have laid bare the fact that the ruling party and Hasina are entirely dependent on brute force. The upheaval appears to have shaken the regime’s sense of invincibility.

By creating a narrative that her government is facing “terrorists,” Hasina is trying to gain sympathy and tacit support from the international community, or at least their silence. The international community, however, should see through this charade and raise its voice against the gross violations of human rights by a regime that wants to stay in power without a popular mandate.

So, what’s next? Dubbed “Asia’s Iron Lady,” Hasina may double down on more persecution and arrests in an attempt to stem further unrest. This may lead to a closed autocracy in Bangladesh. Alternatively, as discontent continues to grow and demands for her resignation become louder, the country may erupt.

Ali Riaz is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council South Asia Center and a distinguished professor at Illinois State University.

The post A violent crackdown has put Bangladesh at a crossroads appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Welcome home, Evan

Frederick Kempe — Thu, 01 Aug 2024 22:08:16 +0000

I released the following statement today regarding the news of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich’s release from imprisonment in Russia:

We at the Atlantic Council are overjoyed and relieved that Evan has been released after 491 days of wrongful imprisonment in Russia. This is a great day for Evan, his family, and his colleagues at the Wall Street Journal, who worked tirelessly to secure his release. However, it doesn’t diminish our need to speak out against Russia’s crimes not only against Evan but against free speech more broadly.

As Almar Latour, Wall Street Journal publisher and Dow Jones CEO, said at the Atlantic Council’s Distinguished Leadership Awards in May 2023, “Evan’s arrest is a symbolic reminder of the fight that we find ourselves in today. It’s autocrats versus the power of the pen—disinformation versus reliable information as the bedrock of free society.”

Latour’s point was underscored by those released with Evan: two other Americans wrongfully detained—journalist Alsu Kurmasheva and former US Marine Paul Whelan—as well as Russian political dissident and Pulitzer Prize winner Vladimir Kara-Murza, among others. In exchange, a contemptible lot, including a convicted murderer and several hackers and spies, was welcomed back to Russia by President Vladimir Putin.

Watch Latour’s full speech below:

Evan’s resilience and steadfastness are testament to the courage of journalists worldwide who take risks every day in service to freer societies. In partnership with Adrienne Arsht, the Atlantic Council has been proud to champion Evan’s cause through our “Reporters at Risk” series, which highlights those dangers and underscores the importance of supporting their critical work.

The Atlantic Council remains committed to press freedom and defending the safety of reporters at risk like Evan. As a twenty-five-year veteran of the Wall Street Journal, I welcome him home as a colleague. On behalf of the Atlantic Council, we commit ourselves to defending the freedoms he and reporters like him around the world represent.

Evan Gershkovich’s parents, Mikhail and Ella, meet with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Wall Street Journal Publisher Almar Latour, Atlantic Council Executive Vice Chair Adrienne Arsht, and Atlantic Council President and CEO Frederick Kempe at the Atlantic Council Global Citizen Awards, September 28, 2023.

Frederick Kempe is president and chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council. You can follow him on Twitter: @FredKempe.

This edition is part of Frederick Kempe’s Inflection Points Today newsletter, a column of quick-hit insights on a world in transition. To receive this newsletter throughout the week, sign up here.

The post Welcome home, Evan appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Europe can do more to help Ukraine counter Russia’s energy attacks

Aura Sabadus — Thu, 01 Aug 2024 20:54:59 +0000

Russian bombing of Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure has forced millions of Ukrainians to spend the summer months adjusting to rolling power blackouts, with record high temperatures adding to the practical challenges of living without electricity. The Ukrainian response to this latest episode of wartime adversity has been marked by typical grit, resourcefulness, and good humor. Nevertheless, there is now widespread awareness that the country is facing what may be the toughest winter in modern Ukrainian history.

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia has destroyed, damaged, or occupied approximately eighty percent of Ukraine’s electricity infrastructure. The situation has deteriorated sharply since March 2024 following a wave of Russian attacks on Ukrainian power plants that have devastated the country’s thermal capacity.

Ukrainian energy sector officials believe that during the coming winter season, peak demand could be above eighteen gigawatts, with average consumption likely to hover around fifteen gigawatts. However, remaining capacity is just over ten gigawatts. Unless significant new sources can be secured, Ukrainians will have to deal with extended blackouts amid subzero temperatures. This could lead to a humanitarian catastrophe and create new waves of refugees fleeing to the EU.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Looking ahead, there is no substitute for much needed air defenses to protect Ukraine’s remaining energy production capacity. However, additional steps from the Ukrainian authorities and Kyiv’s partners could help prepare the country for the coming winter season.

A July 2024 report funded by Germany’s Federal Ministry for Education and Research has identified a number of short-term measures that could be adopted swiftly to at least partially plug current shortfalls. Fast repairs of thermal and hydro plants together with the deployment of small-scale gas-fired turbines and solar panels could bring approximately 3.4GW of additional capacity online before temperatures start to drop. Donations of spare equipment are also absolutely vital, while Ukraine should intensify work with partners to establish stockpiles of components to rebuild generation capacity.

One of the most promising initiatives would involve increasing cross-border capacity with neighboring EU countries operating under the umbrella of the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E). Ukraine synchronized with the ENTSO-E grid in March 2022. Since then, Kyiv has increased cross-border capacity significantly, but there is still scope for a further expansion of interconnection capacity by approximately 0.3GW ahead of the coming winter season. This may be easier said than done, however.

Hungary and Slovakia are key exporters of electricity to Ukraine but are currently threatening to cut flows after Kyiv introduced a partial ban on the transit of Russian oil to refineries in the two EU countries. Budapest and Bratislava have long benefitted from cheap Russian energy imports and have faced accusations of acting in the Kremlin’s interests by blocking EU financial and military support to Ukraine. Both countries could now undermine efforts to boost energy exports to Ukraine.

Eurasia Center events

John E. Herbst: Putin’s motivation for hostage trades is personal

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

While there has not yet been any disruption to electricity flows from the EU into Ukraine, it is clearly in Kyiv’s interests to avoid disagreements where possible and to seek enhanced energy partnership with the country’s European neighbors. Closer cooperation with Slovakia and Romania in particular could pay major dividends. Indeed, recent research has found that transmission capacity could be more than doubled to five gigawatts. This could provide greater energy security, create jobs, and attract significant investments.

If completed, one existing power line project linking Slovakia and Ukraine could bring additional capacity of one gigawatt, enough to supply a million consumers. Work on this line began in 2013 and is seventy percent complete on the Ukrainian side, but nothing has yet been done on the Slovak side. Similarly, a proposed electricity power line linking Ukraine’s Pivdennoukrainska nuclear power plant to Romania would not only bring an additional one gigawatt of transfer capacity, but could also potentially end nearby Moldova’s dependence on electricity generated in the Kremlin-controlled Transnistria enclave.

Despite the numerous benefits offered by these projects, the Romanian and Slovakian governments remain unwilling to commit. This lack of political cooperation may contribute to a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine during the coming winter months that could spill over into neighboring countries. With the countdown to the cold season now already underway, there is no time to lose. Helping Ukraine to keep the lights on should be a priority for the whole of Europe.

Dr. Aura Sabadus is a senior energy journalist who writes about Eastern Europe, Turkey, and Ukraine for Independent Commodity Intelligence Services (ICIS), a London-based global energy and petrochemicals news and market data provider. Her views are her own.

It is a challenge to be a high-level athlete in Africa. The International Olympic Committee’s (IOC’s) initiatives in Africa, which fund projects to support sports on the continent, do not solve the structural problems that push African athletes to leave the continent. Usually, these expatriates blame the lack of African infrastructure and mentoring programs, in addition to the costs of training and other professional challenges. While some of the African athletes who train in the United States are still competing under the flags of African countries—such as Ivoirian sprinter Marie-Josée Ta Lou or world-record-holding Nigerian hurdler Oluwatobiloba “Tobi” Amusan—time away from the African continent can easily turn into a permanent departure and end with a change of citizenship.

With that being the case, the Olympic performances of African countries don’t fully reflect the true power of the continent in sport.

As a former French deputy minister of sports, I see a paradox in Africa’s sports sector: the youngest continent in the world (70 percent of Sub-Saharan Africa’s population is under thirty years old) is a place where people aren’t engaging as much in physical activity such as sports. Plus, a recent survey highlighted that the sports sector is “underdeveloped” with key deficits in data, public strategy, and private investments.

Sports are much more than hobbies for personal fulfillment or ways to improve health. They are also powerful tools for development, major business opportunities, and pivotal ways to exercise soft power.

A La Défense Arena, pleine comme un œuf, pour les épreuves de natation !!#Paris2024 #ThePlaceToBe pic.twitter.com/TmjTrpRViG
— Rama Yade (@ramayade) August 1, 2024

The opportunity at hand

According to the United Nations (UN), sports play a role in achieving many of the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals, including goals such as eradicating poverty and famine, securing education for all, supporting victims of disasters or emergency situations, and fighting diseases. Sports can also help promote gender equality, as taking part in sports is associated with getting married later in life. The UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization runs a flagship initiative called Fit for Life, which uses sports to not only improve youth wellbeing and empowerment but also support more inclusive policymaking. The African Union (AU) has recognized the role that sports can play, as a driver of the cultural renaissance outlined in its Agenda 2063; the AU proposed a Sports Council to coordinate an African sports movement.

But the international recognition of the role sports play in development has come late—and there are issues that have yet to be sorted out. Olympic Agenda 2020, adopted by the IOC in 2014, outlines recommendations for countries to make the most of sports’ impact on society, encouraging them to align sports with economic and human development, build climate-friendly infrastructure, promote gender equality, protect the rights of children and laborers, acquire land ethically and without causing displacement, improve security, and protect the freedom of the press.

At previous global sport gatherings (notably the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar) human-rights communities have raised these issues. Their voice over many years has pushed organizations, such as FIFA and the IOC, to adopt various human-rights policies and frameworks. In considering the host nation for the 2026 World Cup, FIFA for the first time required bidding countries and cities to commit to human-rights obligations. Such requirements could have an impact in Africa, although that remains to be seen; an African country has only once hosted a global sport gathering (South Africa hosted the 2010 FIFA World Cup), while Egypt currently has its eye on the 2036 Summer Olympics, over a decade from now.

Beyond development, sports are major business opportunities. South Africa has continued to argue that hosting the World Cup was worth it, as the billions it spent went toward much-needed infrastructure that has supported an increase in tourism—and thus, economic activity—that lasted for more than a decade. The global sports industry was worth $512 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow to $624 billion in 2027.

In Africa, the contribution of sports to the continent’s gross domestic product is more limited (0.5 percent) than it is for the world at large (3 percent). And while North America has the largest share of the sports market, Africa’s share is growing at a rate of 8 percent each year. The National Basketball Association’s investment in the Basketball Africa League is a signal to other investors of the positive outlook for African sports and the new ecosystem of opportunities. With Africa’s middle class estimated to reach 1.1 billion by 2060, and with the continent urbanizing and growing more connected, Africa is a premier market for ventures in the sports industry.

If this business opportunity is harnessed, there is reason to be optimistic that African talent will no longer have to seek earnings abroad and that African markets will see added value, including in the form of new infrastructure, hospitality offerings, merchandising, and content/media. Upcoming major sports events on the continent are slated to generate such growth, with Senegal organizing the 2026 Youth Olympic Games and Morocco co-hosting the 2030 FIFA World Cup.

Well-structured and adequately supported sports are also tools of soft power, and countries around the world, notably Saudi Arabia, are investing in them. In Africa, the Olympic Games have always been an opportunity for African countries to speak more loudly than in the UN fora. For example, African countries boycotted the 1976 Montreal Olympics, protesting New Zealand’s participation after the country’s national rugby team played several matches in South Africa (which had been banned from the Olympics because of its apartheid policy). At the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, as apartheid came to an end, the finalists of the ten-thousand-meter race—Derartu Tulu, a Black athlete from Ethiopia, and Elana Meyer, a white athlete from South Africa—hugged each other to celebrate South Africa’s return.

A new sports agenda

Africa had a late introduction to global sport competition. No African country has ever hosted the Olympic Games. The first Black African athletes—South African runners Len Taunyane and Jan Mashiani—didn’t get the opportunity to compete until 1904, eight years after the first modern Olympic Games were held. It wasn’t until the 1960 Olympic Games in Rome that the first Black African athlete took the gold: Ethiopian Abebe Bikila won the marathon running barefoot. Since then, Kenya, Ethiopia, and South Africa have been the leading Olympic teams from Africa.

To be able to compete with the best teams today and to hold onto its talents, Africa needs a more robust agenda that covers all dimensions of sports.

First, it is essential to address youth education. Governments should include sports in education systems, and sports federations should organize regular competitions within local leagues for youth. Governments should also consider making their funding of training centers contingent on the number of enrolled athletes; it has been shown that sports help improve enrollment and attendance at school, and thus sporting excellence can lead to academic excellence. Of course, in addition to investing in sports facilities at schools, it is crucial to also invest in infrastructure that helps underserved populations access these facilities, thus easing regional inequalities.

However, the financing of African sports cannot be too dependent on governments’ budgets (as it currently is) seeing as national budgets are limited. African governments should provide a fiscal and regulatory framework that supports the work of the private sector. Rather than abandoning the athletes to themselves, governments should consider creating national centers of excellence or institutes for training—similar to France’s National Institute of Sport, Expertise, and Performance—which would allow athletes to access better training conditions on the continent, hopefully keeping them in Africa.

Governments should also ensure that foreign clubs and teams that continue to host the greatest African athletes financially support the development of the African sports industry, which would not only help cultivate more star talent but also foster job creation in advertising, sports medicine, journalism, and fitness.

Sports have much greater geopolitical significance than many decision makers realize. Moving forward, they should integrate sports into their foreign policy, both bilaterally and multilaterally.

For Africa, the surge in athletic talent is evidence that its people are committed to a new era for the continent. Leaders should harness this opportunity to supercharge Africa’s transformative sports movement.

Rama Yade is the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center. She was formerly the French deputy minister of sports and also served as the ambassador of France to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

The post Dispatch from the Paris Olympics: The African sports movement is about to take off, if leaders help fuel it appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Experts react: What to know about the release of Evan Gershkovich and others held by Russia

Atlantic Council experts — Thu, 01 Aug 2024 19:35:18 +0000

They’re coming home. On Thursday, Russia and the West carried out a massive prisoner swap in Ankara, Turkey, that saw Moscow free American journalists Evan Gershkovich and Alsu Kurmasheva, former US Marine Paul Whelan, and Russian political dissidents Vladimir Kara-Murza and llya Yashin, among others. In exchange, Western countries released eight Russian prisoners, including convicted Russian assassin Vadim Krasikov, who had been imprisoned in Germany. US President Joe Biden called the deal, which involved Germany, Poland, Turkey, Norway, and Slovenia, “a feat of diplomacy and friendship.” Below, our experts explain who was freed, the implications of their release, and what the prisoner exchange says about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s use of domestic oppression to gain leverage against the West.

Click to jump to an expert analysis:

Mercedes Sapuppo: The prisoner releases are historic—but the Kremlin’s strategy hasn’t changed

Hanna Liubakova: German national’s case reveals Belarus’s hostage-taking tactics

Brian Whitmore: This wasn’t a Cold War prisoner swap, but rather a negotiation with a crime syndicate

Putin’s motivation for hostage trades is personal

Today’s news is a truly extraordinary event: a large prisoner exchange involving twenty-four captives in seven countries. Russia and Belarus released sixteen prisoners; and the United States, Germany, Poland, Norway, and Slovenia sent eight back to Russia. Those released by Moscow include three Americans held essentially as hostages on trumped-up charges—businessman Whelan and journalists Gershkovich and Kurmasheva—and political prisoners Kara-Murza and Yashin. Belarus released Rico Krieger, a German convicted of “terrorism” in Belarus, who was sentenced to death but then pardoned by Lukashenka’s regime. The most notable prisoner released to Russia is Krasikov, a Kremlin operative who murdered a Chechen activist in Germany.

Two constants drove this deal. The first is Putin’s great interest in securing the release of Russian spies and provocateurs captured and jailed in the West. When he succeeded in trading American basketball player Brittney Griner for Viktor Bout with the United States in December 2022, Putin’s highest priority became the release of Krasikov from Germany. When Putin gave up Griner, he still had Whelan as a hostage for future trades with the United States. Then he added Gershkovich in March 2023 for additional trade bait and Kurmasheva this past spring. The second constant is the Biden administration’s interest in securing the release of all Americans unfairly detained by Moscow. After the Griner-Bout exchange, US efforts to secure the freedom of Whelan and then Gershkovich foundered on the refusal of Germany to include Krasikov—Putin’s prime objective—in any trade.

These constants alone do not explain this deal. The new factor was the arrest of Krieger in Belarus last fall. This gave Berlin a reason to consider releasing Krasikov. Germany’s willingness to do so likely set in motion a long negotiation that led to today’s news. The final deal also gave Putin back Russian operatives in Norway, Poland, and Slovenia; and provided an opportunity to free prominent Russian opposition figures Kara-Murza and Yashin.

It is notable that sixteen prisoners moved West and only eight east. But, as we know from the lopsided trade that sent 215 Ukrainian prisoners of war home in exchange for Putin-favorite Viktor Medvedchuk and others in the fall of 2022, there are times when Putin’s interest in a particular captive persuades him to make an uneven trade.

Still, Putin has the tactical advantage of being able to grab additional hostages from Americans and other Western visitors in Russia. One way for the West to reduce this nasty advantage would be to lower the evidentiary requirements for holding spies from Russia and other US adversaries.

—John E. Herbst is the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former US ambassador to Ukraine.

The prisoner releases are historic—but the Kremlin’s strategy hasn’t changed

The news that Gershkovich, Kurmasheva, Whelan, Kara-Murza, and Yashin—along with other human rights activists and innocent civilians—have been released from Russia in a prisoner swap is historic. For those now free who were wrongfully detained on contrived and false charges and bravely endured the conditions of Russian detention, today is hugely celebratory. It is also a good day for their families and for all who have been advocating for their freedom, including the Biden-Harris administration. The swap released many who suffered unjustly and marks a positive day for independent media and press freedom.

The timing of this swap—and its scope—indicates that Putin thought it was time to cash out the bargaining chips that he had illegally collected to leverage against the West in the form of innocent Americans and Russian activists. However, it does not suggest that the Kremlin will pull back on its malign tactics of aggression against Ukraine as well as the United States and its allies, and Putin is by no means walking away empty-handed: Russia will welcome home convicted murderers, spies, hackers, fraudsters, and smugglers.

What this swap demonstrates on the Kremlin’s strategic front is a twisted and self-serving pragmatism that is unlikely to translate into a deescalation of Russia’s violence in Ukraine, nor into a new appreciation for international norms. Putin is still a war criminal, and he is still bolstering his autocratic alliances abroad. The drive demonstrated by global leaders and advocates pushing for the release of these unjustly detained journalists and activists should not be the end. Rather, it should be only the beginning of continued work to defeat Putin in Ukraine and deter his aggression, which includes the imprisonment of Ukrainian civilians and soldiers being kept in harrowing conditions in temporarily occupied areas of Ukraine.

—Mercedes Sapuppo is a program assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

German national’s case reveals Belarus’s hostage-taking tactics

The prisoner swap story between Russia and Western countries took an unexpected turn with Belarusian dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s involvement. Krieger, a German national sentenced to death in Belarus, was among the Western prisoners released in Thursday’s exchange. His case gained attention following his pardon on July 30. The unusual circumstances surrounding Krieger’s sentencing had sparked speculation that the Minsk regime was positioning itself for a high-profile prisoner exchange.

Shortly after the pardon, Lukashenka’s spokesperson indicated that Minsk was open to negotiations regarding Krieger, stating that various “proposals” had been made. This suggested that the pardon was a strategic maneuver to facilitate discussions with Germany. Krieger’s exchange demonstrated the Belarusian regime’s manipulative tactics, with speculation arising that he was swapped for Krasikov, a Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) assassin imprisoned in Germany.

Krieger was arrested in Belarus in October for allegedly acting as a mercenary and planting explosives. He appeared in a propaganda video, claiming he wanted to fight in Ukraine but was directed to a mission in Belarus. However, the inconsistencies in the video raise doubts about his claims.

The regime’s actions—capturing a foreigner, sentencing him to death, and then negotiating his release—resemble hostage-taking tactics. While Russia may have reclaimed some of its agents in part through Krieger’s exchange, Lukashenka seems to be sacrificing his relationship with Germany to support Putin’s interests. This mirrors Lukashenka’s previous concessions to Russia, including offering Belarusian territory for the invasion of Ukraine, despite his people’s opposition, or stationing Wagner Group troops in Belarus.

Amid these high-stakes negotiations, the plight of Belarusian political prisoners is often overlooked. Although eighteen political prisoners were released last month, an estimated 1,400 remain imprisoned, many urgently needing medical assistance.

—Hanna Liubakova is a nonresident fellow with the Eurasia Center and a Belarusian journalist.

This wasn’t a Cold War prisoner swap, but rather a negotiation with a crime syndicate

The sweeping prisoner exchange that freed Kurmasheva, Gershkovich, Whelan, and others from Russian captivity was a remarkable diplomatic achievement, and the Biden administration deserves enormous credit for working with the United States’ allies to make it happen. And full disclosure, this one is personal. Two of the released hostages—Kurmasheva, a journalist with whom I worked for more than a decade at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Kara-Murza, a Russian dissident whom I have known for years—are close personal friends. The fact that sixteen hostages of Putin’s regime—including Americans, Germans, British nationals, and Russian political prisoners—are now free is cause for celebration.

That said, we should all use this occasion to reflect on what this prisoner exchange illustrates about the nature of Putin’s Russia. In order to get these hostages released, the United States and its allies needed to free actual criminals who were convicted after receiving the benefit of due process and fair trials in Western courts of law. Among these were a hitman, Krasikov, convicted of an assassination in Germany, and a cybercriminal, Roman Seleznev, who was convicted of bank fraud and identity theft in the United States. This is reminiscent of the United States securing the release of WNBA star and Olympic gold medalist Brittney Griner in exchange for convicted Russian arms trafficker Viktor Bout and swapping US Marine Corps veteran Trevor Reed for Russian drug trafficker Konstantin Yaroshenko back in 2022.

One has to wonder, why does Putin want all these hitmen, cybercriminals, arms traffickers, and drug dealers released? And why is he willing to take Western hostages to do so? The answer is simple: The line between the government and the criminal underworld in Putin’s Russia is so thin that it is nonexistent. As I have argued in the past, the Putin regime is effectively a crime syndicate masquerading as a state. The correct metaphor for this prisoner exchange is not the storied Cold War-era swapping of Western and Soviet spies. Instead, it is the result of an unfortunately necessary hostage negotiation with a criminal and terrorist regime.

—Brian Whitmore is a nonresident senior fellow at the Eurasia Center, an assistant professor of practice at the University of Texas-Arlington, and host of the Power Vertical podcast.

Public Event Tue, November 7, 2023 • 3:30 pm ET

Reporters at risk: In honor of Evan Gershkovich

Leading journalists discuss risks facing foreign correspondents, resilience in reporting, and global press freedom.

Civil Society Politics & Diplomacy Resilience Resilience & Society

The post Experts react: What to know about the release of Evan Gershkovich and others held by Russia appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Can citizens’ assemblies help counter a rising populist tide in the West?

Moritz Ludwig and Joely Virzi — Thu, 01 Aug 2024 13:28:02 +0000

Don’t be fooled by recent leftist and centrist electoral wins in France and the United Kingdom—the strength of right-wing populism is still a central through line for liberal democracies around the world. While each populist party carries its own national characteristics, a common driver of their recent increase in support has been the rejection of established political parties and criticism of much of the political, economic, and social order that has underpinned the West since the end of the Cold War. There has been much head-scratching and pontificating about what causes populism to take hold and how center-left and center-right politicians should respond.

Established political parties are now taking steps to win back support. Policymakers around the world should take note of these efforts, such as the use of citizens’ assemblies in Germany, as one way to counter this polarizing environment and rebuild trust in democratic systems.

Growing disillusionment and persistent divides

Germany is a compelling case study for the rise of populist ideology. Nearly thirty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the East-West divide in the country persists. To this day, people in eastern Germany often face fewer economic opportunities, underrepresentation in elite professions, power imbalances, and an aging population. As recently as 2019, 60 percent of Germans in the east perceived themselves as second-class citizens. While on the rise throughout Germany, it is in large part for these reasons that the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party resonates in the eastern part of the country, in states such as Brandenburg, Saxony, and Thuringia. Elections in all three in September see the AfD polling in first place.

The AfD was formed in 2013 in reaction to eurozone bailouts for other countries, but the 2015 refugee crisis transformed its platform into the extreme one it has today. When nearly one million migrants entered Germany, a majority of citizens called for an immigration cap. The AfD, weaponizing both economic and social grievances, built itself on and instigated this cultural discontent. The party trademarked “Islam does not belong to Germany” in its 2016 manifesto, and has taken aim at costly climate action to spur discontent with the center and fuel its own base. This approach propelled the AfD to ninety-two opposition seats in the Bundestag in 2017, and in the years since it has established itself as a formidable populist alternative to Germany’s traditional parties closer to the political center.

The AfD’s 2024 manifesto paints a worrying picture of its vision for Germany. The AfD proposes to reduce the net number of annual immigrants to zero and oppose all major climate actions, arguing such government encroachments threaten to unravel the cultural fabric and stability of German society. These extreme stances threaten to endanger the unity of Germany and could hamper international cooperation. The party is largely Euroskeptic, anti-American, and pro-Russian, which drives its urge to scale back on Ukraine aid. Notably, the far-right Identity and Democracy group in the European Parliament kicked out the AfD in May of this year, following scandals surrounding its extreme statements and potential connections to China and Russia.

Nevertheless, the party remains relatively popular in Germany. It scored second among German parties in the European Parliament elections in June and could well secure more than a quarter of seats in state elections this fall. The AfD’s success has inspired other upstart parties on the left. The newly founded left-wing populist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), for example, is expected to secure around 20 percent of seats across the three states, appealing to voters that are dissatisfied with the state of Germany’s economy and support for Ukraine.

The populist phenomenon is not exclusive to Germany. It is symptomatic of a general trend in the West. From gains in the European Parliament to momentum heading into the US presidential election, populism does not bode well for the liberal international order, especially at a time when intensifying global challenges demand collective solutions.

The long road to rebuilding trust

One strategy to counter illiberal tendencies and reengage citizens is the establishment of citizens’ assemblies: representative groups of randomly selected constituents that develop policy recommendations on a given issue based on expert briefings and discussions. The assemblies can be implemented at all political levels.

Citizens’ assemblies have been tried before. In various forms, they have been tested by several countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and France. They all share the goals of bringing participatory democracy to the public and reconnecting with voters who have lost trust in democracy.

These citizens’ assemblies have led to big changes before. In Ireland, the successful 2018 referendum to remove the Eighth Amendment banning most abortions stemmed from a recommendation from a ninety-nine-person-strong citizens’ assembly and helped end years of deadlock over the issue. A similar Convention on the Constitution in the country helped lead the way to the 2015 referendum on marriage equality.

In Germany, ten nationwide citizens’ assemblies have been convened since 2019, covering topics such as “Germany’s role in the world,” “climate action,” and “countering disinformation.” While the practical policy proposals are not binding, they do provide policymakers with valuable insights on current positions, possible compromises, and existing sticking points. Within just five years, the German citizens’ assemblies have grown from being independently organized by a nonprofit to being implemented by the Bundestag—an indication of the growing hope and trust politicians are placing on these fora.

The German approach isn’t perfect. Commentators have identified several challenges facing Germany’s citizens’ assemblies, including the representative selection of participants, the neutrality of moderators and experts, the optimal format and institutionalization of the assemblies, and the effect on participants and nonparticipating citizens.

And in truth, so far, it is too soon to see the impact of these assemblies in Germany. Mostly experimental in design, few concrete recommendations were implemented by policymakers. Some people believe the concept’s success hinges on the assembly on nutrition, food labeling, and food waste, the first citizens’ assembly instituted directly by the German Bundestag, which met in January 2024. The outcomes of this assembly included recommendations on school lunches and new regulations on energy drinks.

The participatory idea behind citizens’ assemblies cannot replace the parliamentary process. To avoid conflicts of legitimacy between participatory and representative democracy, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation recommends that parliaments initiate and mandate the process. It is crucial that the fora are not influenced externally and provide some flexibility regarding approach and outcome. They cannot be expected to arrive at predetermined conclusions and, depending on topic, composition, and mandate, every citizens’ assembly will be unique. To sustainably strengthen democracy and rebuild trust in political processes, it is important to complement the assembly with a broader public campaign. Linking the citizens’ assemblies with parliamentary institutions through the involvement of parliamentarians in the expert briefings could further improve the current system. Alternatively, an assembly could be followed by a referendum, giving citizens beyond those randomly chosen participatory power.

No easy fixes

Citizens’ assemblies alone are not sufficient to head off the rise of populists in Germany anytime soon: The AfD and BSW parties, for example, will very likely make gains in the eastern German elections this fall. Instead, the assemblies should be seen as part of a long-term strategy to address the root causes of voter dissatisfaction.

It is imperative to see citizens’ assemblies for what they are. Policymakers should not expect a panacea for polarization. Instead, the fora are a piece of a bigger puzzle. Implementing citizens’ assemblies in tandem with regional structural policies can start the process of rebuilding trust in government. Until more citizens feel like they have a real voice in politics, the seeds of populism will likely continue to find fertile ground—in Germany, in the United States, and beyond.

Moritz Ludwig is a young global professional at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center.

Joely Virzi is a young global professional at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center.

The post Can citizens’ assemblies help counter a rising populist tide in the West? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Pavia in Haaretz: An Increasingly Dictatorial, Antisemitic President Threatens Tunisia’s Jews

Atlantic Council — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 15:57:54 +0000

The post Pavia in Haaretz: An Increasingly Dictatorial, Antisemitic President Threatens Tunisia’s Jews appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The case for chief gender officers in Caribbean states

Valentina Sader — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 13:51:46 +0000

In the Caribbean, small but significant progress has been made toward greater female representation in politics. But women and girls in the region still face significant gender inequities, ranging from unequal pay to gender-based violence. As the Caribbean prepares for elections in the next year in Belize, Jamaica, Suriname, Guyana, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago, gender mainstreaming—bringing a gender perspective into every aspect of the decision making and policy implementation processes—should be at the forefront of policymaking and proposals from both men and women leaders. Gender mainstreaming will take time and an array of measures. As an initial step, however, Caribbean countries should consider establishing the role of chief gender officer within their institutions. This leadership role can, for example, play a decisive role in coordinating approaches to gender-based violence.

Female political representation is important. According to 2023 data, only fifty-nine of the 193 member states of the United Nations had a woman head of state or government in their history. Against this backdrop, four countries in the Caribbean have had or currently have women leaders: Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, and Barbados. But representation still lags behind, with an average of 22 percent of ministerial portfolios and cabinet positions in the English-speaking Caribbean held by women. And according to World Bank data, only four Caribbean countries—Dominica, Guyana, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Grenada—have 30 percent or more seats in national parliaments held by women.

At the same time, greater and more effective female political representation must go hand in hand with bringing gender equity perspectives into all aspects policymaking in ways that improve the lives of citizens. In the Caribbean, women and girls face significant vulnerabilities, and gender mainstreaming is needed to address them, in particular gender-based violence.

Chief gender officers can help ensure appropriate support, accountability, and sustainability of policies for victims of gender-based violence.

The Caribbean has one of the highest rates of gender-based violence in the world. According to UN Women data, 46 percent of women in the Caribbean have experienced at least one form of violence in their lifetime. Jamaica, for example, has the second-highest femicide rate in the world, while 55 percent of Guyanese women have experienced at least one form of violence, including intimate partner violence or nonpartner sexual abuse. And data on gender-based violence is often underreported.

To tackle gender-based violence through gender mainstreaming in policymaking, governments in the Caribbean should work closely with civil society organizations that focus on gender and gender-based violence. They should also work with victims of gender-based violence to understand the bottlenecks of the system and its inadequate responses. With this deeper understanding, governments can map out specific areas to improve support for women victims of gender-based violence.

Governments should also include chief gender officers in key government institutions, particularly within the judicial system and the police. Chief gender officers can help ensure appropriate support, accountability, and sustainability of policies for victims of gender-based violence. These officers should be appropriately trained to bring a gender-sensitive perspective to decision-making processes, and their authority and dedicated office to these issues can help to overcome institutional inertia.

In the legal sphere, these officers should revise and help update legislation through a gender lens, as a mechanism to avoid the perpetuation of laws and norms that might have pervasive negative consequences for women and girls. Within the police, chief gender officers can be trained to welcome and support victims of gender-based violence, helping them as victims instead of discriminating against them. Focus groups commissioned by the Atlantic Council in Jamaica and Guyana, for example, found a lack of trust that institutions, such as the police, can support women victims of gender-based violence. One Jamaican woman explained, “But sometimes you go to the police and the police take your statement and look at you and be like if you wear that then you don’t think the man is going to see you.”

Ensuring that women victims of gender-based violence feel heard and supported could lead to more accurate data on this issue, as underreporting is a significant challenge. This, in turn, could help governments gain a better understanding of gender-based violence and the policies and programs that can help solve it.

Valentina Sader is a deputy director at the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, where she leads the Center’s work on Brazil, gender equality and diversity, and manages the Center’s Advisory Council.

The post The case for chief gender officers in Caribbean states appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Paris Olympics: Ukrainian dedicates medal to athletes killed by Russia

Mark Temnycky — Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:22:56 +0000

Ukrainian fencing star Olga Kharlan won her country’s first medal at the 2024 Paris Olympics on July 29, taking bronze in the women’s saber event. In an emotionally charged statement, Kharlan dedicated her medal to all the Ukrainian athletes “who couldn’t come here because they were killed by Russia.” According to the Ukrainian authorities, a total of 487 Ukrainian athletes have been killed as a result of Russia’s invasion, including numerous former Olympians and future Olympic hopefuls.

Kharlan’s Olympic victory has additional significance for Ukraine as she almost missed out on participating in Paris altogether due to her principled stand over the Russian invasion of her homeland. During the 2023 World Fencing Championship, Kharlan refused to shake hands with a Russian opponent in protest over the war, offering instead to tap blades. The Russian declined this offer and staged a protest of her own, leading to Kharlan’s disqualification and making it virtually impossible for her to take part in the 2024 Olympic Games.

The incident sparked a heated debate over the role of politics in sport and the continued participation of Russian athletes in international events at a time when Russia is conducting Europe’s largest military invasion since World War II. Following a considerable outcry, Kharlan was reinstated and received the personal backing of International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach, himself a former fencer. Meanwhile, Kharlan’s gesture made her a hero to millions of Ukrainians.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The controversy over Kharlan’s refusal to shake hands with her Russian opponent has been mirrored elsewhere in the sporting arena, highlighting the complex moral issues facing Ukrainian athletes as they compete internationally while their country is fighting for national survival. Ukrainian tennis star Elina Svitolina in particular has attracted headlines for her decision to avoid handshakes with Russian and Belarusian players.

Some critics have accused Ukrainians of politicizing sport, and have argued against holding individual Russians accountable for crimes committed by the Kremlin. Meanwhile, supporters of Ukrainian protest efforts have noted the Kremlin’s frequent use of sport as a propaganda tool, and have also pointed to the often close links between some Russian athletes and the Putin regime.

Eurasia Center events

Jason Marczak: The international community must apply pressure for a full, transparent vote count

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

For Ukraine’s Olympic team, participation in this year’s Summer Games is an opportunity to provide their war weary compatriots back home with something to cheer, while also reminding the world of Russia’s ongoing invasion. Since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, many of Ukraine’s Olympic athletes have had to train in exceptionally difficult conditions. Some have been forced to relocate from areas that have fallen under Russian occupation, while all have grown used to the daily trauma of the war and the regular disruption caused by Russian air raids.

Ahead of the Paris Olympics, Olga Kharlan was widely seen as one of Ukraine’s best medal hopes. Born in Mykolaiv, she has been fencing since the age of ten. Prior to the 2024 Olympics, she had already amassed four Olympic medals in a glittering career that has also seen her win six world titles. The thirty-three-year-old Ukrainian star demonstrated her mental strength during the third place playoff in Paris, overcoming South Korea’s Choi Sebin in a dramatic comeback win.

Thanks to her new bronze medal, Kharlan now shares top spot among Ukraine’s leading Olympians with a total of five medals. She claimed her first medal at the Beijing Olympics in 2008 before securing further honors in 2012 and 2016. However, the Ukrainian star says her success in the French capital stands out. “This medal is totally different,” commented Kharlan in Paris this week. “It’s special because it’s for my country. This is a message to all the world that Ukraine will never give up.”

Mark Temnycky is a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

The Mattei Plan is an opportunity for North Africa

Karim Mezran — Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:59:24 +0000

The Mattei Plan, announced in October 2022 by new Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni as an innovative vision that the government of Italy would exercise in its relationship with Africa and African countries, has immediately taken center stage in the European political debate. The Mattei Plan is much more than an economic development plan, and it could become the main tool for defusing dangerous crises in Africa, particularly in North Africa. It has a strong economic component, consisting of collaboration with other Western partners in African countries if they agree to fully cooperate with the proposal. In essence, the Italian prime minister’s plan makes the donor country act as an equal partner in every step of any project undertaken in any African country.

The Mattei Plan is not supposed to operate in a vacuum but is solidly affected and conditioned by the wider international community. However, evolving international dynamics among superpowers and regional powers do not bode for much optimism. Despite some positive events—such as French center-left parties’ relative containment of what was initially expected to be a glamorous victory for right-wing populism and extremism, as well as some successes in cohesion and policymaking by international organizations and institutions such as the Group of Seven (G7), Group of Twenty (G20), and NATO—the trend doesn’t look positive at all. In the background lie the war in Ukraine, the Gaza war, and a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The renewed rivalry for world dominance and the great-power competition between the United States, China, and Russia loom above everything.

North Africa is particularly vulnerable to these dynamics. The ideal part of the Mattei Plan is that it can positively defuse regional tensions. It has been a long-held belief of the European Union (EU), the United States, and the main international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund that, to create a beneficial environment for economic development and political evolution, the five North Africa states of Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Mauritania should agree to form some sort of “union.”

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

The Union du Maghreb Arabe (UMA) was born out of this thinking in 1989. In reality, the regimes then in power created it to fight the Islamist-led popular revolts, which, starting in the mid-1980s, were occurring in each of the North African countries in increasing numbers. UMA was also created to facilitate the exchange of security personnel and intelligence cooperation by these regimes. Because of this, no other sectors—such as the social, political, and cultural sectors—were developed. And once each UMA country felt more secure, it de facto withdrew from the union.

For a brief moment following the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings—which were poised to bring to power, in a more or less democratic way, new elites more responsible for the wellbeing of their populations—international actors thought there was a will to renew a pledge to the UMA. However, the five North African regimes were generally unresponsive to their populations’ demands. There was an expectation that things would improve through democratic elections and that, once in power, the populations would be more prone to engage their neighbors in some kind of integration. But that didn’t happen. Instead, each country backslid into authoritarianism and, thus, in a more isolationist direction.

With this in mind, the prevailing trend, as determined by today’s evolution of the international system, may lead North Africa not toward integration but toward creating rival blocs. Morocco, which has elites strongly tied to Western nations and with Western values, has adapted a policy of cooperation and alliance with Western countries, especially the United States, and institutions such as NATO and the EU. Clear evidence of this pro-Western position is King Mohammed VI’s adhesion to the Abraham Accords pushed by then President Donald Trump as a way to create a new peaceful path to collaboration between Arab states and the state of Israel, in exchange for the US president’s recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara.

Morocco’s ruler has exerted enormous effort for Moroccan banks and commercial entities to penetrate the West African region’s economy. The success of this action has also gained much support for the ruler’s political ambitions.

Just to the East of Morocco and in contrast to its policies and economic activities, is the country of Algeria. The military-backed regime in power—which values nationalism, Arabism, and third-worldism—finds its legitimacy in the Algerian people’s war for independence from France in the late 1950s.

Algeria has been a staunch supporter of revolutionary and liberation movements in Africa and elsewhere. Thus, support for the Palestinian struggle against Israel quickly became a rallying cry in Algeria. Its relative closeness with the Soviet Union, and with Vladimir Putin’s Russia today, is the natural outcome of these positions. It is easy to see how Algeria could constitute an bloc adversarial toward Morocco. Add to this the wide influence that Algeria exerts on Tunisian President Kais Saied’s quest for absolute power and the natural gravitation of western Libya toward Algeria and Tunisia, and it’s easy to see the formation of bloc in opposition to that represented by Morocco.

Eastern Libya today is controlled by the rogue General Khalifa Haftar and his family, which is almost entirely dependent on Egyptian military support, and will probably detach the region from the western part of the country. Sadly, this would mean the end of a united Libya. This is a scenario that the West should do whatever it can to avoid. The United States seems too distracted by other issues and incapable of reacting to these trends. On the other hand, Italy and some of its European partners could use the idea behind the Mattei Plan to play a neutral role in the North Africa contest and help a rapprochement between Algeria and Morocco. This requires not making Algeria feel isolated from Western countries.

Prime Minister Meloni’s personal visit to Algeria in January 2023 was important for this reason, as was the one made afterward. Italian diplomacy was also active in keeping relations open and ongoing with Tunisian President Saied and in the warm relationship with the United Nations-recognized government in Tripoli. While this might sound ideal, Italy and its allies must take one step forward, which would foster a faster and deeper rapprochement between Egypt and Turkey. This could lead to an agreement in Libya in which the western part, strongly under the influence of Turkey, and the eastern part, which is entirely dependent on Egyptian support, may be convinced to find a way out of their crisis that entails the unity of the country rather than separation. A united Libya under the protection of NATO member Turkey and longtime US ally Egypt will not fall into the radical bloc. On the contrary, it might even be able to help lure Tunisia away from the pro-Russian potential bloc, while exerting an opposing influence on Algeria’s historical pro-Russian tendency by showing the benefits of standing with the West and collaborating with the Mattei Plan.

The Piano Mattei, a new vision of cooperation and collaboration on all fronts with the emerging societies of Africa, will be a great engine for this Italian and, ergo, Western policy of utilizing soft power to overcome issues that have previously created many problems for European countries.

Those who criticize the plan as empty of content, or cite its lack of purpose or precise allocation of resources, are missing the point. It is not only an economic plan but a political intuition to move away from today’s stagnant international cooperation policies and toward new dynamics that could produce extraordinary results if carefully implemented.

Karim Mezran is director of the North Africa Initiative and resident senior fellow with the Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council.

The post The Mattei Plan is an opportunity for North Africa appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Experts react: Maduro is clinging to power after a disputed election. What’s next for Venezuela?

Atlantic Council experts — Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:37:57 +0000

Voting doesn’t make a democracy—legitimate and transparent counting of the votes does. On Sunday, Venezuelans went to the polls to select their next president. Early on Monday, the Nicolás Maduro-controlled election committee declared Maduro, who took over the presidency from Hugo Chávez in 2013, the winner of another six-year term. The announcement came in the face of widespread accounts of voter intimidation and other irregularities meant to deny victory to opposition candidate Edmundo González, who led in pre-election polling. “The Venezuelans and the entire world know what happened,” González said of the electoral committee’s dodgy results. Below, Atlantic Council experts sum up what to expect next in Venezuela and how the United States might respond.

Click to jump to an expert analysis:

Geoff Ramsey: Maduro is inviting the biggest loyalty test he’s faced in years

Iria Puyosa: A new cycle of heightened political turmoil looms over Venezuela

Diego Area: The world must stand with Venezuelans in their fight for free elections

The international community must apply pressure for a full, transparent vote count

The day after Venezuelans voted in massive numbers, it’s crystal clear that Maduro, a deeply unpopular authoritarian leader, was always going to claim electoral victory whether by hook or by crook. With most international observers banned from coming to the country to monitor the vote (except small United Nations and Carter Center delegations), the González campaign could only count on its own observers to verify results. The voting tabulations that opposition observers could verify (about 40 percent of the tabulations) showed González receiving 70 percent of the vote—a far cry from the 44 percent of votes that the country’s National Electoral Council claimed that González won.

It is important that the votes of the Venezuelan people are not an exercise in futility. Votes must be credibly counted. Here, it is imperative that the international community of democracies continue to resoundingly denounce fraud and take appropriate action. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken noted “serious concerns that the result announced does not reflect the will or the votes of the Venezuelan people.” Similar concerns have been raised in nearby Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic. European partners have also raised concerns. Even in Colombia, where President Gustavo Petro has maintained a close relationship with Maduro, Foreign Minister Luis Gilberto Murillo made a “call for the total vote count, its verification, and independent audit to be carried out as soon as possible.”

The international community must continue to exact pressure so that the will of the Venezuelan people can ultimately prevail. Not doing so would mean being complicit in the disenfranchisement of the Venezuelan people. But another six years of Maduro will also have reverberations, including new outward migration flows and new transnational criminal activity that will extend far beyond Venezuela’s borders.

—Jason Marczak is the vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center.

Maduro is inviting the biggest loyalty test he’s faced in years

More than twelve hours after polls closed, the fact that authorities still haven’t released the full vote count tells you everything you need to know about yesterday’s election. It seems that Maduro has decided to condemn Venezuela to six more years of conflict and isolation. Unless the government backs up its claim of victory with the full results and opens the count up to audits from observers, the international community has no choice but to respond with swift condemnation and diplomatic pressure.

This isn’t over yet. Maduro has to convince the ruling elite that he can keep things under control, but both he and the military know that he can’t govern a country in flames. He’s effectively inviting the biggest loyalty test he’s faced in years. I doubt Venezuelan elites are eager for six more years of repression, sanctions, and economic catastrophe. The opposition, under María Corina Machado’s leadership, has maintained unity and message discipline, and has the evidence in hand to document fraud and mobilize the public against Maduro’s blatant power grab. The role of the United States and its allies in Latin America and Europe will be crucial. It’s time for greater multilateral coordination in order to push the government to respect the will of the people and restore Venezuelans’ fundamental right to elect their leaders.

—Geoff Ramsey is a senior fellow at the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center.

A new cycle of heightened political turmoil looms over Venezuela

The presidential elections in Venezuela turned out as forecasted: a high voter turnout, what appeared to be a decisive electoral win for the democratic opposition, and a blatant fraud that disregarded the will of the voters.

Due to the relatively small voting centers and the presence of witnesses from local communities, the population is convinced—as we’ve seen in an outpouring of messages and videos on social media—that González won in all electoral districts. This is strengthening the opposition’s unity and determination to continue its fight for the restoration of democracy.

Maduro’s loss of political legitimacy has left the ruling coalition vulnerable to increased instability. It will likely resort to further repression against the political opposition and organized civil society. The increase in information censorship in the week leading up to the elections is a clear sign of the severe restriction of civic space.

The democratic opposition, led by Machado, must aim to exploit divisions within the ruling coalition to weaken its power base. The Unitary Platform must also find ways to address public discontent without exposing the population to the violent repression experienced in 2017.

On the international front, Maduro is facing isolation from Latin American democracies, the United States, and Europe. Former allies, such as Brazil under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Colombia under Petro, were among the first to demand transparency in the election results. It now falls upon the United States to reevaluate the Qatar agreements. The negotiations would no longer be centered on electoral coexistence but rather on Chavismo’s exit from power after its defeat in the voting booths. The next six months will be a crucial period of intense conflict in Venezuela.

—Iria Puyosa is a senior research fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab.

The world must stand with Venezuelans in their fight for free elections

No one thought it would be easy to remove an autocrat from power, but yesterday marked a new height in the Venezuelan government’s abuses to impede the will of the people. The people of Venezuela and their leadership have endured an epic journey to overcome obstacles and unite around the ideal of change. The disqualification of candidates like Machado and Corina Yoris, who represented genuine alternatives, and the subsequent voter suppression efforts and significant irregularities in the process, illustrate the regime’s determination to retain power at any cost.

Maduro’s actions to undermine the democratic process and steal this election pose grave consequences for the future of the country and have a direct impact on Latin America, the Caribbean, and the United States. By stifling free choice, the regime is not only eroding democratic institutions but also exacerbating the country’s humanitarian crisis. As a result, Venezuelans will continue to flee in search of opportunities and freedoms denied at home, contributing to an already critical migration crisis.

The world must stand with Venezuelans in their fight for a future where elections are not merely symbolic but are actual pathways to change. The integrity of the democratic process is crucial not only for Venezuela’s stability but also for the prosperity of the entire region.

—Diego Area is a deputy director at the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center.

The post Experts react: Maduro is clinging to power after a disputed election. What’s next for Venezuela? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Unpacking the UN findings of war crimes by Hamas and Israel since October 7

Elise Baker — Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:00:34 +0000

In June, the United Nations (UN) Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (COI) issued a report examining violations of international human rights law, humanitarian law, and criminal law committed by all parties to the Israel-Hamas conflict from October 7, 2023, to December 31, 2023. The report was accompanied by one supplemental document detailing findings on attacks in Israel and another detailing findings on attacks in Palestinian territory.

This is the first international investigative report presenting factual findings and legal conclusions on violations during the conflict. The COI found that Hamas and other Palestinian militants committed war crimes and violated international humanitarian and human rights law in their October 7, 2023, attack, and Israeli authorities and security forces committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and violated international humanitarian and human rights law, in their military campaign in the Gaza Strip. These findings and the robust evidence backing them may support future accountability proceedings.

About the COI

The UN Human Rights Council established the COI in May 2021, mandating it to investigate all alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in Palestinian territories and Israel leading up to and since April 13, 2021—a date marking an increase in protests and violence in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza sparked by disruptions at the al-Aqsa Mosque and the anticipated eviction of Palestinian families from East Jerusalem.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

The COI is led by three independent and impartial experts, supported by a team of investigators and analysts. The standard of proof is “reasonable grounds,” following most other UN human rights investigative bodies, including those on Myanmar, Syria, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Facts are reported “where, based on a body of verified information, an objective and ordinary prudent observer would have reasonable grounds to conclude that the facts took place as described,” and legal conclusions are reported where “facts meet all the elements of a violation or abuse.”

The COI based its June report on thousands of forensically verified open-source items, more than 350 items received from public calls for submissions, and witness and survivor interviews in Turkey and Egypt, where individuals had fled, as well as remotely. The COI sent one request for information to the state of Palestine (represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization), which provided “extensive comments.” Israel did not respond to the COI’s six requests for information and access to the territory. However, officials denounced the COI, alleging prejudice and antisemitism—echoing allegations from prior UN investigative mandates concerning Israel—and reportedly restricted witness communication.

October 7, 2023, attack

The COI found that members of Hamas’s military wing, other Palestinian armed groups, and Palestinian civilians committed war crimes and violated international humanitarian and human rights law in their October 7, 2023, attack.

The COI detailed the war crimes of murder and intentionally directing attacks on civilians, committed by shooting and killing eight hundred civilians at twenty-four kibbutzim and civilian locations on October 7, 2023. The report details the horrific methods by which militants killed—systematically moving from house to house, shooting at hiding and fleeing civilians, setting homes on fire, and killing civilians at a music festival, in public toilets, in public shelters, and at bus stops and along roads. Among the dead were forty children, including a nine-month-old shot and killed while hiding with her mother, and 130 people aged sixty-five and older. Through these acts, militants also committed the war crimes of torture and cruel or inhuman treatment and destroying or seizing the property of an adversary. The COI also described unlawful attacks at military outposts, including killings of soldiers who were hors de combat.

Palestinian militants’ indiscriminate rocket fire toward populated places in Israel—killing eighteen civilians on October 7, 2023, and in following weeks—also constitutes the war crimes of murder and intentionally directing attacks on civilians.

Palestinian fighters also committed the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity by desecrating corpses, including burning, mutilating, lacerating, decapitating, and undressing and subsequently exhibiting bodies.

The COI confirmed acts of sexual violence against women and men at the Nova music festival, Route 232, Nahal Oz military base, and kibbutzim Re’im, Nir Oz, and Kfar Aza on October 7, 2023. Evidence included restraints placed on women, positions of and signs of violence on victims’ bodies, and disseminated imagery of undressed bodies. The COI also found that gender-based violence was “perpetrated in similar ways in several locations and by multiple Palestinian perpetrators,” with patterns including abducting women with force or threats, coerced close physical proximity to abductors, treatment of women’s bodies as “victory trophies,” and gendered slurs. The COI could not verify reports of rape, sexualized torture, and genital mutilation due to lack of access to victims, witnesses, and crime sites, nor did it find evidence that militants were ordered to commit sexual violence.

Finally, the COI found that militants committed the war crime of taking hostages—often combined with outrages upon personal dignity and inhumane treatment, including sexual and gender-based violence, assault, harassment, and intimidation—by abducting 252 people from Israel (approximately twenty security forces and the remainder civilians, including thirty-six children) and brought them to Gaza. As of May 21, half of the hostages were released or rescued, with the remainder in captivity, whether alive or dead.

Military response in Gaza

The COI found that Israeli authorities and members of the security forces committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and violated international humanitarian and human rights law, in their military campaign in Gaza.

Israeli authorities and forces perpetrated the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, evidenced by the imposition of a total siege for two weeks, from approximately October 9 to 20—with water shut off and no aid allowed in—followed by meager aid deliveries, with measures hampering entry of aid and restricting or blocking specific items. The COI concluded that authorities imposed the siege as retribution for militants’ October 7, 2023, attack and that aid restrictions were intended “to instrumentalize and weaponize the provision of necessities” and hold hostage the Gazan population “to achieve political and military objectives,” constituting collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza. Israeli forces also attacked humanitarian convoys, further limiting aid availability and distribution.

Israeli authorities and forces also committed “[e]xtermination, as a crime against humanity”—”the killing one or more persons, including by inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population, … [as] part of a mass killing of members of a civilian population”—based on attacks on civilians and humanitarian aid restrictions.

Israeli authorities and forces also committed the war crimes of murder and intentionally directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects, as well as the crime against humanity of murder. Israeli officials’ statements evidence permissive changes in targeting practices—launching more strikes than in prior conflicts, targeting locations with “an inkling of intelligence,” and using more intense weaponry with wider impact areas—resulting in significantly higher casualties than in prior Israel-Hamas conflicts and a higher proportion of women and children killed. The report detailed instances in which Israeli forces targeted civilians who were clearly unarmed, including civilians sheltering at a church, a child holding a white flag, and three unarmed Israeli hostages. The COI also found Israel’s military campaign consistent with the Dahya doctrine, a military strategy to use “overwhelming and disproportionate force against civilian areas and infrastructure” to defeat the enemy.

The COI noted it continues to investigate reports that Hamas and other militants operate from civilian locations, but it could not verify evidence Israeli authorities publicly presented. The COI made no finding regarding Hamas’s use of human shields.

The COI found that Israeli evacuation orders constituted the war crime and crime against humanity of forcible transfer. From October 7, 2023, to December 30, 2023, more than eighty orders instructed civilians to leave their neighborhoods and go to areas that effectively constituted safe zones with legal protections. However, many evacuation orders were unclear and confusing, had insufficient or unstated time frames, and/or were difficult or impossible to comply with due to chaos along evacuation routes—including Israeli checkpoints where individuals were forced at gunpoint to strip and “walk for prolonged periods without clothes,” a lack of transport, inadequate support for vulnerable persons, and Israeli and Hamas attacks on and harassment of evacuees. Moreover, evacuation orders were issued alongside or in the context of authorities’ statements dehumanizing Palestinians, labeling all Gazans as Hamas, referring to the second Nakba, and calling for the removal of Gazan civilians and the establishment of Israeli settlements. Accordingly, the evacuation orders did not constitute an advance effective warning to civilians, but instead amounted to forcible transfer. Israeli forces also attacked safe zones and destroyed entire communities and residential areas that were evacuated, leaving nothing for families to return to.

The COI also documented Israeli forces’ commission of the war crimes of sexual violence, outrages upon personal dignity, and sexual and gender-based violence amounting to torture or inhuman and cruel treatment, as well as the crimes against humanity of gender persecution and torture and inhuman and cruel treatment. Israeli forces compelled public stripping and nudity “in many locations,” with victims “blindfolded, kneeling, and/or with their hands tied” while subject to interrogation, verbal or psychological abuse, and/or coerced physical acts. “[M]en and boys were targeted in particular ways,” including Israeli forces repeatedly filming and photographing them with images disseminated online and family and community members forced to watch. Women were also targeted with specific forms of psychological violence and sexual harassment, including online shaming and doxing, sexualized graffiti, and invasion of personal privacy, including by soldiers rifling through lingerie. These acts were aggravated by violating Gazans’ modest and private social practices and disseminating humiliating content online that would be almost impossible to remove. The COI concluded that the sexual and gender-based violence “was intended to humiliate and degrade the Palestinian population as a whole.” The pattern of forced public stripping and nudity indicated it was either ordered or condoned, and the prevalence and severity of sexual and gender-based crimes suggest they are part of Israeli operating procedures.

Impact of the report

The COI is not a court or a tribunal, and it cannot prosecute or ensure legal accountability. However, it can issue recommendations to promote accountability and support accountability mechanisms, including by sharing evidence with domestic, regional, and international courts. Thus, while the report itself will not result in trials, its documentation can advance investigations and contribute to future prosecutions of Palestinian and Israeli forces and authorities. These cases may proceed at the International Criminal Court (ICC)—where the prosecutor has applied for arrest warrants for Hamas and Israeli officials—or in domestic courts. The COI is also recommending these accountability steps—that ICC member states support and cooperate fully with the Office of the Prosecutor’s investigation and that states parties to the Geneva Conventions, Convention against Torture, and the Genocide Convention investigate core international crimes under domestic or universal jurisdiction.

While investigations and prosecutions may take years, legal accountability is essential to recovering and healing from a conflict that has resulted in “months of losses and despair, retribution and atrocities.” As the COI concluded: “The only way to stop the recurring cycles of violence…is to ensure strict adherence to international law.”

Elise Baker is a staff lawyer with the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project. Previously, she worked at the United Nations International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism on Syria and led Physicians for Human Rights’ Syria Mapping Project, which documented attacks on Syria’s health care system.

The post Unpacking the UN findings of war crimes by Hamas and Israel since October 7 appeared first on Atlantic Council.

‘We’re back to square one’ in fighting the hunger crisis, warns Cindy McCain

Katherine Walla — Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:52:03 +0000

Watch the full event

Public Event Thu, July 25, 2024 • 8:30 am ET

Shaping the global economy: From food security to digital transformation

Shaping the global economy conference will develop a blueprint for the G20 to address the range of challenges facing its member states from global economic governance and digital transformation to food security and hunger.

Brazil China Digital Policy Energy Markets & Governance

“We’ve lost all the progress that we’ve made in the past fifteen years” on lowering global hunger levels, World Food Programme (WFP) Executive Director Cindy McCain warned on Thursday.

McCain spoke at an Atlantic Council event hosted on the sidelines of the Group of Twenty (G20) meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors in Rio de Janeiro. She pointed out that one in eleven people globally faced hunger last year.

On Wednesday, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva announced that Brazil—which holds the G20 presidency—will later this year launch the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty to bring countries together in sharing knowledge and resources.

“We have the capability as a planet to feed everybody on the planet—we grow enough food,” McCain said, “but we don’t” due to funding and other coordination issues.

With those challenges, the Global Alliance is “a great opportunity for all of us . . . to get together, exchange ideas, brainstorm” and to “develop science and technology” tools to help, McCain said.

Below are more highlights from the conversation, moderated by Valentina Sader, deputy director at the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center.

Food security

Food security is a “national security issue,” and “it should be labeled as one,” McCain argued, pointing out how access to food has shaped broader security crises in Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
Yet, food security “gets kicked down” the list of priorities every time “something else happens in the world,” McCain warned.
She said that the WFP and United Nations agencies, because they provide critical aid, are “on the front lines” of crises and the “first in and last out.”
The WFP previously got most of its grain from Ukraine. But it has had to diversify its sources in the wake of the agricultural disruptions caused by Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. WFP is also working with other countries to help them mitigate the effects of the conflict on global food supplies.
In the global hunger crisis, “women and children are taking the brunt,” McCain said. “You’ve never seen more of an example of it than in Gaza.”
She added that equity and gender inclusion are important to factor into food security efforts because “a woman will feed her family,” and while doing so, “she will make sure everybody else eats” before she does.
Moreover, with women making up around half of smallholder farmers, McCain argued that it is important to make sure that these women have the tools, expertise, seeds, and access to water that they need to farm effectively. “If a woman farms and can feed her family, she will wind up feeding the community,” McCain said.

Farm to negotiating table

McCain noted that G20 countries include not only the world’s leading economies but also some of the planet’s largest agricultural producers. That, she said, empowers these countries to work together to address the full spectrum of food-security challenges, from poverty to improvements in agriculture.
She added that the G20 is an optimal forum for raising the urgency around hunger because of how it brings together both governments and civil society organizations from countries that represent 85 percent of the world’s gross domestic product and over 60 percent of its population. “So the voice is huge,” she said, adding that “governments simply cannot do it all. We need everybody in on this.”
She urged global stakeholders to “continue to elevate the conversation” about the urgency of food security—and advised countries “most affected” by food insecurity to keep conveying the plight they face. “The problem is [that] around the world, people don’t understand what’s going on” or believe that hunger and malnutrition are only problems in Africa rather than globally, she said. “It’s all about. . . making sure that people understand.”

Katherine Walla is the associate director of editorial at the Atlantic Council.

Watch the full event

The post ‘We’re back to square one’ in fighting the hunger crisis, warns Cindy McCain appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Pelayo quoted in TRT World on Houthis’ attacks against Israel ships

Atlantic Council — Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:34:05 +0000

The post Pelayo quoted in TRT World on Houthis’ attacks against Israel ships appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The West should articulate the possibility of a European future for Belarus now

Richard Cashman — Thu, 25 Jul 2024 20:12:28 +0000

Belarus is often overlooked by the Euro-Atlantic policy-making community, with many taking for granted the relative stability represented by Belarusian dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka during his three decades in power. In reality, however, today’s Belarus may soon reach a fork in the road that will force its people to choose between European democracy and Eurasian autocracy. The choice they make will have significant implications for Euro-Atlantic security. Articulating the possibility of a European future for Belarusians now can help shape their thoughts and actions when the time comes.

During the 1990s, some Russians claimed the dictatorial Lukashenka model was exactly what the troubled and oligarchic Russian Federation needed. Although always opposed to the Belarusian language and broadly aligned with Moscow, Lukashenka tenaciously maintained his independence when Vladimir Putin came to power in Russia, skillfully extracting benefits from both the Kremlin and the West.

This independence was severely undermined by the massive grassroots protests that erupted in Belarus in the wake of the country’s 2020 presidential vote. Large numbers of Belarusians believed reformist opposition candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya had won the election and took to the streets to protest. Lukashenka only survived thanks to Russian support. This left him far more reliant on the Kremlin and significantly reduced his room for maneuver.

In February 2022, Lukashenka allowed Putin to use Belarusian territory to launch his full-scale invasion of Ukraine. However, it soon became clear that things were not going according to Putin’s plan. Russia’s heavy losses during the initial weeks of the invasion restored some of Lukashenka’s independence, while disquiet in his own armed forces and some quarters of the security services convinced him that further direct involvement in Russia’s war would be folly. Since then, Lukashenka has provided training and equipment to Russian forces, but has resisted pressure to join the invasion.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Putin remains eager to exploit Belarus’s resources and strategic position to threaten Kyiv once more and to target Western supplies entering Ukraine from Poland. Belarus could also play an important role in the future, if Russia seeks to intensify hybrid hostilities against the Baltic states or to launch a direct attack. This looks unlikely as long as Lukashenka remains in power. The Belarusian dictator may therefore represent a status quo which fundamentally favors Ukraine and its allies more than Russia.

If Putin continues to fail in his immediate objective of occupying all of Ukraine’s Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions, there is a real possibility that he will ultimately lose patience with Lukashenka and move to either replace him or otherwise compel Belarus to join the invasion. Moreover, it is almost certain that Putin will attempt to secure Belarusian human and material resources if Lukashenka dies before him.

Many Belarusians already know what would await them if Putin fully incorporated and militarized their country. They would experience an oligarchic raiding of businesses, covert or overt mobilization, and the extinguishing of the traditionally Western-looking aspect that is an important part of Belarusian national identity.

In contrast, if Belarusians manage to maintain their independence and empower a reformist leadership, they can begin moving towards European integration, with European Union membership an eventual possibility. In this context, it is vital that all Belarusians, including political elites along with members of the military and security forces, receive assurances that they have a viable alternative to the Kremlin vision for their country’s future.

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Articulating a European future for Belarus does not need to entail talk of NATO membership. Instead, it should involve acknowledging the possibility of removing sanctions, enhancing access to EU travel, education, and capital, and eventually embracing Belarus’s modest population of 9.2 million people under democratic leadership and after deep structural reforms.

From a purely practical standpoint, European integration would not be an insurmountable task. Lukashenka’s repressive regime has actually resulted in relatively good infrastructure conditions for Belarusians, especially in rural areas, compared to most other former Soviet republics. Belarus boasts a highly educated and comparatively young demographic. Prior to the 2020 protests, the country had burgeoning IT and entrepreneurial sectors.

A Belarus free of Russian military entanglements and increasingly aligned with the Euro-Atlantic community instead of the developing Russia-China-Iran-North Korea axis of autocracies would contribute significantly to the security of Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states. A Belarusian geopolitical pivot toward the West could also encourage transformation inside Russia itself and compel more Russians to embrace a post-imperial identity.

Failure to articulate the possibility of a European future for Belarus leaves the Euro-Atlantic community at risk of being caught off guard without a plan when Belarus does, indeed, reach its fork in the road. This may come sooner than many are prepared for. By taking steps now to engage with Belarusian society, the EU can strengthen its own foreign policy credentials as a major geopolitical player, mitigate against the risk of a rapid Russian militarization of Belarus, and set the stage for a cooperative relationship with Belarusians in the years to come.

Richard Cashman is a nonresident fellow at the Centre for Defence Strategies.

The world is sleepwalking into an era of extreme heat. The UN just issued a wake-up call.

Eleni Myrivili — Thu, 25 Jul 2024 18:08:33 +0000

“If there is one thing that unites our divided world, it is that we are all increasingly feeling the heat,” said United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres today as he issued a Global Call to Action on Extreme Heat. The first-of-its-kind report, which I contributed to in my capacity as global chief heat officer, emphasizes the urgent need for actionable heat-related measures and policies worldwide.

In the Call to Action, the secretary-general makes clear that governments and policymakers must protect and care for the lives and livelihoods of frontline communities, protect workers, advance the evidence base to drive innovative resilience solutions, and limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

This clear recognition from the Office of the Secretary-General is an important moment for us all. Extreme heat is often underestimated and ignored, but its impacts are unavoidable. The planet is heating up faster than we thought. We are outside scientific model predictions and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and devastating.

Rising heat affects our major critical systems—such as water, energy, food, transportation, and communications. It also feeds mega droughts, wildfires, and storms, creating cascading and compounding crises. It’s a global crisis. But we are not ready for any of it. We’re sleepwalking.

Policies to address extreme heat so far remain scattered, disjointed, and underfunded.

In my work as global chief heat officer and first chief heat officer for the city of Athens, I have worked directly with cities and have seen the impacts of heat firsthand. Cities are heating up at twice the rate of the global average. At 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming, sixty-seven cities will experience 150 or more days per year of temperatures exceeding 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit). At 2 degrees Celsius, the number jumps to ninety-four cities. At just under 3 degrees Celsius of global warming, it soars to 197 cities. 

Policies to address extreme heat so far remain scattered, disjointed, and underfunded. But the rising temperatures mark a global crisis with local impacts. That’s why the global focus of the UN’s Call to Action is so crucial. Increasingly, our world is facing challenges that go beyond the capacity and limited mandate of single nation states. We’re facing crises, like climate change, that need international cooperation to support and facilitate equitable, multilevel, science-based decision making and solutions. The UN is the only legitimate multilateral governance structure able to address issues that need global mobilization and localized solutions. As cities take on climate change, they need support at every level.

In 2022, globally, humanity spent a little over one trillion dollars on adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate change. For comparison, the world spent $11.7 trillion on COVID-19 emergency fiscal measures in 2020 alone. As temperatures rise, this funding gap is a dangerous threat. And there is another issue that needs to be urgently addressed: In 2022, about one trillion dollars went to financing emissions mitigation, while only one hundred billion dollars went to adaptation and resilience-building initiatives. We urgently need both climate adaptation and resilience financing.

The UN’s Call to Action is an important milestone for climate resilience, but it is also only the beginning. As the document explains, the world urgently needs a Global Action Strategy to “mobilize governments, policy makers, and all stakeholders to act, prevent, and reduce heat risk.” A dedicated trust fund for urban heat resilience initiatives is also needed, because cities are on the frontlines of extreme heat, and they are where more than half of the world’s population lives—a share that is expected to rise to seven-in-ten people by midcentury. Finally, more dedicated heat champions, like the community of chief heat officers established by the Arsht-Rock Resilience Center, with heat resilience departments that can articulate the challenges and co-create the best solutions are needed. These champions are critical to ensuring that the dangers of—and the solutions to—extreme heat are understood widely.

Each of these essential efforts, as well as others, requires building an international consensus around the scope of the problem and its solutions. Here, the UN’s Call to Action on Extreme Heat can help shape conversations in positive directions at upcoming conferences such as Climate Week NYC and this year’s UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties, also known as COP29. Heat resilience must be at the top of the agenda at these and other international meetings, and work is needed at every level to ensure that cities have the support and finances they need to scale solutions.

As the Call to Action makes clear, everyone is at risk from extreme heat, and we must enable resilience at the local and international level, taking “bold decisions to change the way we live to avoid an even more scorched Earth in the future.”

Eleni Myrivili is the world’s first global chief heat officer, a role jointly created and appointed by the Atlantic Council’s Arsht-Rock Resilience Center and the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat).

The post The world is sleepwalking into an era of extreme heat. The UN just issued a wake-up call. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Syrian elections are decided before election day

Vladimir Pran and Maroun Sfeir — Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:02:57 +0000

President Bashar al-Assad set July 15 as election day for the Syrian People’s Assembly in the areas controlled by his government. As the electoral process unfolded, our series of articles deconstructed the key elements of Syrian elections and their role in legitimizing Baath Party rule. This series will also conduct a deep dive into the challenges of moving ahead with electoral reform in the United Nations (UN)-facilitated political process. The first article of the series discussed the outline of the election process and its significance, while the second article examined the system of representation, which determines the voting method and how many candidates will be elected from each of the districts. The third article presented the structure of the Syrian electorate. This article unpacks the role of various institutions in administering elections and the candidates.

The absence of an independent electoral administration in Syria is not news to anyone. The electoral authorities are deeply embedded within the judicial and executive structure and operate as extensions of the ruling party’s apparatus, rather than as impartial overseers of the electoral process. This integration ensures that electoral commissions at all levels, from national to regional, strictly adhere to the governing party’s agenda.

The administration is not a centralized system under a single hierarchical institution. Instead, it involves multiple governmental and judicial bodies. At the top of this system is the Supreme Judicial Elections Committee (SJEC), which in practice is appointed by presidential decree instead of by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) as required by the law. The SJEC is neither equipped nor mandated to implement elections, as it does not have staff or offices for election operations.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Below the SJEC are the governorate-level subcommittees. Nominally, these should be the key institutions in managing election operations other than the candidacy process, which is managed by the nomination committees that work independently from the governorate subcommittee.

Both committees are staffed by judges who approach their work by focusing on providing legal cover for processes implemented by other institutions, rather than actively managing electoral operations.

These committees suffer from the same lack of independence as the rest of the judicial system in Syria, as the president wields significant control over the judicial system overall. He is a member of the SJC and appoints the Supreme Constitutional Court, which handles election appeals.

However, even if the judicial committees were more independent, they would have little control over the process: the Ministry of Interior (MoI) is the key operational entity. It is tasked with various matters, such as managing the voters register, custody over all the electoral documents, procurement and management of sensitive election materials, and logistics.

At the local level, election day operations are managed by election committees composed of civil servants appointed by governors. These committees are part of the governmental structure and do not report to the SJEC, further eroding the processes’ independence. The committees are hardly trained, as their training consists of oath-taking ceremonies with little focus on the actual procedures.

The lack of comprehensive regulations that are supposed to operationalize the election law exacerbates these issues. With judicial commissions reduced to issuing appointments and loose guidance, many aspects of the elections remain unregulated. This regulatory vacuum gives the MoI and election committees significant discretion in implementing electoral procedures.

In conclusion, the Syrian electoral administration system is designed to centralize control under the president through the judicial system, governors, and the MoI. This structure eliminates any meaningful chance for truly independent elections, as every key aspect of the electoral process can be traced back to presidential influence or control.

All this raises the question: what are the options for credible management of elections in Syria? Can the system be reformed by focusing on key problematic aspects? That said, the system is so deeply flawed that it needs to be rebuilt entirely for elections to enjoy any credibility. The standards required are familiar and often used in post-conflict settings, such as establishing a new independent electoral management body with authority to both regulate and implement elections and whose leadership is appointed through a consensual process. Until that is possible, United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2254 attempts to provide a transitional fix, stating that elections should be “administered under supervision of the United Nations.”

However, the term “supervision” has various forms and definitions, even within the UN framework, and the UN’s role has ranged from approving steps in the management of the process to “conducting” elections as part of the peace process, as it did in Cambodia, Eastern Slavonia, or East Timor. Yet, such deep involvement of the UN in Syrian elections would require a high degree of political consensus among the UNSC members, which is hard to envision.

On the other hand, when examining the system and the candidacy process, it is apparent that the laws and procedures—or lack thereof—are tools serving a single purpose: eliminating candidates not endorsed by the Baath Party.

The constitution neither protects nor restricts the right to run in assembly elections. Instead, candidacy is entirely regulated by an election law adopted in 2014 by presidential decree. This law introduces several unfair limits on this right. Some restrictions, like the ten-year Syrian nationality requirement, seem minor but impact those with unregularized status (except for Hasakah’s Kurds, who were designated as foreigners or “ajanib”) and potentially up to 4 million Syrians living overseas.

There are a few more restrictions of particular concern for those who opposed the Assad regime, such as the exclusion of those who have been sentenced for a “felony or misdemeanor that is dishonorable and shakes the public trust.” These offenses are defined by the decree of the justice minister and disqualify all those sentenced for political reasons. However, even if the offense does not fall into this category, all criminally convicted individuals automatically lose their civil and political rights, including the right to stand for office, for ten years after serving their prison sentence.

Those eligible to apply for candidacy must navigate a process that is only vaguely regulated, giving judge-led committees considerable flexibility in deciding on nominations. For example, committees may request an “accredited certificate” proving literacy even when candidates present university degrees. Another quirk requires candidates who wish to contest a “worker or famer” seat to prove they are not listed in industrial or commercial registers.

As presented in the electoral system article, candidates not running on the Baath-endorsed National Unity (NU) List have minuscule chances of being elected. What, then, explains the large number of candidates for the 250 seats in the assembly? For example, in the SJEC accepted 11,341 applications in the 2016 elections, 8,735 in 2020, and 9,194 in 2024. The answer is that the Baath Party encourages members to apply in massive numbers as an indicator of vigorous and credible political competition. Registering for candidacy with the SJEC is only the first prerequisite for becoming a Baath candidate. The second step is the Baath Party process, in which the aspirants compete for the endorsement. This is colloquially called “primaries,” but “consultation” would be a more accurate term.

Without a real election campaign—as a case in point, the NU lists of candidates were only published six days before the polls—hyping up the primaries is essential for the illusion of choice. And, because the Baathists not featured on the NU lists have little chance of winning a seat, the primaries are more important than the polling. Most of the aspirants not included in the list withdrew before election day, so only 1,516 candidates are heading to the polls.

Despite being central to elections, the primaries are still just theatrics rather than a genuine competition. While they look like a proper election process on the surface, their results are not binding. The participation of Baathists is wide and includes an “electronic voting system” that could be easily manipulated and does not guarantee secrecy, and “the party independent election commission” oversees the process. Yet, the result of voting is only advisory. The final say remains with the top Baath Party body, the Central Command, which regularly tweaks the results, claiming to have taken into consideration the “opinion of the general public.” That outcome is regularly criticized on social media.

The primaries may not be the most intriguing process for those interested in internal Baath politics. Instead, the internal elections for the positions in the Baath bodies, which culminated in a series of appointments and dismissals of party leaders earlier this year, could provide a better insight. It appears these elections had some impact on the leadership structure, as a whole new central leadership was elected and most of the new leaders are in their fifties. Some have concluded that the new leadership might be more interested in engaging the general membership and more open to critical voices.

The Baathists on the NU List were announced, with a delay of two days, on July 9 and for unclear reasons. Baath-affiliated media justified the delay by arguing it was to “ensure fair representation, support the democratic process, and respect the voters’ will in a balanced manner.” But the concurrent news of the dismissal of the nineteen incumbent members of the assembly for “low ideological awareness,” and the lifting of the immunity of another seven members due to corruption, attracted interest and was a matter of debate in social media.

A cursory review of the NU lists reveals that the number of incumbents (fifty-eight) is somewhat lower than in the 2020 elections (sixty-eight), which might reflect the above-mentioned renewed party leadership. The Baath strategy appears to be the promotion of lower-tier loyalists to rebuild party discipline. A deeper analysis of that trend is warranted and should examine why the governorates with the highest turnover are Damascus, Deir ez-Zor, Idlib, Tartous, and Raqqa. On the other hand, Daraa (where five out of eight candidates are incumbents) and al-Hasakah (with six incumbents out of eleven) seem to have only a few replacements.

The number of women in the assembly is consistently trending downward—in 2020, it dropped from thirty-three to twenty-eight—and this year’s elections did not reverse that trend. Twenty-two female candidates are now on the NU list (12 percent), even fewer than in 2020 when NU featured twenty-five women. The Baath Party could easily endorse more women if it wanted to promote women’s participation, as the 2020 elections show that women have minimal chances to be elected outside of the NU lists (only 1.5 percent of the non-NU candidates are women), so the Syrian parliament will likely remain one among those with the lowest representation of women in the world.

The candidates running for the uncontested seats are colloquially called “independents.” More than one thousand of those remaining in the race competed for the sixty-five seats. They sometimes formed “independent candidate lists,” mostly in urban governorates like Damascus and Aleppo. These are often businessmen or militiamen closely affiliated with the regime, supporting the facade of diversity. In some cases, they feature prominent personalities, such as the Damascus list “From Damascus For You Syria,” which includes Mohamed Hammam Miswati and Bilal Naal, assembly incumbents with close ties to the Assad regime. Another Damascene list is “Sham List,” which features the incumbent Mohamed Hamsho (sanctioned by the European Union and the United States). Others, like Wael Melhem from Homs, ran without forming a list and count on personal prominence.

And while the polls were held on July 15, the elections were effectively over at the end of the primaries. The candidates on the National Unity list will sit in the assembly. If there was hope for even a minor opening of political space, the regime sent a clear message: there was no interest in political reforms. Elections are only an aspect of internal Baath consolidation, and the assembly will have free rein for constitutional amendments needed to allow Bashar al-Assad to stay in office beyond 2028.

Vladimir Pran advises electoral authorities, governments, and political leaders on transitional, electoral, and political processes.

Maroun Sfeir advises international and local civil society organizations, political groups, and electoral authorities on electoral and political processes.

The post Syrian elections are decided before election day appeared first on Atlantic Council.

What Kamala Harris’s record in Central America and the Caribbean reveals about her foreign policy approach

Jason Marczak — Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:02:09 +0000

In April 2021, three weeks after US Vice President Kamala Harris took on the assignment of leading the Biden administration’s efforts to address the root causes of migration from northern Central America, I joined her as one of seven experts offering external perspectives on the issues confronting the region. At the meeting, Harris sought out new ideas to inform the administration’s strategy on topics ranging from transparency and economic development to security and good governance. One takeaway immediately emerged: With migration from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador stemming from decades of insecurity, economic challenges, and weak governance, among other factors, there would be no fast fix for these root causes.

Since US President Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Harris on Sunday, she has emerged as the likely Democratic nominee. So what might US foreign policy look like if she wins the presidency? For Harris, the daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants, there are ample clues in her work in the Americas over the past three-and-a-half years. Her approach: Listen to a broad array of stakeholders, act, follow up, and then adjust tactics as needed. This approach can take time to implement, but it also proves adaptive to unexpected challenges.

Although the United States’ southern border was not specifically part of the portfolio handed to her, Harris’s indirect involvement—through her role in seeking to reduce migratory push factors in northern Central America—has received considerable scrutiny, especially among those who criticize the Biden administration’s approach to migration. The data at this point indicate that the Biden administration has made progress in reducing the number of migrants arriving at the US border from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to levels last seen toward the end of the Trump administration, even as increased migration from other countries has contributed to a high level of overall encounters at the border.

At the same time, more work is clearly needed to ensure that migration levels from northern Central America do not jump back up. It is imperative that the efforts undertaken as part of the ongoing “root causes” strategy carry forward no matter who wins the US election in November. This means ensuring that local organizations have the technical and financial resources to improve opportunities for job creation and human-capital development and also to combat often-endemic corruption. These and other conditions are needed not just to dampen the drive to migrate but also to create longer-term economic security that ultimately benefits the national security of the United States and partner countries.

In the course of her work as vice president with Central America and the Caribbean . . . she has taken on tough issues that don’t lend themselves to easy, quick solutions.

In one example of her “listen, act, then follow up” approach, Harris traveled to Guatemala and Mexico in June 2021. A month later, she rolled out a five-pillar strategy that revolved around working with in-country partners to address the root causes of Central American migration, noting that “migration to our border is also a symptom of much larger issues” and admitting from the start that “progress will not be instantaneous.” She subsequently visited Honduras in January 2022. In March 2024, she welcomed Guatemala’s new president, Bernardo Arévalo, to the White House for more discussions. This approach suggests that Harris could govern in a manner where decisions are carefully thought out and where a multitude of factors are taken into account before acting.

In its three years, the five-pillar strategy has produced more than $5.2 billion in commitments from companies and organizations to invest in the region while supporting local development in areas of high emigration. And there are signs that migration from the region is now slowing. The number of Guatemalans encountered at the southwestern border last month (11,485) was the second-lowest since November 2020. The number of Hondurans (8,896) was the lowest over the same period. Overall, the proportion of migrants encountered at the US border who are citizens of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador has dropped from 49 percent (March 2021) to 18 percent (June 2024).

Still, reflecting the shift in migrant patterns, including new or growing countries of origin, the overall number of migrant encounters by border authorities remains high (130,419 in June) as compared to the last full month of the previous administration (73,994 encounters in December 2020).

Though it has been less high-profile than her Central America work, Harris has also given substantial attention to addressing the many significant challenges facing the United States’ Caribbean neighbors. As she has explained it, doing so is a US national security priority that cannot be overlooked.

In June 2023, just over a year after virtually hosting leaders of fifteen Caribbean nations, Harris became the highest-ranking US official to visit The Bahamas, where she co-hosted the US-Caribbean Leaders Meeting. That meeting—and her overall engagement—has been focused on establishing a greater US presence in the Caribbean at a time in which it’s becoming increasingly apparent that Caribbean prosperity yields benefits for the United States too. The region’s geographic proximity also means that there is a national security imperative for the United States to be more fully engaged in a partnership with the Caribbean.

In keeping with her typical approach, Harris met with Caribbean leaders first to hear their priorities before crafting a strategy. Her priorities started with climate change and the energy transition, expanded to food security, and then extended to security and arms trafficking. At that June 2023 meeting, she announced $100 million of US assistance to address these issues, including Haiti’s ongoing humanitarian crisis. (In parallel with these efforts, the Atlantic Council organized the PACC 2030 Climate Resilient Clean Energy Summit on the sidelines of her Bahamas trip.) Still, as with her Central America portfolio, substantial progress will not happen overnight.

Over the coming days and weeks, Harris will set about defining what her foreign policy might look like. In the course of her work as vice president with Central America and the Caribbean, at least, she has taken on tough issues that don’t lend themselves to easy, quick solutions. And she has followed through on implementation, adjusting tactics along the way as the situation on the ground evolves. As she seeks to become commander-in-chief at a time of deep global instability, she will have no shortage of complicated challenges to confront.

Jason Marczak is the vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center.

The post What Kamala Harris’s record in Central America and the Caribbean reveals about her foreign policy approach appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Ten years on, Yezidi cases expose a lack of corporate accountability in US genocide law

Charles Johnson — Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:34:41 +0000

As August approaches, so does the tenth anniversary of the 2014 Yezidi genocide in Sinjar, Iraq—and with it, the question of accountability in US courts of law. Admittedly, the US government and legal system have been working to hold perpetrators of the genocide—members of the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)—to account. These efforts include US Department of Justice (DOJ) cases against individuals and companies on charges of material support for terrorism. Conspicuously, though, there have been no charges seeking to hold any alleged perpetrators, nor their corporate enablers, to account specifically for genocide against Yezidis or other ethno-religious minority communities in Iraq and Syria.

The absence is significant, as accountability for genocide is an integral part of a surviving community’s healing. Nadia Murad, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Yezidi survivor of ISIS enslavement, has spoken directly on the issue, stating, “Convictions of ISIS members for genocide are vital to our healing process; they let us know that the world has seen, and condemns, the efforts to eradicate the Yezidi people.”

Since 2016, the United States has made some progress in this regard with the State Department’s recognition of genocides in Iraq, Xinjiang, the Ottoman Empire, and Myanmar. But during the same period, US genocide law has failed to keep pace. While there are some logistical reasons for the lack of prosecutions—notably, the lack of direct perpetrators on US territory—the US justice system can instead pursue those otherwise complicit: corporations. However, alarming gaps in US genocide law shield corporations from accountability while denying comprehensive justice to victims and survivors.

Shortcomings in US genocide law and policy

In the US legal system, the Genocide Convention Implementation Act (codified under 18 US Code § 1091) constitutes most of the legal criminal bullwork aimed at genocide prosecution. The code mirrors much of the 1948 Genocide Convention’s language, prohibiting actions with the “specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.”

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

In some ways, the law’s reach extends beyond the Genocide Convention’s scope, allowing authorities to hold corporations criminally liable for federal crimes, including genocide, committed by their employees, officers, or agents in their scope of employment. In contrast, the International Criminal Court, and even some countries, cannot hold corporations themselves accountable.

Despite this broader scope, the act remains poorly equipped to handle cases of genocide in general, let alone to prosecute corporations specifically. For instance, according to the Open Society Justice Initiative, the code’s wording renders the act less effective than the Genocide Convention. Possibly most damaging to the law’s breadth is the act’s (18 US Code § 1093) definition of “substantial part.” Where the Genocide Convention does not require “substantial” destruction in the first place, the act requires the destruction of “a part of a group of such numerical significance that the destruction or loss of that part would cause the destruction of the group as a viable entity within the nation of which such group is a part.”

US and international law also differ in defining the degree of mental harm constituting genocide. US code requires “the permanent impairment of the mental faculties…through drugs, torture, or similar techniques,” compared to the Genocide Convention’s broader protection of victims suffering “serious…mental harm.” Therefore, the code’s variation from international law substantially limits the recognized scope and qualifying acts of genocide.

Beyond wording, other legal factors continue to impede genocide prosecution. For example, temporal jurisdiction prevented prosecutors from bringing cases prior to the act’s passage in 1988, and the code only allowed for trying foreign nationals after the Genocide Accountability Act’s passage in 2007.

The issue of mens rea, or “mental state,” also poses a unique challenge to prosecutors seeking corporate accountability for genocide. Mens rea requires proof of express genocidal intent, but international interpretations of this requirement have remained vague and inconsistent. Mens rea under US law becomes even more complicated when introducing secondary liability, as some states’ caselaw interpretations require a complicit party to possess the same mens rea as the direct perpetrator, while other states’ caselaw does not. This divide reflects a broader international debate and complicates the legal considerations for possible US cases against corporations, potentially disincentivizing prosecutors.

But one of the greatest obstacles facing genocide prosecution is the lack of US policy prioritizing such cases. Genocide charges require political approval from the assistant attorney general of the Criminal Division of the DOJ, but little is likely to change without political support backing this approval. Gev Iskajyan, national grassroots director of the Armenian National Committee of America, acknowledged this fact in 2021, simultaneously praising President Joe Biden’s recognition of the Armenian genocide as “a fundamental step in that ladder to justice” and clarifying that true justice requires more substantive action from political leaders. Indeed, the lack of political support and accompanying legal obstacles have effectively dissuaded prosecutors from indicting anyone on genocide charges since the Genocide Convention Implementation Act’s passage in 1988.

Litigating the Yezidi genocide

Nowhere in recent litigation has this dissuasion been more apparent than with efforts to address corporate involvement in ISIS’s genocide against the Yezidi community. The genocide began on August 3, 2014, when ISIS launched a campaign in Sinjar, killing more than five thousand Yezidis and taking 6,800 more into captivity, where they faced brainwashing, physical abuse, and sexual slavery. ISIS did not achieve this persecution in isolation. The organization received material assistance and took advantage of lax oversight on social media platforms to further its genocidal program. Without criminal cases charging corporations with complicity in genocide—whether from lack of political will or the shortcomings of the law—American and Yezidi cases in the United States have instead used civil provisions that do not cover liability for genocide.

Legal cases against Lafarge, a French cement manufacturer, stand as an excellent example of this phenomenon. In 2022, as a result of a DOJ investigation, the company pled guilty to conspiring to provide material support to foreign terrorist organizations. The company was ordered to pay $777.78 million in fines and forfeitures for cooperating with ISIS and al-Nusrah Front in exchange for a Lafarge factory’s security in Syria. Emboldened by the DOJ’s success, American Yezidis have since opened a similar civil suit based on Lafarge’s alleged violation of the Antiterrorism Act.

Undoubtedly, prosecuting the company under the United States’ expansive legal framework for terrorism is more likely to succeed than a case under genocide law. The DOJ has historically prioritized terrorism cases, creating more robust legislation and caselaw that prosecutors can draw from, and often more favorable provisions. For example, extraterritorial jurisdiction over the crime of material support for terrorism is far-reaching, covering, e.g., an offense that “occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.” Furthermore, any effort to hold Lafarge accountable while obtaining funds for Yezidi victims and survivors is laudable. However, Lafarge knowingly and willfully continued illegal payments to an organization actively committing genocide, yet has not had to answer for these uniquely harmful acts.

As another example, a separate group of Yezidi activists is looking to hold WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube accountable for the illegal slave trade of Yezidi women, which the activists allege occurred on the platforms. According to the group, these companies acted slowly and inconsistently in removing harmful material related to trafficking Yezidi women, which could be in violation of the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017. However, legal experts have noted that certain provisions may shield these tech companies from civil liability through wide-ranging immunities. But even if the civil suit succeeds, the companies’ liability will only extend to sex trafficking, without acknowledging the fundamental role that slavery played in this genocide. The civil suit would bring prosecution closer to specific acts of genocide but, like the Lafarge case, would still fall short of addressing genocide directly.

Better accountability measures needed

The United States needs far better genocide accountability measures if justice is ever to follow recognition. On a legal level, several reforms could work in favor of such a pursuit. Removing the word “substantial” from the act’s current language, and expanding qualifying instances of mental harm, would help bring the law closer in line with general improvements to US genocide recognition.

Similarly, a law delineating the requirements for mens rea between perpetrators and collaborators would establish clearer responsibilities for corporations in dealing with a genocidal group. Legislation along these lines could become as effective as terrorism legislation, which seeks to define a similarly nebulous crime, to punish companies for enabling both terrorist organizations and governments committing genocide.

At the same time, and arguably more crucially, prosecutors need to pursue genocide cases. DOJ officials must be willing to bring charges under reformed genocide law, the assistant attorney general of the Criminal Division must approve these charges when they are brought, and lawmakers need to move beyond mere genocide recognition by calling for prosecution. Though legal amendments are not retroactive and cannot influence any cases related to the Yezidi genocide, conflicts with genocidal allegations rage on in Russia, Sudan, and the Gaza Strip. It is time for the US legal system to meet this reality.

Charles Johnson is a former Young Global Professional with the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East Programs. He is a senior at the University of Kansas majoring in history, political science, and religious studies.

The post Ten years on, Yezidi cases expose a lack of corporate accountability in US genocide law appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The Biden administration has changed how the US engages with developing countries

Joseph Lemoine — Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:30:16 +0000

This is part of a series of articles in which our experts offer “first rough drafts of history” examining US President Joe Biden’s policy record and potential legacy as his administration enters its final months, following Biden’s July 21 announcement that he will not seek reelection.

It’s often easy to spot where repression and hardship are severe. Parts of Europe and the Middle East are now entrenched in brutal war, and Russia and China are promoting autocratic models of governance around the world. Yet it would be a mistake to overlook some of the less visible efforts to advance democracy, freedom, and prosperity in response to these challenges. In particular, the Biden administration has made several important strides to adjust and adapt how the United States engages in international development.

US President Joe Biden, who announced on Sunday that he would not seek reelection, and his administration have sought greater inclusion of developing nations in addressing economic, social, and climate-related issues. Not only rooted in a battle for soft power against China and Russia, these efforts are also advancing global prosperity. They define how the United States interacts with the developing world, and they help shape how the United States is perceived abroad.

Shortly after Biden came into office in January 2021, his administration reengaged with international organizations. The administration has, for example, viewed the United Nations (UN) as an important venue for realizing US foreign policy goals and demonstrating global leadership. While US contributions to the UN have remained steady, the Trump administration sought to reduce or eliminate voluntary contributions to some UN programs, targeting peacekeeping operations and several specialized agencies. Biden restored funding to agencies that faced cuts under Trump, and he halted the planned US exit from the World Health Organization, allowing US contributions to continue uninterrupted. Biden also restarted funding for the UN Population Fund to support its work on ending preventable maternal death, reducing the unmet need for family planning, and ending gender-based violence. Under Biden, the United States contributed nearly $100 million to this fund in 2021, and more than $160 million in both 2022 and 2023, making it the largest single country contributor.

But international organizations are only part of the equation when dealing with the developing world. A more consequential legacy for Biden will be the Group of Seven (G7) Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGI), the rebrand of his “Build Back Better World” initiative.

Over the past two decades, China has shifted its international development strategy, building influence through traditional global organizations and launching initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Global Development Initiative. China’s expanding influence through these initiatives has raised concerns about its impact on the developing world. While allegations of debt-trap diplomacy might be wrong, Beijing’s approach of decoupling human rights from governance risks fueling the rise of autocratic societies.

The BRI, now a one-trillion-dollar endeavor, has prompted the United States and its G7 partners to create their own alternative, the PGI. The PGI aims to counter the BRI’s influence by boosting investments in sustainable infrastructure around the world and driving transparent investment in quality infrastructure.

At the 2024 G7 summit in Italy, Biden and other G7 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the PGI, emphasizing sustainable infrastructure investment. Biden highlighted historic progress, including mobilizing more than sixty billion dollars toward the PGI through federal financing, grants, and leveraged private-sector investments over the past three years—in effect doubling the contributions announced at the previous year’s G7 summit. The Biden administration’s stated goal is to mobilize $200 billion by 2027 to support the G7 target of $600 billion.

Successful implementation of the PGI will be essential to regaining the trust of developing countries by providing much-needed investment in social infrastructure. There is hope that the effort will continue beyond 2025 no matter who the next president is. A sister initiative, the Blue Dot Network, which aims to advance robust standards for global infrastructure, was launched in 2019 by the Trump administration and is rooted in the same principles as the PGI. The Biden administration continued this initiative and officially launched it in April of this year, at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) headquarters in Paris.

By securing support from the G7 and the OECD, Biden’s PGI might not only endure but significantly improve how other nations view the United States. The initiative has the potential to foster a win-win relationship in development finance, something that the United States and the West have been failing at over the past ten years.

Joseph Lemoine is the director of the Atlantic Council’s Freedom and Prosperity Center. Previously, he was a private sector specialist at the World Bank.

The post The Biden administration has changed how the US engages with developing countries appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Lukashenka’s rhetoric toward Ukraine and the West has softened. His repression of Belarusians has not.

Hanna Liubakova — Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:58:04 +0000

Last Friday, Belarus introduced a new visa-free regime allowing citizens from thirty-five European countries to stay for up to ninety days per year. This move is notable given the current tensions between the Belarusian regime of Alyaksandr Lukashenka and the West.

The visa-free policy seems to be a strategic propaganda effort from Minsk to ease these tensions. Following new European Union (EU) sanctions in late June, Poland has significantly restricted the import of goods into Belarus by Belarusian individuals, while Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia have banned cars with Belarusian license plates from entering their countries. These measures impact the people of Belarus, and against this backdrop, the visa decision is an attempt by Lukashenka and his regime to “demonstrate the openness and peacefulness of our country.”

In reality, Lukashenka is continuing his campaign of domestic repression, targeting Belarusians in exile (including the author of this article), and weaponizing allegations that neighboring countries are setting up camps to train militants intent on overthrowing his regime. On July 19, for example, the Minsk regional court sentenced German national Rico Krieger to death in Belarus on charges including an “act of terrorism” and the “creation of an extremist formation.” The regime is using Krieger as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Germany, showcasing its manipulative tactics. According to the human rights organization Viasna, at least thirty foreigners remain imprisoned in Belarus, and a Lithuanian citizen died in a Belarusian prison in March after being arrested at the border.

As recently as July 1, twenty Belarusian analysts were convicted and sentenced in absentia . . . The author of this article is among those convicted.

Even so, expect more rhetorical shifts as the 2025 Belarusian presidential election approaches and as Belarus tries to alleviate the economic pressures it faces from Poland and the Baltic states for Minsk’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine. For example, newly appointed Belarusian Foreign Minister Maksim Ryzhankou has expressed a willingness to engage in dialogue with Poland, stating earlier this month that “the ball is on the Polish side.” This came after a slowdown in truck traffic at the Kazlovichy checkpoint on the Polish-Belarusian border on July 10.

Minsk accused Warsaw of halting the acceptance of Belarusian cargo. Poland has hinted at potentially closing its remaining border crossings with Belarus to counter Lukashenka’s hybrid tactics, the migration crisis that the regime helped engineer on the Polish border, and the imprisonment of journalist and Polish minority activist Andrzej Poczobut. The stabbing death of a Polish soldier by a migrant on the border in June prompted Polish President Andrzej Duda to discuss migration and economic cooperation with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in late June, hoping that Beijing would exert its increasing influence on Minsk.

Recent developments may have influenced Lukashenka’s shift in rhetoric. These developments include threats from Poland and the Baltic states to close border crossings with Belarus, efforts to involve China in political pressure on Minsk, and new EU sanctions. Lukashenka now calls for “reciprocity” in diplomatic relations with Poland and Lithuania, a stark contrast to his comments in March. At that time, accompanied by his white Pomeranian, Lukashenka had inquired about the width of the Suwałki Corridor and told a commander, “You will have to confront the Baltic republics . . . And you will grab part of Poland.”

Lukashenka has also softened his rhetoric on Ukraine in recent days. June was a month of major rhetorical escalation between Belarus and Ukraine, as the Belarusian national intelligence agency accused Ukraine of amassing troops near the Belarusian border. This led to a sudden military readiness check in Brest and Homiel, including troop deployments to Belarus’s southern border and the establishment of new checkpoints. For weeks, Belarus’s Ministry of Defense warned of a Ukrainian threat, citing a drone interception and an explosives cache.

However, this escalation ended abruptly on July 13 when Lukashenka visited an air defense unit in Luninets, announced the resolution of border tensions, and ordered troop withdrawals. He appeared to resolve a crisis he had fabricated, saying that “we are not enemies for Ukrainians,” calling for urgent negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv.

Some hoped for a real shift when, in early July, the regime freed eighteen political prisoners in a rare amnesty, nearly four years after Lukashenka’s crackdown on the opposition, following his announcements to release “seriously ill” prisoners. One of those released, Ryhor Kastusiou, who ran for president against Lukashenka in 2010, had been diagnosed with cancer. The names of the other released prisoners have not been disclosed. Both the United States and the EU welcomed these releases but urged the regime to free all remaining political prisoners.

While the release of some political prisoners is positive, many more are still incarcerated. An estimated 1,400 political prisoners are still being held in Belarus, hundreds of them in urgent need of medical assistance.

Belarus may continue to make gestures of goodwill to Ukraine and the West, but it’s crucial to differentiate between rhetoric and reality. Repression in Belarus continues. As recently as July 1, twenty Belarusian analysts were convicted and sentenced in absentia to between ten and eleven-and-a-half years by a Minsk court. The author of this article is among those convicted.

The regime accused me of four criminal charges, including an attempt to seize power, joining an extremist formation, harming national security, and inciting social discord. The regime-appointed lawyer never responded to my messages and emails. I was denied the right to a fair trial and refused legal assistance.

The regime is engaged in repression against Belarusians in exile, targeting their families abroad. In Belarusian jails, many prominent political prisoners are held incommunicado, and even their families don’t know whether they are alive. If the Belarusian regime wants to show Ukraine and the West that it is interested in real change, then it must take real actions to stop its brutal campaign of terror and repression at home.

Hanna Liubakova is a nonresident fellow with the Eurasia Center and a Belarusian journalist.

The post Lukashenka’s rhetoric toward Ukraine and the West has softened. His repression of Belarusians has not. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The Women, Peace, and Security agenda made important strides at NATO’s Washington summit

Sarah Dawn Petrin — Wed, 24 Jul 2024 12:12:53 +0000

Much of the NATO summit earlier this month was overshadowed by US domestic politics, but one issue did make significant and bipartisan, if underacknowledged, headway when allies met in Washington: the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda. During the three-day summit, leaders from the United States and other NATO member states recognized recent gains, including allied militaries implementing inclusive strategies to adapt to women in the armed forces as a means of preparedness. They also welcomed the role of women in political leadership—and underscored its importance.

“Bringing women on board is not only a women’s rights issue. It brings benefits to the whole of society and to our collective security,” Icelandic Foreign Minister Thórdís Kolbrún Reykfjörd Gylfadóttir said on the first day of the summit. “It’s not about waiting for the time when you can afford focusing on women, peace, and security, or gender equality for that matter, or empowering women,” she added. “You become stronger because you focus on those points, not when you afford them.”

Icelandic Foreign Minister Thordis Kolbrun Reykfjord Gylfadottir addresses the Women, Peace, and Security reception organized by the US Department of State, on July 9, 2024. REUTERS/Tom Brenner

WPS commitments at the Washington summit

The show of support for advancing the WPS agenda during the summit was not just rhetorical. It included concrete commitments, such as adopting a new NATO policy on WPS that is “fit for purpose” for the twenty-first century security environment. Several allies also committed to fund more than ten thousand uniforms and body armor sets for Ukrainian female servicemembers defending their country against Russia’s full-scale invasion.

If the Alliance is looking for something that increasingly earns bipartisan support in the United States, then it should look to the importance of women’s inclusion in national security strategies. In 2017, then President Donald Trump signed the first national law that took steps to institutionalize a United Nations mandate to make the security sector more inclusive of female leadership and more responsive to the needs of women and girls, including freedom from conflict-related sexual violence. In 1994, then Senator Joe Biden was an original cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act that year, and the Biden-Harris administration continues to make important reforms to the military code of justice on sexual assault in the military.

One of the highlights of the Washington summit was the announcement that as of 2024, twenty-three allied nations have met the commitment to spend 2 percent of annual gross domestic product on defense spending, a change that is applauded by both sides of the aisle in the United States. What is less known is how those fiscal commitments relate to national aspirations for a more inclusive force. According to the most recently published NATO Committee on Gender Perspectives report, released in 2020, twenty-seven members of the Alliance, including the United States, have national action plans on WPS. NATO’s newest members, Sweden and Finland, also have national action plans on WPS. Furthermore, twenty-five NATO nations reported an increase in female participation in the armed forces in the years before 2020. On average, 13 percent of allied forces were comprised of women that year.

In the Washington Summit Declaration, allies committed to integrate an ambitious WPS and human security agenda across all of NATO’s core tasks. NATO had previously committed to women’s meaningful participation in the security sector. But the new policy recognizes the conditions that make women’s leadership possible, including their full, equal, safe, and meaningful participation in decision making in national institutions.

The declaration also referred to the human security trends shaping today’s conflicts, including disregard for international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians, cultural property protection, and forced displacement that fuels human trafficking and irregular migration. These human security trends disproportionately affect women and girls, who make up more than half of the 117 million people forcibly displaced worldwide, according to the United Nations. In Washington, the Alliance also renewed its commitment to international law and the fundamental norms of armed conflict, which distinguishes between military targets and civilians.

Lessons from Ukraine

Although NATO did not welcome Ukraine into the Alliance at the summit, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in his closing press statement that it is a matter of when, not if, Ukraine will become a member. This followed NATO commitments at the summit to establishing a new NATO-Ukraine Joint Analysis, Training, and Education Center and NATO Security Assistance Training for Ukraine to increase Kyiv’s interoperability with the Alliance.

For the last decade, and especially since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has shown that the conduct of war involves more than military strategy. Providing security has become a whole-of-society effort, involving women in uniform and civilians providing support to the front lines. The evolving nature of conflict can blur the distinction between civilian and military action and change societal norms on what roles are appropriate for men and women. These dynamics are important for understanding the human domain, which is adaptive to evolving threats. Supporting female soldiers and addressing civilian harm caused by the war should be an integral part of NATO plans to train for the future operational environment and to secure peace in Ukraine.

The NATO Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for WPS, which has responsibility for a broader umbrella of cross-cutting human security policies, can continue working toward integrating lessons from the human domain in military training. While NATO continues to identify military lessons from the war in Ukraine, these lessons should also include concrete steps to protect civilians from air missile attacks, mitigate the use of sexual violence in conflict, and protect children against forced deportations to Russia. NATO can emphasize the lessons allies have learned about how to protect civilians in other conflicts, such as in Iraq and Libya, as it establishes new security cooperation training centers.

The war in Ukraine is a test case for whether the Alliance can help partner nations achieve stability and whether its actions are inclusive of the whole-of-society approach that has characterized the mobilization of the Ukrainian population. While volunteerism, patriotism, and the inclusion of women have sustained Ukraine’s war effort, the need to protect the civilian population from attack remains paramount.

Sarah Dawn Petrin is a nonresident senior fellow at the Transatlantic Security Initiative in the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. She previously advised the US Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute on integrating women, peace, and security and human security in US military operations.

The post The Women, Peace, and Security agenda made important strides at NATO’s Washington summit appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Putin accused of jailing US journalists as ‘bargaining chips’ for prisoner swap

Mercedes Sapuppo — Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:14:45 +0000

On July 19, Wall Street Journal reporter and US citizen Evan Gershkovich was sentenced to sixteen years in Russian prison on espionage charges. The same day, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reporter Alsu Kurmasheva, a journalist who holds dual American-Russian citizenship, was sentenced to six and a half years by a Russian court for supposedly spreading false information about the Russian military. Both trials took place largely behind closed doors under a veil of secrecy.

Gershkovich is the first US journalist to be convicted in Russia on charges of espionage since the Cold War. So far, the Russian authorities have not provided any credible evidence to support their accusations. Kurmasheva was convicted on a charge frequently used by the Kremlin to suppress unfavorable reporting on the realities of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The imprisonment of two US journalists marks a new escalation in the Kremlin’s confrontation with the West. Wall Street Journal publisher Almar Latour and editor Emma Tucker released a statement calling Gershkovich’s sentence “a disgraceful, sham conviction.” RFE/RL President and CEO Steve Capus deemed Kurmasheva’s conviction “a mockery of justice.”

US citizens Gershkovich and Kurmasheva are now facing the prospect of long prison sentences in extremely harsh conditions. An AP series published earlier this year described the “physical and psychological pressure, sleep deprivation, insufficient food, heath care that is poor or simply denied” and “dizzying set of arbitrary rules” that the pair are likely to encounter in Russian jails. Both journalists have already spent an extended period in pretrial detention.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The Russian authorities have a long record of targeting journalists. These efforts have gained further momentum since February 2022 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with the Kremlin using draconian new legislation to silence anti-war voices and shut down any remaining independent Russian media outlets. In May 2024, the United Nations human rights office reported that the number of journalists imprisoned in Russia had reached an all-time high.

While the Putin regime is notorious for seeking to censor the media, that may not actually be the main motive in this case. Instead, there has been widespread speculation that the Kremlin ultimately aims to use Gershkovich and Kurmasheva as bargaining chips in negotiations with the US to secure the release of Russian citizens currently serving prison sentences in the West.

Putin is no doubt well aware that the United States will go to considerable lengths to free the two American journalists. Following Gershkovich’s conviction, the White House issued a statement that the US government has “no higher priority” than seeking the release and safe return of Gershkovich “and all Americans wrongly detained and held hostage abroad.”

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Speculation about a potential prisoner swap has swirled ever since Gershkovich was first detained in 2023. Typically, Russia only engages in prisoner exchanges once suspects have been convicted and sentenced. This has led some analysts to suggest that the relative speed of the two recent trials could indicate the Kremlin’s desire to proceed with an exchange in the near future.

Moscow will likely demand a high price for the release of Gershkovich and Kurmasheva. This may include handing over Vadim Krasikov, a Russian secret service colonel who is currently serving a life sentence in Germany for gunning down a Chechen dissident in a Berlin park in 2019. Sentencing Krasikov in 2021, a Berlin court called the killing “a state-ordered murder.”

US Senate Foreign Relations Chair Ben Cardin said Gershkovich’s trial and conviction were “stark reminders of the lengths to which tyrants like Putin will leverage innocent people as bargaining chips, stifle free speech, and suppress the truth.” While many now expect a prisoner swap to take place sooner rather than later, the targeting of US journalists in this manner highlights the Kremlin’s retreat from international norms and underlines the potential dangers facing any Western nationals who choose to visit Putin’s Russia.

Mercedes Sapuppo is a program assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Michta on Sage International podcast on US and allied strategic decisions in the changing geopolitical landscape

gmatchett — Tue, 23 Jul 2024 17:38:04 +0000

Director and Senior Fellow, Scowcroft Strategy Initiative

On July 22, Andrew Michta, director and senior fellow in the Scowcroft Strategy Initiative, recorded a podcast episode for “The Focus: Geopolitics and What It Means to You” for Australian-based Sage International. In the episode, entitled, “End of Illusions: Preparing for a World of Risk and Rivalry,” Michta discusses critical strategic decisions that the United States and its allies must make for the end of the “rules-based international order” and rising threats from the “axis of dictatorships.”

Staff

Andrew A. Michta

Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security Scowcroft Strategy Initiative

Central Europe Eastern Europe

The post Michta on Sage International podcast on US and allied strategic decisions in the changing geopolitical landscape appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Charai in the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune: Trump, the Survivor

Atlantic Council — Mon, 22 Jul 2024 13:29:26 +0000

ORIGINAL SOURCE

The post Charai in the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune: Trump, the Survivor appeared first on Atlantic Council.

How Tunisia’s upcoming presidential elections will erode its democracy

Alissa Pavia — Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:04:11 +0000

President Kais Saied of Tunisia, who was elected in 2019, has called for new elections this October. While a victory might seem to legitimize his presidency, the West should not be deceived. The upcoming elections are unlikely to be free and fair, due to ongoing crackdowns on opposition leaders and critics, persistent human rights violations, and the consolidation of power across all three branches of government. These elections will likely enable further consolidation of power and undo more than a decade of progress in building democratic institutions. What was once deemed the only success story of the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings seems to be becoming yet another disappointment.

Elected on an anti-corruption platform in 2019, President Saied initiated consolidating powers in 2021 by unilaterally dismissing then Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi and freezing parliament with military support. Saeid subsequently rewrote Tunisia’s constitution to extend his presidential powers and granted himself the authority to unilaterally dismiss magistrates after he dissolved the Supreme Judicial Council. Parliamentary elections he called for had a turnout of just 11.2 percent after opposition parties boycotted them, resulting in the election of mostly unaffiliated politicians close to him. In 2022, Saied extended his control over the Independent High Authority for Elections (ISIE) by granting himself the power to appoint and dismiss its members, nullifying the ISIE’s independence from the executive. With virtually all branches of government now under his direct or indirect control, President Saied has eliminated internal obstacles and monopolized all checks and balances, paving the way for an unchallenged run in October. Consequently, Freedom House downgraded Tunisia’s score from “free” to “partially free,” indicating there is broad consensus among members of the international community that Saied’s actions are illegitimate.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

In addition to controlling all branches of government directly or indirectly, Saied is cementing his power grab by clamping down on opposition party members, critics, independent media outlets, and civil society. Over the past year, Saied has imprisoned and threatened most opposition candidates. Two of the ten presidential candidates are currently behind bars, while four face prosecution, including Rached Gannouchi—the leader of the main opposition party, Ennahda—who was imprisoned last year on charges of “conspiring against the state” and will remain in prison for at least another three years. Civil society is also facing unprecedented repression, with a draft law currently under revision by Tunisia’s parliament to limit foreign funding streams into the country. Critics and journalists are jailed daily over dissenting opinions, escalating a clampdown on the country’s freedom of expression and emanating fear among critics, enabling the president to run uncontested.

Saied’s legitimacy is also hindered by his continued mistreatment of minorities—including black African migrants and Jews—which has drawn international criticism and led to the violation of international norms. A mass grave with the bodies of sixty-five migrants was recently discovered on the border between Tunisia and Libya, sparking condemnations of Tunisia’s mishandling of sub-Saharan migrants arriving in the country. Saied publicly showcased his antagonism toward black African migrants when, in March 2023, he claimed migrants were threatening Tunisia’s demographic composition, citing the highly controversial “great replacement” theory. A wave of violence against migrants ensued, with many of them losing their jobs and risking their lives. Reports of unlawful mass expulsions toward Algeria and Libya began to emerge, showcasing a well-thought-out strategy by state apparatuses in direct violation of international law, hindering the nascent democracy and Saied’s overall legitimacy.

The local Jewish community, now comprising only 1,500 people, has also felt uneasy and under threat after Saied claimed the devastating floods that hit Libya in September 2023 were a product of the “Zionist movement.” His comments came only months after a terrorist attack occurred in the city of Djerba, each year visited by thousands of Jewish pilgrims, that was believed to have antisemitic motives. More recently, with the outbreak of the Gaza war, several synagogues were lit on fire in signs of protest, elevating the Jewish community’s concerns about its safety. There is little indication of the government taking any action to safeguard the rights of Tunisia’s remaining Jews, raising questions about Saied’s overall motives and his willingness to safeguard minorities.

Saied’s continued clampdown on opposition, his mistreatment of minorities, and his overall control over the three branches of government will allow him to run unopposed in the upcoming polls. While the elections may seem like a legitimate democratic exercise, the context in which they are held is nothing short of an authoritarian regime, whose control over the state apparatuses is becoming more and more evident. This erosion of democratic norms undermines Tunisia’s hard-won democratic gains and is pushing the country further into autocracy.

Alissa Pavia is the associate director of the North Africa Program at the Atlantic Council.

The post How Tunisia’s upcoming presidential elections will erode its democracy appeared first on Atlantic Council.

I was sentenced to ten years in absentia for highlighting Belarus’s descent into dictatorship

Alesia Rudnik — Tue, 16 Jul 2024 19:48:25 +0000

At the beginning of July, I was one of twenty internationally-based Belarusian academics, analysts, and journalists to be sentenced in absentia by a court in Minsk on charges of conspiracy to overthrow the government and taking part in an extremist group.

News of my ten-year sentence provoked very conflicting emotions. While many colleagues congratulated me on what they saw as tacit recognition of my efforts in support of a democratic Belarus, I have struggled to find the right words when explaining to my Belarusian relatives that we may never meet again.

The charges against me and my co-defendants did not come as a complete surprise, of course. Nevertheless, at a time when the struggle for Belarusian democracy is no longer in the international spotlight, it is important to reflect on how we arrived at this point.

Back in the summer of 2020, there were unmistakable signs of growing political engagement throughout Belarusian society. More and more ordinary people were volunteering to join the campaigns of opposition candidates in the country’s upcoming presidential election, or simply expressing their political opinions. Although I was studying outside the country at the time, I also made a conscious decision to continue writing about the political situation in my homeland.

When Belarusian dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka was then proclaimed the winner of a deeply flawed presidential ballot in August 2020, I was among the thousands of journalists, activists, and academics to speak up against election fraud and condemn the violent Kremlin-backed crackdown that followed. Like me, some had already left Belarus to advance their careers abroad. Others were forced to flee as the regime sought to silence domestic dissent. This large community of exiled Belarusians has continued its open criticism of the Lukashenka regime.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Lukashenka was able to suppress the 2020 protest movement in Belarus thanks to Russian support. Ever since, he has remained heavily dependent on Moscow for his political survival. In exchange for this backing, he has allowed the Kremlin to expand its influence over Belarus in a process that some have likened to a creeping annexation. Lukashenka has also agreed to play the role of junior partner in Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s hybrid war against the West.

In February 2022, Lukashenka allowed Putin to use Belarus as a base for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. During the first month of the invasion, the country served as a gateway for the Russian march on Kyiv, which the Kremlin hoped would be the decisive offensive of the war. Russia has since used Belarus as a training ground for troops and as a launch pad to bomb targets across Ukraine.

In 2023, Putin announced the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus, further involving the country in the confrontation between Russia and the West. Moscow is also accused of funneling migrants through Belarus to the border with the EU as part of its efforts to weaponize illegal immigration.

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

While tensions with the West have escalated, the domestic situation in Belarus has continued to deteriorate. Approximately one thousand four hundred people remain in prison on politically motivated charges, while up to six hundred thousand Belarusians are believed to have fled the country, representing more than five percent of the overall population.

In recent years, the Lukashenka regime has signaled its intention to target critics who have left the country. In January 2023, five administrators of a Telegram channel run by exiled Belarusians were each sentenced in absentia to twelve years. Since then, several more opposition politicians and activists have been convicted in the same fashion on charges of attempting to seize power, threatening national security, and organizing extremist groups.

On January 24, 2024, I woke up to news that I also faced similar charges along with nineteen colleagues. While we were arbitrarily grouped together as analysts of Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, many of us had never actually met each other. Our trial started in May. None of us were able to get in touch with assigned lawyers, receive court materials, or join the hearings online. Instead, the case proceeded amid an almost complete information blackout until we learned of our guilty verdicts and prison sentences on July 1.

When I received confirmation of my sentence, I was struck by an overwhelming sense of anger at the injustice and absurdity of the entire process. At the same time, I have also been filled with gratitude for the solidarity expressed by international organizations and colleagues.

Our trial is the latest indication of the increasingly authoritarian political climate in today’s Belarus. In my opinion, this attempt to punish critical voices located outside the country and beyond the reach of the Belarusian authorities reflects the insecurities of a man who knows he has long since lost any remaining legitimacy as ruler of the country. Lukashenka’s growing desperation makes him an even greater threat to Belarusians, and means that he is also significantly more dangerous internationally as an ally of the Kremlin.

Those inside Belarus are well aware of the Orwellian reality they must deal with on a daily basis. They know that any public opposition to the regime will likely have grave consequences. In contrast, Belarusians living abroad still have the opportunity to voice our political opinions and share information about the horrors unfolding in our homeland. It is vital we continue to do so. The fact that Lukashenka is now attempting to intimidate us confirms that our efforts are not in vain.

Alesia Rudnik is a PhD Fellow at Karlstad University in Sweden and director of Belarusian think tank The Center for New Ideas.

Iraq remains a fertile ground for messianic doctrines and often irrational eschatological dogmas due to a mixture of deeply engrained Mesopotamian mythological legacy, pronounced esoteric beliefs associated with the dominant Twelver Shiism creed, and the many minority religious beliefs in the country linked to Gnosticism, such as Mandaeans, Kakais, Shabak, and Kasnazani Sufi order—communities that all still practice ancestral hermetic and mystic rituals.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

These peculiar incidents—along with the flourishing of tens of other doomsday sects led by self-claimed prophets, charlatans, and characters with a Messiah complex—should be understood as a social phenomenon in the context of a collectively traumatized post-invasion Iraqi society. Repetitive conflicts since 2003 have caused political unrest, sectarian unrest, fragmented state structures, and a suppressed Tishreen social movement—a youth-led protest movement between 2019 and 2021 condemning corruption and asking for less foreign interference—and might offer explanations for why so many Iraqis are plunging into the abyss of obscure metaphysical beliefs after seemingly losing hope in the physical realm.

Despite its apparent resilience and openness to a future with ambitious economic reforms and infrastructure projects, Iraq still suffers from invisible fractures affecting the core of its society. A 2007 national survey revealed that nearly 60 percent of the population experienced traumatic events with next to no access to psychological support—these numbers don’t even take into consideration the ordeal caused by conflict with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). Additionally, the World Health Organization warned about the soaring number of suicide attempts among young Iraqis in 2020.

A savior in a beanie and an Atlantis for the Shia

The United Kingdom, which hosts an important community of Arab refugees and expatriates, is the site of the hours-long live broadcasts by Sheikh Yasser al-Habib. From his headquarters in southern London, the exiled Kuwaiti cleric has been collecting live donations for the purchase of three islands amounting to $3 million, which he will allegedly transform into a sovereign homeland for all Twelver Shia individuals willing to relocate to the promised idyllic Atlantis. The project, announced earlier this year, will be designed in accordance with the sheikh’s religious preachings, and will aim to prepare for the savior’s return from his millennium-long occultation.

Another Iraqi-born doomsday sect, the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light—a syncretic faith mixing psychedelic consumption, New Age beliefs, soul reincarnation, ancient Egyptian gods, and space aliens—also calls the United Kingdom home. The movement, formally known as the Black Banners, is currently based in Manchester, where an old orphanage converted into a temple is adorned with a marble statue of a man from Basra called Ahmed al-Hassan al-Yamani, who had proclaimed himself the vizier of the Mahdi amid the chaos that followed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

This religion took a new turn when an Egyptian associate of Hassan, Abdullah Hashem, appeared in a black beanie during the pandemic, claiming in a hall full of devotees to be the final Mahdi, prophesizing the political demise of the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, and condemning the persecution of the movement’s activists across the world. It remains unclear how these movements fund their large-scale events and media presence.

This is but the tip of the iceberg. In recent years, many baffling figures have risen to fame, like Abu Ali Shaibani—a former Iraqi secret services officer and herbalist based in Lebanon, who accurately predicted the assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the head of the Popular Mobilization Forces—who claims to be the equivalent of a trumpet of Armageddon in the Bible. Other famed charlatans include Diaa Abdu Zahrae al-Garaoui, killed on a farm in Zargha with hundreds of his followers by US coalition forces in 2007 after conspiring to assassinate top Hawza clergy in Najaf. The leader of Jund al-Samaa (“the Soldiers of Heaven”)—Iraq’s own Jim Jones—claimed to be a 1,400-year-old dormant embryo from Imam Ali and his spouse Fatima Zahra, who rose to become the Mahdi.

A larger MENA phenomenon

It is important to note that this phenomenon is part of a larger messianic resurgence across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in the past two decades. Cases of self-proclaimed end-of-day prophets emerge every other day on social media, such as an amusing Lebanese fortuneteller “sent from the heavens to save humankind,” who appeared two years ago. However, only a few become full-fledged religious leaders, such as the controversial Yemeni Naser Mohamed, a tribal leader from Marib, or his compatriot Hassan al-Tuhami, who was arrested and tortured by the Houthis with his followers.

This tendency created an entire ecosystem of social media content creators and famed prime-time television clairvoyants like the Egyptian-Lebanese Leila Abdelatif. This new army of influencers interprets the holy scriptures, tracks the signs of the end of days against current regional conflicts like the Gaza war, and projects apocalyptic Islamic protagonists on modern-day political leaders like Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, Houthi leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman, or Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

Interestingly, similar trends are observed regarding Israel and the Gaza war, fueled by certain Haredi Jewish groups and their US Christian right allies, and by the dichotomous biblical rhetoric promulgated by members of the Israeli government, a coalition that more secular analysts describe as “messianic.” Following the terror generated by the October 7, 2023, attacks, several Israeli officials, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, described the conflict as a holy war between “the sons of lights, and the sons of darkness.” (Though it’s unclear if these statements are mere allegories or discursive tactics used to appeal to an increasingly religious Israeli society.) Another internet and media sensation to follow is the Texas red heifers associated in the scriptures with the building of the Third Temple in Jerusalem and the advent of the Jewish Messiah. As certain far-right Jewish and Christian activists call for conducting a purification ritual using the ashes of the Angus cows on the Temple Mount, where al-Aqsa Mosque stands today, Hamas leadership made a salient declaration associating the ritual with the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks.

Historically, messianic movements in the MENA region are symptomatic of profound social and economic malaise and are a form of subaltern resistance by frustrated citizens opposing the existing tyrannic political and theological structures. Many messianic leaders even brought immense change and shifted the course of entire empires—like Mahdi ibn Tumart, the founder of the Moroccan Almohad dynasty, or the early Ismaili Fatimid rulers in Tunisia and Egypt. Others were less fortunate, like Juhayman al-Otaybi and his failed 1979 coup d’état in Mecca. Nonetheless, in a region where the borders between the natural and supernatural remain blurred, it is extremely worrisome and premonitory of greater regional upheaval to observe an unprecedented doomsday fever and a high concentration of messianic groups—probably the most important since Prophet Mohammad and Jesus of Nazareth.

Sarah Zaaimi is a cultural studies researcher and the deputy director for communications at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East programs.

The post What’s behind the Middle East’s doomsday fever? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Israeli officials are accused of weaponizing starvation in Gaza. Here’s what you need to know.

Alana Mitias, Yousuf Syed Khan — Tue, 16 Jul 2024 13:52:49 +0000

On May 20, International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan announced his request for arrest warrants against senior Hamas leaders and Israeli officials, including Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during and since Hamas’s attack against Israel on October 7, 2023.

At the core of the charges against Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are allegations that the two were part of a “common plan” to use “the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” in Gaza—a war crime. In addition, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) is seeking charges for various crimes against humanity associated with the crime of starvation, including extermination and/or murder, persecution, and “other inhumane acts.”

This moment is especially significant for the ICC because—despite evidence indicating its commission in past and ongoing conflicts—the war crime of starvation has never before been prosecuted at the international level. The lack of precedent has until now made prosecutors hesitant to venture into untrodden legal territory, thus rendering the crime “an issue that floats at the periphery of [war crimes] prosecutions.” Given the prevalence of civilian starvation in armed conflict—particularly as a result of urban siege warfare—the decision by the ICC’s pretrial chamber in this matter could help shape international practice for identifying the war crime of starvation and associated starvation crimes, and create a clearer pathway to accountability for victims.

The recently alleged crimes, however, are not the first accusations that Israeli leaders have employed starvation tactics in Gaza since October 7, 2023. Since Gallant’s order for a “complete siege” of Gaza on October 9, the United Nations (UN), human rights organizations, and Khan himself have warned that the closure of border crossings, restriction of essential supply transfers, severing of water and electricity, attacks on humanitarian aid convoys, and the killing of Gazans gathering to receive aid could constitute starvation crimes. Just last month, the UN’s Commission of Inquiry on Palestine released a report finding that through the siege of Gaza, Israeli officials have “weaponized the withholding of life-sustaining necessities” including food, water, electricity, fuel, and humanitarian assistance.

Israeli officials have consistently denied allegations that they are restricting aid deliveries to Gaza, instead citing diversion and black-market resale of aid by Hamas as primary causes of the hunger crisis. Hamas did recently manage to divert and temporarily seize a shipment of aid delivered through Jordan—the “first widespread case of diversion that we have seen” in Gaza, according to US State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller. Officials have also accused UN agencies, including the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) and the World Food Programme, of bottlenecking aid distribution and exacerbating the conflict. Israel has further claimed that UNRWA is complicit in aid diversion and maintains the agency’s alleged links to Hamas.

What happens next?

The OTP’s requests now lie with a pretrial chamber of the ICC, which will review the applications and determine whether there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that the parties “committed crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.”

To meet the “reasonable grounds” standard, the application should outline the crimes alleged, a “concise statement of the facts which are alleged to constitute those crimes,” and a summary of the evidence supporting the belief that an individual is responsible for those crimes. However, Khan has said that the OTP’s investigation and applications regarding Gaza have sought to exceed an even higher standard of proof—in his words, a standard of “realistic prospect of conviction.” It is probable that the prosecutor imposed a higher standard than what is required to ward off criticisms of bias from Israel and its allies, who have previously threatened the court and questioned its legitimacy.

Although Israel is not a member of the ICC, the Palestinian Authority’s 2015 accession to the Rome Statute allows the court to exercise jurisdiction over crimes perpetrated by Palestinian nationals—including Hamas fighters—and those crimes occurring at least partly on Palestinian territory, including those committed or ordered by Israeli officials. The decision of a pretrial chamber in February 2021 further affirmed ICC jurisdiction over Palestinian territory, including Gaza. This same principle enables the ICC to investigate and prosecute crimes committed in Ukraine despite Russia not accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC.

It also bears noting that the war crime of starvation initially only applied when committed in the context of an international armed conflict (IAC), and Palestine has not ratified the Rome Statute’s 2019 amendment extending the crime to encompass non-international armed conflicts. Khan, with the support of a report by a panel of international law experts, reasons that the war is an IAC due to Israel’s use of force or status as an occupying power in Gaza. The pretrial chamber may only opt to issue arrest warrants for the war crime if it determines that there is in fact an IAC underway between Israel and Palestine.

Should arrest warrants be issued against Netanyahu and Gallant, all states party to the ICC will be obligated to arrest and surrender them to the court. While it remains to be seen if states will actually comply with the order, statements from France, Belgium, Germany, and Slovenia have affirmed their support for the ICC since the requests were submitted.

What does the law say, and how does it apply to Gaza?

The weaponization of hunger is considered one of the oldest methods of warfare, but its recognition as a war crime within the ICC’s jurisdiction is relatively new.

More than twenty years after its prohibition in two additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions, the crime of starvation was codified under the Rome Statute of the ICC in 1998. Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) renders “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” a war crime, so long as perpetrators intentionally deprive civilians of “objects indispensable to their survival,” or OIS.

To prove the war crime of starvation, it must be shown that a perpetrator indeed deprived civilians of OIS—such as “foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works”—a non-exhaustive list defined in the Geneva Conventions. Directives by Israeli officials to impede aid delivery, and the razing of agricultural areas and cutting off fuel or water sources could suffice in this regard. Although recent reports have spurred debate over whether the situation in Gaza technically qualifies as a famine, such a determination is not required for the war crime to attach. It is not necessary to prove that the conduct in question resulted in civilians’ deaths or suffering—solely demonstrating that a perpetrator took action to deprive civilians of indispensable objects is enough.

However, it is required to prove two elements of intent: that the perpetrator intended (1) to deprive civilians of OIS and (2) “to starve civilians as a method of warfare.” Without the aid of prior case law, the threshold for satisfying the second element is uncertain. Must perpetrators aim to weaponize starvation specifically, or are acts that would foreseeably starve civilians sufficient?

In favor of the latter interpretation, the so-called default intent standard in the ICC Statute likely indicates that this second element may be established if a perpetrator took actions knowing that civilian starvation could result or was aware it would occur “in the ordinary course of events.” Under this understanding of intent, proving that Netanyahu and Gallant were virtually certain that civilians would starve without humanitarian aid deliveries, along with the severing of water and electricity to Gaza, could help establish intent.

What is the wider significance?

Already, the ICC has made a pivotal move in recognizing the need for accountability for starvation crimes. As UN-backed documentation from recent and ongoing conflicts in Yemen, South Sudan, and Myanmar has shown, the weaponization of food remains a pervasive feature of armed conflict. Notably, actions taken in the laying of sieges—as seen in Aleppo, Madaya, Eastern Ghouta in Syria, the Tigray region of Ethiopia, and Mariupol—exhibit increasing overlap with starvation tactics.

Khan’s application for arrest warrants here opens the door for further efforts to investigate and charge the war crime of starvation, as well as war crimes and crimes against humanity associated with starvation. Regardless of whether a trial ultimately results, a potential issuance of charges alone could help clarify the contours of the crime and create a clearer pathway to accountability for victims from other contexts.

Alana Mitias is the assistant director of the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project.

Yousuf Syed Khan is a nonresident senior fellow with the Strategic Litigation Project at the Atlantic Council. Several of his most visible legal contributions have centered on starvation-related crimes, including leading the drafting of the first ever report by a UN-mandated mechanism on starvation as a method of warfare.

The post Israeli officials are accused of weaponizing starvation in Gaza. Here’s what you need to know. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Charai in National Interest: The Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump and the Threat to Democracy

Atlantic Council — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 18:16:37 +0000

The post Charai in National Interest: The Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump and the Threat to Democracy appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Hospital bombing was latest act in Russia’s war on Ukrainian healthcare

Olha Fokaf — Thu, 11 Jul 2024 20:58:08 +0000

The bombing of Ukraine’s largest children’s hospital in Kyiv on July 8 has sparked a wave of global condemnation, with US President Joe Biden calling the attack a “horrific reminder of Russia’s brutality.” Meanwhile, others have noted that this latest airstrike was not an isolated incident. “Once again, Russia has deliberately targeted residential areas and healthcare infrastructure,” commented France’s representative at the UN.

Ever since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion almost two and a half years ago, the Kremlin has faced repeated accusations of deliberately targeting Ukrainian medical facilities. On the first anniversary of the invasion, CNN reported that “nearly one in ten” Ukrainian hospitals had been damaged as a result of Russian military actions. Underlining the frequency of such incidents, Kyiv’s Okhmatdyt Children’s Hospital was one of three separate Ukrainian medical facilities to be struck by Russian missiles on July 8.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The Russian military has killed a large number of Ukrainian healthcare professionals over the past two and a half years. Monday’s bombings resulted in the deaths of an least six Ukrainian medics. They joined hundreds of colleagues from the healthcare industry who have been killed since the invasion began. Russian military actions have also resulted in billions of dollars worth of damage to Ukrainian healthcare facilities. In many cases, this has made it impossible to continue providing essential medical support, leading to significant further human costs.

The campaign against Ukraine’s healthcare infrastructure is in no way exceptional and appears to align with Russian military doctrine. Similar patterns of attacks on clinics and hospitals have been identified during Russian military campaigns in Syria, Georgia, Chechnya, and beyond. Unless Russia can be held accountable for the targeting of healthcare infrastructure, it potentially opens the door for other countries to adopt similar military tactics in future conflicts.

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

According to international humanitarian law, healthcare institutions and medical personnel are afforded specific and enhanced protection in conflict zones. Despite this status, Russia is accused of systematically targeting medical facilities across Ukraine. These attacks have been documented by the “Attacks on Health Care in Ukraine” project, which is run by a coalition of Ukrainian and international civil society organizations.

In addition to direct military attacks on healthcare infrastructure, research carried out by this civil society initiative has also identified a clear pattern of Russian behavior in occupied areas involving restricted access to essential healthcare services. Throughout regions of Ukraine that are currently under Kremlin control, the occupation authorities reportedly withhold medical care unless Ukrainians accept Russian citizenship and are otherwise cooperative.

It is also crucial to acknowledge the indirect impact of the Russian invasion on Ukrainian healthcare. The war unleashed by Vladimir Putin in February 2022 has created a range of long-term challenges including unprecedented demographic changes and a dramatic increase in mental health disorders. The healthcare ramifications of Russian aggression extend beyond Ukraine’s borders, including the burden placed on foreign healthcare systems by millions of Ukrainian refugees fleeing the war.

Prosecuting Russia for war crimes related to the targeting of Ukraine’s healthcare infrastructure is likely to be an extremely challenging and time-consuming process. Potential obstacles include slow judicial systems, difficulties in identifying individuals responsible for deliberate attacks, and problems establishing clear links between the perpetrators and the crime. Collecting evidence that meets international prosecution standards is also a complex task during ongoing combat operations.

In order to break the cycle of impunity, the international community must prioritize the investigation and prosecution of those who deliberately target healthcare infrastructure and medical personnel. This process should involve international and domestic legal systems along with the relevant UN investigative bodies.

Russia is clearly targeting the Ukrainian healthcare system and weaponizing the provision of medical services as part of a campaign aimed at breaking Ukrainian resistance and strengthening Moscow’s grip on occupied regions of the country. Unless there is accountability for these crimes, Russia’s actions will set a dangerous precedent that will lead to similar offenses in other conflict zones.

Olha Fokaf is a healthcare specialist currently serving as a consultant to the World Bank in Kyiv.

Ukraine’s prayer breakfast challenges Kremlin claims of religious persecution

Steven Moore — Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:50:38 +0000

On June 29, more than eight hundred participants from fifteen countries representing a dozen different religious denominations gathered in the historic heart of Kyiv for Ukraine’s annual National Prayer Breakfast. The day before the breakfast, two Ukrainian Greek Catholic priests, Father Ivan Levytsky and Father Bohdan Geleta, had been released from Russian captivity in a prisoner exchange brokered by the Vatican Diplomatic Corps. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy welcomed the priests back to Ukraine in a speech that drew tears.

I was honored to be seated close to the two freed holy men. Their features were tight and drawn from months of captivity and starvation, but this only served to accentuate the smiles on their faces from being able to once again worship without threat of Russian violence. Their strength and courage permeated the room like incense.

The Ukrainian National Prayer Breakfast, organized by Ukrainian evangelical Christian leader Pavlo Unguryan, first emerged from the regional prayer breakfast movement in Ukraine almost twenty years ago. The late June event was Ukraine’s tenth national prayer breakfast and notably, the first held under the auspices of the Office of the President. This presidential backing reflects the importance attached to religious freedom in Ukraine’s fight for national survival.

A former member of the Ukrainian Parliament from Black Sea port city Odesa, Ukrainian Prayer Breakfast organizer Unguryan has been building bridges between the American and Ukrainian evangelical communities for more than a decade. His relationships with key members of the US Congress reportedly helped provide the spiritual and emotional connection that convinced many Republicans to vote for a major new Ukraine aid package in April 2024. US officials were among the participants at this year’s breakfast in Kyiv, with a series of video addresses from members of Congress including Speaker Mike Johnson along with senators Richard Blumenthal and James Lankford.

The event was held in Kyiv’s Mystetskyi Arsenal, a cavernous former munitions plant located across the street from the one thousand year old Kyiv Pechersk Lavra monastery complex, one of the holiest sites in Orthodox Christianity. The list of attendees reflected the diversity of religious belief in today’s Ukraine. At one table close to mine, a Japanese Buddhist monk broke bread with Crimean Tatar Muslims during a service led by an evangelical Protestant, with prayers offered in Hebrew by Ukraine’s chief rabbi.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukraine’s National Prayer Breakfast represents an important reality check to Russian propaganda, which seeks to accuse the Ukrainian authorities of engaging in religious persecution. In fact, it is the Russian Orthodox Church itself that has declared a “Holy War” against Ukraine and the West. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, has offered spiritual justification for the current invasion, and has said that Russians who die while fighting in Ukraine will have all their sins washed away.

Kirill has allies in today’s Ukraine. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) is historically the local Ukrainian branch of the Russian Orthodox Church and remains the second largest Orthodox denomination in the country in terms of parishioners. Despite some effort to distance itself from the Kremlin following the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the UOC remains closely associated with the Russian Orthodox Church and is staffed with clergy who have spent their entire careers reporting to Moscow. Around one hundred members of the UOC clergy are currently in prison or awaiting trial for a range of national security-related offenses including actively aiding the Russian military.

Recent research and polling data indicates that large numbers of former adherents are now leaving the UOC, while as many as eight-five percent of Ukrainians want their government to take action against the Russian-linked Church. However, while the Ukrainian authorities attempt to address this complex national security challenge, Kremlin-friendly public figures in the US such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owen, and Marjorie Taylor Greene have accused Ukraine of persecuting Christians. A team of lobbyists, allegedly funded by a prominent pro-Kremlin Ukrainian oligarch, is currently canvassing Capitol Hill giving this message to members of Congress.

Eurasia Center events

Director and Senior Fellow, Scowcroft Strategy Initiative

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Claims of religious persecution by the Ukrainian authorities are not only deliberately misleading; they also serve to obscure the very real crimes being committed against Ukraine’s Christian communities by Russian occupation forces. In areas of Ukraine that are currently under Kremlin control, virtually all churches other than the Russian Orthodox Church have been forced out. Even more alarmingly, a significant number of Christian community leaders have been abducted, imprisoned, tortured, or killed.

The details of Russia’s alleged crimes are often shocking. Baptist children’s pastor Azat Azatyan says Russians attached electrical wires to his genitals. In many cases, Russian Orthodox Church clergy are directly implicated. Evangelical pastor Viktor Cherniiavskyi claims to have been tortured with a taser while a Russian Orthodox priest tried to cast demons out of him. His alleged crime? Being an evangelical Christian.

International awareness of Russia’s hard line campaign against religious freedom in occupied regions of Ukraine is now finally growing. This is shaping attitudes among Christians toward the Russian invasion. While waves of Russian propaganda succeeded in sowing doubt among some Republicans during 2023, recent research has found that seventy percent of Republicans who identity as evangelical Christians are more likely to support aid to Ukraine when they learn of Russia’s oppressive policies against Christians in occupied Ukrainian regions.

The Kremlin is openly using religion to further the Russian war effort. The Russian Orthodox Church routinely portrays the invasion of Ukraine in religious terms, while members of the ROC clergy promote the war as a sacred mission. Throughout occupied Ukraine, all other Christian denominations are prevented from operating, with individual community leaders at risk of being detained or worse.

In stark contrast, the recent Ukrainian National Prayer Breakfast in Kyiv highlighted the Ukrainian government’s commitment to values of religious tolerance and diversity. This is the pluralistic Ukraine that millions of Ukrainians are now struggling to defend. They deserve the support of everyone who values freedom of religion.

Steven Moore is the Founder of the Ukraine Freedom Project.

Investing in Iraq’s education will contribute to its revival

Honar Issa — Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:16:08 +0000

Despite its rich tradition as a cradle of learning dating back to ancient Mesopotamia, and a leading educational system in the Middle East by the mid-twentieth century, Iraq’s educational landscape has faced significant challenges. The 1980–1988 Iran-Iraq war, the 1991 Gulf War, and subsequent international sanctions severely damaged educational infrastructure and funding, leading to a decline in quality and accessibility.

The 2003 US-led invasion, which led to the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein, presented an opportunity to rebuild Iraq’s educational system. While there were initial efforts to revitalize schools and universities, the ongoing violence and political instability hindered sustained progress. Corruption, sectarian strife, and the absence of coherent education policies exacerbated the challenges. The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) severely disrupted the educational system in areas under its control. Despite these hurdles, there were pockets of progress, particularly in the autonomous Kurdistan region, which began to chart its course for educational reform.

Today, with 60 percent of Iraqis under the age of twenty-five, the nation’s education system is at a critical juncture. The young population represents both a tremendous opportunity and a daunting challenge. High unemployment rates and inadequate educational facilities threaten to undermine the potential of youth contributing to the country’s rebuilding efforts. The lack of investment in modern educational infrastructure and the disconnect between educational outcomes and labor-market needs are stark.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

For instance, according to a 2021 IREX report, only 22 percent of university graduates find jobs in their field of study within three months of graduating. This highlights the critical need for a more responsive education system that meets the market’s needs. According to the World Bank, 2 million Iraqi children are deprived of education, presenting a significant challenge for their future prospects. In addition, literacy rates remain alarmingly low, especially among women.

The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has recognized the urgency of addressing these issues. The cabinet has developed Vision 2030, which prioritizes enhancing and adapting education to support economic diversification. This unprecedented framework aims to align Kurdistan’s educational system with international standards, while fostering a workforce capable of driving economic growth across sectors. A key element of this vision is establishing the Kurdistan Accrediting Association for Education (KAAE), a national accreditation body designed to bridge the educational gap and propel the region into the twenty-first century.

Because standardization can serve as leverage for reform, the KAAE seeks to establish standards to ensure that educational institutions in Kurdistan and Iraq meet rigorous quality-assurance requirements. By promoting best practices and fostering a culture of transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement, the KAAE, as a twelve/fifteen-year project, aims to support the government in establishing sound policies for educational quality, making it more relevant to the needs of the economy and society. This initiative is crucial for modernizing Kurdistan’s education system and enabling it to catch up with global advancements, as it is for Iraq and the broader region when used as a model.

Strategic investment in education

Effective implementation of the KAAE’s quality-assurance standards necessitates leveraging the expertise and experience of the international community in building the capacity of academic institutions. The United States and Iraq have a framework agreement that identifies education as a cornerstone of bilateral relations as part of the broader cultural cooperation between the two countries. It is now time to translate this agreement into action. Strengthening this partnership can have far-reaching reverberations beyond education, fostering economic development, political stability, and social cohesion. While the United States has invested significantly in Iraq’s reconstruction, this has been disproportionately allocated to the security sector. According to the Military Times, the United States has spent nearly $2 trillion on military operations in Iraq. Even a fraction of this amount, 1 percent, would have a transformational impact if directed toward educational initiatives.

Investing in Iraq’s education system offers a unique opportunity for the United States to not only support a key ally but also address the root causes of instability in the region. The United States can help build the foundation for a stable and prosperous Iraq by directing resources toward educational reform. This investment would both strengthen US public diplomacy and promote the values of democracy and human rights, which are integral to long-term peace and security. Such support includes establishing partnerships between US schools and universities and their Iraqi counterparts to implement the quality-assurance standards the KAAE sets. These partnerships could focus on building capacity and mentorship, embedding student-centered learning in curricula, and creating continuous assessment and evaluation strategies. Because the Kurdistan region has already established the KAAE, this could serve as a pilot model for Iraq as a whole, with the goal of replicating the body in other parts of Iraq.

Countries like Singapore and South Korea provide valuable lessons in how education can drive national development. Both nations have transformed their economies through substantial investments in education, focusing on skills development and innovation. For example, South Korea’s emphasis on technology and vocational training has made it a global industry leader. Similarly, Singapore’s education system, known for its rigor and focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), has produced a highly skilled workforce that drives the country’s ongoing economic success.

By supporting similar models in Iraq, the United States can help foster an education system that not only equips young Iraqis with the skills and qualifications the local market and economy need, both today and in the long term, but also cultivates critical thinking and innovation. This approach aligns with the US strategy of promoting regional stability through economic development and education.

The role of education in peace and security

Enhancing education in Iraq is not just about economic growth; it is a crucial element of peacebuilding. Education fosters understanding, tolerance, and critical thinking, which are essential for mitigating conflict and promoting social cohesion. A well-educated populace is better equipped to participate in democratic processes and contribute to the nation’s development. By investing in education, Iraq can build a more inclusive society in which young people are empowered to contribute positively to their communities.

For Iraq, education is more than a policy priority; it is a pathway to peace and prosperity. The United States can play a critical role in achieving such prosperity. By leveraging initiatives like the KAAE and drawing on successful global models, Iraq can transform its education system, paving the way for a brighter future. This investment is not just about building schools; it is about building a nation with a capable and empowered citizenry.

The United States and the international community can seize this opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to a stable and prosperous Iraq, promoting a region where education empowers young people as agents of positive change.

Dr. Honar Issa is the secretary of the Board of Trustees at the American University of Kurdistan (AUK). He also serves as chair of the Middle East Peace and Security Forum.

The post Investing in Iraq’s education will contribute to its revival appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Michta in Politico, RealClearWorld, and RealClearDefense on why US policymakers should reconceptualize their understanding of the international order

gmatchett — Thu, 11 Jul 2024 16:49:25 +0000

Original SOurce

On July 9, Andrew Michta, director and senior fellow in the Scowcroft Strategy Initiative, was published in Politico, RealClearWorld, and RealClearDefense on why the United States must change its thinking about the international system, which would allow policymakers to think more deeply about the “vision of victory” for the global “system-transforming war that’s been all but declared by the newly formed ‘axis of dictatorships.’” He emphasized that, if the United States and its democratic allies would like to preserve peace, a cultural change is critical to reorganize economic activity and mobilize resources for the future.

We need to bring national security front and center into how we prepare for the future.

Andrew Michta

Staff

Andrew A. Michta

Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security Scowcroft Strategy Initiative

Central Europe Eastern Europe

The post Michta in Politico, RealClearWorld, and RealClearDefense on why US policymakers should reconceptualize their understanding of the international order appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Syria’s inflated electorate is caused by phantom voters

Vladimir Pran and Maroun Sfeir — Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:37:14 +0000

President Bashar al-Assad set July 15 as election day for the 250 seats of the Syrian People’s Assembly held in the areas controlled by his government. As the electoral process unfolds, a series of articles will deconstruct the key elements of Syrian elections and their role in legitimizing Baath Party rule. This series will also conduct a deep dive into the challenges of moving ahead with electoral reform in the United Nations (UN)-facilitated political process. The first article of the series discussed the outline of the election process and its significance, while the second article examined the system of representation, which determines the voting method and how many candidates will be elected from each of the districts.

This article presents the structure of the Syrian electorate: who the voters are, how many voters are there, and why credible projections are so elusive. In theory, the constitution guarantees all Syrian citizens voting rights—with consequential caveats built into the electoral and nationality laws.

Syrian citizens obtain their status through their father, as defined by the Nationality Law of 1969, but cannot obtain it through their mothers. Syrian women also cannot pass citizenship to their husbands. Yet, there are shortcuts to Syrian citizenship—the Syrian interior minister has significant authority to grant citizenship through facilitated or exceptional naturalization processes.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

The Syrian opposition claims the government is altering demographics and voting preferences by granting citizenship to foreigners fighting in the conflict. There are no reliable reports about the number of foreigners granted citizenship since 2011, but the issue is politically significant and Syrians are keenly aware of the Lebanese case. This matter is especially relevant for ethnic Kurds, who have historically been denied their citizenship rights. On the opposite side, the right to vote in assembly elections has been extended to the military since 2016, but this has only fueled suspicions of vote manipulations.

The laws include a few other categories of potentially problematic restrictions, but it is unclear whether they significantly impact the electorate’s structure. For example, those convicted of a “felony or dishonorable misdemeanor or that which shakes public trust” and those “mentally ill in a manner that affects his eligibility” are excluded from the electorate. However, the Syrian diaspora is the largest group of Syrians excluded from the elections. While the diaspora has the right to vote in the presidential election, that right is not extended to the assembly elections. This is contrary to the provisions of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2254, which recommends diaspora participation in elections.

If given the right, how many Syrians in the diaspora could vote? For that matter, how many Syrians in total would have the right to vote? Unfortunately, it is impossible to answer that question credibly. The underlying reason for the speculative nature of the electorate’s size is that, despite being legally required to do so, the government does not register voters. Nor does it compile the voter lists. Evidence from previous elections clearly confirms that voter registration is nonexistent. In the 2020 and 2021 elections, there was no voter registration, polling committees did not have a voter list, instead they had blank forms to register voters as they approached the polls. Similarly, there was no evidence of voter-registration activities before this year’s elections.

So, where do the data about voters published by the government come from? According to statements by governmental officials, they come from the civil registry. However, in Syria this cannot be considered an accurate record of citizens. While the Assad regime used the administrative apparatus to control the population, it failed to create an orderly civil registry, even before the conflict. Since the conflict began in 2011, maintenance of the civil registry has been disrupted. Efforts by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to preserve records might be crucial for those who will need to prove their civil status in the future, but these records are not reflected in the current version of the civil registry.

Official voter data are extremely scarce. Historically, the Supreme Judicial Election Commission only publishes overall voter numbers. These are virtually impossible to analyze, as no details are provided, and data are not even broken down by governorate. Governors or governorate-level commissions sometimes provide these randomly, but they are often rounded up by commissions without explanation.

Source: ElectionGuide and statements of the SJEC officials
*The lower number of registered voters in 2016 may be accounted for by the fact that elections did not take place in Raqqa and Idlib provinces, which were controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front.

The significant increase in the number of reported registered voters in 2020 is likely due to the change in how the number is calculated. In the pre-2020 elections, the election committees received a preliminary voters list extracted from the civil registry. They would then audit the list by removing and adding voters. Since the 2020 election, that process has been abandoned, and the number of registered voters simply reflects all the civil registry adult records.

When it comes to diaspora voters, the numbers are difficult to crunch. The Syrian population is estimated to range between 24–27 million, with 16–20 million Syrians in the country and 5–6.7 million outside the country. Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan alone are hosting more than 5 million Syrian refugees. Using a conservative estimate, the Syrian voting-age population is about 60 percent, which would imply 14–16 million voters in the country and 3–4 million outside the country. That would be within the range of the 18 million voters claimed by the government. However, it is unclear how many live in the government-controlled areas, as the estimate of 9.5 million might not be reliable.

In contrast to the previous election, the government has not issued a single statement about the size of the electorate, no matter how incredible the numbers may be. A comparison of reports from various sources regarding the eight rounds of assembly elections starting in 1990 shows that turnout varies between 50–60 percent. Extrapolating this and applying it to the number of voters who voted in the 2020 elections, in theory, suggests that the total number of voters should not be more than 10 million, which is much smaller than the previously announced 18 million.

Source: ElectionGuide and statements of the SJEC officials

Is it possible that, in the pre-2020 elections, almost half of the Syrian electorate was missing from the voter lists? Or are the post-2020 election figures enormously inflated? The confusion over the true size of the electorate will certainly not be resolved in these elections. The Assad government is not investing in even minimal efforts to sort out the voter registry. If there is ever a chance to hold elections according to the standards set by UNSC Resolution 2254, voter-registration reform will be one of the most technically and logistically challenging aspects. Such reform would need to protect the right of Syrians inside and outside the country to vote, while also infusing a basic transparency standard into the electoral process.

Vladimir Pran advises electoral authorities, governments, and political leaders on transitional, electoral, and political processes.

Maroun Sfeir advises international and local civil society organizations, political groups, and electoral authorities on electoral and political processes.

The post Syria’s inflated electorate is caused by phantom voters appeared first on Atlantic Council.

State of the Order: In June, the world’s alliances strengthened—but concerning risks for the democratic order remain

gmatchett — Wed, 10 Jul 2024 14:37:58 +0000

In June, much of the world saw not only rising temperatures, but also multiplying stresses on the world order. Israel and Hamas still did not agree on a cease-fire, despite hopes earlier in the month that both sides would sign onto a previously floated three-phase plan. Tensions between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his military leadership over war aims magnified, as the Israeli army’s chief spokesman publicly questioned the government’s articulated goal of destroying Hamas. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies ramped up support for Ukraine, with new measures that allow Ukraine to use US-provided weapons to strike inside Russia and a new Group of Seven (G7) plan to use interest on immobilized Russian sovereign assets for a fifty-billion-dollar loan to Ukraine. European Union (EU) elections saw the far right make gains, especially in France, but the center largely held.

Read up on the events shaping the democratic world order.

Reshaping the order

This month’s topline events

Tensions mount within the Israeli government as conflict grinds on. As June ended, Israel and Hamas still had not agreed on a cease-fire, despite hopes earlier in the month that both sides would sign onto a previously floated three-phase plan. Although the United States assured that Israel accepted, it is unclear whether Israel declined the latest three phase. Yet Hamas requested some unworkable changes after all the parties alleged acceptance. Even as the two sides haggled over cease-fire terms, Israeli military operations in Gaza slowed due to operational tempo, but there remained an increase in intensity in the continued tit-for-tat exchanges between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah, driving global concern over a potential war between them that could evolve into a broader regional conflict. Netanyahu dissolved his war cabinet, the unit established to bring a unified approach to Israel’s fight against Hamas. The decision came following the resignation of former military chief Benny Gantz from the cabinet. Gantz resigned amidst protests over the continued lack of a strategic plan to defeat Hamas. Illustrating further divisions within the Israeli government over war aims, the Israeli army’s chief spokesman publicly questioned the government’s articulated goal of destroying Hamas, noting, “Hamas is an idea, Hamas is a party. It’s rooted in the hearts of the people—whoever thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong.” Tens of thousands of Israeli people protested in Tel Aviv to demand a cease-fire and the return of hostages.

Shaping the order. Tensions within the Israeli government, between Netanyahu and his military leadership, came to a head as the two sides seemed at odds over end goals for Israel’s military operations. There remains limited consensus on the way forward. In February, Netanyahu presented a post-war plan aiming for local officials to govern Gaza, with Israel preparing to test the experimental model with “humanitarian bubbles.” Allies have collectively strategized various pathways and there remains widespread skepticism of the plan. Yet the Israeli government continues to struggle to advance a post-conflict plan and receive sufficient buy-in from the United States, Arab states, and others, which remains a key priority for regional stability and US interests.
What to do. The Biden administration should continue to work with allies in Doha and Cairo to pursue a path to a temporary cease-fire and hostage-for-Palestinian-prisoners deal—that would also enable a flood of humanitarian relief in Gaza—despite the low probability of success.

The United States and its allies step up support for Ukraine. The United States expanded its policy to allow Ukraine to use US-provided weapons to strike “anywhere that Russian forces are coming across the border from the Russian side to the Ukrainian side to try to take additional Ukrainian territory,” according to US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. This builds on its May decision to allow Ukraine to use US-provided weapons to strike a limited set of targets, largely across the border from Kharkiv.

The Biden administration, following the G7 meeting in Italy, announced it would rush the delivery of air-defense interceptors to Ukraine by delaying the delivery of them to most other nations. The G7 also agreed to use interest on immobilized Russian sovereign assets to collateralize a fifty-billion-dollar loan to Ukraine. The United States added new and strong US sanctions against Russia and finalized a US-Ukraine ten-year memorandum of understanding on security cooperation.

As US munitions began to reach the front lines in Ukraine, the Russian offensive against Kharkiv lost momentum. Although Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy generation did considerable damage (taking down almost half of Ukrainian electric generation), the US decision to rush delivery of air-defense interceptors may help further mitigate such attacks, as will Romania’s decision to send to Ukraine one of its Patriot batteries. Meanwhile, Ukrainian attacks on Russian military infrastructure in Crimea were taking an increasing toll, and Russian President Vladimir Putin visited North Korea to shore up his relationship with dictator Kim Jong Un and ensure Pyongyang continues providing munitions and arms to Moscow for the war in Ukraine.

On the diplomatic front, Russia escalated its demands for a cease-fire in an unrealistic fashion, insisting that Ukraine must first abandon territory it currently holds in the four provinces partly occupied by Russia, land that Russia has been unable to take by force. Days after that, from June 15 to 16, ninety-three countries attended a peace conference in Switzerland to discuss Ukrainian terms (its ten-point plan) for a settlement and seventy-eight countries signed a document that called for the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, a key Ukrainian point (more countries have signed on since). China did not attend, however, and some key countries in the Global South such as South Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico did not sign the conference document.

Shaping the order. The Biden administration’s decision to allow Ukraine to use US-provided weapons to strike inside Russia, beyond initial restrictions on targets near Kharkiv, is a significant, positive step in Western support for Ukraine. Using frozen Russian assets to collateralize a loan for Ukraine is another positive step, but the United States and its allies may find they need to go further, using said assets themselves rather than continuing to use their own funds exclusively.
Hitting home. Some US experts argue that Ukraine is a strategic liability and that US focus there diverts resources better used in the Indo-Pacific. Russian victory in the war, which is likely to result from a US withdrawal, would cause cascading security problems in Europe that would draw on even more US resources.
What to do. The United States and its allies must marshal continued military assistance for Ukraine, including air defense and weapons that support Kyiv’s attacks on Russian military targets in occupied Ukraine, especially Crimea. The United States has the means to intensify pressure on the Russian economy and should use such tools. Washington should consider enforcing sanctions to hit smugglers of technology subcomponents utilized for Russian weapons and evaders of the oil price cap (the latter missing from the otherwise strong June 12 US sanctions package). A successful Ukrainian land offensive may not be possible in the near term.

The center holds, but the right makes gains, in European Parliament elections. Across the EU’s twenty-seven member states, voters cast ballots to select their representatives to the European parliament. The election saw gains for the center-right and right, but it was a disappointing showing for French President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist Renew party. The European People’s Party, the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni), and Identity and Democracy—the hard right—were the main beneficiaries of the elections. These results were overshadowed by Macron calling for a snap parliamentary election after his party’s incredibly poor performance in the European Parliament election (garnering less than half the votes of their far-right rivals, the National Rally): The snap election resulted in the left-wing New Popular Front on top, Macron’s centrist alliance placed second, and Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally, which finished third. Yet, the right did not do well in Scandinavia, Spain, and Romania, and had only a modest uptick in Poland, where the ruling Civic Platform came in first place. The parties in Germany’s ruling coalition—the Social Democrats, the Free Democrats, and the Greens—all lost ground in Germany, but the center-right alliance between the Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union did well.

Shaping the order. Snap elections in France overshadowed the fact that the center mostly held its ground in the EU elections. The far right’s marginal gains will matter, however, if said forces can unite and if center-right parties are willing to engage with the far-right. Even so, the incoming parliament is likely to be more fragmented and polarized than its predecessor. And the French elections, the first round having wrapped, are pointing to a major defeat for Macron and a surge of the right, which is both nationalist and wary about the extent of French support to Ukraine.
Hitting home. Even though the center largely held in the European Parliament elections, the increased fragmentation will likely mean less clarity on policy issues that impact US companies.
What to do. The United States should constructively engage the European Parliament, encouraging it to hold firm to its moderate stances and not bend to the far right’s proposals.

Quote of the Month

“The votes cast put the far-right forces at almost 40 percent and the extremes [on the right and left] at almost 50 percent. This is a political fact that cannot be ignored.“
—French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking after the European Parliament elections.

State of the Order this month: Unchanged

Assessing the five core pillars of the democratic world order

Democracy ()

On June 30, the far-right National Rally won in the first round of the parliamentary elections, although it’s unclear whether they will get a majority with the second-round vote upcoming on July 7. Many French citizens have been protesting against the National Rally out of concern for women’s rights and minority rights, where thousands of women marched in dozens of French cities, including Paris, to protest against Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally.
Mexico elected Claudia Sheinbaum, its first female president, in the country’s largest election in history with 98 million registered voters. As Mexico City’s former mayor and the favored successor of outgoing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Sheinbaum was favored to win. Promising to continue López Obrador’s policies, she believes the government has a strong responsibility to address economic inequality and establish robust social security.
On balance, the democracy pillar was unchanged.

Security ()

Chinese forces seized Philippine small boats that were attempting to resupply a Philippine military outpost at Second Thomas Shoal. Multiple Philippine vessels were damaged, and sailors were injured in the incident. One US official called China’s actions “deeply destabilizing.”
Houthi rebels launched an aerial drone, striking and damaging the Transworld Navigator in the Red Sea, one of more than sixty attacks targeting specific vessels. The attack comes after United States recalled its USS Dwight D. Eisenhower after an eight-month deployment. Shipping in the corridor—crucial for connecting Europe, the Middle East, and Asia—has slowed significantly. The Houthis said they would continue the attacks as long as the Israel-Hamas war continues.
On balance, the democracy pillar was unchanged.

Trade ()

Amid the European Commission’s anti-subsidy investigations into electric vehicles (EVs) coming from China , the European Union announced additional tariffs on imported Chinese EVs. The tariffs range from 17.4 to 38.1 percent—and that’s on top of the 10 percent duty already in place. As a result, Chinese car companies may consider raising prices or establishing factories in Europe, as the continent recently became China’s largest EV export market.
On balance, the democracy pillar was unchanged.

Commons (↓)

The United Nations conducted a worldwide poll that revealed 80 percent of people want governments to take more action on addressing climate change. The survey noted majority support for stronger climate action in twenty of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters and majority support globally a quicker transition away from fossil fuels. Despite the increasing state of global conflict and rise of nationalism, the desire to set aside geopolitical differences and work together on climate change is expanding.
Record-breaking heat, fueled by climate change, affected millions around the globe, scorching four continents and surpassing last summer as the warmest in two thousand years. There were more than forty thousand suspected heat stroke cases in India between March 1 and June 18, and in Saudi Arabia, over one thousand people died participating in the Hajj pilgrimage amid soaring temperatures. Devastating forest fires spread in Europe and northern Africa, and a heat dome trapped large regions of the United States, preventing cool air from getting in.
On balance, the commons pillar was weakened.

Alliances (↑)

For the first time in twenty-four years, Russian President Vladimir Putin and dictator Kim Jong Un met in North Korea, reinforcing their commitment to cooperate and protect each other’s interests. As part of the meeting, they signed a mutual military-assistance treaty, with Putin announcing that Russia could provide weapons to North Korea—with potentially destabilizing effects for the democratic world order.
The leaders of the G7 convened in Apulia, Italy, for the 2024 G7 Summit to discuss supporting Ukraine, pushing back on unfair economic practices, combating climate change, addressing food and health insecurity, leveraging critical technologies, and partnering with like-minded countries around the globe.
On balance, the alliances pillar was strengthened.

Strengthened (↑)________Unchanged ()________Weakened (↓)

What is the democratic world order? Also known as the liberal order, the rules-based order, or simply the free world, the democratic world order encompasses the rules, norms, alliances, and institutions created and supported by leading democracies over the past seven decades to foster security, democracy, prosperity, and a healthy planet.

This month’s top reads

Three must-read commentaries on the democratic order

Michael Doyle, in Foreign Affairs, argues that democratic peace is back in vogue and great powers can prevent the tensions between democracies and autocracies from escalating into full-blown global cold war.
Robert C. O’Brien, in Foreign Affairs, outlines a Trump administration foreign policy centered on the return of peace through strength.
Célia Belin and Mathieu Droin explore in Foreign Policy what a far-right victory would mean for French foreign policy.

Action and analysis by the Atlantic Council

Our experts weight in on this month’s events

Niva Yau, in an Atlantic Council report, shows how China is training future authoritarians overseas in order to secure its interests in Global South countries and beyond.
Matthew Kroenig and Dan Negrea, in Foreign Policy, explain that the United States’ competition with China should be focused on weakening and defeating the Chinese Communist Party regime.
Daniel Fried, in the New Atlanticist, offers seven ways to reboot G7 sanctions on Russia, stating that United States and its allies must commit to dedicating resources to identifying targets for taking economic steps against Russia.
Andrew Michta, in a piece for the German Council on Foreign Relations, contends that Germany must commit to significantly expanding its defense industrial base so that it will be well positioned to establish strong cooperation with whichever candidate wins the next US presidential election.

__________________________________________________

The Democratic Order Initiative is an Atlantic Council initiative aimed at reenergizing American global leadership and strengthening cooperation among the world’s democracies in support of a rules-based democratic order. Sign on to the Council’s Declaration of Principles for Freedom, Prosperity, and Peace by clicking here.

Patrick Quirk – Nonresident Senior Fellow
Dan Fried – Distinguished Fellow
Ginger Matchett – Project Assistant

If you would like to be added to our email list for future publications and events, or to learn more about the Democratic Order Initiative, please email pquirk@atlanticcouncil.org.

The post State of the Order: In June, the world’s alliances strengthened—but concerning risks for the democratic order remain appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Britain’s new government pledges ‘unwavering commitment’ to Ukraine

Peter Dickinson — Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:34:03 +0000

Ukrainians responded calmly to news of the Labour Party’s landslide victory in the UK’s July 4 general election, reflecting widespread confidence that British support for Ukraine will continue despite the change in government in Westminster. At a time when the rise of the far right in France and the prospect of a second Trump presidency are fueling concerns in Kyiv over the future of international backing for the Ukrainian war effort, Britain is widely viewed as one of the country’s most dependable partners.

“Ukraine and the United Kingdom have been and will continue to be reliable allies through thick and thin,” commented Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a post congratulating Labour Party leader Keir Starmer on his historic win. “We will continue to defend and advance our common values of life, freedom, and a rules-based international order.”

Zelenskyy was one of the first international leaders to speak to Starmer during the new British Prime Minister’s first day in office, underlining what Starmer referred to as the incoming Labour government’s “unwavering commitment” to maintaining the UK’s strong support for Ukraine. The ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine was also reportedly high on the agenda during Starmer’s discussions with other world leaders including US President Joe Biden.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Starmer has long been an outspoken advocate of British backing for Ukraine. As the country prepared to mark the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion in February 2023, he visited Kyiv to offer assurances that the UK would remain a steadfast partner under his leadership. “I’ve said throughout this conflict there will be no difference between the political parties on this,” he commented while in the Ukrainian capital.

The Labour Party has vowed to continue providing Ukraine with current levels of military, financial, and diplomatic support, while also pushing to hold Russia accountable for the invasion, including support for efforts to establish an international tribunal for the crime of aggression. The Labour Party is also committed to helping provide Ukraine with a clear path toward future NATO membership.

Starmer’s stance is a continuation of the leading role played by the British government in support of Ukraine since the eve of Russia’s full-scale invasion. With the Russian military concentrated on the Ukrainian border in January 2022 and posed to invade, Britain was among the first countries to provide Ukraine with anti-tank weapons. This set the tone for British military aid to Ukraine, with the UK repeatedly setting the standard for other partners to follow by delivering new categories of weapons such as modern tanks and cruise missiles.

Britain has also provided Ukraine with vocal diplomatic backing in the international arena. During his tenure as Prime Minister, Boris Johnson was a particularly prominent supporter of the country, visiting Kyiv on numerous occasions and speaking powerfully of the threat to international security posed by Russian aggression. This advocacy helped earn Johnson something approaching cult status in Ukraine, with streets named and a pastry dish created in his honor.

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

The firm stance adopted by successive UK governments reflects British public opinion, which strongly favors continued support for Ukraine. This is very much in line with British tradition. Indeed, for many Brits, Ukraine’s current struggle against Russia’s invasion echoes their own fight against Nazi Germany almost a century earlier.

Starmer will have an opportunity to emphasize his commitment to Ukraine at the 2024 NATO Summit, which takes place this week in Washington. While there is no realistic prospect of any breakthrough toward Ukrainian membership of the alliance, this high-profile event will allow the new British leader to lay out his vision for continued international support for the Ukrainian war effort.

The bipartisan consistency of British support for Ukraine comes as a welcome relief to Ukrainians. The Ukrainian military is heavily dependent on continued international deliveries of weapons and equipment, but this aid has proven vulnerable to disruption due to political shifts in various Western capitals. Amid uncertainly over the implications of elections in key partners including France and the United States, Britain’s clear position gives Ukrainians much-needed confidence as they continue to fight for national survival.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

The Kremlin’s crimes will continue to escalate until Russia is defeated

Serhiy Prytula — Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:04:56 +0000

Almost two and a half years since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the Kremlin still retains the ability to shock with the scale of its crimes. On July 8, the targets were Ukrainian children. Not just any children, but kids being treated for cancer, whose daily lives were already full of fear and pain.

The exact number of dead and wounded as a result of Russia’s targeted missile strike on the Okhmatdyt Children’s Hospital in central Kyiv has not yet been confirmed. Nor is it possible to calculate the death and suffering that will result from lack of treatment due to the partial destruction of what is Ukraine’s biggest pediatric clinic.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, large numbers of distressed and in some cases injured children lined the pavement around the ruins of the wrecked hospital, many still attached to drips. Providing them with the specialized medical support they so urgently require will now be extremely difficult.

Doctors were also among the victims. Those killed in Monday’s missile strikes included thirty year old Svitlana Lukyanchuk, a nephrologist from Lviv. Svitlana was an orphan who overcame challenging personal circumstances to qualify as a doctor. She dedicated herself to saving children’s lives, but will never now experience the joy of motherhood herself.

Okhmatdyt Children’s Hospital was one of three separate Ukrainian medical facilities to be struck by Russian missiles on July 8. One such attack could potentially be attributed to human error or explained as a tragic mistake. Three targeted attacks on the same day suggests a deliberate Russian strategy to destroy Ukraine’s healthcare infrastructure, just as the Kremlin has already targeted and destroyed much of Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure. Moscow appears intent on making large parts of the country unlivable.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

It is no doubt hard for many outside observers to fully appreciate that such horrors are taking place in the heart of twenty-first century Europe. After all, just three years ago, it would also have been difficult for most Ukrainians to believe such things were possible. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

As a result of Russia’s February 2022 invasion, Ukrainians have been confronted by an astonishing array of war crimes that recall the worst excesses of bygone eras. Entire cities have been reduced to rubble. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, abducted, or subjected to forced deportation. Large numbers of vulnerable children have been sent to Russian indoctrination camps and robbed of their Ukrainian heritage. In regions of Ukraine under Kremlin control, all traces of Ukrainian identity have been ruthlessly erased.

The evidence of Russian war crimes is now so overwhelming that the International Criminal Court in The Hague has issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin himself and many of his most senior officials. Nevertheless, the nightmare continues. A genocide is being live-streamed to the watching world, but Western leaders choose not to call it by its name for fear of being obliged to act.

Today’s Russia did not become a rogue regime overnight. On the contrary, the crimes we are now witnessing reflect unresolved historic issues that have been allowed to fester since the early days of Putin’s reign. Unlike all other European empires, post-Soviet Russia never rejected imperialism and was not forced to confront the crimes of the imperial era. This has allowed for a revival of Russia’s imperial identity and has helped fuel a sense of impunity that directly paved the way for the invasion of Ukraine.

Rather than address the growing threat posed by Putin’s Russia, the Western world has consistently sought to avoid confrontation. When a newly anointed Putin crushed Chechnya, Western leaders chose to look the other way. After he invaded Georgia, they scrambled to reset relations and return to business as usual.

Inevitably, this approach only emboldened the Kremlin. The West’s weak response to the 2014 seizure of Crimea led directly to Russian military intervention in eastern Ukraine. When this, too, failed to produce a decisive reaction, the stage was set for today’s full-scale invasion.

Even now, Western policy remains defined by a reluctance to provoke Putin, with Western leaders hopelessly preoccupied by fears of escalation. This has left Ukraine unable to adequately defend itself, while encouraging Russia to escalate further. As a result, we are now closer to a major global war than at any time for a generation.

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

It is delusional to think Russia can be stopped by appeasement, concessions, or compromise. Any ceasefire would merely provide the Kremlin with a pause to rearm before resuming the campaign to wipe Ukraine off the map entirely.

Nor are Putin’s imperial ambitions limited to Ukraine alone. He has repeatedly portrayed the invasion of Ukraine as part of a sacred mission to correct the historical injustice of the Soviet collapse and “return” historically Russian lands. If Putin achieves his goals in Ukraine, he will inevitably look to press home his advantage and “reclaim” other countries that were once part of the Russian Empire. The list of potential targets is long and includes Finland, Poland, the Baltic States, and Moldova. The only way to guarantee their security is by defeating Russia in Ukraine.

Western leaders now have a simple choice: They can provide Ukraine with the support necessary to defeat Russia, or they can prepare to face the Russians themselves in the near future. With every day of delay, the cost of stopping Putin grows. At the moment, it is the Ukrainians alone who are paying this terrible price. However, until Russia is beaten, nobody in the West can take their security for granted. Instead, the threat will only increase.

Ten years ago when the Russian invasion of Ukraine first began, a cautious Putin deployed Russian soldiers without identifying insignia in an attempt to mask his aggressive actions. A decade later, he is now bombing children’s hospitals in the center of a European capital city while his priests and propagandists preach holy war against the West. Clearly, he will not stop until he is stopped.

Vladimir Putin represents the greatest threat to European peace since Adolf Hitler. Today’s generation of Western leaders should recall the lessons of that earlier era before it is too late. They must reject the appeasement of the 1930s and embrace the mantra of “never again” that rose from the ashes of World War II. Until that happens, the Kremlin’s crimes will continue to escalate.

Serhiy Prytula is a Ukrainian volunteer fundraiser and founder of the Prytula Charity Foundation.

An Iranian war criminal’s freedom has a detonating impact on the universal jurisdiction project

Shadi Sadr — Tue, 09 Jul 2024 14:19:20 +0000

Universal jurisdiction, a principle granting a state jurisdiction over crimes against international law even when those crimes occur outside its territory, is rapidly flourishing in law and in practice. In recent weeks, a new law in Germany has precluded the invocation of functional immunity in proceedings for international crimes, regardless of the accused’s rank, while a French court sentenced three Syrian officials in absentia to life imprisonment for war crimes. However, the transfer of a convicted Iranian war criminal by Swedish authorities—under the welcoming gaze of European Union (EU) officials—has raised serious questions about political influence on international accountability and the effectiveness of justice mechanisms that involve substantial taxpayer funding.

On June 15, Hamid Noury, an Iranian national who Swedish courts sentenced to life in prison for war crimes and murder, was released and returned to Iran. This marked the first and only universal jurisdiction case related to atrocity crimes in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Noury was arrested in November 2019 at Arlanda Airport in Sweden, and was subsequently tried by the Stockholm District Court over ninety sessions held in 2021–2022. He was found guilty for his role in the massacre of thousands of political prisoners in Iran in the summer of 1988, in what became known as the 1988 massacre, and the appeals court confirmed his sentence in December 2023. Noury’s release was arranged as part of a prisoner swap, during which Iranian authorities freed two Swedish nationals who had been held hostage, according to the unofficial admission of Iranian authorities.

There have been other incidents in which the foreign accused were returned to where they committed crimes for trial purposes.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Rwanda’s requests to European governments for the return of genocide suspects so they can be brought to justice are an example. There have also been numerous cases of foreign hostages being used as pawns to free individuals detained for or convicted of terrorism, narcotics, or other offenses. However, this was the first time someone convicted of core international crimes—genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression—in a case of universal jurisdiction was transferred back to the same country where they previously enjoyed absolute impunity, only to enjoy it again.

This troubling move was a reaction by the Swedish government to the Islamic Republic’s policy of detaining foreign or Iranian dual nationals and using them as pawns to gain leverage in its dealings with Western countries. Not only was it a slap in the face to the victims, but it also created dangerous precedents that will have a long-lasting, damaging impact on the core purpose of the universal jurisdiction principle—and, more importantly, on the expansion and frequency of its application.

Rooted in the post-World War II trials and recognized by multiple treaties—including the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1984 Convention against Torture—the principle of universal jurisdiction is increasingly codified in national legislation. Given the horrific nature of these crimes, humanity as a whole cannot tolerate their remaining unadjudicated. The principle of universal jurisdiction enables national courts in third countries to address atrocity crimes committed abroad, holding perpetrators criminally liable and helping to prevent impunity. One of the most essential purposes of applying the principle of universal jurisdiction is to prosecute those who enjoy impunity in countries where the crimes occurred.

It should be noted that international crimes are often committed by state actors under state policies or plans, meaning that victims cannot expect proper accountability as long as the state in question remains in power. In other words, if the state where the crimes were committed is able or willing to exercise its jurisdiction, other countries generally do not invoke universal jurisdiction to prosecute perpetrators. Similarly, if a person is convicted under universal jurisdiction, and the country where the crime occurred later undergoes a democratic transition, that person can be extradited to the country where the crime was committed to continue serving their sentence. Noury’s return to Tehran was met with a warm welcome by officials, featuring a red carpet, numerous flowers, and a press conference—nothing similar to the reception typically given to a convicted individual who is supposed to serve life in prison.

Setting aside the question of why Sweden pursued universal jurisdiction in the first place if there was no confidence that it would not retreat after facing backlash, it appears Sweden utilized an article (Chapter 12, Article 9) in its constitution that allows the government, “by exercising clemency, to remit or reduce a penal sanction.” Many other countries have similar laws or legislation permitting the transfer of foreign convicted criminals to serve their sentences in their home countries. The Swedish authorities’ decision to use this legislation after a long and costly criminal proceeding, which resulted in a conviction for atrocity crimes, could set a precedent for future cases concerning crimes committed not only in Iran, but in other countries. This approach could jeopardize the very essence of universal jurisdiction and significantly demotivate prosecutors from investigating crimes committed in countries such as Iran, Russia, and China, which have active hostage policies. What would be the point of initiating criminal proceedings and investing millions of taxpayer money if the outcome could potentially leave citizens in dreadful custody situations for months or even years, result in a diplomatic catastrophe, and ultimately deliver an international criminal back to a state that welcomes them warmly?

The international community has correctly identified immunity as a significant obstacle in the fight against impunity, and has moved toward prohibiting or limiting its application in cases involving atrocity crimes. In the same vein, amnesty provisions are considered to “be interpreted as contrary to states’ commitments under international law” in relation to core international crimes. The practice of transferring foreign convicted criminals who have committed atrocity crimes to their home countries, knowing they will be granted some form of clemency or otherwise released from the remainder of their sentences, should also be recognized as a major barrier to accountability.

There is a significant risk that the transfer of convicted war criminal Hamid Noury could lead to similar cases unless the international community addresses its detonating effects on the universal jurisdiction project. The only way to prevent such a paralyzing, contagious impact is to prohibit the transfer of those convicted of atrocity crimes to governments that have previously failed to prosecute them and are unlikely to enforce the sentences properly.

Shadi Sadr is a human rights lawyer and a member of the panel of judges at the International People’s Tribunals on Indonesia, Myanmar, and China. She co-founded and directed Justice for Iran, one of the organizers of the Iran Atrocities’ (Aban) Tribunal. Follow her on X: @shadisadr.

The post An Iranian war criminal’s freedom has a detonating impact on the universal jurisdiction project appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Sapuppo and Magid in Just Security: Death Toll Climbs in Ukraine With Russia’s `Double-Tap’ Strikes

Atlantic Council — Mon, 08 Jul 2024 12:00:00 +0000

Explore the #BALKANSDEBRIEF series

The post Sapuppo and Magid in Just Security: Death Toll Climbs in Ukraine With Russia’s `Double-Tap’ Strikes appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Feeling the heat? Biden’s proposed protections for workers are a welcome start.

Catherine Wallace, Owen Gow — Wed, 03 Jul 2024 18:47:28 +0000

As the United States enters what has been one of its hottest months of the year, the Biden administration on Tuesday took a significant step in protecting an estimated thirty-six million workers nationwide from extreme heat. This long-awaited move—for workers, companies, and advocates alike—was paired with the announcement of new research from the US Environmental Protection Agency and new investment through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Building Resilience Infrastructure and Communities program.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed new federal regulations to protect workers. When the heat index reaches or exceeds 80 degrees Fahrenheit, employers would be required to monitor workers and provide water and rest areas. At 90 degrees Fahrenheit, more protections kick in, including mandatory fifteen-minute rest breaks every two hours and monitoring employees for signs of heat-related illnesses.

Heat-related illnesses have been recognized as occupational hazards for a decade, with an estimated 2,300 workers in the United States dying from extreme heat exposure last year alone. However, this number is likely an undercount and does not capture the many more who suffered nonlethal or chronic heat-related illnesses, as well as workers who injured themselves on the job due to the heat. For instance, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles found that workers in California are up to 9 percent more likely to suffer a workplace injury on days with temperatures over 90 degrees Fahrenheit than on days that are between 50 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit. This is a problem that will only get worse. The summer is only a few weeks underway in the Northern Hemisphere, and already more than one hundred million US residents have been exposed to extreme heat.

What comes next?

Despite the need for action, OSHA’s proposal will have significant opponents. Industry groups are gearing up for battle, arguing that the rule will be both administratively cumbersome and costly. This is a sentiment that some political leaders have already embraced. Earlier this year, both Florida and Texas enacted state-wide bans to prevent localities from instituting their own worker-protection ordinances. Both state governments are unlikely to accept OSHA’s proposal without protest. In fact, despite the persistent threat of extreme heat, only five states have extreme heat worker protections: California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington.

The argument that extreme heat worker protections will come at a cost often ignores the very real cost of maintaining the status quo under dangerously high temperatures. Aside from the price that workers pay with their health, extreme heat in the workplace has significant economic impacts, from lost labor productivity to healthcare costs. The high and growing price of extreme heat on US residents’ lives and livelihoods illustrates not only that this new rule is necessary, but also that, on its own, it is not enough.

Since 2021, the Biden administration has worked to reestablish the role of the United States as a leader in the fight against climate change, both domestically and abroad. This new rule could help cement the United States’ leadership role on climate—but only if it is properly enforced and expanded upon. For the rule to be effective, the administration should continue significantly utilizing OSHA’s National Emphasis Program for Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards, which gives it latitude to direct resources toward both employer education on heat safety protocols and inspections that will better ensure compliance.

The Biden administration should also leverage existing funds to ensure that workers remain safe even when they head home for the day. As temperatures rise across the United States and the world, workplace regulations alone will not be enough to adequately protect workers. Federal agencies should incentivize states to direct Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding toward cooling assistance in vulnerable households, and lawmakers should ensure that LIHEAP is funded adequately to cover energy needs during both the summer and winter months. Currently, only approximately 5 percent of LIHEAP’s four billion dollars in funding goes to cooling assistance (heating receives ten times as much), despite the accelerating demand for relief from high nighttime temperatures that place a significant burden on the human body, and which can lead to heat exhaustion while on the job.

Ultimately however, this issue cannot be solved at the federal level alone. It also requires efforts at the state and local level to ensure that the most vulnerable communities and individuals are being identified and solutions tailored to local contexts are being implemented. The appointment of a Chief Heat Officer (CHO), at the city, county, or state level, is one tool that can address the local challenges of extreme heat. Local governments such as Miami-Dade County, Phoenix, and Los Angeles have already taken this approach. Local climate leaders—like CHOs—are well positioned to work closely with their communities to tailor solutions to meet their specific needs and to create a unified response to build resilience to extreme heat both during the workday and off the clock.

Catherine Wallace is the associate director of strategic partnerships and advocacy for the extreme heat resilience pillar of the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht–Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center (Arsht-Rock).

Owen Gow is the deputy director for the extreme heat resilience pillar at the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht–Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center (Arsht-Rock).

The post Feeling the heat? Biden’s proposed protections for workers are a welcome start. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Hurricane Beryl spotlights the importance of climate adaptation in the Caribbean

Wazim Mowla — Wed, 03 Jul 2024 17:08:54 +0000

Caribbean countries are grappling with the first hurricane of the 2024 season. Hurricane Beryl, which has made history as the earliest category five Atlantic hurricane on record, has damaged infrastructure and caused widespread power outages.

Unfortunately, this is a familiar scene for the region, which routinely battles the effects of extreme weather events and climate change. Hurricane Beryl once again spotlights why focusing on the mitigation of climate change, through such methods as cutting carbon emissions, alone is insufficient. Caribbean countries must prioritize climate adaptation as the primary mechanism to withstand hurricanes and other baked-in effects of climate change.

Climate adaptation is the answer to these extreme weather events, but it requires significant investment that governments in the Caribbean cannot afford. International support, including private finance, is needed. In five months, the United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties, also known as COP29, will take place in Baku, Azerbaijan. It has been dubbed the “finance COP,” and there governments and the private sector should come together and show the commercial utility of prioritizing climate adaptation. Doing so can unlock new financing and create project pipelines that are commercially attractive to global investors.

COP29 might well be the ideal forum to strengthen these initiatives and encourage commitments from governments and the business community.

The Caribbean is often categorized as the world’s most vulnerable region to climate change. Seventy percent of the region’s population lives or works on the coast, meaning that storm surges from hurricanes affect businesses, lifestyles, and government operations. Hurricanes and strong storms also bring the tourism industry to a halt, disproportionately affecting the region’s tourism-dependent economies and severely slowing economic growth. Hurricane Maria in 2017 cost Dominica an estimated 225 percent of its gross domestic product, while Hurricane Irma in the same year cost Antigua and Barbuda more than $136 million in damages, of which the tourism industry represented 44 percent.

Strong storms damage critical infrastructure. Downed power lines cause widespread power outages, while flooded roads and bridges can prevent rescue operations. Already, Hurricane Beryl has caused power outages in Saint Lucia, and homes in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines have lost their roofs. And stronger storms lead to longer recovery periods, which can increase governments’ public debt as they borrow at high interest rates from multilateral institutions to rebuild after the storm has passed. Six years after Hurricane Maria, for example, citizens in Dominica are still rebuilding.

Withstanding strong storms and other effects of climate change requires new climate adaptation projects. For hurricanes with high wind speeds (such as Beryl, which sustained wind speeds of 150 mph at its peak), it is necessary to retrofit infrastructure to be resilient. To achieve this, governments need to require building codes for new homes and infrastructure that ensure sufficient resilience across structures. To brace for storm surges, governments need to move water and energy infrastructure underground where possible to avoid damage. New sea walls and flood protection systems also need to be built.

In all, the region needs more than $100 billion dollars in investment to meet its climate adaptation goals, but it has only been approved for less than one billion dollars from various climate funds. Governments are often left to fend for themselves, taking high-interest loans (due to the classification of many Caribbean nations as middle- and high-income economies by the World Bank) since they often do not qualify for concessional financing. At the same time, governments have borne the brunt of the responsibility because these types of climate adaptation projects are not always attractive to the private sector. Retrofitting infrastructure and other climate adaptation projects, for example, have high upfront costs with little return on investment.

COP29 is an opportunity to bring the public and private sector together to unlock new financing and advance climate adaptation projects. The private sector—both in the region and around the world—has access to needed technologies and has the capacity to undertake climate adaptation projects, from providing drainage on roads and bridges to help ease flash flooding to building decentralized energy grid infrastructure to limit widespread blackouts. Climate adaptation is, after all, in the private sector’s interest. If the effects of hurricanes and climate change worsen and the region’s economies slow, then businesses’ profits will be affected.

What will it take to get the private sector more involved? Attracting private sector participation requires regulatory reforms and carve outs by governments to ensure that companies yield a return on projects. Governments can provide incentives, such as giving exclusive benefits to companies participating in projects and providing subsidies or tax exemptions on materials used. Equally important is access to low-cost finance and capital. Governments can work with institutions such as IDB Invest and global donors that provide grant finance to funnel capital to companies undertaking long-term developments while engaging with insurance agencies that can underwrite riskier projects.

Caribbean leaders have begun to explore private sector participation in climate adaptation projects, notably through the Bridgetown Initiative and the Blue Green Investment Corporation, but there is still work to be done. COP29 might well be the ideal forum to strengthen these initiatives and encourage commitments from governments and the business community. Doing so requires flexibility from both sectors and a focus on projects that are investment-friendly and can attract global donors.

In the lead-up to COP29, governments will need to begin laying the regulatory groundwork and soliciting the required technical assistance from development institutions to encourage private sector participation. Moreover, Caribbean governments should consider adding or increasing the size of the private sector groups to their delegations for COP29 to ensure they have a seat at the table and are bought into any signed agreements. Building these public-private relationships can go a long way toward showing global donors and companies the viability of investing in climate adaptation projects in the Caribbean and unlock needed capital that can save lives in the long run.

Wazim Mowla is the associate director and fellow of the Caribbean Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center.

The post Hurricane Beryl spotlights the importance of climate adaptation in the Caribbean appeared first on Atlantic Council.

#BalkansDebrief – Where next for Serbian foreign policy? | A Debrief with Igor Bandovic and Nikola Burazer

sjones — Wed, 03 Jul 2024 14:00:00 +0000

IN THIS EPISODE

For decades, the United States and Serbia have engaged in a delicate diplomatic dance. Recently, Serbian think tank representatives visited Washington, DC, for critical talks with US policymakers.

Their agenda? Navigating the complexities of Serbia’s democratic health and evolving foreign policy, including unpacking its shifting alliances with Russia and China, and how these relationships impact Serbia’s aspirations for membership in the European Union (EU).

Ilva Tare is joined in this episode of #BalkansDebrief by Igor Bandovic, Director of the Belgrade Center for Security Policy, and Nikola Burazer, Program Director at the Center for Contemporary Politics, to discuss their main concerns regarding Serbia’s state of democracy, nationalistic rhetoric, and dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina.

What are the top foreign policy and security challenges facing Serbia currently?

The All-Serb Assembly reignited nationalist sentiment across the region. How significant is this, and what potential consequences could it have for Serbia and regional stability?

ABOUT #BALKANSDEBRIEF

#BalkansDebrief is an online interview series presented by the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center and hosted by journalist Ilva Tare. The program offers a fresh look at the Western Balkans and examines the region’s people, culture, challenges, and opportunities.

Watch #BalkansDebrief on YouTube and listen to it as a Podcast.

SUBSCRIBE TO #BALKANSdebrief

listen to #bALKANSDEBRIEF as a podcast

MEET THE #BALKANSDEBRIEF HOST

Fellow

Ilva Tare

Resident Senior Fellow

Europe Center

Albanian English

The Europe Center promotes leadership, strategies, and analysis to ensure a strong, ambitious, and forward-looking transatlantic relationship.

The post #BalkansDebrief – Where next for Serbian foreign policy? | A Debrief with Igor Bandovic and Nikola Burazer appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Bombing Europe’s breadbasket: Russia targets Ukrainian farmers

Hanna Hopko — Tue, 02 Jul 2024 19:07:28 +0000

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the Kremlin has identified Ukraine’s vast and strategically vital agriculture industry as a priority target. This offensive against Ukrainian farmers has included everything from the blockade of the country’s seaports to the systematic destruction of agricultural produce and infrastructure.

On the eve of the invasion in February 2022, the Russian Navy began blocking Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, cutting off long-established trade routes taking Ukrainian grain and other agricultural goods to international markets. This represented a devastating blow to the Ukrainian economy, while also increasing the threat of famine in countries throughout the Global South dependent on Ukrainian food supplies.

For more than two years, this attack on the Ukrainian agricultural sector has continued to accelerate. From Odesa to the Danube Delta, the southern Ukrainian port facilities that are so crucial to the export of agricultural produce have been subjected to relentless bombardment. According to Odesa Military Administration head Oleh Kiper, this has made it impossible to accumulate large quantities of grain in warehouse facilities, and is forcing the country’s agricultural exporters to operate under constant threat of attack.

Ukraine’s agricultural infrastructure is also being systematically targeted across the country, with regular Russian attacks on equipment, storage facilities, and transport hubs. According to recent research, the total value of destroyed agricultural assets amounts to more than ten billion US dollars. Meanwhile, approximately two billion dollars worth of Ukrainian agricultural products have been destroyed or stolen and shipped to Kremlin allies such as Syria and Iran.

The scale of the damage done to Ukraine’s farmlands is staggering. More than one-third of the Ukrainian agricultural land dedicated to cereal production has been directly affected by the war, with about four million hectares currently unusable due to mining, munitions, or ongoing hostilities. A further eight million hectares of Ukrainian farmland is currently under Russian occupation. Beyond the front lines, Russia is also accused of deliberately setting fire to Ukrainian grain fields.

The Kremlin’s goal is clear: Russia aims to inflict irreparable damage on Ukraine’s agricultural industry, leading to economic collapse and depopulation. Ukraine has historically been known as Europe’s breadbasket, with the country’s agricultural sector serving as a key engine of the national economy. By blocking agricultural exports, destroying agricultural infrastructure, and preventing farmers from growing crops, Moscow hopes to undermine the economic foundations of Ukrainian statehood and pave the way for the country’s subjugation.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Russia’s campaign against the Ukrainian agricultural industry also has a broader international dimension. The Kremlin is using food as a weapon to expand its influence throughout the Global South while employing a combination of blackmail and bribery. Moscow seeks to prevent Ukraine from exporting foodstuffs to countries in Africa and Asia, while at the same time looking to “replace Ukrainian grain” with Russian supplies.

In summer 2022, there were hopes of some relieve for the Ukrainian agricultural sector when Russia signed up to a UN-brokered grain deal. This apparent breakthrough sparked initial optimism, but ultimately highlighted the Kremlin’s readiness to exploit global food security concerns. The UN-backed grain agreement allowed for limited exports of grain from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, but it soon became apparent that Moscow saw the deal primarily as an opportunity to secure further concessions. The Kremlin consistently sabotaged implementation of the grain agreement, before unilaterally withdrawing one year later when its escalating demands were not met.

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Ukraine has achieved some notable successes in defense of the country’s farming industry. Beginning in August 2023, Ukraine has managed to partially unblock the country’s Black Sea ports and resume grain deliveries through the creation of a new corridor for merchant shipping. Maritime agricultural export volumes are now close to prewar levels, underlining the remarkable resilience of wartime Ukraine.

The resumption of agricultural exports via Ukraine’s Black Sea ports represents one of the country’s most significant victories since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion. This was made possible by the innovative use of Ukrainian drone technologies and the effective deployment of missiles provided by the country’s international partners, allowing Ukraine to significantly reduce the Russian Navy’s effectiveness in the Black Sea.

Despite this progress, much more still needs to be done in order to safeguard shipping lanes and allow for the free passage of agricultural produce across the Black Sea to global markets. As the trade routes that Russia is targeting lie in international waters, this is not an issue for Ukraine alone. Instead, there are implications for the wider international community, especially for other Black Sea region countries. It is important to hold Russia accountable for jeopardizing the security of vital maritime trade routes and for engaging in conduct that could be classified as piracy.

Ukraine has proven that it can fight back effectively against Russia with even limited resources. The Ukrainian military has damaged or destroyed around one-third of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and has forced Putin to withdraw the bulk of his remaining warships from occupied Crimea to Russia itself. Ukraine now urgently needs to receive fighter jets, long-range missiles, and air defenses from the country’s international partners. With the right tools, Ukraine will be able to protect its ports and agricultural infrastructure, enforce international law in the Black Sea, and safeguard the breadbasket of Europe from further Russian attack.

Hanna Hopko is co-founder of the International Center for Ukrainian Victory and head of the ANTS Network. She was a member of the Ukrainian Parliament from 2014 to 2019 and served as head of the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Dispatch from Taipei: Why Taiwan’s survival may depend on deterrence through resilience

Markus Garlauskas — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 19:42:13 +0000

Click on the banner above to explore the Tiger Project.

What a difference a year can make. Last summer, I was part of the annual Atlantic Council delegation and research trip to Taiwan that met with then President Tsai Ing-wen. Last week, I again visited Taipei with a delegation that included Atlantic Council President and CEO Frederick Kempe, during which we met with newly inaugurated President Lai Ching-te. I came away impressed by the progress of Taiwan’s defenses since our last visit. Taipei has continued military reforms and modernization, while shifting more attention and resources to “asymmetric warfare” approaches. And it is incorporating lessons learned from the war in Ukraine into its military planning, doctrine, and force structure. For example, after seeing the effectiveness of drones in Ukraine, Taiwan accelerated and expanded its efforts to field unmanned aerial systems. During our visit, the news broke that Washington had approved Taiwan purchasing over one thousand US-made armed drones.

I also saw momentum toward fully implementing the “all-out national defense” concept, emphasized under Tsai. Most notably, since our last visit, Taiwan followed through with executing plans to extend conscription from four months to one year. This year, a new word was also at the forefront—resilience—mentioned first by some key Taiwanese officials. Resilience was also raised by delegation members, in part because several of us had read a soon-to-be-published draft study on improving Taiwan’s resilience led by Atlantic Council Board Director and Distinguished Fellow Franklin Kramer, along with Philip Yu, Joseph Webster, and Elizabeth Sizeland. For Taiwan, resilience is a term whose exact meaning can be difficult to nail down—as we observed in our discussions—but I considered it to mean Taiwan’s will and ability to withstand Chinese coercion, as well as to adapt and sustain its defenses while under attack.

Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te meets with a senior delegation from the Atlantic Council on June 18, 2024. (Official Photo by I Chen Lin / Office of the President)

These opportunities for on-the-ground observations and interactions with officials, experts, and private sector leaders in Taiwan have been enlightening. This was only my second trip to Taiwan despite a longtime personal and professional interest in this embattled island on China’s doorstep. In my US government service as an intelligence officer and strategist, I had been stationed in South Korea for a dozen years, and I had also visited military bases, diplomatic posts, and other sites around the region—but never in Taiwan. The unique “unofficial” relationship between Washington and Taipei—along with decades of US deference to Beijing’s sensitivities—has resulted in, as in my case, many career US military officers and government officials never visiting Taiwan while on duty. Despite the best efforts of the de facto US “country team,” the American Institute in Taiwan, to ensure that US policymakers and analysts are well-informed, this anomaly of so little on-the-ground exposure among US national security professionals may cloud US analysis of Taiwan issues.

In contrast, Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s intentions should be clear to Washington: Xi wants to bring Taiwan under Chinese Communist Party (CCP) control, by force if necessary. When Xi and his top officials plan to accomplish this goal—and through what combination of subversion, coercion, strangulation, quarantine, blockade, bombardment, and invasion—is less clear and likely depends on unpredictable variables. (The Atlantic Council is exploring this further in its “Tiger Project” covering war and deterrence in the Indo-Pacific.)

Some commentators, like our own Brian Kerg, point to the challenges of a cross-strait amphibious attack on Taiwan and emphasize the importance of countering other threats. Other US experts consider invasion to be a plausible “worst case” or “most dangerous” near-future scenario that should be the focus among these various threats. These experts recommend that Taiwan and the United States accelerate their preparations to quickly counter an invasion across the Taiwan Strait as the top priority. Evocative wording plays a part in this focus. Metaphorically turning the Taiwan Strait into a “boiling moat,” as depicted by Matt Pottinger and his colleagues, or into an “unmanned hellscape,” as described by US Indo-Pacific Command’s Admiral Samuel Paparo, often drives conversations on deterrence and defense against China to begin and end with stopping a cross-strait attack. So, too, does more technical terminology, such as Elbridge Colby’s “forward denial defense.” This focus could help deter Beijing from invasion by convincing it that landings are likely to be defeated before they can gain a foothold, but this is a risky bet.

Many Taiwanese officials instead appear to be emphasizing the broader importance of preparing for a sustained defense and ensuring resilience beyond just preparing to stop a cross-strait invasion. The idea that such resilience would contribute to deterrence resonated in some discussions, but one senior nongovernment expert scoffed at the idea that Taiwan’s resilience matters for deterring Xi. He argued that only credible threats to impose unacceptable costs or outright defeat of an invasion would be sufficient. But I question what sort of punishment, short of nuclear strikes, could inflict enough costs in mere weeks if Xi believed that Taiwan was not resilient enough to last very long.

More importantly, a focus on stopping an invasion force does little to deter and defeat other forms of attack aimed at subjugating Taiwan, such as persistent informational pressure and subversion to undermine Taiwan’s will from within, slow “strangulation” through internationally isolating Taiwan and wearing it down with military threats and coercion, and a bombardment or blockade designed to rapidly break Taiwan’s will to resist. The endgame of such scenarios would be either the arrival of a Chinese occupation force, rather than an invasion force, or a political settlement in which Taipei cedes control to Beijing.

When considering how long Taiwan could resist determined military pressure, perhaps the most worrisome point is its energy sector’s near-total reliance on imports by sea combined with insufficient stockpiles. As a result, the disruption or blockade of Taiwan’s sea lines of communication could quickly cripple its electrical power grid, economy, military logistics, and food distribution.

With this in mind, I looked out the window during our late-night flight home and snapped a few photos of the dazzling lights of the Port of Taipei. The view reminded me of the contrasting nighttime satellite photos of a well-lit South Korea next to a mostly pitch-black North Korea, and I pictured how the scene could quickly fall dark under a Chinese blockade. How would the people of Taiwan react? Taiwan can and should improve its energy resilience to be able to keep the lights on even during a lengthy blockade. But thriving maritime commerce will remain Taiwan’s economic lifeblood, so its people will still have to be willing to endure great sacrifices to preserve their freedom in the event China uses force.

A view of the port of Taipei, June 21, 2024. (Photo by Markus Garlauskas)

To be fair, Taiwanese themselves—including scholars and business leaders we met—have wide-ranging views on the resilience and will to fight of the people of Taiwan. We were also struck by polling data that tells contrasting stories. First, poll after poll shows that a clear majority opposes accepting CCP rule of Taiwan. This is a strong foundation to work with. However, only just less than half of Taiwanese surveyed are “very willing” to fight to defend Taiwan. The good news is that this number can be increased. As one expert in public opinion shared with us, other polls show that Taiwanese are more likely to be willing to fight after receiving military training and if Taiwan can hold out after an initial attack.

Far more concerning, one independent poll we were briefed on suggested that Beijing and Moscow have a sympathetic ear among a large minority of Taiwanese. Given these polls and China’s unrelenting and insidious information warfare, our delegation came away concerned by the threat of subversion to Taiwan’s democracy. But in the next few years, such information warfare is unlikely to be decisive on its own. Instead, it could undermine Taiwan’s unity and will to resist if Beijing forced the issue. In short, if it came to blockade, bombardment, or invasion—accompanied by an information campaign and cyberattacks—would the Taiwanese people fold or fight? This is one question that Taiwanese institutions, such as the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, are exploring.

In unstructured discussions among members of our delegation, several of us came to the informal conclusion that leadership could be decisive in answering that question—citing positive examples present and past, including Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Winston Churchill, Ulysses S. Grant, and George Washington. The personal resilience of Taiwan’s democratically elected leadership, along with its determination to ensure continued investments in resilience, could determine Taiwan’s resilience under Chinese attack. This gives me cause for optimism.

Not all of the Taiwanese public has awoken to the rising Chinese threat, and much work remains, but Taiwan grows more resilient by the day. Taiwan’s freedom may hinge on its people’s willingness to invest and make sacrifices to prepare to face unrelenting pressure, up to and including blockade, bombardment, and invasion. Deterrence by preparing military capabilities that could deny success to Chinese invaders or threaten severe punishment will continue to be important, but these capabilities may not matter if Taiwan folds or breaks as Chinese pressure and aggression ramps up. Improving deterrence through resilience—by visibly ensuring Taiwan’s ability to absorb, endure, adapt, and resist—could be the key to Taiwan’s survival.

Markus Garlauskas is the director of the Indo-Pacific Security Initiative at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, leading the Council’s Tiger Project on War and Deterrence in the Indo-Pacific. He is a former senior US government official with two decades of service as an intelligence officer and strategist, including twelve years stationed overseas in the region. He posts as @Mister_G_2 on X.

Note: The Atlantic Council delegation’s visit to Taiwan was supported by the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO). This analysis was informed by the research trip and by Atlantic Council activities sponsored by the US Department of Defense. It represents the author’s views and not those of the government of Taiwan or any US government entity.

The Tiger Project, an Atlantic Council effort, develops new insights and actionable recommendations for the United States, as well as its allies and partners, to deter and counter aggression in the Indo-Pacific. Explore our collection of work, including expert commentary, multimedia content, and in-depth analysis, on strategic defense and deterrence issues in the region.

The post Dispatch from Taipei: Why Taiwan’s survival may depend on deterrence through resilience appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Daragahi joins wbur on Blinken calling on Hamas to accept the ceasefire deal

Atlantic Council — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 19:00:22 +0000

The post Daragahi joins wbur on Blinken calling on Hamas to accept the ceasefire deal appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Daragahi joins NPR to discuss Netanyahu and the new ceasefire deal

Atlantic Council — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:59:45 +0000

The post Daragahi joins NPR to discuss Netanyahu and the new ceasefire deal appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Lipner quoted in Jewish Insider on waning American support for Israel

Atlantic Council — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:59:30 +0000

The post Lipner quoted in Jewish Insider on waning American support for Israel appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Lipner mentioned in Daily Kos on Israel losing American support

Atlantic Council — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:59:27 +0000

The post Lipner mentioned in Daily Kos on Israel losing American support appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Abercrombie-Winstanley joins Middle East Policy Council to discuss Blinken’s meeting with Netanyahu

Atlantic Council — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:59:21 +0000

The post Abercrombie-Winstanley joins Middle East Policy Council to discuss Blinken’s meeting with Netanyahu appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Alkhatib joins TV2.no to discuss how Israel ensures Hamas’ survival

Atlantic Council — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:59:05 +0000

The post Alkhatib joins TV2.no to discuss how Israel ensures Hamas’ survival appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Alkhatib joins France24 to discuss Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal

Atlantic Council — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:59:02 +0000

The post Alkhatib joins France24 to discuss Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Warrick referenced in Politico on why so many “day after plans for Gaza amount to no plan at all

Atlantic Council — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:58:53 +0000

The post Warrick referenced in Politico on why so many “day after plans for Gaza amount to no plan at all appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Panikoff joins Bloomberg TV to discuss Israeli forces freeing four hostages

Atlantic Council — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:57:44 +0000

The post Panikoff joins Bloomberg TV to discuss Israeli forces freeing four hostages appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Alkhatib in The Free Press: Israel Killed 31 of My Family Members in Gaza. The Pro-Palestine Movement Isn’t Helping.

Atlantic Council — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:57:41 +0000

The post Alkhatib in The Free Press: Israel Killed 31 of My Family Members in Gaza. The Pro-Palestine Movement Isn’t Helping. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Lipner in Foreign Affairs: Israel Is Losing America

Atlantic Council — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:57:28 +0000

The post Lipner in Foreign Affairs: Israel Is Losing America appeared first on Atlantic Council.

More senior Russian officials join Putin on war crimes wanted list

Andrii Mikheiev — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:31:45 +0000

The International Criminal Court in The Hague has this week issued arrest warrants for former Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Russian army chief Valeriy Gerasimov for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the invasion of Ukraine. Both men face charges related to the bombing of Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure during the first winter of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Shoigu and Gerasimov are the latest in a series of senior Kremlin officials including Russian President Vladimir Putin to be targeted with criminal charges relating to the invasion of Ukraine.

The ICC first opened proceedings into Russia’s invasion in March 2022. One year later, arrest warrants were issued for Putin himself and the Russian President’s human rights ombudsman, Maria Lvova-Belova, over the mass abduction of Ukrainian children. Ukrainian officials say thousands of Ukrainian children have been deported to Russia since the start of the full-scale invasion, with many adopted into Russian families or sent to camps where they are subjected to ideological indoctrination designed to erase their Ukrainian identity. This may qualify as an act of genocide, according to the UN’s 1948 Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute.

In March 2024, the ICC announced new arrest warrants for Russian Air Force long range aviation chief Sergei Kobylash and Russian Black Sea Fleet commander Viktor Sokolov in connection with the bombing of Ukraine’s power grid. ICC prosecutors aim to charge the Russian commanders with the alleged commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity because they say the bombing campaign was part of a state policy of widespread attacks on the civilian population.

This week’s warrants represent a significant step forward in efforts to hold Russia legally accountable for crimes committed in Ukraine. The latest suspects are top Russian military officials and key figures alongside Putin in the leadership of the invasion. Both Gerasimov and Shoigu would be potential suspects in a future prosecution for the crime of aggression. However, the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this crime, while plans to establish a special tribunal remain at the early stages.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

News of the arrest warrants for Shoigu and Gerasimov was welcomed in Ukraine, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy calling the ICC decision “a clear indication that justice for Russian crimes against Ukrainians is inevitable.” At the same time, there is little prospect of Russian leaders standing trial in The Hague any time soon.

All member countries of the ICC are expected to hand over suspects to the court, but Russia is not a member. Predictably, Russian officials have denounced the court’s latest warrants as part of a “hybrid war” being waged against the country. Ukraine is also not a member of the ICC but has granted the court jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes committed since the start of Russia’s invasion.

Eurasia Center events

Public Event Thu, June 27, 2024 • 10:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

While it remains unlikely that the ICC will be able to enforce its arrest warrants, the charges do have potential practical implications including restrictions on international travel. Indeed, concerns over possible arrest for war crimes are believed to have been instrumental in convincing Putin not to attend last summer’s annual BRICS summit in South Africa. If Shoigu and Gerasimov had any plans to travel internationally, they may now be forced to rethink.

It is also significant that the latest charges include allegations of crimes against humanity. While there is no such thing as an official hierarchy of international crimes, it is generally accepted that crimes against humanity are more serious offenses than war crimes and incur graver penalties. This may help Ukraine to consolidate support for Kyiv’s peace initiatives, while also strengthening international efforts to bring Russia to justice for crimes committed during the invasion.

Russia’s bombardment of the Ukrainian electricity grid has been a particular focus for ICC investigators. This year’s arrest warrants address the period from October 2022 to March 2023, which saw the first campaign of intensified attacks. However, the bombing has continued, with Russian missile and drone strikes during the first half of 2024 damaging or destroying around half of Ukraine’s remaining power-generating capacity.

This destruction has left Ukraine facing a possible humanitarian catastrophe during the coming winter months. Officials are currently warning that the civilian population may be restricted to six hours of electricity per day at a time when temperatures typically fall well below freezing for extended periods. This underlines the urgency of challenging Russian impunity and demonstrating that senior Russian officials will be held responsible for crimes committed in Ukraine.

Andrii Mikheiev is a lawyer at the International Centre for Ukrainian Victory.

Migration dynamics in the Atlantic basin: Case studies from Morocco and Nigeria

Amal El Ouassif and Constance Berry Newman — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 13:00:00 +0000

Download PDF

Migration is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that has significant implications for both sending and receiving countries. In the Atlantic basin, the movement of people across borders has been shaped by various factors such as economic opportunities, political instability, social networks, and historical ties.

This joint report, in partnership with Policy Center for the New South and the Africa Center, aims to explore the trends in African migration within the Atlantic basin, focusing on case studies of Nigerian migration to the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Africa as well as Moroccan migration to the European Union. It seeks to provide valuable insights into ongoing discourse on African migration by exploring case studies from diverse regions within the Atlantic basin, it highlights the interconnectedness of migration flows and their impact on individuals, communities, and societies on both sides of the Atlantic.

The report examines factors such as economic disparities, political instability, educational opportunities, and family ties to explain motivations behind Nigerian and Moroccan migration. By analyzing the “push and pull factors” influencing Moroccan migration to France and Spain alongside Nigerian migration to the United States, the UK, and South Africa, it builds a nuanced understanding of migration dynamics within the Atlantic basin and what is at stake for the home countries experiencing brain drain.

Watch the launch event and expert panel

New trends in African migration: Case studies from Morocco and Nigeria

The Africa Center brings together experts to discuss current and future trends in African migration.

Africa Migration Morocco Nigeria

Presented by

The Africa Center works to promote dynamic geopolitical partnerships with African states and to redirect US and European policy priorities toward strengthening security and bolstering economic growth and prosperity on the continent.

Explore the #BALKANSDEBRIEF series

In partnership with

The pardoning and release of a convicted Iranian war criminal is a crime

Lawdan Bazargan — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:20:34 +0000

The recent decision by the Swedish government to pardon Hamid Noury, a convicted war criminal involved in mass executions, and to return him to Iran in a prisoner exchange on June 15, sets a dangerous precedent with far-reaching consequences. This exchange, involving the release of Swedish diplomat Johan Floderus and dual national Saeed Azizi, highlights the Islamic Republic of Iran’s use of “hostage diplomacy” to achieve its aims.

This exchange has been an agonizing personal blow. Since 1981, when my brother Bijan Bazargan, a college student, was arrested, my family fought tirelessly for his release, clinging to the belief that supporting a political group or distributing pamphlets should not merit a ten-year sentence. In the summer of 1988, my brother was secretly executed, and his body was never returned—making him one of the countless forcibly disappeared.

After years of activism, conferences, and gatherings to expose the horrors of the 1988 massacre of political prisoners, Noury’s arrest felt like the hard work of those decades had finally paid off. It was the first time a perpetrator had been held accountable, and this opened a small window of hope. But when the Swedish government pardoned Noury, I was overwhelmed by a sense of betrayal and fury.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Although this decision saved two innocent people from Iranian jails, it was a mockery of justice. It emboldened a terrorist regime that uses hostage diplomacy to achieve its goals. Noury returned to a hero’s welcome in Iran, with flowers and a red carpet, surrounded by dozens of reporters. He mocked the families of the victims on television, laughing at our pain and the entire justice system. This prisoner swap deeply undermines trust in the international justice system, promotes the desire for revenge and vengeance, and breeds chaos and despair.

While Noury committed war crimes and murder, Floderus had merely traveled to Iran to visit friends and sightsee, and Azizi had gone to Iran to take care of his property’s water leakage. The gross imbalance in this exchange is alarming. How can a state justify swapping individuals detained under dubious circumstances for a man convicted of heinous crimes against humanity?

The case against Hamid Noury

Noury was convicted of war crimes and murder for his role in the 1988 massacre of political prisoners; he was assistant to the deputy prosecutor of Gohardasht prison in Karaj near Tehran. This event saw thousands extrajudicially executed on the orders of founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini’s fatwa ordered the executors to make decisions “based on prison records and [the] simple question, whether prisoners believed in the Islamic regime or not.” He also instructed them “not to hesitate or show any doubt or be concerned with details…and be most ferocious against infidels,” a reference to political prisoners who did not want to repent and accept the regime’s version of religion and ideology.

On November 9, 2019, during his visit to Sweden, Noury was arrested at Stockholm Airport under the principle of universal jurisdiction. His trial was significant because it was one of the first times someone was held accountable for the 1988 massacre.

Survivors and victims’ families endured an arduous legal battle, participating in ninety-three district court sessions and twenty-two appellate court sessions, while facing constant lies and ridicule from Noury. Throughout the trial, the former official frequently turned his back on the plaintiffs, mocked them, and used derogatory language to demean them. His family exacerbated the situation by filming the plaintiffs and labeling them terrorists who deserved to die.

In 2022, Noury was sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in the 1988 massacre. At the time, his trial and subsequent conviction in Sweden were celebrated as significant steps for international justice.

However, his return to Iran in a political exchange undermines these achievements, and potentially emboldens other rogue regimes globally.

Injustice is served

On May 29, the Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson proposed a draft law to the Legislative Council to expedite the transfer of prison sentences to and from Sweden, aiming to increase the number of convicts serving sentences in their home countries. Plaintiffs were alarmed by this development and began strategizing ways to oppose the amendment, which is set to take effect on July 1, 2025. While preparing for that fight, they were blindsided by the sudden pardon and release of Noury, who was sent back to Iran.

Sweden’s decision to use an existing law to pardon Noury and send him back to Iran raises several legal and ethical questions. The law allows the government to pardon or mitigate a criminal penalty for “exceptional reasons.” However, the legality of applying this law to someone convicted of war crimes is highly dubious. International norms and laws suggest that individuals accused of war crimes should not be eligible for pardons. War crimes are generally considered so egregious that they fall outside the scope of typical criminal acts that might be mitigated or pardoned under domestic laws.

Additionally, as part of his conviction, the Swedish court had ordered Noury to pay reparations to the plaintiffs. Although the amount was symbolic, it represented a debt owed to the victims—some of whom are Swedish citizens. The government should have considered this obligation before deciding to release Noury. Ignoring this debt disregards the justice system’s recognition of the harm caused to the victims and their families.

The public reaction to Noury’s release has been overwhelmingly negative. His release has also created profound disappointment among Iranians and disbelief in international norms and human rights laws. It was already challenging to discuss justice, accountability, and transitional justice, given the Islamic Republic’s forty-six-year history of committing atrocities. These include the chain murders of intellectuals and writers inside Iran during the 1990s, the crushing of the 2009 post-election protests known as the Green Movement, the killing of a reported 1,500 protesters during November 2019 (known as “Bloody November”), the killing, blinding, arresting, and torturing of protesters during the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom uprising, and continued transnational repression. The Swedish government’s decision adds to the demands of victims’ family members for retribution and revenge.

This decision—which undermines the principles of accountability and justice the international community has strived to uphold—sends a dangerous message that even those convicted of the most grave human rights abuses can evade justice through political maneuvering.

It also potentially encourages the hostage-taking policies of Russia, Venezuela, and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, and leaves behind numerous foreigners and dual citizens, including at least three Swedish nationals. Hostage diplomacy gives brutal regimes political leverage, allowing them to extract concessions, sanctions relief, or the release of their own imprisoned nationals. Each successful negotiation sets a precedent, suggesting that detaining foreigners can lead to diplomatic engagement and tangible benefits, thereby encouraging the continuation and expansion of these tactics.

This release has left numerous foreigners and dual citizens in imminent danger of execution in Iran—including Swedish national Ahmadreza Jalali, whose death sentence has already been issued. Excluding them from these negotiations sent a clear message that they are not as important as a European diplomat. This decision underscores the need for a more comprehensive approach to international hostage negotiations that value all human lives equally.

Noury’s pardon despite his war crimes conviction risks further emboldening the Islamic Republic. It undermines the independent judiciary system, signaling to other regimes that such serious crimes might not face significant consequences. The Swedish government must be transparent and explain why it made such a decision.

The fight for justice is far from over, and the families of the victims of the Islamic Republic’s atrocities, along with human rights advocates worldwide, continue to call for accountability and the end of impunity for crimes against humanity. The global community must stand firm in this endeavor, ensuring that justice prevails and that the security and dignity of all individuals are upheld.

Lawdan Bazargan is a former political prisoner, human rights activist, and family member of one of the victims of the 1988 prison massacre in Iran. As a member of Victims’ Families for Transitional Justice, she advocates for justice and explores the profound grief of those seeking accountability for the atrocities committed.

The post The pardoning and release of a convicted Iranian war criminal is a crime appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Sweden released an Iranian war criminal. Here’s how activists and rights defenders reacted.

Khosro Sayeh Isfahani — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:00:50 +0000

On June 15, Sweden released convicted war criminal Hamid Noury and repatriated him to Iran in exchange for the freedom of European diplomat Johan Floderus and a second Swedish citizen, Saeed Azizi, both of whom were arrested in Iran on bogus “national security” charges.

In 2022, a Stockholm court sentenced Noury, an Iranian official, to life in prison for his role in the 1988 prison massacre. According to Amnesty International, between July and September 1988, the Islamic Republic “forcibly disappeared and extrajudicially executed thousands of imprisoned political dissidents in secret and dumped their bodies, mostly in unmarked mass graves.”

Amnesty International had celebrated Noury’s sentencing, calling it an “unprecedented step towards justice for crimes committed in Iran” and saying it sent an “unequivocal, and long overdue, message to the Iranian authorities that those responsible for crimes against humanity in Iran will not escape justice.” But Noury has escaped justice—at least for now.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Taking hostages has been the Islamic Republic’s vehicle of choice for exfiltrating its agents of terror arrested in Europe and elsewhere. In 2022, BBC Persian’s lead investigative journalist, Hossein Bastani, produced an in-depth report titled “Exfiltrating Regime Agents from Europe.” The report detailed how the Islamic Republic and its proxies wreaked havoc across Europe, and manipulated presidential candidates and election results in France, to strong-arm European governments and secure the release of agents responsible for the assassination of dissidents.

Reacting to Noury’s release, Bastani reshared the report, calling on Iranian activists to revise how they perceive Western powers’ “human rights redlines.”

In the eyes of the Islamic Republic, hostage deals lead to a simple conclusion: “By taking their citizens hostage, it is possible to force Western politicians to do things they claim they would never do, especially since decisions of politicians can be swayed by [public pressure and] election contests. This is while the [Western governments] are dealing with a regime whose policies in this regard are not bound by public opinion”—and it can act with absolute impunity.

Top Islamic Republic officials have never shied away from threatening the world with hostage taking. For instance, while running for president in 2021, Mohsen Rezai, a senior commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), said, “As a soldier, I vow if the United States even just look at Iran as a military target we will take hostage 1,000 Americans and they will have to pay billions of dollars for releasing each of them.”

Former hostages speak up

Barry Rosen was the press attaché at the US embassy in Tehran when Islamist militants stormed the compound on November 4, 1979. Along with dozens of other Americans, he was held hostage for 444 days until their release in January 1981. The rise of the Islamic Republic in 1979 had heralded a new age of state-sponsored terrorism, and Rosen was among its first victims.

“I refuse to call the release of Hamid Noury a ‘prisoner exchange,’” he told me. “This was an absolute disgrace, especially since the Swedish government did not push for the release of Ahmad Reza Jalali,” a Swedish-Iranian scientist who was arrested in April 2016 while visiting Iran for an academic conference. Falsely charged with espionage, Jalali has been sentenced to death.

Kylie Moore-Gilbert, an Australian-British academic, was invited to a conference in Iran in 2018. When she was leaving the country, Moore-Gilbert was detained by security forces, falsely charged with espionage, and held hostage for two years until November 2020. She was released in exchange for three Iranian nationals convicted of terrorism in Thailand in connection with the 2012 Bangkok bomb plot, as part of a simultaneous terror campaign targeting Israeli diplomats in India and Georgia.

“Anyone in the Iranian opposition who continues to expect that the West will come to their aid in their quest to shake off the Islamic Republic’s decades-long repression is buying into an illusion,” Moore-Gilbert told me. “As these hostage deals have shown, the West is largely impotent in the face of the regime’s malign behavior. Iranians have nobody to rely on other than themselves.”

Rage and resilience

Those who had lost loved ones in the 1988 massacre were angered and heartbroken at the news of Nouri’s release. Others pointed out the false “moralistic” pontification of observers who censured Iranians for celebrating the death in a helicopter crash of President Ebrahim Raisi, nicknamed the “Butcher of Tehran” for his role in the mass executions of the 1980s.

“Human rights is a circus in the West, and we are the exotic clowns. Western governments will clap us on when it suits them, but when the music dies, it’s business as usual,” an Iranian woman who has dedicated the past five decades of her life to the realization of human rights in Iran told me. She preferred to remain anonymous to protect her safety.

This frustration was echoed by Fariba Balouch, a human rights defender focused on the persecution of the Baluch ethnic minority in Iran. “The Islamic Republic has been in the business of hostage taking for four decades, and the primary target has been the people in Iran,” she told me. “We have been arrested, tortured, and executed; our families taken hostage to silence us. However, we are still standing.”

Despite showing resilience in the face of oppression and threats against Balouch and her family, she also voiced frustration at the international community appeasing the Islamic Republic “through bending backward in the face of their hostage taking,” highlighting how Western powers and the United Nations even offered condolence messages for the death of President Raisi, despite his role in the 1988 massacre.

Balouch said, “The Islamic Republic’s increased hubris and impunity manifest in the plots it has hatched assassination and abduction of journalists and human rights defenders in Europe and the US.”

She warned Western powers that “if the international community does not act now, this regime’s empire of terror will affect more innocent people around the world.”

While voicing frustration, most human right defenders and legal minds working on Iran still believe in their path and the struggle.

Leading human rights lawyer Mehrangiz Kar told me, “Hamid Noury is nothing but a dead man walking. Yes, his release and repatriation have marred the face of justice. However, it was not only him who was convicted in court. Thanks to the efforts of Iranians and the independent Swedish court system, his fair trial also unveiled the Islamic Republic’s war crimes.”

While prominent Iranian human rights defender Atena Daemi told me, “This was not the first time that Western governments prioritized short-term interests over human rights and justice. This is not the first time that they have indulged in appeasement when facing the Islamic Republic’s extortion, coercion, and hostage taking. In light of this reality, the people in Iran, who are fighting for freedom, who have time and again suffered from false promises of Western governments, have realized that they should not hope for Western support for the liberation of Iran.”

The staff attorney at the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC), who prefers to remain anonymous to protect their security, also believes there is no time for despair.

“The release of convicted war criminal Hamid Noury is terrible,” she said, “but we should not see it as a devastating defeat for accountability.”

She added, “Noury’s trial was a significant victory, as it established, beyond a reasonable doubt, the occurrence of war crimes by the regime for the first time. Feeling frustrated and defeated is easy but not productive. Persistence pays. We need to strategize for future cases and learn valuable lessons here.”

Frontline defender and teacher Diako Alavi, who left Iran recently after facing persecution for his involvement in the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom uprising, argues that a missing piece in overthrowing the Islamic Republic and putting an end to its terror and hostage taking is “establishing institutions that can replace the regime when it is toppled. The onus is on democratic forces that aim to topple this oppressive regime. Before that certain day arrives, we need institutions that would preserve and protect the flow of life post-Islamic Republic.”

Gissou Nia, founder and director of the Strategic Litigation Project at the Atlantic Council, argued that it would be a mistake rooted in shortsightedness for countries to see Noury’s release as a reason not to undertake more robust accountability efforts. “They should instead invest better in the rule of law and establish mechanisms for holding hostage takers accountable,” she said. “There is a lack of understanding over what the problem is and how to best deal with it. The hostage situations are being treated as an ad hoc piecemeal problem when in reality it is part of a much larger pattern.”

Fighting the Islamic Republic is an uphill battle. Those who are on the frontlines and gaze into the darkness of this regime’s terror and oppression need to constantly fortify their spirits against both despair and false hope. Yes, world powers will continue negotiating with the Islamic Republic and make shortsighted concessions that will endanger not only the future of Iran but also global security. However, the fight for the liberation of Iran is not over—at least for Iranians.
Khosro Sayeh Isfahani is an advocate, journalist, and Internet researcher with years of experience working in Iran, including work related to the LGBTQI community.

The post Sweden released an Iranian war criminal. Here’s how activists and rights defenders reacted. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

How to stop governments from trafficking people

John Cotton Richmond — Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:26:25 +0000

Common images of human trafficking often focus on pimps compelling their victims into commercial sexual exploitation or criminal networks targeting migrants seeking a better future. But what about when the trafficker is not an individual criminal, corporation, or cartel, but instead is a government? The United Nations (UN) estimated in 2022 that governments are trafficking at least 3.9 million people on any given day. These victims of state-sanctioned human trafficking constitute 14 percent of today’s estimated modern slavery victims.

On Monday, the US State Department released a new report that shines perhaps the strongest light yet on foreign governments’ human trafficking offenses.

Which governments are traffickers?

In 2019, the US Congress mandated that the State Department identify which governments have a policy or pattern of human trafficking. The new 2024 Trafficking in Persons Report (TIP Report) marks the fifth year the State Department has declared that governments exploit people in forced labor and sex trafficking.

Over the last five years, the State Department has identified thirteen countries engaged in this human rights violation, and nine governments have been on the list for all five years. In the 2024 TIP Report, thirteen countries are listed as traffickers, including China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Sudan earned a spot on the list for the first time.

It should surprise no one that governments are trafficking people. For most of recorded history, monarchs, czars, emperors, sultans, pharaohs, chiefs, and other tyrants advancing their empires, governments, and central committees have driven the slave trade. Today, these trafficking patterns vary by country.

China: In China, the government forces Uyghurs to work in commercial facilities in Xinjiang and compels laborers in its Belt and Road Initiative around the world. China’s unapologetic embrace of slavery caused a unanimous US Senate to pass the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA, which bars the importation of slave-made goods into the United States.

Cuba: The fact that Cuba rakes in eight billion dollars annually from its Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) is stunning. What is worse is that Cuba forces medical workers into the program, and the government siphons off the workers’ earnings. Cuban victims have sued PAHO in US federal courts, and Cuba has drawn condemnation from the international community. At the State Department rollout event for the 2024 TIP Report, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken conferred a “Trafficking in Persons Hero Award” to Maria Werlau, an activist fighting back against Cuba’s record of trafficking.

Eritrea: In Eritrea, the government forces the poor and vulnerable into extended terms of compelled government service. Those with resources and connections can avoid government-forced labor.

Turkmenistan: The government of Turkmenistan continues the old Soviet practice of forcing individuals to harvest cotton. The reforms by its neighbor Uzbekistan, which drastically reduced state-sanctioned forced labor in the cotton harvest—from 2.5 million victims in 2007 to eradicating forced labor in 2022—provide a helpful comparison. While Uzbekistan’s reforms have caused the Cotton Campaign and major fashion brands to lift their self-imposed ban on Uzbek cotton, the government of Turkmenistan has refused to use free, market-based laborers in its cotton harvest.

Typical interventions do not apply

The UN provides an estimate of 3.9 million state-sanctioned trafficking victims, and the TIP Report lists the offending countries. Yet, the world needs a plan to address this aspect of the human trafficking crisis. When dealing with individual traffickers or organized crime, the typical interventions include encouraging countries to increase victim identification, investigations, prosecutions, and convictions. To care for survivors, governments and civil society organizations must provide tailored services that appreciate the trauma traffickers inflicted. None of these interventions make sense when the government is the bad guy. It is absurd to ask Afghanistan or Burma to investigate itself or to hold itself accountable.

The path forward

Those focused on foreign policy and the plight of those whom governments abuse must find a new path forward. Interventions that may work to incentivize governments to cease enslaving people include:

Transparency and reporting: Exposing these abuses globally could motivate some countries to abandon forced labor. The TIP Report itself, along with other government and civil society reports, is an effort to shed light on these abuses.

Banning tainted products: Several countries are attempting to block slave-made goods from entering their markets. The United States, for example, relies on the Tariff Act and the new UFLPA. The European Union is poised to enact a new law banning all products made with forced labor from its markets this year.

Sanctions: Countries can target individuals, companies, or other governments by imposing financial penalties, freezing assets, or refusing visas for engaging in forced labor. Global Magnitsky Act sanctions focus on human rights violators; the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act restricts Iran, North Korea, and Russia’s movement of money; and the TIP Report’s Tier 3 sanctions focus on countries that are not making significant efforts to meet antitrafficking minimum standards. While the effectiveness is debatable, many agree that the more narrowly targeted the sanctions, the more likely these efforts are to produce change.

Private sector incentives and disincentives: The private sector is often more agile than bureaucrats striving for change. The large fashion brands that pledged not to use Uzbek cotton made a significant impact when a reform-minded leader took to the helm of Uzbekistan’s government. Likewise, companies operating or sourcing from a country can engage in commercial diplomacy by building coalitions and using their investment to demand reforms. While public justice systems are central to stopping criminal traffickers, addressing state-sanctioned human trafficking requires foreign policy and advocacy solutions. The millions of people oppressed by their governments need people of goodwill to create new initiatives that shift exploitative government policies into processes that bring freedom.

John Cotton Richmond is a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Strategy Initiative of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. He served as the US ambassador to monitor and combat trafficking in persons from 2018 to 2021. Follow him on X, formerly Twitter, @JohnRichmond1.

The post How to stop governments from trafficking people appeared first on Atlantic Council.

#BalkansDebrief – Do Balkan nationalist chants at EURO 2024 fuel ethnic tensions? | A Debrief with Florian Bieber

sjones — Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:08:16 +0000

IN THIS EPISODE

Do Balkan nationalist chants at EURO 2024 fuel ethnic tensions? Football and politics are deeply intertwined, especially in the Balkans, where the mix can be volatile. At the UEFA Euro Cup in Germany this year, nationalistic chants and provocative acts highlighted the ongoing tensions among Balkan nations. Serbia, Albania, and Croatia clashed not only in the stadiums but also in a display of ethnic rivalries.

In this episode Ilva Tare is joined by Florian Bieber, a renowned historian and professor at the University of Graz, specializing in inter-ethnic relations and nationalism in the Balkans. They discuss the complex role of football as both a catalyst for rivalry and a potential bridge for unity in the region.

How does football act as a double-edged sword, fueling both rivalry and potentially fostering unity in the Balkans?

How do nationalistic rhetoric and historical narratives shape the current tensions?

Can the younger generations break the cycle of resentment, or are they destined to inherit past grievances? What role can they play in reconciliation?

Given the political landscape, is peace in the Balkans a realistic goal? What concrete steps can governments and the international community take to foster stability?

Join #BalkansDebrief for a thought-provoking discussion on the dynamics of football, nationalism, and the quest for peace and reconciliation in the Balkans.

ABOUT #BALKANSDEBRIEF

Watch #BalkansDebrief on YouTube and listen to it as a Podcast.

SUBSCRIBE TO #BALKANSdebrief

listen to #bALKANSDEBRIEF as a podcast

MEET THE #BALKANSDEBRIEF HOST

Fellow

Ilva Tare

Resident Senior Fellow

Europe Center

Albanian English

The Europe Center promotes leadership, strategies, and analysis to ensure a strong, ambitious, and forward-looking transatlantic relationship.

The post #BalkansDebrief – Do Balkan nationalist chants at EURO 2024 fuel ethnic tensions? | A Debrief with Florian Bieber appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Ukraine’s innovative drone industry helps counter Putin’s war machine

David Kirichenko — Wed, 26 Jun 2024 13:02:03 +0000

Since the outbreak of hostilities in February 2022, Ukraine’s domestic drone industry has emerged as an increasingly crucial element in the struggle to resist and outmaneuver the formidable Russian war machine. Ukraine’s innovative use of drones has allowed the country to counter Russia’s far greater resources and strike back at targets everywhere from the Black Sea to oil refineries deep inside Russia itself.

For more than two years, Ukrainian commanders have been adapting to rapidly evolving battlefield conditions shaped by the use of drones. In the initial weeks of the war, Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drones were instrumental in allowing Ukraine to strike over-stretched Russian lines as Putin’s invading army attempted to take Kyiv. A range of countermeasures, including increasingly sophisticated electronic warfare capabilities, have since created an environment where Russian and Ukrainian forces are constantly competing to gain an innovative edge over their adversaries. Many view this military tech contest as the decisive front of the war.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

As the front line stabilized during the first winter of Russia’s invasion, trench warfare became the defining feature of the conflict, with drones filling the skies and searching for targets. This has created unprecedented visibility on both sides of the front lines and made offensive operations increasingly challenging. A large proportion of the drones buzzing above the Ukrainian battlefield in winter 2022 were Chinese in origin, which placed Russia at a significant advantage due to Moscow’s close ties with Beijing.

Meanwhile, many of the Western drone models used in Ukraine have proved costly and ineffective, according to the Wall Street Journal. Additionally, delays in military aid have underlined the risks for Ukraine of relying too heavily on the country’s Western partners. These factors have helped convince policymakers in Kyiv to concentrate on the development of their own domestic drone industry. They have been able to call upon Ukraine’s vibrant tech sector to support these efforts.

With Ukraine typically losing thousands of drones per month, keeping production costs as low as possible is vital. Flexibility in drone operations is also essential, as drone units frequently use 3D printing to modify and adapt parts to meet specific needs. With this in mind, Ukraine has adopted a decentralized approach to drone development that allows for rapid testing and deployment.

Ukraine’s emphasis on agility contrasts with the more centralized military structure favored by the Kremlin. While Russia can produce vast quantities of military equipment, comparatively slower decision-making processes and bureaucratic inefficiencies often hinder the Kremlin’s ability to respond swiftly to new battlefield realities. Many analysts believe this was a factor behind the recent appointment of a technocrat economist as Russia’s new defense minister.

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

The growth of Ukraine’s domestic drone industry over the past two years has been striking, with more than 200 drone-manufacturing companies created. The Ukrainian authorities have allocated $2 billion for the production of drones in 2024, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy setting an annual production target of one million FPV drones.

Ukraine’s leaders hope more drones will mean less reliance on traditional munitions and fewer casualties. “We don’t have as many human resources as Russia. They fight, they die, they send more people, they don’t care, but that’s not how we see war,” commented Alex Bornyakov, Ukraine’s Deputy Minister of Digital Transformation.

A key element in Ukraine’s drone strategy is the BRAVE1 initiative, a government-led defense tech cluster established in spring 2023 to streamline cooperation between the public and private sectors. This cluster has helped numerous companies cut through red tape, speeding up the implementation of new technologies to support Ukraine’s defense.

The race to innovate is relentless, with Ukraine’s steadily improving drone capabilities mirrored by Russia’s own rapidly expanding electronic warfare arsenal. Ukrainian engineers are now attempting to overcome the Kremlin’s increasingly sophisticated jamming efforts by embedding artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into drones. This innovation has already played a part in Kyiv’s long-range drone strike campaign against Russia’s energy industry, with CNN reporting that Ukraine has employed AI-enabled drones to hit targets as far away as Russia’s Tatarstan region, well over one thousand kilometers from the Ukrainian border.

Ukraine’s partners certainly seem to recognize the importance of drones and have set up an international drone coalition to aid deliveries. In a further example of institutional innovation, Ukraine has this year become the first nation to establish a separate branch of its military dedicated to drone warfare.

Looking ahead, Ukraine’s drone warfare strategy will continue to focus on flexibility, innovation, and the daily challenge of maintaining a technological advantage over Russia. Ukraine’s leaders know they cannot hope to defeat Russia in a traditional war of attrition, and must instead make the most of the agility and technological ingenuity that the country has demonstrated since February 2022. As Ukraine’s understanding of drone warfare continues to evolve, the outside world will be watching and learning.

David Kirichenko is an Associate Research Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.

The path to prosperity: The 2024 Freedom and Prosperity Indexes

Ignacio Campomanes, Nina Dannaoui, Joseph Lemoine, Dan Negrea — Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:00:00 +0000

DOWNLOAD PDF

Executive summary

We are living in turbulent times, and 2024 is without doubt a crucial year. A total of sixty-four countries and almost half of the population of the world will hold national elections this year. Their results will determine the future path for freedom and prosperity in years to come. This report presents the annual update of our indexes, which portray a clear picture of the situation of the world during this decisive year. Moreover, a detailed analysis of the trends of freedom, prosperity, and their respective components during the last decade uncovers several striking facts that can help us understand how we got to this critical juncture.

Freedom at a global level has been stagnant in the last decade, and we document that this is the outcome of two opposing forces: declining political freedom and increasing economic freedom. The former is by far the most worrisome trend in recent years. Our political subindex clearly shows that this process started way before the COVID-19 pandemic, and is still ongoing today, several years after. Overall, the political subindex scores of two-thirds of the countries of the world have decreased since 2013, including a vast majority of countries with well-established democracies in Western Europe and North America.

Analyzing the components of the political subindex, we find that the erosion of political institutions is due to a significant weakening of the safeguards and guarantees that ensure contestation and control of power. Political rights, especially freedom of expression and information, and legislative constraints on the executive, have suffered major declines across the world in the last decade. The widespread wave of disinformation and election interference is deeply troubling. It represents not just an attack on democracy, but a fraudulent attempt to subvert the electoral process. Once in power, if governments succeed in limiting the ability of civil society and other institutions to hold them accountable, they pave the way for a slide into outright autocracy.

While the legal subindex has shown a slight decline since 2013, it’s noteworthy that the components most closely linked to the core principles of liberal democracy, such as clarity of the law and independent justice, have seen the steepest declines. This fact can only reinforce the perception of a major regression in the system of checks and balances that characterizes free societies.

The bright side of freedom measurement in the last decade is driven by freer economic environments across the globe. A total of 130 countries, out of the 164 covered by the indexes, have improved their economic subindex score. Moreover, this positive tendency is predominantly driven by a prominent improvement of the component measuring women’s economic opportunities, which has risen in virtually all the countries of the world. Furthermore, it is encouraging to notice that some of the worst performers in gender equality in terms of economic affairs, such as some Gulf monarchies, have improved substantially. Globally, economic freedom improvements, including mild but widespread increases in trade and investment freedom, as well as property rights’ protection, have acted as a counterweight to the negative evolution of political freedom.

The Prosperity Index reveals the remarkable effects of the pandemic in several of its components—health, income, and education—which jointly produced a halt in the strong improvement of the previous decades. As of today, the global prosperity scores have yet to reach their pre-2019 levels. Nonetheless, this fact does not seem to be solely attributable to the devastating consequences of the pandemic, given two additional circumstances we document in this report.

On the one hand, the component measuring the treatment received by minorities has worsened consistently since 2013, a trend we connect with the deterioration of the political environment and institutions. On the other, the index shows that the share of countries experiencing prosperity growth rates exceeding the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average has been substantially lower since 2013, compared to the previous decade. This means that from 1995 to 2013, developing countries were improving their prosperity faster than wealthy countries. This convergence process has clearly slowed down and fewer countries are progressing as quickly, with significant repercussions for millions of citizens in the world’s least developed areas.

The descriptive trends documented above raise the fundamental question of whether there is a clear link between the evolution of freedom and that of prosperity. Unfortunately, the unprecedented effects of the pandemic on prosperity make it hard to assess the effects of the stagnation of freedom in the last decade. Nonetheless, the ample time coverage of the Freedom and Prosperity Indexes allows us to analyze the relation between both indexes with a long-term perspective. We provide several pieces of evidence, reaching a consistent result: freedom is closely associated with prosperity.

Higher scores in our Prosperity Index are highly correlated with prosperity (0.71). Moreover, when we look at changes in both indexes, we obtain again a very substantial association (0.49). When we compare the third of countries with the highest freedom improvement since 1995 to the less-improved third, we find that prosperity growth has been 50 percent higher in the former group.

Having shown the close long-term relation between freedom and prosperity, we delve into a related question: Do reforms toward freer institutions produce immediate effects on prosperity, or are their fruits only visible after a long time? Our results, based on local linear projections, lean toward the latter. A significant positive shock to the Freedom Index (i.e., the top 20 percent of yearly changes), generates an instantaneous effect on prosperity that is rather small (0.11 points in the year of the shock). Nonetheless, the cumulative effect extends during the following two decades, and is estimated to be seven times higher after twenty years. Conversely, a negative shock produces a 0.13-point drop in prosperity on the year of the impact, but again the cumulative effect in the next two decades is substantially higher, reaching 0.56 points.

The facts and analysis provided in this report are only a small example of the significant capabilities and usefulness of the Freedom and Prosperity Indexes for academic and policy-oriented research. We firmly believe that unbiased, rigorous, data-driven research and policy implementation is the surest path to advance freedom and generate sustained prosperity across the world. Therefore, we encourage scholars and public officials to use the indexes to further explore the mechanisms and interaction between freedom and prosperity, as well as their components, in specific countries, regions, or periods of time.

Explore the data

Trackers and Data Visualizations

Jun 15, 2023

Freedom and Prosperity Indexes

The indexes rank 164 countries around the world according to their levels of freedom and prosperity. Use our site to explore twenty-eight years of data, compare countries and regions, and examine the sub-indexes and indicators that comprise our indexes.

Kyiv Pride event highlights changing attitudes in wartime Ukraine

Aleksander Cwalina — Mon, 24 Jun 2024 21:38:28 +0000

On June 16, members of Ukraine’s LGBTQI+ community and allies gathered in central Kyiv to celebrate the first Pride March in the Ukrainian capital since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion more than two years ago. The event highlighted changing attitudes in wartime Ukraine as the country stands defiant against Russia and embraces a European future.

Hundreds of kilometers from Kyiv on the front lines of the war with Russia, the Ukrainian LGBTQI+ community is also present within the ranks of the military among Ukrainians of all ethnic backgrounds and religions defending the country. While calculating the exact number of LGBTQI+ soldiers is challenging, a 2023 article in Britain’s Daily Telegraph estimated that between two and seven percent of serving personnel in the Ukrainian Armed Forces are members of the LGBTQI+ community.

Some serve openly, sporting symbols such as a unicorn patch below the blue and yellow national colors of Ukraine on their military uniform. In many cases, they do so to demonstrate that, contrary to assertions from Russian propagandists and other opponents, LGBTQI+ Ukrainians are just as willing to defend their country as other Ukrainians.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The increasing openness in Ukraine toward issues of sexual orientation and identity stands in stark contrast to the deteriorating situation in regions of the country currently under Kremlin control. Throughout occupied Ukraine, the LGBTQI+ community faces the reality of draconian Russian legislation that often prevents them from defending their rights and sets the stage for serious human rights abuses.

According to Nash Svit, a Ukrainian LGBTQI+ organization, these abuses include public humiliation, torture, extortion, and sexual violence. The National LGBTQ Consortium in Ukraine has documented a similarly oppressive atmosphere of increased fear and violence in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region and the Crimean peninsula following Russian occupation in 2014.

In Russia itself, LGBTQI+ individuals have long featured in the ever-growing category of scapegoated groups, where they are joined by representatives of the free media, civil society, and the country’s tiny anti-war opposition as proxy targets in the Kremlin’s campaign against the West. Scores of LGBTQI+ Russians have fled the country in recent years, citing a mounting climate of insecurity and oppression. Those who remain face routine discrimination along with threats to their livelihood and personal safety.

In line with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s increasingly radical anti-Western rhetoric, last year Russia’s Supreme Court declared the “international LGBTQ movement” a terrorist and extremist organization. The Russian authorities have since used this ruling to convict Russians of displaying the rainbow flag, raid LGBTQI+ clubs, and brand LGBTQI+ activists as foreign agents.

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

The oppression of the LGBTQI+ community in Putin’s Russia has sparked debate across the border and helped persuade many in traditionally conservative Ukraine to reject homophobia. A June 2023 poll found that more than 70% of Ukrainians believe members of the LGBTQI+ community should have the same rights as any other Ukrainian citizen, representing a significant increase from prewar levels of social acceptance.

Despite indications of progress, significant challenges remain. While LGBTQI+ individuals can now serve openly in the Ukrainian military, many say they face difficulties not experienced by non-LGBTQI+ soldiers. Efforts are ongoing to secure equal partner rights, including the right of same-sex partners to make medical decisions on behalf of their partner in case of injury, and to receive the same state benefits for military service.

Amid the unprecedented trauma and turbulence of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the issue of LGBTQI+ rights remains on Ukraine’s political agenda and continues to gain traction. In 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy acknowledged growing demand for recognition of same-sex civil unions. A year later, Ukrainian MP Ivana Sovsun formally introduced a bill on civil unions.

Current trends look set to continue. As Ukraine takes additional steps toward membership of the European Union, the accession process will include a growing focus on Ukrainian human rights legislation. This will include measures to bring Ukrainian law into line with EU standards, meaning the likely introduction of greater legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Ukraine’s LGBTQI+ community is in many ways at the forefront of the struggle against Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian brand of Russian imperialism. From the LGBTQI+ soldiers on the front lines of the war to the activists pushing for social change in Kyiv, the community plays a vital role in Ukraine’s ongoing European integration and defense against the Kremlin’s anti-Western crusade.

Aleksander Cwalina is a program assistant for the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

The Syrian electoral system guarantees inequality

Vladimir Pran and Maroun Sfeir — Mon, 24 Jun 2024 17:37:28 +0000

President Bashar al-Assad set July 15 as election day for the 250 seats of the Syrian People’s Assembly to be held in the areas controlled by his government. As the electoral process unfolds, a series of articles will deconstruct the key elements of Syrian elections and their role in legitimizing Baath Party rule. It will also conduct a deep dive into the challenges of moving ahead with electoral reform in the United Nations (UN)-facilitated political process.

The first article of the series discussed the outline of the election process and its significance.

This article examines the system of representation, which determines how many candidates will be elected for a four-year term from each of the electoral districts and how the voters will vote for candidates in these districts. Variations of these elements can produce vastly different results. In Syria, the system guarantees three effects: overrepresentation of regime strongholds in parliament, manipulation of candidates through a quota system that reserves seats for workers and farmers, and prevention of effective multi-party competition.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

There are no criteria for the number of members of parliament allocated from each governorate, with allocation decided purely at the president’s discretion. The allocation remains the same as it was in the 2012, 2016, and 2020 elections, failing to consider any demographic changes seen in Syria since 2011. Based on the most recent official data, Syria’s population is 30 million (compared to a United Nations estimate of 23 million), and there has been no census since 2004.

Source: Authors

Even a cursory look reveals how unfair the allocation of seats to constituencies is, and that it leads to significantly disproportional values of the vote. The allocation directly discriminates against the voters of the Raqqa, Al-Hasakah, Daraa, Aleppo, and Damascus City governorates—historically associated with opposition—while it favors voters in Quneitra, Latakia, Tartus, and Damascus governorates. The chart shows clearly the “value of the vote.” As an example, comparison of the official population data reveals that Damascus City governorate is represented in the assembly double than Rural Damascus and three times more than al-Hassakah. In another example, only 85,000 residents are needed for one member representing Lataka, while it takes 150,000 residents of Dara for a seat in the assembly. This is contrary to the international electoral standard of equality of the vote.

While districting defines the inequality of the vote, the quota for farmers and workers defines inequality between the candidates. Of the 250 seats in parliament, the presidential decree assigned 127 to farmers or workers and 123 to “other sectors of society,” but the law does not elaborate on what “other sectors” means.

Source: Authors

Nominally, the quota for farmers and workers introduced in 1973 was supposed to reflect socialist values and secure representation for working-class Syrians. In practice, the lack of criteria for candidacy in this category allows for manipulation, and many businessmen opted to run for these seats. In the 2020 elections, only 27.5 percent of the candidates (456 of the total 1,658) registered to run as farmers or workers, making those seats far less competitive. Also, while the system has a quota for farmers and workers, it does not include a quota for women. While far from the only method for protecting the representation of women, such a quota could counter the extraordinary and historically low representation of women; in the 2020 elections, only twenty-eight women were elected (11 percent of members).

But of all the stifling elements of the system, the ballot structure is the most damaging. On its face, the system appears simple: voters vote for as many candidates as there are seats in the district. Candidates run as individuals and, after the votes are tallied, are ranked simply by the number of votes. Those with the highest rankings win the seats. Yet this simplicity masks the extraordinary effect of this system, which is somewhat deceptively called the “block vote” system. In theory, it allows voters to vote for individual candidates, but in practice voters almost exclusively give all the votes to a block of candidates, often using a ballot with already selected candidates rather than voting on a blank “write-in” ballot.

Source: Authors

Even when a block gains only a slight advantage, this translates into winning all the seats in the district. Those familiar with the Palestinian elections will remember that this system produced an overwhelming parliamentary majority for Hamas in 2005. In Lebanon, it guaranteed the pro-Syrian composition of the parliament in the post-civil war elections from 1992 to 2005. The Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, and Jordan abandoned this system, so Syria remains the only country in the world using it for the national elections. This is not by coincidence—the system is designed to disincentivize competition between political parties. The results of the 2020 elections demonstrate its effect, as the candidates nominated by the Baath-dominated National Unity list won all the seats for which they competed, while those who were not on the list had no chance to be elected. This will remain the case as long as there is no well-organized, disciplined, and unified opposition with a single list of candidates, as the effect of vote splitting between the individual candidates is tremendously damaging to all that campaign as individuals.

It is virtually impossible to estimate outcomes if Syrian elections were held under a different electoral system. Because each voter votes for multiple candidates, their votes cannot simply be re-calculated to present how much each party would receive under a putative proportional representation system. Besides vote tallying, the block vote system has far-reaching implications for political competition as well. Because it assumes competition between individual candidates, undermining options for political organizing and competition between political parties, it all but ensures fragmentation of the opposition. The framework of the block vote is so advantageous to the Baath Party that, even if the opposition were welcome to compete in elections with guarantees that their candidates would not be disqualified or harassed, in practice, opposition parties would not stand a chance to win a significant number of seats.

Vladimir Pran advises electoral authorities, governments, and political leaders on transitional, electoral, and political processes.

Maroun Sfeir advises international and local civil society organizations, political groups, and electoral authorities on electoral and political processes.

The post The Syrian electoral system guarantees inequality appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Don’t be fooled by the ‘reformist.’ Iran’s presidential election won’t bring fundamental change.

Holly Dagres — Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:43:33 +0000

“Does the potential election of Masoud Pezeshkian in Iran provide a glimmer of hope for reform and a possibility of diplomacy in the region?” US Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) posed this question on X on June 16. In recent days, reformist politicians, including former President Mohammad Khatami—relics of the past for many Iranians—began throwing their weight behind the sole reformist presidential candidate, Pezeshkian. The member of parliament representing the northwestern city of Tabriz is one of six candidates—the remainder are principalists (known in the West as “hardliners”)—partaking in the upcoming presidential election prompted by the death of then President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash on May 19.

The reformist faction has controlled major power centers in Iran, such as the presidency and parliament. However, despite their promises of “reform” and increased civil liberties, their rule was marked by bloody crackdowns, and Iranians are no longer fooled by such undeliverable and false promises.

Just months prior to Raisi’s death, Khatami—whose name and face have been blacked out from appearing in state media for supporting the 2009 post-election protests known as the Green Movement—boycotted the March parliamentary election. That election was described by the Iranian Reformist Front, a coalition of reformist factions, as “meaningless, noncompetitive, and ineffective” because all reformists had effectively been disqualified. Yet, Khatami, the face of the bygone reformist era that aimed to democratize the country, still placed faith in a system and role he once described as no more than a “footman” to maintain the status quo that most Iranians—especially Iranian Gen Z—are disillusioned by and want gone, as evidenced by a poll conducted by Netherlands-based GAMAAN in February.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

The reformist movement in the Islamic Republic has long been dead. Activist Bahareh Hedayat, who spent her life advocating for gradual change, confirmed it in a letter from Evin prison—where she continues to languish—at the height of the 2022 Women, Life, Freedom uprising. Former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif stated in a March audio leak that the clerical establishment sought the movement’s “erasure.” (Despite his leaked comments, Zarif has now joined Pezeshkian’s campaign team because he believes in overriding loyalty to the Islamic Republic.)

The trajectory of the Islamic Republic in recent years makes it abundantly clear that there is no room for reform under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, with principalists—up until Raisi’s death—leading all government branches: the presidency, parliament, and judiciary. This was no accident and engineered by Khamenei, who, with the help of the Guardian Council—a twelve-member vetting body in which six are appointed by him directly—is making every calculation with the Islamic Republic post-mortem in mind. The supreme leader’s vision is an Islamic Revolution 2.0, in which relatively young ultraconservatives take the helm of the country—a new cohort nicknamed the “super revolutionaries.”

Very telling Iranian election cartoon

Families who lost loved ones during #MahsaAmini protests versus clerical establishment and the ballot box

"This gap will no longer be filled" https://t.co/T7mFkMlLYp
— Holly Dagres (@hdagres) June 14, 2024

The Islamic Republic had two historically low-turnout elections: the 2021 presidential election—or “selection,” as many described it at the time—which was engineered to hand the presidency to Raisi with 48.8 percent turnout and the March 2024 parliamentary election, which gave 233 out of 290 seats to the principalists with 41 percent turnout, an outcome not much different from the 2020 election. Khamenei has always emphasized that the regime’s legitimacy stemmed from its popularity and always encourages citizens to vote to show that popular support.

Since the December 2017–January 2018 protests, protesters have vocalized that all factions are irredeemable, as evident by the chant: “Reformists, principalists, the game is over.” This is likely why one reformist was allowed to run: to stimulate a higher voter turnout to give the clerical establishment legitimacy, which it lacks domestically. However, the Islamic Republic does not lack legitimacy on the international stage, as it recommenced ties with its Persian Gulf Arab neighbors including Saudi Arabia, has joined the economic grouping known as BRICS and the more security-focused Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and has continued to attend international conferences such as the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Iranian elections are unpredictable, though Pezeshkian could slightly move the election needle, leading to a second round. Still, the average Iranian is not stirred by a man who uses Khamenei’s formal title and claims that he intends to follow “the general policies of the exalted supreme leader” —language not commonly used by reformists.

And while he seems to be hitting all the buzz-worthy topics such as reviving the defunct nuclear deal and speaking out against the so-called morality police’s latest crackdown on women and girls, the Nour initiative, Pezeshkian has not moved the public, as evidenced by one interview that was described as “boring.”

در انتخاب سرنوشت خود سهیم باشید :))#رای_بی_رای pic.twitter.com/BOH49371vE
— MH (@justice2045) June 13, 2024

Pezeshkian has also co-opted the de facto Women, Life, Freedom protest anthem “Baraye” (For the sake of) by singer Shervin Hajipour in his campaign, using “For the sake of wanting a normal life” in an election poster and “For the sake of Iran” as a campaign hashtag. The song reference has angered many Iranians who haven’t forgotten how more than 550 protesters—including sixty-eight children—were killed during the uprising (and the more than 1,500 others in previous protests), as shown by the slogan, “A sea of blood divides us,” referring to the people and the clerical establishment. To many, Pezeshkian and other candidates are merely puppets, which was best highlighted by a viral meme of candidates’ faces superimposed on Khamenei. I’ve been repeatedly told that Iranians are so unenthusiastic about the upcoming election that boycotting is not even a serious topic of conversation, because many assume that is what the majority will do. Even a poll conducted by the Iranian Students Polling Agency (ISPA) noted that 73 percent of Iranians didn’t follow the first presidential debate.

Elections aside, Iranians are drowning in hopelessness, prompted by multiple unsuccessful cycles of protests aimed at ending the Islamic Republic; a dire economic situation caused by systemic mismanagement, corruption, and, in part, US sanctions; and the brutal clampdowns on dissent. The June 15 prisoner swap of two Swedish nationals for Hamid Nouri, an Iranian official who was convicted of war crimes for his role in the 1988 massacre of five thousand political prisoners, was just another instance that demonstrated to Iranians that they could not rely on the West to hold the Islamic Republic accountable. The only way out of this conundrum is if Iranians take their destiny into their own hands. And if one thing is certain, it’s that their destinies will not be determined by the ballot box.

Holly Dagres is a nonresident senior fellow in the Atlantic Council’s Middle East programs and editor of the Atlantic Council’s IranSource blog. She is also the author of the “Iranians on #SocialMedia” report. Follow her on X: @hdagres.

The post Don’t be fooled by the ‘reformist.’ Iran’s presidential election won’t bring fundamental change. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Putin just reminded the world why Russia must lose

Peter Dickinson — Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:26:06 +0000

On the eve of last weekend’s Global Peace Summit in Switzerland, Vladimir Putin unveiled a peace proposal of his own. The presentation of this rival peace plan was an obvious attempt to undermine Ukraine’s Swiss initiative, but it also served as a timely reminder that Putin is waging an old-fashioned war of imperial conquest and will continue to escalate his demands until he is defeated.

Putin’s uncompromising vision for a future peace in Ukraine was widely condemned, with Kyiv officials and world leaders rejecting it as an “ultimatum.” Crucially, the terms outlined by the Kremlin leader would leave around twenty percent of Ukraine under Russian control, including significant portions of the country that Putin’s army has so far been unable to capture.

This new peace proposal is the latest example of the growing territorial demands that have accompanied Russia’s ten-year invasion of Ukraine. Time after time over the past decade, Putin has rejected accusations of an expansionist agenda, only to then escalate his invasion of Ukraine further.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

When Russia first attacked Ukraine in February 2014, Putin insisted Moscow had no territorial ambitions beyond the seizure of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. “We do not want to divide Ukraine,” he assured the watching world. Within weeks, however, Kremlin forces posing as locals had sparked a separatist war in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region.

For the following eight years, Putin steadily strengthened his grip on the so-called “separatist republics” of eastern Ukraine, while consistently denying any direct involvement. The failure of the international community to hold Putin accountable for this shameless duplicity fuelled a sense of impunity in Moscow that set the stage for the largest European invasion since World War II.

In his February 2022 address announcing the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin once again denied harboring any ambitions to annex additional Ukrainian lands. “It is not our plan to occupy Ukrainian territory,” he stated. “We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force.” Just six months later, Putin demonstrated the true value of his word by solemnly announcing the annexation of four more Ukrainian provinces.

Significantly, the invading Russian army did not fully control any of the Ukrainian provinces claimed by Putin in September 2022. This created a degree of ambiguity regarding the exact geographical extent of Russia’s goals, with Kremlin officials typically limiting themselves to vague calls for Ukraine to recognize the “new territorial realities” created by the front lines of the invasion.

Putin’s new peace plan has now removed all doubt. Indeed, he took special care to clarify that he expects the Ukrainian military to withdraw completely from the four Ukrainian provinces in question, including unoccupied areas. Among other things, this would mean handing over the Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia, with a prewar population of more than seven hundred thousand, along with Kherson, which was the only Ukrainian regional capital captured by the Russians before being liberated in November 2022.

Ukraine would also have to voluntarily demilitarize, accept geopolitical neutrality, and submit to “denazification,” Kremlin code for the suppression of Ukrainian national identity and the imposition of a Russian imperial ideology. In other words, Putin is insisting Ukraine admit defeat and surrender.

Eurasia Center events

Nonresident Senior Fellow

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

The terms offered by Putin confirm that he has no intention of reaching a sustainable peace with Ukraine. On the contrary, the Russian dictator evidently remains as committed as ever to his overriding war aim of extinguishing Ukrainian statehood and erasing the Ukrainian nation. As if to underline the point, Putin accompanied his latest demands with a chilling warning that “the existence of Ukraine” depends on Kyiv’s readiness to accept his conditions.

In fact, there is even more at stake than the continued existence of the Ukrainian state. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of global security is currently being determined on the battlefields of Ukraine. If Putin’s invasion succeeds, it will signal the dawning of a new era marked by rising international insecurity, ballooning defense budgets, and increasingly frequent wars of aggression.

A victorious Russia would almost certainly remain at the forefront of this descent into lawlessness for many years to come. Throughout the past decade, Putin has steadily escalated his invasion of Ukraine while shifting his entire country onto a war footing. By this point, it should be painfully clear to all objective observers that he will not stop until he is stopped. Indeed, Putin has openly compared today’s war to the eighteenth century imperial conquests of Peter the Great, and frequently speaks in terms of a sacred mission to “return historically Russian lands.”

As anyone with a passing knowledge of Russian history will confirm, there are at least fifteen other countries beyond Ukraine that were once part of the Russian Empire and therefore meet Putin’s definition of “historically Russian.” All are now potential targets. While it is impossible to know exactly what Putin will do next if he defeats Ukraine, the idea that he will simply choose to stop is perhaps the most far-fetched scenario of all.

Nor will Putin be the only authoritarian ruler looking to embrace a new age of imperial aggression. China, Iran, and North Korea are all already providing the Russian war effort with varying degrees of support, and make no secret of their eagerness to overturn the existing world order. If Moscow achieves an historic victory in Ukraine, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang will also be emboldened, along with a whole host of fellow autocrats throughout the Global South.

The only way to avoid a geopolitical future shaped by rising insecurity and resurgent imperialism is by ensuring Russia loses in Ukraine. Putin’s recent bogus peace proposal is essentially a call for Kyiv’s capitulation and the absorption of Ukraine into a new Russian Empire. This is entirely in line with the policies of escalation he has pursued throughout the past decade, and reflects an imperial agenda that leaves no room for meaningful compromise.

The Russian dictator still clearly believes he can overwhelm Ukraine with brute force while intimidating the wider Western world into inaction. If he succeeds, the consequences for international security will be devastating. Ukraine’s leaders have already responded to Putin’s latest demands with characteristic defiance. Kyiv’s international partners must now go further and provide the military support to secure Ukrainian victory.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Global China Newsletter – Sharp words, sharper tools: Beijing hones its approach to the Global South

Dexter Tiff Roberts — Thu, 20 Jun 2024 14:07:30 +0000

Subscribe to the Global China Hub

The statement released by G7 leaders after their summit last week garnered ample attention for its strong language on China’s unfair economic practices and ongoing support for Russia’s war on Ukraine, and triggered a predictably sharp Chinese response. The back-and-forth is another reminder of China’s worsened relations with developed democracies over the past few years.

Beijing is by no means abandoning those relationships – Premier Li Qiang’s visit to Australia and New Zealand this week, not to mention President Xi’s trip to Europe last month, underscore a drive to mend damaged ties. But the incident is another piece of evidence confirming that Beijing’s positions on global and economic issues receive a more welcoming reception in the developing world, where China’s economic and political ties are growing by the day.

China’s strategic shift toward greater focus on the so-called Global South is unmistakable. One need only look at where China is spending diplomatic attention and propaganda dollars.

As colleagues at the Digital Forensics Research Lab explore in a new report on China’s messaging in Africa, China is increasingly promoting pro-Russian narratives about Ukraine in sub-Saharan Africa using its media platforms, commentators, social media, and broadcasting infrastructure. The effort aims to portray China as a force for peace while the United States prolongs the war, in line with Beijing’s drive to enhance its reputation relative to Washington across the developing world.

Source: (Murtala Zhang; CGTN Hausa) Screenshot of a cartoon shared by a China Radio International (CRI) illustrator, depicting the US arms industry as profiting from the war in Ukraine. Also, a screenshot of the Facebook post of the article that written for CRI defending China’s amplification of the biolabs in Ukraine disinformation translated from Hausa.

This effort to shape perceptions of China’s responsible global role in contrast to the United States is now routinely reflected in the content of high-level diplomatic engagements with developing countries.

In his speech just last week at the BRICS Dialogue with Developing Countries in Russia, Foreign Minister Wang Yi not only underscored China’s leadership of the Global South as the “largest developing country” but also called for the convening of “a true international peace conference” on the Ukraine war that involves Russia – after Beijing pulled out all the stops to try to scuttle the Swiss-organized conference earlier this month – and threw in some choice words on US efforts to “maintain its unipolar hegemony” for good measure.

As I and the Global China Hub team discovered on a trip to Brazil, Colombia, and Honduras earlier this month, China is also ramping up diplomatic, economic, and technological engagement across Latin America, and pairing those efforts with a push to shape understanding of China across the region. Our editor-in-chief Tiff Roberts dives into that and much more in this issue of Global China – take it away, Tiff!

-David O. Shullman, Senior Director, Atlantic Council Global China Hub

China Spotlight

Fellow

Dexter Tiff Roberts

Global China Hub Indo-Pacific Security Initiative

China Chinese

Latin American officials flood Beijing revealing China’s global priorities

Want to know one key region of the Global South China is now focusing on? Take a look at who visited Beijing in early June. Before the first week of the month was even over, Brazil’s Vice President Geraldo Alckmin, Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Yván Gil, and special envoy of Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel and Minister of Foreign Affairs Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla had all passed through China’s capital (the Brazilian vice president met with Xi Jinping and secured $4.49 billion in credit concessions. Brazil has been a key market for China too, as evidenced by an eighteen-fold surge in Chinese EV sales by value).

Latin America, with its rich resources, is a key target as China expands its global economic and political reach, and that’s a concern for the US. Testifying before the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission hearing “Key Economic Strategies for Leveling the U.S.-China Playing Field: Trade, Investment, and Technology,” Pepe Zhang of the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center called for a development-focused economic partnership with LAC that would make the Western Hemisphere more competitive, resilient, and better integrated with the US.

Economics used to bolster authoritarian power in Global South training

China’s commerce ministry isn’t just fretting about EU tariffs (see below). It has also spearheaded an effort to train officials in countries across the Global South. And perhaps not surprisingly, the instruction is about more than trade and economics: “This effort is integral to the PRC’s drive to transform a global order currently predicated on the centrality of democracy and individual rights to one more “values-agnostic” and thus suited to China’s rise under authoritarian CCP rule,” writes the Global China Hub’s Niva Yau in a June 12 report called “A Global South with Chinese Characteristics” (watch the launch event here). The 795 training descriptions reviewed by Yau show “how the PRC marries economics and politics in its trainings, revealing that Chinese economic achievements are used to support authoritarian ideals.”

The report certainly got the PRC’s attention. The Chinese Embassy responded, saying the report is “full of Cold War mentality and ideological prejudice,” with the Foreign Ministry adding that “China has always respected the peoples of all countries in independently choosing their development paths and social systems,” which is very reassuring.

A new, coordinated transatlantic response to China emerges on trade?

In a widely expected move, the European Union announced new tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles on June 12, up as much 38.1% on top of existing taxes of 10% before, affecting companies including BYD, SAIC, and NIO. Also to no surprise was the heated response from Beijing: the move by the EU “undermines the legitimate rights and interests of China’s EV industry,” and is “blatant protectionism,” Ministry of Commerce spokesperson He Yadong said in a press briefing. On June 17, Beijing officially launched an anti-dumping probe on imported pork and its by-products from the EU in response.

With the EU action coming just over a month after US President Joe Biden imposed tariffs on EVs of 100%, is a new, more coordinated transatlantic response to the Chinese trade juggernaut emerging? On June 3rd, in an ACFrontPage conversation with United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai, she did not mince words on how the US and the EU should adapt the transatlantic trade relationship to reflect the realities of China’s economic system, saying “Capitalism with Chinese characteristics… I haven’t heard that term used in many, many years. At this point, I think it’s less diplomatic than just sort of ahistorical. The China that we’re dealing with now, the PRC, is not a democracy. It’s not a capitalist, market-based economy.”

In an Econographics article exploring a similar theme entitled “Biden’s electric vehicle tariff strategy needs a united front,” the GeoEconomics Center’s Sophia Busch and Josh Lipsky write, “tariffs, working in isolation, can’t fully achieve all the objectives—no matter how high they go. It’s only when tariffs are relatively aligned across countries… that the trajectory could change.”

And it’s not just EVs that pose a threat to global industries. Without tariffs, the EU faces a flood of Chinese imports of the “new three” clean tech exports—lithium-ion batteries, solar panels, and, of course, electric cars (along with the action against EVs, the White House also raised tariffs simultaneously on lithium-ion batteries and solar cells to 25%.) “Imports of the new-three cleantech export categories have skyrocketed in recent years. Over the course of 2023, China’s exports to the EU totaled $23.3 billion for lithium-ion batteries, $19.1 billion in solar panels, and $14.5 billion for electric vehicles,” the Global Energy Center’s Joseph Webster wrote in a piece for EnergySource.

ICYMI

Beginning on June 17, Atlantic Council President and CEO Fred Kempe and former President of Latvia Egils Levits have co-led the Atlantic Council’s annual delegation trip to Taiwan, hosted by the Taiwanese government. Joined by former Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs Tomáš Petříček, they will meet with Taiwan government leaders, including President Lai, think tanks, and business representatives to discuss security and economic issues facing Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific.
The Global China Hub hosted a public conversation on allied solutions to de-risking tech supply chains from Chinese investment to spur collective action between the United States and government and private sector partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. The event was a continuation of the Hub’s work on tech competition and China’s drive to dominate emerging technologies and relevant supply chains.
China’s trade with Russia has risen substantially since the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, significantly bolstering Moscow’s war aims, according to new research by the Global Energy Center’s Joseph Webster.
Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Europe was in part intended to divide it as the EU increasingly hardens its stance on China. The Global China Hub’s Zoltán Fehér explores the degree to which Xi was successful in these efforts in a New Atlanticist piece.

Global China Hub

The Global China Hub researches and devises allied solutions to the global challenges posed by China’s rise, leveraging and amplifying the Atlantic Council’s work on China across its 16 programs and centers.

Explore more

The post Global China Newsletter – Sharp words, sharper tools: Beijing hones its approach to the Global South appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Ukraine’s peace summit offers solidarity but no breakthroughs

Mercedes Sapuppo — Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:06:16 +0000

Over the weekend of June 15-16, almost one hundred representatives of countries from around the globe and several international organizations gathered in Switzerland for a Summit on Peace in Ukraine. Described by some commentators as “the largest diplomatic effort” in Ukraine’s history, the summit was designed to rally international support for the Ukrainian vision of a peaceful, sustainable, and just settlement to the war sparked by Russia’s invasion.

While the event produced some encouraging signals and shone a light on how Russia’s invasion affects the broader international community, it did not produce any major diplomatic breakthroughs. Instead, the summit represented a small but significant step forward in what looks set to be a far longer peace process.

The absence of many leading nations from the Global South did much to weaken the summit’s potential impact, suggesting that Ukrainian diplomats still have much work to do at the bilateral level. Significantly, key participating countries including Brazil, India, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia chose not to sign the official summit communique supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Since 2022, these countries have all been hesitant to back Ukraine or openly condemn Russia’s invasion.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The event in Switzerland came during a period of intense diplomatic activity for Ukraine. On the eve of the peace summit, G7 leaders agreed to provide Ukraine with a $50 billion loan financed by interest on Russian assets that remain frozen in Europe and the US. On the sidelines of the G7 meeting, the US and Ukraine signed a landmark ten-year bilateral security agreement. During the peace summit itself, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was also able to hold bilateral meetings with a number of leaders from Global South nations including Argentina, Chile, and Côte d’Ivoire.

Ukraine came to the summit hoping to galvanize international support for President Zelenskyy’s ten-point peace plan. In particular, Kyiv officials sought to emphasize the importance of advancing nuclear safety, protecting food security, releasing prisoners of war, and returning Ukrainian children abducted by Russia since the start of the full-scale invasion. In a broader sense, the event also aimed to keep ongoing Russian aggression against Ukraine in the international spotlight.

Ultimately, seventy-eight countries signed the final communique recognizing that respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty must serve as the basis for any future peace agreement. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sought to downplay expectations regarding the event, noting that peace could not be achieved in a single step. The summit was not a peace negotiation because Putin is not serious about ending the war, she commented. “He is insisting on capitulation. He is insisting on ceding Ukrainian territory, even territory that today is not occupied by him. He is insisting on disarming Ukraine, leaving it vulnerable to future aggression. No country would ever accept these outrageous terms,” stated von der Leyen in reference to a rival peace plan unveiled by Russian President Vladimir Putin on the eve of the Swiss summit.

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Russia did not receive an invitation to participate in the peace summit. Crucially, China also chose not to attend. US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan suggested Putin had asked China to turn down Ukraine’s invitation. In the build-up to the event, President Zelenskyy also accused Beijing of working to discourage others from attending Ukraine’s peace initiative. Meanwhile, a number of participating countries from the Global South spoke in Switzerland of the need to involve Russia in any future peace process.

While the Kremlin’s apparent spoiling tactics failed to derail Ukraine’s peace initiative entirely, Russian influence did nevertheless loom large over the Swiss summit and is clearly still a significant factor. China’s decision not to back the event was arguably even more important, with many observers arguing that Beijing’s stance succeeded in preventing the emergence of a more global consensus on the path toward peace in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the participation of numerous countries regarded as being on good terms with the Kremlin underlined the potential of this peace initiative, with the likes of Qatar, Hungary, and Serbia all signing the final communique. While some had hoped for a more meaningful outcome, this modest progress should be enough to convince Kyiv officials and the country’s partners that additional diplomatic efforts in this direction are worthwhile and may yet produce results.

Mercedes Sapuppo is a program assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Zaaimi in Leadership Connect: Tribal Spotlight Interview

Atlantic Council — Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:57:35 +0000

Nonresident Senior Fellow

The post Zaaimi in Leadership Connect: Tribal Spotlight Interview appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Everything you need to know about the six candidates in Iran’s presidential election

Mehrzad Boroujerdi — Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:56:00 +0000

Due to the unexpected death of former President Ebrahim Raisi (1960-2024) in a helicopter crash on May 19, the Islamic Republic of Iran will hold presidential elections on June 28. Out of the eighty candidates who registered to run, the Guardian Council, a vetting body, approved only six presidential candidates. Five of these candidates are hardliners, with three already on various Western sanction lists, and one is a reformist. The election may proceed to a second round if the reformist candidate can successfully mobilize a significant portion of the discontented populace.

Saeed Jalili

Saeed Jalili (born 1965) is the son of a high school teacher. At 21, he lost his right leg in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and served as a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). He joined the foreign ministry in 1987, eventually becoming the deputy head of the Europe and America Bureau. In 2002, he earned a doctorate in political science from Imam Sadiq University, a training ground for the political elite of the Islamic Republic. Jalili has held several significant positions, including being a member of the Office of the Supreme Leader (2000-2007), Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator (2007-2013). Known for lacking a charismatic personality, Jalili’s tirades during the nuclear talks significantly contributed to the impasse in the negotiations. He has also served since 2013 on the Expediency Council, a body comprising three dozen senior regime members that is the final arbiter between the Guardian Council and the parliament. In the 2013 presidential elections, he finished third with 11 percent of the vote. Disputes with other conservatives led him to sit out the 2017 presidential race. Although he was one of the seven candidates approved by the Guardian Council for the 2021 presidential election, he withdrew two days before the election in favor of Raisi, the eventual winner. Jalili is reportedly close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his brother, Vahid Jalili, has served as the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Organization (IRIB) chief for cultural affairs and policy evolution.

Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf

Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf (born 1961) has held several prominent positions in Iran, including commander of Khatam al-Anbia construction headquarters (1994-1997), commander of the IRGC air force (1997-2000), chief of law enforcement forces (2000-2005), mayor of Tehran (2005-2017), member of the Expediency Council (2017-present), and speaker of parliament (2020-present). The son of a baker, Ghalibaf joined the IRGC at 19, trained as a pilot, became a brigadier general, lost a brother in the Iran-Iraq War, and earned a doctorate in geography. In July 1999, he played a significant role in suppressing the student uprising in Tehran and contributed to drafting a threatening ultimatum letter. This letter, signed by 24 high-ranking IRGC commanders, was addressed to President Mohammad Khatami, demanding a decisive response to the protests. Accusations of financial impropriety have followed him from his tenure as Tehran’s longest-serving mayor. Ghalibaf ran for president in the 2005 elections, finishing fourth with 14 percent of the vote. In the 2013 election, he was the first runner-up with 16.5 percent of the votes. In the 2017 presidential election, he was approved by the Guardian Council as one of the six candidates positively vetted but withdrew a few days before election day in favor of Raisi. For the upcoming 2024 presidential election, Ghalibaf has hired Ali Nikzad, who managed Raisi’s 2017 and successful 2021 campaigns, as his campaign manager. Many in Iran believe that the 2024 presidential election is Ghalibaf’s to lose, given his extensive political experience.

Amirhossein Ghazizadeh Hashemi

Amirhossein Ghazizadeh Hashemi (born 1971) was born in Khorasan Razavi province, which is also the birthplace of Ayatollah Khamenei. He hails from a politically prominent family, with brothers and cousins who have served as members of parliament or ministers. He was wounded in the Iran-Iraq War and became an ear, nose, and throat surgeon in 2002. Ghazizadeh Hashemi has also been a faculty member and university rector and served as a four-term member of parliament (2008-2021). In the 2021 presidential election, he finished fourth with 3.5 percent of the vote. President-elect Raisi appointed him Vice President and Head of the Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs (2021-2024). Ghazizadeh Hashemi is the youngest of the six candidates competing.

Masoud Pezeshkiyan

Masoud Pezeshkiyan (born 1954) is the oldest of the six candidates at 70 years of age. Born into a civil servant family in West Azerbaijan, he is a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War. Pezeshkiyan trained as a heart surgeon at Tabriz and Tehran universities and has held several prominent positions. He was the dean of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (1994-2000), deputy health minister (2000-2001), minister of health under reformist president Mohammad Khatami (2001-2005), a member of the High Council for Cultural Revolution, and a five-term member of parliament (2008-present), also serving as its deputy speaker for one term. Pezeshkiyan registered to run in the 2013 presidential election but withdrew from the race. In 2021, the Guardian Council disqualified him from running in the presidential election. As the only Azeri in the race and the candidate closest to the reformist-moderate camp, Pezeshkiyan has the potential to garner substantial votes and finish strongly.

Mostafa Pourmohammadi

Mostafa Pourmohammadi (born 1960) is the only clerical candidate among the six and the second oldest (64). Son of a tailor, he underwent theological training at the Qom Seminary and became a revolutionary prosecutor at the age of twenty. During his tenure as head of the counterintelligence directorate of the ministry of intelligence and its representative in the notorious Evin Pison (1987-1990), Pourmohammadi was a member of a committee nicknamed the “death committee” that oversaw the extrajudicial execution of thousands of political prisoners following Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s edict in 1988, which became known as the 1988 massacre. He was head of the social-political bureau in the Office of the Supreme Leader (2002-2005), interior minister (2005-2008), head of the state general inspectorate organization (2008-2013), and justice minister (2013-2017). Pourmohammadi has been the secretary-general of the conservative Society of Combatant Clergy since 2018. He declared his candidacy for the 2013 presidential election but did not actually run. He was disqualified by the Guardian Council from running in the 2015 elections for the Assembly of Experts.

Alireza Zakani

Alireza Zakani (born 1965) is the son of an athlete and wrestling referee from Tehran province. He joined the Iran-Iraq War at the age of 15, serving for sixty-two months, and sustained injuries in battle. Zakani earned his MD from Tehran University of Medical Sciences in 1997 and trained in nuclear medicine there. He has held several significant roles, including nationwide director of the student Basij (affiliated with the IRGC), proprietor of the conservative website Jahan News, and secretary-general of the conservative Jameyat-e Rahpoyan-e Enqelab Islami (Alliance of the Wayfarers of the Islamic Revolution) formed in 2008. Zakani served as a four-term member of parliament (2004-2016; 2020-2021) and is currently the mayor of Tehran (2021-present). Although disqualified from running in the 2013 and 2017 presidential elections, he was among the final seven candidates approved for the 2021 presidential election. However, he withdrew a few days before the election in support of Raisi.

Mehrzad Boroujerdi is Vice Provost and Dean of the College of Arts, Sciences, and Education at Missouri University of Science and Technology. He is the author of Iranian Intellectuals and the West: Tormented Triumph of Nativism, and co-author of Post-revolutionary Iran: A Political Handbook.

The post Everything you need to know about the six candidates in Iran’s presidential election appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Unpacking Influence: China’s Impact on US Strategy in the Middle East

Atlantic Council — Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:22:08 +0000

SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHINA-MENA PODCAST ON THE APP OF YOUR CHOICE

Download episode here

Key takeaways

US vs. China in Regional Influence
Importance of International Order
US Strategic Partnerships
China’s Regional Impact

Chapters

00:00 – Introduction

03:51 – Navigating Biden’s China Challenge in the Middle East

08:46 – Safeguarding Strategic Partnerships Amidst China’s Rise

11:41 – Exploring China’s Economic Development

15:00 – Contrasting US and China Infrastructure Support

20:19 – Assessing China’s Trade Influence

22:23 – Impact of the International Order on Gulf Economies

24:30 – Insights from the China-Arab States Cooperation Forum

29:18 – China’s Prioritization of its Immediate Periphery

34:04 – Cooperation and Countering Iran’s Influence

38:19 – Iran’s Behavior Changes and China’s Role

39:51 – Evading Sanctions: Iran, Russia, and China

42:22 – Outro

Download Transcript here

In this episode

Dana Stroul
Director of Research and Senior Fellow
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Dana Stroul is Director of Research and Shelly and Michael Kassen Senior Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, positions she assumed in February, 2024. She rejoined the Institute after serving from 2021-2023 as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, the Pentagon’s top civilian official with responsibility for the region. In that capacity, she led the development and execution of U.S. defense policy in the region during an especially turbulent period that included accelerating integrated air and maritime defense, addressing Iran’s destabilizing activities, formulating the U.S. approach to strategic competition, sustaining the DEFEAT-ISIS coalition, and responding to the Israel-Hamas War. Previously, she served for five years as a senior professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where she covered the Middle East, North Africa, and Turkey, and also served in Middle East policy office of the Secretary of Defense.

About

In this episode of China-MENA, titled “Unpacking Influence: China’s Impact on US Strategy in the Middle East,” join our host Jonathan Fulton and guest Dana Stroul, director of research and senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for the Middle East, as they explore China’s evolving role and its impact on US policy in the Middle East and North Africa. This episode delves into global partnerships like the US-UAE-G42-Microsoft collaboration, the strategic significance of 5G technology and cloud computing, and the role of China on Iran’s behavior changes. Among other themes, Dana also discusses:

• The China-Arab States Cooperation Forum
• How to safeguard strategic partnerships amidst China’s rise
• Contrast between China and US infrastructure support
• Evasion of sanctions: Iran, Russia and China

Join us for an insightful discussion on the future of the US and its strategic goals in the region.

Hosted by

Fellow

Jonathan Fulton

Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East programs Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative

China Chinese

The importance of the Rules-Based International Order lies in preventing unilateral changes or use of force to alter recognized boundaries

Dana Stroul

About the China-MENA podcast

The China-MENA podcast features conversations with academics, think-tankers, and regional specialists on Chinese Influence in the Middle East and informs US and MENA audiences in the policy and business communities about the nature of China’s outreach to the region.

At a time when China’s global footprint is getting deeper and deeper, it has never been more important to understand its foreign policy and the Middle East is one of the world’s most consequential regions: home to major religions, diverse cultural and social heritage, central to global energy markets, and of course, geopolitics, linking people and markets in Asia, Africa and Europe. This show will help you understand what China is doing in the region, and how the region is engaging with China as an increasingly important external power.

Podcast series

Listen to the latest episode of the China-MENA podcast, featuring conversations with academics, government leaders, and the policy community on China’s role in the Middle East.

Listen

Women should play a central role in rebuilding Ukraine’s economy

Melanne Verveer and Kimberly Donovan — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 17:43:18 +0000

This week, the German and Ukrainian governments hosted the third Ukraine recovery conference in Berlin to encourage private investment in Ukraine and to “build forward” with innovation. Unlike the earlier recovery conferences, this summit prioritized the inclusion of women and civil society and resulted in the first gender equality deliverable: the Alliance for a Gender-Responsive and Inclusive Recovery for Ukraine. This group brings together governments, private sector and civil society partners, and United Nations agencies to improve funding and financing for gender equality in Ukraine’s recovery. If done right, leveraging the potential of Ukrainian women in Ukraine’s reconstruction can help lay the groundwork for a sustainable recovery that truly “builds forward.”

Women and civil society are indispensable as first responders in the ongoing war. They must also be central to the planning, distribution, and oversight of funds in reconstruction efforts. As the German and Ukrainian governments recognized, the physical reconstruction of Ukraine needs to be paired with a comprehensive social, human-centered recovery. Women, who represent the majority of the highly educated and skilled workforce in Ukraine, are well-positioned to strengthen anti-corruption measures, modernize the energy sector, and drive Ukraine’s reform agenda. All of these components are essential for an effective recovery. In addition, these efforts can help Ukraine meet the conditions for its accession to the European Union (EU).

The record to date for women’s inclusion in recovery efforts has not been what it needs to be. Policymakers must continue to ensure that Ukrainian women leaders will have the opportunity to meaningfully and fully participate in Ukraine’s recovery. Ukraine can only recover if women and civil society are fully involved in its reconstruction.

Where do women fit in the Ukraine recovery agenda?

Held in Lugano, Switzerland, in July 2022, the first recovery conference resulted in the adoption of the “Lugano Declaration,” which includes guiding principles for Ukraine’s recovery process. At the 2023 conference in London, the EU announced the creation of a new Ukrainian facility that would provide a total of fifty billion euros to Ukraine over four years. From this total amount, thirty-nine billion euros will be allocated to the state budget to support macroeconomic stability. Another eight billion euros will go toward a special investment instrument that will cover risks in priority sectors. This year’s conference in Berlin aimed to attract private-sector investment in Ukraine, including in human capital. The agenda included the explicit goal of investing in women and youth. This was a positive development and should encourage international financial institutions and private donors to continue to invest in women-owned and -led businesses in Ukraine, as well as to train Ukrainian women to take on jobs in Ukraine’s critical sectors.

How to unleash Ukrainian women’s economic potential

Invest, train, and enable Ukrainian women. Women in Ukraine and elsewhere have traditionally had limited access to credit, markets, and training opportunities. They have also struggled to balance responsibilities in the workplace and their primary caregiver responsibilities. These challenges must be overcome if women are to fulfill their economic potential.

The World Economic Forum notes that one solution for improving women’s access to credit is to not necessarily demand collateral, because women often do not own private property. Moreover, many women (as well as men) in Ukraine have lost their homes and properties to the war, so providing property as collateral is not likely to be an option for them. Therefore, adopting alternative ways to determine women’s creditworthiness could encourage more women to apply for business loans.

Ukrainian women, with the support of Western companies and institutions, have already stepped up to launch their own startups. These should be scaled up. Since the start of Russia’s invasion, an increasing number of Ukrainian women have founded tech startups, benefitting from improved access to investors outside Ukraine, as well as programs sponsored by the EU, international organizations, and private companies. For example, VISA launched its “She’s Next” program in Ukraine in 2020, and it has since hosted gatherings where Ukrainian women presented their business proposals and received funding and training at business schools. More Western companies should team up with women-led Ukrainian nonprofits to create opportunities for funding female-led startups and give them access to education and training.

Train Ukrainian women to fill workforce gaps in critical sectors. Now is an important time to train Ukrainian women in two critical sectors that will play a key role in rebuilding Ukraine’s economy: finance and cybersecurity. Ukraine has consistently ranked as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe in Transparency International’s global Corruption Perceptions Index. Although Ukraine has made significant progress in the fight against corruption since 2014, it remains a problem and a concern for the United States and other foreign partners. The cost of complete reconstruction is currently estimated to be around $750 billion, but international donors are concerned about the potential misappropriation of funds put toward reconstruction.

Reform of its financial sector is essential for Ukraine to secure financial aid for reconstruction, as well as to meet the requirements for joining the EU. The urgent need for financial system reform coincides with women playing a much larger role in the financial system, both within the government and private sector. By transferring the knowledge of, for example, the best anti-money laundering (AML) practices to Ukrainian women, the West would create a generation of AML experts in Ukraine who are capable of detecting suspicious money flows and preventing corruption and money laundering within the Ukrainian financial system.

At the same time, equipping Ukrainian women with cybersecurity skills would help them defend Ukrainian banks and the financial system from Russian intrusions. Ukrainian banks were one of the primary targets of the cyberattacks that Russia initiated right before launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. More recently, at the end of 2023, Monobank, one of the largest Ukrainian banks, reported a massive hacker attack. While the bank has not publicly attributed this attack to any specific threat actor, Russia has been suspected due to its history of backing cybercrime groups attacking Ukraine. The persistent threat of Russian cyberattacks against Ukrainian banks should be countered by training Ukrainian women in cybersecurity and digital forensics.

Ukraine’s partners and allies can learn from and build on existing work to train Ukrainian women in cybersecurity. For example, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research organized a project that trained Ukrainian women evacuees in Poland in cybersecurity and data analytics. The project was held from October 2023 to March 2024 and was funded by the government and people of Japan. Private companies have also launched similar initiatives. For example, Microsoft is working with nonprofit organizations in Poland to train Ukrainian women refugees to enter the workforce in cybersecurity. Such projects need to expand to include more partners and reach more Ukrainian women.

Investing in Ukrainian women is smart economics

Leveraging Ukraine recovery conferences and other global convenings to encourage Western investment in Ukrainian women corresponds with the United States’ existing strategy of providing economic incentives to allies—also known as positive economic statecraft. The EU, United Kingdom, and other Group of Seven (G7) members are already heavily invested in Ukraine’s success. Directing investment toward the female workforce will strengthen an already existing strategy of ensuring Ukraine has the resources to minimize economic dependence on Russia. Investment in Ukrainian women will create a multiplier effect for the economy. It is well-known that women often spend their income on education, healthcare, and nutrition—all of which raise the standard of living. This is a force that moves economies forward but is often sidelined.

Finally, Ukrainian women can fill in global workforce gaps, too. Training Ukrainian women in cybersecurity would help address the global cybersecurity skills crisis. Private companies and policymakers often note that the world does not have enough cybersecurity professionals. Meanwhile, Ukraine has a highly educated population, especially in technical subjects. Cyber-trained Ukrainian women could defend not only Ukrainian banks but also businesses and governments around the world.

As policymakers and private sector actors adopt strategies for Ukraine’s reconstruction, it is crucial that they fully leverage the potential of Ukrainian women and help establish the groundwork for an inclusive and sustainable recovery.

Melanne Verveer is the executive director of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security and a former United States ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues at the US Department of State.

Kimberly Donovan is the director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center and a former senior US Treasury official.

The post Women should play a central role in rebuilding Ukraine’s economy appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Razing the dead: Contextualizing IDF cemetery desecration in Gaza

Charles Johnson — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 14:38:21 +0000

As Israel’s war in Gaza continues, CNN uncovered a pattern of cemetery desecration throughout the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) military advance into the Gaza Strip. The article highlights two satellite images depicting an unspecified Shajaiya cemetery, with the first image showing an aerial view of tombstones dotting either side of a small road. With a click, these tombstones disappear, revealing an image of blown-out buildings and razed earth. Contrasting narratives arise between these images, with enormous implications for how military personnel, policymakers, and the public interpret the conflict and its security and humanitarian ramifications.

Cemetery desecration and Gaza

Responding to CNN’s identification of sixteen such scenes from around Gaza, the IDF offered two explanations. First, the organization explained the military necessity for the operations, accusing Hamas of using cemeteries for military purposes, an accusation the Israeli military has levied before. In 2007, an Israeli airstrike destroyed Sheikh Radwan Cemetery. Accounts of the strike varied, but an IDF spokesperson pinned the destruction on “secondary explosions” caused by a Hamas arms dump and rocket-launching site nearby. The IDF also provided video evidence of an alleged Hamas rocket launch from an unnamed cemetery during the 2014 Gaza War. In response to these attacks, the IDF shelled cemeteries in Gaza City and Rafah. While CNN could not confirm the alleged usage in the current conflict, Amnesty International has traced Hamas’s consistent use of human shields to 2007, bolstering the IDF’s claims.

Challenging this explanation, some legal analysts have noted that an attack targeting a cemetery would not be automatically legal under international law. Furthermore, the IDF also stands accused of using cemeteries for military operations. CNN discovered a makeshift road for IDF vehicles cutting through a bulldozed cemetery, and Scripps News provided evidence of this practice at multiple locations, with advance teams clearing graves as IDF vehicles approached to allow for quicker passage through the cemeteries. CNN also found indications at other sites that the IDF has used Palestinian cemeteries as staging grounds, “leveling large swaths and erecting berms to fortify their positions.”

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

The IDF’s second claim addresses the ongoing Israeli hostage crisis in Gaza. The IDF stated that its mission to find and return the estimated forty-three bodies of deceased Israeli hostages necessitates the exhumation of various sites, including Palestinian cemeteries.

Contrasting the IDF narrative are several reports demonstrating that the IDF improperly handled Palestinian bodies in those cemeteries. In the process of extracting corpses, the IDF reportedly damaged tombstones and left body parts exposed. Moreover, according to one Palestinian doctor, the IDF did not record information about the bodies’ identities or locations while exhuming, posing challenges for officials and Palestinian families trying to claim their dead. Instead, reports show that the Israeli government verified that the bodies did not belong to Israeli hostages and then returned the 180 exhumed Palestinian corpses to southern Gaza, where they now wait in mass and anonymous graves for DNA testing and repatriation.

Cemetery desecration and history

Cemetery desecration is not a new phenomenon, having featured in several conflicts and genocides over the past century. Indeed, the IDF’s first explanation for attacks on cemeteries fits into a pattern of militant tactics in a couple of Middle East conflicts.

In the 2003 Battle of Najaf, al-Mahdi troops in Iraq used Wadi al-Salaam (Valley of Peace), the world’s largest cemetery, as cover to wage war on US forces. More than a decade later, the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) began employing a similar tactic, constructing eighteen cemeteries around southwest Turkey and allegedly using the sites as bases and hideouts to further their fight against the Turkish government. In response, Turkey ordered the sites’ demolition, culminating in government attacks on the cemeteries in 2015.

However, the IDF’s alleged treatment of cemeteries outside of direct conflict with Hamas is also noteworthy, given cemetery desecration’s well-established place in the history of genocide. Cemetery desecration and genocide are so intimately linked that Raphael Lemkin, coiner of the term “genocide,” even recommended outlawing the practice in early drafts of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Great Britain and France ultimately rejected the inclusion, largely due to their engagement in cultural genocide as part of colonial projects. Still, the political decision does not diminish the fundamental role cemetery desecration has played in genocide.

For instance, white settlers in the United States frequently desecrated Indigenous burial grounds in a centuries-long campaign of cultural destruction and ethnic cleansing. Likewise, Nazis desecrated and destroyed countless Jewish cemeteries during the Holocaust, often using headstones as construction materials in a blatant effort to excise both Jewish people and Jewish heritage from occupied German territories.

Desecrating Muslim cemeteries in genocide is also nothing new. In the lead-up to the Srebrenica genocide, Bosnian Serbs inflicted mass atrocities against Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Muslim community, including the destruction of thirty-five Muslim cemeteries. Similarly, in China’s genocide of Xinjiang’s Uyghur Muslims, the government has leveled nearly one hundred cemeteries in what the Uyghur Human Rights Project has labeled a “cultural genocide.”

Cemetery desecration and peace

The parallels between cemetery desecration in these historical examples and the current conflict are cause for considerable concern. Hamas is likely using cemeteries for military purposes, and Israel has the right to respond in line with the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. However, the alleged IDF practice of razing these sites for military operations, as well as the destructive exhumations of Palestinian bodies without diligent cataloging, is unacceptable and demands further attention.

The conflict in Gaza highlights the dire need to revisit colonial-era shortcomings in understanding and addressing the crime of genocide. Humanitarian organizations will—and should—prioritize living individuals suffering from conflict. But helping the living is not mutually exclusive with preserving the lineage and history tying a community to a conflicted territory.

When the IDF razes Gazan cemeteries, it also razes Palestinian heritage, culture, and claims to the land. This fact is often lost in conversations about long-term security and postwar peace. Ending a conflict goes beyond merely fighting militants in a graveyard to gain one strategic position after another. Israel implicitly acknowledges this fact in vocalizing its mission to reclaim all Israeli hostages, both living and deceased. But any path toward an enduring peace will require not only security for the living, but also assured dignity for the dead.

Charles Johnson is a Young Global Professional with the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East Programs. He is a junior at the University of Kansas majoring in history, political science, and religious studies.

The post Razing the dead: Contextualizing IDF cemetery desecration in Gaza appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Sanctioning the ICC over Israel is a strategic misstep for the US

Ibrahim Al-Assil — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 18:52:35 +0000

In late May, the Joe Biden administration announced its opposition to sanctions that Republicans in Congress are promoting against International Criminal Court (ICC) officials in reaction to the ICC prosecutor’s decision to file applications for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant concerning the Gaza war. Earlier this month, on June 4, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to impose sanctions against the ICC. While the US-ICC relationship is historically complicated, the possibility of sanctioning the court is strategically futile and undermines long-term US interest in an increasingly uncertain and multipolar world. The Biden administration should maintain its position.

The decision by the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) to seek arrest warrants against a head of state who enjoys support from the West is unprecedented. While the United States has never been a member of the ICC, it participated in the negotiations that led to the court’s creation. In the subsequent years, the United States actively supported—or at least did not impede—the court’s investigation and prosecution of international atrocity crimes in Darfur, Libya, Democratic Republic of Congo, and recently, Ukraine.

During the Donald Trump administration, however, the United States was hostile to the ICC. In 2020, President Trump issued an executive order imposing sanctions and travel restrictions on ICC officials involved in investigating alleged war crimes by US personnel in Afghanistan. Then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described the ICC as “an unaccountable political institution masquerading as a legal body.” Although the ICC investigations in Afghanistan remained ongoing in 2021, the Biden administration revoked these sanctions, signaling a shift in policy and a more cooperative stance toward the court. In that same statement, Secretary of State Antony Blinken highlighted that the administration still disagrees with the ICC investigations in Afghanistan and during the Gaza war and called to reform the court to “achieve its core mission of serving as a court of last resort in punishing and deterring atrocity crimes.”

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

The United States’ most recent admonition of the ICC over its allegation that Israeli leadership has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity has legal and political dimensions. Legal experts, such as Gissou Nia and Elise Baker of the Atlantic Council, argued that the OTP’s decision to request warrants is legally and jurisdictionally sound. Politically, however, US support for the ICC is more complicated, particularly in this case. The reason for this is twofold: first, protection of US military personnel and, second, protecting US allies from ICC prosecution, both now and in the future. The argument around protecting US personnel implies that the United States has something to hide, echoing Russia’s anti-ICC stances. Interfering in the work of the court on behalf of US allies also echoes the behavior of Russia and China, which notoriously stepped in to protect Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad from the ICC in 2014.

President Biden has emphasized the importance of a rules-based international order, consistent with the US support for the ICC’s warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes in Ukraine. However, Biden’s vision for a rules-based world has been widely criticized due to what appears to be unconditional support for Israel in Gaza. If the administration chooses to sanction the ICC, it would display inconsistency and undermine Biden’s efforts to distinguish his administration from those of Barack Obama and Trump, both of whom were criticized for fluctuating foreign policy stances and values. With that, the United States would concede to Russia and China that great-power competition would be based on their values of selective interference and legal reasoning, not acclaimed, consistent US values.

The existence of the ICC benefits the United States by helping maintain order in an increasingly unstable world. As the world moves into the second quarter of the twenty-first century, with great-power competition involving China and Russia as a major theme, many middle powers are finding more space to avoid pressure by hedging their alliances. This hedging allows these middle powers greater latitude to resist any US efforts against domestic or regional conflicts. Isolated ideological regimes like those in Syria and North Korea do not need to meet economic demands to survive; their legitimacy comes from their authoritarian control and mafia-like rule of society.

In contrast, middle and regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) must remain connected to the world. They will take seriously the risk of being targeted by the ICC if the court is allowed to operate effectively. However, these countries are not members of the ICC, and the lack of prosecution against their governments and others for alleged atrocities limits the ICC’s ability to influence their behavior and casts doubt on its credibility. By sanctioning ICC officials, the United States forfeits a potential deterrent against human rights violations and sets a dangerous precedent for nations seeking Chinese or Russian protection from future ICC prosecutions.

On a strategic level, Biden’s support for Israel aligns with his support for other allies like Ukraine and Taiwan. However, this conflict is distinct and multilayered. In part, it is a war between Israel and Hamas but Israel is also fighting Iran-led Axis of Resistance proxies in the region. On these two layers, the Biden administration should continue to offer Israel the support it needs to defend itself. But this is not the whole image or what this conflict is all about. There are other crucial layers, including the historical conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. This layer should be treated differently and, in this circumstance, the administration can and should carve out a space in its policy that does not protect Netanyahu and Gallant. It is widely recognized that this conflict cannot be resolved through military means alone—a sentiment Biden has acknowledged.

Regardless of whether Biden sanctions the ICC, Netanyahu will likely become a lame duck on the international scene, as countries might avoid inviting him due to the ICC’s announcement. This includes France and Germany, which backed the legitimacy of the OTP announcement. This has played out before. Despite Putin’s global clout and close ties to South Africa, a fellow member of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), he couldn’t travel to attend the summit hosted by Johannesburg in August 2023. South Africa, a member of the ICC, initially criticized the ICC’s arrest warrant against Putin, with its minister of justice citing “inconsistency” in the court’s work. President Cyril Ramaphosa also tried to get an exemption from the ICC to avoid arresting Putin if he attended the summit. In the end, however, South Africa complied and urged Putin not to attend.

The ICC is not perfect. It has faced legitimate criticism regarding the politicization of its cases and the OTP’s failure to pursue cases against certain perpetrators of atrocities, such as the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran or Syria’s Assad, even in instances where the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over their crimes—and despite many requests to do so. However, it remains a multilateral institution born from the US-led world order, aiming to hold individuals accountable for core international crimes. Supporting the ICC, or at minimum not undermining it, is ultimately in the US interest, as is promoting justice and adherence to international law.

By restraining itself from being hostile to the ICC, the Biden administration demonstrates a much-needed consistency, reinforces the rules-based order that the president champions, and enhances US credibility on the global stage. Ultimately, this aligns with core US interests in promoting global stability and upholding the principles of international law. This will also help the administration focus on what truly matters: ending the war, returning the hostages, and pushing for a two-state solution to resolve the conflict.

Ibrahim Al-Assil is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. Follow him on X: @ibrahimalassil.

The post Sanctioning the ICC over Israel is a strategic misstep for the US appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Ukraine officially embraces English as historic westward pivot continues

Oleksiy Goncharenko — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:27:03 +0000

The Ukrainian Parliament took another small but meaningful step on the road toward European integration in early June with the adoption of a new law officially establishing English as the language of international communication in Ukraine.

In line with this legislation, a wide range of Ukrainian government officials will now be expected to reach a degree of English language fluency, while various state services will be made available in English. The law also envisages expanded English language educational opportunities, and support for the screening of English language movies featuring subtitles rather than dubbing.

Ukraine’s recent decision to grant the English language elevated official status reflects a much broader national transformation that has been underway since the country first regained independence more than three decades ago. This historic process has helped transform the Ukrainian linguistic landscape.

In 1991, Ukrainian was officially recognized as the only state language of the newly independent country. In practice, however, Ukraine remained deeply embedded within a Russian language culture inherited from the Soviet era. This informal empire extended from schools to popular culture, with generations of post-independence Ukrainians growing up in an information space that was still dominated by Moscow.

While old imperial ties remained strong, only the privileged few could afford to travel to most Western countries. Strict visa regimes acted as an additional barrier to engagement with the Western world until Ukrainians finally secured visa-free travel to the EU in 2017. Despite these obstacles, the popularity of English language studies in the decades following 1991 reflected Ukraine’s growing openness to the outside world.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Research indicates that demand for English language learning has increased significantly since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. This interest in language skills may at first glance appear somewhat unexpected, given the enormous challenges facing Ukrainian society over the past two years. For many Ukrainians it makes perfect sense. In wartime Ukraine, studying English is an attractive route toward greater personal development that can also provide opportunities to boost the country’s defense and support integration into the wider European community.

The war with Russia has dramatically underlined the importance of the English language as a tool for international communication. At the most immediate and practical level, knowledge of English has been a huge asset for Ukrainian soldiers and commanders learning new skills and encountering new weapons systems for the first time. Indeed, it was striking to see English language fluency specifically cited as a key requirement during discussions with Western partners over plans to train Ukrainian pilots.

Eurasia Center events

Nonresident Senior Fellow

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

The same linguistic logic has applied to non-military engagement with international partners at the governmental and nongovernmental levels. As Ukrainians have sought to develop new relationships and address complex wartime issues with officials and volunteers from dozens of different countries, English language skills have proven absolutely crucial.

This deepening dialog is very much a two-way street. While greater English language proficiency is proving important for Ukrainians in their engagement with the international community, it is also allowing foreign partners to learn more from the Ukrainian side. In the military sphere, for example, no other country is currently able to match Ukraine’s experience in modern warfare. Speaking the same language makes it far easier to share this experience and pass on important lessons to allies.

As Ukraine moves closer to the rest of Europe and continues to make progress toward the goal of EU membership, the role of the English language within Ukrainian society will only increase. The recently adopted law on the status of English reflects this reality, and should help create an environment that supports the country’s broader Euro-Atlantic integration aspirations.

For centuries, Russia has used language as a tool to suppress Ukrainian independence and impose an artificial imperial identity on Ukrainians. By officially embracing English as the language of international communication, Ukrainians now aim to support their country’s historic pivot away from Moscow and return to the European community of nations.

Oleksiy Goncharenko is a Ukrainian member of parliament with the European Solidarity party.

Dexter Tiff Roberts

Global China Hub Indo-Pacific Security Initiative

China Chinese

The post Roberts quoted in South China Morning Post on China’s visa restrictions appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Intentionally vague: How Saudi Arabia and Egypt abuse legal systems to suppress online speech

Dina Sadek, Layla Mashkoor, Iain Robertson, Andy Carvin — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:00:00 +0000

DOWNLOAD PDF

Egypt and Saudi Arabia are weaponizing vaguely written domestic media, cybercrime, and counterterrorism laws to target and suppress dissent, opposition, and vulnerable groups. Political leaders in Egypt and Saudi Arabia often claim that their countries’ judicial systems enjoy independence and a lack of interference, a narrative intended to distance the states from the real and overzealous targeting and prosecution of critics. Such claims can be debunked and dismissed, as the Egyptian and Saudi governments have had direct involvement in establishing and implementing laws that are utilized to target journalists and human rights defenders.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia were selected as case studies for this report because of their status as among the most frequently documented offenders in the region when it comes to exploiting ambiguously written laws to target and prosecute journalists, critics, activists, human rights defenders, and even apolitical citizens. The two countries have consolidated power domestically, permitting them to utilize and bend their domestic legal systems to exert control over the online information space. Punishments for those targeted can involve draconian prison sentences, travel bans, and fines, which result in a chilling effect that consequently stifles online speech and activities, preventing citizens from discussing political, social, and economic issues.

Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia enacted media, cybercrime, and counterterrorism laws with ambiguous language and unclear definitions of legal terms, allowing for flexible interpretations of phrases such as “false information,” “morality,” or “family values and principles.” The laws in both countries also loosely define critical terms like “terrorism,” thereby facilitating expansive interpretations of what constitutes a terrorist crime. Further, anti-terror laws now include articles that connect the “dissemination of false information” with terrorist acts. This vague and elastic legal language has enabled the Egyptian and Saudi regimes to prosecute peaceful citizens on arbitrary grounds, sometimes handing out long prison sentences or even death sentences, undermining respect for the rule of law in the two countries.

This report explores the development of media, cybercrime, and counterterrorism laws in both countries, and demonstrates through case studies how Saudi Arabia and Egypt weaponize the laws to prosecute opposition figures and control narratives online. This report examines the relationship between criminal charges tied to one’s professional activities or online speech and how those charges can trigger online smear campaigns and harassment. In cases that involve women, gender-based violence is often used to harm a woman’s reputation. Though a direct correlation between judicial charges and online harassment cannot be ascertained, these case studies suggest that dissidents are likely to face online harm following legal persecution, even after they are released.

Victory in Ukraine would dramatically strengthen Putin’s war machine

Peter Dickinson — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:58:43 +0000

What will Vladimir Putin do next if he wins in Ukraine? In recent months, more and more Western policymakers have reached the conclusion that a victorious Russia would almost certainly expand the war deeper into Europe as Putin seeks to rewrite the existing world order and continue on his crusade to return “historically Russian lands.” This realization is helping to rally support for Ukraine, with leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron now openly warning that a Russian victory would have disastrous consequences for the rest of Europe.

Not everyone is convinced, of course. Many skeptics point to the Russian army’s surprisingly poor performance during the invasion of Ukraine, and argue that Putin is clearly in no position to embark on further military adventures. According to the doubters, Russia’s obvious difficulties in Ukraine mean Moscow cannot be regarded as a genuine threat to the far greater military might of the NATO alliance. Indeed, some are convinced that any direct Russian attack on the West would amount to a suicide mission.

This argument is dangerously shortsighted. Crucially, it ignores the profound impact military success in Ukraine would have on the Kremlin’s ability to wage war. A Russian victory over Ukraine would transform the geopolitical situation, greatly strengthening Russia militarily, economically, and strategically, while at the same time severely weakening the West. Faced with such uniquely favorable circumstances, it is delusional to believe a triumphant Putin would simply stop and go no further.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The Russian army has clearly failed to live up to its inflated prewar reputation in Ukraine, but it would nevertheless be reckless to underestimate Moscow’s military potential. Putin’s commanders have learned a series of important lessons since the start of the invasion in February 2022, and have acquired combat experience that no other major power can match. With a battle-hardened and rapidly modernizing army backed by a defense industry operating around the clock, Putin is now arguably in a stronger position relative to his slowly rearming Western adversaries than any Russian ruler since 1945. Victory in Ukraine would further widen this already alarming gap in military capabilities.

The Russian and Ukrainian armies are currently by far the largest and most formidable fighting forces in Europe. If Putin triumphs in Ukraine, he will control them both. While many Ukrainian soldiers would doubtless continue to wage a partisan war or seek to regroup abroad, a victorious Russia would look to rapidly conscript hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians into military service, just as it has already done in areas of Ukraine under Kremlin control. In addition to a massive manpower boost, Russia would also take possession of Ukraine’s extensive military equipment stores, ranging from stockpiles of artillery shells and attack drones to Western-supplied tanks and missile systems.

Control over Ukraine would allow Russia to reintegrate the vast Ukrainian military-industrial complex that played such a central role in arming the Red Army during the Cold War. For much of the Soviet era, Ukraine produced a large proportion of the USSR’s missiles, tanks, aircraft, and warships. This colossal industrial inheritance was neglected during the first three decades of Ukrainian independence and fell into a state of disrepair, but a Russian occupation administration or Kremlin-loyal puppet regime in Kyiv would likely prioritize the revival of military production. This increased output would allow Russia to rapidly recover from the punishing losses of the Ukrainian campaign, while also enabling Moscow to overcome many of the obstacles created by Western sanctions.

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Economically, the conquest of Ukraine would significantly improve Russia’s financial position and strengthen Moscow’s ability to shape world affairs. The Kremlin would acquire Ukraine’s sizable untapped energy reserves along with potentially trillions of dollars in mineral assets. Meanwhile, the famed Ukrainian breadbasket would enable Russia to establish itself virtually overnight as the dominant force on international agricultural markets. Putin has already demonstrated his readiness to weaponize global food security by blockading Ukraine’s Black Sea ports. Control over the Ukrainian farming industry would present the Kremlin with powerful new tools to reward allies and punish opponents.

Many in the Global South would not wait to be bribed with grain shipments or coerced by the threat of famine. Instead, they would readily recognize Russian victory in Ukraine as a major geopolitical turning point and would queue up in Moscow to pay their respects. The emphasis on diplomatic neutrality that is currently evident in much of Asia, Africa, and beyond, would be replaced by a scramble to strengthen ties with the Kremlin. Countries throughout the Global South would begin to ship arms and other military supplies to Moscow, while the West’s already limited ability to impose sanctions on Russia would become hopelessly compromised. Commentators everywhere would soon be trumpeting the dawn of a new post-Western era in international affairs.

Where would a strengthened and emboldened Putin be most likely to strike next? The Kremlin dictator has made clear that he sees the current war as an imperial quest to return “historically Russian lands.” Beyond Ukraine, there are more than a dozen other countries including Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, Belarus, and Moldova that were once part of the Russian Empire and therefore meet Putin’s definition of “historically Russian.” All would be potential targets. During the build-up to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in late 2021, Putin underlined the scale of his ambition by calling on NATO to retreat to the borders of the former Warsaw Pact. It seems reasonable to assume that success in Ukraine will only make him more ambitious.

There is certainly little to indicate that Putin is in any way intimidated by the West. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Russian ruler has proven so skilled at intimidating his enemies that almost two-and-a-half years into the largest European invasion since World War II, Kyiv’s partners remain preoccupied with avoiding escalation and continue to impose absurd restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. This escalation management is the appeasement of the twenty-first century, and risks inviting the same tragic consequences.

If Russia does expand the war further, the one thing Western leaders cannot do is claim they were not warned. Putin has placed the whole of Russian society on a war footing and is openly preparing his entire country for a protracted struggle against the West. The current invasion is an important part of this struggle, but it is only the beginning. Russian victory in Ukraine would set the stage for even bolder acts of international aggression. It would supercharge Putin’s war machine and radically increase the cost of stopping him. The only way to avoid this disastrous outcome is by making sure the Russian invasion of Ukraine ends in defeat.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The most immediate consequences of Russia’s invasion have been carnage and destruction on an unprecedented scale for twenty-first century Europe. Military losses on both sides have not been officially disclosed and remain hotly disputed, but are widely believed to be in the hundreds of thousands. A similar number of soldiers have suffered life-changing injuries.

Tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians have likely been killed during the invasion. Large numbers of Ukrainians have been subjected to forced deportation to Russia, including thousands of children. Many more have been abducted and remain missing. A long list of Ukrainian towns, villages, and entire cities have been reduced to rubble.

Even for those who have escaped physical injury or the loss of property, Russia’s invasion has often had a devastating impact. Almost everybody in Ukraine has lost a friend, acquaintance, or family member in the war. Experts are already warning that Ukrainian society must prepare to deal with major mental health challenges for decades to come.

The demographic situation is equally alarming. Around a quarter of Ukraine’s prewar population have been forced to flee their homes, becoming either internally displaced or leaving the country for the neighboring EU. This has led to a dramatic decline in Ukraine’s overall population. The longer the war continues, the less likely it becomes that Ukrainian refugees will return home.

Eurasia Center events

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

In areas such as education, the costs of Russia’s invasion are severe and will likely be long-lasting. Prior to the full-scale invasion, Ukraine ranked among the world’s most educated populations. However, ongoing hostilities now threaten this status. A generation of young Ukrainians have had their schooling and university studies disrupted or derailed entirely by the war. Inevitably, many have chosen to continue their studies abroad. The same is true for Ukrainian academics. This wartime brain drain represents a massive blow to Ukraine’s future.

The Ukrainian economy has displayed remarkable resilience over the past two years of full-scale war, but even this cannot disguise the harm done by Russia’s invasion. With almost twenty percent of Ukraine currently under Russian occupation or close enough to the front lines to make normal business activities impossible, many companies have had to relocate or cease operations entirely. Russia’s blockade of Ukraine’s Black Sea ports has created further logistical problems, while also reducing export revenues and depriving the Ukrainian authorities of taxes.

Finally, with Ukraine’s law enforcement agencies focused on war-related priorities and as employment options become more limited, crime is becoming a mounting challenge. According to recent research, most Ukrainian organized crime groups have severed longstanding ties with their Russian counterparts, but remain active and continue to seek opportunities created by wartime realities.

From mental health and population decline to the economy and education, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has had a profoundly negative impact on Ukrainian society that will be felt for generations to come. This should be at the forefront of people’s minds as they gather in Switzerland to discuss how to end the war and establish a sustainable peace for Ukrainians.

Mark Temnycky is a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Hezbollah escalates in the shadow of US-Israel tensions over Rafah

David Daoud and Ahmad Sharawi — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:47:39 +0000

Hezbollah intensified its attacks against Israel since early May—shifting from pulling its punches on causing Israeli casualties to noticeably seeking to draw blood. Of the twenty-four Israelis slain in attacks from Lebanon since October 8, 2023, Hezbollah deliberately killed four—three soldiers and one civilian—during May’s second week. Nevertheless, Hezbollah is still calibrating its attacks to harm Israel’s Gaza campaign but remain below the threshold that would grant the Israelis international legitimacy to launch a full-scale campaign in Lebanon.

But the group believes this threshold is not fixed. Instead, it rises as Israeli operations in Gaza deepen, which prompts Hezbollah to act while Israel’s attention and resources are concentrated elsewhere. But when these Israeli operations create growing US dissatisfaction—which uniquely restrains Israel, Washington’s “forward military base” and “tool” in Hezbollah’s thinking—Hezbollah feels it has more freedom of action, and thus increases the depth and lethality of its attacks.

Hezbollah has been monitoring growing US-Israeli differences over Rafah operations. After these tensions culminated in Washington halting weapons shipments to Israel in early May, the group believed it could increase the intensity, lethality, and frequency of its attacks with relative impunity. Therefore, when Israel nevertheless initiated Rafah operations on May 6, Hezbollah launched a directed suicide drone attack, killing two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers.

As the Joe Biden administration doubled down on the weapons freeze, Hezbollah did the same on the lethality of its attacks—deliberately killing one civilian and one soldier, wounding five others, and bombarding the Golan Heights with sixty rockets over the next week. That week also saw Hezbollah launch a suicide drone 35 kilometers (21.7 miles) into northern Israel, its deepest attack yet, and introduce its Jihad Mughniyeh missiles and drone-launched S-5 surface-to-ground missile on May 12 and May 16, respectively.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Hezbollah’s independent hostility calculus with Israel can fully explain neither this escalation nor its decision to join the Gaza war. In mid-2019, the group quickly enforced its vow to retaliate against Israel for killing its fighters in Syria. But, after Lebanon’s economy collapsed a month later and Israel crossed that red line twice in subsequent years—even bombing inside Lebanon—Hezbollah noticeably held back, and even revised its retaliation equation to save face. Meanwhile, it tapped Palestinian groups to attack Israel. The group understood it had to delicately navigate Lebanon’s economic collapse to ensure its survival and, therefore, could not risk compounding the financially depleted country’s miseries with a war of unprecedented destruction with Israel.

Those restraining factors remained when the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas pit Hezbollah’s duty to assist its partners in Gaza against its need to avoid war in Lebanon. The group’s compromise—an attrition campaign—has followed the trend line of Israeli intervention in Gaza and US-Israel ties.

The war’s onset in October coincided with both minimal Israeli ground involvement in Gaza and peak US support. President Biden conducted an unprecedented wartime visit to Israel, sternly warned Hezbollah against intervention, and deployed US carriers.

Hezbollah’s first attacks were, therefore, relatively tepid. Initially, it only struck the Shebaa Farms, within the old rules of engagement, before slowly expanding to attacking the infrastructure of other Israeli outposts straddling the Lebanon-Israel frontier. Riskier attacks against Arab al-Aramshe, Nahariya, Kiryat Shmona, and Hanita were again outsourced to Palestinian factions.

Hezbollah would soon shift its posture. Five days after Israel’s ground invasion of the coastal enclave on October 27, Hezbollah first deployed loitering munitions, reportedly struck an Israeli border outpost with its 300–500-kilogram Burkan rocket two days later, and then fired its first Katyusha barrage, consisting of twelve rockets, the following day. By late November 2023, Hezbollah was emboldened enough to boast about using Burkan rockets, and then bombard northern Israel with a thirty-five-rocket Katyusha salvo.

In the background, Israel had acquiesced to Washington’s increasingly cumbersome conditions on its operations in Gaza—including delaying its ground invasion, then accepting daily humanitarian pauses, and finally a limited ceasefire—for fear of incurring US disfavor amid attempts to recover its hostages, then numbering more than 250, and a growing two-front war. Meanwhile, Hezbollah was confident it had been spared an imminent Israeli campaign, as the United States was also blaming Israel for escalation in Lebanon.

Hezbollah would raise the ante again in January. By then, many of Israel’s intense urban battles in northern Gaza and Khan Yunis had become sieges over sharper US disapproval and growing pressure to accept unsatisfactory ceasefire terms with Hezbollah. Meanwhile, the group was buoyed by US public sentiment souring on the Gaza war, with its Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah enthusiastically citing a Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll finding that 51 percent of 18–24-year-old Americans supported “Israel to be ended and given to Hamas and the Palestinians,” as a development that “will have tremendous impact in America.” Within a week, Hezbollah launched a sixty-two-rocket barrage at Meron air traffic control base and hit IDF Northern Command Headquarters in Safed with loitering munitions.

None of this is to suggest that the intensity of Israel and Hezbollah’s direct engagements over the past eight months has had no impact on the group’s immediate responses—only that the tactics Hezbollah has adopted are not entirely reactionary, but are instead strategically attuned to this broader context. For example, while Hezbollah’s strikes on Meron and Safed followed Israel’s assassinations of senior Hamas official Saleh Arouri and Radwan deputy commander Wissam Tawil, Israel was preoccupied with besieging two Gazan cities and absorbing a high degree of US pressure. By contrast, when Israel killed five Radwan operatives and Qassam Brigades deputy commander in Lebanon Khalil Kharraz in November, with strong US backing, Hezbollah’s response was comparably restrained.

Hezbollah understands the risks it is inviting upon itself and Lebanon. Nasrallah, while exaggerating the group’s contributions to the war, has acknowledged that “even one of the[se] operations…in the past” would have prompted Israel to declare war. While Israel’s preoccupation with Gaza is therefore crucial to Hezbollah’s freedom of action, “the American position,” in Nasrallah’s words, and developments in the United States are “decisive.” After all, in 2006, the US greenlight enabled Israel to suspend an ongoing ground operation in Gaza to fight a monthlong war against Hezbollah in response to the latter’s July 12, 2006, attack. This, Nasrallah said, is because “America controls Israel…when the Americans put their foot down, threatening to halt funds, Israel quakes in fear. When the Americans halt weapons shipments, the Israeli Chief of Staff is forced to take stock of his remaining ammunition.”

This is an exaggeration, but not by much. Israel will prioritize and pursue its interests, but diminished US support impacts its ability to do so. Therefore, Israel will continue its necessary pursuit of the destruction of Palestinian factions in Rafah. Hezbollah, conversely, will act to ensure their survival. But as the group does so, it will cast a constant eye on Washington—searching for signs of displeasure to continue transitioning the ongoing clashes with Israel into deadlier, more escalatory phases.

David Daoud is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), focusing on Hezbollah, Israel, and Lebanon issues. Follow him on X: @DavidADaoud.

Ahmad Sharawi is a research analyst at The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, focusing on Middle East affairs. Follow him on X: @AhmadA_Sharawi.

The post Hezbollah escalates in the shadow of US-Israel tensions over Rafah appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Warrick joins NBC News to discuss International Court of Justice ruling against Israel

Atlantic Council — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 14:19:53 +0000

The post Warrick joins NBC News to discuss International Court of Justice ruling against Israel appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The high price of dissident art in Iran: Silence or exile

Shekufe Bar — Mon, 10 Jun 2024 16:18:04 +0000

“People of Iran are held hostage…I want to specifically talk about Toomaj Salehi, a singer who faces execution because of his artistic creation…do not allow the Islamic Republic to do this to its own people,” said Iranian director Mohammad Rasoulof during his Cannes speech on May 25.

Just a week before his Cannes debut, the internationally acclaimed filmmaker fled Iran on foot after being handed an eight-year sentence and other judgments for clandestinely making his latest movie, The Seed of the Sacred Fig. That film, which defies mandatory hijab restrictions and uses the 2022 Women, Life, Freedom uprising as a backdrop, went on to win the Special Jury Prize at the 2024 Cannes Film Festival.

In recent weeks, the Iranian government’s unprecedented punitive measures against Rasoulof and dissident rapper Toomaj, as he is known to his followers, have ignited widespread controversy, sparking condemnations from civil rights and human rights bodies alike.

These recent decisions have set new precedents in the history of a regime notorious for its draconian punishments.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Rasoulof’s sentencing was the harshest ever imposed on a filmmaker in the history of the Islamic Republic, topping the six years given to fellow director Jafar Panahi. Meanwhile, the death sentence issued by Iran’s judiciary for Toomaj marks an unprecedented decision against a singer.

Open criticism of the regime is what both artists have in common.

To observers, the Islamic Republic’s generic enmity toward artists is now an open secret. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, and his coterie firmly believed from the start that to cement theocratic governance, cultural reform is indispensable. Soon after, artists faced bans and expulsions over the “un-Islamic” nature of their profession and any open disapproval of the new order.

The censorship hit the music and film communities particularly hard. Before the revolution, these industries had flourished in Iran’s liberal climate during the 1960s and 1970s under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

For more than four decades, artists in these fields have been under renewed pressure. At least two prominent directors died suspiciously: Kiyumars Pourahmad in April 2023 and Dariush Mehrjui and his spouse, Vahideh Mohammadifar, in October of the same year. There have also been reports of artists diagnosed with autoimmune diseases after prison release, such as actress Taraneh Alidoosti and filmmaker Mostafa al-Ahmad. Combined with the handing down of exceptionally long terms or capital punishment to artists in the past year, this translates into an anti-art revenge campaign in response to the Women, Life, Freedom uprising.

The sustained support from film-industry professionals and musicians during popular uprisings in Iran—notably during the disputed 2009 post-election protests known as the Green Movement and throughout the Women, Life, Freedom movement—has positioned artists and celebrities as a thorn in the side of the regime, something intelligence agents and authorities have shown they will not tolerate.

According to reformist newspaper Shargh, within just two months after the Women, Life, Freedom uprising kicked off in 2022, nearly one hundred artists were sentenced or banned from working and leaving the country because of comments in support of the protests and defiance of mandatory hijab rules.

In October 2023, the Ministry of Guidance and Islamic Culture imposed acting bans on at least twenty prominent actresses, including Alidoosti, the star of Asghar Farhadi’s Oscar-winning film The Salesman. The women had either posed without hijab on social media or openly supported the protests.

Exile and boycott

The Women, Life, Freedom uprising marked the culmination of a long-running regime face-off with artists, with the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance and intelligence authorities spearheading the confrontation.

The escalating repression has led to many artists choosing self-exile, with Rasoulof a recent example. Indeed, of the twenty-person ban list, nearly half now reside outside Iran. This trend is part of an ongoing exodus of artists fleeing widespread censorship since the 1979 revolution.

Many independent artists who remain in Iran have suspended their activities due to working bans or personal reluctance to engage in the current oppressive political climate, which has only gotten worse since the popular uprisings began in September 2022.

The artistic community’s concerted boycott of the state-sponsored Fajr Artistic Festivals—annually held by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance to commemorate the anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution—over the past two years highlights that these artists might never return to the scene as long as stifling cultural policies and hijab restrictions remain.

Oscar-winning filmmaker Farhadi’s refusal to make a movie in Iran under mandatory hijab in cinema indicates this decisive shift. He revealed the decision in an interview with French newspaper Le Monde in early 2024.

Despite this, artistic productions have not come to a standstill in Iran. Pro-regime artists and those who have never questioned authorities continue to work.

Such projects are often funded by two major media producers in Iran: the state broadcaster known as the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) and the Owj Arts and Media Organization, the arts and production body of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). These state-owned entities currently monopolize hundreds of smaller media outlets and production firms, and also monitor the activities of independent media companies. IRIB and Owj productions are primarily used to spread regime propaganda.

The Owj Arts and Media Organization has strategically taken over Iran’s media-production landscape through an expanded and intricate network of connections with broadcaster IRIB and security and cultural authorities. With an estimated budget of $2 million in 2024, it funnels cultural money into various visual genres. High-profile and controversial Owj productions include the television spy series Gando, an Iranian version of the Israeli show Fauda, and musical theater Esfandiyar’s Seven Labors, based on the seminal Persian epic poem the Shahnameh.

Breaking free of long-standing taboos

Amid the boycotting of state-sponsored art by independent artists and the funneling of cultural budgets to state propaganda, a small yet burgeoning group of independent artists have pushed the boundaries of moviemaking from inside Iran.

Showing women without hijab and physical contact between men and women have been unbreakable taboos in post-revolution Iranian cinema. Yet, in the wake of the Woman, Life, Freedom movement, a batch of Iranian movies—made inside Iran without observing mandatory hijab and other restrictions and without obtaining a license from the authorities—were screened at the 2023 Cannes Film Festival, and received acclaim from Iranian and international audiences. Me, Maryam, the Children and 26 Others by Farshad Hashemi and Terrestrial Verses by Ali Agari and Alireza Khatami received overwhelmingly positive reviews.

Since then, other internationally acclaimed dramas, such as My Favorite Cake directed by Maryam Moghaddam and Behtash Sanaeeha, and Rasoulof’s The Seed of the Sacred Fig, have openly traversed the Islamic Republic’s long-standing red lines and strict dress codes.

The homegrown push could be seen as an evolution of underground art, a method of creation long used to depict prohibited subjects within Iran. However, it has never been as public and transgressive as it has now become.

It could be argued that the independent artists’ intentional disengagement from all forms of state-related art, powered by the emergence of a new generation of taboo breakers in Iranian cinema, exposes the failure of regime strategies to threaten and impede Iran-based dissident artists.

Unsurprisingly, the Islamic Republic’s restrictive measures have only spurred Iranian artists to resist pressure, open radical fronts, and fundamentally subvert the ideological restrictions on artistic independence and creation that have been enforced since the 1979 revolution.

Shekufe Bar is a journalist who writes about art, culture, and society.

The post The high price of dissident art in Iran: Silence or exile appeared first on Atlantic Council.

ISIS fell, but the conditions that created the terrorist group still exist in Iraq

Abbas Kadhim — Mon, 10 Jun 2024 16:07:33 +0000

Its 2014 general elections were lauded as proof of Iraq’s dedication to the democratization process initiated after the 2003 US invasion, marking another milestone on the road to consolidating democracy. The two-term prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, came to the negotiating table armed with a landslide electoral mandate. He also had some major achievements during his eight years in office, including the trial, conviction, and execution of dictator Saddam Hussein and the negotiated 2011 withdrawal of US forces that restored full Iraqi sovereignty. However, Prime Minister Maliki lacked popularity where it mattered: the political elite, who decided the post-election phase and did not favor giving him a third term in office.

While all eyes were on the government-formation disputes, a terrorist group calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) raided the city of Mosul in Nineveh province on June 10, 2014. It captured the entire territory in a matter of hours, with a brazen goal of establishing an Islamist caliphate that included Iraq, Syria, and eventually the entire region, and ruling under its version of Islam. The complete meltdown of three divisions of the Iraqi Army emboldened the terrorists and allowed them to take most of Salahuddin province. With most of Anbar province already in its hands since January 2014, ISIS secured complete control over one-third of Iraq’s territory within a few days.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

The Iraqi government became paralyzed by the lack of progress in the post-election political negotiations, the continued meltdown of the armed forces, and the lack of military support from the international community. On June 13, 2014, as ISIS was about to close in on Baghdad, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest Shia religious scholar, issued a rare fatwa calling on Iraqi “citizens to defend the country, its people, the honor of its citizens, and its sacred places.” Tens of thousands volunteered to defend the country and help the government fight the most existential threat Iraq faced since its founding in 1920.

Fighting and defeating ISIS was one of the most important accomplishments of the Iraqi population, showcasing the resilience of people who stood up for their national dignity and defended their liberty at a time when no one else was ready or willing to defend them, including their government. Although other countries were involved—Iran supplied weapons to Baghdad shortly after the ISIS invasion, and the United States formed a coalition to provide advice, logistics, and air support starting in August 2014—none of these efforts would have mattered if Iraqis had not risen to defend their nascent, albeit flawed and uncertain, democracy.

Had Iraqis given up in the critical moments after June 10, 2014, as their armed forces had, their democratic dreams would have witnessed a catastrophic end much like what occurred in Afghanistan under similar circumstances in 2021. Self-organized ordinary Iraqis refused to see their country delivered to a terrorist organization or leave themselves at the mercy of religious extremists. Their acts of valor in the early days of the crisis restored morale to the Iraqi armed forces and revived the international community’s faith in the future of Iraq. What followed was a matter of time to plan and manage the battle of liberating the territories that ISIS captured and stop its rule of systemic civilian oppression and mass murder.

In the years following the 2017 defeat of ISIS, Iraq has progressed positively despite serious challenges. Having endured the painful lessons of 2014, it reorganized its armed forces to prevent a similar security collapse. Those forces stand today among the most confident and combat ready in the region, and some of their components, such as the counterterrorism force, perform at par with elite international peers. Iraqi leaders and their counterparts in allied countries, the United States in particular, have gained confidence in the efficiency and performance of the Iraqi armed forces, prompting discussions to transition the Global Coalition To Defeat ISIS, which is led by the United States and includes eighty-four other nations, into bilateral agreements between Iraq and coalition members, focusing on continued security cooperation and capacity building for the Iraqi security forces.

In January, Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani announced “the commencement of the first round of bilateral dialogue between Iraq and the United States of America to end the mission of the Coalition in Iraq.” The Iraqi government also requested that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) terminate the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) mandate by the end of 2025, arguing that Iraq now has mature institutions to cooperate directly with international organizations like other nations do. On May 31, the UNSC voted unanimously to approve the Iraqi request. The Iraqi government described these developments as the end of contingency relations and the inauguration of a new era of normal cooperation with the international community while leaving internal Iraqi governance to its institutions, which have acquired adequate maturity and competence.

What Iraq needs to ensure its success on the path of security and self-governance is to tackle the two most pressing challenges: economic uncertainty and corruption. Iraq continues to depend on a rentier economy, fully dependent on oil revenues, which fall short of supporting the governmental operational cost or leaving extra funds to invest in building a robust economy. Iraq’s only way out of the current economic quagmire is a diversified economy that encourages investment and a private sector. The Iraqi government must move away from the old philosophy and practice of a state-controlled economy to a new direction where its role is to create a healthy environment in which private businesses can thrive. In contrast, the Iraqi government is a regulator in most sectors where governments have not traditionally performed adequately.

The same attention needs to be given to the malignant threat of corruption.

After two decades of political change, the Iraqi political elites have coexisted with a deeply entrenched culture of corruption, and many high-level officials have contributed to it. Normalized and systemic financial, political, and administrative corruption has denied the Iraqi people the opportunity to build a functional state and heal a society that was traumatized by five decades of wars, international economic sanctions, and terrorism. Efforts to combat corruption continue to be limited in scope and target only insignificant perpetrators. To secure a permanent defeat of ISIS and prevent its return, or the emergence of a similar threat, it is important to eliminate conditions that helped such a group thrive to begin with. The pervasive culture of corruption and a poor economy have been among the leading conditions that contributed to the rise of ISIS in Iraq. Now is the time to address those conditions.

Dr. Abbas Kadhim is director of the Atlantic Council’s Iraq Initiative. Follow him on X: @DrAbbasKadhim.

The post ISIS fell, but the conditions that created the terrorist group still exist in Iraq appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Charai in the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune: The Only Path to Peace is Prosperity, Not Hamas

Atlantic Council — Sun, 09 Jun 2024 15:01:06 +0000