Civil Society - Atlantic Council https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/issue/civil-society/ Shaping the global future together Thu, 08 Aug 2024 19:04:34 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.5 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/favicon-150x150.png Civil Society - Atlantic Council https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/issue/civil-society/ 32 32 Summer isn’t over. Here’s our recommended reading list. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/summer-reading-list-2024/ Thu, 08 Aug 2024 19:04:32 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=784785 Our team has you covered with their recommended reads related to the Middle East and North Africa for the dog days of summer.

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

]]>
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.

]]>
Dispatch from the Paris Olympics: The African sports movement is about to take off, if leaders help fuel it https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/dispatch-from-the-paris-olympics-the-african-sports-movement-is-about-to-take-off-if-leaders-help-fuel-it/ Thu, 01 Aug 2024 19:37:25 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=783273 The surge in athletic talent is evidence that its people are committed to a new era for Africa.

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.

]]>
PARIS—As I watch the thirty-eighth Olympic Games unfold in Paris, I’m paying particular attention to the nearly one thousand African athletes participating in the competition, a group that is about 20 percent larger than it was at the Tokyo Olympics three years ago.

While African athletes that year had won thirty-seven medals, including eleven golds, it is expected that they will rake in much more—about fifty—in Paris. There is a lot expected of several stars, including Kenyan marathon runner Eliud Kipchoge (considered the greatest marathoner of all time), Botswanan sprinter Letsile Tebogo, Burkinabé triple jumper Hugues Fabrice Zango, Senegalese tae kwon do champion Cheick Cissé Sallah, and Moroccan breakdancer Fatima El-Mamouny (who competes as Elmamouny). Some athletes are already meeting these expectations, with South African swimmer Tatjana Smith having already won a gold medal and Tunisian fencer Fares Ferjani having earned the silver. Beyond individual athletes, there is also optimism about various teams: For example, the Bright Stars of South Sudan were the object of great attention after giving the US team a wake-up call in a shockingly close exhibition game earlier this month (but on Wednesday, they lost to the United States).

There are also athletes who, in search of better training conditions, have migrated from Africa to countries in the West and will compete under those countries’ flags.

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.

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.

]]>
Can citizens’ assemblies help counter a rising populist tide in the West? https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/can-citizens-assemblies-help-counter-a-rising-populist-tide-in-the-west/ Thu, 01 Aug 2024 13:28:02 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=782658 Germany’s initial steps at participatory democracy deserve a close look as one way to address rising populism that could threaten liberal democracies in the West.

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

]]>
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 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/pavia-in-haaretz-an-increasingly-dictatorial-antisemitic-president-threatens-tunisias-jews/ Wed, 31 Jul 2024 15:57:54 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=783880 The post Pavia in Haaretz: An Increasingly Dictatorial, Antisemitic President Threatens Tunisia’s Jews appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

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

]]>
The Mattei Plan is an opportunity for North Africa https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/mattei-plan-north-africa-italy/ Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:59:24 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=782694 North Africa is particularly vulnerable, and the Mattei Plan can positively defuse regional tensions.

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

]]>
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.

]]>
I was sentenced to ten years in absentia for highlighting Belarus’s descent into dictatorship https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/i-was-sentenced-to-ten-years-in-absentia-for-highlighting-belaruss-descent-into-dictatorship/ Tue, 16 Jul 2024 19:48:25 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=780510 My recent ten-year sentence in absentia is a sure sign that Belarusian dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka is increasingly insecure and dependent on the Kremlin, writes Alesia Rudnik.

The post I was sentenced to ten years in absentia for highlighting Belarus’s descent into dictatorship appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
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.

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.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post I was sentenced to ten years in absentia for highlighting Belarus’s descent into dictatorship appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Charai in National Interest: The Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump and the Threat to Democracy https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/charai-in-national-interest-the-assassination-attempt-on-donald-trump-and-the-threat-to-democracy/ Sun, 14 Jul 2024 18:16:37 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=780132 The post Charai in National Interest: The Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump and the Threat to Democracy appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

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

]]>
Ukraine’s prayer breakfast challenges Kremlin claims of religious persecution https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-prayer-breakfast-challenges-kremlin-claims-of-religious-persecution/ Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:50:38 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=779725 Ukraine's recent National Prayer Breakfast highlighted the country's commitment to religious freedom and challenged Kremlin accusations of religious persecution in the country, writes Steven Moore.

The post Ukraine’s prayer breakfast challenges Kremlin claims of religious persecution appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
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.

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.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Ukraine’s prayer breakfast challenges Kremlin claims of religious persecution appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Investing in Iraq’s education will contribute to its revival https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/iraq-education-revival-kurdistan/ Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:16:08 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=779683 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 post Investing in Iraq’s education will contribute to its revival appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
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.

]]>
Syria’s inflated electorate is caused by phantom voters https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/syrian-peoples-assembly-elections-parliament-3/ Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:37:14 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=779439 The confusion over the true size of the electorate will certainly not be resolved in these elections.

The post Syria’s inflated electorate is caused by phantom voters appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
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.

]]>
#BalkansDebrief – Where next for Serbian foreign policy? | A Debrief with Igor Bandovic and Nikola Burazer https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/balkans-debrief/balkansdebrief-where-next-for-serbian-foreign-policy-a-debrief-with-igor-bandovic-and-nikola-burazer/ Wed, 03 Jul 2024 14:00:00 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=777955 In this episode of #BalkansDebrief, Nonresident Senior Fellow Ilva Tare speaks with Igor Bandovic and Nikola Burazer about Serbia's current foreign policy and security challenges.

The post #BalkansDebrief – Where next for Serbian foreign policy? | A Debrief with Igor Bandovic and Nikola Burazer appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

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.

MEET THE #BALKANSDEBRIEF HOST

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.

]]>
Kyiv Pride event highlights changing attitudes in wartime Ukraine https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/kyiv-pride-event-highlights-changing-attitudes-in-wartime-ukraine/ Mon, 24 Jun 2024 21:38:28 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=775348 Ukraine’s LGBTQI+ community is playing an important role in Ukraine’s ongoing European integration and defense against the Kremlin’s anti-Western crusade, writes Aleksander Cwalina.

The post Kyiv Pride event highlights changing attitudes in wartime Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
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.

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.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Kyiv Pride event highlights changing attitudes in wartime Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Don’t be fooled by the ‘reformist.’ Iran’s presidential election won’t bring fundamental change. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iran-election-pezeshkian-reform-dead-change/ Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:43:33 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=774900 The only way out of this conundrum is if Iranians take their destiny into their own hands.

The post Don’t be fooled by the ‘reformist.’ Iran’s presidential election won’t bring fundamental change. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
“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.” 

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.”

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.

]]>
Women should play a central role in rebuilding Ukraine’s economy https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/women-should-play-a-central-role-in-rebuilding-ukraines-economy/ Fri, 14 Jun 2024 17:43:18 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=773319 Ukraine can only rebuild its economy if women and civil society are fully involved in its reconstruction efforts.

The post Women should play a central role in rebuilding Ukraine’s economy appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
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.

]]>
Ukraine officially embraces English as historic westward pivot continues https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-officially-embraces-english-as-historic-westward-pivot-continues/ Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:27:03 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=772875 By officially embracing English, Ukrainians aim to support their country’s historic pivot away from Moscow and return to the European community of nations, writes Oleksiy Goncharenko.

The post Ukraine officially embraces English as historic westward pivot continues appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
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.

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.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Ukraine officially embraces English as historic westward pivot continues appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Roberts quoted in South China Morning Post on China’s visa restrictions https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/roberts-quoted-in-south-china-morning-post-on-chinas-visa-restrictions/ Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:14:31 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=773821 On June 11, IPSI/GCH nonresident senior fellow Dexter Tiff Roberts was quoted in a South China Morning Post article regarding China’s relaxation of visa restrictions, which has attracted tourists back to the country following its COVID-19 lockdown. 

The post Roberts quoted in South China Morning Post on China’s visa restrictions appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

On June 11, IPSI/GCH nonresident senior fellow Dexter Tiff Roberts was quoted in a South China Morning Post article regarding China’s relaxation of visa restrictions, which has attracted tourists back to the country following its COVID-19 lockdown. 

The post Roberts quoted in South China Morning Post on China’s visa restrictions appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
The terrible cost of Russia’s war is being felt far beyond the battlefield https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-terrible-cost-of-russias-war-is-being-felt-far-beyond-the-battlefield/ Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:48:34 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=772334 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, writes Mark Temnycky.

The post The terrible cost of Russia’s war is being felt far beyond the battlefield appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Delegates from around 160 countries will gather in Switzerland on June 15-16 as the country hosts a Summit on Peace in Ukraine. The goal of the two-day event is to develop a “common understanding” on a possible path toward a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.

This new peace initiative comes at a critical point in the Russia-Ukraine War. More than two years since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, there remains no end in sight to what is the largest European conflict since World War II. Instead, Vladimir Putin’s invading army is once again advancing, and has recently attempted to open a new front with a cross-border offensive close to Ukraine’s second city, Kharkiv.

In parallel to these front line advances, the Russian military is also conducting in a nationwide bombing campaign that appears designed to terrorize Ukrainian civilians and force millions to flee their homes by making large parts of the country uninhabitable. Since the beginning of 2024, Russia has damaged or destroyed around half of Ukraine’s remaining energy generation capacity, leading to rolling blackouts. Meanwhile, recent air strikes against civilian targets such as shopping centers have left dozens dead. This air offensive illustrates how the escalating costs of the conflict are being felt far beyond the battlefield.

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.

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.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post The terrible cost of Russia’s war is being felt far beyond the battlefield appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Charai in the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune: The Only Path to Peace is Prosperity, Not Hamas https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/charai-in-the-jerusalem-strategic-tribune-the-only-path-to-peace-is-prosperity-not-hamas/ Sun, 09 Jun 2024 15:01:06 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=771472 The post Charai in the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune: The Only Path to Peace is Prosperity, Not Hamas appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

The post Charai in the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune: The Only Path to Peace is Prosperity, Not Hamas appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
If the West wants a sustainable peace it must commit to Ukrainian victory https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/if-the-west-wants-a-sustainable-peace-it-must-commit-to-ukrainian-victory/ Thu, 30 May 2024 21:01:22 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=769409 Since 2022, Western policies of escalation management have failed to appease Putin and have only emboldened the Kremlin. If the West wants peace, it must help Ukraine win, write Hanna Hopko and Andrius Kubilius.

The post If the West wants a sustainable peace it must commit to Ukrainian victory appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
In the coming weeks, the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Berlin, the G7 Summit in Italy, the Global Peace Summit in Switzerland, and the jubilee NATO Summit in Washington DC will all offer opportunities for the international community to reinforce its support for Ukraine. These high-profile events should also serve as a chance to take stock. With no end in sight to Russia’s genocidal invasion, Kyiv’s Western partners must define the endgame of their support for Ukraine. Is it Ukrainian victory or merely Ukrainian survival?

Why does the West not have a coherent victory plan? How long can Ukraine be expected to sustain the current war effort if the country only receives sufficient military aid to survive? Is the latest US aid package enough to secure Ukrainian victory? Is Europe doing enough to enforce sanctions, confiscate Russian assets, and supply advanced weapons systems like Taurus missiles? These are just some of the key questions Ukraine’s partners should be asking themselves in the coming weeks.

The stakes could hardly be higher. Putin’s Russia poses a direct threat to the global security system and to a sustainable peace in Europe. The outcome of Russia’s war against Ukraine will define the future security framework on the European continent for decades to come. If the West provides Ukraine with the support it needs to win the war, this victory will secure peace not only for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe. Russian defeat could also spark a political transformation inside Russia and help undermine the country’s aggressive imperial ambitions.

The consequences of Russian success in Ukraine would be equally far-reaching. If the West continues to demonstrate weakness in Ukraine and supports calls for some kind of ceasefire or negotiated settlement, Russia will claim an historic victory and will become even more internationally aggressive. This aggression will not be limited to Ukraine, and will be targeted against the whole Western world.

Nor will the Kremlin be acting alone. On the contrary, Russian victory over the West in Ukraine would embolden the Alliance of Autocracies that has emerged in recent years, bringing together Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. While further Russian aggression is likely to focus on Europe, Putin’s fellow autocrats will be encouraged to embrace their own expansionist agendas elsewhere.

This is why the international community needs to accept that only Ukrainian victory can open the door to a sustainable peace, both for Ukraine and the wider world. Any attempt to reach a compromise peace agreement with Putin would not only hand Russia victory and allow Moscow to continue occupying entire regions of Ukraine; it would also be a dangerous repetition of the 1938 Munich Conference, which had such tragic consequences for the entire international community. The British and French leaders who agreed to hand Hitler part of Czechoslovakia in Munich also hoped they were securing peace. Instead, they were setting the stage for World War II. Europe cannot afford to make the same mistake again.

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.

At present, the West appears to be split into two main camps over the issue of how to end the Russian invasion of Ukraine. One camp recognizes the importance of Ukrainian victory for European security, and sees Russian defeat as its clear goal. These countries are committed to supporting the Ukrainian war effort and refuse to rule out sending troops to defend Ukraine if necessary.

The other camp favors a negotiated settlement and typically frames this readiness to compromise with the Kremlin as a desire for peace. Such posturing is intellectually dishonest. After all, nobody wants peace more than the Ukrainians themselves. However, Ukrainians understand that peace cannot be secured by offering territorial concessions to the Putin regime that would abandon millions of Ukrainians to the horrors of permanent Russian occupation. They know that accepting a ceasefire without victory would make it impossible to hold Russia accountable for war crimes.

Crucially, Ukrainians also recognize that unless Putin is defeated, he will inevitably go further. Encouraged by the impunity of a ceasefire agreement, Russia would use any pause in hostilities to rearm and prepare for the next phase of its war against Ukraine and the West. This would create dangers similar to the threat faced by the Allies during World War II, when Churchill and Roosevelt warned against a premature peace and instead declared the goal of Nazi Germany’s unconditional surrender. Today’s Western leaders must now recognize that offering Putin a ceasefire will not bring about a lasting peace. Instead, it will pave the way for more war.

Future Western support for Ukraine must be built around a clear and unambiguous commitment to Ukrainian victory. This is currently missing. When Western leaders and policymakers gather in the coming weeks, the need to work toward a Ukrainian victory should be at the very top of the agenda. Meanwhile, Ukrainians must continue to explain the difference between a temporary ceasefire and a lasting peace. In 2023, Ukrainian civil society experts did their part by developing their own vision, which was outlined in the Sustainable Peace Manifesto, describing the importance of bringing Russia to justice and providing Ukraine with unambiguous security guarantees.

After more than ten years of Russian military aggression against Ukraine, it is time for Kyiv’s partners to learn the lessons of this war and avoid falling into further Russian traps. When Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, it did so under a veil of deniability using so-called “little green men,” or Russian soldiers without insignia. A decade later, Russia is now openly waging the largest European invasion since World War II, and is supported by an alliance of fellow tyrannies who share the Kremlin’s goal of destroying the rules-based international order. Russia is now attacking Ukraine with Iranian drones and North Korean missiles, while receiving military supplies and vital economic support from China. If the West is unable to counter this growing threat, it will forfeit its position at the heart of the international security architecture and be replaced by the rising authoritarian powers.

In 2014, Western leaders were naive enough to expect a diplomatic solution to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It should now be painfully obvious that such hopes were unrealistic. Between 2014 and 2022, Ukraine engaged in more than 200 rounds of negotiations with Russia, but this failed to prevent the full-scale invasion of February 2022.

Even while talks continued, Russia made its genocidal intentions clear with relentless propaganda denying the existence of the Ukrainian nation and dehumanizing Ukrainians. This genocidal rhetoric has since been implemented in practice by Putin’s invading army, with well-documented massacres in places like Bucha and Izium, mass abductions and forced deportations, and the eradication of all symbols of Ukrainian national identity in areas under Russian occupation. While the international community sees what is happening in Ukraine, most remain reluctant to accuse Russia of genocide as this would oblige them to act. But turning a blind eye cannot change the fact that we are witnessing a genocide in the center of twenty-first century Europe.

Everybody understands what is needed for Ukraine victory. They know how much Western military assistance is required, and exactly which weapons should be delivered. Everybody knows what sanctions, tribunals, and security agreements are necessary in order to establish a sustainable peace. At the same time, the leaders of the democratic world have yet to address why they have so far shied away from policies that could facilitate Ukrainian victory. The answer is very simple: Western leaders are still heavily influenced by the twin fears of a possible Russian escalation and a potential Russian collapse. In other words, they are unable to commit fully to Ukrainian victory because they are afraid of Russian defeat. This is now the greatest single obstacle to a sustainable peace in Europe.

Perhaps the best advice for Ukraine’s Western partners comes from Pope John Paul II, who said “be not afraid” as he led the fight for freedom and democracy in Central Europe during the 1980s. Europe must now overcome its fears once again if it is to safeguard the freedoms that define the continent. Sustainable peace cannot be achieved at the expense of justice. European security will remain elusive if Putin is allowed to gain from his aggression and consolidate his genocidal occupation of Ukrainian lands.

With the Russian invasion now in its third year, Ukraine’s partners must finally acknowledge that European security depends on Ukrainian victory. The sooner they develop and implement a strategy to achieve this victory, the more lives will be saved. Since 2022, Western policies of escalation management have failed to appease Putin and have only emboldened the Kremlin. If the West wants peace, it must help Ukraine win.

Hanna Hopko is co-founder of the International Center for Ukrainian Victory and head of the ANTS Network. Andrius Kubilius is a member of the European Parliament, former Prime Minister of Lithuania, and chair of the United for Ukraine global parliamentary network.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post If the West wants a sustainable peace it must commit to Ukrainian victory appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Russia is bombing book publishers as Putin wages war on Ukrainian identity https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russia-is-bombing-book-publishers-as-putin-wages-war-on-ukrainian-identity/ Mon, 27 May 2024 12:05:35 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=768169 Russia's recent targeted bombing of a major Ukrainian book publishing plant in Kharkiv is part of the Kremlin's wider war against Ukrainian national identity, writes Maria Avdeeva.

The post Russia is bombing book publishers as Putin wages war on Ukrainian identity appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
On May 23, Russia launched a missile strike against Ukraine’s largest printing house, killing seven employees and leaving the facility in ruins. The attack on Kharkiv’s Factor Druk printing plant is the latest indication that Russia is deliberately targeting the Ukrainian book publishing industry.

Factor Druk owner Serhiy Polituchy said the loss of the plant could reduce Ukraine’s overall printing capacity by as much as forty percent. Around one-third of all new books published in Ukraine last year were printed at the Kharkiv facility. “We are now trying to figure out what we can do in the short term to prevent the book publishing industry from collapsing,” commented Polituchy.

Thursday’s bombing followed a number of similar air strikes on publishing houses and print facilities in Kharkiv, which serves as the unofficial capital of Ukraine’s publishing industry. The Kharkiv printing presses accounted for more than eighty percent of new Ukrainian books on the eve of Russia’s full-scale invasion just over two years ago. The city remains the primary source of new books in wartime Ukraine.

As Russia has escalated its air war against Kharkiv since the beginning of 2024, the publishing industry has been repeatedly hit. In a single March attack, Russian missiles destroyed another of Kharkiv’s largest print facilities and a publishing house, killing five. Mykhailo Khrypak, who serves as commercial director at one of Ukraine’s biggest printing plants, says Russia is systematically attempting to destroy the country’s book publishing industry, and warns that production capacity will be difficult to restore.

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.

With Kharkiv desperately short of air defenses and located dangerously close to advancing Russian troops, the city’s remaining publishers are taking steps to ensure the safety of staff. Oleksandr Popovych, director of the Unisoft printing plant, has established a bomb shelter for his more than three hundred employees. Despite the recent escalation in attacks, he says he currently has no plans to relocate, pointing to the extreme difficulty of moving bulky printing equipment and relocating his highly skilled staff along with their families.

Ukraine’s domestic publishing industry has flourished over the past decade following the onset of Russian military aggression against the country in 2014. With the Kremlin openly weaponizing the Russian language to justify the invasion of Ukraine, demand for Ukrainian-language literature has risen to unprecedented levels. A new generation of Ukrainian authors has emerged, becoming part of a broader cultural renaissance that has also had a profound impact on the country’s music, fashion, and art scenes.

This trend has not proved popular in Russia, to say the least. Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has made no secret of the fact that he bitterly opposes the consolidation of an independent Ukrainian national identity, which he views as a direct threat to Russia’s own imperial identity.

Putin is notorious for insisting Ukrainians are in fact Russians (“one people”). He published an entire essay in July 2021 denying Ukraine’s right to an independent existence. On the eve of the full-scale invasion, Putin called Ukraine “an inalienable part of our own history, culture, and spiritual space.” More recently, he declared that “no Ukraine ever existed in the history of the world.” According to Putin, occupied regions of Ukraine are “historically Russian lands.”

Many believe Russia’s recent attacks on the Ukrainian book publishing industry are part of a coordinated Kremlin campaign to erase Ukrainian national identity that qualifies as genocide. Responding to the latest bombing, Yale historian Timothy Snyder said the targeted missile strikes were “an example of a larger genocidal policy.”

The evidence of Russia’s intention to extinguish Ukrainian national identity is overwhelming. In virtually every area of Ukraine occupied by Russia since February 2022, strikingly similar reports have emerged of efforts to eradicate all traces of Ukrainian nationality. The Ukrainian language has been outlawed in schools and public spaces, with all symbols of Ukrainian statehood dismantled and removed.

Meanwhile, Russian occupation forces work with local collaborators to detain community leaders and anyone deemed pro-Ukrainian, including elected officials, journalists, civil society activists, military veterans, and cultural figures. Thousands of people detained in this manner are unaccounted for. Those who remain are pressured into accepting Russian citizenship and threatened with the loss of access to essential services such as healthcare.

Throughout occupied Ukraine, the Kremlin is going to great lengths to indoctrinate Ukrainian children and rob them of their Ukrainian heritage. Large numbers of Russian teachers have been brought to occupied regions to manage the indoctrination process in Ukrainian schools, while tens of thousands of Ukrainian children have been deported to Russia and sent to reeducation camps. This is a textbook act of genocide, according to the UN’s own 1948 Genocide Convention.

The actions of Putin’s army in Ukraine are very much in line with Russian imperial tradition. For centuries, generation after generation of Russian rulers sought to suppress Ukraine’s statehood aspirations and prevent the emergence of a separate Ukrainian nation. This insistence that Ukrainians be made to accept an imperial Russian identity was perhaps best expressed in a notorious mid-nineteenth century tsarist decree stating that the Ukrainian language “never existed, does not exist, and shall not exist.”

Kharkiv’s Slovo Building is a particularly striking symbol of these efforts to eradicate Ukrainian culture. Designed and constructed in the 1920s to host prominent Ukrainian writers, it was home to many of the country’s leading authors and poets who were later killed by the Soviet authorities. Today, they are known as the “Executed Renaissance.”

The efforts of successive Russian tsars and Soviet commissars failed to extinguish the Ukrainian desire for a country and an identity of their own. Putin’s own war on Ukrainian national identity is now proving similarly counter-productive. From poetry to pop music, contemporary Ukrainian culture is experiencing a golden age amid the horror and trauma of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Indeed, as news of Russia’s recent air strikes spread, it was no surprise to see various fundraising initiatives quickly emerge in support of the country’s beleaguered publishing industry. Putin may be able to burn Ukrainian books and bomb Ukraine’s printing presses, but his imperial crusade to erase Ukrainian identity is destined to fail.

Maria Avdeeva is a Kharkiv-based Ukrainian security analyst and strategic communication expert.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Russia is bombing book publishers as Putin wages war on Ukrainian identity appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukraine faces long-term mental health challenges among veteran community https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-faces-long-term-mental-health-challenges-among-veteran-community/ Thu, 23 May 2024 20:11:53 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=767775 Far away from the front lines of the country’s ongoing war with Russia, growing numbers of Ukrainian veterans are facing up to the psychological aftermath of their military service, writes Claire Szewczyk.

The post Ukraine faces long-term mental health challenges among veteran community appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Far away from the front lines of the country’s ongoing war with Russia, growing numbers of Ukrainian veterans are facing up to the psychological aftermath of their military service. These mental health challenges include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. Given the sheer numbers involved, there are serious concerns over Ukraine’s ability to address this issue effectively.

Over the past decade, the number of Ukrainian military veterans has expanded dramatically. Prior to the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, approximately half a million Ukrainians had served in the military campaigns underway in the east of the country since 2014. Over the past two years, this figure has mushroomed. Ukraine’s Ministry of Veteran Affairs has estimated that up to five million Ukrainians may be eligible for veteran status by the end of the war.

In 2024, Ukraine allocated approximately $350 million to support veterans and their families through the Ukrainian Veterans Fund. Nevertheless, there has been considerable criticism over the use of this funding. In a survey of Ukrainian army veterans conducted earlier this year, many said they believed veterans were not having their post-service needs met and required better access to support.

Current Ukrainian legislation offers benefits to veterans such as housing provisions. A range of support is also available for those with disabilities incurred during wartime service and for family members of service personnel. However, critics say there is significant confusion over the availability of support, and complain of inconsistencies along with a frequent lack of funding. In practice, many veterans say they are unable to access the care they need.

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 current healthcare struggles of Ukrainian veterans resonate with the US veteran community, which continues to face similar struggles with post-service mental health issues. Like their Ukrainian counterparts, large numbers of American veterans deal with PTSD, depression, and anxiety.

According to a recent survey, nearly one in four American veterans are diagnosed with at least one mental health disorder following military service. This statistic illustrates the widespread nature of mental health concerns among veterans everywhere, and gives an idea of the sheer scale of the challenge facing the Ukrainian authorities.

Ukraine may be able to learn from US experience in the provision of support for military personnel. US veterans can call upon a more structured support system under the Department of Veteran Affairs. However, this approach is not always effective, with veterans often encountering long wait times, bureaucratic hurdles, and a shortage of healthcare providers adequately trained in military cultural competence. This last point is crucial; research has highlighted that more than three-quarters of veterans find it extremely important to receive care from providers who they feel understand them and can treat them appropriately.

The challenges Ukraine faces in providing the necessary support for the country’s veteran community echo the issues encountered in the United States and elsewhere. Ukraine currently struggles with underfunded and understaffed mental health services. These shortages mean that even when veterans take the appropriate steps to seek help, the necessary resources may not be available or might come too late.

Another issue is lack of financial support. While healthcare is a major concern for Ukrainian veterans, access to financial resources is also critical for general well-being. When surveyed earlier this year, more than half of veterans indicated that they struggled to remain financially secure.

A further significant barrier to effective mental health treatment in Ukraine is the lack of providers with a good understanding of military culture. Ukrainian veterans often comment that their experiences are misunderstood by the medical professionals who are treating them, leading to misdiagnosis and ineffective treatments.

The stigma associated with mental health issues in Ukraine is an additional issue, particularly due to the emphasis on “toughness” and “strength” within military communities. This can lead to veterans failing to acknowledge their struggles and refusing to seek the help they need and deserve.

Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach that includes increased funding for mental health services, enhanced training in military culture for healthcare providers, and an active approach to challenging the narrative around mental health, especially in relation to Ukraine’s military and veteran communities. The task of addressing the stigma attached to mental health is something the wider community can participate in, as Ukrainians seek to create a more compassionate environment for the country’s defenders.

Claire Szewczyk is a digital content coordinator for Hill & Ponton. She formerly worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Ukraine faces long-term mental health challenges among veteran community appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
The ‘Butcher of Tehran’ is dead. It won’t change a thing. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/raisi-death-butcher-of-tehran-iran-policy/ Thu, 23 May 2024 14:31:19 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=767523 Despite his role in crimes against humanity, Ebrahim Raisi’s celebrated death will have no bearing on the Islamic Republic’s policy.

The post The ‘Butcher of Tehran’ is dead. It won’t change a thing. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
In June 1989, glasses of wine were raised in our Tehran home when the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, died. A hushed party had brought together friends and comrades, all of them ex-political prisoners, who by sheer chance had survived the mass executions of the 1980s. Similar parties were held across Iran. The next day, however, a specter of fear haunted all public spaces, with people being fired from jobs even for laughing at jokes unrelated to Khomeini’s death.

Fast-forward to May 20. Millions in and out of Iran, including in Syria and the Gaza Strip, publicly rejoiced when President Ebrahim Raisi died in a helicopter crash along with Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and several provincial officials.

https://twitter.com/mahsa_piraei/status/1792220356830212566

Since news emerged of Raisi’s helicopter crashing in Iran’s East Azerbaijan province on May 19, people from different backgrounds were glued to their smartphones, anxiously waiting for hours to hear official confirmation of his death, which finally arrived almost fourteen hours later. As Iranians waited, social media were flooded with memes and jokes, and people dancing and drinking in celebration.

A horrible public speaker with a Persian-language Wikipedia page dedicated to his spoonerisms, sixty-three-year-old Raisi never received a proper academic education beyond the sixth grade and was a low-ranking cleric with no charisma. However, after winning the engineered 2021 presidential race that recorded the lowest participation rate in the Islamic Republic’s history, Raisi was promoted overnight to an “ayatollah doctor” by the state media.

His star began rising in 1979. Soon after the Islamic Revolution, when he was nineteen, Raisi was appointed prosecutor of two major cities, Karaj and Hamedan. He was later transferred to Tehran and assigned to the “death commission” that in 1988 extrajudicially executed thousands of political prisoners and dumped their bodies in unmarked mass graves. His role in the mass executions earned him the nickname “the Butcher of Tehran.”

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

A yes-man with blood on his hands, Raisi married Jamileh, the daughter of influential cleric Ahmad Alamolhoda, a close ally of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. At the same time, his absolute loyalty was rewarded with wealth. He was appointed as head of Astan Quds Razavi, a corrupt and currently sanctioned financial empire in charge of preserving the gilded shrine of the eighth Shia saint Imam Reza in Mashhad, the second most populated city in Iran.

In 2019, Khamenei appointed Raisi as judiciary chief, a role in which he oversaw a violent crackdown, including the arbitrary arrests of hundreds of peaceful dissidents and rights defenders. Amnesty International has documented that the judiciary under his watch granted “blanket impunity” to security forces to unlawfully kill hundreds of men, women, and children and subject thousands of people to mass arrests and torture during nationwide protests in November 2019.

During Raisi’s short-lived presidency, the Islamic Republic faced the gravest domestic existential threat in its history: the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom uprising that rocked the country for months and shocked the supreme leader. The regime, with Raisi’s full support, responded to the uprising with brute force, killing hundreds, arresting tens of thousands, and executing at least nine. According to the United Nations, the response amounted to crimes against humanity.

Despite his role in crimes against humanity, Raisi’s celebrated death will have no bearing on the Islamic Republic’s policy. Other than rubber-stamping death and destruction for his own gain, as an absolute opportunist who threw his lot with Khamenei, Raisi’s political life amounted to nothing.

Rubber-stamp president

Since ascending to the throne as supreme leader in 1989, Khamenei has fended off rivals, including former presidents, with house arrest, media silence, banishment from elections, and even alleged assassination. In Raisi, he found an under-educated conformist who practiced absolute subservience, allowing the ayatollah to consolidate his control over all branches of power and secure his legacy with zero resistance.

In Iran, the office of the presidency amounts to nothing but being a “footman,” in the words of two-term former President Mohammad Khatami (1997–2005). Unlike his predecessors, Raisi had no say over Iran’s foreign policy, regional expansionism, or nuclear program. With his death, the supreme leader’s hand will keep the regime on course toward acquiring a nuclear weapon and exporting terror abroad. There will also be no change in the oppression of women and other marginalized groups.

As per the Islamic Republic’s constitution, a presidential election must be held fifty days after Raisi’s death. The interior ministry has already announced June 28 as election day. Raisi assumed office as president in 2021 and was expected to bag an easy reelection in 2025. The rushed race for his seat will create infighting, and possibly put the Islamic Republic on its back foot.

However, even that would not impact the regime’s foreign and nuclear policy, which the supreme leader tightly controls. The Islamic Republic has historically responded to periods of chaos and uncertainty by projecting power abroad. A shift in nuclear policy, a deal with the United States, or a détente between Israel and Hamas would not serve that purpose.

Furthermore, Khamenei has already signaled that he is determined to stay course despite Raisi’s death. During a speech hours before official confirmation of Raisi’s death on May 20, Khamenei calmy proclaimed, “Be reassured people that there will be no disruption in works of the nation.”

At the same time, Raisi’s death has removed a potential contender for inheriting the mantle of supreme leadership after the expected demise of eighty-five-year-old Khamenei. As per the constitution, the Assembly of Experts will fill the position, which again is tightly controlled by Khamenei. According to Reuters, Raisi’s name was already crossed off as a contender some six months ago in light of his incompetence and sagging popularity, reconfirming warnings that the future leader can’t be accurately predicted—that the contenders list is constantly shifting, and the game is far from over.

Hope for change

While regime insiders fight over Raisi’s blood-soaked inheritance and “tear each other limb from limb,” the festivities continue among the people.

Afsaneh Yousefi, whose son Pejman Fatehi was executed alongside three other political prisoners in January, danced to Kurdish music.

Sisters Mahsa and Roya Piraei, whose mother was killed by security forces during the 2021 uprising, clinked drink glasses with smiles sparkling in their eyes.

Clad in a white and blue dress, Mansoureh Behkish, who lost six family members during the 1988 executions, danced with her hair flying in silver tufts.

Esmat Vatan Parast, who lost eleven members of her family in 1980s executions, told Radio Farda, “Yes, the Islamic Republic is still in power, but I wish that the remaining [officials meet a similar fate] so people of Iran can breathe. I wish for a day that the Islamic Republic becomes a thing of the past, that our land is wiped of any sign of these monsters…have faith, our Iran will be liberated.”

And in Raisi’s home city of Mashhad, a young woman with her hair flying free, in defiance of mandatory hijab rules, scribbled on a wall with spray paint,  “Khamenei will be next.”

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 The ‘Butcher of Tehran’ is dead. It won’t change a thing. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
President Zelenskyy’s term is over but he’s still a legitimate wartime leader https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/president-zelenskyys-term-is-over-but-hes-still-a-legitimate-wartime-leader/ Thu, 23 May 2024 08:43:10 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=767459 Kremlin attempts to question the legitimacy of Ukraine's President Zelenskyy due to the end of his official term in office ignore the obvious impossibility of holding elections amid Europe's biggest invasion since World War II, writes Elena Davlikanova.

The post President Zelenskyy’s term is over but he’s still a legitimate wartime leader appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s five-year term in office ended on May 20, but he will remain in his post until security conditions allow for elections to be held. Predictably, the Kremlin is already exploiting this technicality to question Zelenskyy’s legitimacy, but Russia’s claims ignore the many obvious obstacles to holding a credible democratic vote in wartime Ukraine.

In the years following the start of Russian military aggression against Ukraine in 2014, the Ukrainian authorities were able to conduct multiple presidential and parliamentary elections that were consistently rated as free and fair by international democracy watchdogs. Following the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, this is no longer possible.

The key issue is security. In order for any election to take place in Ukraine, the authorities must be able to ensure the safety of millions of voters and thousands of election officials at polling stations and election commissions across the country. That is clearly out of the question at present, particularly in light of Russia’s record for repeatedly targeting civilians. This also rules out the presence of international election observers.

It is even more difficult to imagine how the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men and women currently serving in the armed forces could participate in a wartime ballot, both as voters and as candidates. Russia would certainly view any gatherings of voting soldiers as priority targets. “It would be unfair if those defending our land were denied the opportunity to vote,” commented President Zelenskyy in March.

Security concerns are also one of the key factors that make it impossible to stage anything resembling a normal election campaign. With election rallies and public meetings of any kind at high risk of being bombed by Russia, the campaign would largely have to take place online. This would fall well short of Ukraine’s established democratic standards, while also creating an inviting environment for Russian interference.

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 hard to see how Ukraine could hope to overcome the huge administrative challenges created by the displacement of millions of Ukrainian citizens following the Russian invasion. There are currently believed to be approximately six million internally displaced people in Ukraine. Enabling them to vote would require a huge effort to update voter registers. This would likely raise all manner of additional questions regarding issues such as official and temporary addresses.

Meanwhile, at least five million Ukrainians are currently residing outside Ukraine as refugees, half of whom are eligible to vote. Existing voter registration procedures for Ukrainians living abroad are not designed to accommodate such large numbers, while Ukraine’s embassies and consulates would be unable to cope with so many voters. Without the participation of Ukrainian refugees, any wartime election would fail to meet basic democratic standards.

Recent research indicates that Ukrainian society recognizes the impracticality of wartime elections and is broadly supportive of the government’s decision to postpone any national votes until the security situation improves. A February 2024 poll conducted by the Rating Sociological Group on behalf of the International Republican Institute found that 67 percent of Ukrainians opposed holding presidential elections amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

There is also a consensus among Ukraine’s rival political parties that elections should wait until after the war. In November 2023, all parliamentary factions endorsed a memorandum backing the postponement of presidential and parliamentary votes until the end of hostilities. Ukraine’s vibrant civil society agrees, with more than 100 organizations releasing a joint statement in September 2023 rejecting the idea of wartime elections.

While there is virtually no indication of any appetite for wartime elections inside Ukraine itself, Russia and its allies are expected to continue pushing the notion of Zelenskyy’s alleged illegitimacy in the coming months. Indeed, some of the most prominent Kremlin-friendly figures in Congress have already begun promoting this narrative as part of ongoing efforts to argue against further US support for Ukraine.

Ukraine is not the first country to delay elections due to wartime conditions, of course. For example, During World War II, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill repeatedly postponed the country’s scheduled general election, but nobody accused him of undermining the democratic legitimacy of the British parliament.

Ukrainians have impeccable democratic instincts, having staged two separate pro-democracy revolutions in the past twenty years. Indeed, the current war is in part a struggle to defend the country’s democratic identity against Putin’s authoritarian imperialism. At the same time, Ukrainians are sufficiently sensible to understand that the idea of holding elections amid the largest European invasion since World War II is absurd.

Dr. Elena Davlikanova is a Democracy Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis and an associate professor at Sumy State University in Ukraine.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post President Zelenskyy’s term is over but he’s still a legitimate wartime leader appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
How Cabo Verde is highlighting the rich history of the Jewish people in Africa https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/cabo-verde-jews-africa-call-of-rabat/ Mon, 20 May 2024 13:34:53 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=766109 From Rabat to Praia, a new generation of African leaders is reclaiming their Jewish history and realizing a brighter future.

The post How Cabo Verde is highlighting the rich history of the Jewish people in Africa appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
A decade ago, Cabo Verde, a predominantly Christian country, restored its Jewish cemeteries under the patronage of a Muslim leader, King Mohammed VI of Morocco. This vibrant example of Africa’s historical, cultural, and religious diversity was celebrated on March 6, when an assembly of Jews, Christians, and Muslims gathered in Praia, the country’s capital, to commemorate years of efforts to conserve an essential aspect of Cabo Verde’s past. This achievement transcends a single community and embraces a larger vision of Cabo Verdean society. The Jewish cemeteries are now not merely materialized memories but pivotal platforms for fostering interfaith dialogue and, by embodying the spirit of unity in diversity, have become beacons of inspiration for generations.

The restored Jewish cemetery in Praia—more precisely, the Jewish section of an interfaith cemetery—was reinaugurated in 2013 after a collaboration between the Municipal Chamber of Praia and the Cabo Verde Jewish Heritage Project, with the support of Morocco’s king. The Cabo Verde Jewish Heritage Project worked closely with the Cabo Verdean Ministry of Communities and the National Library of Cabo Verde to coordinate the celebration, which included the unveiling of commemorative plaques and a conference at the National Library exploring the legacy of Moroccan Jews in Cabo Verde. This event brought together scholars, historians, and descendants of Cabo Verde’s Moroccan Jews for a dialogue about their profound historical and cultural impact.

The origins of Cabo Verde’s Jewish communities date back to the nineteenth century, starting with the arrival of Moroccan Jews from cities like Tangier, Tetouan, Rabat, Essaouira, and Gibraltar in search of economic opportunities. These communities left a lasting impression on the archipelago’s history by contributing significantly to its cultural and economic development. The descendants of Moroccan Jews in Cabo Verde still have their Sephardic names—such as Auday, Brigham, and Cohen—and descendants of these families speak with great pride of their Jewish ancestors and honor their legacy by preserving their Jewish heritage. The resurrection of this house of life, which was falling into disrepair and represents the Jewish Moroccan presence in this Atlantic archipelago, is a profound act that transcends merely dusting off the collective memory. Restoring the cemetery of Praia is an acknowledgment of the historical connection, the influence of the Moroccan Jewish community, and the safeguarding of their heritage and preventing it from being lost to time.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

In its steadfast pursuit of fostering convivencia and interfaith dialogue, Cabo Verde has worked to recognize and respect cultural diversity. This has been achieved by embracing Moroccan and Gibraltarian Jewish heritage as an integral part of Cabo Verde’s national heritage. In doing so, Cabo Verde commemorates the diverse heritage of its multicultural past and honors the profound bonds between Cabo Verde and Morocco today—specifically their shared values and mutual dedication to upholding the principles of religious and cultural pluralism.

This reciprocal acknowledgment and the elevation of Jewish heritage as a pivotal element of Cabo Verde’s national heritage is an expression of the commitment of Cabo Verde and Morocco to fostering peace and valuing diversity. This ten-year-old project’s continued relevance is a poignant symbol of the myriad steps taken to forge a more inclusive and cohesive society. Cabo Verde’s initiative goes beyond merely safeguarding its varied cultural and religious identity; it fortifies the bridges of comprehension and mutual respect with Morocco, underscoring the crucial role of diversity in underpinning national unity and social harmony.

Moreover, Morocco and Cabo Verde’s joint efforts exemplify the essence of intra-African collaboration dialogue, including respect for diversity and the recognition that harmonious living among communities is pivotal for societal advancement and overall stability. This approach paves the way for a peaceful and prosperous Africa, embracing inclusivity and convivencia as cornerstones for progress.

Highlighting this, Minister of Cabo Verdean Communities Jorge Santos signed the Call of Rabat for the Preservation of the African Jewish Heritage during the second annual Jewish Africa Conference in 2022. African leaders, as well as friends of the Jewish community in Africa, signed the call, which invites all parties involved—individuals, civil society, and governments—to acknowledge the rich history of the Jewish people in Africa and the need to protect and make accessible Jewish historical sites across the continent; to strengthen the sacred “chords of memory” that connect various generations and peoples to the African Jewish experience, particularly through cultural and educational initiatives; to give African youths the tools they need to preserve, propagate, and celebrate African Jewish cultures; to collaborate in the preservation, restoration, and renovation of significant Jewish sites on the African continent; and to establish a mechanism to further these objectives as well as to provide opportunities for African Jewish voices.

The Call of Rabat is a considerable effort to unite and celebrate the rich diversity of African-Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Africa’s history, culture, and religion are woven together like a complex tapestry with strands of coexistence, unity, and togetherness, as evidenced by Cabo Verde’s restoration of Jewish cemeteries. Judaism in Africa has grown from biblical times to the present, symbolizing the continent’s rare ethnic and religious diversity. Beyond bridging historical gaps, the Call of Rabat opens the door to a future in which diversity and unity combine to form a peaceful, inclusive society by bolstering the presence of Judaism in Africa.

From Rabat to Praia, a new generation of African leaders is reclaiming their Jewish history and realizing a brighter future.

El Mehdi Boudra is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s N7 Initiative and the founder and president of Mimouna Association, a Moroccan nongovernmental organization. Follow him on X: @ElBoudra.

The post How Cabo Verde is highlighting the rich history of the Jewish people in Africa appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Georgia’s government uses Kremlin playbook to consolidate grip on power https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/georgias-government-uses-kremlin-playbook-to-consolidate-grip-on-power/ Wed, 15 May 2024 23:13:15 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=765346 The Georgian government's efforts to adopt a Kremlin-style law imposing restrictions on civil society has sparked huge protests and led to questions over the country's future geopolitical direction, writes Lucy Minicozzi-Wheeland.

The post Georgia’s government uses Kremlin playbook to consolidate grip on power appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Georgia is currently at the crossroads as the government pushes through contentious Kremlin-style legislation that opponents say will stifle civil society and prevent the country’s further European integration. At stake is the future trajectory of this small but strategically significant nation that plays an important role in the broader geopolitics of the post-Soviet space.

On May 14, the ruling Georgian Dream party passed the controversial “foreign agents” bill, which will oblige organizations that receive more than 20 percent of funding from abroad to register with the government or face fines. Despite claims to the contrary, this law resembles Russia’s own foreign agents legislation far more than the US Foreign Agents Registration Act.

EU officials responded to the news from Tbilisi by suggesting adoption of the legislation could hamper Georgia’s bid to join the European Union. “The EU stands with the Georgian people and their choice in favor of democracy and of Georgia’s European future,” commented the EU’s top diplomat Josep Borrell. US officials have also voiced concern over the issue.

Georgian Dream officials appear unmoved by these appeals. Indeed, critics say the passage of the foreign agents law is part of intentional efforts to derail the country’s Western integration and bring Georgia back into the Kremlin orbit. They claim the legislation is intended to suppress civil society in the lead-up to parliamentary elections in October, and note that Georgian authorities are now adopting tactics that closely mirror Russia’s own efforts to stamp out domestic dissent and silence opponents.

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 unprecedented numbers have taken to the streets of Tbilisi to protest the country’s turn toward Moscow, the Georgian authorities have sought to crush protests with heavy-handed policing, including beatings, tear gas, and water cannons. Journalists and elected officials have been among those on the receiving end of violence.

In a further echo of tactics widely employed in Putin’s Russia, individual members of Georgia’s political opposition and activists have been assaulted in apparently targeted attacks that have taken place far from the protests. Others have been subjected to threatening phone calls and additional forms of harassment.

Meanwhile, the Georgian authorities are accused of copying the longstanding Russian practice of stage-managing pro-government rallies designed to distract attention from protests and create the illusion of popular support. One rally in late April featured thousands of public sector workers who had apparently been bussed into the Georgian capital from around the country and instructed to attend.

The rhetoric coming from Georgian Dream officials in recent weeks has increasingly resembled the anti-Western narratives and conspiracy theories favored by the Putin regime. In thinly veiled attacks on Georgia’s Western partners, Billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, the unofficial leader of Georgian Dream, has decried civil society organizations as “pseudo-elites” controlled by patrons abroad, and has accused them of attempting to instigate revolution in Georgia. These allegations are virtually indistinguishable from Vladimir Putin’s complaints regarding so-called “color revolutions.”

Officially, the Georgian authorities deny they are seeking to turn the country away from the path of European integration and reject claims of a pro-Kremlin agenda. Indeed, Ivanishvili continues to insist Georgia is currently closer than ever to joining the EU. The ruling party’s careful rhetoric around Georgia’s European choice is understandable given that 81% of Georgians support EU membership. However, the fact that Georgian Dream moved forward with the foreign agents law despite condemnation from the EU and large-scale public protests has severely undermined the credibility of the government’s claims.

Georgian Dream officials say the foreign agents law is intended to ensure transparency and prevent undue foreign influence in the country, but critics remain unconvinced. They argue that the legislation will be used as a tool to suppress civil society, and point to the chilling role similar legislation has played in Russia. If it comes into force, many fear the law will strengthen the ruling party’s grip on power ahead of Georgia’s coming elections and set the stage for a more authoritarian form of government.

If Georgian Dream is able to secure a convincing result in the October ballot, Ivanishvili has already outlined plans for a strict “political and legal condemnation” of his party’s domestic opponents. In light of the mounting violence against opposition figures and pro-democracy protesters in Tbilisi in recent days, such statements must be taken seriously.

Hundreds of thousands of Georgians have joined protests this spring in an emphatic display of support for the country’s European future, but the struggle looks likely to continue throughout the coming months. The Georgian government has already demonstrated its readiness to employ Kremlin tactics. The question now is how far they are willing to go.

Lucy Minicozzi-Wheeland is a master’s student in Regional Studies: Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia at Harvard and a Research Assistant at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Georgia’s government uses Kremlin playbook to consolidate grip on power appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Saudi women are learning financial literacy and it’s helping the country grow https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/saudi-arabia-financial-literacy-women-vision-2030/ Wed, 15 May 2024 19:43:08 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=765256 Since the launch of Vision 2030, economic developments have pushed women to be more independent and in control of their finances.

The post Saudi women are learning financial literacy and it’s helping the country grow appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Days after Saudi Arabia released the midway annual report on Vision 2030, its ambitious thirteen-year reform agenda, the World Economic Forum held a special meeting in Riyadh on global collaboration, growth, and energy for development on April 28–29. The pride that Saudis feel as hosts of a globally prestigious event, at a moment when they can showcase their achievements since the 2016 launch of the agenda, is palpable throughout the kingdom.

One overarching aim of the vision is to diversify the economy and, in doing so, to create new opportunities for work and investment at all levels—for both large-scale projects and small ventures. Changing the status of women has been a critical marker of change and success over the past eight years. In that time, the participation rate of women in the labor market, now around 35 percent, has exceeded the initial goal. Women working in new sectors are supported by various active labor-market policies and new laws to facilitate their work. 

The Vision 2030 midway annual report features photos of women working alongside men across sectors, highlighting their importance in driving the economy forward. More than one million commercial registrations are owned by women—representing 45 percent of registered companies—and women held 43.7 percent of leadership roles. Government officials and analysts have openly celebrated this momentum, which continues to progress positively.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

While these advancements are welcome and worthy of celebration, it will be necessary to ensure that women have the financial know-how to grow in their careers and manage their new ventures effectively to achieve a sustainable level of empowerment, especially in an environment where traditional gender roles of male breadwinner and female caretaker have persisted for so long. Financial literacy is necessary for women who have managed to launch their own companies and who balance formal employment with other demands. Still, it remains true that women who remain on the fringes of the formal economy can face barriers to inclusion.

Financial inclusion ensures that those who demand funds recognize how to access them and ensure that the supply of funds is accessible, leading to a level of liquidity that can enhance growth and reduce poverty or an overreliance on state support. Since the launch of Vision 2030, economic developments have pushed women to be more independent and in control of their finances. Reforms to social welfare created more pathways out of poverty by replacing blanket subsidies with targeted support and new policies related to social insurance, social assistance, and the labor market.

However, these changes will initially benefit those who are younger and more digitally connected. The expansion of e-government and the crackdown on corruption have linked all kinds of payments to bank accounts, including salaries and alimony payments. Furthermore, small companies are required to issue e-invoices, and economic growth is driving out smaller commercial outlets that cater to those who might not be linked online to the formal economy through bank accounts. A 2018 King Khaled Foundation study reported that up to 6.9 million adults, 28 percent of the kingdom’s adult population, were “unbanked,” and 56 percent were women. Because property ownership is guaranteed to women by sharia law, bank accounts are available and accessible to women. A 2019 report in Alsharq al-Awsat highlighted that 20 percent of all bank deposits went into women’s accounts, an amount greater than $53 billion. Thus, women with lower levels of education and socioeconomic status are the ones who tend to be left behind due to cultural norms and low financial literacy—meaning that women resort to saving through informal channels and have limited awareness of the benefits of learning how to manage their money.

At the macro level, the kingdom’s economic reform policies are focused on facing economic shocks and ensuring sustainability and growth. This is also important on a micro level, as individuals must manage emergencies and income shocks through enhanced financial literacy. This will enable citizens to accumulate wealth and contribute to economic growth through increased savings and more measured spending. Improvements in financial literacy tend to be motivated by various factors, including overall economic growth and global competitiveness. Saudi Arabia’s National Savings and Financial Literacy Strategy outlines key objectives to improve financial literacy, including a target to address the low household savings rate of 1.6 percent. Globally, 10 percent is considered the minimum level for ensuring long-term financial independence.

While economic growth might be the overarching national motivation, international organizations are building programs that seek to empower individuals as well. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank have worked with individual countries to enhance financial literacy at the population level through targeted national programs, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has developed guidelines to support participating countries in improving financial literacy.  

In tandem, economic reforms in the kingdom have sparked increased engagement with different financial tools. Because women and minorities tend to have lower financial literacy globally, often compounded by other factors such as limited educational backgrounds and socioeconomic status, these segments of society are usually the targets of financial-literacy programs. The most successful programs, such as the Khazna program launched by the Riyadh-based women’s charity, Al-Nahdha, are designed with such attitudes and challenges in mind.

Launched in 2017, Khazna aims to address the gap in financial literacy by targeting low-income women who are the financial decision-makers in their households. The curriculum stresses ways to save, reduce consumption, budget, and, above all, reduce debt. Khazna has expanded and evolved through feedback loops after each cohort goes through training. It is successful because it considers the communal family structures, the enduring stigma attached to women-led households, and the cultural obligations of generosity and giving. Other programs target women with varying levels of socioeconomic status and are led by banks and different government institutions.

Financial literacy is essential for social inclusion. Khazna is expanding to offer entrepreneurial training, beginning with key information about businesses and ending in a business plan that fills a gap in the market, with a community angle that ensures allyship and support.

As the number of women joining the formal economy within Saudi Arabia continues to grow, it will be important to build programs that circumvent the global traps of severe pay gaps, male-dominated decision-making, and implicit biases that favor men. This can happen if programs begin early as part of a joint effort within the national curriculum, and through community initiatives that bring together industry experts and educators as part of a lifelong approach to literacy. 

While Khazna is one such example, funding for more programs that achieve the targets of the National Savings and Financial Literacy Strategy is key. This must expand beyond basic budgeting to include enhanced literacy on financial security and more complex issues such as home ownership and financial products that offer varying long- and short-term savings and investment opportunities. The programs must also consider women’s diverse backgrounds and the psychological barriers associated with managing money. True empowerment will come from increased agency and decision-making; for working Saudi women, this must be enhanced through elevated financial independence. Any successful program must be tailored to the needs of different categories of women so everyone can share a slice of the development pie.  

Hanaa Almoaibed is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a research fellow at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh. Follow her on X: @hanaaalmoaibed.

The post Saudi women are learning financial literacy and it’s helping the country grow appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
The Islamic Republic claims to support US student protests, but it crushed its own student uprising https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/us-student-protests-palestine-israel-iran-1999-uprising/ Fri, 10 May 2024 15:19:13 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=763892 No matter what the state-run hardline outlets publish or broadcast in Iran, Iranians remember the domestic repression they’ve seen with their own eyes.

The post The Islamic Republic claims to support US student protests, but it crushed its own student uprising appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
When pro-Palestinian student protests on US campuses led to instances of disciplinary action and police violence, one thing was immediately predictable: the repressive Islamic Republic of Iran will use this news to make two claims. First, it will argue that the United States and other liberal democracies are hypocrites who don’t really support human rights or freedom of expression. Second, it will claim that the protests vindicate Tehran’s position and even show its influence in the West. In the past few weeks, Iranian officials and state media outlets have indeed spread both messages.

On April 24, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s X (formerly Twitter) English-language page already opined, “They say, ‘Why are you supporting Palestine?’ Today, the entire world is supporting Palestine. People are supporting Palestine in the streets of Europe, in Washington, and in New York.” In a speech on Teachers’ Day, Khamenei said the US attack on “non-violent and non-destructive” student protests “shows that the US is an accomplice to the Zionists.”

With a well-known knack for making comical claims, Iranian authorities went on to declare that suspended students in the United States could come to Iran and study on government-sponsored scholarships. “Iran’s universities are in a good place in international rankings and expelled American students in any field could come and use them,” a deputy science minister said.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

An editorial in Javan, a mouthpiece for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), opined that the protests showed that “the American democracy is only a lie.” The editorial went on to claim that the US police response to the protests has been much worse than the Iranian police response to the 1999 pro-democracy student uprising—without mentioning the fact that at least seven students were killed by security forces there. 

Iranic TV, an outlet tasked with monitoring Western outlets and producing clips that can be used for propaganda purposes, highlights alleged differences in how US media covers student protests in the United States and those in Iran.

The sheer volume of these productions is quite something. Dansehjoo, an outlet run by a student wing of the IRGC, has produced dozens of news reports and video clips on police actions at various US universities under the general label “the American Student Uprising” and with headlines such as “the violence of US military against students.” Telegram channels linked to the IRGC then help spread such clips widely.

Ironically, when opponents of student protests in the United States link them to Tehran, the regime tries to use that to its benefit. Thus, when Anti-Defamation League Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Jonathan Greenblatt claimed that some student groups were “campus proxies” of Tehran, his remarks were widely featured in Iranian state media.

Taking the argument further, another IRGC outlet claimed that the protests of today were taking place thanks to an open letter Khamenei published in 2015, addressing “the Youth in Europe and North America” following the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris.

But whatever claims the Iranian leadership makes, they are unlikely to be accepted by many Iranians who are well aware of the persistent repression meted out by the regime against students, women, and other Iranians. In fact, while Iranians disagree among themselves about the precise position to be taken in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many seem to be united in ridiculing Tehran’s unlikely claims in favor of students.

Sadegh Zibakalam, a professor of political science at the University of Tehran, put a simple question to the “hardline outlets” that are writing about the US protests: “How many Iranian protesters have been killed and many how had their eyes hit by shot shells?”

The Islamic Republic’s behavior is especially jarring because the past few weeks have seen an uptick in repression. Units of the so-called morality police have an increased presence in Tehran and other cities, brutally arresting many women on accusations of improper veiling and closing down cafes where mandatory veiling rules are not observed.

Mostafa Faghiqi, a senior journalist who runs a centrist news outlet in Tehran, noted the closure of four such cafes in front of a university in Tehran and satirically wrote, “Now that these cafes are closed, the university management can comfortably focus on the illusion of getting protesting American students to come study here. For now, our own Iranian students can sit on the steps or on the ground in front of their university.”

To remind the regime of its brutality, many Iranians have been sharing images on social media of the brutal arrests of students during the 1999 movement. One of the major organizers of that attack was Baqer Qalibaf, then with the IRGC, who is now the speaker of parliament. Some users recounted how students were defenestrated out of their dormitories in an act of brutal violence. An X user said the fact that perpetrators of 1999 crimes would now speak of “worry for American students” was “the joke of the century.”

An Iranian feminist activist expressed her disbelief at the flag of Lebanon’s Iran-backed militia Hezbollah being used by a US student, remembering that in 1999 “our students were taken from their dormitories.” Another user recounted more recent crimes of the Islamic Republic toward students: blinding medical student Mohsen Jamali; imprisoning Said Madani, chair of the University of Tehran’s sociology department and Bahareh Hedayat, a leading student activist; and firing Ali Sharifi Zarchi, a professor at Tehran’s elite Sharif University who was critical of the regime.

Conversely, the regime’s hardline position against Israel and its backing of Palestinian terror groups seem to have little support among the Iranian people, least of all among youth and students. On May 6, when regime supporters tried to raise the Palestinian flag in a football stadium in northern Iran, fans responded with the vulgar chant: “Take that Palestinian flag and shove it up your a–.” A similar slogan was chanted during a game in October 2023, right after Hamas’s attacks on Israel. Even anti-regime activists who are pro-Palestinian have complained about how little activity there is in support of Palestine in Iranian universities. While there have been solidarity protests in support of US students in various countries around the world, such regime-staged efforts in Iran have produced meager results. Pictures published from such gatherings around Iran show that most consist of only a dozen people, some of whom appear to be university administrators rather than students.

The Islamic Republic will surely try to use the shocking images coming out of US universities to its benefit, but few Iranians will fall for its stale propaganda. No matter what the state-run hardline outlets publish or broadcast in Iran, Iranians remember the domestic repression they’ve seen with their own eyes—not just in 1999, but over the decades.

Arash Azizi is a writer and scholar. He is the author of The Shadow Commander: Soleimani, the US and Iran’s Global Ambitions and What Iranians Want. Follow him on X: @arash_tehran.

The post The Islamic Republic claims to support US student protests, but it crushed its own student uprising appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukraine’s second city is struggling to survive amid relentless Russian bombing https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-second-city-is-struggling-to-survive-amid-relentless-russian-bombing/ Tue, 07 May 2024 14:50:36 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=762984 Ukraine's second city, Kharkiv, is struggling to survive amid a campaign of relentless Russian bombing that aims to make the city unlivable, writes Maria Avdeeva.

The post Ukraine’s second city is struggling to survive amid relentless Russian bombing appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Everywhere you look in Kharkiv today, there is evidence of Russian bombing. After four months of relentless aerial attacks, Ukraine’s second city is dotted with ruined buildings, while boarded-up windows have become a ubiquitous feature of the urban landscape. A little over two years ago, this had been a vibrant city known for its many universities and robust industrial economy. It is now becoming the latest symbol of the human suffering inflicted by Russia’s invasion.

There are still plenty of reminders that Kharkiv remains home to over a million people. Freshly planted flowerbeds bloom in bright spring colors. Downtown traffic is still sometimes congested, with delivery boys on bikes and scooters weaving their way through jams of taxi drivers, private cars, and public transport. Supermarkets and many small businesses remain defiantly open, while municipal workers emerge to diligently clear up the mess after each new explosion. But there is no mistaking the menace of sudden death and destruction that now hangs over the city.

Located just thirty kilometers from the Russian border, Kharkiv is Ukraine’s most vulnerable major city and has been on the front lines of the war for more than two years. Russia’s initial blitzkrieg attack on Kharkiv in early 2022 was repelled, with Ukraine’s successful September 2022 counteroffensive then pushing Putin’s invading army further away from the city. However, since the beginning of 2024, Kharkiv has become the principle target in a new Russian offensive which aims to take advantage of Ukraine’s mounting ammunition shortages and lack of air defenses.

Bombings are now a daily occurrence. Russia employs a mix of weapons including everything from ballistic missiles and drones to vast quantities of long-range glide bombs that are steadily destroying the city from a safe distance. These attacks target residential neighborhoods and critical civilian infrastructure in what appears to be a calculated campaign to make the entire city 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.

Amid the constant threat of bombing, Kharkiv residents continue to display the kind of remarkable resilience that is now synonymous with Ukraine. The city’s Makers coffee chain is a good example of this dogged determination. The chain has actually expanded since the start of the war, doubling its presence in Kharkiv from two outlets to four, while also opening a new branch in the front line city of Kupyansk. Dmytro Kabanets, the twenty nine year old owner of the chain, believes it is vital for local residents to have a sense of community. “The feeling of not being alone is invaluable. People need to know there are others ready to lend a hand, both emotionally and practically,” he says.

Despite this upbeat attitude, he admits staying in business in today’s Kharkiv is becoming more and more difficult. The windows of the chain’s flagship coffee shop are boarded up as a precaution against further bomb damage. Due to Russian attacks on the city’s energy infrastructure, electricity supplies are a major challenge for all local businesses. After both of Kharkiv’s biggest power plants were destroyed in March, the city has experienced rolling blackouts. The rumble of generators has become a background feature of everyday life, with restaurants offering “generator-friendly’ menu items that require minimal power to prepare.

Many analysts believe Russia’s objective is to depopulate Kharkiv ahead of a summer offensive that will aim to seize the city and deliver a decisive blow to Ukrainian resistance. Rumors of looming encirclement and evacuations swirl around on social media, often fueled by Russian disinformation. For now, there is no indication of a mass exodus from Kharkiv, but the strain and trauma of recent months are forcing residents to make hard decisions.

Yevhen Streltsov, who runs the city’s Radio Nakypilo, says everyone approaches the issue of whether to stay or go in a highly personal manner. Some residents are bracing themselves for a repeat of the artillery barrages that rocked Kharkiv in the first months of the war. Others say they will only leave if the city is under direct threat of Russian occupation. “The situation is tense, but there is no panic,” he says, noting that he and his team are determined to continue their mission of broadcasting to the local population.

For some Kharkiv residents, the stress has already become too much. Exhausted and emotionally drained by months of Russian bombardment, they are heading westward to Kyiv or beyond. Many are leaving their homes for the second time, having returned to Kharkiv after initially fleeing the city in the first days of the invasion.

Inevitably, the outflow of people is having an impact on the local economy. Revenues at the Makers coffee chain have dropped by up to 40 percent in recent weeks. Across Kharkiv, companies are reluctantly shutting down as people move their families to safety, with some businesses being put up for sale. Many of the city’s public spaces now feel eerily empty, especially once evening arrives.

It is still far too early to write Kharkiv off. While more and more residents are understandably seeking to escape the horrors of daily bombing, many remain determined to stay put. The population is clearly declining, but it remains nowhere near the lows witnessed during the early months of the invasion, when only around 300,000 people remained in the city.

If Russia does launch a serious campaign to capture or encircle Kharkiv in the coming months, this would represent by far the Kremlin’s most ambitious undertaking since losing the Battle of Kyiv in early 2022. The Ukrainian army will fight hard to defend the country’s second city, and they will be supported by a still sizable local population. Given the considerable difficulties Russia has encountered in seizing much smaller towns such as Bakhmut and Avdiivka, it is far from certain that Putin’s invading army currently has the offensive capabilities to take Kharkiv.

As the summer campaigning season approaches, the threat of a humanitarian catastrophe in eastern Ukraine is rising and requires urgent international attention. Kharkiv is now the focal point of Russia’s entire invasion and is in desperate need of increased air defenses. This is the only way to prevent it from becoming the largest in a long line of Ukrainian cities reduced to rubble by the Russian military.

Maria Avdeeva is a Kharkiv-based Ukrainian security analyst and strategic communication expert.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Ukraine’s second city is struggling to survive amid relentless Russian bombing appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Charai in The National Interest: Nationwide Campus Protests Shock and Appall https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/charai-in-the-national-interest-nationwide-campus-protests-shock-and-appall/ Fri, 03 May 2024 23:10:37 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=762117 The post Charai in The National Interest: Nationwide Campus Protests Shock and Appall appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

The post Charai in The National Interest: Nationwide Campus Protests Shock and Appall appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukraine’s new mobilization law leaves demobilization issue unresolved https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-new-mobilization-law-leaves-demobilization-issue-unresolved/ Thu, 02 May 2024 20:32:42 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=761862 Ukraine urgently needs to replenish the ranks of the country's depleted military, but the recently adopted mobilization law fails to address the key issue of demobilization, write Elena Davlikanova and Kateryna Odarchenko.

The post Ukraine’s new mobilization law leaves demobilization issue unresolved appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukraine’s new mobilization law will come into force later this month as the country seeks to resolve mounting problems over wartime service in the Ukrainian military. Despite months of political debate and multiple revisions, many observers remain unconvinced by the version of the law that was finally approved by the Ukrainian Parliament and signed by President Zelenskyy on April 16. Crucially, it fails to address the topic of demobilization for the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who have been serving since the onset of the full-scale Russian invasion more than two years ago.

Ukraine’s new mobilization law is the latest step in ongoing efforts to reform the military recruitment process and meet the unprecedented challenges posed by Russia’s ongoing invasion. Although Ukrainian losses remain undisclosed, there is clearly a pressing need to replenish the ranks of the military, while also allowing current service personnel to be rotated out of front line positions or demobilized.

Ukrainian military officials initially stated that the goal of the new law was to mobilize an additional 500,000 people. This figure has since been reduced to an unspecified but significantly lower number. Prior to the full-scale invasion, around 250,000 people served in the Ukrainian military, but thanks in large part to a massive surge in volunteers following Russia’s invasion, this force swelled to around 880,000 troops. Together with the National Guard and other formations, there are now believed to be approximately one million Ukrainians in uniform.

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 mobilization bill was subject to approximately 4500 amendments, underlining the complexity of the issue. The final version focused on regulating the process of identifying and registering potential conscripts, reviewing eligibility for mobilization, and revising penalties for evading service. Key points include the introduction of an online registry for recruits and the lowering of the age for draft eligibility from 27 to 25.

In line with the new regulations, men of military age will now be obliged to update their registration details within 60 days of the law entering into force, either at regional offices or via an online portal. They will be required to carry their military registration documents and present them upon request or when applying for a passport. Meanwhile, penalties for evading mobilization remain relatively mild. These include modest fines and the potential revocation of drivers licenses.

The new mobilization law does not extend to military-age females. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had earlier stated his opposition to obligatory military service for women. While they are not subject to conscription, many Ukrainian women do choose to enlist in the armed forces voluntarily, with approximately 60,000 currently serving in a variety of positions including front line roles.

To further boost the mobilization process, the Ukrainian army plans to open a network of 27 new recruitment centers in the coming months in major cities across the country. These centers will function as advisory and information hubs, providing guidance to those interested in joining the armed forces and allowing candidates to choose which unit they prefer to serve in. The first recruitment centers have already opened in Lviv and Zaporizhzhia. Initial reports are positive and indicate this modern approach to military service could help address some of the key concerns among potential recruits.

Most of the criticism leveled at Ukraine’s new mobilization law has focused on the removal of earlier provisions regarding demobilization. Initial drafts envisaged the demobilization of military personnel after 36 months of service, and the rotation of those serving on the front lines for over six months. However, these clauses were taken out of the legislation at the last minute following appeals from Ukraine’s military leadership, who argued that they would weaken Ukraine by facilitating the withdrawal of the country’s most experienced military personnel without providing sufficient trained replacements. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense is now working on a separate law to handle the demobilization issue.

While opinion remains divided over the fairness and effectiveness of Ukraine’s new mobilization law, few would argue that the country urgently needs to address manpower issues within the armed forces. Many analysts cite troop shortages as one of main challenges facing the Ukrainian military, along with insufficient weapons and ammunition deliveries from the country’s Western partners.

Russia does not currently appear to be encountering any such problems. In recent weeks, Ukrainian commanders have reported that their forces are now outnumbered by as many as ten to one at certain points along the front lines of the war. This overwhelming superiority in numbers is enabling Russia to advance on the battlefield despite suffering consistently high casualty rates.

With Russia’s initial blitzkrieg invasion now transformed into a war of attrition, the Kremlin aims to avoid a politically risky second wave of mobilization and maintain a steady stream of volunteers by offering a range of cash incentives for new recruits, including extremely high salaries and generous financial support for the families of servicemen. Recent reports indicate Russia is aiming to sign up hundreds of thousands of additional troops in the near future amid preparations for a major summer offensive.

Ukraine is now racing against the clock to strengthen its military before Russia’s summer offensive can get fully underway. The recent breakthrough in Washington DC regarding desperately needed US military aid will boost these efforts, as will the new mobilization law. However, with no end in sight to Russian aggression, Ukraine must also find long-term solutions to the country’s lack of new recruits and the thorny issue of demobilization.

Dr. Elena Davlikanova is a Democracy Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis and an associate professor at Sumy State University in Ukraine. Kateryna Odarchenko is a partner at SIC Group Ukraine.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Ukraine’s new mobilization law leaves demobilization issue unresolved appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Vinograd on CBS about President Biden’s comments on university campus protests for Palestine https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/vinograd-cbs-palestine-protests-on-campuses-biden-comments/ Thu, 02 May 2024 17:08:47 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=763363 On May 2, Forward Defense Nonresident Senior Fellow Samantha Vinograd appeared on CBS News commented on the public safety factors in President Biden’s comments about student protests for Palestine on university campuses.

The post Vinograd on CBS about President Biden’s comments on university campus protests for Palestine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

On May 2, Forward Defense Nonresident Senior Fellow Samantha Vinograd appeared on CBS News commented on the public safety factors in President Biden’s comments about student protests for Palestine on university campuses.

Forward Defense, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, generates ideas and connects stakeholders in the defense ecosystem to promote an enduring military advantage for the United States, its allies, and partners. Our work identifies the defense strategies, capabilities, and resources the United States needs to deter and, if necessary, prevail in future conflict.

The post Vinograd on CBS about President Biden’s comments on university campus protests for Palestine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Climate change doesn’t have to result in greater gender inequity in the Caribbean https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-caribbean-climate-change-gender-inequity/ Mon, 29 Apr 2024 16:19:41 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=760512 Caribbean climate policy design and resource allocation must incorporate the voices and interests of the region’s women and girls.

The post Climate change doesn’t have to result in greater gender inequity in the Caribbean appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
The Caribbean is one of world’s most vulnerable regions to the effects of climate change. Hurricanes and strong tropical storms, changing precipitation patterns, and sea level rise disproportionately affect Caribbean economies and citizens—and none of the latter more than its women and girls. Climate change amplifies their existing challenges, such as gender-based violence and inequities, while creating new barriers to economic opportunity and political influence. As Caribbean governments and their partners work to build a more resilient region, the challenges facing women and girls need to be taken into account and policy designs must reflect their perspectives.

The region has an urgent need to prepare for the scope of climate change. Many of the region’s countries rely on tourism to drive economic growth, with ten of the world’s twenty most tourism-dependent economies residing in the Caribbean. When hurricanes roll through the region, damaging infrastructure and halting flights, the tourism industry halts as well, diminishing economic prospects. Most Caribbean countries face the brunt of the Atlantic hurricane season, which is producing stronger and more frequent tropical storms. At the same time, most of the region’s populous cities are coastal, making sea level rise a threat to homes and the day-to-day functions of society. Further, changing precipitation patterns and higher average temperatures result in agricultural degradation and more acidic oceans, decreasing crop yields in rural areas and limiting fishery supplies.

While the entire region faces daunting consequences from climate change and related natural disasters, women and girls face disproportionate effects across four areas.

First, women and girls are “especially vulnerable to sexual violence and coercion” in the wake of a natural disaster, according to the United Nations Population Fund. This risk includes and extends beyond domestic violence, which is known to spike in crisis situations, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic in Trinidad and Tobago. Disproportionate risks mount, the World Bank notes, “in the face of uprooted housing and traditional support structures, disrupted access to services, and both structural and social obstacles to accessing food, relief, supplies, and latrines.” A lack of privacy and security in shelters is problematic, especially for young and teenage girls.

Second, women are responsible for a greater share of caregiving for families and households. After Hurricane María knocked out the power grid in Puerto Rico and made potable water scarce, it was women who bore a greater burden in doing the cooking, laundry, and cleaning to keep households going. Moreover, across multiple climate change events, when schools close, women with school-age children are often unable to return to work or attend school themselves.

Third, Caribbean women tend to work in the informal economy, including small-scale businesses and the hospitality sector, both of which are adversely affected by tropical storms. Storms can damage crops and roads, making it difficult to get produce to markets, while also leaving restaurants, shops, and hotels closed for days, affecting incomes.

Finally, women often have unequal access to finance, capital, and other assets, which can affect their resilience after a disaster. In addition, as governments finance the reconstruction of damaged infrastructure after natural disasters and fortify existing structures, there are fewer resources devoted to the education and health sectors—both of which are integral to providing care to and lifting family responsibility burdens from women.

Caribbean governments and regional partners must factor in the disproportionate challenges facing women and girls at the earliest stages of climate resilience and adaptation policymaking. Policy designs should incorporate government funding or subsidies dedicated to women-owned businesses adversely affected by climate change. Historically, Caribbean women face barriers to accessing finance and capital to start or invest in their businesses. Limited track records in operating a business relative to men and frequent climate events increase the risk profiles for women-owned firms. Here, governments can work with regional institutions like the Caribbean Development Bank to level the playing field for women-owned firms by providing grants to businesses in climate-affected sectors, like hospitality and agricultural work.

Further, resources can and should be dedicated to women-owned firms that are physically affected by climate events and to create shelters where at-risk women and girls can stay after natural disasters to limit spaces where gender-based violence can occur. This should include shelters that can care for children and allow working parents to return to their jobs to offset the disproportionate costs borne by women resulting from family responsibilities.

Involving women in policy designs also includes making them part of the decision-making process. Only women and girls can provide first-hand information to contextualize policies and streamline resources that address the unique challenges they face due to climate change. One way to do this is to incorporate perspectives from gender-focused civil society organizations.

Civil society organizations are uniquely intertwined with the realities of each country at national and subnational levels, allowing them to understand the day-to-day challenges facing women and girls across different communities. Governments can work with civil society organizations to ensure that policies are not blanket approaches but are bottom-up in nature, so that each community of women and girls receive the resources and attention they require. Regular consultation with these groups, particularly in the advent of hurricane season, during rainy seasons, and in the lead-up to drier months can provide real-time insights into the types of government resources that should be devoted to women and girls.

Given that the Caribbean is a heterogeneous region, with different climate events affecting different countries, it is essential for policy design and decision making to be country-specific as well as gender inclusive to best serve local populations. Climate change does not have to result in increasing gender inequity in the Caribbean—as long as the voices and interests of women and girls are incorporated in policy design and resource allocation in regional planning to combat climate change.


Wazim Mowla is the associate director and fellow for the Caribbean Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center. 

This article is part of the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center’s partnership with the UN Women Multi-Country Office–Caribbean.

The post Climate change doesn’t have to result in greater gender inequity in the Caribbean appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Bombs and disinformation: Russia’s campaign to depopulate Kharkiv https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/bombs-and-disinformation-russias-campaign-to-depopulate-kharkiv/ Mon, 29 Apr 2024 14:59:56 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=760510 Russia is deploying disinformation alongside bombs as it seeks to demoralize Kharkiv residents and depopulate Ukraine's second city, writes Maria Avdeeva.

The post Bombs and disinformation: Russia’s campaign to depopulate Kharkiv appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukraine’s second city, Kharkiv, is currently the Kremlin’s number one target. Since the start of 2024, Kharkiv has been the primary focus of a Russian bombing campaign that has sought to capitalize of Ukraine’s dwindling supplies of air defense ammunition in order to terrorize the civilian population and destroy vital infrastructure.

The Kremlin’s goal is to make Kharkiv “unlivable” and force a large percentage of its approximately 1.3 million residents to flee. Moscow hopes this will demoralize Ukraine and pave the way for the city’s capture by Russian forces during a widely anticipated summer offensive in the coming months.

Putin is not relying on missiles and drones alone to do the job of depopulating Kharkiv. In recent months, Russia has also unleashed an elaborate information offensive that aims to fuel panic and uncertainty among the city’s embattled population via a combination of aggressive propaganda and destabilizing disinformation.

Kharkiv has been on the front lines of the war ever since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022. Situated approximately half an hour by car from the Russian border, the city was one of the initial targets of the invading Russian army and witnessed heavy fighting in spring 2022. Following Ukraine’s successful September 2022 counteroffensive, which liberated most of Kharkiv Oblast and pushed Russian troops further away from the city itself, the Kharkiv population rose from a wartime low of around 300,000 to well over a million.

With delays in US military aid creating growing gaps in Ukraine’s air defenses, Russia has intensified the bombardment of Kharkiv since early 2024. A series of strikes in March destroyed the city’s main power plants, creating an energy crisis that has led to widespread blackouts. In mid April, Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov warned that the city was now at risk of becoming a “second Aleppo,” a grim reference to the Syrian city partially destroyed almost a decade ago following heavy bombing by Russian and Syrian government forces.

The extensive use of highly destructive glide bombs has further exacerbated the situation and added to the psychological strain on the Kharkiv population, with many attacks on residential districts taking place in broad daylight. One of the most recent blows was the destruction of Kharkiv’s iconic television tower, a city landmark and also an important element of local communications infrastructure.

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 escalating bombing campaign has been accompanied by a major information offensive. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is one of numerous senior Kremlin officials to encourage a mood of mounting insecurity among Kharkiv residents by publicly speaking of a coming campaign to seize the city. In April, Lavrov noted Kharkiv’s “important role” in Vladimir Putin’s plans to create a demilitarized “sanitary zone” inside Ukraine.

This message has been reinforced throughout Russia’s tightly-controlled mainstream media space. During a revealing recent lecture to Russian students, prominent Kremlin propagandist Olga Skabeyeva argued that patriotic journalists should portray the bombing of Kharkiv region not as evidence of Russian aggression, but as part of efforts to establish a “sanitary zone” along the Ukrainian border with Russia.

Statements from Russian establishment figures on the need to destroy and depopulate Kharkiv have been accompanied by a steady stream of similar chatter on social media. Since January 2024, there have been growing signs of a coordinated campaign to flood the online information space with intimidating and alarmist posts pushing the idea that Kharkiv will soon become an uninhabitable grey zone.

The role of social media in Russia’s information offensive against Kharkiv cannot be overstated. Platforms like Telegram, TikTok, and X (formerly known as Twitter) have become battlegrounds for competing narratives and serve as platforms for carefully choreographed Russian propaganda. Groups of pro-Kremlin accounts frequently engage in the intensive promotion of key propaganda messages. These include the alleged hopelessness of Ukraine’s military position, the inability of the Ukrainian state to protect its citizens, and the likelihood of Kharkiv suffering the same fate as Mariupol, a Ukrainian port city with a prewar population of around half a million that was largely destroyed by the invading Russian army during the first months of the war.

Russia’s information offensive features a strong disinformation component. This includes the distribution of fake statements supposedly released by the Ukrainian authorities. On one occasion, Kremlin accounts spread disinformation that the Ukrainian government was calling on residents to leave Kharkiv urgently in order to avoid imminent Russian encirclement. In a separate incident, Russian sources pushed fake Ukrainian government reports stating that Kharkiv was on the brink of a humanitarian collapse.

These elaborate fakes are typically presented in a convincing manner and closely resemble official Ukrainian government communications. They have even been accompanied by detailed information about “safe evacuation routes.” Inevitably, many Kharkiv residents are fooled by this disinformation and become unwitting accomplices in the dissemination of weaponized Russian fakes.

Russian accounts have also taken genuine news reports and distorted them in ways designed to mislead the public and maximize panic. For example, a series of planned evacuations from specific front line settlements was repackaged by Kremlin trolls as a complete evacuation of entire Kharkiv region districts.

In addition to fake government announcements and deliberate distortions, Kremlin-linked social media accounts are also actively spreading misleading video footage. One widely shared recent video purported to show long lines of cars evacuating Kharkiv while proclaiming that an “exodus” of the “ruined” city was underway. However, this video was later debunked as archive footage shot during the early days of the invasion in spring 2022.

Russia’s disinformation campaign seeks to sow fear and confusion among the Kharkiv population, says local resident Nataliya Zubar, who heads the Maidan Monitoring Information Service. “Disinformation clouds people’s judgment, leading to emotional reactions and stress,” she notes. “This fuels instability and places additional strains on the limited resources that are needed for the city’s defense and to address the growing humanitarian crisis Russia is creating.”

Kharkiv officials and civil society organizations are well aware of Russia’s ongoing information offensive. Work is currently underway to debunk false information and reduce the city’s vulnerability to information attack. These efforts include methodically exposing false claims, while also informing city residents of Russian information warfare tactics and educating them on ways to detect and counter disinformation. The stresses and strains of the emotionally charged wartime environment in today’s Kharkiv make this is a particularly complex task.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian authorities are developing a draft law to target the spread of deliberate disinformation via social media. This initiative mirrors similar undertakings in a number of other countries, but skeptics question whether legislative measures will prove effective against sophisticated state-backed information operations conducted across multiple media platforms.

Russia failed to take Kharkiv in the early weeks of the invasion more than two years ago. As the city braces for the possibility of a new Russian offensive in the coming summer months, local residents are equally determined to defy the Kremlin once again. In order to do so, they must withstand unprecedented aerial bombardment, while also guarding against the demoralizing impact of relentless Russian disinformation.

Maria Avdeeva is a Kharkiv-based Ukrainian security analyst and strategic communication expert.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Bombs and disinformation: Russia’s campaign to depopulate Kharkiv appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Everything you need to know about Iranian rapper Toomaj Salehi and his death sentence https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/toomaj-salehi-iran-rapper-execution/ Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:25:02 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=759884 On April 24, a revolutionary court in Iran sentenced dissident rapper Toomaj Salehi to death on charges of “spreading corruption on the Earth.”

The post Everything you need to know about Iranian rapper Toomaj Salehi and his death sentence appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
On April 24, a revolutionary court in Iran sentenced dissident rapper Toomaj Salehi to death on charges of “spreading corruption on the Earth.” In July 2023, the same court had sentenced him to seventy-five-months in prison on the same charges but released him on bail for a short time in November 2023. The death sentence appears to be the regime’s response to Salehi publicly speaking about the torture he endured during his detention, while out on bail.

“Spreading corruption on the Earth” is a charge revolutionary courts in Iran have historically used against dissidents, including those extrajudicially killed during mass executions of the 1980s—known as the 1988 massacre—and people who were arrested in relation to the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom uprising.

Salehi is best known for creating protest songs that spoke out against the oppressive Islamic Republic policies that were the focus of the Woman, Life, Freedom uprising prompted by the death in custody of Mahsa Jina Amini in September 2022.

The open-source information identified below has been preserved and analyzed through the ​​Iranian Archive, a joint effort led by the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project (SLP) and Mnemonic, and a coalition of open-source investigation experts at the Promise Institute for Human Rights at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Law, UC Berkeley’s Human Rights Center, Amnesty International’s Digital Verification Corps, the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, and the Azadi Archive. The archive forensically preserved more than two million pieces of digital evidence recording serious human rights violations committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran against Woman, Life, Freedom movement protesters to support future accountability efforts related to human rights violations in Iran.  

Below is a summary of the open-source investigation about Salehi, which is part of a broader report being carried out through the SLP, Iranian Archive, and UC Berkeley’s Human Rights Center. The report analyzes key incidents of violence carried out by the Islamic Republic during the Woman, Life, Freedom uprising, and is due out this fall. 

Salehi’s arbitrary arrest and detention were highlighted in the detailed findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran (FFMI), a United Nations-mandated body tasked with investigating alleged human rights violations committed in the context of the protests that began on September 16, 2022. His arrest was identified as a key incident of large-scale repressive measures taken by the Islamic Republic authorities to silence artists and writers during the protests. 

Importantly, the FFMI found that such arrests and imprisonment are happening as part of a widespread and systematic attack against civilians in Iran and amount to crimes against humanity. While Salehi’s case is highlighted, it is important to remember that this is happening all over Iran and continuing to harm lives to this day.  

The following is a timeline detailing the persecution of Salehi for the crime of defying the Islamic Republic’s authoritarian rule in a peaceful manner through his art. The document is based on open-source research with a focus on material published by Iranian state media, including forced confessions of Salehi aired by state television. Although the material is laced with state propaganda and false accusations against Salehi, the details can be used to display the violence he endured and the illegality of judicial procedures.

Arrest—October 30, 2022

Iran’s state broadcaster, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), reported on October 30, 2022, that Iranian rapper Toomaj Salehi was arrested. The same day, in a video report shared by the judiciary’s official outlet, Mizan News Agency, Salehi was accused of “planning and organizing” protests in collaboration with “diaspora leaders” and “threatening” security forces. The video included a collage of Salehi’s social media posts and a photo purporting to show him in daylight after his arrest, blindfolded and in a vehicle.

The video report was produced by IRIB “interrogator journalist” Ameneh Sadat Zabihpour, who was sanctioned by the United States for her role in soliciting and broadcasting “hundreds of forced confessions of Iranian, dual national, and international detainees in Iran.”

First video

On November 2, 2022, the Young Journalists Club (YJC), a media body affiliated with the IRIB, released a short clip showing Salehi sitting on the ground, blindfolded and with a swollen face, saying: “[I’m] Toomaj Salehi. I said that I’m sorry. I said that I tell ‘you as a friend that you should run away.’” The video starts with a short clip of an already-deleted social media post by Salehi in which he tells security forces to desert their posts and “run away” instead of oppressing people.

IRIB later used the video in a report that described Salehi as “one of the leaders of recent riots” and “instigating sedition online.” The report was broadcast on November 2, 2022, and was posted on the IRIB website two days later. IRIB reporter Atefeh Godini produced the report.

  • The video shows Toomaj Salehi sitting on the ground, blindfolded and with a swollen face.
  • He touches the side of his head as if in pain. 
  • Apparently anticipating more beatings, he raises his hand in front of his face.
  • The location is not clear. The video is recorded in the open and during dark hours. A tree can be seen in the background.

Second video

On December 6, 2022, Iranian state media including the government-run daily Iran published a new video titled “Toomaj Salehi: I apologize to the society for the violence I caused.”

The video opens with doctored segments of a music video of a rap song by Salehi published in October 2022, in which he criticized the regime for its corruption and oppression. In the track, Toomaj says that he “rises up from the bottom” of society and is defying the “head of the pyramid” responsible for the oppression. The video released by state media includes three segments in which Salehi speaks.

The first segment shows a part of Salehi’s face with him saying, “I wrote that. There is a copy of its text,” an apparent reference to the lyrics.

Then, overlaid on muted videos of him, a voice similar to Salehi’s can be heard saying, “Music can beget violence.”

In the third segment, Salehi appears to say, “This was my mistake. I apologize to you for that,” pointing to the interrogator/interviewer in the room, “and to society for producing violence. I wish I could…I can only apologize now. I wish I could produce the counterpoint to [the music].”

The video released by state media heavily references Salehi’s October 2022 music video “Faal [Fortune].” 

The video released by state media is recorded from multiple angles with the camera moving, apparently using a camera trolley. Shots recorded from above imply that the video was produced in a professionally equipped studio, and the cuts and edits also suggest that it was made through a long production process.

Video released by state media

The hand of a man adorned with an Aqeeq ring pushes a paper toward Salehi. The markings on the paper are similar to those on papers used for writing confessions.

Faal music video

In the music video, Salehi gives the other person a piece of paper to take notes on what he is saying and, he raps, to “pass them up.”

In the video released by state media, Salehi is shown drinking from a white cup similar to the one shown in the music video.

In the music video, Salehi reads the regime’s coffee-cup fortune (“Faal” in Persian).

The video released by state media even mimics the camera motions used in Salehi’s music video.

The steady camera motions in the video published by state media suggest the use of a camera trolley.

The video published by state media also includes overhead shots, implying that the video was produced in a professionally equipped studio.

All the cinematic techniques used imply that the video was recorded over a long process in which Salehi might have been forced to repeat dictated lines. The long production process and heavily doctored material also indicate that he could have been asked questions unrelated to the case, and his responses were manipulated and edited to convey a message that the regime prefers.

Statement after release

Toomaj Salehi was released from Isfahan Central Prison on November 18, 2023, on bail. On April 21, 2023, judiciary spokesperson Masoud Setayeshi confirmed he was released on bail and added that Salehi’s sentence was being reviewed per an order from the Supreme Court.

On November 27, 2023, the YouTube account that releases music produced by Toomaj Salehi posted a video of him after his release from jail. The channel has been releasing Salehi’s music as early as October 18, 2020, based on the oldest post available on the account published on that day.

In the fourteen-and-a-half-minute video, Salehi describes his time in custody and explains his forced confession. His description of his ordeal includes, but is not limited to, the following statements.

  • Malign actors are trying to “assassinate [his] character.” Salehi pointed to state media reports that he “confessed” and “snitched” on others. “Whom did I have to snitch on? What did I have to confess to? Everything I’ve done has been on your phones [and public]. I wasn’t hiding anything to confess to.”
  • “I was severely tortured at the time of my arrest. They broke my arms and my legs. They were hitting my face and my head, so at first I tried to cover myself with my hands, and they broke my fingers.”
  • Salehi also says that he was given a shot in the neck at the time of his arrest. “One of the other political prisoners told me that the injection they gave me in my neck was most likely adrenaline so I wouldn’t pass out so that I would be conscious during the time they were torturing me so I would feel the pain fully.”
  • “About confessions, I didn’t even hand over [access to] my social media accounts.”
  • Salehi points out that during his detention, whenever he raised the issue of the illegality of the security officers’ behavior, “they would laugh and say ‘what law? We can and we do whatever [we want].’”
  • Before Salehi’s release from jail, the judge, Morteza Barati, and his case officer met with him demanding access to his social media accounts, which he refused. (Security forces often seize social media accounts of political prisoners before their release and condition their release on bail on their not using social media.)
  • Some anonymous social media accounts with apparent ties to the state pointed to his apparent physical health after his release on bail, arguing that his being tortured was “fake news.” Reacting to those comments, Salehi said, “Four months ago, when I was transferred from [detention center of the] Intelligence [Ministry] to prison, they wouldn’t say that. My bones were broken a year and a month ago. They have naturally healed by now.”
  • In the video, Salehi points out that he did not receive proper medical care for the broken bones, that he cannot walk properly and limps, and that walking is sometimes painful for him. He also complained about chronic pain in his hands.
  • “The Intelligence Ministry has produced and released a video in which it appears that I am apologizing to the interrogator. I didn’t say that. I wasn’t talking to the interrogator. I was interviewed there for nine hours. I have made one or two gaffes. The person asked me a question, for example asking me ‘If right now, the mother of such and such person who went out [to protest] because of you and is now in prison, was sitting before you, what would you tell her?’ And they have edited [my response] in a manner that it appears that I am apologizing to him, which is ridiculous.”
  • Salehi says that he has filed a complaint about the torture he endured during his detention.
  • In the video, Salehi says that he was held in “solitary confinement for 8–9 months” and subjected to “white torture” on top of the “physical torture in the beginning” after his arrest. (White torture is sensory deprivation.)
  • He also said that the Intelligence Ministry had “ordered the prison chief to make conditions worse” for him because he had “filed a complaint against them.”

Timeline

Toomaj Salehi was born December 3, 1990. He is from Iran’s Bakhtiari ethnic minority. His father was a political prisoner for eight years.

Previous Arrest—September 13, 2021

Toomaj Salehi was arrested on September 13, 2021, at his home. He was charged with “insulting the Supreme Leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and “propaganda against the regime,” under Articles 514 and 500 of the Islamic Penal Code. The BBC’s Persian service reported at the time that he was sentenced to six months in jail and an unreported fine. The court suspended the sentence for one year. On September 21, 2021, Salehi was released on bail.

Arrest—October 30, 2022

Salehi was arrested again on October 30, 2022. In an interview with Mizan News Agency, the official outlet of Iran’s judiciary, Public and Revolutionary Prosecutor of Isfahan Seyed Mohammad Mousavian listed Salehi’s charges as “propaganda against the regime, cooperation with hostile states, and establishing an illegal group with the intention of disrupting national security.” Mousavian added, “The accused played a key role in instigating riots and inviting and encouraging the recent mayhem and riots in Isfahan Province and in the city of Shahinshahr.”

Charges—November 27, 2022

Chief Justice of Isfahan Province Asadollah Jafari told Mizan: “Toomaj Salehi has been charged with spreading corruption on the Earth by spreading lies in a way causing major losses, propaganda against the regime, establishing and managing illegal groups with the intention of disrupting national security, cooperating with a hostile government against the Islamic Republic, spreading lies and disturbing the public mind through cyberspace, and inciting and encouraging people to commit violent acts.”

Alleged death sentence—July 5, 2023

The semi-official Tasnim News Agency reported that Salehi “had been sentenced to death, but his sentence was reduced to imprisonment.”

The alleged sentence was not announced by the judiciary—as is customary—or Salehi’s lawyer. At the time, it raised questions about the credibility of Tasnim’s report and whether the news was part of the regime’s psychological warfare against protesters.

Prison sentence—July 12, 2023

Jafari said that Salehi was sentenced to seventy-five months (six years and three months) in prison. He also received a two-year ban on leaving the country, a two-year ban on music-related activities, and a requirement to attend “workshops, courses and life skills classes” held by the judiciary’s crime-prevention department. Jafari added that Salehi’s pending six-month jail sentence from 2021 will also be implemented.

Torture complaint—October 29, 2023

On October 29, 2023, Salehi’s account on X (formerly Twitter), which is run by his social media manager from outside Iran, wrote that he had filed a complaint against the director of the Intelligence Ministry’s branch in Isfahan province and the officers responsible for his case over “torture and illegal behavior during [his] illegal detention.”

The complaint lists the illegal conduct of security officers, including the following.

  • Salehi’s place of residence was illegally raided. Security officers climbed the wall and did not provide an arrest warrant. Two other residents of the building were also arrested without a warrant. The personal vehicle of Salehi’s father was seized without a warrant.
  • “Violent arrest, beating, torture, and verbal abuse for twelve hours (from 3:00 AM on October 30, 2022 to 3:00 PM of the same day) in a place outside the city while blindfolded and even filming these inhumane actions, some of which were broadcasted by IRIB.”
  • Beating leading to
    • a fracture of the right leg;
    • a fracture of the fourth finger on the left hand;
    • severe damage to both eyes; and
    • fractured ribs.
  • Officers failed to transfer Salehi to the prosecutor’s office within the legal timeframe or hand him over to the detention center, and failed to provide medical care in time.

The statement also adds that Salehi was arrested in Gerd Bisheh, a village in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province by officers of the  Isfahan branch of the Intelligence Ministry.

Salehi’s lawyer, Amir Raeisian, posted a photo of the official complaint on Instagram on December 2, 2023.

Release on bail—November 18, 2023

Salehi was eventually released from prison on November 18, 2023 on bail. Judiciary spokesperson Masoud Setayeshi confirmed on April 21, 2023, that Salehi has been released on bail and added that the Supreme Court had called for his sentence to be amended as well.

Arrest—November 30, 2023

The government-run IRNA news agency reported that Salehi was arrested again on November 30, 2023, in the northern city of Babol in Mazandaran province. 

The judiciary’s Mizan also wrote, “Toomaj Salehi was arrested on the charge of publishing lies and disturbing the public mind after publishing some false and undocumented comments online.” 

Isfahan Chief Justice Jafari told Mizan that, in the case of Salehi, “all procedures, including arrest, interrogation, and investigation, have been carried out according to the law.”

Death sentence—April 24, 2024 

On April 24, 2024, Salehi’s lawyer, Amir Raeisian, told the Tehran-based Shargh Daily, “Branch One of Isfahan Revolutionary Court, in an unprecedented move, has not implemented the Supreme Court’s ruling on the 2022 case of Toomaj Salehi.”

According to Raeisian, Branch One of Revolutionary Court of Isfahan has called the Supreme Court “ruling ‘advisory’ and emphasizing the independence of the lower court has accused Toomaj Salehi of ‘spreading corruption on the Earth’ and sentenced him to the highest punishment, death.”

This ruling is unprecedented. The recent ruling of the lower court is in direct conflict with an earlier ruling from the same court, as per directions from the Supreme Court. Amid reports of Salehi being sentenced to death in July 2023, the case was initially appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court called on the lower court to drop some of the initial charges. This led to Salehi being sentenced to seventy-five months in prison and his release on bail in November 2023. 

Recently, the lower court re-assumed jurisdiction and, despite the prior ruling, Salehi was sentenced to death. This court, a “revolutionary court” with deep ties to the Islamic Republic’s security apparatus, determined that Salehi was responsible for the “extensive spread of corruption on the Earth,” and thus, death was appropriate.

Salehi’s lawyer also noted that the current ruling, along with the death sentence, has designated “additional punishments” for Salehi, including a two-year ban on traveling abroad and producing music.

Raeisian also noted that the Supreme Court had ruled that Salehi should benefit from “amnesty.”

On the same day, semi-official Mehr News, which is linked to the state-run Islamic Propagation Organization, confirmed that Salehi has been “sentenced to death for spreading corruption on the Earth.” It added that the sentence can be decreased to “long imprisonment and additional sentences” if Salehi and his lawyers appeal. There has been no accountability for the arbitrary detention and forced confession of rapper Toomaj Salehi. 

Khosro Sayeh Isfahani is an advocate, journalist, and Internet researcher with years of experience working in Iran, including work related to the LGBTQI community. 

Andrea Richardson is the senior legal researcher for investigations at the Human Rights Center. 

The post Everything you need to know about Iranian rapper Toomaj Salehi and his death sentence appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Thomas Warrick mentioned in The Cipher Brief about an open letter to the Senate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/thhomas-warrick-section-702-senate-open-letter/ Thu, 18 Apr 2024 19:13:50 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=759495 On April 18, Forward Defense nonresident senior fellow Thomas S. Warrick was mentioned in a Cipher Brief article releasing an open letter to the Senate. Signed by a group of former senior national security officials, this letter urged the reform of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adopting The Reforming Intelligence and Securing […]

The post Thomas Warrick mentioned in The Cipher Brief about an open letter to the Senate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

On April 18, Forward Defense nonresident senior fellow Thomas S. Warrick was mentioned in a Cipher Brief article releasing an open letter to the Senate. Signed by a group of former senior national security officials, this letter urged the reform of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adopting The Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act of 2024 (H.R. 7888 or RISA). The national security surveillance program allows the collection of communications of non-Americans abroad, without a warrant, by US government officials for foreign intelligence purposes.

Forward Defense, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, generates ideas and connects stakeholders in the defense ecosystem to promote an enduring military advantage for the United States, its allies, and partners. Our work identifies the defense strategies, capabilities, and resources the United States needs to deter and, if necessary, prevail in future conflict.

The post Thomas Warrick mentioned in The Cipher Brief about an open letter to the Senate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Grassroots diplomacy can help unlock international support for Ukraine https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/grassroots-diplomacy-can-help-unlock-international-support-for-ukraine/ Thu, 18 Apr 2024 17:15:28 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=758158 Washington State’s ambitious new Sister State Agreement with Kyiv Oblast offers an attractive model that others can follow, both in the US and beyond, writes Benton Coblentz.

The post Grassroots diplomacy can help unlock international support for Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Amid growing uncertainty over the future of international aid for Ukraine, diplomatic initiatives at the local and regional levels can play a critical role in securing continued public support around the world for Ukraine’s struggle against Russian aggression. These grassroots efforts, also known as subnational diplomacy, can go far beyond merely symbolic support, and have the potential to strengthen economic, cultural, and political ties between Ukraine and the country’s international partners.

Kyiv Oblast and the US state of Washington recently took a major step in this direction. In March 2024, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee and his Kyiv Oblast counterpart Ruslan Kravchenko signed the first Sister State Agreement between a US state and a Ukrainian region.

Washington’s Sister State Agreement with Kyiv Oblast is emblematic of the benefits that robust subnational diplomacy can provide. In Ukraine’s case, subnational diplomacy creates opportunities to highlight the strengths of Ukraine’s many diverse regions. Strong local and regional partnerships can also be maintained regardless of the changing political winds that envelop national capitals.

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 recently signed agreement with Kyiv Oblast was not the start of Washington State’s efforts to support Ukraine. Since the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Washington has provided a powerful example of the role regional governments can play in responding to global events.

In March 2022, Governor Inslee directed state agencies to begin reviewing and severing ties with Russian state institutions and companies. In the initial weeks of the invasion, local nonprofits worked together with the state’s Ukrainian diaspora community to organize the delivery of 32 tons of medical supplies to Ukraine. During 2022, Washington State officials allocated nearly $20 million to support the influx of Ukrainian refugees.

According to the Seattle Times, more Ukrainian refugees have arrived in Washington State over the past two years than any other US state. This warm welcome owes much to the state’s vibrant Ukrainian-American community, according Geoffrey Potter, director of international relations and protocol for Governor Jay Inslee. He says the new Sister State Agreement and Washington’s other efforts to support Ukraine are “an expression” of the way local residents with Ukrainian roots have become an integral part of the Washington community.

Ukraine’s honorary consul in Seattle, Valeriy Goloborodko, believes the Sister State Agreement will pave the way for closer ties and can help “further relationships between academics, industries, and regional governments for the benefit of the people.” Meanwhile, Potter notes a number of common interests linking the Kyiv region and Washington including clean energy, forestry, and the aerospace industry.

As wartime Ukraine looks ahead toward the challenges of recovery and reconstruction, subnational diplomacy can open up a range of new business opportunities. Major Washington State-based business brands including Boeing and Microsoft are already active in Ukraine. The state’s many small businesses are also playing an important role in strengthening ties. In Tacoma, Washington-based SAFE Boats is currently outfitting eight patrol boats destined for Ukraine’s navy. BRINC Drones, based in Seattle, is supplying drones for Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression.

At a time when the issue of vital military aid for Ukraine has become hostage to domestic US political tensions, grassroots relationships can help individual Ukrainian regions bypass the kind of obstacles that might otherwise hamper progress at the national level. With this in mind, Ukraine’s regional leaders and their counterparts across the globe should now be seeking to develop stronger subnational ties that can solidify relationships for the long term.

Washington State’s agreement with Kyiv Oblast offers an attractive model that others can follow, both in the US and beyond. In Goloborodko’s view, the recently signed Sister State Agreement “is a way to show leadership in supporting democracy.” The initiative is the first of its kind for a US state, but Potter is “pretty sure” it will not be the last. “We’re forging a model for what a meaningful, substantive collaboration looks like,” he says.

Benton Coblentz is a program assistant with the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Grassroots diplomacy can help unlock international support for Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukraine’s veterans can transform the country’s postwar political landscape https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-veterans-can-transform-the-countrys-postwar-political-landscape/ Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:58 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=756154 While the Russian invasion of Ukraine is still far from over, it already looks likely that Ukrainian military veterans will play a key role in their country's postwar politics, writes Kateryna Odarchenko.

The post Ukraine’s veterans can transform the country’s postwar political landscape appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
What kind of Ukraine will emerge from the horrors of Russia’s invasion? While it is obviously difficult to make any specific predictions amid ongoing hostilities, it already seems clear that postwar Ukraine will have a vastly strengthened sense of national identity as a democratic country firmly embedded within the wider European community. It also looks likely that the evolution of Ukraine’s postwar democracy will be shaped by a new generation of military veterans entering the political arena.

Millions of Ukrainians have served in the country’s armed forces since the onset of Russian aggression ten years ago. This large pool of veterans has the potential to transform Ukraine’s political landscape. Military veterans can bring a range of qualities to Ukrainian politics including patriotism, pragmatism, accountability, and an acute awareness about the costs of corruption. Crucially, Ukraine’s military veterans also enjoy unprecedented levels of trust among their compatriots.

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.

Since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion in February 2022, a number of Ukrainian MPs and local officials have joined the military. Their experiences will inevitably influence their future political activities and may result in increased attention to issues including national security and the rights of veterans. However, these serving politicians are likely to form a small percentage of the military veterans active in postwar Ukrainian politics.

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are currently defending their country against a threat that most view as existential. With Russia openly denying Ukraine’s right to exist and erasing all traces of Ukrainian identity in areas currently under Kremlin control, the stakes could hardly be higher. This experience is transforming Ukraine and producing an entire generation of Ukrainians defined by the courage and sacrifices of the struggle against Russian aggression.

Many of Ukraine’s military veterans will seek to continue serving the nation in the postwar environment. They will be driven by a profound sense of duty and by a deeply felt desire to build a Ukraine that will honor the memory of their fallen comrades. These veterans will be highly sought after by Ukraine’s existing political parties, but they also have the potential to become a potent political force in their own right.

The single greatest political asset Ukraine’s military veterans possess is the trust of their fellow Ukrainians. In a country where faith in the political classes is notoriously low, military veterans enjoy an enviable reputation for trustworthiness. One recent survey conducted in March 2024 found public levels of trust for different categories of veteran ranging from 84 to 96 percent. In contrast, a January 2024 poll found that 75 percent of Ukrainians distrust state officials.

An influx of military veterans into the political arena would not necessarily create a more militarized Ukraine. Instead, it would likely enhance democratic accountability while also bringing valuable practical experience along with patriotic judgment that prioritizes the national interest. This has long been the case throughout the democratic world, where military veterans have frequently pursued political careers. For example, almost 20 percent of currently serving Congress members in the US come from military backgrounds.

The Ukrainian authorities should now be looking to create the conditions for more military veterans to play a role in building the country’s future. This means safeguarding their rights and status, while making sure they and their families enjoy maximum government support. State programs, private grants, and international initiatives should offer veterans free education. Efforts should also be made to improve employment opportunities, including initiatives to hire veterans in public service positions.

In light of the major challenges Ukraine will continue to face for many years to come, including the twin threats of further Russian aggression and economic instability, the active engagement of veterans in Ukrainian politics is more crucial than ever. Their proven commitment to serving their country, coupled with their firsthand knowledge of the realities of war, make them highly qualified to lead Ukraine.

From Dwight Eisenhower to Charles de Gaulle, there are many examples in modern history of military men who have gone on to become pivotal political figures in the democratic world. In many ways, it would be entirely natural if Ukraine’s own evolution as a European democracy follows a similar path.

Ukrainian policymakers need to recognize the potential of the country’s military veterans and provide them with opportunities to take on leadership roles in the political arena. This will allow Ukraine to tap into the wealth of talent, dedication, and experience that veterans can offer, while also strengthening the country’s democratic institutions and rebuilding public trust in the political classes.

Kateryna Odarchenko is a partner at SIC Group Ukraine.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Ukraine’s veterans can transform the country’s postwar political landscape appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Russian Orthodox Church declares “Holy War” against Ukraine and West https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russian-orthodox-church-declares-holy-war-against-ukraine-and-west/ Tue, 09 Apr 2024 13:10:18 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=755303 The Russian Orthodox Church has approved a remarkable new document that declares a holy war against Ukraine and the wider Western world, writes Brian Mefford.

The post Russian Orthodox Church declares “Holy War” against Ukraine and West appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
The Russian Orthodox Church has approved a remarkable new document that spells out the Kremlin’s intention to destroy Ukraine while also making the ideological argument for a broader confrontation with the Western world. The decree was issued during a March 27-28 congress of the World Russian People’s Council, which is headed by Russian Orthodox Church leader Patriarch Kirill. It calls the invasion of Ukraine a “Holy War” with the explicit aim of extinguishing Ukrainian independence and imposing direct Russian rule.

Churches often issue decrees stating official positions on key issues, but rarely do these proclamations involve calls to violence or territorial ambitions. Russia is mentioned 53 times in the 3000-word document, underlining the very clear focus on the Russian state’s earthly interests. “From the spiritual and moral point of view, the Special Military Operation is a Holy War, in which Russia and its people are defending the single spiritual space of Holy Russia,” the document states, using the Kremlin’s preferred euphemism for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The decree goes on to stress Ukraine’s status as part of the wider “Russian World,” while underlining the need to extinguish Ukrainian statehood once and for all. Following the conclusion of the current war, it states, “the entire territory of modern Ukraine should enter Russia’s exclusive zone of influence. The possibility of a political regime hostile to Russia and its people existing on this territory must be completely excluded.”

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 sentiments expressed in this recently approved document expand on previous statements made by Patriarch Kirill since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion more than two years ago. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church has frequently asserted that Ukrainians and Russians are “one nation,” and is widely viewed as a key ideological supporter of the war. Kirill’s comments have led to widespread criticism, including a warning from Pope Francis to avoid becoming “Putin’s altar boy.”

The new decree positions Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as part of a larger spiritual struggle against the West, which it accuses of having “fallen into Satanism.” This is strikingly similar to the ideological arguments favored by Islamist radicals, who have long sought to portray the United States and other Western nations as “Satanic” as part of efforts to justify their extremist agenda. In addition to the Russian Orthodox Church, numerous senior Kremlin officials have sought to frame the war in Ukraine as an existential fight with Western “Satanism.” In a further chilling echo of the Islamist doctrine, Patriarch Kirill has also claimed Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine would have their sins “washed away.”

The Russian Orthodox Church’s endorsement of language more typically associated with religious extremism should come as no surprise. After all, the entire Russian invasion of Ukraine has been framed as a crusade from the very beginning. Following the 2014 seizure of Crimea, Putin compared the occupied Ukrainian peninsula to Temple Mount and spoke of its spiritual importance to the Russian nation. He routinely insists Ukrainians are actually Russians (“one people”), and has labeled Ukraine “an inalienable part of our own history, culture, and spiritual space.”

The recent confirmation of a holy war against Ukraine and the West comes at a pivotal point in Russia’s full-scale invasion. Since February 2022, Putin’s invading army has been unable to overcome Ukrainian resistance or break the country’s will to defend itself. With little current prospect of a decisive military breakthrough, the Kremlin is now turning increasingly to terror tactics, including a sharp escalation in the bombing of Ukrainian cities and the methodical destruction of Ukraine’s civilian power grid.

By defining the invasion in explicitly spiritual terms, the Russian Orthodox Church hopes to whitewash the war crimes being committed in Ukraine and encourage more ordinary Russians to volunteer. Moscow’s recent declaration of a holy war also sends an unmistakable message to anyone in the West who still believes in the possibility of striking some kind of compromise with the Kremlin. While Putin initially sought to justify the invasion as a pragmatic response to the growth of NATO, it is now apparent that he views the war as a sacred mission and will not stop until Ukraine has been wiped off the map of Europe.

Brian Mefford is the Director of Wooden Horse Strategies, LLC, a governmental-relations and strategic communications firm based in Kyiv, Ukraine. He is a senior nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Russian Orthodox Church declares “Holy War” against Ukraine and West appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Georgia launches new push to adopt Russian-style foreign agent law https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/georgia-launches-new-push-to-adopt-russian-style-foreign-agent-law/ Tue, 09 Apr 2024 12:00:24 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=755291 Georgia’s ruling party has revived plans to pass legislation tightening restrictions on civil society, despite the fact that the same draft law sparked mass protests just one year ago, writes Mercedes Sapuppo.

The post Georgia launches new push to adopt Russian-style foreign agent law appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Georgia’s ruling party is pushing ahead with plans to pass legislation tightening restrictions on civil society, despite widespread domestic alarm along with expressions of concern from the EU and US. The new law mirrors earlier draft legislation that was shelved in spring 2023 following widespread protests and comes as the country prepares for parliamentary elections in October.

The proposed legislation would oblige civil society organizations receiving more than 20% of annual funding from sources outside Georgia to openly state that they are “pursuing the interests of a foreign power.” They would be required to register as foreign agents and subjected to extensive additional reporting requirements. Organizations that fail to do so could face large fines.

Critics say the bill is very similar to Russia’s draconian foreign agents legislation, which is widely seen as a tool for the Kremlin to target potential dissidents and silence civil society. The similarities between the law proposed by the Georgian authorities and restrictions already in place inside Russia helped fuel large-scale protests in Tbilisi last year, with many denouncing what they termed as the “Russian law.”

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.

Renewed efforts to pass last year’s foreign agents bill have sparked fresh debate over Georgia’s future. Opposition groups see the return of the draft law as a further indication of the ruling Georgian Dream party’s intention to steer the country away from Europe and toward Russia. The move comes just months after Georgia achieved a major breakthrough by securing official EU candidate nation status in December 2023.

EU officials voiced “regret” that Georgia’s foreign influence legislation was once again under consideration despite being “unconditionally” withdrawn last year. “Transparency should not be used as an instrument to limit civil society’s capacity to operate freely,” read an EU statement. “We encourage the political leaders in Georgia to adopt and implement reforms that are in line with the stated objective of joining the European Union, as supported by a large majority of Georgia’s citizens.”

The United States also voiced its concerns over the reappearance of the contentious foreign agents law. The largely unchanged draft legislation “undermines Georgia’s commitment to Euro-Atlantic integration and risks pulling Georgia off its European path,” commented US Department of State spokesperson Matthew Miller.

When officials from the ruling Georgian Dream party first proposed new legislation to curb foreign influence in February 2023, the backlash was so strong that the draft law was ultimately withdrawn from consideration. Thousands rallied against the bill in Tbilisi, leading to clashes with police that generated global headlines.

Criticism also came from a range of international human rights watchdogs. “The foreign agent bill seeks to marginalize and discredit independent, foreign-funded groups and media that serve the wider public interest in Georgia,” commented Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia Director for Human Rights Watch.

The reintroduction of the foreign agents law ahead of parliamentary elections in October casts a shadow over Georgia’s democratic progress. Critics say this renewed push to pass legislation virtually identical to last year’s abandoned bill is part of the Georgian Dream party’s efforts to silence opponents. They accuse the Georgian authorities of backsliding on the core values underpinning the country’s declared goal of securing a democratic, European future.

These concerns reflect fears over Russian influence. Despite widespread public opposition to Russia’s role in the country, the Georgian Dream party has long faced accusations of seeking to foster closer ties with the Kremlin. Russia continues to occupy approximately 20 percent of Georgia, and has recently announced plans to construct a major naval base on the Black Sea coast in Georgia’s occupied Abkhazia region.

Over the past two years, the Georgian authorities have responded ambiguously to the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Georgia has refused to join international sanctions or restrict trade with Russia, while Georgian PM Irakli Garibashvili echoed the Kremlin in May 2023 by claiming NATO enlargement was one of the main reasons for the war in Ukraine. Georgia also recently relaunched direct flights to Russia.

In the coming weeks, Georgia’s revived foreign influence legislation is expected to be reviewed by a parliamentary committee. A new round of protests against the law has already begun in the capital, and could serve as a focal point for opponents of the current authorities. The further passage of the law will reveal much about the Georgian Dream party’s grip on power, while also providing an indication of the country’s future geopolitical trajectory.

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

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Georgia launches new push to adopt Russian-style foreign agent law appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Taylor interviewed by Notre Dame Magazine, reflecting upon his experience as a black student and how it prepared him to become a military officer https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/francis-x-taylor-notre-dame-student-experience/ Fri, 05 Apr 2024 14:26:07 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=755075 On April 4, Forward Defense nonresident senior fellow Francis X. Taylor was interviewed by his alma mater’s magazine about his experiences as a black student, the difficulties he overcame at Notre Dame, and how it prepared him for a career as a brigadier general and commander of the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations.

The post Taylor interviewed by Notre Dame Magazine, reflecting upon his experience as a black student and how it prepared him to become a military officer appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

On April 4, Forward Defense nonresident senior fellow Francis X. Taylor was interviewed by his alma mater’s magazine about his experiences as a black student, the difficulties he overcame at Notre Dame, and how it prepared him for a career as a brigadier general and commander of the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations.

Forward Defense, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, generates ideas and connects stakeholders in the defense ecosystem to promote an enduring military advantage for the United States, its allies, and partners. Our work identifies the defense strategies, capabilities, and resources the United States needs to deter and, if necessary, prevail in future conflict.

The post Taylor interviewed by Notre Dame Magazine, reflecting upon his experience as a black student and how it prepared him to become a military officer appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Polymeropoulos interviewed on MSNBC about Israeli air strikes and aid worker casualties https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/polymeropoulos-israeli-strikes-aid-workers-msnbc/ Thu, 04 Apr 2024 13:46:34 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=755058 On April 4, Forward Defense nonresident senior fellow Marc Polymeropoulous was interviewed on MSNBC about the Israeli airstrike that killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers and provided insight into what may have gone wrong.

The post Polymeropoulos interviewed on MSNBC about Israeli air strikes and aid worker casualties appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

On April 4, Forward Defense nonresident senior fellow Marc Polymeropoulous was interviewed on MSNBC about the Israeli airstrike that killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers and provided insight into what may have gone wrong.

Forward Defense, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, generates ideas and connects stakeholders in the defense ecosystem to promote an enduring military advantage for the United States, its allies, and partners. Our work identifies the defense strategies, capabilities, and resources the United States needs to deter and, if necessary, prevail in future conflict.

The post Polymeropoulos interviewed on MSNBC about Israeli air strikes and aid worker casualties appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukraine’s Belarusian volunteers create headaches for Putin ally Lukashenka https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-belarusian-volunteers-create-headaches-for-putin-ally-lukashenka/ Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:58:45 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=754330 Thousands of Belarusians are currently fighting for Ukraine and make no secret of their ambitions to eventually topple pro-Kremlin Belarus dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka, writes Alesia Rudnik.

The post Ukraine’s Belarusian volunteers create headaches for Putin ally Lukashenka appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
In late March, Ukrainian MP Ihor Guz unfurled the flag of the Belarusian Kalinouski Regiment in the Ukrainian Parliament and paid tribute to the Belarusian volunteers helping to defend Ukraine against Russia’s invasion. This gesture was a reminder that Belarusians currently make up one of the largest contingents of foreign nationals fighting for Ukraine. Their growing presence is helping to shape the battlefield in Ukraine and has broader implications for regional security.

Belarusians have been part of the Ukrainian struggle against Russian aggression since 2014, when dozens joining the volunteer battalions that emerged in response to Russia’s seizure of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine. When Putin launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in Febuary 2022, Belarusians responded by forming their own battalion and naming it after Kastus Kalinouski, a nineteenth century Belarusian national hero who led an uprising against imperial Russia.

This Belarusian battalion has since expanded to become a regiment, with representatives claiming as many as 5,000 volunteers. Belarusian troops have taken part in some of the biggest battles of the war including the fighting around Kyiv, Mykolaiv, and Bakhmut. The Kalinouski Regiment now has its own recruitment and training structures, and has acquired a considerable arsenal of military equipment. While casualty figures are not publicly disclosed, there are reports of more than 40 Belarusian volunteers killed while defending Ukraine, with the total number likely to be significantly higher.

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 presence of so many Belarusians fighting alongside the Ukrainian military has long been a source of concern for Belarus’s pro-Kremlin dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka. Speculation over the potential dangers posed by Belarusian fighters in Ukraine has intensified in recent weeks amid a series of cross-border raids conducted by Russian volunteer units entering Russia from Ukrainian territory. Many are now asking whether Ukraine’s large Belarusian contingent may mount similar border zone operations inside Belarus.

For now, there is no sign of any plans for offensive activity along the Ukrainian border with Belarus. Instead, there are indications that Ukraine’s political and military leaders would rather avoid any escalation in the confrontation with Minsk at a time when they are fighting for national survival against Russia’s ongoing invasion.

In an October 2023 interview, Ukrainian Military Intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov spoke favorably of Lukashenka’s ability to prevent his country from becoming a direct participant in the Russian invasion. This caused considerable disquiet among the Belarusian pro-democracy opposition, with many viewing it as a signal of renewed readiness in Kyiv to deal with the Lukashenka regime.

Despite the absence of any offensive operations against Belarus, Lukashenka clearly views the Belarusians fighting in Ukraine as a serious threat to his own regime. He is well aware that many Belarusian volunteers regard victory in Ukraine as a stepping stone toward the overthrow of the current pro-Russian authorities in Minsk. Unsurprisingly, volunteer fighters face criminal prosecution if caught inside Belarus. Some family members have also reportedly been detained by the Belarusian authorities.

Lukashenka has good reason to be wary. His position has been precarious since 2020, when nationwide protests over a rigged presidential election threatened to topple his regime until Kremlin intervention and a brutal crackdown enabled him to cling onto power. While there is only relatively limited cooperation between the domestic population and Belarus’s exiled pro-democracy opposition, the danger of renewed protests remains.

Some Belarusians have accused the country’s exiled opposition of not doing enough to confront the Lukashenka regime. Leaders of the Kalinouski Regiment have urged opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya to play a more active role in efforts to mobilize support for the regiment and increase assistance for Belarusians fighting for Ukraine.

There are some indications that the Kalinouski Regiment may have political ambitions of its own. The regiment has strengthened ties with the Cyberpartisans hacktivist group, which is a member of the Belarusian opposition’s Coordination Council. In January 2024, Kalinouski Regiment leaders announced plans to visit 12 European cities to meet Belarusian supporters. While in Warsaw, they spoke of their interest in developing a “political track.”

The Kalinouski Regiment is playing a significant role in Ukraine’s armed struggle against Russian imperialism and its leaders clearly have ambitions to eventually liberate their own country. However, the regiment is currently far too small to challenge the Lukshenka regime on its own.

Meanwhile, there is little sign of any Ukrainian appetite to expand the war. On the contrary, the absence of cross-border raids and the softer tone adopted in recent months by some in Kyiv hints at a more pragmatic approach toward ties with Belarus. Until this changes, the Kalinouski Regiment may keep Lukashenka awake at night, but it is unlikely to orchestrate his downfall.

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

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Ukraine’s Belarusian volunteers create headaches for Putin ally Lukashenka appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Launching the Syria Strategy Project https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/commentary/event-recap/launching-the-syria-strategy-project/ Fri, 29 Mar 2024 15:10:59 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=752844 On March 18, 2024, the Atlantic Council’s Syria Project, the Middle East Institute’s Syria Program, the European Institute of Peace, and Madaniya Civil Society Network launched the Syria Strategy, an intensive process of engagement with subject matter experts and policymakers in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East to develop a holistic strategy to […]

The post Launching the Syria Strategy Project appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

On March 18, 2024, the Atlantic Council’s Syria Project, the Middle East Institute’s Syria Program, the European Institute of Peace, and Madaniya Civil Society Network launched the Syria Strategy, an intensive process of engagement with subject matter experts and policymakers in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East to develop a holistic strategy to sustainably resolve the Syrian crisis. This process will incorporate Syrian experts, Syrian civil society, and Syrian stakeholders at every step. The launch event coincided with the anniversary of the Syrian uprising and included three panels, featuring Special Envoys for Syria from three governments, notable scholars working on the country, and the Syria Strategy project leadership.

Welcome remarks 

William Wechsler, senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East Programs, kicked off the event with the opening remarks, noting that Syria does not receive enough attention given the country’s importance to the region and the continued suffering under President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The partnership between the Atlantic Council, Middle East Institute, European Institute of Peace, and Madaniya therefore aims to produce a realistic, implementable strategy for the United States and its allies to address the country’s current crises, explained Wechsler. 

Ayman Asfari, chairman of Madaniya Civil Society Network, then discussed the network’s goals and the continued need for strategic engagement to promote a sustainable solution to Syria’s challenges. Madaniya seeks to harness the vibrant civil society developed during the initial uprising in 2011 by providing a platform for over 200 Syrian civil society organizations to reclaim political agency over the Syrian civic space, noted Asfari. In this way, he said, Syrian civil society is at the forefront of mitigating the impacts of the protracted conflict. The United States and its European partners must work with Syrians to pave the way for principled policy solutions along the lines of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254, he added. 

Barbara Leaf, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs at the US Department of State, concluded the opening remarks with a recorded address. The situation in Syria is deteriorating, as deadly bombardment campaigns continue in the country’s north, human rights abuses continue, and over 155,000 people remain arbitrarily detained or forcibly disappeared, according to Leaf. “With the war in Gaza, [the United States] is committed to ensuring Syria itself does not get pulled into a regional conflict that only increases human suffering,” Leaf said. Furthermore, “despite Russian and regime intransigence,” the United States still supports political solution along the lines of UNSCR 2254 as well as the work of the Constitutional Committee to achieve these goals for Syria. However, the Assistant secretary warned that the Arab League’s decision to normalize relations with Syria threatens any potential progress, as the United States hopes to use normalization as an incentive for credible steps toward protecting human rights and improving humanitarian conditions in the country. The United States remains committed to expanding humanitarian access, ensuring the enduring defeat of ISIS, and promoting accountability for the Assad regime’s human rights abuses. Leaf also emphasized that initiatives like the Syria Strategy Project are essential to these goals, informing the administration’s decision-making and policy direction while searching for a path toward peace. 

Panel one: High-level panel discussion 

The first panel focused on specific governmental approaches to engaging with Bashar al-Assad’s regime in pursuit of political and humanitarian solutions to Syria’s current crises. Elizabeth Hagedorn, State Department correspondent for Al-Monitor, moderated the discussion between Ethan Goldrich, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs with the US Department of State; Brigitte Curmi, Special Envoy for Syria with the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Stefan Schneck, Special Envoy for Syria with the German Federal Foreign Office. 

A transactional approach to peace 

Goldrich began the conversation by discussing the status quo in Syria’s political landscape as well as the importance of a unified approach to pressuring the Assad regime to the negotiating table. Currently, the regime is looking to rehabilitate its image and normalize relations with Arab neighbors without engaging in any meaningful reform. Indeed, the Arab League’s decision to normalize with Syria complicates efforts to force concessions from Damascus, he stated. However, he explained that the United States remains committed to working with partners like France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the European Union to hold Assad’s regime accountable while reaching a path toward peace and stability. 

Curmi emphasized that this approach must include concrete steps toward reform in line with UNSCR 2254. She stressed the importance of directing the regime toward meaningful reform to ensure the international community’s ability to solve Syria’s political crisis. Schneck agreed on these points, adding that internal support for the regime is very weak, forcing Assad to rely on untrustworthy partners like Iran and Russia. The international community must be prepared for a sudden change to the status quo and any accompanying opportunity to enable political reform in Syria. 

While a sudden shift in events is always possible given Syria’s volatile history, a slower process toward political reform is much more likely. Goldrich explained that the United States has placed stock in such an approach, designing flexible sanctions and executive orders to accommodate any progress the Syrian government makes in addressing concerns over human rights abuses. Curmi and Schneck likewise noted that French and German opposition to the regime was not purely ideological. A step-for-step approach has been on the table for years, but substantive change will only come about after Syria legitimately alters its behavior, they concluded. Such changes are unfortunately less likely after the recent rapprochement between Syria and the Arab League. 

Roadblocks to reform 

Goldrich also pointed to Russian behavior as a challenge in making progress in Syria. Over the past two years, Russia has prevented the Constitutional Committee, which aims to make progress toward UNSCR 2254, from convening. Therefore, according to Schneck, the issue is not the peace process itself but rather the actors’ unwillingness to enter the negotiations. Curmi said this behavior should not discourage the parties from advocating for greater efforts to connect Syrians in different regions of the country as well as in the diaspora. 

While not a perfect solution, the panelists agreed that pursuing UNSCR 2254 is a better approach to improving the current humanitarian situation in Syria than normalization. Arab states opting to normalize relations have benefited little from the decision, and the situation has encouraged the Syrian government to maintain its strategy of extracting concessions while offering none in return, they added. 

Sanctions and humanitarian aid 

The panelists aligned on the need to maintain sanctions. They acknowledged that their sanctions programs are having negative effects on the people of Syria and reiterated the need for measures targeting only the regime and its enablers. The envoys affirmed that sanctions must avoid hampering humanitarian efforts. However, the delegates stressed that the regime will not likely change its treatment of Syrians without outside pressure. Furthermore, the regime’s frequent complaints about Western sanctions demonstrate that the measures are having an effect, explained the speakers.  

On humanitarian aid, the panelists did diverge slightly in their approaches to the crisis. According to UN estimates, 16.7 million people in Syria require humanitarian aid, due to both the Syrian civil war and the devastating earthquake that hit northwestern Syria in 2023. Goldrich highlighted the more than $1 billion in aid delivered to the region in response to the earthquake, in addition to the $16.8 billion spent by the United States since the onset of the political crisis. He also invoked the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s Syria General License 22, which authorized large amounts of aid to be delivered to liberated and non-regime-controlled areas of Syria, concomitantly bringing American investment to the region. 

Curmi noted a difference between the French and American approaches responding to Goldrich’s last point. France has a fixed annual budget for Syria, and this funding goes toward work in all areas of the country in contrast to the US focus on non-regime areas. Curmi explained that this approach is to ensure Syrians do not suffer unnecessarily for Assad’s actions. Similarly, Schneck affirmed the need to continue early recovery aid to lay the groundwork for sustainable solutions in the region. 

Panel two: 13 years of conflict: A regional and international perspective

The second panel contextualized the Syrian situation amid regional and global developments and explored why the crisis remains relevant today. Mona Yacoubian, Vice President of the Middle East and North Africa Center at the United States Institute of Peace, moderated the discussion between Natasha Hall, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute;and Vali Nasr, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council.

“A festering wound”

Hall led off by observing that Syria is routinely neglected by the international community at its own peril. She compared the crisis in the country to a festering wound that can become septic at any time, and stressed negative developments there rarely remain within Syrian borders. President Bashar al-Assad benefits from this chaos by perpetuating the narrative that he is the only one who can solve the problems at hand—problems for which he is also responsible. The regime now utilizes humanitarian aid and refugees as policy levers to negotiate with its neighbors and the West, all while collecting billions of dollars each year through the Captagon trade, according to the panelist. Hall asserted that Assad has created a successful playbook for other authoritarians, who have adopted the model of securing a great power protector and then shattering norms with impunity. The United States remains staunch in its use of aid and sanctions in lieu of a more robust strategy for addressing the regime. The situation remains volatile, but Washington should not miss its current chance to provide preventative care to the wound, she added.

Nasr followed by explaining Iran’s evolving role in the crisis and how the effects of the war in Gaza are reverberating in Syria. He affirmed that Iran continues to play a central role in the country’s set of interrelated conflicts and that Iranian involvement in the wider region also elevates Syria’s importance. Beyond protecting Assad, Tehran understands that Syria is an additional front to pressure the United States and Israel. Iran and Hezbollah have moved to fill the vacuum left by Russia as it focuses on Ukraine, and by gaining a foothold in Latakia they can now project influence into the Mediterranean, according to him. Nasr also highlighted that the risk of an Israeli-Iranian escalation would rise if Tehran’s succeeded in its efforts to dislodge the United States. Syria is also a theater for US-Turkey and US-Russia confrontations; the country is more integrated into global issues than is generally acknowledged. Consequently, Washington requires a strategy for navigating its engagement in Syria and preventing the country from becoming the epicenter of a regional war, he explained.

Katulis then spoke on the evolution of geostrategic threats surrounding Syria. He listed several global impacts that originated from the Syrian conflict: authoritarian leaders mimicking tactics used by the Assad regime; worsening violence against civilians in other conflicts; the weaponization of refugees; rampant use of disinformation; and growing disillusionment with proactive foreign policy among elements of the American left and right. Katulis noted that the current project pushes back on the indifference toward Syria that has settled over some policy circles, as well as the notion that the United States cannot constructively shape the situation any longer. He expressed hope that the project will generate new ideas to turn negative trends in a new direction.

Correcting course and deepening engagement

Hall then gave her thoughts on how policymakers and scholars in Washington can reframe discussions about Syria and develop new solutions. The United States and its partners are currently “treading water” rather than acting proactively and missing opportunities to negotiate with individual actors while the wider conflict is gridlocked. Other neglected areas that could benefit from more engagement include promoting resilience in non-regime areas and mitigating water insecurity in the northeast. Hall concluded by spotlighting regional efforts to advance negotiations on Gaza and predicted that a similarly unified attempt at step-for-step with Syria could bring about progress.

Nasr underscored the need for Washington to identify its interests in Syria and pinpoint why the outcome of the war matters; a pivot toward a new mission could redefine the US footprint there altogether. Meanwhile, if the United States continues to neglect the situation it could very well be pulled back in the future. Katulis suggested a more diplomacy-forward US strategy for the crisis to ameliorate regional frustration at American inaction. Deeper discussions are especially needed with countries bordering Syria. He cited US leadership on the Ukraine conflict as an example of how attentive engagement can build coalitions.

Hall agreed with her co-panelists on the need for more multilateral cooperation on Syria policy, pointing to energy and water as issues where the United States and its partners could do more. Nasr felt that the disproportionate US effort spent countering Iranian influence in Syria is evidence of a disconnect between Washington’s stated aims in countering ISIS and its priorities on the ground. He reiterated that there is a legitimate argument for an American presence in the Middle East but that it must be properly translated into action. Katulis added that as think tank analysts approach Syria with a fresh perspective, even touchy topics regime change or other forms of power transition should be reevaluated.

Panel three: The Syria Strategy: Outlining the way forward

The final panel served as an introduction to the mission and goals of the Syria Strategy Project. Sawsan Abou Zainedin, CEO of Madaniya Civil Society Network, moderated the conversation between Qutaiba Idlbi, Director of the Syria Project at Atlantic Council; Charles Lister, Director of the Syria and Counter-Terrorism Programs at the Middle East Institute; and Marie Forestier, Senior Advisor at the European Institute of Peace.

Building a new strategy

Idlbi recounted how the project arose from Western, regional, and Syrian stakeholders’ frequent inquiries about the US strategy for Syria, and a pervasive sentiment among American policymakers that they had tried everything they could. The Syria Strategy project seeks to form a realistic and implementable strategy to both improve conditions in Syria in the short term and shape a sustainable solution to the crisis in line with UNSCR 2254. He went on to explain how the project will bring together experts, policymakers, and stakeholders to work on a series of subproblems in hopes of producing a workable, holistic proposal by March 2025. Another goal is for the project to function as a sounding board for policymakers to test ideas and offer their own feedback, he explained.

Lister addressed the project’s emphasis on Washington as its intended audience. American buy-in is needed in order to make progress on the Syrian crisis; US involvement galvanizes European support and is a remedy to Arab states’ frustration with their own engagement efforts. There is currently no shortage of ideas on Syria, but the actors proposing them lack unity of purpose, or at least the perception of unity, according to him. Lister also explained that Syrian experts and activists form the core of the Syria Strategy and Washington will be just one of many governments involved in the project. The process is designed to be highly consultative and responsive to feedback, creating a “living” project.

Forestier underscored the need for European involvement as well. The project is necessarily transatlantic, as while US leadership on Syria remains critical, Washington cannot be expected to lead alone. Aligning Europe and the United States increases the chances of success of the wider project and will revitalize Syria policy in European foreign policy circles as well. The European Union (EU) remains a significant donor of humanitarian aid in Syria but has not updated its strategy since 2017, resulting in recent dissent among member states. A common strategy born from a Syrian-owned process could be the common ground needed for the EU to rebuild consensus, she said.

Lister then unpacked the duality of the project’s mission, under which Syrians must own and drive the process but ultimately produce a strategy that external actors will buy into. The project leadership realizes that any plan assembled by the international community but not agreeable to Syrians will be dead on arrival, creating an impetus to engage with de facto authorities throughout the country—including interlocutors from the regime. The leadership also recognizes that resolution will not come quickly and thus envision two timelines for the project: a shorter-term one predicated on improving day-to-day conditions across all of Syria, and a longer-term one producing a sustainable resolution to the crisis. Critical to both is the reestablishment of connectivity among the different parts of Syria, such as by official trade and transit.

Challenges and opportunities

Idlbi contextualized the project’s efforts within wider regional developments, such as Arab states’ normalization efforts with the regime. Diplomatic engagement remains one of the only remaining policy levers for regional states to work with Syria. However, the readmission of Syria to the Arab League is widely considered to be a failure owing to a lack of better behavior by Assad. He reiterated that US involvement on the Syria file is not only crucial to effecting change but also a necessity if Washington wants to avoid being dragged back into Syria on worse terms in the future. The United States spent billions of dollars to stop ISIS, and the investment needed to curb another crisis may well be even more. Working toward a solution to the conflict also requires treating its symptoms as well, such as restoring basic services and returning children to school, according to him.

Forestier differentiated the Syria Strategy from other consultative projects by the extremely wide scope of stakeholders it hopes to engage. Throughout the process, the project leads intend to solicit feedback from all major players in Syria, regional governments, and global powers, ensuring that policy recommendations are vetted by different actors. Lister acknowledged that not all issues lend themselves to consensus, with sanctions expected to be an especially contentious topic. However, the goal remains to take in a range of different perspectives and approach disparate ideas with an open mind.

Regarding the recent anti-normalization bill passed by the US House of Representatives, Idlbi stressed that the most impactful sanctions regime placed on Syria is the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act passed in 2003. Sanctions should comprise just one of many tools to form a strategy for shaping conditions in the country. He also recentered the importance of UN involvement and the project’s engagement with the UN Special Envoy for Syria. Lister then outlined the limitations of Syria’s allies and the opportunities they create to change the status quo. He asserted that while Assad could fall back on Russian and Iranian military support from the outset of the civil war, neither government is willing to bail Syria out of its worsening economic situation; a unified approach by the international community to engaging with Syria could thus leverage Damascus’s predicament to pressure it toward constructive reforms.

The post Launching the Syria Strategy Project appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Strategic Litigation Quarterly Newsletter: It’s time for a Syria Victims Fund. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/strategic-litigation/strategic-litigation-quarterly-newsletter-its-time-for-a-syria-victims-fund/ Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:19:37 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=750665 The latest updates on the Strategic Litigation Project's work advancing human rights and accountability.

The post Strategic Litigation Quarterly Newsletter: It’s time for a Syria Victims Fund. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
The Strategic Litigation Project works to inject fresh thinking into how governments and practitioners can use legal tools to advance human rights and accountability. To that end, we aim to implement projects addressing accountability gaps across various contexts.

One such project is our effort to establish an intergovernmental Syria Victims Fund. Over the past year, we and our Syrian partners have conducted dozens of consultations with Syrian civil society to develop a framework for the fund, which were used to draft a white paper on the concept for decision makers in country capitals and within international organizations. In February, we were thrilled to see the framework implemented into the European Parliament’s report recommending that the European Council, European Commission, and European External Action Service work to establish such a fund.

We have also seen promising progress in the ongoing campaign to codify the crime of gender apartheid in the United Nations (UN) Sixth Committee’s draft crimes against humanity treaty. On March 8, International Women’s Day, we cohosted a high-level panel event in New York City about gender apartheid in Afghanistan and the momentum behind efforts to codify the crime under international law. The event featured a remarkable line-up of experts, including Nobel Peace Laureate Malala Yousafzai and UN Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls Chair Dorothy Estrada-Tanck. In the week leading up to the event, I joined a delegation of our team members in traveling to several country capitals in Latin America to gather support for the campaign. You can read more details about the trip and other campaign efforts below.

Additionally, the Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran released a report to the UN Human Rights Council which found that security forces committed crimes against humanity during the Woman, Life, Freedom protests. To support future accountability for these violations, we partnered with Mnemonic to launch the Iranian Archive, which has preserved open-source digital information identifying these violations. 

As always, we at the SLP are incredibly grateful for your continued support. If you have any ideas about what we should be working on or thoughts on our initiatives, we welcome your feedback.

Kind regards,

Syria Victims Fund

Our team, in partnership with Syrian civil society and SLP Nonresident Senior Fellow Joumana Seif, has been working to establish an intergovernmental Syria Victims Fund. Over the past year, the SLP team and its Syrian partners have conducted dozens of consultations with civil society to develop a framework for a victims fund and met with representatives of governments and international organizations to brief them on the concept.

The proposed framework for the Syria Victims Fund would rely on significant monetary judgments and fines that states are collecting linked to violations in Syria—fines, penalties, and forfeitures for sanctions violations and international crimes committed in Syria. Rather than retaining those funds and essentially profiting off violations in Syria, States should deposit Syria-linked funds into a central location and direct the funds to better support victims of international law violations in Syria.

In February, the European Parliament adopted a report recommending that the European Council, European Commission, and European External Action Service work to establish such a fund for victims of international law violations in Syria, financed by “monetary judgments, sanctions, fines and penalties, forfeiture orders . . . and other revenue.” The report further recommends that European Union (EU) member states then carefully design a fund “in full cooperation with the families of the victims.”

Learn more about the Syria Victims Fund

Just Security has launched a blog series discussing the concept of a Syria victims fund. Read our experts’ contributions:

Joumana Seif: “It’s Time to Establish a Syria Victims Fund”

Elise Baker and Nushin Sarkarati: “No State Should Profit from Violations in Syria. Instead, Direct Monetary Recovery to Victims.”

Celeste Kmiotek and Sameer Saboungi: “The US Recovered Over $600 Million in ISIS-Linked Funds–They Should Go to Syrian and Iraqi Victims”

Ambassador Stephen J. Rapp and Alyssa Yamamoto: “Applying Ukraine Precedent, DOJ Should Use Funds Forfeited from Lawbreakers in Syria to Assist Victims”

END GENDER APARTHEID CAMPAIGN

International Women’s Day panel event

On March 8, the SLP, in partnership with the International Peace Institute and the Malala Fund, hosted a high-level panel event in New York City about the urgent need for legal recognition of gender apartheid in Afghanistan. The discussion addressed the deteriorating rights of girls, women, and individuals of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities in Afghanistan and the momentum around efforts to codify the crime of gender apartheid under international law, including in the potential UN crimes against humanity treaty. This event was cosponsored by the Global Justice Center, Rawadari, Georgetown Institute of Women, Peace & Security, and the Permanent Missions of Malta and Mexico.

The panel featured Nobel Peace Laureate Malala Yousafzai, Afghan activist and expert Nayera Kohistani, New York Law School Professor and anti-apartheid jurist Penelope Andrews, and UN Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls Chair Dorothy Estrada-Tanck, and was moderated by CNN International Correspondent Jomana Karadsheh.

If you were unable to join us live, you can watch the event playback here

Briefings in New York City and Washington, DC

In January, the SLP hosted a series of briefings on the gender apartheid codification effort in New York City and Washington, DC, during which the SLP’s Senior Legal and Policy Advisor Alyssa Yamamoto and Strategic Legal Advisor for Gender Justice Akila Radhakrishnan were joined by a panel of experts including the SLP Senior Legal Advisor Sareta AshraphPenelope AndrewsChristina Hioureas, SLP Gender and Policy Advisor Metra Mehran, and Paloma van Groll. In Washington, the group met with representatives of several think tanks, US government bodies, and EU embassies. In New York, the delegation hosted closed regional briefings for Latin American and Caribbean countries and EU and other Western countries.

Advocacy in Latin America

Earlier this month, Gissou Nia, along with Akila Radhakrishnan and SLP Nonresident Senior Fellow Nizar El Fakih, traveled to country capitals in Latin America to discuss human rights, gender justice, and other issues impacting Iran and Afghanistan. The group met with high-level representatives of the governments of Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia to urge their support for both codifying gender apartheid in the UN Sixth Committee’s draft crimes against humanity treaty and extending the mandate of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Iran by voting in favor of an upcoming UN Human Rights Council resolution.

Chile’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs produced a press release about the group’s meeting with Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs Gloria de la Fuente, which you can read here.

LAUNCH OF THE IRANIAN ARCHIVE

Following the release of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s report to the UN Human Rights Council finding crimes against humanity, including for gender persecution committed over the course of the protests following the death of Mahsa Jina Amini, the SLP and Mnemonic in partnership with a coalition of international organizations announced the launch of the Iranian Archive. The archive preserved over one million vulnerable digital artifacts recording serious human rights violations committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran against Woman, Life, Freedom movement protestors.

The Iranian Archive is intended to support future investigations and accountability proceedings. The SLP and Mnemonic are partnered with The Promise Institute for Human Rights at UCLA LawUC Berkeley’s Human Rights CenterAmnesty International‘s Digital Verification Corps, the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, and the Azadi Archive

Press Release

Mar 18, 2024

Human rights coalition unveils digital catalog of evidence pointing towards crimes against humanity committed against Iranian protesters

The Archive preserved +1M forensic digital artifacts to support future investigations and trials.

UYGHUR ADVOCACY IN GENEVA

In January, SLP Nonresident Senior Fellow and Uyghur human rights lawyer Rayhan Asat traveled to Geneva to attend the interactive dialogue for China’s 2024 Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a process through which the UN Human Rights Council assesses the human rights records of all UN member states according to a rotating schedule of cycles.

Since the UPR takes place only every five years, its interactive dialogue presents a significant opportunity for member states to make specific and measurable recommendations to China in light of the ongoing repression of the Uyghur community and the Chinese government’s disregard for previous critiques of its human rights record. In July, Asat submitted a comprehensive report to the UPR Working Group on the human rights situation in Xinjiang, followed by a New Atlanticist piece about the contents of the report and the need for member states and US officials to hold China accountable for its abuses.

While in Geneva, Asat met with representatives of twenty-two member states to encourage their participation in the interactive dialogue. In the meetings, she presented them with a briefing paper outlining China’s violations against the Uyghurs, the findings of relevant UN human rights bodies, and suggested recommendations to be made to China during its review. Ultimately, more than twenty member states took a strong stance against China’s human rights record during the session.

EUROPEAN COURTS REPORT

In February, the SLP published its latest report, “The far reach of justice: Holding the Islamic Republic of Iran Accountable in European courts.” The report explores the options available to hold the Islamic Republic of Iran accountable through the national judicial systems of seven European states by using their universal jurisdiction frameworks.

Report

Dec 22, 2023

How to hold the Islamic Republic of Iran accountable in European courts

By Gissou Nia, Celeste Kmiotek, Lisandra Novo, Alyssa T. Yamamoto

While there are no viable domestic routes toward accountability within Iran, national judicial systems in other states present an alternative path to justice. This report examines prospects for initiating prosecutions against IRI perpetrators in European jurisdictions.

Human Rights International Norms

Throughout Europe, states have adopted universal jurisdiction provisions, which allow them to prosecute acts that constitute core international crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity—even if the crime was committed in a different state by and against foreign nationals. The countries covered in the report—Belgium, England and Wales, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland—were selected due to several factors, including the strength of their universal jurisdiction frameworks and frequency of use; their robust caselaw and policies for prosecuting atrocity crimes committed extraterritorially; the size of Iranian expatriate communities in these countries, especially those fleeing persecution and violence; and the possibility of travel by Iranian officials to these jurisdictions.

This report details what each country’s universal jurisdiction provisions entail, how proceedings are initiated, and what victims’ rights are protected. It also gives an overview of each state’s relevant jurisprudence to date, analyzing the legal, practical, and political viability of future cases involving Islamic Republic of Iran violations, including in light of the country’s diplomatic relationship with Iran. Finally, it provides regional and country-specific recommendations to facilitate more cases against Islamic Republic of Iran perpetrators and to strengthen universal jurisdiction frameworks more broadly.

WOMEN IN JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN MENA

On February 14, the SLP hosted a hybrid event about the crucial role women and their testimonies play in pursuit of justice and accountability in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The panel featured Dalal Mawad, award-winning Lebanese journalist and author of All She Lost: The Explosion in Lebanon, the Collapse of a Nation and the Women Who SurviveMai El-Sadany, executive director of the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy; and Haydee Dijkstal, an international human rights lawyer and SLP nonresident senior fellow.

The discussion was moderated by Patricia Karam, a nonresident senior fellow at Arab Center Washington DC, and touched on a variety of issues, including possible responses to gender-based and sexual violence, the role of independent media in accountability efforts, and legal mechanisms protecting the rights of women and girls.

NEW TEAM MEMBERS

STAY UPDATED

Subscribe to our newsletter for quarterly updates on the SLP’s work on prevention and accountability efforts for atrocity crimes, human rights violations, and terrorism and corruption offenses around the world.

The post Strategic Litigation Quarterly Newsletter: It’s time for a Syria Victims Fund. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
It’s morally imperative that the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Iran be extended. Here’s why. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/ffmi-iran-rights-crimes-against-humanity-mahsa-amini/ Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:04:08 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=751086 The need for the FFMI's mandate to be extended for an additional year lies in the gravity and scope of its findings and the ongoing and escalating atrocities documented since the initial report.

The post It’s morally imperative that the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Iran be extended. Here’s why. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Following the killing of Mahsa Jina Amini in September 2022, the world witnessed unprecedented protests across Iran. Citizens from diverse backgrounds joined in solidarity, challenging the status quo, and demanding answers about and accountability for Amini’s death. As the weeks passed, streets across cities echoed with the voices of defiance as demonstrators courageously faced the harsh crackdowns inflicted by security forces. They rallied against gender persecution, the state’s woeful disregard for the right to life, and its draconian grip on every facet of Iranian existence—the essence of the de facto protest slogan: women, life, freedom.

The United Nations Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) response to allegations of rights abuses emerging from the country less than two months into the protests, the forming of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran (FFMI) in November 2022, marked a significant step towards holding violators accountable and providing a voice to those silenced by the government. The council tasked the FFMI to specifically investigate allegations of human rights abuses perpetuated during protests that escalated following Amini’s death by examining evidence and documenting potential human rights violations to ensure accountability.

On March 18, the FFMI presented its current findings, revealing the extent of the atrocities and confirming fears that these were not isolated incidents but crimes against humanity executed under a veil of impunity at the highest levels of the Iranian state. The FFMI’s investigations revealed that Amini’s arrest was not only arbitrary but also led to her death due to physical violence while in custody. This pointed to a clear violation of her right to liberty and personal security, squarely placing the responsibility on the state for her demise. The authorities’ failure to conduct a timely, effective, and transparent investigation into Amini’s death, coupled with their concerted efforts to distort the truth, further underscored the systemic disregard for international human rights norms.

With 551 confirmed deaths and countless crimes, the FFMI’s report revealed systematic rights violations of liberty and physical security, painting a stark picture of indiscriminate arrests and detentions. The comprehensive suppression extended to extreme measures, including the torturing of protesters being held in detention facilities where acts of barbarity indicative of systematic abuse were sanctioned at the highest levels. Amidst this grim scenario, gender persecution stood out, with Iran targeting women, girls, and gender equality advocates, constituting a particularly vile form of these crimes and abuses. The harrowing accounts of sexual and gender-based violence being wielded as tools of repression illustrate a chilling disregard for human dignity and fundamental rights. Such practices, especially the targeted abuse of children and vulnerable groups like LGBTQI individuals, further highlight the government’s exploitation of societal prejudices to compound the suffering of its victims. Additionally, the FFMI’s report underlines that a significant number of these atrocities occurred in regions predominantly inhabited by ethnic and religious minorities, thus highlighting the disproportionate impact on these communities.

SIGN UP FOR THE THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Further to this, investigators established that executions of several protesters following summary proceedings without fair trial and due process guarantees violated the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment and amount to unlawful and arbitrary deprivation of their right to life. They concluded that prosecutors and judges, “particularly in the revolutionary courts,” were responsible for myriad violations, including prosecutions for violations of discriminatory laws, in particular mandatory hijab laws, the conviction of protesters on vaguely formulated charges, and sentences to corporal punishments (lashings) and death for acts not considered to be either crimes or capital offenses under international law. The absence of fair trial guarantees—including the right to defense, the right to be heard by an impartial tribunal, and the prohibition of the use of coerced confessions—reveals a legal system weaponized against perceived enemies of the state. Furthermore, the treatment of these individuals before their executions, marked by documented cases of torture and denial of access to family or legal representation, exacerbates the gravity of these human rights abuses. Additionally, the FFMI’s revelations about the state’s actions to obscure the truth, intimidate and punish defense lawyers, and unjustly target journalists and media workers also underscore a deliberate strategy to suppress dissent and silence any voices that dare to speak out against the government’s conduct.           

The FFMI explicitly links serious human rights violations to specific state institutions and actors, deepening the accountability landscape within Iran’s governmental structure. It asserts that “various branches of the [s]tate’s security forces participated in the unnecessary and disproportionate use of force, resulting in unlawful killings and injuries, most notably by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Basij forces, and the Law Enforcement Command of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Faraja), including its special forces (yegan-e vijeh).” Notably, the FFMI also confirms that high-level authorities “encouraged, sanctioned, and endorsed violations of human rights” through statements justifying the acts and conduct of the security forces engaged in a disinformation campaign” against protesters. They find that “authorities at the highest level of the [s]tate participated in, aided and abetted, or otherwise contributed to the violations, or knew or consciously disregarded information about their commission and failed to prevent and punish them”: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, senior members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, of the Basij forces, of the Law Enforcement Command of the Islamic Republic of Iran, of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, the head of the judiciary, and many others.  

This damning indictment against such a broad swath of Iran’s security apparatus and judicial system underscores the systemic nature of the human rights abuses reported. By detailing the specific roles played by various state institutions and actors, the FFMI highlights the widespread and coordinated efforts to crush dissent and spread fear among the populace. The clarity with which the FFMI outlines the direct involvement of security forces and intelligence agencies in human rights violations signals an unambiguous call for accountability, emphasizing the need for a global response to address these grave breaches of international law.

While these revelations are critical, they represent only the surface of a deep-seated crisis that continues to unravel. However, the FFMI’s current findings are merely the inception of a long, intricate justice and reform process. The council is now faced with a pivotal decision—whether or not to extend the FFMI’s mandate for an additional year.

The case for extension

The need for the FFMI’s mandate to be extended for an additional year lies in the gravity and scope of these findings and the ongoing and escalating atrocities documented since the initial report. With human rights violations persisting unabated, the extension is imperative for several reasons:

  • Sustained documentation and accountability: An extended mandate would enable the FFMI to continue systematically establishing the facts about the events that took place during the surge of protests that unfolded in 2022, reinforcing the international community’s commitment to accountability and justice.
  • Comprehensive investigation: With more time, the FFMI can conduct further in-depth investigations, particularly into events that have occurred beyond the scope of the initial report. A detailed and comprehensive understanding is crucial for formulating effective international responses and support mechanisms for the victims.
  • Engagement with a broader stakeholder base: Extending the mandate would allow the FFMI to engage with a wider range of stakeholders, including civil society organizations, victims and their families, and defectors. This would ensure a more inclusive and accurate portrayal of the violations and their impact.
  • Overcoming challenges: The FFMI’s work has been hampered by challenges in accessing information and a lack of cooperation from the Iranian government. An additional year could provide strategic avenues to overcome these obstacles, possibly opening new channels for dialogue and investigation.
  • Global human rights commitment: Extending the FFMI’s mandate affirms the global commitment to human rights. It sends a clear message that the international community stands in solidarity with the victims and will persist in holding perpetrators accountable.

Critics of the FFMI’s extension might cite financial constraints, diplomatic tensions, or potential infringements on sovereignty. However, these arguments falter when weighed against the imperative of upholding fundamental human rights and ensuring accountability for crimes against humanity. The cost of inaction—measured in human lives and the erosion of international legal norms—far exceeds the logistical and diplomatic challenges presented.

The FFMI’s groundbreaking work has peeled back the layers of repression and impunity that have long shielded perpetrators of human rights violations in Iran. Extending its mandate is not just a strategic necessity but a moral imperative. In the face of systemic injustice, the international community must reaffirm its commitment to human rights, justice, and accountability. The victims of Iran’s oppressive government deserve no less than a concerted effort to continue the pursuit of justice, leveraging every tool at our disposal to ensure their stories are told, their dignity restored, and their oppressors held to account.

Rose Parris Richter is the executive director of Impact Iran, a coalition of nineteen human rights organizations committed to advocating for human rights in the country.

Azadeh Pourzand is the spokesperson and community director of Impact Iran, a coalition of nineteen human rights organizations committed to advocating for human rights in the country.

The post It’s morally imperative that the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Iran be extended. Here’s why. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukraine’s partners should link wartime aid to continued reform progress https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-partners-should-link-wartime-aid-to-continued-reform-progress/ Tue, 19 Mar 2024 19:15:34 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=749914 It is crucial for Ukraine’s international allies to link continued wartime financial assistance with the implementation of reforms, write Mykhailo Zhernakov and Nestor Barchuk.

The post Ukraine’s partners should link wartime aid to continued reform progress appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
As Ukrainians fight for national survival against Russia’s ongoing invasion, the country is continuing to implement important domestic reforms. These reforms play a crucial role in strengthening Ukraine’s wartime resilience, and also set the stage for a successful postwar recovery. The international community has a clear interest in helping Ukraine achieve further reform progress.

Since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion two years ago, one of the key catalysts driving Ukraine’s reform agenda has been the June 2022 move to grant the country EU candidate status. When announcing this decision, the European Commission set Ukraine seven key reform goals to meet before official EU membership negotiations could begin. Priorities included reforms related to the rule of law, particularly the reform of crucial judicial bodies such as the High Council of Justice (HCJ) and the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ).

While significant progress has been made toward implementing these reforms, major challenges persist. For example, although new procedures have been introduced governing the selection of judges to the country’s Constitutional Court, there are still concerns regarding the appointment of politically compromised candidates. As Ukraine continues its judicial reform efforts, it is imperative to infuse these endeavors with renewed energy.

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, a primary focus should be on reforming Ukraine’s Supreme Court, which plays a crucial role in the country’s judiciary. In spring 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office uncovered evidence of a $2.7 million bribe involving the president of the Supreme Court. However, in the wake of this corruption scandal, three-quarters of Supreme Court judges appointed another judge as the new president of the court despite serious integrity concerns.

NGOs and members of the Ukrainian judiciary have proposed a two-step approach to Supreme Court reform featuring the vetting of sitting judges and implementation of a new selection process with the involvement of international experts. This format has been endorsed by the European Commission. Reforming the Supreme Court is widely recognized as an essential step toward strengthening the rule of law, combating corruption, and enhancing protection for investors.

Another reform priority is establishing the High Administrative Court (HACU), following the liquidation of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK) in December 2022. The DACK was widely accused of judicial misconduct. It wielded substantial power, overseeing cases involving municipal authorities and central executive bodies in the Ukrainian capital, but had become tainted by successive corruption scandals. To safeguard the integrity of HACU judges and prevent future allegations of corruption, it is vital to implement a selection process with the meaningful involvement of independent international experts, similar to the successful model used to establish the High Anti-Corruption Court.

Reform of Ukraine’s legal education system is also indispensable for the success of the country’s judicial reforms. The judicial system currently suffers from a significant shortage of personnel, underscoring the need for a robust legal education system. Detrimental practices include the training of lawyers by traditional universities and law enforcement institutions. These institutions educate one-third of all legal professionals and receive about half of state funding allocated for legal education. However, rather than promoting critical thinking, students often encounter a curriculum and environment that stresses obedience.

Critics argue that this approach fails to instill the necessary professional skills. Additionally, graduates from law enforcement academies typically exhibit lower levels of specialist knowledge compared to university graduates. The EU highlighted its concerns regarding legal education in the Ukraine Accession Report 2023, stressing the necessity of addressing this issue by separating the training of lawyers in universities and law enforcement academies. G7 countries have also raised this issue.

Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russian aggression depends heavily on continued international support. Kyiv’s partners therefore have considerable leverage when it comes to maintaining the country’s reform momentum. With this in mind, it is crucial for Ukraine’s international allies to link continued financial assistance with the implementation of reforms. The effectiveness of this approach can be seen in the progress made between summer 2022 and late 2023 on the reform goals identified by the EU.

The EU has already outlined its additional reform recommendations. It would also be helpful to establish concrete reform requirements from G7 countries and connect these directly to aid. By linking financial support to specific reform targets, Ukraine’s international allies can make sure critical reforms are implemented and the country continues to move in the right direction. The need to maintain Ukraine’s reform momentum is another strong argument in favor of confirming further direct US budget support as part of future aid. This will provide vital leverage while bolstering Ukraine’s resilience and encouraging the authorities in Kyiv to implement the necessary reforms.

The road ahead is extremely challenging, but Ukraine can still emerge as a regional beacon of democracy, Euro-Atlantic security, and the rule of law. This will require the unwavering support of the country’s Western partners. To achieve this goal, future aid should be tied to a steadfast Ukrainian commitment to advance reforms without concessions. This can help shape the kind of future Ukrainians are currently fighting for.

Mykhailo Zhernakov is chair of the board of the DEJURE Foundation. Nestor Barchuk is international relations manager of the DEJURE Foundation.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Ukraine’s partners should link wartime aid to continued reform progress appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Braw featured in Times Radio on raids launched by Anti-Kremlin militias https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/braw-featured-in-times-radio-on-raids-launched-by-anti-kremlin-militias/ Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:36:01 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=751227 On March 15, Transatlantic Security Initiative senior fellow Elisabeth Braw was featured in Times Radio discussing raids launched by Anti-Kremlin militias.   

The post Braw featured in Times Radio on raids launched by Anti-Kremlin militias appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

On March 15, Transatlantic Security Initiative senior fellow Elisabeth Braw was featured in Times Radio discussing raids launched by Anti-Kremlin militias.

  

The Transatlantic Security Initiative, in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, shapes and influences the debate on the greatest security challenges facing the North Atlantic Alliance and its key partners.

The post Braw featured in Times Radio on raids launched by Anti-Kremlin militias appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Three activists offer a window into life behind bars for unjustly imprisoned women around the world https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/three-activists-offer-a-window-into-life-behind-bars-for-unjustly-imprisoned-women-around-the-world/ Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:58:09 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=747344 An Atlantic Council event featured three recipients of the US State Department’s 2024 International Women of Courage Award.

The post Three activists offer a window into life behind bars for unjustly imprisoned women around the world appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Watch the event

The unjust imprisonment of women affects far more than those detained and their families, warned Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US representative to the United Nations.

“It’s devastating for entire communities,” she explained. “It hollows out civil society. It creates a culture: a culture of fear. It squashes hopes for a democratic future.”

Thomas-Greenfield spoke at an event last week cohosted by the Atlantic Council and the US Secretary of State’s Office of Global Women’s Issues designed to amplify the voices of women who have survived unjust imprisonment or other human-rights abuses.

“We all must do more to familiarize ourselves with the stories and with the facts regarding political prisoners, including women political prisoners,” said Geeta Rao Gupta, ambassador-at-large at the Office of Global Women’s Issues. “We must help give voice to those who remain unjustly behind bars and those whose voices are stifled.”

The event, moderated by Atlantic Council Executive Vice President Jenna Ben-Yehuda, gathered three recipients of the US State Department’s 2024 International Women of Courage Award to share their experiences and highlight the need for international support. Below are their stories.

Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello: Why it is now “very difficult” for prisoners

  • Roque, a Cuban political dissident and human-rights activist, talked about her experiences working with political prisoners and their families. “I cannot even distinguish which is worse, being imprisoned or being a relative of a prisoner,” she said.
  • Speaking from Cuba—having been blocked from traveling to the United States by the Cuban government since 2018—she added that the economic crisis there, which has led to severe shortages of food and other supplies, has made the situation “very difficult” for prisoners.
  • Roque herself has spent decades protesting against the Cuban government and was imprisoned twice. She now provides support to political prisoners. “I believe that being with them, even in thought, is something that will help them,” she said.

Fariba Balouch: “Pay attention” to minority groups and hold Iran’s regime responsible

  • Balouch, a London-based Iranian human-rights activist, recounted how—when she lived in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan Province—she had escaped an abusive marriage. She said she was “afraid to speak up about that” at the time, but then realized that, as women, “we have to raise that awareness.”
  • Balouch said that she felt it was her “duty” and “responsibility” to speak up for women in Sistan and Baluchestan Province; she also said that she had to make a “difficult choice” between being a mother and lifting the voices of marginalized people around her. “I decided to go with the people’s voice,” she said.
  • Balouch explained that in Iran, being a woman political prisoner comes with a lot of harassment. But “if you’re representing an ethnic minority,” she said, “that even doubles your problems and challenges.” As for being an activist: “That would make it even triple.”
  • She added that even once Baloch women leave Iran, they—and their families—continue to face similar threats and other pressures. She explained that she has received threats and that her son and her brother are currently imprisoned in Iran—her son was detained after having traveled to visit Balouch in the United Kingdom.
  • Balouch called upon the international community to support women activists and their families and to “pay attention” to minority communities “so the Islamic Republic of Iran knows that it has a responsibility” to ensure that no Baloch is killed in prison.

Volha Harbunova: This is a “global crisis”

  • Volha Harbunova, a Belarusian human rights defender, recounted how she fled Belarus after being released from prison and was later appointed the representative for social issues in the Belarusian United Transitional Cabinet, the government-in-exile led by Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. She called upon Belarusians who have fled and live outside of the country to keep up communication with people inside the country who face repression. The Lukashenka regime “doesn’t want [us] to have that communication,” she said. “They want to isolate us. They want to stop that solidarity.”
  • Harbunova argued that violence against women is a “global crisis,” which she said has recently been made clear by the rape and killing of a Belarusian refugee in Poland.
  • Harbunova recalled having faced psychological torture and violence after being imprisoned by the Lukashenka regime. She also noted that political prisoners are restricted from accessing medical care, food, and hygienic products—and that they are not allowed to communicate with family or their attorneys. LGBTQI+ people in prison, she added, often face more severe sexual violence. “The issue of political prisoners is a humanitarian issue; it’s a matter of life and death,” Harbunova said. “We really need help in securing the release of those prisoners.”

Katherine Walla is an associate director on the editorial team at the Atlantic Council. 

Watch the full event

The post Three activists offer a window into life behind bars for unjustly imprisoned women around the world appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
What to watch in Russia’s stage-managed presidential ‘election’ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/what-to-watch-in-russias-stage-managed-presidential-election/ Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:30:40 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=747329 While the outcome of the upcoming Russian presidential election is not in doubt, it is worth watching for signs about what to expect next from Putin’s Russia.

The post What to watch in Russia’s stage-managed presidential ‘election’ appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Talk long enough and eventually a truth will slip out. “Our presidential election is not really democracy, it is costly bureaucracy,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the New York Times in August about Russia’s upcoming presidential election. While Russia retains many of the visual markers of democracy—campaign commercials, candidate debates, and election volunteers—Russian elections completely lack the competitive nature of a true democracy. The outcome is not in doubt; Russian President Vladimir Putin will assuredly be reelected following the March 15-17 vote. But there are still aspects of this exercise in “costly bureaucracy” that are worth watching for signs of what to expect next from Putin’s Russia.

How much will Putin ‘win’ by?

Putin and his regime have ensured that this year’s Russian presidential election is a carefully stage-managed affair. There are four candidates who have been allowed on the ballot, including Putin. Putin’s three challengers offer nothing but an unenergetic and unthreatening alternative to the current regime. Despite the multiplicity of parties and candidates, all are handpicked members of the loyal opposition, all support Russia’s deadly war on Ukraine, and none offers a real challenge to Putin.

There are potential opposition candidates, but most are now in prison, in exile, or barred from running. For example, Boris Nadezhdin, a previously pliant politician who then defined his campaign by opposing Russia’s war on Ukraine, was prohibited from appearing on the ballot. Election authorities claimed that there were “irregularities” in the list of signatures he submitted.

Putin has preserved many of the trappings of democracy over his more than two decades in power, but he has entirely hollowed out its contents. Putin is employing the vast resources of the state to guarantee his reelection, while providing a veneer of democracy.

This year is the fifth time Putin has faced the ballot box in a presidential election. No serious observer expresses any doubt as to who will win this election, but doubt remains as to his margin of victory. In 2018, when he faced seven opponents on the ballot, Putin received 77 percent of the vote. Reports indicate that officials are aiming for a record high result for Putin, and Peskov mused in August that “Mr. Putin will be reelected next year with more than 90 percent of the vote.” Will Russian authorities follow through on Peskov’s prediction and finally pull back yet another layer of Russia’s democratic veneer? Such a result wouldn’t reflect the will of the people, but it might better reflect the nature of Putin’s regime, which has become only increasingly authoritarian.

When will Russians vote?

For the first time, voting for the Russian presidential election will be conducted over the course of three days. Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who was prohibited from competing in the 2018 election after his conviction on trumped-up charges and who died in prison just weeks before this year’s election, called on supporters to turn out to vote at a specific time—noon on Sunday, March 17—to show the strength of the opposition to the Kremlin in a way that could not be altered or falsified by authorities. Navalny’s widow, Yulia Navalnaya, repeated the call to supporters after his death.

Navalny’s supporters are no stranger to this kind of quiet activism. When I was in Vladivostok in 2018, I ran into a Navalny supporter outside of a polling place in a residential neighborhood of the city. She wasn’t protesting, but monitoring the conduct of the vote. That activity would be commonplace in a liberal democracy, but in Russia it is dangerously subversive. When I told her I couldn’t answer her poll, she pointedly asked me “What are you afraid of?” She wasn’t afraid of the ramifications of her activism, but clearly knew many fellow Russians who were. For me, it wasn’t fear, but my US citizenship, that prevented me from responding.

The dangers of refusing to play along with the Kremlin’s election theatrics are well-known to all. On March 12, Navalny’s former chief of staff, Leonid Volkov, was the victim of an attack outside his home in Vilnius that Lithuania’s intelligence agency says was likely “Russian organized.” The attackers smashed his car windows, sprayed tear gas inside, and beat Volkov with a hammer.

As was shown during Navalny’s funeral, the mere act of gathering in a manner unsanctioned by the state can be a powerful visual in Russia, even when those gathered lack the banners and signs of a typical protest. Notably, the crowds who coalesced to honor Navalny’s memory chanted anti-Putin and antiwar slogans as they marched to his gravesite. In spite of the risks, might supporters repeat those scenes outside polling places across the country at noon on Sunday?

What turnout will authorities claim?

In the lead-up to the election and over the course of the three days of voting, officials throughout the Russian Federation will go to great lengths to boost turnout. Regional leaders have good reason to put in the extra effort, as they will have to provide explanations to Moscow if their region’s turnout falls short.

In past elections, authorities have attempted to instill confidence in the process by livestreaming the voting and vote-counting process in polling places across the country. Widespread irregularities reported in past Russian elections confirm that any such confidence is misplaced. And now, the introduction of online voting has provided authorities with an additional tool to manipulate turnout figures.

How will the world react?

Despite the lack of any real competition or debate about Putin’s policies, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine looms large over this election. In a move decried by Kyiv and its international partners, Russia will conduct elections in the regions it occupies and illegally claims to have annexed in Ukraine. The vote is widely viewed as a test of Putin’s total control over Russian society and of his ability to mobilize the country to redouble Russia’s war effort against Ukraine. Left unchallenged, Putin will be emboldened to pursue his goals not only domestically, but also against Ukraine and across the globe.

It can be expected that Putin’s coterie of authoritarian allies will congratulate him on his reelection, but the degree to which other global leaders denounce the results or stay silent will be an important barometer of their countries’ attitude toward Moscow. In 2011, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously cited “serious concerns” after the Russian parliamentary elections of that year. In 2012, President Barack Obama called to congratulate Putin on his reelection, as did President Donald Trump in 2018. It’s unlikely that such a call will be repeated between President Joe Biden and Putin in 2024, but the example Washington sets in denouncing the results will be an important element to watch as other governments react.

Will there be any signs of protest?

While these elections might share a passing resemblance to the litany of elections that will be held in 2024 in the world’s established liberal democracies, Putin’s presidential election will not share any of the true elements that make those elections free and fair.

Elections reflect how modern regimes exist only through the consent of the governed. In authoritarian regimes, rigged elections are a stark reminder of how that consent is coerced. Putin surely remembers the protests that erupted in Serbia after a rigged election in 2000, in Georgia in 2003, and in Belarus in 2020. He will also recall the protests that erupted at home in 2011 after the fraudulent Russian parliamentary elections of that year. Amid Russia’s war on Ukraine, Putin and his regime are pulling out all the stops to avoid a repeat of that history. The measure of their success will be the silence of the streets.


Benton Coblentz is a program assistant with the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

The post What to watch in Russia’s stage-managed presidential ‘election’ appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Venezuela’s opposition is challenging Maduro in the next election. The only question is how. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/venezuelas-opposition-upcoming-election/ Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:38:39 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=747099 With leading candidate María Corina Machado barred from Venezuela’s July 28 presidential election, who will the opposition to Nicolás Maduro support?

The post Venezuela’s opposition is challenging Maduro in the next election. The only question is how. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ahead of a July 28 presidential election in which their top candidate is banned from participating, Venezuela’s opposition has three difficult choices: It can boycott the election. It can risk a deep fracture in its coalition. Or it can name a replacement candidate. So far, it is likely to run a “plan B” candidate in the unfair process, but the challenge will be moving forward with this plan while maintaining a united front.

On March 5, after weeks of speculation over when the presidential election might be scheduled, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) announced that the vote will be held on July 28. Both the timing of the announcement and the election date were no coincidence. March 5 was the anniversary of the death of Hugo Chávez, strongman Nicolás Maduro’s predecessor and founder of the ruling United Socialist Party, and July 28 is his birthday. Venezuela’s Unitary Platform opposition coalition now faces the difficult task of coming up with a united strategy ahead of the election in which the deeply unpopular Maduro will have an unfair systematic advantage–and the symbolism of the announcement shows Maduro has no shame in letting that be known.

The clock is ticking. According to the electoral timetable announced by the CNE, the opposition has until March 25 to register a candidate in the election. While it can name a placeholder to buy time and reserve a slot on the ballot, the name of the candidate that will appear on voting day must be finalized by April 20.

María Corina Machado, the winner of the opposition primary held five months ago, remains banned from participating in the presidential election. While the Barbados Agreement that the government signed in October 2023 with the opposition announced the creation of a “procedure” to review bans on interested candidates, the Maduro-friendly Supreme Court has doubled down on Machado’s ban. The CNE’s own website makes clear that she is banned from participating in any elections until 2036.

With the deck stacked against it, the opposition needs every vote.

In the face of this reality, there are competing views on the way forward for Venezuela’s opposition. Machado has publicly rejected the government’s ban and insisted at campaign events around the country that she will run anyway. However, reports began surfacing since late in 2023 that she is more flexible in private and would be open to naming a successor if she ultimately could not run. Her public position remains firm, however, and at an Atlantic Council event on February 26, she acknowledged that she is holding her cards close to her vest. Although she said that she remains committed to “the electoral route,” she refused outright to reject the possibility of calling for abstention. Yet polls suggest an electoral boycott, such as the ones the mainstream opposition organized in the 2018 presidential election, would be deeply unpopular. According to a recent survey by the independent Caracas-based pollster Datincorp, 70 percent of Venezuelans say that if her ban remains in place, then Machado should name an alternate candidate to run instead.

In addition to being unpopular, calling for an electoral boycott would likely exacerbate divisions within the Unitary Platform that have long simmered under the surface. While some elements of the opposition coalition have rejected any talk of a substitute candidate, others have hinted that they will move to a “plan B” with or without Machado. The opposition governor of Barinas state, who himself won a deeply unfair election after the previous opposition winner had been banned from taking office, said in January: “Our position has always been clear, we are not going to stop for her [Machado], we will choose among all of us a new candidate, to be the president of all Venezuelans.” There have been reports that some members of the coalition are calling for Zulia state governor Manuel Rosales to be named as the alternate candidate.

The apparent willingness of some coalition members to field a candidate essentially guarantees that someone from the Unitary Platform will run for president in the July 28 election. The only question is whether it will be a united front. However reticent Machado may be to accept the idea of a substitute, it is almost certain that she would not endorse one who attempts to go around her back. And given her overwhelming popularity—Datincorp suggests she would beat Maduro by 40 points in a head-to-head match—Machado’s backing is essential for any replacement to stand a chance on July 28. With the deck stacked against it, the opposition needs every vote.

That leaves only one viable choice: Find a consensus candidate that has the full backing of the entire opposition spectrum, starting with Machado herself. This is easier said than done, but there is a way to ensure that a “plan B” scenario respects the outcome of the opposition primary and harnesses Machado’s popularity at the same time. In Venezuela, like in the United States, the vice president is next in the line of succession. Unlike the United States, however, candidates for vice president do not appear on the ballot. The position is appointed directly by the chief executive. Machado could, in theory, support a placeholder candidate—or a series of placeholder candidates, in the case that they face bans as well—with the understanding that this trusted individual would name her as vice president upon winning, and then resign from office. This would trigger new elections, or it would allow the vice president to assume the role of head of state if the resignation occurred in the last two years of the term.

This strategy would allow Machado to cement her image as not just a candidate, but as the leader of a broad and diverse majority of Venezuelans working to restore the country’s democratic institutions. Working alongside a renewed Unitary Platform coalition, she could energize and mobilize Venezuelans across the country, creating the best opportunity that the opposition has had in years to overcome an electoral system designed to work against them. The Datincorp poll shows that just 15 percent of Venezuelans would vote for Maduro, in line with other surveys which find that an extraordinary 85 percent of the country believes a change in government is necessary.

Even then, victory is far from guaranteed. At least four representatives of Machado’s campaign have been detained across the country in recent weeks, and rights groups say there are more than 250 political prisoners in Venezuela. This includes Rocío San Miguel, a well-known civil society activist whose arbitrary detention has sparked international condemnation. The government closed twelve radio stations across seven states last year, and the independent press faces an environment of constant censorship and repression. While the CNE has said it will invite credible electoral observers such as the European Union and the Carter Center to oversee the vote, the terms of these observation missions would have to be carefully negotiated. At this stage, it is entirely clear that Venezuela’s authoritarian reality will present the opposition with an uphill battle.

The path forward is narrow, and the opportunity is slim. But if the opposition can get behind a single candidate who can run in the election, the Venezuelan peoples’ overwhelming consensus against Maduro could be enough to—finally—bring democratic change.


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

The post Venezuela’s opposition is challenging Maduro in the next election. The only question is how. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Polymeropoulos on MSNBC about responding to humanitarian aid incident in Gaza https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/polymeropoulos-gaza-humanitarian-aid/ Mon, 04 Mar 2024 18:36:34 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=743637 Marc Polymeropoulos notes that the US needs to respond to the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The post Polymeropoulos on MSNBC about responding to humanitarian aid incident in Gaza appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

On March 1, Forward Defense nonresident senior fellow Marc Polymeropoulous was interviewed about the recent Gaza aid convoy incident and reflected upon the worsening humanitarian crisis in the region.

I think the status quo can’t remain in terms of the humanitarian issue situation, and the US is going to take, in a sense, up unilateral action with Israelis, okay. But I think the US is going to have to act now.

Marc Polymeropoulos

The post Polymeropoulos on MSNBC about responding to humanitarian aid incident in Gaza appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
After Prigozhin, Russia clamps down online https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/after-prigozhin-russia-clamps-down-online/ Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:00:00 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=741739 Russia rolled out a new internet surveillance system in 2023 to crack down domestically on anti-war content, while pushing false narratives to undermine Ukraine at home and abroad.

The post After Prigozhin, Russia clamps down online appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
This is one chapter of the DFRLab’s report, Undermining Ukraine: How Russia widened its global information war in 2023. Read the rest here.

Throughout 2023, Russia continued its various crackdowns to prevent its citizens from being exposed to content the Kremlin perceived as undermining its war efforts. The most significant development occurred during the June 2023 Wagner mutiny, which appeared to come as a complete surprise to the Kremlin. On June 23, Wagner Group head Yevgeny Prigozhin declared war on the Russian Ministry of Defense in a post to Telegram, where he and the Wagner Group maintained a robust online presence. Prigozhin publicly touted his actions and aims via the messaging app over the course of several days, including a highly critical June 22 post claiming that Russia had failed to articulate its reasons for the war.

The Russian government struggled to limit the spread of Prigozhin’s messages. It tried to restrict information about Prigozhin on Russian social media and search engines during the crisis, eventually shutting access to websites linked to the Wagner Group. Despite Russian internet regulator Roskomnadzor blocking access to the affected internet resources, the websites continued to publish articles critical of the Ministry of Defense following the revolt, targeting Russian officials such as Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. Soon after the failed revolt, Prigozhin dissolved his Patriot Media Group, with independent Russian media reporting that the Kremlin was looking for a new owner for the media assets.

On Telegram, Russian pro-war channels were somewhat divided in their support to the Russian government and Wagner. A DFRLab analysis of pro-war channels found that a majority of them were consistent in their sentiment, regardless of whether they supported or opposed the revolt or tried to foster unity between both sides. In other instances, Telegram channels wavered over who to back or how to react, leaving them more or less adrift until it was clear that Prigozhin’s mutiny had failed.

Russian state-controlled media reacted to the mutiny in two phases, first attempting to discredit Prigozhin, and then shifting to not mentioning him in their news coverage. Kremlin channels showed footage reportedly displaying Russian special forces raiding Prigozhin’s villa and office, discovering piles of cash, weapons, a helicopter, and falsified passports. State media coverage also brought up his criminal history and implied that he was motivated by greed, a distinct change from generally fawning coverage prior to the mutiny; for example, Kremlin propagandists including Vladimir Solovyov previously praised Prigozhin and participated in Wagner recruitment videos.

Erasing Prigozhin

After a period of media coverage discrediting Prigozhin, the Kremlin attempted to erase him from collective memory. According to an examination of Russian TV transcripts by the nonprofit GDELT Project and the New York Times, “Prigozhin virtually disappeared from the airwaves. On most days between July 13 and Aug. 22, his name was not mentioned at all on any of the four leading state-controlled channels.” The same news report noted that following Prigozhin’s death in a plane crash, Russia’s power elite competed over his assets. The assets included the paramilitary group as well as his media empire, including the election-meddlingtroll factory” in Saint Petersburg that played a significant role in Russia’s efforts to undermine democratic institutions globally.

Russia also continued to increase its efforts to censor and surveil domestically. For example, Roskomnadzor launched an internet surveillance system called Oculus that reportedly identifies content online that the Kremlin considers undesirable or unfavorable. According to the Russian outlet RIA Novosti, the system “recognizes images and symbols, given scenes and actions, and analyzes text in photos and videos” and detects “extremist themes, calls for massive illegal events, suicide, pro-drug content, LGBT propaganda,” among other topics. A massive Roskomnadzor data leak by the Belarusian activist group Cyberpartisans in November 2022 suggested that the agency was running a project named “Vepr,” which was tasked with determining the true identity of any internet user who is deemed to be spreading false information or engaging in illegal activity. The leak indicated that the agency was censoring anti-war social media posts and using a bot farm to spread official Russian narratives.

Another set of leaks investigated by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty showed that Russia and China had cooperated on censorship and internet control methods.
Roskomnadzor continued to block VPN services in 2023. In May of that year, VPN users received notification of a blockade of the OpenVPN protocol, which some VPN providers use. In July, Putin signed a law mandating that websites offering guidance on how to evade internet blocks in Russia be added to Roskomnadzor’s Unified Register of Prohibited Information, which allows authorities to block websites domestically.

Meanwhile, Russian independent outlet Holod reported that the Kremlin had instructed traditional and online Russian media to stop referring to Volodymyr Zelenskyy as Ukraine’s president. According to Holod, Kremlin officials asked outlets not to mention his official title and to use the phrase “Zelenskyy’s regime” when covering him. In 2022, similar instructions encouraged Russian media to minimize the damage done to the Kerch Bridge and portray the Russian army’s pullback from Kherson in a less negative light.

In the face of mounting casualties and a reluctant populace, the Kremlin also attempted to boost its fighting forces in Ukraine by digitizing conscription and creating an online system to punish individuals who ignore conscription notices sent to their Gosuslugi account, which Russians use to access public services. Authorities now have the right to suspend a person’s driving license and prohibit them from selling private property if they do not show up for service.

Exploiting online influencers

The Russian war in Ukraine has become a significant factor in cultural and political discourse around the world. Russian messaging has successfully leveraged divisions within Western society driven by skepticism, populist movements, isolationist politics, and demands for greater economic sovereignty. In numerous instances, political parties from the far right and far left that typically are on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum have found common cause with Putin’s demands for a peace agreement on terms favorable to Russia.

Along with populist leaders sympathetic to Russia, like Viktor Orban in Hungary, Marine Le Pen in France, and Sahra Wagenknecht in Germany, Russia successfully exploits so-called “useful idiots” in the West—intellectuals and influencers who downplay Russia’s regional ambitions while blaming the West and NATO expansion for causing the war.

Among the various trends throughout 2023 has been the surge in narratives favorable to Russia on X, formerly known as Twitter, which became a notable vector for Russian propaganda in the West following the purchase of the company by Elon Musk and a group of fellow investors. Numerous factors led to this shift, including massive staff reductions in Twitter’s trust and safety team, removal of state media labels for RT and other Kremlin-controlled channels, and an inversion of its “blue checkmark” verification system that now allows anyone to “verify” themselves and receive a checkmark for a monthly fee.

Blue checkmark policy change boosts Russian propaganda on X

X introduced the new system in April 2023. Dubbed X Premium, the program grants paying customers additional privileges such as higher algorithmic visibility and fewer restrictions on the number of tweets posted per day. X stated that the changes were designed to reduce fake news and untrustworthy accounts; in practice, however, researchers have documented numerous instances of X accounts with blue checkmarks amplifying pro-Kremlin narratives about Ukraine, reaching millions of users on the platform.

In one example uncovered by the DFRLab and BBC Verify, X Premium accounts amplified the Russian TikTok campaign accusing former Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov of purchasing luxury goods. On July 18, 2023, a blue checkmark X account named @Resist_05 published a video of a French villa alongside claims that Reznikov had purchased it as a wedding present for his daughter for €7 million. The video garnered over 2.3 million views, 31,000 likes, and 18,000 retweets, despite featuring a fact-checking community note challenging the allegation. The villa narrative spread across X in multiple languages, posted on several occasions by other blue-checkmark accounts.

Screenshots of a blue checkmark account republishing false allegations that a former Ukrainian defense minister had allegedly purchased a villa in Cannes, France, for his daughter. The false allegation first surfaced on Russian TikTok accounts. (Source: @BPartisans/archive)

The DFRLab also identified at least two blue checkmark accounts that disseminated unsupported claims alleging that Latvia and Estonia had launched a large-scale drone attack against Russia, when the attack had originated in Ukraine. On the night of August 29, 2023, several Russian regions including Bryansk, Moscow, Ryazan, Kaluga, and Orlov were struck by drones, with Russian media reporting that Russian defense systems had intercepted most of the drones. The attack destroyed four Russian Il-76 transport aircraft at Pskov International Airport and struck a nearby oil depot.

Narratives subsequently emerged in Russian news outlets and on Telegram pointing fingers at Latvia and Estonia. Pro-Russia Telegram channels disseminated screenshots from Yandex Maps, displaying distances from the alleged launch locations in Estonia and Latvia. X Premium accounts @ElephantCivics and @MyLordBebo shared similar messages with another map graphic, claiming that the drones originated from beyond Lake Peipsi, which straddles the border between Estonia and Russia.

Screenshot of X Premium account @MyLordBebo disseminating unsupported claims that Estonia was to blame for August 2023 drone attacks on Russia. The drone attacks originated from Ukraine. (Source: @MyLordBebo/archive)

The BBC collected additional cases of X accounts with blue badges disseminating false and misleading information about Russia’s war in Ukraine. On June 26, 2023, some X Premium accounts claimed that Russian soldiers had discovered so-called “baby factories” in Ukraine where “young children are grown for child sex brothels and organ harvesting.”

In another example, “US Civil Defense News,” an X account with a blue badge, claimed that Ukrainian fighter jets had accidentally launched a missile attack on Kramatorsk, Ukraine, and hit military barracks housing foreign soldiers and mercenaries. The account claimed that the “casualties are still being counted and will be very hard due to NATO attempts to cover their troops in Ukraine!” In a subsequent thread, the same account shared an image purportedly from leaked Pentagon documents that supposedly confirmed the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine. In reality, a Russian rocket struck a pizza restaurant in Kramatorsk, resulting in the deaths of eleven people, including four children. There is no evidence to support the claim that Ukraine launched the missile, nor is there any indication that it struck military barracks housing NATO troops.

The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) has operationalized the study of disinformation by exposing falsehoods and fake news, documenting human rights abuses, and building digital resilience worldwide.

The post After Prigozhin, Russia clamps down online appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
No opposition candidates allowed in Belarus dictator’s “sham” elections https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/no-opposition-candidates-allowed-in-belarus-dictators-sham-elections/ Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:57:53 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=741726 Sunday’s parliamentary and local elections in Belarus were among the most flawed in the thirty-year reign of the country’s authoritarian ruler, Alyaksandr Lukashenka, writes Hanna Liubakova.

The post No opposition candidates allowed in Belarus dictator’s “sham” elections appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Sunday’s parliamentary and local elections in Belarus were among the most flawed in the thirty-year reign of the country’s authoritarian ruler, Alyaksandr Lukashenka. The ballot was completely cleansed of all opposition, with only loyalist candidates permitted to participate. The election was the first to take place in Belarus since the controversial presidential ballot of August 2020, when widespread accusations of vote-rigging sparked weeks of nationwide protests that briefly threatened to topple Lukashenka until Russian intervention rescued his regime.

With the events of 2020 still very much in mind, Lukashenka was clearly anxious to prevent any kind of renewed public mobilization. The February 25 vote took place amid a series of increased security measures including reports of Interior Ministry forces deployed near polling stations. Belarusian state media concealed the identities of election commission members and obscured the faces of some candidates during election coverage. Many polling stations reportedly lacked curtains on individual booths, while newly introduced restrictions on photography made it difficult to record evidence of protest votes “against all.”

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 election was widely dismissed as illegitimate by members of Belarus’s democratic opposition and Western officials. On the eve of the vote, activists hacked more than 2000 display screens in public spaces across Belarus and were able to broadcast an address by the country’s exiled opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who branded the election a “senseless farce” and urged members of the public to stay home. Meanwhile, the election was widely condemned internationally, with the United States calling the vote a “sham” held in a “climate of fear.”

The Belarusian authorities initiated a crackdown on activists and their families during the election campaign, conducting home searches and detaining hundreds of people, according to human rights groups. In the month prior to the vote, legal proceedings were initiated against 20 Belarusian researchers and journalists (including this author) on charges of “conspiracy to seize power.” With Belarus’s last remaining pro-democracy political parties dissolved last year, only four parties were allowed to take part in Sunday’s vote. The pro-Lukashenka Belaya Rus party, which was registered in 2023, reportedly garnered a considerable amount of seats in the lower chamber, alongside a number of prominent pro-Russian activists and regime loyalists.

The draconian measures adopted ahead of Sunday’s vote may at first glance seem somewhat excessive, especially when considered in light of the ruthless crackdown on all opposition that had already taken place in Belarus over the past three-and-a-half years in the aftermath of the country’s 2020 pro-democracy protests. However, Lukashenka is clearly aware that many Belarusians remain discontented and fears a possible repeat uprising. By staging a loyalist election with no room for even symbolic opposition, he sought to demonstrate stability and reaffirm his grip on the country. This message was meant for domestic audiences and also for his patrons in the Kremlin.

Last weekend’s highly orchestrated vote was in stark contrast to events in 2020, when a disputed election led to prolonged protests that erupted across Belarus before being forcefully suppressed in a brutal crackdown that saw tens of thousands of people detained amid widespread claims of human rights abuses including torture. In the aftermath of the protests, civil society organizations and independent media outlets were shuttered, while thousands of activists fled the country. Many who remained ended up in prison. In mid-February 2024, opposition activist Ihar Lednik became the fifth Belarusian political prisoner to die in jail since 2020, according to human rights watchdogs.

Belarus’s recent parliamentary elections took place in a climate of heightened political tension due to the ongoing Russian invasion of neighboring Ukraine. Lukashenka is widely seen as Putin’s junior partner in the invasion, having allowed Russian troops to use Belarus as a launch pad for the initial offensive into northern Ukraine in February 2022. The Belarusian dictator sought to justify the stifling atmosphere surrounding Sunday’s vote by claiming the country was under threat from “hybrid Western aggression.”

Sunday’s carefully choreographed vote was a dress rehearsal for next year’s far more significant Belarusian presidential election. As anticipated, Lukashenka confirmed on February 25 that he intends to run in 2025 for what would be his eighth consecutive presidential term. However, questions remain over whether he may yet seek to switch to a different role. In 2022, Lukashenka staged a referendum to rubber-stamp constitutional changes establishing the unelected All-Belarusian People’s Assembly as the country’s supreme authority. This potentially creates an opportunity for him to vacate the presidency while maintaining control over Belarus. Whatever he decides to do next year, meaningful change in Belarus looks to be out of the question as long as Lukashenka remains in charge of the country.

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

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post No opposition candidates allowed in Belarus dictator’s “sham” elections appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
China must spread its wealth to reach equality https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/books/china-must-spread-its-wealth-to-reach-equality/ Mon, 26 Feb 2024 14:00:00 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=735929 Despite phenomenal growth in GDP, Chinese people have seen only modest gains (if any) across a range of freedom and prosperity indices. The Chinese Communist Party has failed to share the benefits of the country’s upward economic trajectory equally among its citizens.

The post China must spread its wealth to reach equality appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

Table of contents


Evolution of freedom

Examining the Freedom Index overall, which combines economic, political, and legal freedom subindexes, the differences between China and the rest of the region are striking: not only does China underperform compared to the regional average (in 1995, the beginning of the Index, China’s freedom score was just over 40 compared with just under 60 for the East Asia & the Pacific regional average) but it shows an overall decline in freedom over the Index time span. Overall freedom improved slightly between 2000 and 2009, but since President Xi Jinping took office in 2013, it has been slowly declining. 

Consideration of freedoms in China needs to be put in some context, since much of the movement on the Freedom Indexes reflects tensions between the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) efforts to promote economic growth and its need to manage social dissent. The first decade of this century saw an intense focus on economic growth in China, in which the government undertook significant and rapid economic reforms to liberalize the economy. For example, prior to these reforms practically all Chinese industries were state-owned. Chinese leaders realized the economic gains to be made from privatizing China’s industries and enabling foreign joint ventures. China’s admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001 provided another huge economic boost. The country’s export-driven economic development flourished because of its preferred trading status with—and then integration into—most of the major world economies.  

The first period on the graph, from 1995 to roughly 2010, which shows gradual improvement on the Freedom Index, tracks closely with this period of economic growth. State control over citizens’ private lives decreased, while many citizens experienced dramatically improved standards of living. In stark contrast to an earlier era of state-controlled housing assignments and goods allocations, everything from housing to basic commodities to healthcare became available in commercial markets.  

Chinese civil society, which had not really existed before 2000, began to expand during this time as well. From the time of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1947, citizens and government operated under a system of social management known as “the iron rice bowl,” under which the CCP and the government provided for all of the needs of citizens from cradle to grave, and also controlled all aspects of people’s lives. As a result, throughout most of the 1990s, there were virtually no nongovernmental organizations operating in China. However, around 2001, China’s economic liberalization began to affect the country in multiple ways. Economic success and prosperity empowered Chinese citizens with more access to information. Citizens became more confident in themselves and less reliant on the government as they began to realize that the government either was not taking care of, or could not take care of, all their needs. Chinese civil society organizations (CSOs) emerged in part because the government’s promise of the “iron rice bowl” became impossible to fulfill; these CSOs became a channel for people to both voice their discontent and develop solutions to the challenges they faced.  

Between 2000 and 2008 was a dynamic period, especially in terms of civil society. People began to voice their needs, priorities, and grievances, pushing back against the party’s controls. During this time, though the CCP ostensibly controlled nearly every aspect of life, the system allowed for some experimentation. Local officials, tasked with achieving ambitious economic targets while maintaining social order, and beyond the scrutiny of the center, realized they had considerable room for flexibility. For nearly a decade, local officials experimented with a range of approaches, such as increasing women’s participation in politics, participatory budgeting and other types of local governance reform, and opening limited space for public advocacy on some issues. This was no golden age: restrictions persisted and controls were particularly oppressive for China’s ethnic minorities and people living in Tibet and Xinjiang. However, the period marked a gradual increase in overall freedom in China. It corresponded with a time when ordinary Chinese citizens had a greater say in decisions affecting their daily lives. Civil society activity combined with local governments’ eagerness to deliver economic targets created space in which people could associate, voice their concerns, and even actively seek redress from the government, such as compensation for losses in land disputes. 

Around 2008–09, a number of events were precursors to a significant shift in the CCP’s approach that had an impact on political freedoms: the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, the Beijing Olympics, and an impending change in the senior leadership of the party. While the party continued to prioritize economic growth, its actions indicated an intention to limit growth and openness to only that sector, and to reassert party control of the social and political space, particularly at the grassroots level. Post-Olympics, there was a noticeable decline in enthusiasm for direct external influence in China. Avenues for free expression and civil society began to systematically close, and new laws restricting civil society activities emerged.  

Overall, it is striking how, despite massive economic advancement, China achieved very little progress in overall freedom during this period. When these data are compared to the East Asia & the Pacific regional average, China’s performance is truly underwhelming. The CCP missed the opportunity to leverage China’s economic growth to bring substantial improvements in the lives of its people and across various indices.  

The Index shows a very modest aggregate increase in economic freedom from 1996 to 2022. Economic freedoms increased quite dramatically from about 2002 to 2008. The relatively higher score on economic freedoms in China, compared to political and legal freedoms, corresponds with the government’s focus on economic development during this period, as described above, and the challenge faced by the CCP in maintaining its previous systems of control. As noted earlier, the privatization of state-owned industries, combined with newly opened commercial markets, provided Chinese citizens with a range of choices not previously available to them. Other factors contributing to the positive trend during this period included the protection of property rights and an increase in women’s economic freedom. Two things are striking in the data: First, after a sharp decline in overall economic freedom around 2009–10 (corresponding with the global financial crisis), economic freedoms did not reemerge—even as the Chinese economy grew to be the second largest in the world after 2010; Second, three of the four economic freedom trend lines remained quite static for several years after about 2004. Despite astounding economic growth, there was no significant subsequent change in the trajectory of economic freedom. This lack of progress is indeed noteworthy. 

In terms of political freedom, China starts on a lower score than for economic freedom, then remains relatively static until a sharp and consistent decline after Xi Jinping assumed power in 2013. It is worth noting the trends among the four indicators of the political freedom score; until about 2005, they each remain static or show modest improvements. After 2005, only legislative constraints on the executive improves while the other scores decline, civil liberties and political rights dramatically so. These trends again reflect the CCP’s manipulation of citizens’ rights to serve the party’s broader need for social control. As economic growth accelerated from the mid-1990s, the central government faced challenges in fulfilling the promise of the “iron rice bowl,” and had to delegate authority to local officials who themselves lacked clear solutions. The need for solutions to growing social challenges provided an opening for the rise of an independent civil society in China. The slight increases in the scores for civil liberties and political rights until 2005 reflect the extent to which ordinary citizens took matters into their own hands, working within their communities and networks to address local issues. This approach served the CCP’s needs: People saw solutions being delivered, which reduced discontent. The party could showcase its fulfillment of promises to provide support from cradle to grave. And the whole process served as a release valve for societal pressures, such as increasing inequality.  

However, this level of agency by citizens became untenable to the CCP, because it posed a threat to the party’s legitimacy and thus its level of control in the broader society. The fate of local elections in China exemplifies how this situation was handled by the center. The CCP had tolerated limited elections at the village level as part of the era of experimentation, but ultimately became concerned that this channel for popular opinion posed a threat to party power. Couching its concerns in nationalism and relying on long-standing suspicion of outside influence, the CCP branded elections as a foreign concept imposed on China with the purpose of destabilizing the country. As it sought to address internal threats to its authority, the CCP closely watched external developments as well, reacting strongly to the “color revolutions” that were altering the political landscape in Eastern Europe. By the mid-2000s, the party determined that the color revolutions stemmed from domestic CSOs manipulated by foreign actors, and determined to block this threat in China. The CCP instructed local authorities to regain control of the activities of CSOs, sharply reducing the civic and political space. Once Xi assumed power in 2013, the antagonism of the CCP to civil society in general, and its anxiety about the influence of “Western liberal ideas,” was articulated to party officials in an instruction known as “Document No. 9”. The CCP began to redefine the idea of civil society: no longer was it to be independent and separate from government, but instead it became a sector that was required to meet specific government criteria. The introduction of laws around nongovernmental organizations in 2017 further tightened the space, specifically banning political and religious organizations that did not meet government approval, and creating limitations that left little space for independent civil society to function.  

While the practice of rule of law in China has generally improved over the period of review, legal freedom has always been harnessed to serve the political goals of the CCP. The Chinese government has been particularly successful in using the legal system to support its political objectives, and will revert to “rule by law” when necessary. There were glimpses of judicial independence and effectiveness in the 1990s, largely as part of broader experiments occurring during that time. In particular, the CCP was aware that trust in the legal system played a crucial role in economic development. China’s early legal experiments aimed to address important questions: How could China achieve economic growth? And how could it attract companies and reassure people that China was a favorable place for doing business and supporting economic development? Yet even within the awareness of the need to foster legal trust, the party’s interpretation of the law always took precedence.  

The tightening of control by the CCP over various aspects of civic and political life from the mid-2000s also affected overall legal freedoms. The modest improvement in the corruption score reflects ongoing efforts by the party to address this issue. Corruption was a significant concern at all levels in China, touching almost all aspects of peoples’ daily lives and well-being. The party recognized this as “low-hanging fruit” and made tackling corruption a priority. With ample space to work at the local level, they aimed to bring this under control, resulting in positive outcomes. However, even this social good serves the CCP’s political ends, as seen in the most recent anti-corruption campaign targeting entrepreneurs such as Jack Ma, whose wealth and independence posed a threat to the party’s authority. Regarding security, it is notable that, while China devotes significant resources to its domestic security, the overall score on this indicator has remained unchanged. Despite the extensive use of surveillance technology to control the potential for political violence and terrorism, Chinese society remains restive. Official metrics present the appearance of security and stability, but ignore the underlying discontent, evidenced by the thousands of protests that occur regularly in China. This unrest does not imply complete insecurity, but it underscores the complexity of maintaining social order in the country. 

From freedom to prosperity

The data show that overall prosperity in China gradually increased until about 2014, after which it has remained basically static. Unsurprisingly, the most dramatic and sustained improvement has come in economic prosperity, with the data on income reflecting the country’s rapid economic growth. This should be recognized as a remarkable achievement by the CCP and the Chinese people. However, the reality is more complex, since this impressive aggregate achievement obscures the stark inequalities within the country that the data manifest in different ways. China’s economic growth has been uneven as urban areas were given priority and preferential treatment over rural areas. This has caused great and growing inequality; while gross domestic product (GDP) per capita may average out to an appearance of growth due to the immense scale of the Chinese economy, beyond the major cities and coastal areas China is a nation where many people still face significant poverty. And it is not only on economic metrics that China’s population experiences inequalities. The data from other charts underscore how disparities persist across different segments of the population. For an individual who falls outside the party’s accepted norms—such as belonging to a religious or ethnic minority group—quality of life is significantly worse than for the average person. While lack of progress on various forms of freedoms might be explainable by the party’s instincts to restrict liberties to maintain social controls, the inability of the CCP to deliver more equitable prosperity to all its citizens seems a squandered opportunity. 

For minority rights, while the Indexes only use religious discrimination as a proxy, broader classifications of “minority” would likely reflect similar trends. Looking at the trends on religious freedom, the modest improvements seen until about 2008 diminish considerably to the present day. Since the founding of the PRC, the CCP has made concerted efforts to assimilate religious communities, which has had a significant impact on the rights and well-being of religious minority groups. While the Chinese Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, in practice the party implements a “Sinicization” of religion, requiring that religious groups adhere to the prescribed rules and guidelines set by the state. This approach means that the state exerts considerable control over religious practices, limiting the freedoms and rights of religious minorities. The CCP utilizes a range of interventions, primarily using state-controlled religious organizations to redefine how religious practices are conducted, including censorship of religious texts, and managing how religious leaders are chosen. Deviations from the prescribed framework are met with reprisals such as closure of places of worship, harassment, and detention. The systematic detention of one million Uyghurs in “reeducation centers” in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region represents the most extreme example of the CCP’s efforts to control the cultural and religious identities of minority groups.  

The provision of healthcare in China is one of the few measures in which the PRC has outperformed its regional peers. The party included healthcare as part of the services that the state provided under the concept of the “iron rice bowl.” Starting from a low baseline, the PRC experimented with a variety of approaches to improve the quality of and access to health across the country, including the use of “barefoot doctors” at the rural level. Improving healthcare and access to medical services was a relatively straightforward way for the party to demonstrate its dedication to the well-being of its citizens; reforms introduced in the early 2000s expanded healthcare coverage to almost all Chinese people. However, the PRC’s healthcare system must still serve the party’s interests: the suppression of information and miscommunication about the early phase of the coronavirus outbreak in 2019 revealed ongoing systemic flaws in the country’s health services. Persons with disabilities and those living with mental health disorders remain underserved in most of the country. 

China’s environment score reflects another issue on which the country has seen only limited improvement, despite the leadership’s grand commitments in policy and its investment in green technologies. China signed the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate, and the government expressed its intent to address environmental issues, including through pledges to cut emissions. However, the negative effects on citizens of pollution and environmental degradation result in ongoing protests and petitions against the government at all levels. There has been a significant crackdown on environmental activists and against any efforts to highlight environmental problems. CCP officials also seek to “manage” environmental indicators to suit the party’s needs. One striking example of this occurred during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, when officials in Beijing were concerned that air quality measurements would not meet international standards. A decision was made to suspend the activity of coal plants around Beijing, reduce the number of cars on the roads and shutter factories around the capital. These measures not only showed the seriousness of the pollution but also an utter disregard for the human cost associated with these efforts.  

In terms of education, China started from a relatively low base and has made significant investments and progress. Since the founding of the PRC, the government has focused on promoting literacy and access to education, somewhat mirroring its emphasis on health. This focus was a critical factor in the country’s economic success, producing an educated workforce that could drive economic modernization. However, as in other aspects of China’s development, there are significant in­equalities in the education system. Disparities follow existing lines of inequality in the country, for example between rural and urban areas, and this affects recruitment of teachers, access to education, and therefore future opportunities. The highly structured and competitive process for educational achievement creates tremendous pressure for students and their families, and leaves little room for independent, creative development. This may pose a challenge for the country as it seeks to move its economy beyond manufacturing to more advanced industries. 

The future ahead

As has been noted, the conclusions drawn from the data, overall, are underwhelming: despite phenomenal growth in GDP, Chinese people have seen only modest gains (if any) across a range of freedom and prosperity indices. Meanwhile, other East Asian and Pacific countries have improved their freedoms considerably, even with slower income growth; overall, they seem to do more with fewer resources to enhance their societies and systems. When viewed through this lens, it is hard not to lament a significant missed opportunity by the CCP to create a more modern and dynamic society, one that reflects the “Chinese dream” Xi Jinping asserts is within grasp. 

Of course, the CCP can argue that prioritizing economic growth over other factors was and remains the right choice for China, and that China’s citizens must continue to follow the party’s lead to ensure continued success in the future. If we accept that position, the question we need to address is whether the choices being made are sustainable. The data clearly point to a broader implication of China’s economic and social development: it has become more socially, economically, and politically complex. As the scores above demonstrate, the party has failed to share the benefits of the country’s upward economic trajectory equally among its citizens. The task of doing so will only become more challenging as the wants and needs of its citizens continue to diversify.  

I have major reservations about the viability of the current model, and several factors contribute to my skepticism. The economic turmoil during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised doubts about the effectiveness of the model, even though we lack sufficient data to draw definitive conclusions. But the most striking aspect of the data is the CCP’s commitment to an inherently unequal form of governance, particularly when it comes to individual and subgroup rights. The CCP frequently touts its collectivist approach, where the well-being of the collective outweighs individual freedoms. However, the data suggest a more selective approach: in this model, certain groups are favored at the expense of others. 

This type of inequality is not a new phenomenon within the CCP system. Historically, there have always been winners and losers, with the party elite and affiliated businesses reaping the rewards of extraordinary economic growth while the general population experienced more modest improvements. Yet, in the past, the wealth gap in China was often characterized as urban versus rural. What the data reveal is a shift towards absolute, rather than relative, inequality. There are clear losers in this system, including individuals and groups who have experienced a significant loss of freedoms. These groups include ethnic and religious minorities, the LGBTQ+ community, and those who advocate for more liberal—seen by the CCP as dangerous and foreign—ideals. 

This discrimination is not solely identity based; it is also about values and alignment with the CCP’s objectives. As we look forward, the situation appears to be deteriorating. As the CCP sees growing threats to its authority and control, pressure will increase on individuals and groups to conform to a more limited definition of acceptability or face forced assimilation. This trend is exemplified by the genocidal “reeducation” of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and in calls by party leaders in October 2023 for Chinese women to focus on family and traditional values. This shift towards a more rigid societal framework could lead to individuals being excluded from the benefits of society or, in the worst case, losing their social freedoms. The rapid expansion of surveillance technology and its use in determining the status of a “good citizen” provide the state with powerful tools to enforce its will. While these tactics have succeeded in managing dissent, they are likely only temporary fixes. Without substantial, systemic reform, the diverse wants and needs of Chinese people will continue to drive demands for change. 


Johanna Kao is the senior director for Asia-Pacific at the International Republican Institute and is concurrently a senior nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub. Her work is informed by more than twenty-five years’ experience in international political development, living in some of Asia’s most challenging and dynamic countries. Johanna is a graduate of the University of Chicago and received her LLM from the University of Hong Kong.

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.

The post China must spread its wealth to reach equality appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Foreword: Creating another wave of democracy https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/books/foreword-creating-another-wave-of-democracy/ Mon, 26 Feb 2024 14:00:00 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=737937 The best way to counter the current pernicious trends is to create another wave of democracy, similar to the one witnessed after the collapse of military dictatorships in Southern Europe in the 1970s. This requires reinstating democracy support, institutional trust, and empowering civil society appropriately.

The post Foreword: Creating another wave of democracy appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

Democracy and freedom are in crisis. Freedom House reports that democracy around the world has been in constant retreat for seventeen consecutive years.1 In 2021, sixty countries experienced declines in their democracy score, while only twenty-five showed improvement. Today, the world is less democratic than it has been at any time since 1997. Concurrently, there has been a steep decline in support for democracy. In international surveys, 60 percent of respondents reported a positive view of democracy in the mid-1990s; the number now stands at 50 percent.2

The erosion of democracy is intertwined with a crisis of freedom. The most common path toward democratic decline is via the election of authoritarian leaders who then clamp down on media, dissent, and opposition forces.3 Censorship is on the rise and freedom of expression is in decline around the world, led by China, where government surveillance has intensified, aided by controls over media, social media, the Internet, and all kinds of nongovernmental organizations, including businesses.4 Similar trends are visible not only in countries like Iran and Russia, similarly recognized for their repressive regimes, but also in the Middle East, Hungary, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Mexico, and several countries in Africa. There is growing demand for Chinese technologies for surveillance, exports of which are growing around the world.5

The chapters in this handbook summarize these worrying developments in rich detail. While many of them also point in hopeful directions, there are reasons to worry that even worse times may be ahead for freedom and democracy. Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have already intensified controls over free expression.6 The COVID-19 pandemic provided an excuse for many governments to further tighten the screws, and in several cases these controls have remained in place even after the pandemic subsided.7 All of this could be made worse if, as forecasted, refugee and immigrant flows increase rapidly as a result of global climate change and domestic politics in destination countries shifts further in a nativist-populist direction.

Even more worrying are two major economic and technological developments which will likely continue to push toward more intense authoritarianism. The first is the growing sense that millions (or even billions) of people are being left behind while a global elite are benefiting from economic growth and technological progress.8 This grievance has been central to the rise of left-wing and right-wing populist regimes in both established and nascent democracies, and this worrisome trend shows no sign of subsiding.9 The second is the rapid pace of advances in artificial intelligence (AI), which has been used for data collection on a massive scale by many governments and multinational corporations, and which has also enabled large-scale surveillance, as in China, Russia, and Iran. Although AI technology could be developed in less repressive ways, its current trajectory is concerning for democracy and liberty.

A simple framework

There is still much we do not know about the consequences for prosperity, inequality, and the future of democracy and freedom. I argue in the rest of this foreword that a simple framework—building on my 2019 book The Narrow Corridor, jointly written with James Robinson—may be useful to shed light on the problems of democracy and freedom, and point to pathways for developing institutions, norms, and practices for democratic rejuvenation.10

The main thesis of this framework can be summarized by Figure 1 below, which I borrow from the book.

This figure exposits some of the key social and political forces shaping state-society dynamics and their implications for democracy and freedom. The centerpiece of this approach is the relationship between the powers of the state and society. By the “power of the society,” which is depicted on the horizontal axis of Figure 1, we mean the ability of society to organize collective action, act according to its norms and values, and participate in politics, even against opposition and repression from state institutions and elites (by “elites,” we refer to groups that wield disproportionate economic or political power). The vertical axis depicts the power of the state, which represents the relative capacity of state institutions and the power of economic and political elites who control the state and command the key roles in politics and the economy. State power has a repressive element, as it enables state institutions and elites to overwhelm and silence opposition and society at large, but also some positive aspects—because a more powerful state may provide better public services, collect useful information, resolve disputes, and handle societal problems.

In our framework, state-society relations determine the nature of political power. This is summarized by the three regions depicted in the figure. The region on the left is the “basin of attraction” of the “Despotic Leviathan,” which signifies a state that is despotic in the sense that it can implement policies or impose its wishes without input from society. The implied dynamics, reminiscent of a simplified version of Chinese political history, are inexorably toward lower levels of societal power. This is the reason why the trajectory indicated there moves gradually toward the vertical axis, where society’s power against the state reaches a minimum. 

The polar opposite of the despotic path is one where the state and its institutions are weak and society’s traditions and organizational capacity are strong. At first, this might appear as a remedy against state repression. In reality, it is also inimical to freedom. It impedes the development of political hierarchy, a precondition for the emergence and evolution of state institutions, including a legal system and regulatory rules that are essential for protecting individuals against predation, expropriation, and intimidation. Even when states do appear within this context, they are weak and, in fact, often absent from large parts of the territory they are supposed to control. James Robinson and I thus labeled them as “Absent Leviathans.” These dynamics lead toward even greater state weakness.

More interesting is the region in the middle: “the narrow corridor.” This corridor is defined by a balance of power between state and society. The trajectories in this region look very different than those outside of it. This, we argue, is the hallmark of a different type of state and different nature of political power. We label it the “Shackled Leviathan” to capture the notion that the state is still strong, but it is monitored, challenged, and controlled by society—and, ultimately, by democratic institutions.

The heart of our theory is that true democratic participation and liberty, as well as economic incentives encouraging innovation and experimentation, can only flourish within the corridor. The corridor itself, though precarious at the best of times, can be bolstered by societal mobilization and participation. Institutions matter, but neither a cleverly designed constitution nor the correct set of institutional guardrails are sufficient by themselves to protect the corridor, nor are they a true bulwark against threats to democracy. Put simply: democracy is seldom given to the people, and it is often taken; thus, democracy is almost always in need of defense by the people.

There is another important aspect to the corridor, emphasized by the direction of trajectories within it, contrasted with those outside. Outside of the corridor, historical dynamics are likely to weaken one party as they strengthen the other. Inside of the corridor, however, the capacities of both state and society can rise in tandem. There are two synergistic reasons for the mutually beneficial dynamics within the corridor. First, state and society are locked in a fairly balanced competition. As state institutions become stronger—for example, because of new exigencies—society strives to increase its own capacity in order to control the emboldened state. Second, when balanced in terms of their capacities, state and society can cooperate. For example, when institutions and societal mobilization mean that an upstart politician cannot immediately hijack the public budget or misuse information that state agencies collect, people will be more willing to allow greater taxation and information collection. The centerpiece of this state-society cooperation is a degree of trust between state institutions and the population at large.

Both the positive-sum state-society competition and the trust in institutions are fragile, however. Competition can easily spin out of control, and trust is easier to destroy than to build.

This framework also highlights why societal norms are so important. These norms determine the boundaries of what elites and the agents of the state are expected to do, and how much trust they can command. These norms also shape how society mobilizes and resolves its own differences in the service of organizing against elites and impositions from the state.

Norms themselves are shaped by broader cultural trends, and while The Narrow Corridor did not study cultural dynamics in detail, our more recent work has proposed a complementary framework for doing so.11 This framework starts from the observation that no human society possesses an unambiguous and unchanging cultural structure. Rather, different human communities have a reservoir of “attributes,” which gel together in distinct ways to create different underpinnings of political and social behaviors. The importance of this perspective is that we should not think of culture as a hard constraint on democracy or freedom, but rather as the language through which ideas related to democracy, liberty, and inequality can be articulated. Nevertheless, there is persistence in culture. Once freedoms start to be sidelined, it becomes more difficult to build the cultural tools to defend them. Once trust between state and society is destroyed, it also becomes harder to generate the ideas and coalitions needed to rebuild it.

In The Narrow Corridor, James Robinson and I trace the history of many historical polities via these trajectories and explain what sorts of events can place a society inside or outside the corridor and what shapes its boundaries. Most importantly, the historical account reveals how the process of entering and traveling within the corridor is a slow, conflict-ridden process, and how trust between state and society develops gradually and often painfully over time—but also how this trust can be easily destroyed, and how competition can quickly turn zero-sum. 

The eclipse of democracy and freedom

What does this framework imply for the current difficulties and future prospects of democracy and freedom? Two complementary processes can be identified. First, societies inside of the corridor have experienced weakening democracies and intensifying clampdowns on freedoms. Second, Despotic Leviathans outside of the corridor have become more adept at defending their nondemocratic regimes against the counterbalancing powers of society, thanks to China’s rise, the use of AI and related technologies, and also because democracies themselves have become weaker. I now focus on the first process, returning to the second process later in this foreword.

The fact that support for democracy among the people has declined—rather than authoritarian leaders merely clamping down on democratic rights and freedoms against the people’s wishes—provides an important clue about the problems of democracy and freedom. The causes of this deteriorating support for democracy are explored in my joint work with Nicolás Ajzenman, Cevat Aksoy, Martin Fiszbein, and Carlos Molina.12 We find that people who have experience with democratic institutions tend to support them. Hence, a history of democracy should boost people’s willingness to defend the regime. But a more detailed look at the data reveals that the relationship between democratic experience and support for democracy is far from unconditional. It is only people who have experience with successful democracies—meaning democracies that deliver the kinds of economic performance, public services, and outcomes that they desire—that support democracy. In fact, we found that people who live under unsuccessful democracies do not increase their support for these institutions at all. 

So, what is it that people want from democracies? Our results suggest several important dimensions of success: economic growth (democracies that get mired in economic crises do not garner support); peace and political stability (wars or instability are of course not what people want); control of corruption; good public services; and low inequality. These last three are particularly important, because they underpin one of the important pillars of trust between state and society, as emphasized by the framework in Figure 1. The cooperative, positive-sum relationship between state and society collapses when trust in democratic institutions is eroded. This becomes much more likely when democratic institutions malfunction, and especially when they enable malfeasance by public officials, fail to deliver basic public services, and cannot (or choose not to) control inequality.

I believe it is these dimensions in which democracies, and more generally societies, in or near the corridor, have failed in recent decades. There are several reasons for this failure. Some of them are technological, some of them economic, and some of them political. New technologies have favored the very well-educated elite both in industrialized and developing nations, and governments have not taken steps to redress these inequities. Economically, the rapid drive toward globalization, transmogrified by the rapid accession of China into the global trading order, has contributed to the same trends.

But even worse for democracy’s reputation has been the policy response to these trends. Neither technology nor globalization are acts of nature. They are choices that societies make about how to use existing scientific know-how, what types of new technologies to develop, and what kind of globalization to implement. In the case of industrialized nations, led by the United States, these were choices made by political and economic elites. Trust among the people was markedly undermined—especially for people who were not among the winners from these processes—because these decisions were made by an insular technocratic elite who kept claiming (with very vocal support from the mainstream media) that everybody would benefit from unlimited technological growth and expansive globalization. In the United States, nothing of the sort happened. For example, low-education households have seen their real incomes collapse since 1980. In several other industrialized nations, the trends are less clear-cut, but people in the bottom half of the income distribution did not receive much of the promised benefits. At the same time, the technocratic elite became more and more integrated with the business elite, convincing many that corruption was on the rise (whether this was true or not).

This collapse of trust in public institutions and public servants is inimical to life in the corridor, and it has been a major driver of eroding support for democracy. It has also been an important force toward declining respect for democratic rights and broader freedoms.

As democracy’s reputation has become tarnished in the West, this has created an opening for authoritarian regimes, led by China and Russia, to solidify control over their populations, with disastrous effects for freedom around the world.

If this account is correct, it is the failure of democratic institutions that is threatening the balance within the corridor. The corresponding declines in trust and support for democracy make the implications for future political regimes and myriad freedoms and rights especially dire.

Will it get worse?

There are at least three reasons to worry that the trends we are seeing could get worse.

First, there is no obvious end to the slide of demo­cratic norms around the world. As demo­cracies continue to perform poorly on many dimensions that their citizens care about and as powerful auto­cracies, such as China and Russia, expand their global reach and propaganda, it would be quixotic to hope for an immediate turnaround. Historical evidence is consistent with the idea that, once waves of democracy start, they go on for a while.13 Likewise, once the decline of democracy is underway, we may see further slides for quite some time.

Second, the key forces that have led to the benefits of prosperity not being shared equally are still present. As Simon Johnson and I argue in Power and Progress,14 the main factor leading to growing inequality and lack of wage growth around the world has been the use of digital technologies to drive workplace automation and worker disempowerment. With recent advances in generative AI, these forces may have gone into overdrive. While there is nothing inherent in the nature of AI that should make it always eliminate labor and increase inequality, our current technological trajectory is toward automation and a reduced role of labor across diverse sectors of the economy.15 If this technological trend continues, it will exacerbate the failure of democracies to create shared prosperity. Although certain aspects of globalization may have slowed down, the role of multinational corporations and other dimensions of global integration are likely to increase, which could create another set of forces toward unshared prosperity.16

Third, AI also has direct impacts on democracy, which will likely exacerbate democratic tensions in the years to come. As mentioned above, this is both because AI is being used increasingly skillfully by autocratic regimes to quell discontent and demand for democratic rights,17 but even more fundamentally, it is because AI is distorting political communication and discourse in electoral democracies around the world.18 The role of Facebook and other social media platforms in fostering filter bubbles and polarization and fomenting partisanship and misinformation during the 2010s is now well understood. There are concerns that, with advances in generative AI, even worse practices will take root in the new social media ecosystem.19

While several political, economic, and technological trends may augur hard times for democracy and freedom, there is one small silver lining suggested by the framework in The Narrow Corridor: leaving the corridor is not permanent, and countries that have recently lost the balance between state and society will also be the ones where this balance is still partly present. As conditions change, and as pro-democracy forces and measures strengthen the demand for democratic and civil rights, it is possible to reenter the corridor. For example, after the murderous, totalitarian Nazi regime in Germany, the country was able to rebuild a balance between state and society and develop fairly healthy democratic institutions in the postwar era.20 The same perspective provides some hope that, even as we are witnessing the slide of democratic norms and institutions, rebuilding them is a possibility.

What to do?

Almost all of the chapters in this book suggest ideas to rejuvenate freedom. Let me add to these valuable insights by summarizing some perspectives from the framework presented here.

To put it simply, the best way to counter the current pernicious trends is to create another wave of democracy, similar to the one witnessed after the collapse of military dictatorships in Southern Europe in the 1970s. But how?

There is no surefire way of achieving something so ambitious. But I would like to briefly present a couple of ideas.

  • Rebuild support for democracy. Democracy is nothing without people’s support. The first step in improving the future of democracy and freedom is to rebuild support for democracy within democratically governed populations, then hope that these ideas will spread around the world. In my assessment, the only way this can be achieved is by democracy performing better, at least starting in a number of key places, such as the United States, Western Europe and Latin America. Democracies in these ideological battlegrounds need to show that they deliver in terms of economic growth, shared prosperity, control of corruption, and responsiveness to people’s needs and wishes. The role of shared prosperity here cannot be overemphasized. Democracy will continue to lose support if it is seen as the handmaiden of a two-tiered society in which a small group of elites benefits from economic growth and technological change while the rest become increasingly dependent.
  • Trust in institutions. Concurrently, democratic institutions need to foster people’s trust. This again starts with performance. But procedures matter too. One of the reasons why democracies started losing people’s trust and support is because of an error of “technocracy.” Increasingly, many segments of the population are becoming disillusioned with democracies because they think that, under the veneer of democracy, a small group of technocrats, in cahoots with economic and political elites, runs the show. This state of affairs is not conducive to trust in institutions or support for democracy. To get out of this situation is certainly not easy, especially after democratic norms have become weakened. Sidelining experts and expertise from policy making, or enabling the emergence of a tyranny of the majority that could damage civil rights and minority rights, would certainly be disastrous for broad freedoms. The solution then must be sought in democratizing procedures subject to well-articulated constraints. The alternative to technocracy should thus not be viewed as “mob rule,” but as institutions that are truly responsive to people’s needs and concerns. These institutions should be built and should function within well-defined and communicated constraints, set by constitutions, and a firm commitment to minority and human rights.
  • The right kind of empowerment for civil society. The framework in The Narrow Corridor puts special emphasis on the role of civil society. The weakening of democratic norms and freedoms around the world has coincided with civil society becoming either weaker, as in many autocratic regimes, or more polarized, as in the United States and Western Europe.21 We need the right kind of empowerment for civil society, which means civil society becoming a true bulwark in the defense of freedoms and democracy. This must start with civil society organizations (CSOs) themselves recognizing that they should not be an instrument to suppress rights and freedoms. The tragedy in much of Western Europe and the United States today is that several CSOs have become active participants in banning free speech or silencing alternative voices.22 The right kind of civil society empowerment must start with a strong commitment to freedom of speech. All other concerns, including the fact that some groups may feel uncomfortable when certain ideas are expressed, must be subservient to this principle. It is only then that CSOs can be a true force against state repression and elite dominance and can help rebuild freedom and democracy.

Daron Acemoglu is an Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is also a fellow of NAS, APS, BAS, AAAS; the winner of BBVA Frontiers of Knowledge Award, Nemmers Prize, Global Economy Prize, A.SK Prize, CME Prize, and John Bates Clark Medal; and the author of New York Times bestseller Why Nations Fail (with James Robinson); The Narrow Corridor (with James Robinson); and Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle over Technology and Prosperity (with Simon Johnson).

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.

1    Yana Gorokhovskaia, Adrian Shahbaz, and Amy Slipowitz. Marking 50 Years in the Struggle for Democracy. Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2023, March 2023, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2023/marking-50-years.
2    Daron Acemoglu, Nicolás Ajzenman, Cevat Giray Aksoy, Martin Fiszbein, and Carlos Molina, “(Successful) Democracies Breed Their Own Support.” Working paper, Review of Economic Studies, (2023, forthcoming). https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2023-10/Successful%20Democracies%20Breed%20Their%20Own%20Support.pdf; Daron Acemoglu, Nicolás Ajzenman, Cevat Giray Aksoy, Martin Fiszbein, and Carlos Molina, “Support for Democracy and the Future of Democratic Institutions,” VoxDev, December 19, 2023, https://voxdev.org/topic/institutions-political-economy/support-democracy-and-future-democratic-institutions.
3    Grzegorz Ekiert, Democracy and Authoritarianism in the 21st Century: A Sketch, Harvard Kennedy School, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Policy Briefs Series, December 2023, ash.harvard.edu/sites/hwpi.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/democracy_and_authoritarianism_in_the_21st_century-_a_sketch.pdf; Larry M. Bartels, Ursula E. Daxecker, Susan D. Hyde, Staffan I. Lindberg, and Irfan Nooruddin, “The Forum: Global Challenges to Democracy? Perspectives on Democratic Backsliding,” International Studies Review, 25, no. 2 (June 2023); Robert R. Kaufman and Stephan Haggard, “Democratic Decline in the United States: What Can We Learn from Middle-Income Backsliding?” Perspectives on Politics, 17, no. 2 (2019), 417–32.
4    Sarah Cook, “Freedom of Expression in Asia: Key trends, factors driving decline, the role of China, and recommendations for US policy,” Freedom House, March 30, 2022, https://www.freedomhouse.org/article/testimony-freedom-expression-asia; Gary King, Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts, “How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, Not Engaged Argument,” American Political Science Review 111, no. 3 (2017), 484–501; Gary King, Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts, “How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression,” American Political Science Review 107, no. 2 (May 2013), 326–43; Zhizheng Wang, “Systematic Government Access to Private-Sector Data in China,” International Data Privacy Law, 2, no. 4 (2012), 220–229.
5    Martin Beraja, Andrew Kao, David Y. Yang, and Noam Yuchtman, “AI-tocracy,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 138, no. 3 (2023) 1349–1402.
6    Anton Troianovski, Yuliya Parshina-Kottas, Oleg Matsnev, Alina Lobzina, Valerie Hopkins, and Aaron Krolik, “How the Russian Government Silences Wartime Dissent,” New York Times, December 29, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/29/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war-censorship.html; Dasha Litvinova, “The Cyber Gulag: How Russia tracks, censors and controls its citizens,” Associated Press News, May 23,
2023, https://www.apnews.com/article/russia-crackdown-surveillance-censorship-war-ukraine-internet-dab3663774feb666d6d0025bcd082fba.
7    Sarah Repucci and Amy Slipowitz, Democracy Under Lockdown: The Impact of COVID-19 on the Global Struggle for Freedom, Freedom House, October 2020, https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/democracy-under-lockdown; Richard Youngs, “COVID-19 and Democratic Resilience,” Global Policy, Policy Insights 14, no. 1 (2022), 149–56; Jacek Lewkowicz, Michał Woźniak, and Michał Wrzesiński, “COVID-19 and erosion of democracy,” Economic Modelling 106 (January 2022), 105682.
8    Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity (Hachette, PublicAffairs, 2023).
9    Sergei Guriev and Elias Papaioannou, “The Political Economy of Populism,” Journal of Economic Literature 60, no. 3 (2022), 753–832; Dani Rodrik, “Why Does Globalization Fuel Populism? Economics, Culture, and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism,” Annual Review of Economics 13 (2021), 133–70.
10    Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty (Penguin Random House, 2019).
11    Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, “Non-Modernization: Power-Culture Trajectories and the Dynamics of Political Institutions,” Annual Review of Political Science, 25 (2022), 323–39.
12    Acemoglu et al., “(Successful) Democracies Breed Their Own Support.” 
13    Samuel P. Huntington, “Democracy’s Third Wave,” Journal of Democracy 2, no. 2 (1991), 12–34; John Markoff, Waves of Democracy: Social Movements and Political Change (SAGE Publications, Inc., 1996). 
14    Acemoglu and Johnson, Power and Progress.
15    Acemoglu and Johnson, Power and Progress.
16    John G. Ruggie, “Multinationals as Global Institution: Power, Authority and Relative Autonomy,” Regulation and Governance 12, no. 3 (2017) 317–33; In Song Kim and Helen V. Milner, Multinational Corporations and their Influence Through Lobbying on Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution, December 2, 2019, web.mit.edu/insong/www/pdf/MNClobby.pdf.
17    Martin Beraja, David Y. Yang, and Noam Yuchtman, “Data-intensive Innovation and the State: Evidence from AI Firms in China,” Review of Economic Studies 90, no. 4 ww(2023), 1701–23; Beraja et al., “AI-tocracy,” (2023).
18    Allie Funk, Adrian Shahbaz, and Kian Vesteinsson, “The Repressive Power of Artificial Intelligence,” in Freedom on the Net 2023, eds. Adrian Shahbaz et al. (Freedom House, 2023) https://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2023/repressive-power-artificial-intelligence; Daron Acemoglu, “Harms of AI,” The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance, eds. Justin Bullock, Yu-Che Chen, Johannes Himmelreich, Valerie Hudson, Anton Korinek, Matthew Young, and Baobao Zhang (Oxford University Press, 2024); Jessica Brandt, “Propaganda, Foreign Interference, and Generative AI,” testimony prepared for the US Senate Artificial Intelligence Insight Forum (Brookings Institution, November 8, 2023), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/propaganda-foreign-interference-and-generative-ai.
19    Jonathan Haidt and Eric Schmidt, “AI Is About to Make Social Media (Much) More Toxic,” The Atlantic, May 5, 2023 https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/05/generative-ai-social-media-integration-dangers-disinformation-addiction/673940; Daron Acemoglu, Written testimony prepared for the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs hearing on “The Philosophy of AI: Learning from History, Shaping Our Future,” (November 8, 2023), https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Testimony-Acemoglu-2023-11-08.pdf; Valerio Capraro et al., “The Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Socioeconomic Inequalities and Policy Making,” SSRN Working Paper No. 4666103, December 15, 2023; Daron Acemoglu, Asuman Ozdaglar, and James Siderius, “A Model of Online Misinformation,” The Review of Economic Studies (2024, forthcoming).
20    Acemoglu and Robinson, The Narrow Corridor, Chapter 13.
21    Amber Hye-Yon Lee, “Social Trust in Polarized Times: How Perceptions of Political Polarization Affect Americans’ Trust in Each Other,” Political Behavior 44 (2022) 1533–54; Nicholas Charron, Victor Lapuente, and Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, “Uncooperative Society, Uncooperative Politics or Both? Trust, Polarization, Populism and COVID-19 Deaths Across European Regions,” European Journal of Political Research 62, no. 3 (2022), 781–805; Shanto Iyengar, Yphtach Lelkes, Matthew Levendusky, Neil Malhotra, and Sean J. Westwood, “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22 (2019), 129–46; Jennifer McCoy, Tahmina Rahman, and Murat Somer, “Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities,” American Behavioral Scientist 62, no. 1 (2018), 16–42.
22    Brenda Dvoskin, “Representation Without Elections: Civil Society Participation as a Remedy for the Democratic Deficits of Online Speech Governance.” Villanova Law Review 67, no. 3 (2022), 447–507; Robert Corn-Revere, “The Anti-Free Speech Movement,” Brooklyn Law Review 87, no. 1 (2021) 145–93; John Shattuck and Mathias Risse, Freedom of Speech and Media: Reimagining Rights & Responsibilities in the United States, Harvard Kennedy School, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, 13 (2021), https://www.carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/cchr/files/free_speech.pdf.

The post Foreword: Creating another wave of democracy appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Regaining trust in government https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/books/regaining-trust-in-government/ Mon, 26 Feb 2024 14:00:00 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=737939 Crises like COVID-19 prompt increased government control, challenging liberal values. Declining trust in governments clashes with security needs, urging policies to balance freedom and prosperity. Energy security challenges hinder net-zero goals, posing economic challenges globally, alongside privacy dilemmas amid surveillance tech in China, Russia, and the Middle East.

The post Regaining trust in government appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

Table of contents

In his treatise The Road to Serfdom Friedrich Hayek argues that the abandonment of classical liberalism leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, and in some cases the tyranny of a dictator. Several contemporary political leaders fit with Hayek’s foreboding picture, among them Vladimir Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping of China. In times of crisis, as during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, societies naturally demand new protections from their governments. These protections enhance security at the expense of freedom. The history of previous crises—be they economic, social, or due to wars and natural disasters—teaches us that such limits to freedom tend to remain in place long after the original purpose of regulation or state intervention has abated, and that this sometimes leads to the path Hayek predicted.

The world has experienced a sequence of significant crises in the past dozen years—the Great Recession in 2009–12, the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, the COVID-19 pandemic, and most recently the war in Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war—and governments have substantially increased their reach in economic and social life during these years. This expansion of the role of government challenges traditional liberal views on the foundations of freedom, and necessitates a new look at basic questions.

In designing policies to increase prosperity, one must also acknowledge challenges to standard economic theory, which predicts that, as societies become richer, more educated, and economically more developed, they should also experience a particular path of political institutional developments—that is, they become more democratic, increase respect for civil and human rights, and develop several other societal features we commonly associate with Western democracies. China is the most obvious challenge to this theory, but there are others, even in relatively prosperous European societies like Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, as well as Latin American countries like Venezuela.

There is another worrying issue, too. The effectiveness of public institutions depends on the trust that citizens and businesses bestow upon them. However, in the last two decades trust in government has continuously fallen around the world, including in the advanced economies (Figure 1). Civic engagement helps people extend their trust from their familiar circle to include public institutions as well. While there is a long history of civic engagement at the local level in many developing economies, disruptions due to decolonization and war have made it difficult to replicate Europe’s results in participatory democracy to these economies.

Figure 1. Trust levels, global results (2020)

Source: Wellcome Global Monitor 2020: COVID-19

Note: Percentage of people who answered ‘a lot’ to the question: “How much do you trust each of the following?
Do you trust them a lot, some, not much, or not at all?”

The concern that comes out most often in country studies is over personal security. This concern comes through in countries at war like Ukraine or parts of Africa; in countries with high levels of gang violence, as in Brazil or several Central American nations; and in countries where political polarization brings about crimes and discrimination against minority groups, as in China or India. This dichotomy—between declining trust in government while requiring more government to ensure security—is the principal trade-off that has evolved in recent times. New technologies are increasingly used by governments to analyze individuals’ behavior, in the name of enhancing security. Such analyses disrupt the standard concept of personal privacy and can easily become tools in an oppressive society. Examples in China and the Middle East suggest that social protest or dissent, even as benign as views expressed on social media, is identified through the use of spying technologies, and is quickly stifled.

The importance of the Atlantic Council’s Freedom and Prosperity Center is in identifying policies that build trust in government institutions while protecting personal freedom. Such policies are couched in political, economic, and legal reform. The task for governments is to disseminate the reasons for these policies being implemented and their likely impact on prosperity. This analysis helps policymakers and influencers in developing countries, as well as other organizations and individuals who are trying to expand freedoms through incremental or fundamental change towards prosperity.

This volume brings together the insights of some of the world’s leading economists and diplomats into how countries and regions pursue steps towards prosperity. Often these steps to prosperity ignore the role of freedom, but there is always an implicit association or algorithm connecting policies to freedoms—or the abandonment of those freedoms—and prosperity. This is precisely the goal of the Atlantic Council’s project: to document this algorithm and derive the success stories associated with it. In doing so, we hope to identify the roads politicians travel to attain prosperity. 

This chapter is organized as follows: First, we summarize the views of eminent economic scholars and foreign policy experts on what the future may hold for some large countries and regions. We have chosen case studies where we see interesting dynamics that may affect global prosperity—be it because those countries and regions are large and home to significant portions of the world’s population, or because their policies affect neighboring countries and regions. Second, we describe four worrying trends related to raising prosperity. Finally, we suggest some directions for future work to convince politicians and influencers of the link between freedom and prosperity.

Likely issues in the next decade

In this section we summarize the views of contributors to this volume on the likely direction of change towards freedom and prosperity in the next decade. We list countries and regions alphabetically, though their respective dynamics may be quite diverse. These countries and regions are chosen for analysis as they represent a large share of the world’s population. Their policies often affect the global consensus on significant prosperity-related debates too.

Africa 

Economic liberalization across Africa has borne fruit in the past decade and further financial and trade integration with the rest of the world would have continued benefits, argues William Easterly. The big challenge is to strengthen the process of democratization and institution building. The necessary reforms in these areas are harder to accomplish. The recent wave of military coups in countries like Burkina Faso, Gabon, Niger, Mali, and Sudan is a worrying sign, and there is ongoing conflict associated with Islamic movements in some areas, for example, in Nigeria. The resolution of conflict and the maintenance of peace and security are crucial necessary conditions for further development in Sub-Saharan Africa.

It is unlikely that international institutions and foreign countries will provide as much support for African development as in the past. Things tend to go in cycles: there was a lot of support and attention for African development in the 1990s and 2000s, though foreign support was not all that successful in achieving economic growth; foreign aid did receive some of the credit for the progress on health and education, however. Since then, the focus has shifted to other parts of the world, like Ukraine and Eastern Europe, and the situation in Israel and Gaza is also drawing attention towards the Middle East.

In terms of Sub-Saharan African development, the Belt and Road Initiative, led by China, is having similarly disappointing results to the significant funding received from Western nations during the 1980–2010 period. The same problems of debt repayment and default are likely to be repeated with China’s investments. At the end of the day, for foreign investment and aid to successfully affect Africa’s economic development, it has to be directed to some productive uses. And this is not usually the case as this kind of financing is heavily politicized.

Finally, within-region trade is unusually low for neighboring countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. But increasing it is certainly not an easy task, as the several unsuccessful attempts to promote free trade areas or common currencies in the region in the last couple of decades attest. This failure may be due to Africa’s burden of having so many small states, creating divisiveness. This generates great difficulties in reaching agreements because there is a multitude of strong political interests that do not trust each other.

Argentina 

The economic situation has materially worsened in recent times. Weekly inflation at the end of November 2023 is running at 3.1 percent, which implies an annualized rate of 230 percent. That is, Argentina is experiencing in a week the level of inflation that normal countries see in a year. Related to this, Argentina’s poverty rate in 2023 was close to 42 percent of the population.

It is understandable that the Argentinian people are frustrated, and are looking for someone new, outside of the traditional parties, argues Guido Sandleris. It seems like a revival of the mantra “¡Que se vayan todos!” (They all must go!) of 2001. And the new man that Argentinians have chosen as president is Javier Milei, an outsider to the traditional political system of Argentina. His ascent makes the prospects for the next few years highly uncertain.

Like many other politicians, Milei has identified real problems in the country (inflation, high and inefficient public spending, political capture, corruption, and so on), and has proposed a series of easy-sounding solutions. And the Argentinian people have voted for this project. Nonetheless, it is obvious that solutions will be anything but easy, and Milei has already walked back on some of his positions. Dollarization is the obvious example, as there are just not enough dollars in the Argentinian Central Bank to dollarize the economy, at least in the short run. Furthermore, Milei’s position in the national congress is weak, so to enact legislation, he needs to build consensus with the traditional parties around more moderate proposals. Cutting public spending is always unpopular, so it is highly uncertain whether President Milei can get enough parliamentary support on that front to push forward proposals.

The touchstone of President Milei’s administration is going to be the macroeconomic situation, which is extremely delicate. Argentina is on the verge of hyperinflation, and a situation in which the economy basically stops. It is likely that some of Milei’s reforms to tackle inflation in the medium term, like the correction in utility prices and the exchange rate, will actually generate a rise in prices in the short run. He will only be successful if he can offer a fiscal anchor to the economy, and make credible the commitment of the Central Bank to stop printing money to finance the Treasury; this is not an easy task.

Brazil 

The private sector in Brazil faces a huge number of hurdles, according to José Scheinkman. Taxes are high and inefficient. Firms are more worried about paying less tax than producing in a more efficient way, because it does not pay. Regulations in Brazil are especially inefficient and there are important difficulties regarding long-term financing, related to the legal risks and fiscal deficits in the country. The labor market is rigid and President Lula announced plans to impose new labor regulations in 2024. If adopted, such regulation dims the overall economic prospects for Brazil.

Security is a fundamental challenge for Brazil. In particular, this concern refers to the opening of a new route for drug trafficking—from Latin American producers in Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia into Europe—through Brazil. As a result of this illegal activity, some Brazilian gangs are becoming powerful and fight with each other for control of the routes, increasing crime. For the first time in decades, paramilitary groups are appearing. These groups are more organized than the gangs and they have started to harass legal businesses. Paramilitary groups also control part of the logistics and construction sectors.

Some policies ease the burden on legal businesses, like the tax reform that the government is preparing for 2024. It is hoped that this reform will simplify the tax code and eliminate various exceptions and loopholes that benefit businesses with links to politicians. Brazil has the cleanest energy mix of any large emerging economy, thanks to its abundant water and solar resources. The government is dealing effectively with the illegal deforestation going on in the Amazon. This can make Brazil the biggest exporter of goods that have a positive climate footprint. Finally, the largest corruption scandal in Brazil’s history—surrounding the Brazilian multinational Odebrecht, which admitted guilt in a cash-for-contracts corruption scandal in twelve countries—has resulted in more trust in prosecutorial authorities and cleaner public procurement.

Chile 

Chile has two big challenges in the coming decade, one economic and one political, writes Andrés Velasco. The big economic challenge is that Chile is not a fast-growing economy anymore. That is a big structural break. Productivity growth, which was very fast late in the twentieth and early twenty-first century, has gone down. Investment rates have not dropped, but nor have they increased. Chile was a country with a large diversification of exports, and that diversification process has come to a halt. When it comes to prosperity, the big question is: Why was the fast-growth period in Chile so short-lived?

Economic theory predicts that, as a country becomes richer, its growth slows due to a convergence process. But we would have expected fast growth in Chile until the country’s standards of living had reached the level of South Korea, for example. Instead, fast growth seems to have stopped with living standards only at the level of Greece. 

Regarding inequality, the country has slowly improved in the last few decades, despite the really poor initial level of this indicator. But there is high uncertainty regarding the potential medium-term effects of the events of recent years. In particular, the very lengthy school closures that Chile imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic seem to be exacerbating inequality of opportunity. Most Latin American countries closed their schools for longer than European countries, but even within the region, Chile’s restrictions lasted longer than most. And this decision worsened inequality. If you had a good internet connection and your school could teach online, then the loss of learning was minimal. But if all you had was one bad internet connection via somebody’s cell phone, and the school was not well equipped to teach online, then nearly two years of school closure is clearly detrimental for the development of human capital and for equality in the future.

The big political challenges have to do with the sociopolitical climate. Chile was a consensual country in the years between the return of democracy in 1990 and around 2010. Since then, politics has become polarized. Power has become a lot more fragmented. Chile went from having seven parties in Congress to twenty-two. If you look at indices of satisfaction with the performance of democracy, or indices of trust in government, political parties, the judiciary, the police, the media, business lobbies, unions, and so on. they have all deteriorated. It seems that Chileans do not trust anyone anymore. That is a worldwide trend, but in Chile it might be a little more pronounced. The big question is: How do you restore politics?

Chile’s answer has been to try to rewrite the social contract: the Constitution. Politicians have tried twice already and failed, and the third time is not looking good. President Bachelet drafted a new constitution in her second term, but she ran out of time to get it approved. A constitutional convention was chosen in 2021, which wrote a terrible text that was rejected by 62 percent of voters a little over a year ago, and a new convention was elected. And Andrés Velasco’s prediction was correct. In December 2023, Chileans rejected again the proposed changes to the Constitution.

China 

China is missing the chance to create a more dynamic society—the “Chinese dream.” Meanwhile, other East Asian countries have improved their freedoms considerably, despite slower income growth. They seem to do more with fewer resources to enhance their societies’ prosperity, argues Johanna Kao.

The primary question the Chinese government needs to address in the next decade is whether the policy choices being made are sustainable. The economic turmoil during the COVID-19 pandemic has reduced public trust in the effectiveness of the Chinese growth model. The most striking aspect of the evidence is the government’s commitment to an inherently unequal form of governance, particularly when it comes to individual and subgroup rights. While China is often described as having a collectivist approach, where the well-being of the collective outweighs individual freedoms, the data suggest a more selective approach to collectivism. In Xi Jinping’s model of government, certain groups are favored at the expense of others.

This type of inequality is not a new phenomenon in China. Historically, there have always been winners and losers, with the party elite and affiliated businesses reaping the rewards of extraordinary economic growth while the general population experienced more modest improvements. Yet, in the past, the wealth gap in China was often characterized as urban versus rural. In the past decade there has been a shift towards absolute, rather than relative, inequality. There are clear losers in this system: individuals and groups that have experienced a significant loss of freedoms. 

As we look into the next decade, equality seems likely to deteriorate, with the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) representation of the collective shrinking. These dynamics put pressure on individuals to conform to a more limited definition of acceptability or face forced assimilation. The trend is exemplified in regions like Xinjiang, where the Uyghurs are subject to extreme reeducation efforts. The rapid expansion of surveillance technology in the name of security, and its use in determining whether people meet the imposed standard of a “good citizen,” are likely to make things worse.

East Asia and the Pacific 

The region unveils a narrative deeply intertwined with historical events and ongoing geopolitical shifts writes Amb. (ret.) Kelley E. Currie. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1988–89, a wave of democratization swept through East Asia and the Pacific. However, progress stagnated thereafter, with democratization efforts in countries like Indonesia not significantly altering the overall political landscape at a regional level. 

The period from 2012 onward witnessed visible improvements in political and economic freedom, primarily attributed to Myanmar’s quasi-democratic transition and increased political dynamism in Malaysia. However, China’s economic growth, accompanied by limited political liberalization, took a downturn after 2013 with Xi Jinping’s ascension to power, exerting downward pressure on freedom across the region. This pressure is exacerbated by China’s internal policy shifts and its external influence on neighboring countries’ democratic and economic development.

Notably, the region saw significant progress in women’s economic freedom, driven by efforts to enhance female workforce involvement and dismantle regulatory barriers. This progress, spearheaded by initiatives like the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, has played a pivotal role in driving economic growth in the region.

Despite economic resilience, challenges persist in areas such as inequality, minority rights, weak political institutions, corruption, and regression in the rule of law. The region’s youth population increasingly demands responsive political systems and sustainable growth, highlighting the need for environmental preservation and pragmatic solutions.

In navigating the complex landscape of freedom and prosperity, regional cooperation and support from global allies are paramount. Strengthening institutions and building political and economic resilience remain imperative, ensuring stability and prosperity amidst evolving geopolitical dynamics and internal challenges.

Egypt 

Egypt will have to navigate difficult macroeconomic challenges in the next few years. The country is heavily indebted, and that may tilt the scales of an already worrisome sociopolitical situation, says Rabah Arezki. In the December 2023 elections, President al-Sisi will be reelected and there will be no appetite for political reforms. While his reelection should give him a mandate for reform, it is unlikely that al-Sisi will make any changes that affect crony or military interests. Instead, al-Sisi might have to resort to further devaluation of the currency, which would ignite further inflation and hurt vulnerable households. What is more, this would create a fatal currency mismatch when it comes to Egypt’s external debt denominated in foreign currency. 

Al-Sisi will have to find external sources of financing outside of capital markets, given the prohibitive spread on external borrowing. Financial aid from Gulf countries, which typically provided a lifeline, is no longer forthcoming. Gulf countries are looking to invest in strategic assets but also want to see reforms before doing more to support the country. Gulf partners are counting on the International Monetary Fund to push for more market-oriented reforms. 

While political reforms are unlikely given the current circumstances, deep economic reforms also seem improbable. Indeed, the militarization of politics and of the economy is so entrenched as to make reform of either one unlikely. This stalled situation will likely continue to limit Egypt’s potential. It is imperative that the country re-embarks on a balanced economic and political transition, to avoid the youth becoming frustrated and creating domestic instability. 

The geopolitical situation is also tense. The renewed escalation of violence between Israel and Gaza is spilling over into Egypt. That could destabilize the country and in turn spill over to the whole Middle East and North Africa region.

The European Union

The next decade of European Union (EU) freedom and prosperity dynamics will be marked by the war in Ukraine, writes Simeon Djankov. The EU has committed enormous financial resources to supporting Ukraine’s fight against the aggressor. It has also imposed sectoral and economy-wide sanctions on Russia. These sanctions have negative implications for some industries in Europe, which have traditionally relied on resources from Russia.

The main influence of Russia’s war in Ukraine is the rethinking of the Green Deal that the European Commission has championed for the past decade. Given Russia’s threats to Europe’s energy security, a decision was taken in 2022 to reduce the dependence on Russian energy products. With only two countries—Bulgaria and Hungary—receiving postponement of these measures to 2024, Europe has quickly weaned itself off Russian oil and gas. This change, however, has come at an environmental cost: a number of countries have increased the use of coal and other high-polluting sources of energy. 

The past decade has shown evidence that Europe cannot multitask—perhaps the hallmark of gradual consensus building among twenty-seven member states—appearing to focus on one item at a time. When it comes to increasing freedoms, the clear task at hand is helping Ukraine win the war.

Europe’s prosperity agenda is fourfold: First, there are wide disparities across regions within Europe. This disparity is seen within countries, for example southern versus northern Italy, and across countries, for example Scandinavia versus southeastern Europe. A significant portion of the EU budget is directed to reducing these disparities, through investments in infrastructure, agriculture, and regional economic development. Such financial aid needs to be coupled with policies that increase economic freedom at the regional level. For example, decentralization of some tax policies, combined with explicit subsidy schemes, will keep more resources in underdeveloped regions and thus attract businesses and individuals who would otherwise look for opportunities in more advanced parts of the EU.

Second, increased prosperity in the EU comes from completing the internal markets for energy and financial services. These topics were discussed even before the 2014 annexation of Crimea, which ushered in a series of crisis years for the EU. 2024 is a good moment to go back to the original design and create a single energy market in Europe, as well as a single financial market, with a single set of regulators. Much has been written and discussed about how to achieve these goals; now is the time to act.

Third, migration has been at the forefront of European politics for the past decade. It promises to remain an issue in the decade to come. On the one hand, Europe’s demographics are such that the labor market benefits from human capital coming into European countries and putting their labor and talents to productive use. On the other hand, social tensions have risen in the countries that have received large numbers of migrants. Even in countries with relatively few migrants, the specter of competition for social services and jobs has boosted the fortunes of nationalist parties that have promised to erect barriers to further migration. This issue inflames public opinion in Europe to a degree that no other issue does.

Finally, prosperity in Europe emanates from open markets. While the European market itself is large, many innovations and technologies come from either the American or Asian markets. The two other superpowers—the United States and China—have been on a collision course in asserting their economic dominance, leaving Europe to choose how to align in the global picture. So far this path has meandered, with calls for protecting Europe’s own market. Such an isolationist approach is counterproductive. Europe has to remain as open as possible, assimilating leading innovations and creating the space to implement these new ideas into better production processes and products.

India 

The evolution of political freedom in India is worrisome, posits Pratap Bhanu Mehta. There is a high probability that political freedoms might decline even more in the next decade. The way in which the Modi government has empowered hate speech against minorities and co-opted the judiciary is concerning.

It is the first time since 1975 that we must ask the question: Will there be a smooth transition of power? If it looks like this government is struggling and could lose the election, will it accept that transition of power as smoothly as India is used to? There is a catch-22: if this government wins, the majoritarian consolidation will be a continued threat to political freedom. But if it looks like it could lose, then the chances of it resorting to extra-legal means to either hold on to power or making sure that the successive government is not able to function have risen considerably. There is already evidence of this behavior in state elections which the ruling party has been losing. In many of them, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is deploying the central government’s power to break up the state governments that have been elected.

On the prosperity front, there are reasons to be optimistic. Large sectors of Indian capital and foreign investors have learned to live with limits to political freedom. If they can make money, they will continue operating in India. An open question is whether improving prosperity will be enough to overcome the structural problem of the middle 40 percent of the population in terms of income distribution. This conundrum makes the politicians’ jobs harder. The opposition is struggling to align deep economic discontent with voting in elections.

Kenya 

One of the critical issues that Kenya faces in the next decade is how to keep improving productivity, says Robert Mudida. An obvious area for improvement is manufacturing and its share in gross domestic product (GDP), which in 2023 was slightly below 10 percent. Kenya should double that share. There is a big opportunity in Africa with the implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area. It would create tremendous opportunities for countries like Kenya, which have some manufacturing bases. Bigger markets can generate productivity improvements.

An important challenge for Kenya relates to the large share of informal employment. Moving some of these workers and firms towards formalization will ensure that economic opportunity and development are more stable. Higher levels of formal employment and production generate larger and more stable sources of government revenue. This will buttress the already firm fiscal consolidation path that Kenya has followed in recent years.

The current account deficit has also been declining in the last decade, partly because of reduced imports, but also due to stronger and more competitive exports. This is a very promising path for Kenya, which needs to take advantage not only of regional value chains, but also global value chains in areas like tourism. It helps that Kenya is perceived as peaceful and secure in comparison with some of its neighbors.

Mexico 

Mexico continues to maintain key technical and autonomous institutions, which have made it resilient to affronts to political, legal, and economic freedoms, writes Vanessa Rubio-Márquez. These institutions have helped sustain a basic level of prosperity. However, the negative developments in some of the indicators serve as early warning signs for the country. Some point to the uneven path forward if the country wants to advance towards the next stage in democratic consolidation and progress in well-being standards. These can be summarized in three clear pillars: strong institutions, high sustained growth, and well-articulated redistribution policies.

Mexico remains a bastion of free trade in Latin America and is in a strategic position, being the United States’ largest trading partner. Amid US-China decoupling, gains from nearshoring could be significant. This has mostly materialized into expectations, however, and only very recently into actual investment commitments. Expectations cannot materialize into more significant commitments if the institutional framework continues to weaken. In many ways, Mexico has de jure maintained the institutions and legal framework to support political, economic, and legal freedoms—including an independent central bank, an autonomous Supreme Court of Justice, and an independent National Electoral Institute. But a de facto deterioration is clearly occurring in the form of political appointees to key autonomous institutions, budget and staff cuts, and a centralization of power under the president, all of which are impacting growth and prosperity.

In this sense, pendular politics remains a significant risk to institutions and continuity of sound evidence-based policy making. The country heads to the polls in June 2024 and the signs of polarization have not wavered. While disagreement and debate are essential components of a healthy democracy, the current discourse in the country is all but constructive, and radical shifts in policy put at risk the possibility of high sustained growth and well-being improvements more broadly.  

High sustained growth and strong institutions are therefore prerequisites before considering redistribution policies; if they are not in place, the country is likely to continue on a path of uneven progress. After unlocking high sustained growth, the country can turn to enhancing institutional capacity to deliver and redistribute gains—and the country has a good track record of institutional capacity for infrastructure and redistribution policies. The risk here then is that the country continues on a path of discontinuity, with every incoming administration embarking on pet infrastructure projects and unfocused social policy.

The Middle East and North Africa

Over the next decade, countries in the Middle East will have to grapple with economic and political transitions in a world in mutation. To achieve freedom and prosperity, countries in the region will have to face risks linked to geopolitics, climate change, and the transformation of energy markets, as well as social polarization, argues Rabah Arezki.

The region is at a tipping point when it comes to conflict escalation. Indeed, the alarming intensity and casualties resulting from the conflict between Israel and Hamas risk engulfing the whole region. This new phase of escalation of violence brings not only tragic loss of lives but also physical destruction, fear, and uncertainty. This renewed violence will have far-reaching economic and social consequences. What is more, the Palestinian issue is an important fault line between the Global North and the Global South, one that could have global repercussions and pull the region further apart.

The region is most exposed to the existential threat posed by climate change. Climate change is simply making this region unlivable at a faster rate than any other. Specifically, a water crisis is looming in the Middle East, heightening domestic tensions and interstate conflicts. Temperatures have reached record highs. And the crisis is made worse by the inadequate governance of the water and other utilities sectors, which has exacerbated the frustration of the citizenry over poor public services.

The region also needs to transition away from fossil fuels. Oil prices have been persistently high and provided some respite to the many oil-exporting countries in the region. Yet, as the world moves away from fossil fuels, the vast reserves of oil and natural gas with which the Middle East is endowed will become stranded—and so will the capital investment in the sector. Several Middle Eastern countries have embarked on ambitious diversification programs to move away from oil, though as yet there is little to show for these efforts. Saudi Arabia’s ambitious economic and social transformation agenda, if successful, could be a game-changer for the region and offer a model for other countries to emulate.

A credible economic and social transformation agenda is long overdue to meet the aspirations of an educated youth and to absorb the millions of young women into the labor market. The abortive political transitions have, however, polarized societies in the region. Two sides stand in opposition, with the people on streets who continue to protest on one side, and the political elites and crony capitalists on the other.

Pakistan 

The defining question for Pakistan’s near-term future will be around political stability, comments Ali Cheema. Even though the country has been involved in a transition towards democracy since 2013, it has been full of political instability. The 2013 election results were not accepted by the opposition, leading to protests in the streets, and the same happened after the 2018 election. This political instability is concomitant with the deterioration of political freedom in the country, making Pakistan a much more repressive society. And political tensions generate policy instability, with politicians’ and bureaucrats’ incentives to reform and create state capacity being significantly diminished. The ensuing uncertainty around the regulatory framework represents a major constraint on Pakistan’s development. Today we observe a breakdown of the consensus over the electoral process, which sometimes means that transitions of power do not take place within the timeframe mandated in the Constitution.

Russia 

The prospects for Russia are determined by the evolution of the war in Ukraine. Putin’s regime entered a declining stage even before the beginning of the war, which is typical of authoritarian and personalistic regimes, argues Konstantin Sonin. It is the last stage, after a period of stagnation, where every effort of the regime is devoted to maintaining power. Even before 2020, political repression was very substantial. There were tens of thousands of people leaving the country every year because they feared arrest if they said something “wrong” on social media, for example.

For Russia, there is no easy way out of the war, nor from Putin’s authoritarian rule. Change in any personalistic regime is always dramatic and turbulent, and even if a lot of the same people still hold power, it always implies substantial changes. It was the same after the death of Stalin.

There is an upside to dramatic change, because when Putin is gone, the new leadership will be able to do some things that will represent an immediate improvement for Russia. For example, any new leadership can withdraw the Russian troops from the occupied territories. And talks about lifting economic sanctions and reopening trade will immediately follow. Some companies that left Russia will quickly return, but this return may not generate a huge economic boom, as the loss of growth potential due to the war is substantial. Nonetheless, it will represent an immediate improvement over the status quo. But in the near term, as long as the war continues, Russia will suffer further decreases in every dimension of prosperity.

Saudi Arabia 

The Kingdom’s transformation agenda is a form of state-led capitalism. The political structure remains unchanged while the leadership focuses on reforming the economy, writes Rabah Arezki. There is no tolerance for any dissent, including on social media, where users are monitored closely using surveillance technology. The notion that economic transformation can happen independently of political transformation is certainly taking a page out of China’s book. This approach may badly backfire.

Despite the absence of political freedom, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has managed to rally the population behind him. Unlike many other leaders in the Middle Eastern region, MBS is popular. In fact, he enjoys a level of popularity that was last experienced by leaders immediately following independence. Such cohesiveness could create momentum for the Kingdom to enact further bold reforms. Yet the escalation of violence between Israel and Hamas risks derailing the transformation agenda, as a result of the heightened uncertainty. While MBS has thus far navigated the new geopolitical environment, it is unclear whether Saudi Arabia’s situation in the region will remain tenable. 

Most if not all investments pertaining to the transformation agenda are financed with public money. That public money will eventually run out, as the world economy moves decisively away from fossil fuels. A true test of the sustainability of the economic transformation agenda is whether reforms will attract (domestic and foreign) private investments instead of public investments. All in all, the Kingdom’s unbalanced transformation, focused on the economic (and social) dimensions, may prove short-lived as more and more educated youth will demand more political freedom.

South Africa  

In South Africa, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic brought about stringent health restrictions, arguably among the strictest worldwide, including severe lockdowns and limitations on movement. The measures, intended to curb the virus’s spread, led to a notable decline in civil liberties protection, compounded by proposed legislation aiming to curtail civil society’s activities, argues Greg Mills. This decline in legal freedom has been accentuated since 2008, marked by efforts to consolidate power within the criminal justice system, raising concerns about bureaucracy quality and corruption.

South Africa’s recent development trajectory has seen a decline in prosperity, particularly evident in the health sector. The initial post-apartheid years were marked by positive economic growth fueled by redistributive policies, but subsequent years witnessed stagnation, exacerbated by political changes and the global financial crisis. The health indicator’s dramatic dynamics reflect shifts in government approaches to healthcare, with notable impacts on life expectancy and COVID-19 response effectiveness.

South Africa grapples with significant inequality, driven by a dysfunctional labor market and expansionary policies that failed to address unemployment. While initiatives aimed to expand the middle class, they widened the gap between those with secure employment and those without. The country’s environmental progress remains sluggish, attributed to reliance on fossil fuels and slow transition to renewable energy sources. Despite strides in education enrollment, concerns persist regarding declining educational quality, evidenced by global benchmarking tests.

Looking ahead, South Africa’s political landscape will shape its future trajectory, with the 2024 election holding crucial significance. A shift towards a coalition system could foster greater accountability but also bring political instability. Addressing fiscal challenges and reevaluating global alignments, particularly with BRICS nations, will be imperative for South Africa’s journey towards sustained freedom and prosperity.

United States of America

The United States formal political and civil institutions remain relatively stable, offering a semblance of continuity amidst escalating public discord, write Edward Glaeser. However, the domain of public discourse has undergone a decline, veering sharply from the norms expected within a stable democracy. This is characterized by heightened polarization and a surge in confrontational rhetoric, exacerbated by erosions in civil liberties and legislative constraints, particularly notable since the year 2016.

On the economic front, the United States is holding up well overall, but it’s not without its flaws. Issues like inequality and a growing national debt pose potential challenges for future prosperity. Notably, there are noticeable shifts in how free trade and property rights are perceived, indicating changing attitudes and uncertainties around regulations. However, despite some minor adjustments at the state level, there hasn’t been a significant push for widespread reforms.

On the prosperity front, the United States remains relatively stable, thanks to its strong economic foundation. However, problems persist in areas such as healthcare and entrenched inequalities, exacerbated by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. While there have been some improvements in environmental and educational sectors, significant hurdles remain, necessitating concerted efforts towards reform and fostering more constructive political discussions.

Looking forward, addressing the mounting national debt and navigating the challenges posed by political polarization are critical priorities. Reforms aimed at simplifying regulations for small businesses, improving procurement processes, and enhancing overall government efficiency are essential for sustaining economic growth. Yet, fostering civil discourse presents a formidable challenge, given the deep divides and identity politics shaping contemporary debates. This underscores the complexity of forging a cohesive national vision amidst evolving challenges.

Ukraine 

The future of Ukraine will be shaped by its accession to the EU and NATO, writes Yuriy Gorodnichenko. Joining the EU implies convergence in terms of the legal structures, economic conditions, and environmental and health standards. The experience of Poland and other former communist countries suggests that Ukraine will see radical improvements after accession—in labor productivity, market access, infrastructure, and other key metrics of economic progress. Joining NATO will be critical for addressing security concerns. NATO can guarantee peace and thus make Ukraine an investable country and bring refugees back to Ukraine.

There is a widespread perception that the Ukrainian judicial system does not adequately protect private property or the individual rights of citizens, and that it does not act as an effective check on executive power. This is a fundamental challenge that needs to be addressed in the next decade if the country is to become a success story.

The war will leave many scars on the country. These will be not only the destroyed factories and homes (although rebuilding these could allow the country to modernize its infrastructure and productive capacity), but also the huge swaths of lands that will need to be de-mined, the many millions of displaced Ukrainians who will return, and the many (likely over a million) war veterans who will need reintegration into civilian lives, including hundreds of thousands who will need medical rehabilitation.

Furthermore, there is a generation of children who will not have received a proper education, during COVID-19 and then the war. The losses of human capital are enormous and hard to reverse. Estimates of Harmonized Learning Outcomes due to this length of school closure show a fall from 481 to about 420 points, well below the lowest-performing countries in Europe: Moldova and Armenia. The long-term effect could be substantial, with future earning losses of more than 20 percent a year per student.

Privacy is the first worrying trend for prosperity. Some of the most prominent economists and foreign policy experts contributing to this book highlight the trade-off between strengthening security and increasing freedoms. The topic of security comes up in three-quarters of the country and regional studies: be it security from war and civil unrest or security of property and political freedoms. Enhanced technology tilts this trade-off heavily towards fewer individual freedoms, as more and more possibilities arise for individuals to be closely monitored in their daily routine. The rise of surveillance technology in curtailing freedom is seen in various locations, for example, China, Russia, and the Middle East.

Do technologies that reduce freedom nevertheless serve the common good? Big technology companies make precisely that claim: the more information they have, the better data analysis is possible to decipher consumer needs and increase prosperity. The same data can be used, and perhaps are used, to spy on individuals or groups deemed “of public interest.” The EU has taken recent steps to limit the use of facial recognition technology in public spaces. Various other countries are considering similar regulations.

The second worrying trend is the loss of human capital during the pandemic and the lasting effects that this loss has on productivity and equality of opportunity. In Ukraine, approximately two years of education was lost due to the pandemic, followed by Russia’s invasion. Estimates imply that these losses amount to about 20 percent of the future earnings of this generation of children. In Chile, one of the countries that imposed the strictest pandemic measures, the loss could be about 10 percent of long-term earnings. In several Middle Eastern countries, the losses are similar. More worrisome, the lack of access to online education among the poor meant that some children dropped out of school altogether, for example in Egypt.

The third worry is the changing goalposts on the transition to net zero. Prior to the war in Ukraine, the world had, with some effort, approved the Paris Agreement—a legally binding green deal. In this regard, the main impact of Russia’s war in Ukraine is the rethinking of the Green Deal in Europe. Given Russia’s threats to Europe’s energy security, a decision was taken in 2022 in Brussels to reduce the dependence on Russian energy products. This change, however, has come at an environmental cost: a number of countries have increased the use of coal and other high-polluting sources of energy. Other countries have also rolled back their commitments, for example, the United Kingdom.

The fourth worrying trend for prosperity is declining productivity growth. This comes in two flavors: demographic decline, implying fewer workers in China and Europe over the next decade; and rising social tensions, as we are already witnessing in Argentina, Chile, India, and the Middle East, for example, implying that young adults may not be joining the labor force as quickly as in previous decades. Stagnant productivity directly affects prosperity and is the focus of many government programs. Saudi Arabia’s 2050 program, for example, targets new high-value-added sectors as a response to the likely decline in natural resource sectors. So far, however, the investments in these new sectors are primarily public. To shift sufficient resources towards new industries, the private sector also has to believe that the returns will be there. 

Open questions 

Throughout the chapters in this volume there is a common underlying belief, supported by evidence, that a higher degree of freedom is consistent with a faster path to prosperity. There are some politicians who do not share this belief, and hence further work is needed to convince them.  

Not a perfect fit 

The first issue that arises in discussions of the link between freedom and prosperity is that the correlation is not perfect. The R2 statistic of the univariate regression implies that 63 percent of the variance in prosperity can be explained by differences in freedom across countries (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The correlation between freedom and prosperity in 2022 

If we conclude that there exists a close relationship between freedom and prosperity, this raises a methodological question: namely, that we are pooling together countries from all continents, and thus disregarding significant differences among regions. However, a strong positive association between freedom and prosperity scores is also present within regions. The correlation coefficient is above 0.6 for all regions, except South and Central Asia (0.41), which is probably due to the small number of countries (twelve) in that region. So across all regions, we observe that countries with higher freedom scores also have higher levels of prosperity.

Perhaps prosperity explains freedom 

In a nutshell, freedom and prosperity are closely associated, but is there a causal link? And in which direction does it run? Does freedom today lead to prosperity tomorrow, or is the demand for freedom a consequence of societies becoming more prosperous? To be sure, this is a question that has received extensive attention from economists and political scientists and is still a matter of heated debates. 

One can start by noting that freedom in 1995, the start of the sample period, is positively correlated with prosperity in 2022, the end of the sample period. This association is statistically significant at the one percent level. The time lapse between the explanatory variable (freedom) and the dependent variable (prosperity) is sufficiently long to ensure that no feedback loop—from higher prosperity to increased freedom—is responsible for the result (Figure 3). When running the reverse regression (freedom in 2022 on prosperity in 1995), the R2 statistic is lower, at 0.553, which provides some support for the argument that the direction of causality runs from freedom to prosperity.

Figure 3. The causal relation of freedom level in 1995 and prosperity level in 2022  

We look for outliers in the data to see whether some countries defy this long-term pattern. Yemen is such a country. In recent years, it has become a failed state and regional powers vie for a dominant position at the expense of the prosperity of the population. These dynamics are consistent with Yemen’s relative standing: more freedom and less prosperity relative to the sample trend line in Figure 3. In essence, past freedoms were insufficient to lead to prosperity in 2022—as the civil war (engulfing the country since 2014) undermined the country’s progress.

The case of Yemen demonstrates a general pattern: countries in civil war or countries involved in other recent conflicts tend to be below the trend line. Examples include Burkina Faso (2015–16 conflict), Chad (2005–10), Mali (2012–present), and South Sudan (2013–17).

At the other end of the spectrum, the United Arab Emirates stands out as having a high level of prosperity in 2022 and fewer freedoms at the start of the sample period. This seeming discrepancy can be explained by the able management of natural resources.

Time lags mask the relation  

To be sure, changes in freedom do not immediately bring about changes in prosperity. The size and scale of the lag depend on various place-specific factors, and also factors related to the condition of the global economy. The relationship between changes in freedom and changes in prosperity can be disrupted by events such as civil conflict or war, a shift toward dictatorship, or closed economic policies. Over time, such shifts will become evident in prosperity measures. The remainder of the explanation lies in sudden shocks such as war and civil conflict, the rise of dictatorships, and the advent of global crises, be they economic, financial, or health related.

One can, for example, speculate that the increased levels of freedom in Taiwan have not yet resulted in a commensurate increase in prosperity due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely limited global trade and investment. Conversely, the limits to freedoms in Mali may yet reduce prosperity as the effects of the protracted civil war are only now manifesting themselves in reduced social and economic indicators.

Based on the data, one can also speculate that the imperfect relation between a change in freedom and change in prosperity is asymmetric. Losses in freedom result in swift losses in prosperity, as illustrated by Yemen, Venezuela, and Syria. In contrast, improvements in freedom take a longer time to result in improved prosperity. In other words, it takes a longer time to build than to destroy. 

The latter finding is particularly relevant for politicians, as their time in office is usually limited and they would like to see results fast enough that they are reelected, or at least so that the ultimate increase in prosperity is attributed to their work. Alas, such attribution is sometimes not possible. This delay likely results in some “good” reforms not taking place.

Reversals of fortune 

Should political freedom take too long to evolve, the gains from economic and legal reforms may be reversed. Russia in the 1990s and 2000s is a prime example of such a reversal. And China seems to have been following the same path in recent years: economic freedom and legal freedom have remained stable in our sample, but political freedom has declined by 26 percent since Xi Jinping took office in 2013. Prosperity had increased 17 percent from 1995 to 2013, but has since plateaued.

Reversals significantly affect the overall correlation between freedom and prosperity, as the pace of change in the two sets of indicators differ, and hence the relationship appears weakened or even lost. The use of longer-term time series would fix this disparity, another reason why the Atlantic Council is investing in the construction of these Indexes.

It’s something else 

The final counterpoint to advancing policies that improve freedoms and, from there, have a positive effect on prosperity is the argument that freedom indicators proxy for some other social dynamic that underlies changes in prosperity. In this narrative, an enlightened central planner, be it the government or political parties or global institutions, designs social change in a way that both increases freedoms and enhances prosperity. Freedom and prosperity are both the result of some other force. As the leading comparative legal scholars Konrad Zweigert and Hein Kötz note, “the style of a legal system may be marked by an ideology, that is, a religious or political conception of how economic or social life should be organized”.1 In this conception, freedom and prosperity are central to understanding the varieties of capitalism.

Hayek traces the differences between common and civil law to distinct conceptions of freedom. He distinguishes two views of freedom directly traceable to the predominance of an essentially empiricist view of the world in England and a rationalist approach in France: “One finds the essence of freedom in spontaneity and the absence of coercion, the other believes it to be realized only in the pursuit and attainment of an absolute social purpose; one stands for organic, slow, self-conscious growth, the other for doctrinaire deliberateness; one for trial and error procedure, the other for the enforced solely valid pattern”.2 To Hayek, the differences in legal systems reflect these profound differences in philosophies of freedom.

This hypothesis sounds plausible, until one runs down the list of possible candidates. An enlightened government can simultaneously affect political, economic, and legal freedoms, as well as impact directly the various components of prosperity like health, education, income, and equality between women and men. Such social revolutions are not present in the data, however. Progress tends to be gradual or cyclical with few discrete jumps. To the extent that such upward jumps are seen in the data, they are present in the former communist countries like Croatia and Georgia. Even there, it takes years for the effects on prosperity to become apparent. Improvements in both freedom and prosperity tend to follow a slow, methodical pattern; evolution rather than revolution. This evidence contradicts the idea of an all-out reformer. 

There are many arguments for global convergence, one of which offers a simple explanation: globalization leads to a much faster exchange of ideas, including ideas about laws and regulations, and therefore encourages the transfer of legal knowledge. Globalization also encourages competition among countries for foreign direct investment, for capital, and for business in general, which must also apply some pressure toward the adoption of good legal rules and regulations.

This explanation—of centrifugal global forces at play over large parts of the sample period—fits well the reversal in freedoms that we see towards the end of the sample period. Globalization has stalled and even reversed, and with it the trends in freedom and prosperity have changed too. But even globalization is a proxy for the collective political philosophies in the major world economies. Hayek, as is often the case, could see further than most of us.


Simeon Djankov is policy director of the Financial Markets Group at the London School of Economics. He was deputy prime minister and minister of finance of Bulgaria from 2009 to 2013. Prior to his cabinet appointment, Djankov was chief economist of the finance and private sector vice presidency of the World Bank. 

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. He advised governments on policy reforms that help boost entrepreneurship and shared prosperity, primarily in Francophone Africa and the Middle East. 

Dan Negrea is the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Freedom and Prosperity Center. He was the State Department’s Special Representative for Commercial and Business Affairs between 2019 and 2021. In that capacity, he pioneered and led the Deal Team Initiative, a coordination mechanism between US government agencies. The initiative promotes business relations between US and foreign companies around the world. 

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.

1    Konrad Zweigert and Hein Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law, third edition (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press, 1998), 72.
2    Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 56.

The post Regaining trust in government appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Outgunned Ukraine bets on drones as Russian invasion enters third year https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/outgunned-ukraine-bets-on-drones-as-russian-invasion-enters-third-year/ Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:48:02 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=738352 As Putin's invasion passes the two-year mark, tech-savvy Ukraine is betting on drones as the best way to overcome Russia's increasingly overwhelming advantage in traditional firepower, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

The post Outgunned Ukraine bets on drones as Russian invasion enters third year appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
In early February, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the creation of a separate branch of the Ukrainian Armed Forces devoted to drones. Ukraine’s new Unmanned Systems Force is a military innovation reflecting the growing prominence of drones in modern warfare. Zelenskyy’s decision also underlines the importance of UAVs to the Ukrainian war effort as Kyiv seeks to maintain a technological edge over Russia while grappling with mounting shortages in artillery shells and other more traditional weapons systems.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is not the first conflict to feature unmanned aerial vehicles in significant numbers. Reconnaissance and strike UAVs were employed extensively in eastern Ukraine following the onset of Russian aggression in 2014, and in a range of other combat zones over the past decade including Syria, Libya, and the Second Karabakh War in the southern Caucasus. Nevertheless, the unprecedented numbers of UAVs used by both sides over the past two years in Ukraine has led some to call Russia’s invasion the world’s first drone war.

The ubiquity of drones in Ukraine is leading to dramatic changes on the battlefield. Fleets of UAVs have revolutionized surveillance, making it extremely difficult for commanders to benefit from the element of surprise. This helps to explain why both the Russian and Ukrainian armies are finding it increasingly difficult to mount successful offensives against defensive positions. In addition to dramatically enhancing battlefield visibility, drones also serve as precision strike weapons capable of replicating many of the functions performed by artillery and missiles at only a fraction of the price.

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.

Over the past two years, the Ukrainian military has managed to incorporate drones with considerable success. This has often been done on a somewhat improvised basis, with separate UAV teams independently established as part of different units. Ukraine’s expanding drone capabilities have owed much to public fundraising efforts and contributions from diverse grassroots groups including volunteer networks. Meanwhile, a startup-style drone manufacturing and modification industry has emerged from within Ukraine’s vibrant tech industry.

The results have been impressive. During a single week in early 2024, Ukrainian Minister of Digital Transformation Mykhailo Fedorov reported that the country’s drone units had destroyed 73 Russian tanks along with air defense systems, fuel storage depots, and multiple other high-value targets. Longer range drones are now being used to strike strategic targets deep inside Russia including military production sites and energy industry infrastructure. At sea, marine drones have helped break the Russian naval blockade of Ukraine’s Black Sea ports and have forced the bulk of Putin’s fleet to retreat from Crimea.

Much of this has been possible thanks to expanding domestic production. According to Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, by early 2024 there were approximately 200 companies producing drones in Ukraine, with domestic output around one hundred times higher in 2023 than during the first year of Russia’s full-scale invasion. As manufacturing potential continues to expand, Ukrainian officials have set a target of more than one million domestically produced drones in 2024.

Ukraine’s international partners are also focusing their efforts on helping the country stay one step ahead of Russia in the drone war. A coalition of around ten countries recently vowed to deliver one million drones to Ukraine by February 2025, while France is reportedly preparing to provide the Ukrainian military with the latest strike drone models in the coming weeks.

Ukraine’s newly established Unmanned Systems Force must now manage this highly dynamic drone supply situation while making sure the country’s expanding UAV fleets are deployed effectively in what is a rapidly changing battlefield environment.

The creation of a separate branch of the armed forces dedicated to drones should allow Ukraine to assess developments in a systematic manner and gain an accurate overview of the most effective tactics, making it possible to create something approaching a drone warfare doctrine. This would represent a considerable improvement on today’s somewhat chaotic approach to sharing experience, which often relies on direct communication between individual drone pilots and unit commanders.

The Unmanned Systems Force could take the lead in developing a more coordinated approach to training. At present, many of Ukraine’s UAV training programs are private initiatives that typically offer valuable insights but lack any centrally established standards. Additionally, the new branch can contribute to more effective cooperation with the military industrial complex to make sure Ukrainian manufacturers are focused on producing the kinds of drones the military needs.

Zelenskyy’s decision to establish a specific drone branch of the army also creates a number of potential challenges. Ukraine’s drone warfare evolution over the past two years has often been organic in nature. On many occasions, creative solutions have been implemented with a high degree of operational flexibility by people on the front lines of the conflict. Ukrainian commanders must now make sure efforts to coordinate the country’s drone operations do not blunt this creativity or slow down reaction times by introducing new layers of bureaucracy.

There is also a danger that efforts to fill leadership and training positions within the Unmanned Systems Force could lead to the withdrawal of experienced pilots from the combat zone. One solution might be to prioritize the recruitment of wounded drone operators who are not currently able to serve in front line conditions but have valuable knowledge to share.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has turned the country into a giant war lab and confirmed the status of drones as the weapons of the future. With Ukraine no longer assured of further military aid from the US and increasingly obliged to ration ammunition, drones are a cost-effective solution that plays to the country’s tech sector strengths. President Zelenskyy and his military leaders clearly recognize this, and will be hoping the new Unmanned Systems Force can help Ukraine maximize its drone potential without becoming a bureaucratic burden.

Mykola Bielieskov is a research fellow at the National Institute for Strategic Studies and a senior analyst at Ukrainian NGO “Come Back Alive.” The views expressed in this article are the author’s personal position and do not reflect the opinions or views of NISS or Come Back Alive.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Outgunned Ukraine bets on drones as Russian invasion enters third year appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Braw featured in CEPA’s Europe’s Edge journal https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/braw-featured-in-cepas-europes-edge-journal/ Tue, 20 Feb 2024 20:20:11 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=738322 On February 20, Transatlantic Security Initiative senior fellow Elisabeth Braw was featured in CEPA’s Europe’s Edge journal discussing Alexei Navalny’s legacy.

The post Braw featured in CEPA’s Europe’s Edge journal appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

On February 20, Transatlantic Security Initiative senior fellow Elisabeth Braw was featured in CEPA’s Europe’s Edge journal discussing Alexei Navalny’s legacy.

The Transatlantic Security Initiative, in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, shapes and influences the debate on the greatest security challenges facing the North Atlantic Alliance and its key partners.

The post Braw featured in CEPA’s Europe’s Edge journal appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Russia’s democracy movement will survive the death of Navalny https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russias-democracy-movement-will-survive-the-death-of-navalny/ Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:24:16 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=737771 The strategies and messages that the late opposition leader developed for fighting the Putin regime have spread to a diverse group of Russian pro-democracy actors.

The post Russia’s democracy movement will survive the death of Navalny appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny, who according to Russian authorities died in prison on Friday at the age of forty-seven, was by far the most popular and effective opposition leader to challenge Russian President Vladimir Putin during his almost quarter century in power. Navalny’s death at the hands of the state represents an immense setback to Russia’s democracy movement, but that movement has always been much bigger than just one man and will go on without him. The strategies and messages that Navalny developed for fighting the Putin regime have spread to a diverse group of Russian pro-democracy actors. That movement has proved itself resilient and able to adapt to more than a decade of increasingly harsh repression, and it will adapt to this devastating development as well. Martyrdom is an extremely powerful political narrative, and this cruel tragedy will likely cause many other Russians to devote still more effort to the struggle for freedom.

The circumstances of Navalny’s death remain unclear, but whatever details may be revealed, there can be no question that responsibility lies squarely with the regime that unjustly imprisoned him and with Putin personally. The Russian state’s intention to murder Navalny slowly was apparent as it held him prisoner for the last three years: It tortured him and denied him adequate medical care, even as his health deteriorated from the brutal conditions of his incarceration and from the side effects of his exposure to a deadly nerve agent during a 2020 assassination attempt by Russian security services.

He built a movement that was bigger than himself.

Navalny’s rise to public prominence was a result of his insight that the Putin regime’s pervasive and massive corruption posed a major political liability. His skill as a corruption investigator enabled him to expose the eye-catching, gaudy excesses on which Russia’s political elites frittered away the enormous wealth they stole from the Russian people. His skill as a political communicator—the clear charisma that shone through the clever, entertaining videos he produced—brought the results of his investigations to mass audiences in Russia and around the world. As his political career developed, his critiques of the Putin regime broadened to include its widespread human rights abuses and its brutal military interventions in Ukraine and Syria.

Navalny emerged as an important political leader during Russia’s “Bolotnaya” protests of 2011-2012, as Russians took to the street over Putin’s return to a third term as president. This year, on the cusp of a fifth Putin term, Russia’s rapid descent into repression and militarism could make Navalny’s vision for a democratic and peaceful Russia seem further than ever from realization. Yet Navalny’s activism since 2011 has also contributed to the development of a broader democratic movement capable of continuing without him.

While Navalny’s personal popularity at times drew criticism of a personalistic style of politics, in truth his political strategy always centered on movement-building. In 2013, his highly competitive campaign for Moscow mayor attracted thousands of volunteers and launched the political careers of several other oppositionists who have gone on to become important figures in their own right. In 2018, his shadow “campaign” for president (which he continued even after being denied access to the ballot) built a nationwide network of dozens of local offices spanning Russia’s huge territory that continued after the election to serve as incubators of local political and civic activism. The Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK)—the nongovernmental organization Navalny founded to carry out corruption investigations and raise public awareness of how Putin’s elite have looted Russia for decades—has continued to produce high-impact investigations during his imprisonment. Despite a 2021 “extremist” designation that forced FBK into exile as several staff were jailed, the organization remains one of the most important in Russian civil society. FBK’s “Navalny Live” YouTube channel is one of Russia’s most popular, reaching millions of Russians each month. Beyond those with direct connections to Navalny are thousands more (overwhelmingly young) Russian activists who were inspired by Navalny’s work to make their own efforts to build the better future for their country. He built a movement that was bigger than himself.

This is the legacy Navalny leaves for Russian society. His vision, his political skills, and his personal courage helped sustain Russia’s democratic movement through a period of sharply intensifying repression. Perhaps his most important political insight was his recognition of how his own moral leadership—the sacrifices of his health and freedom he was willing to make on behalf of his cause—could cut through the cynicism that so often dominates Russian political life. His martyrdom magnifies that moral leadership immeasurably. 

In an interview shown in the 2022 Oscar-winning documentary about his work, Navalny is asked what message he would want to send in the event that he is killed. His message, he responds, is a simple one: “You are not allowed to give up. If they [decide to kill me], it means that we are incredibly strong. We need to use this power . . . All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.” This simple but powerful sentiment that has guided Navalny’s life has become an even more powerful message in his death—one capable of inspiring Russians to even greater efforts to build a better future.


Dylan Myles-Primakoff is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a senior manager for Eurasia Programs at the National Endowment for Democracy.

The post Russia’s democracy movement will survive the death of Navalny appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
President Zelenskyy’s dual citizenship proposal presents wartime dilemmas https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/president-zelenskyys-dual-citizenship-proposal-presents-wartime-dilemmas/ Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:24:32 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=734724 President Zelenskyy's recent proposal to allow dual citizenship is a potentially popular but impractical measure in the current wartime conditions, writes Mark Temnycky.

The post President Zelenskyy’s dual citizenship proposal presents wartime dilemmas appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy marked the country’s recent Unity Day holiday on January 22 by thanking Ukrainians around the world for their wartime support and calling for changes to the Ukrainian Constitution that would allow for dual citizenship. Zelenskyy confirmed he was submitting the relevant legislative proposal to the Ukrainian Parliament.

If passed, the bill would allow Ukrainians to hold more than one citizenship. This would have significant implications for Ukraine itself and for the large international Ukrainian diaspora. According to the Ukrainian World Congress, the Ukrainian diaspora currently numbers around 20 million people. Most would potentially be eligible for Ukrainian citizenship. Restrictions on dual citizenship have previously deterred many members of the diaspora from applying for Ukrainian passports.

Zelenskyy’s proposal has been welcomed by many within the Ukrainian diaspora. If adopted, it could help strengthen ties between Ukraine itself and the global Ukrainian community, while granting diaspora members an opportunity to have a greater say in Ukraine’s development. It would make it far easier to visit Ukraine and open a business, purchase property, or otherwise invest in the country, while also providing diaspora Ukrainians with the chance to vote in elections or even run for office themselves.

For existing Ukrainian citizens, acquiring a second passport would potentially open multiple doors in terms of travel, work, and study. Ukrainians have enjoyed visa-free access to the European Union’s Schengen Zone for limited time periods since 2017, and have also benefited from a range of measures to ease border restrictions since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Nevertheless, the prospect of holding an EU, US, or other Western passport would certainly appeal to many.

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.

While there is likely to be considerable public support for Zelenskyy’s dual citizenship proposal, any attempt at implementation in today’s wartime environment could prove highly problematic. Crucially, it remains far from clear what the initiative would mean for military service.

With Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine now approaching the two-year mark, most analysts believe the conflict has evolved into a war of attrition. With its far larger population, economy, and industrial base, this places Russia at a considerable advantage. The Russian military has also demonstrated a striking disregard for heavy losses in Ukraine, repeatedly employing so-called “human wave” or “meat assault” tactics to overwhelm Ukrainian defenses by sheer weight of numbers.

Ukraine cannot afford to accept such high casualty rates. The country has a far smaller pool of military-age men to draw from, and has already experienced a major decline in population as a direct result of Russia’s invasion. Current martial law restrictions mean most Ukrainian males eligible for military service are not permitted to exit the country. However, if changes to the Ukrainian Constitution made it possible to apply for a second citizenship, opportunities may arise for Ukrainian citizens to use newly acquired passports in order to leave Ukraine and avoid conscription.

Meanwhile, a relaxation in Ukraine’s dual citizenship restrictions could also potentially result in members of the Ukrainian diaspora who took Ukrainian passports becoming eligible for military service. Any uncertainty over the status of new passport holders with regard to conscription would be likely to deter many from applying.

The issue of military service is currently high on the Ukrainian wartime agenda amid debate over how best to bolster the depleted ranks of the army. A recent proposal by Ukraine’s military chiefs to conscript up to 500,000 civilians has met with a mixed reaction in Kyiv, with Zelenskyy refusing to offer his public support and instead calling for further details before making a decision.

Differences of opinion over the correct approach toward mobilization are believed to have contributed to mounting tensions between Ukraine’s civilian and military leadership. This was widely cited as a contributing factor behind Zelenskyy’s February 8 decision to replace Ukraine’s top general, Valery Zaluzhny. Any constitutional changes to introduce dual citizenship would further complicate an already challenging and politically sensitive situation.

President Zelenskyy’s proposal to enshrine the right to dual citizenship in the Ukrainian Constitution reflects growing awareness of the important role played by the global Ukrainian diaspora. If implemented, it would probably prove a popular measure that would significantly increase the number of Ukrainian passport holders and provide millions more people with a stake in the country’s future. However, there are a number of practical reasons why progress on this issue remains unlikely in the current wartime conditions.

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

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post President Zelenskyy’s dual citizenship proposal presents wartime dilemmas appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Russia’s Bashkortostan protests: Separatism isn’t the real threat facing Putin https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-bashkortostan-protests-separatism-isnt-the-real-threat-facing-putin/ Tue, 06 Feb 2024 20:49:06 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=733443 The main risk to the Putin regime is unity and solidarity across regions between Russians protesting shared forms of mistreatment at the hands of the state, write Dylan Myles-Primakoff and Lillian Posner.

The post Russia’s Bashkortostan protests: Separatism isn’t the real threat facing Putin appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Neither tear gas, police batons, nor the twelve degree January windchill were able to deter thousands of protesters from taking to the streets in Baymak, Bashkortostan, at the start of 2024. On January 12, over 1,500 people turned out in this small town, 250 miles from the regional capital of Ufa, marking one of the largest protests in Russia since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. For the next week, the protests continued to grow, spreading as far as the regional capital before finally being stamped out in a crackdown that saw hundreds of protesters arrested, dozens facing criminal charges, and at least one dead in police custody.

Why were so many people in this province in the Ural Mountains ready to stand up to the Russian government, and why did the government adopt such strong measures to suppress these remote protests over a local issue? This relatively brief incident was a reminder that almost two years into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many Russians are deeply dissatisfied with their country’s direction, a situation carrying real political risk for the Putin regime.

The spark that lit these frozen demonstrations in Russia’s most populous ethnic republic was the sentencing of local environmental activist Fayil Alsynov to four years in a penal colony. Alsynov, who has been accused by the Russian authorities of “inciting ethnic hatred,” in fact fell victim to a now common wartime practice: Denunciation.

The case against Alsynov stems from the testimony of a single person, Kremlin-appointed governor Radiy Khabirov, who is accused of attempting to paint Alsynov as a separatist traitor masquerading as an innocent eco-activist. Supporters say Alsynov has been a thorn in governor’s side because he’s successfully advocated against big business projects that would endanger the well-being of local people and enrich the elite.

Alsynov has more than fifteen years of experience advocating for Bashkortostan’s regional sovereignty and against several invasive mining projects that threatened to destroy environmental landmarks, pollute local water systems, disrupt agriculture, and whisk away profits. He made his mark in 2020, leading the Kushtau protests against an attempt to mine Bashkortostan’s sacred limestone hills. Alsynov made local headlines again in 2023, when he and his fellow activists campaigned against gold mining in the Indyk mountains. For this, he has earned the trust of many local people who complain of feeling like second-class citizens in their own ethnic republics.

During Alysnov’s trial in December 2023, around 200 people gathered at the courthouse in Baymak to demand his release and the governor’s resignation. They made a video appeal to Vladimir Putin, complaining that due to Khabirov’s mismanagement, Bashkortostan had seen demographic decline, worsening corruption, insufficient development in infrastructure, and a fall in living standards. “Instead of solving problems, Radiy Khabirov refuses to listen to the opinions of citizens and is persecuting public figures and activists, considering them enemies of the state,” said the authors of the video.

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 political response from the Russian government has been to paint this appeal for better local governance as a radical separatist movement. Without providing any evidence, member of the Russian Parliament Dinar Gilmutdinov attempted to blame the demonstrations on “elements related to the special services of foreign governments, operating from the territory of Ukraine and the Baltic states.”

Meanwhile, regional governor Khabirov defended his decision to denounce Alsynov, writing, “You can put on the mask of a good eco-activist, a patriot, but in fact the situation is not like that. A group of people, some of whom are abroad, essentially traitors, are calling for the separation of Bashkortostan from Russia. They’re calling for guerrilla warfare here.”

False accusations of extremism are a frequently used Kremlin tool for discrediting opposition movements. The most prominent example was the long-running propaganda campaign to portray Alexey Navalny as a far-right or Nazi figure, which culminated in the 2021 designation of Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation as an “extremist organization” and criminal charges of extremism against many in the movement.

This approach yields multiple political dividends and provides justification for harsh crackdown measures. That is certainly what followed the recent accusations of separatism against the protest movement in Bashkortostan. In addition to a police crackdown and legal measures deployed against protesters, authorities imposed an information blackout that included the jamming of mobile phone signals and the blocking of popular messaging and social media apps including WhatsApp and Telegram.

Beyond justifying repressive measures, false accusations of extremism also play another important political role in today’s Russia. When effective, they can alienate an opposition movement from potential allies within the broader political opposition and the public at large. Indeed, this seems to have happened with the Bashkortostan protests, with some opposition figures quick to echo Kremlin charges of separatism. This is particularly important to the regime in terms of containing the risk posed by local protests.

In recent years, protest movements organized around local issues and in support of local civic and political leaders have proven some of the most broad-based and durable in Russia. When regional official Sergey Furgal was arrested on murder charges in 2020, citizens in the Russian Far East city of Khabarovsk took to the streets in protests that raged for months. A similar nationwide wave of protests broke out the year before when prominent journalist Ivan Golunov was arrested on falsified drug charges, apparently in retaliation for his investigations into corruption. These movements attest to a pattern in which Russian citizens repeatedly take to the streets in defense of those who many feel truly represent their interests.

Local protests also occur in Russia’s ethnic minority regions. Here, there are often longstanding grievances like those around resource extraction and ecological damage, the ultimate source of the recent protests in Bashkortostan. There are also newer grievances like the disproportionate enlistment of young men from these regions in the high casualty full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which motivated mass protests in Dagestan in response to the general mobilization order in September 2022.

The root causes of all these protests, however, are the same: A total lack of voice for Russia’s citizens in their government’s decisions, even as those decisions cause increasing amounts of harm to the public at large. The periphery has myriad reasons to resent the center. For the most part, major protest movements like the ones in Khabarovsk, Dagestan, or now Bashkortostan have been contained locally. But the naked imperialism driving Russia’s war in Ukraine has raised consciousness across the former Soviet space among formerly colonized groups.

While these groups have their own grievances specific to their colonial experience, they share with the Russian public as a whole a history of violence, repression, neglect, and exploitation at the hands of the Russian state. The real risk to the Putin regime is unity and solidarity across regions among Russians protesting these shared forms of mistreatment at the hands of the state. It is precisely this sort of unity and solidarity that false accusations of separatism are intended to undermine.

Dylan Myles-Primakoff is Senior Program Manager for Eurasia at the National Endowment for Democracy and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. Lillian Posner is Assistant Program Officer for Eurasia at the National Endowment for Democracy.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Russia’s Bashkortostan protests: Separatism isn’t the real threat facing Putin appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
No more business as usual: The US needs a broader engagement strategy in West Africa https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/no-more-business-as-usual-the-us-needs-a-broader-engagement-strategy-in-west-africa/ Tue, 06 Feb 2024 15:31:34 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=732703 US influence in the Sahel has waned, and Washington needs to rethink its engagement there and in West Africa as a whole.

The post No more business as usual: The US needs a broader engagement strategy in West Africa appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
The Pentagon is reportedly in preliminary talks with the governments of Benin, Ghana, and Côte d’Ivoire about opening a drone base in one of those countries, presumably to compensate for the likely closure of the US drone base in Niger, following a coup there in July 2023. Even though there are contradictory reports about the talks, their possibility underscores an unsettling reality: US influence in the Sahel has waned, and Washington needs to rethink its engagement there and in West Africa as a whole.

If left to its own devices, US policy probably would default to a business-as-usual approach in West Africa. Unfortunately, that approach has not worked and is even less likely to work now that the French have been ousted from the region. US rhetoric about governments transitioning to civilian rule often falls on deaf ears, and many people in the region are convinced that Russia is a better partner than the United States was and is likely to be in the future. Worse, it is not clear that they are wrong.

The United States is looked upon much more favorably than France, but Washington offers little that might help counter pro-Russia and pro-China views.

A better approach would be for US policymakers to look more comprehensively at the entire region and the major trends there, which include anti-French sentiment, impatience with democracy, and support for Russia. Meanwhile, China clearly dominates the region in terms of investment and trade. The United States is looked upon much more favorably than France, but Washington offers little that might help counter pro-Russia and pro-China views. The United States is not positioned to fill the vacuum France has left behind.

One way to try to increase US influence is to step up significantly what the United States is offering, though for various reasons, Washington is at a competitive disadvantage in this regard vis-à-vis Russia and China. Announced this past fall, the Biden administration’s major investment in the Lobito Corridor rail and road project in Angola, Congo, and Zambia (a key talking point for US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit to Angola in January) is a big step in the right direction. But Washington’s Lobito initiative is all the more striking for how unusual it is for the United States to be playing China’s game of massively investing in large-scale infrastructure projects.

It is also important for US policymakers to discern among those countries that Washington is unlikely to pull away from the Russian orbit (including the juntas of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger), those that are open to it, and those that in fact are pro-American. Washington should then find creative ways to engage with each of these three groups to strengthen, reorientate, or weaken them.

The difference between the first two groups—countries firmly in Russia’s orbit and those that might break free—often is a function of the balance between ideology and pragmatism on the part of a country’s leaders. Some African leaders are ideologically predisposed to working with Russia and committed to the idea. Others are driven more by pragmatism: They might earnestly believe Russia and China to be better partners, but perhaps can be convinced otherwise. Carrots will work better than sticks, which do not work and are more likely to provoke resentment. The Sahel’s military juntas have demonstrated remarkable insouciance in the face of economic sanctions and Western countries’ cessation of financial assistance. Washington, for example, presently seems to think that it can entice Niger’s junta with the promise to reduce sanctions as part of its effort to keep open the drone base in the north of the country; it is highly unlikely that the junta cares. The recent decision by Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to quit the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) underscores the fact that their governments have different priorities. Leaving ECOWAS may do profound damage to the economies of these poor landlocked countries, which rely on regional trade.

The last group, countries that are indeed pro-American, is larger than one might think, especially but not exclusively in Anglophone countries and regions. For example, in West Africa, Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone are friendly. (Nigerians also happen to make up the largest African immigrant group in the United States, including several US officials.) US policymakers could focus on cultivating even more positive views of the United States in those countries as a first step in a new US strategy toward West Africa.

In some cases, a country’s government might be drifting toward Russia, but significant portions of its population are not. An example of this is Southern Cameroons, also known as the Anglophone region of Cameroon. Southern Cameroons is the portion of the German colony of Kamerun that came under British colonial rule after Britain and France carved up the German possession in World War I. In 1961, the two Cameroons were fused into a single entity after the United Nations voted in favor of Cameroonian independence. Today, they remain considerably distinct, and there is a Southern Cameroons independence movement, which the Cameroonian government represses.

The argument here is not necessarily to recognize the Anglophone region’s independence (which the United States opposes on principle) or to build bases there (which is impossible without Yaoundé’s blessing). The argument is instead to be more attuned to trends in African countries and among their populations, and then find creative ways to engage those countries and their peoples in the US interest, including at levels below the national governments in local communities and municipal and regional governments.

US policy in sub-Saharan Africa should focus not only on dialogue with leaders in national capitals but also with a much broader array of people at different levels and in different regions. This is particularly imperative in the areas where the United States had relied on French influence, only to see it collapse in recent years, with Russia filling the vacuum. Cameroon, whose government appears to be tilting toward Russia, is an example of that, and the English-speaking periphery region of the country presents the United States with opportunities for engagement based on language, geography, and real competition from the big powers.

The United States can no longer stick to its current way of engaging with West African countries, which often involves dealing with centers rather than peripheries. Long-standing policies regarding whom to talk to and how should be questioned, to see if the United States should try a different approach to the region.


Michael Shurkin is a nonresident senior fellow at the Africa Center and a former political analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency.

The post No more business as usual: The US needs a broader engagement strategy in West Africa appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Arab-Israelis are facing a crisis. But there’s a way out. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/arab-israelis-crisis/ Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:55:11 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=732026 Arab-Israelis, Arab citizens of Israel living within the country’s official borders, have struggled relative to Jewish communities for decades. The causes are many

The post Arab-Israelis are facing a crisis. But there’s a way out. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
In the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas terror attack and subsequent war, Israel’s internal security apparatus, the Israel Security Agency, reported escalated concerns of violence between the country’s Jewish and Arab populations. This is not a fabricated anxiety. Many Israelis fear a repeat of the violence experienced in Israel’s mixed cities during the 2021 Israel-Palestine conflict. Thankfully, through the work of Jewish and Arab leaders, that has not happened to date. Even so, the threat of internal violence remains. The latest hostilities may sensitize Israel’s government and the Jewish majority to the real costs of a continuing crisis among its Arab citizens—one that encompasses but is not limited to higher intra-communal violence and lower educational and economic achievement—to all Israelis. 

Arab-Israelis, Arab citizens of Israel living within the country’s official borders, have struggled relative to Jewish communities for decades. The causes are many. Discrimination against minorities is hardly unique to Israel and occurs against the incommensurable security challenges faced by the Jewish state. But much of the crisis is caused by demography and the ineffective retail political strategies pursued by Israel’s Arab minority. There is low-hanging fruit here that provides an opportunity to ameliorate the crisis and spark further progress.

Sign up for the the latest updates from the Middle East and North Africa

Year after year, crime rates—specifically violent crime rates—rise at an unprecedented rate. In 2023, 244 Arab-Israelis were killed in crime-related events. From 2018-2022, 70 percent of those killed in crime-related incidents were Arab despite making up only 21 percent of Israel’s population. By and large, these are intra-community crimes.

According to a study by the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel, the rising Arab-sector murder rate correlates to a few demographic factors. There is a population bulge of young Arabs from their late teens to mid-twenties. Arabs aged eighteen to twenty-two comprise the highest percentage of Arabs in any age demographic category: 29 percent compared to the overall 21 percent. The study observed “a positive and statistically significant correlation” between “the rate of growth in the number of Arab men aged 18-22 and both the murder rate and self-reported feelings of a lack of security.” Simultaneously, as the number of young Arab-Israeli men grows, so too has their unemployment rate. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the unemployment rate rose 7 percent in two years, reportedly due to disparate skills and demands of the labor market.

The study points to the lack of higher education among Israeli-Arab men as another factor driving the crime rate. Only 18 percent of men in their thirties hold bachelor’s degrees compared to 47 percent of non-Haredi Jewish men and 35 percent of Arab-Israeli women of the same age group. Not only does this impact their employability in Israel’s modern economy, but it has shifted gender attitudes and marriage norms. In the past decade, the number of Arab-Israeli women earning college degrees has doubled, affording them higher employment rates and greater independence. As a result, divorce rates in Arab communities have grown, and Arab-Israeli women are increasingly marrying non-Arab-Israeli men. Arab-Israeli men seeking marriage will face even greater challenges moving forward. Currently, the average age difference for intra-marriages within the Arab-Israeli community is six years. This will become increasingly problematic as, in coming years, there will be 5-10 percent more eligible men for marriage than women. These compounding factors of demographics, education, and marriage are pushing young Arab-Israeli men to the margins of their communities despite comprising a significant portion of the population. 

High poverty rates and underfunding of education further exacerbate the issues facing Israeli-Arab communities. In 2015, they received approximately $4,110 per primary student compared to about $5,150 per primary student in the Hebrew system (no other study exists to date). The reasons behind this discrepancy are complicated. The Israeli education system offers students the choice between primarily Hebrew and primarily Arabic instruction, with further options between secular schools and a variety of religious ones. In practicality, geography is a significant determinant of school choice. In Arab-Israeli towns, it is unlikely to find a predominantly Hebrew school. 

Israeli schools also have multiple sources of funding. The central government provides most schools’ budgets. Ninety-five percent of its resources are distributed equally between students, with the remaining 5 percent allocated based on socioeconomic conditions. In 2018, 45.3 percent of Arab-Israeli families fell below the poverty line compared to just 13.4 percent of Jewish families. The disparity in funding, therefore, does not come from the central government but from the ability of localities to provide their schools with additional funding. Considering that in 2023, 53 percent of Arab-Israeli households were living in poverty, Arab-Israeli communities are limited in the support they can provide. The effects of this discrepancy are detrimental to the success and well-being of Arab-Israelis. There is a direct correlation between school budgets and scores on Israeli university matriculation exams. The lack of a college degree, especially for men, impacts their job prospects, leaving them far more likely to remain in the cycle of unemployment, poverty, and crime, keeping schools underfunded for the next generation.

The Israeli government is aware of the challenges present in Arab-Israeli communities. At the end of 2015, the Knesset adopted a five-year plan to improve Arab sector economic development, integrate it into broader Israeli society, and narrow the socio-economic gap between Arab and Jewish communities. The plan allocated $2.6 billion to education, transportation, healthcare, and employment—an amount meant to be proportional to the Arab share of the population. A second five-year plan with a budget of almost $10.8 billion was passed in 2021 by the Naftali Bennet and Yair Lapid government. Significantly, this was the first governing coalition in Israel’s history to include an Arab party. 

When the current government came to power in December 2022, Bezalel Smotrich, the controversial far-right Religious Zionist leader, was appointed as finance minister. In subsequent months, he froze the release of $54 million designated by the five-year plan for Arab municipal authorities, citing an insufficient “supervisory mechanism” to prevent the funds from falling into the hands of criminals. This action was followed by calls from other ministers to review or even reallocate the funds. After a stalemate followed by the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, Interior Minister Moshe Arbel overrode Smotrich’s decision on November 1, 2023, sending the frozen funds, as well as an additional $62 million of emergency funds, to the Arab municipalities.

Why Israel should care

While the current war between Israel and Hamas presents many domestic challenges, it also displays to Jewish Israelis why they must care about the country’s Arab citizens. Eighty percent of Arab-Israelis oppose the October 7, 2023 attacks carried out by Hamas, and 66 percent support Israel’s right to defend itself against the terrorist group, according to a poll by the Agam Institute and Hebrew University. Similarly, another poll by the Center for Democratic Values and Institutions (Arab Society in Israel Program) noted that 56 percent believe the attacks “do not reflect Arab society, the Palestinian people, and the Islamic nation.”

Though this support is likely to wane as Israel carries out its counter-offensive in Gaza, the initial numbers show that Arab-Israelis have a sense of camaraderie with their fellow citizens. These are perhaps the most “pro-Israel” numbers to be found in the Arab world. Arab-Israelis were among those killed and kidnapped on October 7, 2023, and they were also among those saving Israeli lives. And there are numerous Arab-Israeli soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) fighting against the country’s enemies.

Israel also has much to gain from properly addressing the issues facing the Arab sector. Israel’s always-prevalent security concerns regarding domestic and West Bank terrorism have heightened during the war. The more that Arab citizens identify with their fellow Israelis, the less support extreme factions of Arab-Israeli society will receive, and the more secure all Israelis will be and feel. Economically, the cost of investing in the growth and development of Arab-Israelis now will be far less than the cumulative cost of indefinitely providing large amounts of welfare and managing the effects of poverty. The economic success of Arab-Israelis will help integrate them into Israeli society, aid in improving the crime rate, and bolster Israel’s economy. Arab-Israelis should feel as though their fate is tied to the fate of their fellow citizens and vice versa. When Israel prospers, all its citizens prosper; when Israel suffers, all its citizens suffer. 

Opportunities for social and policy changes

In order to solve the Arab sector crisis, both Jewish and Arab leadership need to commit to change. Jewish political leaders must recognize the role of Arab society in Israel and the importance of helping it prosper. The five-year plans were a step in the right direction. The crisis cannot be rectified without purposeful and sufficient funding, and the whims of politicians should never condition this funding. However, funding alone is inadequate. The money must reach the sectors where it is most needed and effective. This will require the input and expertise of local Arab-Israeli leaders familiar with the crisis and affected communities. 

Additional avenues for integration and development should also be explored. Israel and the international community have long invested in people-to-people interactions between Jews and Arabs, but these experiences should be the norm and not the exception. Schools are a prime environment to house these programs. Geographic constraints and religious education complicate the integration of such programs into the regular school day, but after-school and extra-curricular activities could be effective. Not only would these programs create more face-to-face time between Jewish and Arab youth, but they also would emphasize the relevance and importance of school.

Tackling the crisis cannot solely focus on the next generation, though. Continuing adult education and skill acquisition programs can both help change the economic realities of Arab-Israeli families in the present moment and enable parents to emphasize the importance of education through their actions. But however ideal, it is unrealistic to expect Jewish politicians to pursue these policies on their own. Securing the necessary funding and support requires partnership and concessions from Arab leaders as well. 

The political behavior of Arab-Israeli citizens and politicians must change if they want to see greater government engagement with the crisis. Over the past few decades, Arab voter turnout has waned from 75 percent to 44 percent. To gain political influence, Arab citizens must increase their political involvement and vote in greater numbers. In turn, it is the responsibility of Arab parties to harness the potential of this support. As the 2021 elections proved, Arab parties are most effective when they put aside their political differences and run together in elections. This way, no representation is lost to the 3.25 percent threshold to make it into the Knesset, and Arab parties maintain greater bargaining power.

Another way Arab parties can grow influence in the Knesset is by mimicking the behavior of ultra-orthodox Jewish parties. For much of Israel’s history, ultra-orthodox parties would largely ignore rights versus left politics and join governments based on securing funds and specific, advantageous policies for their communities. Although de-prioritizing other political beliefs in favor of ensuring funding for education and development may not address all communal goals, it can unlock the resources required to address some of them.

However, government action can only go so far. Hopefully, the impact of these policies will promote social values of education and national unity—without which the crisis will continue. On October 7, 2023, Hamas viewed their victims’ religion and ethnicity as secondary to their nationality. Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs would be wise to do the same.

Rachel Friedman is an Iran research intern at the American Enterprise Institute‘s Critical Threats Project and a former Young Global Professional at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs.

The post Arab-Israelis are facing a crisis. But there’s a way out. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Wartime Ukraine ranks among world’s top performers in anti-corruption index https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/wartime-ukraine-ranks-among-worlds-top-performers-in-anti-corruption-index/ Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:17:16 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=731839 Ukraine’s partners are right to expect maximum accountability, but there are currently no grounds for abandoning the country based on claims of corruption that are both exaggerated and outdated, writes Peter Dickinson.

The post Wartime Ukraine ranks among world’s top performers in anti-corruption index appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukraine recorded solid progress last year in its long struggle with corruption, according to the latest edition of Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Wartime Ukraine climbed twelve places in the 2023 edition of the annual survey to rank 104th among 180 featured countries, increasing its anti-corruption score from 33 to 36 out of 100. “Ukraine’s growth by three points is one of the best results over the past year in the world,” noted Transparency International in the report accompanying the new edition of the ranking, which was released on January 30.

Ukraine’s strong performance in the authoritative anti-corruption ranking places the country alongside Brazil and ahead of fellow EU candidate nations Bosnia and Herzegovina and Turkey. Meanwhile, Russia continues to lag far behind, having dropped down a further two places in the 2023 index to occupy 141th position with just 26 points.

This year’s result is recognition for Ukraine’s ongoing anti-corruption efforts since the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. On the eve of Ukraine’s landmark pro-democracy uprising, the country languished in 144th place in Transparency International’s annual ranking. Following the Revolution of Dignity, the Ukrainian authorities have taken a number of steps against corruption including establishing a new anti-corruption architecture, embracing digitalization, and conducting ambitious reforms in key sectors such as government procurement, banking, and energy. Success has often been patchy, but the overall picture is one of unmistakable improvement that has allowed Ukraine to climb forty places in the anti-corruption index over the past decade.

Ukraine’s most recent progress is all the more notable as it has taken place amid the existential challenges of Russia’s ongoing invasion. While this has necessitated a range of wartime governance and security measures, anti-corruption efforts have continued. “The active work of Ukraine’s anti-corruption and other public authorities resulted in a growth in the 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index even during the full-scale war,” Transparency International acknowledged.

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.

Transparency International is not the only international body to positively assess wartime Ukraine’s anti-corruption credentials. The fight against corruption has long been a key issue in relations between Kyiv and Brussels, and has traditionally been viewed as an obstacle to further European integration. However, Ukraine’s reform efforts since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion have helped convince European leaders to grant the country EU candidate status and begin official negotiations on future membership.

Speaking last summer, European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen singled out Ukraine’s efforts to advance the country’s anti-corruption agenda despite facing a uniquely challenging wartime environment. “I must say it is amazing to see how fast and determined Ukraine is implementing these reforms despite the war,” she commented. “They are defending their country and reforming.”

These positive appraisals by Transparency International and the European Union undermine the credibility of attempts by Russia and others to portray Ukraine as hopelessly corrupt. For many years, Kremlin officials and regime propagandists have routinely depicted Ukraine as plagued by endemic corruption. This has been an important element of Moscow’s efforts to discredit Ukraine’s democratic transition, deter international support, and even mute criticism of Russian intervention.

Since the start of the full-scale invasion, Vladimir Putin himself has often referenced the alleged excesses of Ukrainian corruption in his public speeches. In November 2023, he declared that “corruption in Ukraine is unmatched anywhere in the world.” This ignores the inconvenient reality that Transparency International actually rates Putin’s Russia as significantly more corrupt than Ukraine.

The argument that Ukraine is simply too corrupt to support has also entered the mainstream in the United States, where it is often repeated by opponents of further US military aid. These objections continue, despite unprecedented levels of institutional oversight and successive Pentagon probes confirming no evidence of corruption or the misuse of weapons.

Across the Atlantic, Russia’s few remaining friends in the EU have made strikingly similar claims regarding Ukrainian corruption. In December 2023, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban branded Ukraine as “one of the most corrupt countries in the world” while arguing against Kyiv’s further EU integration. Orban, who is regarded as Putin’s closest European ally, certainly speaks with authority when it comes to corruption. His own country, Hungary, occupied last place among EU member states in this year’s Transparency International ranking.

In a sense, Ukraine is currently paying the price for the unenviable reputation it earned during the first few decades of independence, when corruption throughout state institutions was a far more pervasive problem than it is today. It is no accident that Ukraine’s two post-Soviet revolutions in 2004 and 2014 were both driven largely by public exasperation over widespread corruption, with millions of Ukrainians taking to the streets to vent their anger. Despite undeniable signs of progress over the past ten years, examples of institutional corruption continue to emerge, keeping the old cliches alive.

With Ukrainians now fighting for national survival and heavily reliant on international support, attitudes toward corruption have hardened further. This is fueling a climate of heightened scrutiny that has led to a series of high-profile scandals since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion. In summer 2023, President Zelenskyy dismissed dozens of regional military enlistment officials on charges of bribery. Perhaps the most prominent scandal involved former Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov, who was forced to resign following claims of corruption within the ministry. Most recently, Ukraine’s State Security Service detained five people accused of conspiring with Defense Ministry officials to embezzle $40 million meant for the purchase of arms.

While these recent corruption scandals demonstrate that Ukraine still has a long way to go, it is worth emphasizing that they only came to light thanks to the investigative efforts of Ukraine’s own state organs and the country’s vibrant civil society. This vigilance should come as no surprise. After all, nobody is more conscious of their country’s corruption problems than Ukrainians themselves.

There is no doubt that today’s Ukraine continues to face serious corruption challenges. However, depictions of the country as irredeemably corrupt are false and misleading. The real story here is of a nation steadily emerging from centuries of imperial oppression and decades of dysfunction, with the current generation of Ukrainians determined to rid themselves of a corruption culture that is one of the most unwelcome legacies of this troubled past. Indeed, the fight against corruption is widely recognized by Ukrainians as an essential element of their country’s transformation toward a European future.

This year’s Transparency International ranking is a timely reminder that Ukraine is actually making meaningful progress in its historic struggle against corruption. While much remains to be done, the country is clearly moving in the right direction. Ukraine’s international partners are right to expect maximum accountability, but there are currently no grounds for abandoning Ukraine based on claims of corruption that are both exaggerated and outdated.

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

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Wartime Ukraine ranks among world’s top performers in anti-corruption index appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Zelenskyy gives Putin a long overdue history lesson https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/zelenskyy-gives-putin-a-long-overdue-history-lesson/ Thu, 01 Feb 2024 21:33:47 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=731785 Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s weaponization of bad history has helped fuel the bloodiest European conflict since World War II, writes Taras Kuzio.

The post Zelenskyy gives Putin a long overdue history lesson appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
To mark this year’s Ukrainian Unity Day on January 22, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy issued a decree calling for efforts to research, publicize, and safeguard Ukrainian cultural identity in regions of today’s Russian Federation “historically inhabited by Ukrainians.” The move was a masterful piece of trolling by the Ukrainian leader, while also representing a long overdue history lesson for his Russian counterpart.

For years, Vladimir Putin has made a habit of rewriting the past in order to deny Ukraine’s right to exist and justify his ongoing invasion of the country. However, his claims rely on centuries of Russian imperial propaganda that bear little resemblance to the historical reality.

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began in spring 2014 with the seizure of Crimea, Putin has resurrected the old Czarist era administrative term of “Novorossiya” (“New Russia”) to refer to the regions of southern and eastern Ukraine that he claims are “historically Russian lands.” He has frequently dismissed Ukrainian claims to these regions, while insisting they were erroneously handed to Ukraine by Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Such arguments have long circulated in Russian nationalist circles. Indeed, one prominent advocate was celebrated Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who opposed Ukrainian independence and openly questioned the country’s claims to its southern and eastern regions. Solzhenitsyn’s troubling legacy of support for Russian imperialism illustrates why many Ukrainians continue to believe Russian liberalism ends at the border with Ukraine.

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 laid out his historical claims to Ukraine in a 5000-word essay published in July 2021 that read like a declaration of war against Ukrainian statehood. Many now see this chilling document as an ideological blueprint for the full-scale invasion that was to follow just seven months later.

When speaking to domestic Russian audiences, Putin has not shied away from describing the invasion in overtly imperialistic terms as a war of conquest. In summer 2022, he directly compared his invasion to the imperial conquests of eighteenth century Russian Czar Peter the Great. More recently, he has referred to the areas of Ukraine currently under Russian occupation as “conquests.”

Putin’s stubborn refusal to recognize Ukraine’s right to exist has sometimes led to instances of selective blindness. In May 2023, he was filmed examining a seventeenth century map of Eastern Europe before declaring “no Ukraine ever existed in the history of mankind,” despite the fact that the word “Ukraine” was clearly marked on the map in front of him.

The term “Ukraine” can actually be traced back much further than the seventeenth century. Indeed, as Harvard University Professor Serhii Plokhy and others have noted, “Ukraine” has medieval origins and was first used by twelfth century chroniclers, around six hundred years before Peter the Great rebranded Muscovy as the Russian Empire.

Putin’s claims regarding Russia’s ancestral ties to southern and eastern Ukraine are equally historically illiterate. Throughout the Middle Ages, these regions formed the sparsely populated “Wild Fields” that served as an informal boundary separating the Mongol and Turkish empires from Ukraine and the rest of Europe. Early records show a Ukrainian presence including Cossacks and agricultural communities.

Even as Russian imperial influence spread southward toward the Black Sea, most of the territory Putin now refers to as Novorossiya continued to have a majority Ukrainian population. The only official demographic data from this era, the Czarist census of 1897, creates a picture of highly cosmopolitan urban populations, including significant French and Italian contingents in Odesa and a prominent Greek community in Mariupol. Meanwhile, the rural population throughout today’s southern and eastern Ukraine remained predominantly Ukrainian. In other words, Putin’s assertion that modern Russia has some kind of ancient claim to these regions is complete nonsense.

Zelenskyy is now signalling to Putin that Ukraine has historical claims of its own. The Ukrainian leader’s recent decree does not indicate Kyiv’s intention to annex Russian territory, but it does send a clear message to Moscow that Ukrainians have a proud national history and will defend themselves against Russian attempts to deny their existence or extinguish Ukrainian identity.

Zelenskyy’s decree also serves as a not-so-subtle reminder that Russia’s own borders are extremely vulnerable to the kind of reckless historical revisionism being pushed by Putin. As the leader of the world’s largest country, which has expanded for centuries to encompass more than ten percent of the planet’s entire landmass, Putin is particularly unwise to argue in favor of reinstating old borders. If taken to its logical conclusion, Putin’s revisionist stance would see Russia cede land to everyone from Finland and Germany to China and Japan. It would also destabilize the wider world, leading to endless border disputes throughout Europe, Africa, and beyond.

Putin’s weaponization of bad history has helped fuel the bloodiest European conflict since World War II. His claims to Ukrainian land are based on an outdated imperialistic mythology that has no place in the twenty-first century and poses a grave threat to global security. The Russian dictator believes he can distort the past to justify the crimes of the present. Unless he is stopped, other countries will suffer Ukraine’s fate.

Taras Kuzio is a professor of political science at the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy and an associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society. He is the author of “Fascism and Genocide. Russia’s War Against Ukrainians.”

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Zelenskyy gives Putin a long overdue history lesson appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
To challenge the Islamic Republic’s propaganda agenda, the UN deputy high commissioner must delay her visit https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/nada-al-nashif-visit-impact-iran-unhrc/ Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:26:47 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=731153 Civil society advocates aren’t pushing for non-engagement but for a strategic reassessment of the deputy high commissioner's visit's timing and scope.

The post To challenge the Islamic Republic’s propaganda agenda, the UN deputy high commissioner must delay her visit appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
An upcoming United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights visit to Iran scheduled for February 3-5 sparked intense debate among civil society organizations. Proponents of the visit emphasize the urgent need for ongoing dialogue, asserting that maintaining communication channels is crucial to fostering positive changes in Iran’s human rights landscape. They argue that engaging with Iranian officials presents an important opportunity to advocate for tangible improvements and negotiate for stronger protection of human rights. However, critics still need to be convinced, highlighting the disappointing outcomes of previous dialogues and raising concerns about the effectiveness of continued discourse without concrete, enforceable commitments from the Islamic Republic. There is a prevailing fear that the Iranian authorities could exploit the visit to create a misleading perception of compliance, diverting attention from the crucial importance of sustained international engagement and oversight.

Impact Iran, a coalition of nineteen civil society organizations focused on promoting respect for human rights in the country, was joined by several international advocates to communicate their concerns in an open letter dated January 29 to Deputy High Commissioner Nada Al-Nashif. While they value the importance of diplomatic engagement and recognize the critical role of her office in addressing human rights, they raise concerns about the visit’s timing. Notably, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is set to convene in mid-March to scrutinize Iran’s human rights record, a session that follows closely on the heels of the high commissioner’s visit. The group fears that the visit might lend an unwarranted veneer of acceptability to Iran’s human rights record, thereby weakening the UN’s ability to hold the country accountable.

The UNHRC’s upcoming session is poised to be a pivotal moment in international human rights advocacy, as it will feature a report from the UN Independent Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran that will present its findings. Tasked with a rigorous independent inquiry into the alleged human rights violations related to protests and civil unrest that erupted across Iran in 2022 following news of the killing of 22-year-old Mahsa Jina Amini while in the custody of the country’s so-called “morality police,” the mission aims to articulate the scope and scale of violations and create a repository of evidence that could be instrumental in holding perpetrators accountable in international legal frameworks. Thus, the UNHRC braces for presentations that may profoundly influence the course of justice and shape its strategy in advocating for the protection and promotion of human rights in Iran.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Javaid Rehman, will present his findings in concert with their report. His report, informed by thorough investigations and eyewitness accounts, will shed light on the current situation and evaluate Iran’s adherence to its international human rights obligations. The rapporteur’s insights support the global community’s understanding and response to Iran’s human rights challenges.

The UNHRC will also select a new special rapporteur to monitor Iran in the late spring. Established in 2011, this mechanism is tasked with the painstaking monitoring of Iran’s adherence to human rights norms. Yet, the Islamic Republic has consistently resisted cooperation with the UN in this capacity, denying entry to three previous mandate holders despite the worsening human rights situation within the country. The deputy high commissioner’s visit offers a timely opportunity to broach the subject of increased cooperation with the Iranian authorities. Al-Nashif could leverage the meeting to negotiate terms that may foster a more collaborative relationship with the forthcoming mandate holder, thereby influencing the council’s decision-making process regarding who is best suited to fulfill this sensitive and pivotal role effectively.

SIGN UP FOR THE THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

In light of this, the deputy high commissioner’s visit will likely be scrutinized by the international human rights community during and after her trip, as the rights advocates anxiously await to see how her engagement may impact the council’s critical decisions in the coming weeks and months. This is especially the case since the recent surge in executions in the country, including the execution of four ethnic Kurds who were hanged for alleged espionage after trials that were purportedly conducted without proper due process. The execution of individuals under the age of thirty, accused of plotting a bomb attack, has sparked widespread condemnation and drawn attention to the lack of fair trials and allegations of torture. The secretive nature of the judicial process and reports of physical assaults and suppression of information by security forces following the executions have raised alarm about the treatment of political prisoners.

Articulating a deep-seated unease about the visit’s potential impact, particularly in light of escalating executions and the suppression of women’s movements, the coalition led by Impact Iran warns of the possibility that the visit could serve as a tool of propaganda for the Iranian authorities, potentially undermining the UN’s unwavering commitment to human rights in Iran. Renowned figures like Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi have also called on the deputy high commissioner to align with the victims and protestors by either reconsidering her visit or assuming symbolic gestures of protest, such as forgoing the headscarf. They urge her to engage with groups beyond government officials, including individuals and families directly impacted by the regime’s draconian policies. However, civil society advocates are also careful to point out that they aren’t pushing for non-engagement but for a strategic reassessment of the visit’s timing and scope, advocating for thorough monitoring measures and unfettered access to individuals in detention.

Some note, for example, that scheduling the visit after the UNHRC session allows for a more strategic and impactful engagement. This timing would enable the Deputy High Commissioner Al-Nashif to discuss the findings of the council’s mechanisms with Iranian officials, armed with the most up-to-date information and evaluations from the UN special rapporteur and the UN fact-finding mission. Such synchronization would also ensure that the engagement is informed by the council’s discussions and resolutions, further equipping the deputy high commissioner to address Iranian authorities with clear international expectations in mind.

Moreover, the scheduled visit has stirred a broader discourse about the consistency and coherency of the UN’s strategy for promoting and protecting human rights in Iran. Critics argue that while such high-profile visits could elevate awareness, their ill-timed execution could undercut the momentum of other UN bodies and efforts. Scheduled ahead of the UNHRC’s critical evaluation, including the fact-finding mission, the visit risks sending mixed signals about the United Nation’s stance on human rights in Iran.

For the UN to maintain the efficacy and integrity of its human rights advocacy, it’s imperative to harmonize its various mechanisms to avoid providing inadvertent avenues for violators to evade their obligations. When UN bodies operate in isolation, without a cohesive strategy, their actions can be counterproductive. High-profile visits, such as that of the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Al-Nashif, should be intricately coordinated with ongoing investigations and diplomatic initiatives to avoid any semblance of legitimizing or endorsing a state’s actions prematurely.

It is critical for the various arms of the United Nations to conduct their work in a manner that is synchronized, reinforcing each other’s efforts, to ensure there are no mixed messages that could bolster a violator’s resolve. This coordination is essential to present a unified front that stands up to scrutiny and holds violators accountable with tenacity and unequivocal clarity. To maintain the integrity and effectiveness of its human rights advocacy, the UN must send a clear and consistent message: cooperation on one front does not negate accountability on another.

Rose Parris Richter is the executive director of Impact Iran, a coalition of nineteen human rights organizations committed to advocating for human rights in the country.

The post To challenge the Islamic Republic’s propaganda agenda, the UN deputy high commissioner must delay her visit appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Big Tech must listen to the concerns of Russia’s pro-democracy voices https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/big-tech-must-listen-to-the-concerns-of-russias-pro-democracy-voices/ Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:26:39 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=730562 Big Tech companies offer a variety of opportunities for free expression in Putin's Russia, write Joanna Nowakowska, Anna Kuznetsova, and Marta Bilska.

The post Big Tech must listen to the concerns of Russia’s pro-democracy voices appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Vladimir Putin has committed serious resources to ensure that the Russian people only see what he wants them to see. Yet despite the best efforts of the Russian dictator, the ever-evolving world of Big Tech offers a variety of avenues for free expression, even in closed societies. But without the right policy structures, Big Tech can be exploited to aid the designs of authoritarian rulers like Putin, making it crucial to spur discussions between Russian civil society and tech companies to avoid this outcome.

Tech companies are crucial to disseminating information, organizing platforms, creating fundraising tools, and recording war crimes and human rights abuses. As a result, their actions profoundly impact social and political issues in many countries.

Ongoing efforts to deliver accurate information to the Russian people illustrate these new realities. The Kremlin tightened censorship after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 to make sure the only information Russian citizens receive is state-controlled propaganda. Independent Russian media and civil society groups opposing the war face persecution and censorship on a scale not seen since the days of the Soviet Union.

As a result of this crackdown, international social media platforms and communication technologies became just about the only way to deliver factual information to Russians inside the country, and to inform the international public on the situation in Russia.

Western tech companies initially took steps to comply with international sanctions against Russia and to mitigate the spread of Kremlin-backed disinformation. However, new research suggests this effort has had the unintended consequence of significantly hindering independent media and civil society efforts inside Russia.

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.

Out of a group of 16 independent Russian media and civil society organizations (CSO) featured in recent research, all experienced negative impacts to their online presence after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with 14 reporting periodical sharp decreases in traffic and social media engagement.

These organizations saw an abrupt fall or lack of change in viewership, followers, subscribers, and engagements on some platforms, all while growing on others. Suddenly, content that generated substantial interest in the past was not getting any attention, while posts, videos, or even entire channels that were attracting significant engagement suddenly vanished from recommendation features.

Researchers believe that independent Russian media websites may have been deprioritized or omitted in Google search results and the Google Discover service, which inadvertently led to the amplification of Kremlin propaganda by directing millions of Russians to anti-Ukrainian and anti-Western messaging every day. This aligns with data recently published by Lev Gershenzon, one of the former heads of Yandex News, Russia’s largest search engine, now fully controlled by the state.

According to Gershenzon, Google Discover’s content recommendation system features Kremlin-affiliated sources high up in its recommendations. Close to 90 percent of Russian smartphones operate with Android, with Google products pre-installed by default, so Google has unprecedented influence over the content Russians view every day.

Eleven of the 16 groups cited claim to have lost access to essential Western software, tools, and equipment, and experienced restricted access to certain online advertising services. After their outlets were outlawed and Russian providers canceled their services, four of these groups said they could not find a Western hosting service, and several noted that one mass email service abruptly closed all of its Russian accounts. As a result, many Russian independent media and CSOs lost entire databases of readers, supporters, and donors.

Meanwhile, the online collaboration platform Slack shut down while Adobe, Windows, and Microsoft Office also left Russia. The resulting lack of access to basic online tools has proven challenging for Russia’s already-embattled independent voices.

While most of these groups attempted to contact companies to find solutions to their lack of access, few cases were resolved. No matter the outcome, the circuitous and demoralizing process of even getting an answer from decision makers at Western tech companies has proven to be a significant obstacle to addressing these issues.

The resulting status quo has, albeit unintentionally, reinforced the power imbalance between Russia’s pro-democracy actors and the country’s authoritarian government by depriving an increasingly isolated society of its few remaining independent sources of information. To overcome this impasse, there is an urgent need for dialogue between Western tech companies, Russian media, and civil society.

Joanna Nowakowska, Anna Kuznetsova, and Marta Bilska from the International Republican Institute are co-authors of the recent report “Can Big Tech Contribute to Breaking Putin’s Censorship?”

Further Reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Big Tech must listen to the concerns of Russia’s pro-democracy voices appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Putin accused of fast-tracking Russian citizenship for abducted Ukrainian kids https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-accused-of-fast-tracking-russian-citizenship-for-abducted-ukrainian-kids/ Thu, 25 Jan 2024 21:11:36 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=729035 Ukrainian officials have condemned a new decree signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in early 2024 simplifying the process of conferring Russian citizenship on Ukrainian children abducted from wartime Ukraine.

The post Putin accused of fast-tracking Russian citizenship for abducted Ukrainian kids appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukrainian officials have condemned a new decree signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in early 2024 simplifying the process of conferring Russian citizenship on Ukrainian children abducted from wartime Ukraine.

Issued on January 4, 2024, the citizenship decree is officially designed to ease the process of granting Russian citizenship to foreign nationals and stateless persons. Officials in Kyiv highlighted one particularly contentious section indicating that orphaned Ukrainian children or those deprived of parental guardianship can be fast-tracked to Russian citizenship via presidential decision or following a request from a hosting institution.

Ukraine’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Dmytro Lubinets, has accused Moscow of implementing the new citizenship regulations so children abducted from Ukraine to Russia would no longer be regarded as Ukrainians. In an official appeal to the International Criminal Court in the Hague, Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry claimed the decree served as further proof of Russia’s crimes against Ukraine, including “the forcible assimilation of Ukrainian children.”

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 International Criminal Court has already issued a warrant for the arrest of Vladimir Putin on war crimes charges in connection with the mass deportation of Ukrainian children since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Putin has yet to be detained in line with the warrant, but the Russian dictator is now obliged to tailor his travel plans to avoid possible arrest. In August 2023, he cancelled plans to attend a BRICS summit in South Africa after the host country was unable to guarantee he would not face legal challenges.

Russia’s January 2024 citizenship decree is the latest evidence of a systematic Kremlin campaign to rob children abducted in Ukraine of their Ukrainian identity and forcibly turn them into Russians. The Ukrainian authorities have so far managed to identify almost 20,000 Ukrainian children who have been subjected to Russian abduction. Many fear the true number of victims may be far higher.

International investigations into the mass abduction of Ukrainian children have found that once taken to Russia, victims are subjected to indoctrination that aims to erase their Ukrainian identity and impose a Russian national identity. This process is undertaken at a network of camps across Russia. Research published by The Yale School of Public Health’s Humanitarian Research Lab (HRL) in February 2023 identified 43 Russian facilities for the indoctrination of abducted Ukrainian children, with all levels of the Russian government involved in a large-scale, state-sanctioned initiative.

The mass abduction and indoctrination of Ukrainian children by Russia has been branded as an act of genocide. In an April 2023 resolution, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe said the abductions matched the international definition of genocide and stated that the forced transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia had the aim of “annihilating every link to and feature of their Ukrainian identity.” The UN’s 1948 Genocide Convention identifies “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” as one of five acts that qualify as genocide.

Evidence continues to emerge that in addition to exposing Ukrainian children to a wide range of patriotic propaganda, Russia is also militarizing them by involving them in various paramilitary structures aimed at teenagers. This includes the Yunarmiya (“Young Army”) youth organization, which was established in 2015 and is funded by the Kremlin. Deported Ukrainian children have reportedly been obliged to undergo military training and coerced into writing supportive letters to Russian military personnel engaged in the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

In the first weeks of 2024, details emerged of abducted Ukrainian children being forced to undergo training with the Belarusian military. Belarusian state TV reported on January 10 that 35 children from Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine had been sent to Mogilev in eastern Belarus to take part in exercises with the Belarusian military. Belarus is accused of participating in Russia’s abduction operations.

Efforts are ongoing to rescue abducted Ukrainian children and bring those responsible for the abductions to justice. The Ukrainian state and civil society are currently focused on bringing every single victim home. These efforts are benefiting from significant international support. For example, in December 2023, six abducted Ukrainian children were released by Russia thanks to mediation from Qatar.

Further international support is needed if the thousands of Ukrainian children abducted by Russia are to be saved. The clock is ticking and every moment counts. Indoctrination efforts continue in camps across Russia, while the Kremlin is clearly seeking to speed up the process of granting Russian citizenship.

The international community appears to recognize the importance of holding Russia accountable for the mass abduction of Ukrainian children. “We cannot allow children to be treated as if they are the spoils of war,” ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan commented in 2023.

This year, it is vital to maintain the pressure on Russia and demonstrate that such behavior has no place in the modern world. The deliberate targeting of vulnerable Ukrainian children has been one of the most shocking features of an invasion that has stunned the world. The abductions are also arguably the most striking evidence that the Kremlin’s ultimate goal is to erase Ukrainian national identity entirely in areas under its control.

Vladyslav Havrylov is a research fellow with the Collaborative on Global Children’s Issues at Georgetown University and lead researcher at the “Where Are Our People?” initiative.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Putin accused of fast-tracking Russian citizenship for abducted Ukrainian kids appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Global China Hub Nonresident Fellow Leland Lazarus in Africa Center for Strategic Studies https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/global-china-hub-nonresident-fellow-leland-lazarus-in-africa-center-for-strategic-studies/ Wed, 24 Jan 2024 19:35:15 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=728332 On January 22nd, Global China Hub Nonresident Fellow Leland Lazarus co-authored a report for the Africa Center for Strategic Studies on how Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean can make sure citizens’ interests are prioritized in engagements with China.

The post Global China Hub Nonresident Fellow Leland Lazarus in Africa Center for Strategic Studies appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

On January 22nd, Global China Hub Nonresident Fellow Leland Lazarus co-authored a report for the Africa Center for Strategic Studies on how Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean can make sure citizens’ interests are prioritized in engagements with China.

The post Global China Hub Nonresident Fellow Leland Lazarus in Africa Center for Strategic Studies appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
A thirsty reality: Iran’s dire water situation https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iran-water-environment-us-policy/ Mon, 22 Jan 2024 16:22:35 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=727081 Iran's uneven water rights approach disproportionately impacts citizens in marginalized provinces, causing severe water scarcity.

The post A thirsty reality: Iran’s dire water situation appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Despite climate warnings since 1988, Iranian officials have consistently ignored regional environmental concerns, especially following the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). For example, they prioritized dam construction and increased groundwater extraction for food self-sufficiency, disregarding environmental impacts. Former Agriculture Minister Issa Kalantari is now warning of irreversible groundwater depletion, with an annual deficit of over 30 billion cubic meters (BCM). This acknowledgment raises concerns about the sustainability of Iran’s current water management practices, particularly when hundreds of dams constructed after the war are not in good condition.

During Iran’s population surge—ten to over eighty-five million over the course of a century—its renewable water resources have gone from 130 BCM to 80-85 BCM. Projections indicate a potential halving of resources by 2041, raising concerns as Iran’s population is expected to surpass 100 million. Per capita water availability for Iranians may drop below 500 cubic meters, marking absolute scarcity. Once adept at groundwater management, Iran now faces consequences like land subsidence due to depleting groundwater, which affects food self-sufficiency. This has led to farmers abandoning lands, causing an influx of ten million people into the outskirts and shanty towns since 2013—ten times the number of Syrian villagers migrating during the 2006-2009 drought in the Hasakah governorate. Many researchers have linked the Syrian conflict to this drought.

Regardless of the numerous opportunities to enhance its water management policies, the government persistently adheres to the path of Iran’s “Water Mafia”—a non-official alliance that comprises the energy ministry, executives, academics, consulting engineers, influential contractors, and a cadre of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders overseeing the Khatam al-Anbiya Construction Headquarters. Disturbingly, if this group opts to construct a dam like Gotvand—where a multimillion-ton mass of salt became a part of the reservoir despite many warnings about this possibility due to nearby saline geological formations—there seems to be no governing authority capable of halting their actions.

The concept of top-down decision-making in Iran is not novel; Iranians have been acquainted with such a system for centuries. However, the adverse effects of water mismanagement have never wrought such devastation on the land and its water resources (the latter of which are steadily diminishing). Since the 1980s, when President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s post-war reconstruction plans garnered substantial attention, the landscape of Iran has been transformed by the construction of numerous dams along rivers, absorbing considerable financial resources over time.

In the late 1980s, the establishment of two key organizations—the Khatam al-Anbiya Construction Headquarters, equipped with significant machinery and war-acquired experience, and the Iran Water & Power Resources Development Company (IWPC)—resulted in an enduring business alliance. IWPC was founded by a group of engineers, mainly consisting of the students who occupied the US Embassy in Tehran. During Rafsanjani’s era and beyond, those entrusted with managing water and agriculture, despite warnings from experts, advertised that constructing dams and transferring water between watersheds would guarantee self-sufficiency. However, these decisions, made without consultation with independent and qualified experts, led to a decline in lakes, wetlands, rivers, and groundwater sources.

Social impact

In 2016, many believed that a successful nuclear agreement and the lifting of sanctions would allow the Islamic Republic to address its financial challenges, solve the water crisis, and rehabilitate its endangered lakes and rivers. The Center for Naval Analysis, an institute in Washington, later warned the US government of escalating and enduring water tensions that could lead to local protests, potentially sparking violence worldwide and undermining US national interests. The report also highlighted the possibility of global terrorism and civil war over shared resources. This warning gained attention in December 2017-January 2018 during an unexpected uprising in Iran that reverberated across the nation—the largest at the time since the 1979 revolution. Thousands protested, leading to swift intervention from security forces. Official reports acknowledged over twenty casualties, with unofficial sources suggesting the death toll exceeded fifty. The critical aspect was that protestors lost their lives in towns that were struggling with the harsh impacts of water scarcity.

In 2019, the nation witnessed another widespread uprising, with reports indicating that over 1,500 protestors lost their lives at the hands of security forces. In Mahshahr, a town in the Khuzestan province in southern Iran, and other towns, individuals affected by the regime’s detrimental water policies were fatally shot. The unrest persisted into 2020 and 2021, as people in Khuzestan clashed with security forces over water-related issues, resulting in further loss of lives. Despite being considered a water-rich province, with major rivers like Karun, Karkheh, and Jarrahi, and possessing vast oil and gas reserves, Khuzestan has tragically become a victim of poor water management. Many rivers and marshes in the region have dried up due to the water management schemes implemented by the government and the Khatam al-Anbiya Construction Headquarters.

Amidst the desiccation of wetland areas—exemplified by Hoor-al-Azim in Khuzestan—intricate sediment deposits have become susceptible to the elements. With even the faintest breeze, these minuscule particles ascend into the air, launching as dust storms that target the cities within the province. This matter has engendered a noteworthy deterioration in air quality across various sectors of Khuzestan, concurrently fostering the widespread illness of thousands of residents in the province.

Inequities in Iranians’ access to water

Iran’s uneven water rights approach disproportionately impacts citizens in marginalized provinces, causing severe water scarcity. Provinces like Sistan and Baluchistan, Kerman, Fars, Isfahan, Southern Khorasan, Hamedan, Yazd, Khorasan-e Razavi, and Semnan face widespread water poverty due to disappearing lakes, groundwater depletion, and contamination. Projects like the Karun-3 dam and the Khersan-3 dam, as well as water allocation, displace residents, resulting in enduring hardships. On top of this, climate change and vanishing glaciers intensify water losses in different river basins. Inter-basin water transfers fuel further tension, benefiting lobbyists and the Water Mafia while simultaneously exacerbating environmental injustice against marginalized populations. Despite government assurances, residents of Zayandeh Rud basin resort to illegal well pumping, causing groundwater depletion, land subsidence, and health issues, threatening Isfahan’s existence. In northern Iran, Lake Urmia has dried up due to dam construction and unsustainable farming, leaving behind a saline desert filled with residues and particles contaminated by industrial and human wastewater and chemical fertilizers. Strong winds disperse these toxic particles, harming millions in nearby areas.

Despite the evidence of human and environmental damage from expensive water management projects, it has been empirically proven that, in many regions of Iran, nature-based solutions—unlike dam constructions and inter-basin water transfers—are more efficient and cost-effective. But Iran’s Water Mafia consistently opposes projects prioritizing efficiency and cost-effectiveness, as these initiatives undermine their ability to extract commission money.

SIGN UP FOR THE THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Nowadays, IRGC generals and water executives have fallen in love with seawater desalination, a technology practiced mainly by Israel and nations in the Persian Gulf region. As FAO’s Slim Zekri told me, the production cost of one cubic meter of freshwater in the Persian Gulf is approximately $1. However, an insider in Iran revealed to me that the actual cost of freshwater production in the country exceeds $1.5. This is influenced, in part, by sanctions and the absence of a direct business relationship with Israel, which is the proprietor of Reverse Osmosis (RO) technology and the primary manufacturer of RO filters. The expense of transporting this water through a pipeline to central Iran, nevertheless, significantly escalates the overall cost to almost $5 per cubic meter.

The harmful impact of desalination plants is not often disclosed to the Iranian public. The hot brine is disposed of in the shallow Persian Gulf, leading to an environmental massacre. Many fish species have migrated from the extremely saline waters and coral reefs are experiencing bleaching and dying. In some circles, it has been said that the price tag of establishing this infrastructure and its pipelines is over $8 billion, and that it would produce a minimal amount of freshwater—approximately 4 BCM per year in 2044.

Iranian experts have developed cost-effective methods to manage flash floods and recharge aquifers by storing water underground, potentially saving at least 30 BCM annually at a cost of less than $8 billion. With an anticipated cost of nearly $500 per hectare for implementation, the execution of this project over a 14-million-hectare area would result in an expenditure of approximately $7 billion. Additionally, the resulting annual water storage capacity would surpass 40 billion cubic meters, even in a dry year. This approach would inspire a reverse migration among farmers and the reclamation of ancestral lands. Surveys suggest it can be implemented on nearly 8 percent of Iran’s land, providing water savings and flood protection while positively impacting microclimates.

Empowering farmers to establish floodwater management co-ops safeguards resources, mitigates destructive floods, and ensures water storage. The positive environmental impact of artificial recharge and spate irrigation, which would provide an extra 50 percent to Iran’s annual renewable water resources, stands in contrast to desalination’s minimal water addition and environmental drawbacks. Despite viable alternatives, regime insiders choose to sacrifice natural resources for a slight commission increase from an $8 billion project.

How can the United States help?

Compelling data underscores the dire situation facing millions of rural Iranians, pushing them to abandon their ancestral lands due to a substantial decline in groundwater resources. Projecting forward, if current climate conditions persist and water management remains inadequate, a mass exodus appears imminent. This demographic shift could significantly impact the United States’ interests and security concerns in the Middle East and beyond. In recognizing Iranians as potential allies, the United States could prioritize their well-being in alignment with its national interests. Transforming Iran’s water situation necessitates a fundamental shift towards a democratic system that values knowledge and encourages active public participation, departing from the prevailing top-down decision-making model.

The United States can help Iranians through technical assistance and knowledge transfer, capacity building and training, and supporting civil society as well as promoting climate change adaptation.

For Iranians, learning from Israeli water experts and the authorities who established Israel’s national water company (Mekorot) in 1937—a centralized body predating the nation’s formation by eleven years—is imperative. Such an entity should possess the capability to address the challenges posed by a changing climate, fostering resilience in Iran while concurrently navigating diplomatic intricacies related to shared water resources with neighboring nations. This approach aims to alleviate tensions and initiate regional cooperation within the Middle East and North Africa region. The United States has the ability to financially support the establishment of an organization like Mekorot situated outside of Iran. This organization, once operational, could initiate the implementation of modified water management methods, effectively alleviating damages resulting from the mismanagement of the Islamic Republic. Strategic intervention of this nature can contribute to achieving a state of relative stability following the possible decline of the Islamic Republic.

The pursuit of sustainable improvements in Iran’s water management requires a concerted effort toward capacity building in civil society and water-dependent sectors. American institutions, drawing on successful initiatives predating 1979, are well-positioned to play a pivotal role in this regard. Despite historical criticisms of Truman’s Point 4 Program and Iran’s adoption of the American “Hydraulic Mission,” a tailored sustainable development approach is crucial. Oversight by Iranian-American academics, who are well-versed in Iran’s environmental challenges, can ensure the effectiveness of these initiatives. Renowned figures in the agricultural and water sectors within the Iranian community can serve as exemplars, showcasing successful practices applicable to diverse regions in Iran. Disseminating knowledge through online training courses, television programs, and instructional animations demonstrating sustainable solutions can help diminish reliance on the authoritarian governance of the Islamic Republic. Foreseeing potential uprisings in Iran, particularly arising from water and environmental crises, emphasizes the need to promote democratic practices in the agricultural and environmental sectors. In early 2024, severe air pollution led to school closures in major cities, prompting protests in Ardekan and Arak against regional pollution linked to local and national industrial policies. The substantial decline in rainfall and snowfall heightens the imminent risk of severe water shortages in the upcoming spring and summer, which suggest a likely escalation in protests and instability based on historical trends.

The prevailing patriarchal system in Iran has hindered genuine democratic experiences, impeding accountability for officials and elites. In contrast, the US environmental management evolution, driven by civil society activism, led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and pivotal legislation like the Clean Water Act. This empowered communities to influence projects, challenging top-down decision-making. The evolving social landscape in Iran provides an opportunity to transmit the experiences of American groups effectively. This would enable Iranians to envision impactful changes through civil means in their protests, aligning with the democratic values witnessed in US environmental governance.

Sharing knowledge builds trust and fosters cooperation and partnership between Iranians and Americans in alignment with US national interests, especially in the Persian Gulf region. While US institutions have shared rainfall and groundwater data with Iranian scientists, expanding these efforts is crucial. Disseminating valuable information to farmers, stakeholders, and shareholders in Iran is vital for informed decision-making and sustainable practices in water and environmental management.  Addressing financial constraints for talented Iranian students is essential and would empower them to study under top Iranian-American academics, facilitating knowledge exchange on updated water management methods. This collaborative effort within academia has the potential to significantly impact water and environmental management in Iran, contributing to the preservation of natural resources.

In a warming climate with a deteriorating water situation, Iran confronts declining livelihoods due to the Islamic Republic’s poor management, prompting potential mass migration and instability. Despite Iranians’ inclination to engage with the United States, a human-made drought affects them. In the post-Islamic Republic era, Iranians require the United States to be a reliable partner to navigate challenges while respecting integrity and choices. This partnership, which is crucial for US national security, should begin sooner rather than later. Iranian experts are prepared to establish their Mekorot today and initiate planning for a new environmental system to address resource mismanagement.

Nik Kowsar is an Iranian-Canadian water issues analyst. He produces and hosts a weekly TV show addressing Iran’s water situation, broadcast on several satellite TV channels. Follow him on X: @nikahang.

The post A thirsty reality: Iran’s dire water situation appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
What Bangladesh’s widely boycotted election reveals about its future  https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/what-bangladeshs-widely-boycotted-election-reveals-about-its-future/ Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:38:59 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=726102 The election results were a foregone conclusion, as there were no opposition parties contesting. But the results reveal a deeper entrenchment of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s party.

The post What Bangladesh’s widely boycotted election reveals about its future  appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
In an essentially uncontested election on January 7, the incumbent prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, and her party, the Bangladesh Awami League (BAL), returned to power for a fourth consecutive term. The result was not a surprise, but events around the election and the fault lines that were revealed could have ramifications for Bangladesh in the weeks and months ahead. 

The election drew international attention for several reasons, including as a case of geopolitical tug-of-war between Western nations on one hand (especially the United States) and India, China, and Russia on the other. The election was boycotted by Bangladesh’s opposition parties, including the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), while the BAL and its allies participated. The record of democratic backsliding under Hasina, described as “Asia’s iron lady,” and the country’s ongoing economic crisis, which forced it to seek loans from the International Monetary Fund, were the central issues of discussion in the international media in the run-up to the election and immediately after. Hasina’s election victories in 2014 and 2018 were similarly one-sided, as the ruling party, civil administration, and law enforcement agencies acted in unison to deliver a victory for her and the BAL. In the lead-up to this year’s election, the opposition demanded that Hasina resign, and a neutral administration oversee the election, like with the elections held between 1991 and 2008. The incumbent rejected the demand and forged ahead with the election. 

The peaceful opposition movement started in the summer of 2022 and faced a violent crackdown beginning on October 28, 2023. Since then, thousands of opposition leaders and activists have been arrested, more than 1,500 have been convicted, and the party offices of the BNP throughout the country have been put under lock and key by law enforcement agencies. The ruling party adopted various tactics to make the elections appear competitive, such as trying to split the BNP, founding new political parties to entice BNP leaders, coercing and cajoling individuals and parties to join the election, and fielding its leaders as “independent” candidates to provide the veneer of a participatory election. Violence between the supporters official BAL candidates and the independent candidates cost almost a dozen lives, and incidents of arson in public transport were reported, despite heightened security measures. 

Here are five takeaways from the election.

1. The election transformed Bangladesh into a one-party state

The election results were a foregone conclusion, as there were no opposition parties contesting. But the results revealed a deeper entrenchment of the BAL. Of the three hundred directly elected seats in parliament, the BAL alone secured 223, while “independents,” all of whom belong to the BAL, won sixty-two. This brings the total directly elected members of parliament loyal to the ruling party to 285—95 percent of the elected parliamentary seats. The BAL-aligned Jatiya Party (JP) won eleven seats, and Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal and Bangladesh Workers Party one seat each. Kalyan Party, which left the opposition movement immediately ahead of the election and was supported by the BAL and state apparatuses, has one seat. Only four candidates have been elected as independents who have no affiliation with any political parties. As such, nothing that could be described as an opposition exists in the parliament.

These facts alone point to one-party control over the state; however, the defining characteristic of the composition is that this provides all power to Sheikh Hasina. The party’s general secretary has even said that she will decide who will act as the opposition party in the parliament. In the previous two parliaments, JP was designated as the official parliamentary opposition. Now that the JP has fallen from the grace of the prime minister, it is still being speculated who Hasina will favor. This is a marker of a personalistic autocratic system. 

2. Even the turnout figures can no longer be trusted

Ahead of the election, the only uncertainty was voter turnout. With no formidable opposition in the race and calls from the opposition to boycott the election, it appeared that the most daunting challenge to the ruling party was to attract voters to the polling booths. As the voting began, it became apparent that turnout would be low. Yet, at the end of the day, the Chief Election Commissioner Kazi Habibul Awal claimed that turnout was 40 percent. The announcement was made in a bizarre manner. Awal, in a press briefing after the polling was closed, initially said that the turnout was 28 percent, but changed immediately to the higher figure at the prodding of his colleague. 

The 40 percent figure, described as “ridiculous” by experts, not only belied the facts as reported in the media throughout the day but also contradicted the Election Commission’s earlier accounts. Four hours after the polls opened, the Election Commission reported 18.50 percent turnout, and an hour before the polls were to close it was reported at 26.37 percent. Thus, according to this statement, almost 14 percent of votes were cast in the last hour. Interestingly, the Election Commission dashboard continued to have data that showed the turnout close to 28 percent. The earlier reported numbers as well as 28 percent were also seen as inflated

3. People resoundingly rejected the exercise

The electorate voted with their feet: By and large, they decided not to show up at the polling booth risking future persecution. Even if the official turnout statistic is taken at face value, 72 percent of voters stayed home. Three factors have made Bangladeshis shun the stage-managed show. First, the government’s efforts to make the race appear competitive by propping up dummy candidates exposed the farcical nature of the election. Second, the ongoing economic crisis has made them less interested in voting, which will have no bearing on the future course of the ruling party’s economic policies. Between 1991 and 2008, when Bangladesh held freely contested elections, voters were eager to oust incumbents and elevate the opposition to power. Third, the electorate seemed to heed the oppositions’ call to boycott the elections, an indication of high anti-incumbency sentiment and the popularity of the opposition parties.

4. The United States’ half-hearted actions fell short

Since the beginning of 2022, the United States insisted that Bangladesh hold a free, fair, and inclusive election, and it repeatedly warned that an election which does not meet these criteria won’t be acceptable. High-ranking US officials made several visits to Dhaka, and they met with Bangladeshi officials, including Hasina, in Washington and New York to try to sway her. Hasina portrayed this pressure as an attempt to depose her from power. 

In addition, the United States adopted a policy of allowing it to withhold visas from Bangladeshi officials who undermine democracy and called for a dialogue between two major parties to reach a solution. This promotion of democracy abroad was viewed as an integral part of the Biden administration’s foreign policy, with democracy and human rights as its cornerstones. There was widespread speculation that the United States would take punitive measures, including targeted sanctions, to push the Bangladeshi government toward a compromise. But these talks and postures were not backed with any concrete actions. 

As well, the United States’ close relationship with India seems to have made Washington’s options limited, and India’s unqualified support for the Hasina government prevailed. After the election, the US State Department and the British Foreign Office described the poll as “not free and fair,” but this pronouncement fell far short of the actions that prior US statements seemed to indicate it would take. 

5. The opposition is vindicated—but faces a tough road ahead

The opposition’s decision not to join the election, insisting that a fair election under the incumbent is not possible, has been vindicated, once again. The low turnout is one indication that the opposition’s boycott reflects popular sentiment. The opposition, especially the BNP, demonstrated that despite persecution and threats, it has remained intact. Its absence in the electoral process has exposed the government’s machinations. The BNP also showed that it can remain nonviolent despite provocations. But the movement also displayed the failure of the opposition to create a common platform to press for its demands and mobilize the people on the streets. Hasina’s characterization of the BNP during her election campaign as a “terrorist organization” does not bode well for its future. This is a message not only for the BNP, but to all the opposition parties and the critics of the ruling party.


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

The post What Bangladesh’s widely boycotted election reveals about its future  appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Russia faces fresh accusations of targeting journalists in Ukraine https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russia-faces-fresh-accusations-of-targeting-journalists-in-ukraine/ Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:07:05 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=725397 A series of Russian attacks on hotels used by international journalists has sparked fresh accusations that Moscow is deliberately targeting the media in Ukraine, writes Mercedes Sapuppo.

The post Russia faces fresh accusations of targeting journalists in Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
US-based international press freedom NGO the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is calling for an investigation into a series of recent Russian air strikes in Ukraine that injured journalists covering the war. The missile attacks in late December targeted a number of hotels known for hosting visiting international correspondents and representatives of international aid organizations.

Allegations that the Russian military may be purposely attacking locations used by members of the press and international aid workers are not new. In September 2023, Harvard University’s Nieman Journalism Lab published an article entitled “Evidence suggests Russia has been deliberately targeting journalists in Ukraine.” Ukraine’s National Union of Journalists has accused Russia of bombing sites frequented by journalists in order to intimidate correspondents and “limit coverage of the war in the international media.”

Numerous journalists covering the Russian invasion of Ukraine have voiced their concerns over Russian air strikes. The chief foreign affairs correspondent at the Wall Street Journal, Yaroslav Trofimov, noted recently that seven of the Ukrainian hotels he had stayed in had been struck by Russian missiles. “Russia is routinely bombing hotels in the east and the south, in part to make it more dangerous for journalists and NGOs to operate,” he posted on December 31, 2023.

Svitlana Dolbysheva, a Ukrainian translator working for German TV channel ZDF, was among those wounded on December 30 in a Russian air strike that partially destroyed Kharkiv’s Palace Hotel. “This is another Russian attack on the free press,” commented ZDF chief editor Bettina Schausten in the aftermath of the bombing. “ZDF will continue to report on the war against the Ukrainian civilian population.”

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.

Anton Skyba, who works as a freelance journalist and risk assessment trainer with Ukraine’s 2402 Fund NGO, argues that Russia’s attacks are meant “to disrupt and seed panic among journalists, media workers, aid workers, and different international counterparts.” He believes the Russian objective is to sew chaos and disorder, which will in the long run shield the Russian military from media scrutiny by making the work of journalists as difficult and dangerous as possible. In this context, he says, the terror tactics being employed are “quite pragmatic.”

The recent flurry of attacks on hotels has refocused attention on the safety of international media representatives in Ukraine. In summer 2023, a series of Russian air strikes behind the front lines in eastern Ukraine including an attack on a hotel in Pokrovsk sparked similar accusations that the Kremlin was attempting to distrupt international media coverage. At the time, the International Federation of Journalists responded by condemning “the targeting of facilities frequented by journalists,” while Peter Beaumont of the UK’s Guardian newspaper noted that the targeted locations were all used by journalists and said the bombings were “very much not a coincidence.” The Pokrovsk attack also prompted a coalition of 24 international civil society organizations to express alarm “at the continued targeting of media workers in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

Despite multiple examples of Russian air strikes against hotels and other venues known for hosting international correspondents, Moscow has consistently rejected allegations of any deliberate policy to target journalists in Ukraine. On numerous occasions, Kremlin officials have sought to justify specific attacks by claiming venues were being used by members of the Ukrainian military and were therefore legitimate targets.

Demonstrating the intent behind individual bombings amid Europe’s largest invasion since World War II would be extremely challenging. Any such efforts would also likely take a considerable amount of time and investigative resources. Nevertheless, many within the international media and civil society communities currently appear determined to hold Russia accountable.

As the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine approaches the two-year mark, the Russian army stands accused of committing a vast array of crimes. The list includes everything from summary executions and the widespread use of torture, to the bombardment of Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure and the destruction of entire towns and cities. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin himself has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for his role in the mass abduction of Ukrainian children.

The allegedly deliberate targeting of journalists in Ukraine by the Russian military is particularly alarming, as it suggests an attempt by the Kremlin to restrict media coverage of the invasion and prevent international audiences from learning about possible war crimes. It is important to thoroughly investigate these claims, both in order to make sure the crimes of the current war do not go unpunished, and to prevent such practices from becoming routine features of twenty-first century warfare.

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

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Russia faces fresh accusations of targeting journalists in Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
EU aspirations and Russian realities: Georgia at the geopolitical crossroads https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/eu-aspirations-and-russian-realities-georgia-at-the-geopolitical-crossroads/ Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:44:30 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=723949 2024 is shaping up to be a crucial year for Georgia’s EU aspirations. This could have implications for the wider region, while also challenging Russia’s own imperial ambitions in Georgia and beyond, writes Zviad Adzinbaia.

The post EU aspirations and Russian realities: Georgia at the geopolitical crossroads appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
On December 14, 2023, the European Union made history by designating Georgia as an official candidate country. On the same day, the European Council also confirmed its decision to start accession discussions with Ukraine and Moldova. European Council President Charles Michel heralded this as “a clear signal of hope for our continent.” Joseph Borrell, the EU’s Chief Diplomat, praised the move as an “historic step toward a stronger European Family.”

This breakthrough in Brussels added to the festive Christmas atmosphere in Tbilisi, with celebratory billboards soon greeting Georgians with the message, “Happy Candidate Status!” With Georgia scheduled to hold parliamentary elections in the final months of 2024, this recent progress on the path toward European integration is likely to play an important part in shaping the broader political mood in the country during the year ahead.

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.

More than two decades after the landmark Rose Revolution, Georgia finds itself at a geopolitical junction. The period since 2003 has not only shaped Georgia’s foreign and domestic policies, but has also highlighted the country’s longstanding ties to European civilization. Despite centuries of efforts by the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union to dilute this European identity, Georgia’s commitment to a European future has proven durable.

The significance of the EU’s recent decision to grant Georgia official candidate country status cannot be overstated, especially in light of the present Georgian government’s ambiguous stance toward the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. The authorities in Tbilisi have declined to join Western sanctions, choosing instead to maintain open borders with the Russian Federation and resume direct flights with Moscow. Since the start of the full-scale invasion, hundreds of thousands of Russians have flocked to Georgia.

Georgian attitudes toward Russia’s war in Ukraine reflect more than three decades of war and turmoil, including the 2008 Russian invasion of the country and ongoing Russian occupation of Georgia’s Abkhazia and Tskhinvali regions. The Georgian authorities have been accused of exploiting these social sensitivities to avoid adopting a firm stance in opposition to the attack on Ukraine. Some government officials have even accused the West of seeking to drag Georgia into the escalating confrontation with Moscow. Meanwhile, in spring 2023, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili made international headlines by blaming NATO for the invasion of Ukraine in comments that directly echoed Kremlin propaganda.

The current geopolitical tensions in Georgia only serve to amplify the importance of the EU’s recent decision regarding candidate country status. Crucially, this move solidifies Georgia’s European identity while frustrating the Kremlin’s efforts to promote an alternative vision of Georgia as part of a Moscow-led Eurasian space.

It also represents a significant milestone in the European Union’s enlargement into the Black Sea region, a process that raises the prospect of a free, united, and peaceful Europe. This post-Cold War ideal has arguably never been more relevant than in the current security environment amid the continent’s largest invasion since World War II.

EU candidate status is particularly welcome as it goes some way to addressing the widespread frustration felt in Tbilisi at the lack of progress over the past fifteen years following NATO’s 2008 commitment to future Ukrainian and Georgian membership of the alliance. While the prospect of progress toward EU membership cannot replace the security guarantees provided by NATO, it does represent an opportunity to anchor the country more firmly within the Western community of nations.

Georgia’s geopolitical trajectory will be a key issue as the country prepares to vote in parliamentary elections toward the end of the current year. Since taking power in 2012, the present Georgian authorities have been accused of reversing pro-democracy reforms and seeking to monopolize power while cracking down on the country’s opposition and civil society. EU candidacy will now test Georgia’s readiness to embrace issues such as judicial reform and anti-corruption measures, while also meeting EU expectations on human rights, media freedoms, electoral reform, and more.

According to the National Democratic Institute, nearly 80% of Georgians have consistently favored EU membership for over a decade. This enduring support, despite Moscow’s attempts to manipulate public opinion, suggests a deep-rooted commitment to European values and institutions throughout Georgian society. Looking ahead, 2024 is shaping up to be a crucial year for Georgia’s European aspirations. This could have implications for the wider region, while also creating fresh challenges for Russia’s own imperial ambitions in Georgia and beyond.

Zviad Adzinbaia is a Ph.D. Fellow in International Security at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and co-founder of LEADx Change, an International Leadership Accelerator and Public Square Summit based in Tbilisi.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post EU aspirations and Russian realities: Georgia at the geopolitical crossroads appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ecuador has declared ‘internal armed conflict’ against criminal gangs. What’s next? https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/ecuador-has-declared-internal-armed-conflict-against-criminal-gangs-whats-next/ Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:23:23 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=723206 Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa has mobilized the military to fight criminal groups in his country, following two notorious criminal leaders’ escape from prison.

The post Ecuador has declared ‘internal armed conflict’ against criminal gangs. What’s next? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa started the new year with a declaration of “internal armed conflict” against criminal groups, coupled with a sixty-day state of emergency. Earlier this week, two leaders of criminal groups—José Adolfo Macías Salazar, alias “Fito,” of the group Los Choneros, and Fabricio Colón Pico, alias “Capitan Pico,” from Los Lobos—escaped from prison. The escape was accompanied by a series of prison riots, car bombs, kidnappings, and criminal attacks on a television channel and a university in Guayaquil. The Noboa administration’s first steps to address the violence and turmoil have been positive, but this will be a long battle and one for which Ecuador urgently needs international support.

In December 2023, there had been a glimmer of hope. Ecuadorian Attorney General Diana Salazar carried out a large-scale investigation called Caso Metástasis. This operation exposed the extensive reach of criminal groups within the country’s state institutions, carrying out seventy-five raids and arresting more than two dozen individuals linked to organized crime across police forces, the military, the judiciary, and other state entities. The operation revealed the gravity of the problem and the extent of these groups’ reach and infiltration into Ecuadorian democracy. Days after the operation, Salazar declared that she had received multiple death threats from Pico. The leader of Los Lobos, who escaped from prison on January 8, is suspected of being one of the key players behind the assassination of former presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio.

Ecuador is now one of the most dangerous countries in the world, with a homicide rate of forty homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.

Noboa’s declaration of “internal armed conflict” allows for the mobilization of military forces to neutralize twenty-two crime groups in Ecuador. This declaration reveals the scale and complexity of the issue: The violent events that have haunted Ecuador in recent years surpass the traditional government-versus-criminal group battle, encompassing a larger fight for hostages, territory, and resources among criminal groups, with citizens often getting caught in the crossfire. Ecuador is now one of the most dangerous countries in the world, with a homicide rate of forty homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.

The state of emergency will allow the Noboa government to focus more military resources toward taking on these groups. However, inevitably, more attention to one group will mean less attention to others, causing a domino effect of violence that the country is likely to continue experiencing in the short term. Although the decision to declare a state of emergency and engage in armed conflict was the right one to address the security crisis, it is also one that will not be sustainable for long. The Noboa government faces financial constraints and a fiscal deficit, making it challenging to sustain a massive military operation against the profitable illicit economies managed by these criminal groups. An important next step for the government will be to determine exactly how to finance and budget for this new reality.

The Noboa government should keep prison control as an immediate priority. To stop crime in any country, authorities must be able to investigate crimes and count on their prison system to work. When prison systems fail, they can become recruitment and command-and-control centers for criminal groups, making it even harder to combat them. The prisons become liabilities for the government. While Noboa’s proposal to build new maximum-security prisons is a step in the right direction, it will take time to materialize. In the interim, prioritizing intelligence sharing and ensuring that the armed forces have necessary equipment are crucial. Surprisingly, Ecuador’s fragmented National Assembly has united and issued a statement, offering police and military officials amnesty from future prosecution for using excessive force in supporting the crackdown on organized crime, particularly in correctional facilities. This demonstrates a collective effort to address the crisis at the national level. 

Given the complexity of the issue and the absence of immediate actions to address its root cause, Ecuador will likely see a spike of violence in the short term as armed forces fight organized crime. In moments like this, the international community must move beyond speeches and mere statements of support. It must provide military equipment, intelligence sharing, capacity building, and enhanced protection of key figures such as Salazar and Noboa, recognizing that their well-being is integral to the preservation of Ecuador’s democracy. 

When prison systems fail, they serve as recruitment and command-and-control centers for criminal groups.

The impact of Ecuador’s crisis is not confined within its borders; it has repercussions for neighboring countries and, indirectly, the United States. South America plays a crucial role in global affairs, particularly with the significant increase in migration flows from the region, now surpassing migration from Central America’s Northern Triangle. Criminal organizations are taking advantage of these increased flows and profiting from human trafficking and exploitation. 

When societies and communities are infiltrated by fear, crime, and a lack of opportunity, citizens turn to familial economies and a dependence on profit from illicit work. Young adults who join criminal organizations often end up dead, maimed, or in jail, but they still choose to join because they consider that the cost of living their entire life in fear and poverty is much higher than as part of these groups. This change in perception and blurred morality is something the Noboa government needs to address with the help of international partners and organizations such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. These organizations emphasize the importance of joint efforts that go beyond government-level cooperation to foster a comprehensive approach involving community leaders, civil society organizations, shelters, and schools.

For far too long, policymakers have focused on addressing illicit economies from the supply angle. It is imperative that they address the demand for illicit economies that fuel and finance these criminal enterprises, as well. By increasing costs at different parts of the supply chain and enhancing law enforcement and accountability that extends beyond the border, engaging in organized crime becomes riskier and less profitable. More importantly, the international actors who are significant drivers of demand for smuggling drugs, humans, and arms should collaborate to prosecute these organizations. Only then might governments be able to limit their survival in the long term.

The next couple weeks will be crucial in determining the democratic future of Ecuador. Each decision made by the government and its counterparts carries profound implications for the daily lives of citizens grappling with the consequences of organized crime’s deep infiltration in their country.


Isabel Chiriboga is an assistant director at the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center and is originally from Ecuador.

The post Ecuador has declared ‘internal armed conflict’ against criminal gangs. What’s next? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
The case for a new Ukrainian Constitution https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-case-for-a-new-ukrainian-constitution/ Tue, 09 Jan 2024 20:20:32 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=722789 As Ukraine fights for its survival as a nation, it may be time to adopt a new constitution that matches the country's current realities and future ambitions, writes Brian Mefford.

The post The case for a new Ukrainian Constitution appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
No one expected the upstart American colonies to win a war of independence against the British Empire. However, after eight years of sacrifice, the underdog nation emerged victorious. The young country’s leaders then analyzed their weaknesses and realized that the existing framework for government needed changing in order to allow the nation to prosper. That led to the adoption of the United States Constitution, a document which has widely influenced the evolution of modern democracy over the last two centuries.

As Ukraine fights for its survival as a nation, it may be time for the country to adopt a new constitution of its own that matches current realities. Ukraine’s present Constitution was created in 1996 and was designed to supersede the 1978 Constitution of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Even though its adoption was a significant step forward in Ukraine’s state-building process, the influence of Soviet socialism was still clearly evident in the document as it was written in 1996.

In addition, it is worth underlining that when the current Constitution was adopted, the newly independent Ukrainian nation was in the midst of an identity crisis and was still struggling to define the nature of its post-Soviet relationship with Russia. It would not be until the Orange Revolution in 2004 that Ukraine established a truly independent identity.

Since 1996, revisions to the Ukrainian Constitution have created further issues. As part of the compromise reached during the Orange Revolution to bring about a peaceful transition of power, constitutional amendments were passed to create a weakened presidency and turn the country into a parliamentary republic. It is often forgotten that the primary author of these amendments was Viktor Medvedchuk, a man with close ties to the Kremlin who was facing treason charges even prior to Russia’s full-scale 2022 invasion.

This now looks particularly inappropriate. At a time when Ukraine is seeking to consolidate its European identity and distance itself from any remaining links to the Russian imperial past, why keep a Constitution shaped by one of the most notorious pro-Kremlin figures of modern Ukrainian history?

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.

Many of the more problematic aspects of Ukraine’s Constitution are not related to Medvedchuk’s involvement and can be traced to the document’s conception. For example, the Ukrainian Constitution attempts to cover every imaginable legal contingency and contains 161 articles. In comparison, the US Constitution contains a mere seven articles.

Another key complaint is that the Ukrainian Constitution essentially makes promises the government cannot keep. Citizens are assured of everything from free housing to free medical care and free higher education. In practice, this has proven impossible.

Its not uncommon for constitutions to promise and even guarantee such basic needs, of course. However, the countries that successfully meet these commitments tend to be mature Western democracies with advanced economies that can afford to pay for massive social support programs.

It should be noted that the US Constitution does not guarantee basic needs such as healthcare and education. Instead, provision is delegated to state, federal, or local governments. With a new constitution, Ukraine could similarly delegate social welfare to state agencies, parliament, oblast administrations, municipal authorities, or other government institutions which actually have the capacity to fulfill public needs.

Crucially, Ukraine’s Constitution in its current form remains little known to the wider public. While the average American can often tell you why they like or dislike various different amendments, most Ukrainians are unfamiliar with the details of their country’s Constitution and know little about what rights it actually contains.

A June 2019 survey by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation showed that 47 percent of Ukrainians had never read their Constitution, while 67 percent wanted to have the Constitution amended. It would be fair to say that the current Ukrainian Constitution is hardly near and dear to the hearts of Ukrainians.

Ukraine is clearly not the country it was during the uncertain early years of independence in the 1990s. For that matter, Ukraine is also no longer the nation it was at the time of the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution. Russia’s ongoing invasion, which began in early 2014 with the seizure of Crimea and escalated dramatically in February 2022, has changed everything.

Today’s Ukraine is undergoing an historic transformation in the crucible of war. It has rejected the legacy of authoritarian empire, exited the geopolitical wilderness, and is now firmly set on a trajectory toward full integration within the European community of nations.

In the current circumstances, merely tweaking or correcting aspects of the existing Ukrainian Constitution is no longer an option. Instead, Ukraine requires an entirely new Constitution reflecting the magnitude of the changes that have taken place in the country over the past decade. This new Constitution should aim to capture the hearts and minds of Ukrainian citizens, while providing a practical framework for the modern European nation that Ukraine seeks to become.

Brian Mefford is the Director of Wooden Horse Strategies, LLC, a governmental-relations and strategic communications firm based in Kyiv, Ukraine. He is a senior nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council and has lived and worked in Ukraine since 1999.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post The case for a new Ukrainian Constitution appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
How strong is Russian public support for the invasion of Ukraine? https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/how-strong-is-russian-public-support-for-the-invasion-of-ukraine-2/ Tue, 09 Jan 2024 18:46:32 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=722690 Many in the West argue that the majority of Russians support the invasion of Ukraine. However, nuanced analysis of Russian polling data indicates this is not the case, and suggests the Russian public is actually more concerned with how soon the war will end, writes Vladimir Milov.

The post How strong is Russian public support for the invasion of Ukraine? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Many in the West continue to argue that the majority of Russians support the invasion of Ukraine. However, nuanced analysis of Russian polling data indicates this is not the case, and suggests the Russian public is actually more concerned with how soon the war will end. This may already be forcing Vladimir Putin to adjust his public position on the invasion.

During Putin’s flagship December 2023 televised press conference, the event hosts told Putin they had received a “flurry” of questions asking when the war will end. This tallies with the findings of the Levada Center, which asked Russians prior to the press conference what they would like to ask Putin. According to another Russian pollster, Russian Field, respondents also recently prioritized the end of the war when asked to state their wishes for 2024.

Based on Russian Field polling, a solid majority of Russians oppose a potential second wave of mobilization. Meanwhile, data from both Russian Field and Levada shows a clear preference for peace talks over a continuation of the war. A Levada poll conducted in November 2023 indicated that while nominal support for the invasion of Ukraine remained high at 73 percent, the number of respondents who offered firm, unquestioned backing rather than those who “more support than oppose” the war had actually fallen from a peak of 53 percent in March 2022 to just 39 percent. This looks a lot more like conformism rather than active support for 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.

While polling data in an authoritarian society such as Putin’s Russia must be treated with caution, recent trends identified by Levada and Russian Field are confirmed by a source close to the Kremlin. Valery Fedorov is director of Kremlin-loyal pollster WCIOM and an official advisor to the first deputy chairman of Russia’s presidential administration. In a September 2023 interview with Russia’s RBC, Fedorov reluctantly acknowledged that the number of Russians who actively and enthusiastically support Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine is not more than 10-15 percent of the population. “The majority of Russians do not want to seize Kyiv or Odesa,” he commented. ‘If it was up to them whether to the start the “special military operation,” they probably would not have done it.”

Recent WCIOM research also acknowledges a sharp decline in both viewership and audience trust toward Russia’s state propaganda television channels. In 2023, just 40 percent of Russians cited state TV as their main source of information, down from 53 percent five years earlier. Since 2016, trust in Russian state channels as “objective” sources of information has almost halved, plunging from 46 percent to 26 percent.

Interestingly, only five percent of Russians under the age of 25 regard state TV as an objective source of information, compared to 51 percent of those aged 60 and over. This age breakdown is important if one wants to predict future trends. The patterns evident in media consumption match broader attitudes toward the war, with Levada finding that 56 percent of those aged 65 and above unconditionally back the invasion, with this figure shrinking to just 30 percent for those aged below 25.

Clearly, demography is against Putin, with younger Russians far more skeptical about the war. Indeed, a selective analysis of polling data excluding Russians over the age of 50, who were most traumatized by the Soviet and early post-Soviet experience and are therefore most easily susceptible to propaganda, would present a strikingly different picture of current attitudes toward the invasion of Ukraine.

Based on the findings of different pollsters and non-polling criteria, a picture emerges of conscious support for the invasion of Ukraine among a significant number of Russians representing 30 percent to 40 percent of the population. This is not an unusual figure for totalitarian societies that run on fear and propaganda. Nevertheless, it is not a majority position. The available evidence indicates that the majority of Russians want the war to end, with support for the invasion fading over time and increasingly concentrated among older generations.

Similar trends can be seen in relation to military service. A range of polls show that between 50 and 60 percent of Russians reject a second wave of mobilization. This is a key reason why Putin has been reluctant to announce further mobilization over the past year or so, despite the obvious need to do so. As a result, soldiers mobilized in the final months of 2022 are stuck on the front lines of the war with little chance of any break in their service, prompting protests from family members. Polling indicates that a majority of Russians support calls from the wives of mobilized soldiers for their demobilization.

This is particularly bad news for Putin. It reveals that during almost two years of full-scale war, he has been unable to induce Russians to volunteer for combat in sufficient numbers. There are no lines at army recruitment points in the central squares of Russian cities. Instead, according to the Conflict Intelligence Team and other independent analysis, official numbers of “volunteer recruits” are wildly exaggerated. Russians may be prepared to “support” the war verbally, but they are clearly not rushing to fight themselves.

The most recent indication that Putin may be worried about waning public enthusiasm for the war against Ukraine came in his 2024 New Year address. One year earlier, Putin filmed his annual address alongside soldiers in uniform, with his speech focusing largely on the invasion of Ukraine. This year, however, he opted for a more familiar Kremlin backdrop and only mentioned the war in passing before switching to more mundane topics.

Putin understands the mood in Russia better than many Western commentators, and he appears to sense a declining public appetite for the invasion he unleashed almost two years ago. If this trend continues, it could further constrain Putin and his actions.

Vladimir Milov is Vice President for International Advocacy at the Free Russia Foundation.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post How strong is Russian public support for the invasion of Ukraine? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
GCH Nonresident Fellow Lev Nachman quoted in NPR https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/gch-nonresident-fellow-lev-nachman-quoted-in-npr/ Mon, 08 Jan 2024 21:50:10 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=722388 On January 8, GCH Nonresident Fellow Lev Nachman was quoted in NPR on the significance of Taiwan’s presidential election to the Taiwanese people.

The post GCH Nonresident Fellow Lev Nachman quoted in NPR appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

On January 8, GCH Nonresident Fellow Lev Nachman was quoted in NPR on the significance of Taiwan’s presidential election to the Taiwanese people.

The post GCH Nonresident Fellow Lev Nachman quoted in NPR appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Russia’s invasion aims to erase Ukrainian cultural identity https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-invasion-aims-to-erase-ukrainian-cultural-identity/ Thu, 04 Jan 2024 21:11:22 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=721271 Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine seeks to destroy Ukraine's national heritage and erase Ukrainian identity. The authorities in Kyiv should respond by placing Ukrainian culture at the heart of the country's recovery efforts, writes Martha Holder.

The post Russia’s invasion aims to erase Ukrainian cultural identity appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
As Ukrainians fight for their country’s survival amid Russia’s ongoing invasion, defending Ukraine’s culture has never been more important. With Russia openly seeking to extinguish Ukrainian statehood and erase Ukrainian identity, safeguarding Ukrainian culture should be recognized as a national priority. This could be highlighted in Ukraine’s National Recovery Plan at both the national and local levels, reflecting the key role cultural identity has played in sustaining the country during the barely conceivable horrors of the invasion unleashed almost two years ago by Vladimir Putin.

Ukraine has already achieved what many regard as a decisive moral victory in the war against Russia. While Kremlin propagandists deny Ukraine’s right to exist and Putin insists Ukrainians are actually Russians (“one people”), the outpouring of Ukrainian national pride since February 2022 has been instrumental in fueling the country’s remarkable resilience and spirit of resistance.

As the invasion approaches the two-year mark, it is now obvious that Putin and other Russian leaders seriously underestimated the strength of Ukrainian national identity. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that eradicating all traces of Ukrainian identity remains a core Russian war aim. Speaking to the New York Times in December 2022, UN rapporteur for cultural rights Alexandra Xanthaki explained that Russia sought not merely to capture Ukrainian territory, but to achieve the gradual destruction of Ukraine’s cultural life. “One of the justifications of the war is that Ukrainians don’t have a distinct cultural identity,” she noted.

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 assault on Ukrainian cultural identity can be seen in everything from the widespread looting of national treasures to the targeted destruction of historic sites including museums, theaters, libraries, and monuments. These attacks are evidence of an intentional Kremlin campaign to eradicate Ukraine’s distinct culture and heritage.

Prominent targets have included a museum dedicated to Ukrainian folk artist Maria Prymachenko in Kyiv region, the Sviatohirsk Monastery in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk region, the Transfiguration Cathedral within the UNESCO-listed historic city center of Odesa in southern Ukraine, and a Kharkiv museum dedicated to eighteenth century Ukrainian philosopher Hryhorii Skovoroda. In recognition of the growing threat posed to Ukraine’s cultural heritage, UNESCO has placed a number of historic Ukrainian landmarks on its list of endangered sites.

Russia’s invasion is not only destroying the physical manifestations of Ukraine’s cultural heritage. It is also claiming the lives of Ukrainians at the forefront of shaping the country’s contemporary cultural landscape. One prominent victim was Victoria Amelina, an award-winning 37-year-old novelist and poet who was killed by a Russian missile in July 2023 while dining in a restaurant in eastern Ukraine.

At the time of her death, Amelina was attempting to preserve the works of other Ukrainian artists and poets killed or exiled during Russia’s invasion. “My worst fear is coming true: I’m inside a new Executed Renaissance. As in the 1930s, Ukrainian artists are killed, their manuscripts disappear, and their memory is erased,” she wrote in the foreword to the published diary of another author, Volodymyr Vakulenko, who was murdered during the 2022 Russian occupation of Izium.

The Putin regime’s attempts to suppress Ukrainian national culture and identity are part of a Russian imperial tradition stretching back hundreds of years. This is most immediately apparent in the long history of restrictions imposed on the use of the Ukrainian language. Russian attempts to ban the Ukrainian language began in the early seventeenth century and include over 100 separate measures adopted by successive imperial administrations throughout the Tsarist and Soviet eras. The chilling end goal of this linguistic imperialism can be seen in a mid-nineteenth century Tsarist decree stating that the Ukrainian language “never existed, does not exist, and shall not exist.”

So far, the Putin regime’s efforts to erase Ukraine’s cultural identity appear to be backfiring. Indeed, amid the death and destruction of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukrainians are embracing their culture, history, and identity in unprecedented ways.

Since February 2022, millions of Ukrainians have adopted the Ukrainian language in their everyday lives. Ukrainian historical narratives that were suppressed for generations by the forces of Russian imperialism are now being rediscovered and are transforming perceptions of what it means to be Ukrainian. From poetry to pop music, contemporary Ukrainian culture is experiencing a golden age.

It is imperative that this consolidation of Ukrainian identity is embedded in the country’s recovery agenda, both at the ministerial level and via the National Council for the Recovery of Ukraine. While numerous similar heritage preservation initiatives are currently underway, it makes sense to prioritize the protection of cultural identity within broader national recovery efforts. Supporting individuals and institutions as they continue to engage with the essence of “being Ukrainian” is vital for the country’s future. It is also the perfect response to Russia’s dreams of wiping Ukraine off the map altogether.

Martha Holder is a board member at the Foundation to Preserve Ukraine’s Sacral Arts and a member of the Ukrainian National Women’s League of America. She previously worked in international development at the World Bank (1994-2016).

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Russia’s invasion aims to erase Ukrainian cultural identity appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Belarus opposition are key allies in the fight against Russian imperialism https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/belarus-opposition-are-key-allies-in-the-fight-against-russian-imperialism/ Thu, 04 Jan 2024 20:06:09 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=721213 Russia’s invasion of Ukraine dominates Europe’s geopolitical agenda, but neighboring Belarus is also a critical battleground in the fight back against Putin’s resurgent brand of Russian imperialism, write Tatsiana Kulakevich and Michael Berg.

The post Belarus opposition are key allies in the fight against Russian imperialism appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine currently dominates Europe’s geopolitical agenda, but neighboring Belarus is also a critical battleground in the fight back against Vladimir Putin’s resurgent brand of Russian imperialism.

The activities of Belarus’s democratic opposition warrant greater international attention. This can help raise awareness of the many people currently incarcerated by the Belarusian authorities, along with the millions more who have been robbed of basic human rights by the Lukashenka regime. Crucially, amplifying the efforts of Belarus’s opposition movement also helps debunk efforts to claim widespread public acceptance of the existing political realities in the country.

It is now almost three and a half years since Belarus was rocked by nationwide pro-democracy protests following the country’s deeply flawed August 2020 presidential vote. Belarus’s autocratic leader Alyaksandr Lukashenka was eventually able to suppress this protest movement and remain in power thanks largely to backing from the Kremlin, but he emerged from the crisis more dependent than ever on Russia for his continued political survival.

Today’s Belarusian authorities are widely seen as puppets of the Kremlin, with the country playing a significant role as a junior partner in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, there are ample indications of ongoing resistance to the Lukashenka regime. Exiled 2020 presidential candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya is widely recognized as the leader of the country’s democratic movement and travels extensively to rally international support for political change in Belarus. In Ukraine, significant numbers of Belarusians are currently fighting against the Russian invasion in the Kastus Kalinouski regiment and other volunteer units.

Inside Belarus itself, the draconian policies of the Lukashenka regime make any public opposition extremely difficult. Thousands have been jailed on charges of “extremism,” while nearly 1,500 individuals in Belarus are currently considered political prisoners. Nevertheless, activists have found ways to protest the policies of the Lukashenka regime via cyber attacks and the disruption of Russian military traffic on the country’s rail network.

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.

Giving more attention to the activities of the Belarusian democratic movement is particularly important at a time when some European Union governments are still maintaining dialogue with Lukashenka. Any unconditional attempts to reengage with the current Belarusian authorities would risk legitimizing the widespread repression of opposition-minded Belarusians since August 2020. It would also ignore the country’s role in the war against Ukraine. Moreover, the normalization of relations with Lukashenka would send a dangerous signal to Putin that the West lacks strategic patience and prefers unsustainable compromises to conflicts.

An enhanced international media spotlight could help the Belarusian opposition to counter the Lukashenka regime’s domestic disinformation efforts. Belarus is currently recognized as one of the world’s most hostile countries for independent media, and was ranked 157th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2023 World Press Freedom Index.

Belarus’s official state media outlets promote Kremlin-friendly narratives while claiming that the vast majority of an estimated 500,000 Belarusians who fled the country since August 2020 now want to come home. In February 2023, Lukashenka even signed a decree creating a commission to work with citizens who wish to return to their homeland. Belarusian democratic forces have countered these claims by highlighting the detention of returnees. According to human rights organization Viasna, at least 58 Belarusians were arrested after crossing the border in 2022 and early 2023.

Crucially, Belarusian democratic forces have been drawing attention to growing Russian control over their country, a process many observers have likened to a “creeping annexation” by the Kremlin. Since the watershed events of August 2020, Russia has expanded its economic and political influence in Belarus, while also dramatically increasing its military presence in the country. In February 2022, Putin used Belarus as a base for Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. More recently, Russian tactical nuclear weapons have reportedly been deployed in Belarus.

While the Kremlin’s tactics may differ, Russia is broadly pursuing the same imperial objectives in both Belarus and Ukraine. In addition to backing Lukashenka politically in Belarus, Moscow also supports the regime’s efforts to suppress the nation’s language and culture.

A December 2023 statement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declaring the advancement of the Union State, a longstanding bilateral agreement which allows for deepening integration between the two states, indicates Moscow’s intention to further tighten its grip on Belarus in the coming period. Putin is widely believed to view control over Belarus and Ukraine as essential for his dreams of a revived Russian Empire.

It is abundantly clear that European security is impossible without peace in Ukraine. Stability throughout Europe is equally impossible without a free and independent Belarus. The Belarusian democratic opposition has been fighting for years to give voice to the aspirations of the Belarusian people and raise the alarm over Russia’s creeping takeover of the country. It is in the interests of the democratic world to support the Belarusian opposition and highlight their efforts whenever possible.

Tatsiana Kulakevich is an Associate Professor of Instruction at the University of South Florida School of Interdisciplinary Global Studies. Michael Berg is a project assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Geotech Center.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Belarus opposition are key allies in the fight against Russian imperialism appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Nonresident Senior Fellow Michael Schuman in the Atlantic: Xi Jinping Is Fighting a Culture War at Home https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/nonresident-senior-fellow-michael-schuman-in-the-atlantic-xi-jinping-is-fighting-a-culture-war-at-home/ Thu, 21 Dec 2023 22:21:55 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=719149 On December 20, Nonresident Senior Fellow Michael Schuman’s latest article in The Atlantic looked at Xi Jinping’s new culture war and how this may lead to “an ever more isolated, indoctrinated, and politicized Chinese populace [that] could become that much more hostile to the West and more supportive of nationalist causes.”

The post Nonresident Senior Fellow Michael Schuman in the Atlantic: Xi Jinping Is Fighting a Culture War at Home appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

On December 20, Nonresident Senior Fellow Michael Schuman’s latest article in The Atlantic looked at Xi Jinping’s new culture war and how this may lead to “an ever more isolated, indoctrinated, and politicized Chinese populace [that] could become that much more hostile to the West and more supportive of nationalist causes.”

The post Nonresident Senior Fellow Michael Schuman in the Atlantic: Xi Jinping Is Fighting a Culture War at Home appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Need a book on the Middle East to read during the holidays? Here’s our recommendations https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/holiday-mena-reads-2023/ Thu, 21 Dec 2023 20:22:20 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=718983 Our team of experts and staff have you covered with their recommended reads related to the Middle East and North Africa for the holidays.

The post Need a book on the Middle East to read during the holidays? Here’s our recommendations appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
It’s that time of year, when all you want to do is cozy up by the fireplace or lounge by the beach and read. Our team of experts and staff have you covered with their recommended reads related to the Middle East and North Africa for the holidays. We promise you won’t be disappointed.

‘Vision or Mirage: Saudi Arabia at the Crossroads’ by David Rundell

Saudi Arabia is a mid-sized country with outsized influence due to the unique global role it has played in energy markets, within the Islamic community, and as a security partner to the United States. If you want to understand its history, its relationship with the United States, and its domestic ambitions and challenges, then you should pick up Vision or Mirage by David Rundell, who is an American diplomat who spent thirty years in the country. 

This book helps frame the most important question about the country today: is the bigger risk that Saudi Arabia is not reforming fast enough or that it is reforming too fast? The former is what I often hear from critics in Washington, but the latter is what people elsewhere in the region are worried about.  

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

‘Black Wave: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Forty-Year Rivalry That Unraveled Culture, Religion, and Collective Memory in the Middle East’ by Kim Ghattas

Black Wave offers an excellent and well-researched account of the intricate developments of the Middle East in the wake of the 1979 Iranian revolution. It reflects not only historical facts and data but also inside stories and firsthand accounts that have not been presented before. The book delves into many of the root causes of the current geopolitical trends that affect not only the Middle East but the world. For instance, it covers the relationship and competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the rise of interstate or cross-border groups undermining state authorities, and sectarian conflicts. It’s very insightful. 

Nadereh Chamlou is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s empowerME initiative and an international development advisor.

Russian-Arab Worlds: A Documentary History by Eileen Kane, Masha Kirasirova, and  Margaret Litvin 

One of the best books published in 2023 on Russia’s relations with the Middle East is one that policy-oriented audiences are likely to miss but really shouldn’t: Russian-Arab Worlds: A Documentary History. Edited by two history professors (Eileen Kane and Masha Kirasirova) and one Arabic/comparative literature professor (Margaret Litvin), the book is a compilation of thirty-four documents written between 1773 and 2019 by Russians and Middle Easterners (with expert introductions to each) on various aspects of their multifaceted relationship with each other.

Several of these documents show that the Middle East has not been a passive arena in which Russian governments have acted. Instead, various Middle Easterners have actively sought to interact with Russia. Other documents describe how the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, in particular, fostered Russian popular interest in Palestine and an affinity for Russia in the Levant.

Above all, this collection of documents provides a sense of the deep roots of Russian soft power in the Middle East. This is something Western foreign policymakers need to understand.

Dr. Mark N. Katz is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs.

‘Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Tell You Everything You Need to Know About Global Politics’ by Tim Marshall

Prisoners of Geography has been a staple on my bookshelf since 2015, when it was originally published, but I took the opportunity to review it after October 7.

The chapter on the Middle East explores how geography has shaped its history, politics, and conflicts. The region is divided by mountains, deserts, rivers, and seas, creating natural barriers and borders that have influenced the identities and alliances of its people. Its oil wealth, water scarcity, and religious diversity have further contributed to its instability and violence. The chapter covers topics such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, the rise and fall of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Kurdish situation, and the challenges of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

While time has passed since its initial publication, the themes stand the test of time. The Middle East is a complex and dynamic region often misunderstood and misrepresented by outsiders. However, the region’s geography is not destiny but rather a factor that must be considered when trying to understand and resolve its problems. If you are interested in the transformation of the Middle East, dig into the other two books in the Tim Marshall trilogy: The Power of Geography: Ten Maps That Reveal the Future of Our World and The Future of Geography: How the Competition in Space Will Change Our World.

Marcy Grossman is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Programs and former Canadian ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. 

‘Syria’s Secret Library: Reading and Redemption in a Town Under Siege’ by Mike Thomson

Many of us agree that libraries possess a kind of charm that can captivate a visitor upon stepping in—whether it’s the smell of rustic shelves, the orderly display of books, or the soothing sound of silence embodying the space. If you can relate to this experience, then Syria’s Secret Library is for you.

In the government-besieged town of Daraya, a group of Syrian civilians find a glimmer of hope amid the horrors of death and destruction brought by the civil war in a small underground library that they secretly built from scratch. In a series of exchanged letters and phone calls with these librarians, BBC journalist Mike Thomson documents the journey of this library and that of its guardians, who find refuge through literature and purpose to be enlightened in the darkest of times.

Nour Dabboussi is the program assistant to the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Programs.

‘Moroccan OtherArchivesHistory and Citizenship after State Violence’ by Brahim El Guabli

Moroccan Other-Archives investigates how histories of exclusion and silencing are written and rewritten in a postcolonial context that lacks organized and accessible archives. The book draws on cultural production concerning the “years of lead”―a period of authoritarianism and political violence between Morocco’s independence in 1956 and the death of King Hassan II in 1999―to examine the transformative roles memory and trauma play in reconstructing stories of three historically marginalized groups in Moroccan history: the Berbers/Imazighen, the Jews, and political prisoners.

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

‘The Vanished Imam: Musa al Sadr and the Shia of Lebanon’ by Fouad Ajami

Written by the late scholar Fouad Ajami, The Vanished Imam offers a personal account of the charismatic religious and political leader Sayyid Musa al Sadr. The book details his life from the mid-twentieth century to his mysterious disappearance in the summer of 1978. Exploring the history of southern Lebanon, where a sizeable Lebanese Shia population resides, Ajami eloquently intertwines the narrative of the imam’s tireless efforts for reform and the countless struggles he faced; it is a tale of his commitment to his community and adopted country—all set against the backdrop of increasingly challenging circumstances.

For those watching the developments currently playing out across southern Lebanon, this is a highly recommended read, as it provides a valuable glimpse into the origins of the Amal Movement and Hezbollah.

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

The post Need a book on the Middle East to read during the holidays? Here’s our recommendations appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukraine’s EU accession process faces bureaucratic and political hurdles https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-eu-accession-process-faces-bureaucratic-and-political-hurdles/ Tue, 19 Dec 2023 20:52:47 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=718108 The European Council’s recent decision to open accession negotiations with Ukraine was a momentous moment both for Kyiv and the European Union. Now the serious work begins, writes James Batchik.

The post Ukraine’s EU accession process faces bureaucratic and political hurdles appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
The European Council’s recent decision to open accession negotiations with Ukraine was a momentous moment both for Kyiv and the European Union. Now the serious work begins.

Ukraine’s EU story is a decade in the making. Ukraine’s European aspirations were a driving factor behind the 2013-14 Revolution of Dignity. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022, Ukraine’s EU integration has received a much-needed push, with both Ukrainian and EU leaders treating the country’s EU bid with fresh seriousness. The European Council’s green light for the opening of accession negotiations means Ukraine has now taken a major step closer to realizing its EU ambitions.

The coming negotiations to bring Ukraine into line with EU standards and regulations will be a technocratic and political feat. The European Commission, the EU’s executive, will be the contact throughout this process. The European Council, made up of the EU’s twenty-seven member states, must formally approve Ukraine’s progress.

Membership in the EU is not a foregone conclusion for Ukraine. On the contrary, Kyiv will now have its work cut out. Ukraine has already implemented a series of reforms including to its judiciary, minority rights, and anti-corruption legislation to meet European Commission conditions before the opening of membership talks, but that was just the beginning. Ukraine will now need to align with the EU’s vast body of rules and procedures, known as the acquis communautaire or acquis for short. These cover everything from economic and trade policies, public finances, rule of law, education, and tax policies to energy infrastructure and agriculture rules.

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.

Following the recent Council Summit, and once Ukraine fulfills the final measures set out in the Commission’s recommendations, the European Commission will draft a framework for negotiations for approval by the Council. Negotiations are broken down into thirty-five distinct categories or “Chapters.” These chapters make up the EU’s acquis from judiciary and fundamental rights to the free movement of goods and intellectual property, energy and transport policy, and so on.

Once the Commission and Council are satisfied Ukraine has implemented the necessary reforms to close each chapter one by one, the Commission will generate a final recommendation for Ukraine to become a member. The Council and the European Parliament must then approve, with the final step coming when all existing member states sign and ratify a treaty welcoming Ukraine to the EU.

While tedious, these rules are critical to the EU’s basic functioning. The building blocks of the EU, such as the single market, require shared rules across all members to function and ensure a level playing field. The EU must be able to facilitate seamless cross-border trade and movement, for example. The same logic applies to rule of law and political stability, which impact the integrated economies and societies of other EU members.

If the process sounds long and burdensome, that’s because it is. Membership negotiations have usually taken around a decade for successful candidates in the past. Croatia, the last successful candidate to join the bloc, took ten years. Ukraine’s case is new territory. There has never been a candidate that is fighting a war for survival as it pursues these reforms, which brings up questions about how enlargement will work.

There is also a political element that adds uncertainty to Ukraine’s accession process. All decisions by the European Council during this process require unanimity, thereby giving each member state a veto at any stage. Should any member feel dissatisfied for any reason, even for issues not related to a candidate country’s reform efforts, they may unilaterally block the process.

Politicking around enlargement has happened before. Greece and Bulgaria have both separately used vetoes on North Macedonia’s accession due to domestic politics and bilateral spats. Countries have also delayed enlargement before due to concerns over the EU’s internal functioning. For Ukraine, this was already on full display as leaders dreamed up a theatrical solution around Hungary’s veto of Ukraine’s accession negotiations. There are also concerns over the implications of Ukrainian membership for domestic priorities including Poland’s agricultural sector. The politics of enlargement have contributed to recent enlargement fatigue, which has specifically plagued candidates from the Western Balkans, who have been relegated to the EU’s waiting room for decades.

The earlier reluctance of EU members to embrace further enlargement also speaks to another potential wrinkle in Ukraine’s EU bid: Internal EU reform. EU member states are hotly debating the future functioning of the EU including, for example, the use of unanimity in critical decision-making. This reform process will directly impact Ukraine’s accession. With some members pushing for internal reform before taking on new members including Ukraine, Kyiv’s bid looks to be increasingly vulnerable to political factors not related to its own reforms.

Finally, without reforms, Ukraine’s size and level of development also risks capsizing the EU’s internal transfer system of agricultural and structural subsidies. This could transform member states that currently benefit from EU funds into net contributors to the budget of a union that includes Ukraine.

The timeline of Ukraine’s EU integration will depend both on Ukraine and the EU’s ambitions. Ukraine will fundamentally control the pace and seriousness of its reforms. The EU for its part will have to find a way to square the circle of maintaining momentum on Ukraine’s enlargement effort while not letting Ukraine’s EU aspirations get bogged down in internal squabbles or caught up in debates about EU reform.

Despite these challenges, Ukraine’s EU progress remains hugely significant. It is inspirational for the people of Ukraine, who remain determined to chart their country’s free and democratic trajectory, and for Europe as a geopolitical actor, pushing to secure Ukraine’s place in the West. Getting there will be a tall, but necessary, order.

James Batchik is an assistant director with the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Ukraine’s EU accession process faces bureaucratic and political hurdles appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Russia’s invasion cannot derail Ukraine’s rule of law reforms https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-invasion-cannot-derail-ukraines-rule-of-law-reforms/ Thu, 07 Dec 2023 19:57:56 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=713663 As Ukraine defends itself against Russia's invasion, the country is also pursuing an ambitious reform agenda that is primarily focused on transforming the Ukrainian legal system and establishing the rule of law, write MPs Denys Maslov and Oleksandr Vasiuk.

The post Russia’s invasion cannot derail Ukraine’s rule of law reforms appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has transformed the international environment in a way rarely witnessed since the end of the Cold War. It has mobilized the entire democratic world, while also underlining the importance of a free and independent Ukraine for the future of global security.

With Russia’s invasion now approaching the two-year mark, it is increasingly clear that the outcome of the war will shape the geopolitical climate for decades to come. Ukraine is set to play a key role not only in the stability of Eastern Europe, but also in terms of global food and energy security.

If it is to meet the historic challenges that lie ahead, Ukraine must be able to defend itself. This will require substantial and sustained military aid from the country’s partners. In addition to this immediate focus on strengthening security, it is also vital for Ukraine to continue pursuing reforms in order to counter corruption, bolster national institutions, and consolidate the country’s democracy.

Nothing on Ukraine’s reform agenda is more important than judicial reform. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that Ukraine’s future prosperity and international position depend on the effective reform of the country’s legal system. This is well understood in Kyiv’s corridors of power. Against the backdrop of Russia’s ongoing invasion, Ukraine continues to work with international partners to implement effective rule of law reforms.

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.

Judicial reform has been consistently close to the top of the government’s agenda ever since President Zelenskyy was first elected in 2019, and has remained so in the current wartime environment. Progress has included fulfilling the conditions set by the European Commission regarding the composition of the High Council of Justice and the High Qualification Commission of Judges. Changes have also been introduced to the selection procedure for Constitutional Court judges in line with Venice Commission recommendations.

As part of efforts to counter the threat of politically motivated appointments within the Ukrainian justice system, Ukraine has taken the unprecedented step of involving the country’s international partners in the selection of members to serve on reformed judicial bodies. For example, selection committees have featured the participation of senior British and American officials with extensive experience in the UK and US justice systems. Following months of consultations and negotiations with the Venice Commission and the European Commission, legislation has also been adopted to create an advisory group of experts including international representatives charged with selecting potential judges for Ukraine’s Constitutional Court.

Advancing Ukraine’s unprecedented judicial reform agenda requires a careful balance between achieving meaningful change, protecting the rights of every Ukrainian citizen, and maintaining maximum transparency. Measures are in place to ensure Ukraine’s international partners are informed of any new initiatives, with the G7 group of ambassadors paying particularly close attention to developments and offering positive assessments of recent progress.

While wartime advances in Ukraine’s judicial reform agenda are encouraging, many major challenges remain. For example, there are currently almost two thousand vacancies for judges in Ukraine. It is absolutely critical to fill these vacancies with the best candidates, who must be subjected to rigorous and competitive selection procedures that scrutinize both their professionalism and their integrity. The future of Ukraine’s judicial system depends on it.

As they defend their statehood and national identity, Ukrainians are acutely aware that they are writing a fresh chapter in the country’s history. Together with an international coalition of partner countries, they are building a new Ukraine that is already emerging as a trusted and valued member of the democratic world. A firm commitment to establishing the rule of law is absolutely foundational to this process.

Despite the uniquely challenging circumstances created by Russia’s ongoing invasion, there is currently reason for cautious optimism regarding the further reform of the Ukrainian legal system. For arguably the first time in the history of independent Ukraine, all the necessary elements are now in place to achieve lasting judicial reform. These include the requisite political will on the part of both president and parliament, along with the active participation of Ukrainian civil society and expert support from the country’s international partners. This helps make continued reform progress possible, even amid Europe’s biggest armed conflict since World War II.

Denys Maslov is a member of the Ukrainian Parliament with the Servant of the People party and head of the Ukrainian Parliament’s Committee on Legal Policy. Oleksandr Vasiuk is a member of the Ukrainian Parliament with the Servant of the People party and a member of the Ukrainian Parliament’s Committee on Legal Policy.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Russia’s invasion cannot derail Ukraine’s rule of law reforms appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Nusairat join CNN to discuss the situation in Gaza https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/nusairat-join-cnn-to-discuss-the-situation-in-gaza/ Sun, 03 Dec 2023 17:02:13 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=713039 The post Nusairat join CNN to discuss the situation in Gaza appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

The post Nusairat join CNN to discuss the situation in Gaza appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
COP28 is here. These are the Global South’s demands and expectations. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/cop28-uae-demands-expectations-global-south/ Thu, 30 Nov 2023 23:36:20 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=710423 The COP28 negotiations will prove to be challenging given all the demands and expectations on the table in this COP.

The post COP28 is here. These are the Global South’s demands and expectations. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
With the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) having started (November 30-December 12), the world shifts its focus to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to assess how it will deal with the climate crisis, but with particular attention to the Emirati COP presidency.

There’s been much controversy in the global climate community in the year leading up to COP, given that its president, Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, is also the president of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), the largest oil and gas company in the UAE. Phasing out of fossil fuels has been a thorny issue within the COP negotiations for several years, with the official COP text language indicating a “phase down” and not a “phase out” of fossil fuels. However, many groups—including civil society, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and many from the Global South, such as countries in the African continent and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs)—indicate that a “phase out” is a necessary demand for this year’s COP in Dubai to reach the 1.5 degree Celsius warming target indicated under the Paris Agreement.

A Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty has been in the works for some time as a critical action under this demand. It has been endorsed by many Global South countries as well as the European parliament. The Emirati COP presidency has a vital role in meeting the Global South’s demands concerning the fossil fuel phase-out while ensuring their oil interests are kept at bay.

Several other demands will be made this year at COP28 as it is a pivotal year on several fronts. As the Loss and Damage Fund (L&D) was agreed upon last year in COP27, it is up to the global community this year to decide on how this fund will be managed and who will put money in the pot. It was decided on November 3 that the World Bank would house the L&D Fund for an interim period of four years, by which the first funding arrangement needs to be disbursed within six months or else the World Bank board will decide who it will go to. Several elements have yet to be agreed upon, such as selection criteria for states under L&D, who will pay for the compensation, and how often and where this fund will be housed.

This year is also pivotal within the climate negotiations as the Global Stocktake, also referred to as the world’s “report card,” is being utilized. Under the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) targets—regarding how much GHG emission reduction they would be able to do—to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These NDCs were calculated at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021 and found to be insufficient; at that rate, the world warmed up to 2.8 degrees Celsius and above. Thus, it was decided in Glasgow that states would go back home and see how to increase their ambition and targets to submit updated NDCs to reach a 1.5-degree limit.

This year, states have submitted their updated NDCs, and the Global Stocktake will assess these NDCs to determine whether or not they have reached the 1.5 degree limit, hence the report card. It is important to note that, in the last several years since COP26, much has happened across a global scale that has influenced states concerning energy transition. For example, the war in Ukraine has resulted in the withdrawal of natural gas from Russia to Europe, while Israel has appropriated natural gas fields offshore Gaza and provided licenses to companies for extraction, production, and export to Europe and the United States. This has changed the space of how the energy transition will take place on a global level; until now, natural gas has been pushed within the COP negotiations as a “transitionary fuel” for the “phasing down” efforts of countries, which hinders the demands for the “phasing out” of fossil fuels altogether.

Several other demands that will be made at this year’s COP include ramping up climate finance to meet the $100 billion disbursed by developed countries that have been pledged under the Paris Agreement. Until now, there hasn’t been a year where the $100 billion has been met with maximum disbursements ranging from $72-80 billion per year, depending on the accounting. Ensuring that the Global South receives the appropriate compensation from the Global North during this climate crisis is imperative to the success of these negotiations.

Additionally, this year, the Global Goal on Adaptation will be decided upon, which entails an appropriate target for adaptation for countries of the Global South. Climate finance thus far has focused on reducing emissions and less so on resilience and adaptation, which is indicative in that only 20 percent of climate finance goes to adaptation while 80 percent goes to mitigation. The Global South suffers the brunt of the impacts of the climate crisis and requires financing to be able to adapt to these impacts; instead it is being financed for reduction efforts for emissions that it did not cause. Ensuring that the Global South receives this compensation with particular emphasis on vulnerable populations is crucial for climate justice and equity.

The COP28 negotiations will prove to be challenging given all the demands and expectations on the table in this COP. In order to ensure that the needs of the Global South are met, the global community needs to unite to swiftly implement the recommended actions and the host country and the Emirati COP presidency need to display strong ambitions to address the climate crisis.

Lama El Hatow is a nonresident fellow with the empowerME Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East. She is also as a professor and program coordinator at Johns Hopkins University in the Environmental Science and Policy (ESP) and Energy, Policy and Climate (EPC) departments.

The opinions expressed in the article are those of the author.

The post COP28 is here. These are the Global South’s demands and expectations. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Putin’s pro-war majority: Most Russians still support Ukraine invasion https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-pro-war-majority-most-russians-still-support-ukraine-invasion/ Thu, 30 Nov 2023 22:07:49 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=710325 Putin’s pro-war majority: almost two years on, most Russians still support the Ukraine invasion and have reconciled themselves to the reality of a long war, writes Peter Dickinson.

The post Putin’s pro-war majority: Most Russians still support Ukraine invasion appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Despite some indications of war weariness, most Russians continue to support their country’s invasion of Ukraine, according to a comprehensive new report published this week. Based on polling and focus groups conducted by Russia’s only internationally recognized pollster, the Levada Center, and the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, the report found that the majority of Russians had “gotten used to” living against the backdrop of a brutal armed conflict and had consolidated around the Kremlin. “Naive predictions that popular discontent triggered by sanctions and the wartime restrictions imposed on daily life would bring down Vladimir Putin’s regime have come to nothing,” it noted.

This latest attempt to gauge pro-war sentiment in Putin’s Russia tallies closely with the Levada Center’s own monthly surveys since February 2022, which have found that around three-quarters of Russians consistently support the invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, the report’s authors warned against attempts to portray all Russians as enthusiastic backers of the war. Instead, they argued that support can be divided into a minority of “turbo-patriots” and an apathetic majority that has accepted the Kremlin’s pro-war propaganda and reconciled itself to the new wartime reality in the country.

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.

Debate has raged for the past twenty-one months over the true extent of Russian public support for the invasion of Ukraine. Many continue to question the validity of polls conducted in wartime Russia, with skeptics arguing that very few members of the public would be comfortable expressing anti-regime opinions to strangers. Indeed, given the draconian legislation adopted in Russia since February 2022 criminalizing criticism of the invasion, there is good reason to treat all research data coming out of the country with caution.

While there are legitimate doubts over the credibility of polling data, the findings detailed in this new report and the Levada Center’s more regular monitoring both closely mirror the available anecdotal evidence, which indicates high levels of public acceptance for the ongoing invasion. Perhaps the most compelling evidence has come from personal interactions between Ukrainians and their Russian relatives. With family ties connecting millions on both sides of the border, there has been ample opportunity for Ukrainians to get a sense of how ordinary Russians feel about the war. This has led to countless painful conversations, with Ukrainians frequently finding that people they have known all their lives now parrot Kremlin propaganda, blame Ukraine for the war, or deny core aspects of the invasion altogether.

The almost complete absence of any meaningful anti-war activity in Russia is a further indication of public support, or at least acceptance, of the invasion. During the first weeks of hostilities, there were some attempts to hold anti-war rallies in a number of Russian cities, but these modest efforts soon ran out of steam. Some commentators have since argued that it is simply too dangerous to protest. However, wartime restrictions have not prevented Russians from freely voicing their opposition to various specific aspects of the invasion.

Since Putin first announced mobilization in September 2022, Russian soldiers and their family members have recorded and published hundreds of individual protest videos complaining about everything from poor conditions and lack of equipment to heavy losses and suicidal tactics. These publicly available addresses have often been highly critical of the Russian authorities, raising obvious questions about the validity of claims that Russians are afraid to oppose the state. Tellingly, there have been almost no videos of soldiers condemning the war itself or refusing to follow criminal orders, despite an apparent readiness to go public with their often explosive grievances.

The more than one million Russians who are believed to have fled the country following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine have also proven largely unwilling to voice their opposition to the war, despite not facing any of the restrictions in place inside Russia itself. While there are large Russian diasporas in multiple cities across Europe, there have been very few anti-war rallies since February 2022 or any other attempts by Russian citizens to protest against the invasion being carried out in their name. When Russians in Finland did recently mobilize to protest, it was to complain against the temporary closure of some border crossings with Russia.

All this is very good news for Vladimir Putin. The Russian dictator had initially hoped to secure a rapid military victory in Ukraine, but he is now actively preparing his country for a long war. He has already moved much of the Russian economy onto a war footing, and seems to have succeeded in convincing the vast majority of his compatriots that they are engaged in a struggle with the West that is both existential and unavoidable. With his home front looking remarkably stable and no sign of any domestic challenges on the horizon, Putin can look ahead to 2024 with a degree of confidence.

These latest indications of continued Russian public support for the war will further dampen any lingering hopes in Western capitals that internal opposition could yet derail the Russian invasion. The timing is particularly unfortunate, with talk of a battlefield stalemate in Ukraine already fueling doubts over the future of Western military aid. For now, Western leaders remain adamant that they will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. However, they are extremely unlikely to be aided by any kind of anti-war uprising inside Russia itself.

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

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Putin’s pro-war majority: Most Russians still support Ukraine invasion appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
The future of multilateral peacebuilding and conflict prevention https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/the-future-of-multilateral-peacebuilding-and-conflict-prevention/ Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:00:00 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=705757 The multilateral system, defined as the set of rules, norms, and institutions that together constitute the world’s governance architecture, is not static.

The post The future of multilateral peacebuilding and conflict prevention appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Table of contents

I. Introduction

The multilateral system, defined as the set of rules, norms, and institutions that together constitute the world’s governance architecture, is not static. Rather, this system both evolves over time and, less frequently, is reconstituted by periodic upheavals. Such upheavals usually occur during or after a global crisis—for example, a major power war (1815, 1918, 1945)—or another extended period during which underlying drivers of change allow a reset of the global system. Such changes allow the new system to function for a time until dynamics again shift underneath it. Systems come under strain when they cannot adjust to new geopolitical, technological, sociopolitical, demographic, and (in the twenty-first century) environmental realities.

The current multilateral system, the core components of which were created in the first decade after World War II and then reshaped after the end of the Cold War, is now facing such a period because it bears little resemblance to the world that existed when it was created.

Several drivers of change threaten to erode hard-earned gains that the multilateral system has delivered since 1945. Today’s challenges include but are not limited to rising geopolitical tensions among nuclear-armed major powers, a seemingly inevitable climate catastrophe, technological changes that have the potential to remake every aspect of life, and the increasing powers and capabilities of non-state actors to reshape sub-national, national, and international affairs (for better and for worse). There is a flip side: within each challenge also lies an opportunity for positive transformational change.

These drivers have altered and continue to alter the dynamics of armed conflicts around the world. For example, the proliferation of increasingly capable armed nonstate actors (ANSAs) have reshaped the contours of conflict, furthering the fragmentation of international affairs, and altering how states and multilateral institutions such as the United Nations (UN) have approached conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Understanding the evolution and impact of these drivers on the conflict-prevention architecture should enable key state and nonstate actors within the multilateral system to anticipate change and reform governance approaches.

It is important to emphasize that the post-1945 multilateral system has delivered on two core points, i.e., the lack of systemic war among major powers (in other words, no third world war) and global economic growth—yet there are now, and have been since the creation of the system, many dissenters in the North and South. The postwar system never has eliminated wars and conflicts, which continue to this day (if admittedly not among and between the major powers, which must be counted as a significant benefit of the current system); not all countries and populations have benefited equally from the robust and unprecedented global economic growth since the 1950s; the major powers, including those most supportive of the system (the United States in particular) have not always acted consistently with the ideals that they claim the system embodies; and there is a misalignment of economic and demographic weight on the one hand with political power on the other (by which is meant the distribution of voting power within the system’s core multilateral institutions).

The world is in a critical period, given the system’s rising inability to tackle challenges related to the management of conflict—to its prevention, its outbreak, and its resolution. This problem is reflected in how the United Nations, the principal multilateral institution that is responsible for the management of conflict, assesses its own situation vis-à-vis conflict dynamics in the world today. In Our Common Agenda (2021), UN Secretary-General António Guterres argued that although “investments in prevention and preparedness pay for themselves many times over,” there has been “too little progress on adequate, predictable and sustained financing for peacebuilding” by UN member states. Guterres reiterated these points in a July 2023 policy brief, A New Agenda for Peace, written as a preparatory document for the UN’s 2024 Summit of the Future.1

Building on this call for action, this report assesses the impacts of structural forces or drivers—otherwise known as global trends and uncertainties—on the future of global governance including the governance of conflict throughout the conflict cycle, meaning conflict prevention, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding. Those four core trends and uncertainties (often called “drivers” of change) are about geopolitics, the rise of new actors within the global system, the rapidly changing planet that we live on, and the speed and impacts of technological transformations. Atlantic Council staff utilized a strategic foresight methodology to assess how these global trends and uncertainties might reshape the world a decade into the future, until the mid-2030s. This assessment produced four alternative scenarios, which are stories about what the world in the mid-2030s might look like. Those four scenarios, presented in section IV of this paper, are designed to provoke the readers’ imaginations about what could plausibly occur over the coming decade given the dynamic interaction of the drivers of change identified in this report.

Over an eighteen-month time span, the project team conducted desk research, interviewed outside experts, and convened a series of workshops, all focused on assessing how the drivers of change might shape the future and what the world’s foremost governing bodies, including key multilateral institutions, national and subnational governments, and nonstate actors might do in response. Early drafts of this report were peer reviewed by external experts; their input has been incorporated into the final version.

This report contains the following sections. Section II provides an overview of the key terms, institutions, and norms that undergird the global conflict- prevention architecture. Section III provides a lengthy assessment of the four key drivers that are altering the world, and addresses their implications for the management of conflict across the conflict cycle. Section IV articulates the four scenarios that describe how these drivers of change might reshape the world in the 2030s, with impacts on global conflict and conflict prevention. These scenarios are complemented by a separate assessment of how they may play out in the Sahel region, which was chosen as this report’s regional case study.

The concluding section, section V, asks five big questions of the highest relevance about the future:

  1. How should multilateral organizations such as the UN adapt to and manage a multipolar world?
  2. How can multilateral organizations plan for and adapt to conflict-management challenges brought on by the evolution of Earth systems and emerging technologies?
  3. What will the role of nonstate actors be in this space going forward and how can the UN and other multilateral institutions both leverage opportunities and manage threats posed by nonstate groups?
  4. How can the UN support regional bodies in advancing their conflict-prevention and peace-building goals in line with global multilateralism?
  5. How can the UN, and particularly the UN Security Council (UNSC), overcome concerns that it lacks legitimacy, especially in the Global South?

None of these five questions have simple answers. Rather, as with the scenarios, the questions (and their possible answers) are designed to prod policymakers, experts, and practitioners about the dynamics of global change in the coming years.

Back to top

II. A note on definitions, institutions, and norms

A. Conflict prevention and peacebuilding: Definitions

The definitions of conflict prevention and peacebuilding have long been debated within broader conflict studies fields. Their definitions have evolved over time. For example, the release of Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s 1992 Agenda for Peace asserted that conflict prevention consisted of four guiding principles: preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peacekeeping, and postconflict peacebuilding.2 Further developments within the UN system included a 2001 report to the UNSC by then Secretary-General Kofi Annan, which highlighted the need for a “culture of prevention” that both prevented conflict in the near term while working to limit factors that may lead to the outbreak of conflict in the long term.3

Today, conflict prevention is defined by the United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA) as “[involving] diplomatic measures to keep intra-state or inter-state tensions and disputes from escalating into violent conflict.”4 It encompasses structural, operational, and transnational components:

  • Structural conflict prevention addresses the root causes of conflict over the longer term and often employs tools rooted in development and economic policy.5
  • Operational conflict prevention or “direct prevention” refers to management of immediate crises in the short term and often employs diplomatic or military tools or both.6
  • Transnational conflict prevention focuses on risks such as climate change or transnational organized crime (TOC) that undermine security and contribute to conflict.7

All types of prevention are dynamic rather than static; thus, global trends and uncertainties will shift the effectiveness of these three types of prevention. Greater multipolarity may limit transnational prevention if states are less able to agree on far-reaching global programs, for example, or it may accelerate the shift of operational conflict prevention from the UN Security Council to regional organizations.8

Peacebuilding consists of activities that build sustainable peace over time within a society or across them, often in postconflict settings.9 It is defined by the United Nations as follows:

“Peacebuilding aims to reduce the risk of lapsing or relapsing into conflict by strengthening national capacities at all levels for conflict management, and to lay the foundation for sustainable peace and development. It is a complex, long-term process of creating the necessary conditions for sustainable peace. Peacebuilding measures address core issues that effect the functioning of society and the State and seek to enhance the capacity of the State to effectively and legitimately carry out its core functions.”10

Several key United Nations reports have provided a definitional foundation, including the Agenda for Peace (1992), the UN Report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations on Uniting Our Strengths for Peace: Politics, Partnership and People (2015), and the Report[s] on Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace.11 In 2016, the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council passed twin resolutions, A/RES/70/262 and S/RES/2282, that focused on conflict resolution and peacebuilding, helping to codify the concept within the UN system.12 These documents stressed the need for close coordination within the UN—among the Peacebuilding Support Office, the Department of Political Affairs, and the UN Development Programs, for example—and outside of it, for instance, with the World Bank.

In summary, the definitional debate concerning the terms conflict prevention and peacebuilding is robust in both academia and practice. This report recognizes that these terms are contested and varied in their definitions, but understands conflict prevention to consist of structural, operational, and transnational components while peacebuilding is seen as an encompassing process that seeks to build conflict-resilient nations at all stages of the conflict cycle (before, during, and afterward). The report therefore relies on the phrase “conflict management” to encapsulate the multiple dimensions of conflict prevention and peacebuilding.

B. Actors and institutions engaged in conflict prevention and peacebuilding activities

There are numerous actors at all levels of governance (supranational, regional, national, and local) that are involved in conflict prevention and peace-building processes. These actors span both state and nonstate institutions and organizations. While not exhaustive, this section focuses on several of the most important typologies and influential institutions.

The United Nations is by far the main actor at the global level. Its center is the United Nations Security Council, which is empowered to identify threats to peace, make recommendations regarding how best to restore peace, and authorize nonmilitary and military action to do so. UNSC decisions can take place at all stages of the conflict cycle and within a wide array of responses ranging from calling for dialogue to mandating military intervention.13 Despite the wide-ranging tools available to the Security Council, its ability to act depends on the willingness of its member states to engage, especially those of the five states holding veto power—the United States, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the People’s Republic of China. The UN General Assembly (UNGA) also can act on conflict prevention: it can hold special or emergency sessions on a wide range of issues and can adopt declarations on peace and disputes.14 Resolutions and decisions that are adopted at UNGA by a majority of states, however, are nonbinding on member states, in contrast to those of the UNSC.15

At the global level, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund also play critical roles in funding initiatives related to preventing the escalation of conflict, preserving institutions during and after crises, and developing opportunities for refugees within their host communities. The role of the World Bank is primarily focused on structural prevention, achieved through funding development-related projects such as those relating to climate change adaptation and mitigation and demographic change.16 In 2020, the World Bank released the World Bank Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence, which aligns the institution with making progress toward achieving the UNGA-adopted sustainable development goals (SDGs) while preventing the outbreak of violence.17 In 2021, it approved more than $30 billion for countries and territories affected by these problems.18

Whereas the World Bank focuses on funding projects that impact structural prevention, the IMF focuses on limiting the potential impact of economic shocks and mitigating their repercussions when they do occur. In 2022, the IMF released its own strategy for fragile and conflict-affected states (FCS), which calls for the advancement of several new policy tools and focuses on developing sustainable fiscal, monetary, and private-sector policy, all of which aim to grow economies and make them more resilient to the potential outbreak of conflict.19

There are numerous regional bodies that are critically important actors within specific geographic contexts. Within Africa, the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) emphasizes democracy promotion, early warning and conflict prevention, peace support operations, post-conflict reconstruction, and humanitarian action and disaster management.20 The APSA’s fifteen members include the Peace and Security Council (PSC), which is the African Union’s decision-making body focused on conflict prevention and peacebuilding.21

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) are examples of subregional organizations on the African continent that undertake multilateral conflict prevention and peace-building initiatives. ECOWAS maintains its own conflict-prevention framework, allowing its member states to discuss and cooperate on issues of conflict prevention and peacekeeping alongside international partners. The framework aims to mainstream conflict prevention across ECOWAS while building capacity to respond to conflict through the ECOWAS Standby Force.22 SADC consists of sixteen member states from across southern Africa. Though primarily focused on economic issues, SADC sees peace and security as vital to economic success for its members.23 As such, it has invested in conflict prevention and in 2004, SADC set up the Mediation and Conflict Prevention and Preventative Diplomacy Structure that aims to foster political and security stability across member states.24

A security officer is seen at the opening of the 36th Ordinary session of the Assembly of the African Union at the African Union Headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia February 18, 2023. REUTERS/Tiksa Negeri

Regional and subregional bodies like the AU, ECOWAS, and SADC differ in their political dynamics, resources, tools, and methodologies. While some groups have been able to forge a consensus among member states and make meaningful progress on advancing conflict-management goals, others are plagued by instability within and among member states, limiting their effectiveness. A positive example involves SADC, which has maintained a mission in Mozambique to address the ongoing crisis in the northern province of Cabo Delgado, contributing troops and developing capacity-building initiatives such as skill-development programs and enhancing police services.25 ECOWAS, in contrast, is an example of a regional institution beset by instability among its West African member states, several of which have gone through one or more coups within the last several years.

Regional bodies within Africa have worked closely with the United Nations to advance conflict management. Collaboration has included coordination between the UN and the AU’s PSC, resulting in practical efforts as in Sudan, where the DPPA has supported AU-led peace efforts.26

A bottom-line observation is that there is a larger trend in this space: the countries most impacted by conflict are taking a more active role in managing it through regional institutions, as the efforts of the AU, ECOWAS, and the SADC show.

Beyond Africa, other regional institutions have played important roles in conflict management including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union (EU), and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In the post-Cold War era, NATO has provided stabilization operations in various theaters beyond the borders of its member states, notably in Afghanistan. It still maintains a presence in Kosovo, helping to maintain peace in the Western Balkans alongside the EU, and contributes to a capacity-building mission in Iraq, targeting the broader Iraqi security architecture. The EU maintains military missions across Africa, the Western Balkans, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. It operates a mix of civilian- and military-led missions working to build partner military capacity to stabilize countries in conflict, maintain peace, and prevent the resurgence of conflict. The EU also funds international bodies such as the UN, giving approximately $1.1 million to the DPPA in 2022.27 For its part, ASEAN has built a robust sense of trust among its member states, via numerous informal meetings and annual forums, which (arguably) has helped limit conflict within the region.28

Outside of these multilateral and regional bodies, there are two important sets of actors that deserve attention. The first, obviously, are individual states, in particular the world’s major powers. Although the definition of a major power is a highly debated topic, this paper focuses most of its analytical attention on the two states that are widely viewed as the world’s foremost major powers, the United States and China. Russia and occasionally the European Union (as a supranational entity) and India are lumped into the major power category, but the inclusion of each of these entities as major powers is a contested topic among international relations scholars.29

Major powers have important conflict-management functions. The United States, China, and Russia are three of the five permanent members (P5) of the UNSC, and as such hold veto power, which means they are critical to any determination (positive or negative) regarding creation of UN peacekeeping missions. Major powers provide financial, logistical, and occasional personnel (troops) support to peacekeeping operations and broader conflict-management operations.30 Outside of the formal UN system, major powers also engage in bilateral conflict-management activities, including provision of development aid and investment funding that contribute to structural conflict prevention. Examples here are development aid provided through the United States Agency for International Development, and infrastructure development funding through China’s Belt and Road Initiative (though these institutions, their funding models, and their purposes admittedly are very different).31 Major powers also have intervened directly in conflict situations, with and without UN authorization. For example, after the 9/11 terror attacks, the United States invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter (right to self-defense) as justification for military operations in Afghanistan; later, its leadership of a NATO military coalition was viewed as justified by the UNSC’s authorization of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).32 Major powers also act as spoilers. The Wagner Group, widely understood to be a Russian state-backed proxy organization, has routinely made peace harder to achieve across the Sahel and is suspected of being linked to several coups in the region.33

Beyond the major powers, the world’s middle and emerging powers are important actors in conflict management. The definition of what constitutes a middle power also is contested, with some scholars defining middle powers as states that possess limited material capabilities and assume limited international tasks on the world stage.34 Others define middle powers as states that actively pursue policies of mediation and conflict resolution, and advocate for multilateral solutions on the world stage.35 This report views middle powers as countries with reasonable economic or military means, but which often punch above their weight diplomatically. Emerging powers have an analogous standing to middle powers, but generally are regarded as being on an upward trajectory (in demographic, economic, and military senses) toward becoming a major power. The dividing lines between middle and emerging powers are frequently unclear and ill defined. There are numerous countries that fit one or both definitions, and that are engaged in conflict management around the world. Turkey, as an example, played an instrumental and constructive role in brokering an essential grain deal between Russia and Ukraine in 2022, and for years has been involved in managing the ongoing Libyan crisis.36 Such powers also sometimes are themselves engaged in conflict dynamics.

Finally, as discussed at length in section III, nonstate actors also play a large role in conflict prevention and peacebuilding. This includes two subtypes of actors, those that contribute positively to conflict management and those that do not. Examples of actors falling into the first camp include several major philanthropies such as the Gates Foundation, which has funded poverty-reduction programs in conflict-afflicted states around the world. Examples in the second camp include armed nonstate actors such as terror groups and transnational organized criminal groups that contribute to violence, undermining the sovereignty of the states in which they operate and harming civilians. Such groups also often carry out governance roles in the areas in which they operate, owing to weak or nonexistent state capacity. In Nigeria, the militant group Boko Haram collected taxes from the citizens who lived in the areas it controlled, while in Syria, ANSAs provide healthcare for their citizens.37 These groups engage in such behavior to influence communities under their control.

There are several mechanisms that are used by different actors across the conflict cycle. These include early warning systems (EWS), preventive diplomacy and mediation, peace operations, development assistance, and post-conflict mediation reconstruction and recovery. EWS are systems that alert decision-makers to the potential of conflict and increased risks, relying on both qualitative and quantitative data. EWS are employed by governments, nongovernmental organizations, and multilateral bodies. Preventive diplomacy uses dialogue and mediation to prevent conflict from starting, escalating, or recurring. The UN secretary-general plays a pivotal role in preventive diplomacy through dialogue and leverage, and the deployment of special envoys. Conflict mediation is increasingly undertaken by a variety of bodies such as UN mediators, individual states, and nongovernmental organizations.

Development aid, targeted at conflict-affected and fragile states, is essential to reducing the potential outbreak of violent conflict and the possibility that conflict reemerges. Aid can be viewed as nonpolitical, but operating in conflict zones requires that aid and development organizations pay close additional attention to how their giving is perceived. Finally, in the post-conflict phase, activities include disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration programs, which may build domestic capacity to respond to criminal acts and reform the security sector, and which may develop institutions and bodies to work nationally to prevent the outbreak of conflict.

C. Norms within the conflict prevention and peacebuilding process

Two deeply held norms shape the conflict-prevention and peacebuilding fields, those of collective security and state sovereignty. Collective security, enshrined in the UN Charter (and within those of other institutions such as NATO), asserts that aggression can be prevented by collective action, including force, by other states, or at least responded to by collective action should aggression occur.38 The UN developed the concept of peacekeeping operations as a collective security pillar starting in 1948 when a UN mediator asked for a small group of guards to monitor a truce between Israel and its neighbors, which was then formalized in 1956 during the Suez Crisis.39 Peacekeeping is by no means the UN’s only role in collective security. Chapter VII of the UN Charter details how the UNSC will respond to threats to peace and acts of aggression, ranging from nonkinetic means (under Article 41, the UNSC may undertake “measures not involving the use of armed force”) to military intervention (under Article 42, the UNSC “may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security”).40

Yet despite the benefits of the UN’s collective security apparatus, the concept has never fulfilled its original promise of preventing aggression. States only occasionally have confronted aggressors swiftly and decisively through collective security responses, via the UN and other multilateral bodies. (It is important to note that the reason for this shortcoming has less to do with the willingness of the UN as an institution to engage and more to do with political divisions among UN member states about whether and how to respond.)

State sovereignty asserts that no state should interfere in other states’ domestic affairs, a concept that can be traced at least back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Although state sovereignty has remained a core principle of international affairs since then, there also has long been a debate regarding how to respond to human security concerns, including acts of genocide and other crimes against humanity that occur within states. The “responsibility to protect” (R2P) principle is the most famous and fairly recent attempt to blur the state sovereignty norm. Formulated in the 1990s and adopted in 2005 at the UN World Summit, the R2P principle asserts that if a state fails to protect its citizens from crimes against humanity, then other states (if authorized by multilateral bodies) have a right to intervene.41 R2P long has been controversial, even well before the 2011 UNSC-authorized no-fly zone to protect civilians in Libya, adopted via resolutions 1970 and 1973 and justified on R2P grounds.42 Although some saw the Libyan operation as the proper course of action under the R2P norm, others viewed it as justification for an imperialist act of aggression by a group of states, largely Western members of NATO, motivated by their own interests to use R2P as justification to remove Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi.

Not all multilateral institutions that are engaged in collective security subscribe to the state sovereignty norm. For example, the AU was created in part as a reaction against its predecessor, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), which embraced the norm of noninterference in member states’ domestic affairs. This embrace was sufficient to see the OAU credibly accused of ignoring human security concerns. In contrast, early in its history, the AU embraced the norm of “non-indifference” to the suffering among member states’ citizens, signaling that the organization embraced a norm that acknowledged the centrality of human security considerations within its membership.43

Back to top

The multilateral system and conflict-prevention architectures are under pressure as novel developments and old fractures are reshaping how humanity lives, moves, cooperates, trades, and fights. Strategic foresight research long has insisted that there are multiple geopolitical, economic, social, environmental, and technological shifts underway that collectively are reshaping the global system, including the multilateral governance system. These trends and uncertainties, sometimes lumped together as “megatrends,” have significant implications for peace and security.44

This report identifies four significant drivers of change that collectively are reshaping the global system now and will continue to do so into the future. These four are: geopolitical shifts, referring to power shifts among the world’s states; ongoing and rising significance of nonstate actors—groups and individuals—that collectively hold significant power within the global system, and therefore need to be accounted for and engaged with by the world’s states; Earth systems changes, including (prominently) climate change; and ongoing and significant technological disruption.

A. Contested multipolarity

Contested multipolarity refers to how shifts in the global balance of interstate power alter the ability of the multilateral system and its core institutions, norms, and processes to keep peace and resolve armed conflicts. These power shifts arguably pose the greatest challenge for multilateral conflict prevention and peacebuilding over the coming decade. Although states always have had competing interests at both global and regional levels, the power shifts described in this section reduce the incentives for cooperation among the world’s major and middle powers. In turn, the prevention of violent conflict will be negatively affected as it always has relied on convergence of those state interests, among other things, to be effective. As a result, these changing power dynamics threaten the effectiveness of multilateral institutions, including but not limited to the UNSC, and their approaches to conflict prevention and peacebuilding.

Increasing rivalry and tension among the major powers, in particular Russia and China on the one hand and the United States and its allies and partners on the other, is of utmost significance. So too is their willingness to support multilateralism and core multilateral institutions. At the same time, regional players such as India, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Gulf Cooperation Council states, and Nigeria are becoming more important in their regional contexts and globally, and in turn influencing multilateral norms including sovereignty, intervention, and cooperation.45

Despite slowing growth, China might still overtake the United States as the largest economy in the world by 2035, with accompanying military and diplomatic significance.46 Its emergence as a peer competitor to the United States is reshaping international affairs, including in the hard security domain. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was an affront to the UN’s core principles and has severely damaged relations between it and many of the world’s democratic states, while appearing to bring China and Russia closer together (though their relationship was becoming a closer one well before the war in Ukraine). For its part, the United States has been inconsistent in supporting the multilateral system and the UN: examples include initiating the 2003 Iraq War without explicit UNSC authorization; and the Trump administration’s withdrawing the United States from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the UN-brokered Paris climate accord, and the World Health Organization (WHO)—though the Biden administration rejoined each of these

The rise of middle and emerging powers in the Global South is compounded by the relative demographic and economic decline of the world’s wealthy core.47 Aging populations, slower economic growth, and domestic political dissatisfaction are disadvantaging North America and Europe relative to more youthful regions. Although many East and Southeast Asian countries face similar if not worse demographic headwinds, the shift of economic power to Asia already has reshaped global geopolitics, multilateralism, and multilateral institutions.48

These shifts explain why the Global South’s middle and emerging powers are increasingly uneasy with the current multilateral system and the institutions that undergird it. Much frustration revolves around the exclusivity and perceived inadequacy of prominent multilateral economic institutions such as the UN Security Council, core Bretton Woods institutions (typically defined as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund), and the Group of Seven and Twenty groupings. Enlargement of the BRICS grouping, (referring to the emerging markets bloc that was created in 2009 by Brazil, Russia, India and China, with South Africa joining in 2010) is a prominent and recent example of how this frustration is manifesting itself on the world stage. Prior to the BRICS June 2023 annual summit in South Africa, a reported nineteen nations expressed formal or informal interest in joining the group (that number was later revised to forty countries expressing interest).49 The bloc voted to admit six new members— Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—to bring its total membership to eleven nations.50

Such changes are opening avenues for contestation of the multilateral system, including its institutions, rules, and norms, and are creating novel frameworks of influence and power. A lack of agreement on a unitary alternative could hinder the system’s capacity to reform itself and deal proactively with conflict dynamics.

Implications for structural conflict prevention

China’s rise and its impact on multilateral conflict prevention. Although all the world’s major powers have demonstrated sporadic fidelity to the ideals of multilateralism, China’s rise is the most significant disrupter owing to the increasingly tense competition with the sole superpower, the United States, and China’s expression of its interests in the world.

This claim about the importance of the Sino-American bilateral relationship does not mean that their relationship is the sole driver of change within the interstate system. Nor does it deny other countries’ agency in these questions. Other countries, including several discussed in this section, also are interested in reforming the multilateral system for their own purposes and ends that, in turn, are separate from those of the two major powers. Rather, this claim asserts that the trajectory of the Sino-American relationship is the single most important bilateral relationship in international relations and, as such, has the most consequence for global governance among all such dyads in the world.

China has shown much interest in adapting the current multilateral system to its will and in creating new multilateral governance institutions.51 Beijing is contesting global governance norms and tenets while increasing its economic and diplomatic weight everywhere. It has created overseas economic investment vehicles such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and has invested in places of strategic interest such as the Sahel, a resource-rich region in petroleum, iron ore, uranium, and more.52 China often is accused of crafting so-called debt traps in recipient countries, indirectly limiting (although not eliminating) their political and economic options while increasing their dependency upon China.53 China remains cautious about fundamentally reshaping the conflict prevention and peacekeeping architecture, though it is interested in securing senior political posts for its nominees within the UN system.54

Implications for conflict prevention institutions

Great power gridlock in the UNSC. Gridlock within multilateral conflict-prevention institutions, especially the UNSC, is a serious institutional risk resulting from contested geopolitics. For decades, the UNSC’s five permanent members have used their veto powers to block decisions or political statements perceived as being against their interests.55 More recently, the UNSC has been unable to condemn Syria’s use of chemical attacks against its own population, halt the conflict in Yemen, respond to either the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea or its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, navigate China’s contested claims over the South China Sea, or address the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.56 Veto patterns also have shifted: within the UNSC, China has sided more frequently with Russia over the past decade in exercising its veto.57

UNSC gridlock risks the legitimacy and effectiveness of the institution, shrinking its ability to address key issues such as nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction or management of civil wars. The secretary-general (and many other parties around the world) have decried the UNSC’s inability to respond to threats to international peace and security, including to novel threats such as COVID-19, and has repeatedly called for UNSC reform.58 As Russia’s war in Ukraine shows, the UNSC’s inability to address such crises has meant an elevated role for the UN General Assembly (UNGA), even if that role has been more symbolic than binding.59

Growing representational gap. Calls for reform of multilateral institutions—especially the UNSC but also the Bretton Woods institutions—to make them more reflective of global power shifts have gone unheeded. Since the end of the Cold War at least, such calls have grown over time, yet the failure to do so appears to be risking the reputations and therefore power of these institutions, even possibly to the point of irrelevance. Such calls are bound to increase over the coming decade, given trends outlined in this section, with India, South Africa, Nigeria, and Germany, the largest states in their regions, currently not represented in the UNSC, likely at the forefront.

The Biden administration’s recent support for UNSC reform suggests at least some potential for change, limited as it may be.60 Western countries, including the United States, feel pressure to improve relations with nonaligned countries such as India as (potential) important allies and balancers against China and Russia. For example, the September 2023 meeting between President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi generated a joint diplomatic statement that, among many other things, endorsed India’s bid for a permanent UNSC seat while reiterating the importance of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, consisting of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States—which China views as a forum for these states to coordinate efforts against it.61 Western governments have been concerned by uneven condemnation within the Global South of Russia’s war in Ukraine, as discussed further below.62

Evolving role of peace and security institutions and architectures outside the UN system. Partially as a result of the gridlock within global multilateral institutions, regional and alternative institutions such as the African Union and its African Peace and Security Architecture have expanded their roles and modalities of engagement in conflict management. So too have other subgroupings such as the G20 or ASEAN; while not holding peace and security mandates, they also have emerged as important actors in the conflict-management space (e.g., the G20 as a coordinator on the pandemic recovery).

This development holds promise for regional ownership (“African solutions for Africans”), but also poses challenges. The AU, for example, will have to tackle more conflict prevention and peacekeeping responsibilities even as it faces shortcomings in finances and institutional capacity.63 There are opportunities for the UN and regional institutions to work more closely together, as was shown for example in 2014-15 by collaboration between the United Nations Office for West Africa and the Sahel (UNOWAS) and the Economic Community of West African States in Burkina Faso (these institutions deployed a joint early warning mission to the country in hopes of initiating a democratic transition).64

Emergence of coalitions within and outside of the UN. A more complex global landscape is emerging, one that is coalition driven and requiring coalitions that shift according to issue area, both within the UN and outside of it. A more complex landscape will require deft diplomacy aimed at coalition building across different modalities. Western countries will need to engage actively and regularly with countries from the Global South.

A timely example involves voting at UNGA. In 2022, after Russia precluded UNSC condemnation of its actions in Ukraine, UNGA took up the mantle by passing several resolutions affirming the principles of the UN Charter and rejecting Russia’s invasion.65 Yet the resolutions also witnessed multiple abstentions and negative votes by some Global South countries, which point toward how Russia and China have built their own alliances and partnerships through development cooperation, political exchanges, and more. This dynamic underscores the fact that the Global South is not a monolith—countries within the Global South have their own interests within the international system, including as they pertain to conflict management, which inform how they view their relationships with the major powers. A recent International Crisis Group analysis notes that Western countries “should look closely at how to mitigate the effects of the [Ukraine] war on countries outside Europe” if they expect to receive greater support among non-Western states within multilateral institutions.66

Declining good offices role of the UN secretary-general. One of the most important roles of the UNSG is his deployment of good offices, meaning “steps taken publicly and privately, drawing upon their independence, impartiality and integrity, to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating or spreading.”67 In an era of intensifying great power competition, the UNSG’s good offices are at risk of carrying even less weight than usual. Major powers like the United States and China as well as middle and emerging powers such as India or Turkey can exert influence over regional and even global events without operating within and through the UN system and the UNSG. Although this always has been true, it is arguable that the trend line is toward more rather than less of it, hence it is a diversion from the past. Indeed, over just the past few years, Guterres’s calls for a global cease-fire during the COVID-19 pandemic went unheeded, his role (and the UN’s more generally) in the war in Ukraine has been limited despite some milestones such as the Black Sea grain deal, and he and his representatives have had little influence on the current situation in Sudan.68

Implications for conflict prevention norms

Demise of the standard treatment. The rise of a multipolar world order risks the end of the “standard treatment” of conflict management. The standard treatment consists of mediation to cease hostilities, leading to a unitary peace agreement or framework, enforceable through UN-sanctioned peacekeepers. Behind the treatment’s success, especially the high-level mediation of conflicts, lay the great powers. Great power cooperation was highest during the United States’ unipolar moment in the 1990s, allowing for important treatment successes in the Balkans, Liberia, and Timor-Leste.69 However, since then the system has lost its capacity to deliver as the necessary underlying support has diminished.

It should be noted that not all states view the demise of the standard treatment approach as a problem. As has been discussed or inferred elsewhere in this report, states have viewed previous conflict-prevention efforts as violations of state sovereignty and therefore have embraced multilateral approaches that are less focused on direct intervention by UN-sanctioned peacekeepers.

Norms contestation. Contested multipolarity has weakened consensus surrounding key global norms. On human rights, China’s growing influence has allowed it to limit criticisms of its own practices at home.70 Its growing weight outside the UN system, via the BRI or AIIB, allows China to promote a system of “rights-free development.”71 States with deep ties to Beijing may mute criticisms of China’s record on human rights or even support weakening international norms.72 Such developments impact the pursuit of rights-centric conflict-prevention and peacebuilding efforts. Middle powers also are actively involved in norm contestation and erosion. Iran’s efforts to gain a nuclear weapon are in direct contrast to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the norm of nonproliferation.73 Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea, alongside its full invasion of Ukraine in 2022, show Moscow actively contesting the well-established norm of state sovereignty. The actions of both nations not only undermine well-established norms, but also lead to a more volatile and conflict-prone world.

Western states are not blameless: the United States’ 2003 non-UN sanctioned declaration of war on Iraq, for example, undermined the norm against violations of state sovereignty except in cases of clear self-defense. Although the United States presented its case for war in self-defense terms, this claim often rang hollow elsewhere.74

Other relevant norms also have eroded including the R2P norm. Although NATO countries viewed the Libyan intervention as a successful implementation of R2P, others (Brazil and India, most notably) saw it more as justifying the use of NATO’s power.75 Brazil proposed a replacement called “responsibility while protecting” (RwP) to limit R2P’s override of sovereignty claims.76

Implications for operational conflict prevention

Restructuring of peacekeeping mandates and deployments. A contested geopolitical landscape may pose challenges for UN-mandated peacekeeping operations.77 Three dimensions are in question: maintaining the political coherence of peacekeeping coalitions where multilateral, governmental (nation-state), and nonstate actors all have an important presence in a conflict setting; maintaining a minimum use of force standard (referring to the long-standing norm of how peacekeepers should use only the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve an outcome); and finally, limiting peacekeeping operations to core missions consisting of “protection, stability, and politics.”78 Since the 1980s and 1990s, UN peacekeeping missions have had expanded mandates that include a variety of complex goals that run well beyond their original cease-fire monitoring function. These items include institution and capacity building, election monitoring, and peacebuilding roles, among others, even as their resources have remained the same. Peacekeeping operations have not had enough political support or the resources to accomplish the expanding and ambitious goals set for them, as shown by the recently announced withdrawal of the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) and the domestic contestation of UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, more widely known as MONUSCO.79

UN peacekeepers stand guard in the northern town of Kouroume, Mali, May 13, 2015. Kourome is 18 km (11 miles) south of Timbuktu. REUTERS/Adama Diarra

B. State and non-state transformations

During the past couple decades, global economic growth, enhanced access to education, and increasingly ubiquitous technology drove widespread progress in human development including in poverty reduction, hunger and malnutrition reduction, child mortality, and other indicators.80 (This claim holds true while acknowledging the uneven, spotty, and sometimes halting nature of progress around the world, as for example occurred during the 2008-2009 financial crisis and the 2020-2022 COVID-19 pandemic.)

During the early 2010s, foresight analysts utilized the phrase “individual empowerment” to describe how individuals were increasingly capable of shaping world events and outcomes.81 Individual empowerment was meant in two senses: one positive, in that individuals might become more engaged in solving problems, and one negative, in that individuals might become more destructive, for example through wider access to more lethal weapons. The positive side of this equation has meant, among other things, that aspirations and expectations rose along with fundamental economic and social indicators. However, since the onset of COVID-19, some human development gains have been lagging and even backsliding.82 Economic volatility, a slowdown in global poverty reduction, rising inequality, and ongoing gender gaps continue to frustrate the global sustainable development agenda.83 This turbulence risks increasing popular dissatisfaction and distrust in state institutions, which can fray the social contract, increase the potential for violent conflicts within countries, and make structural conflict-prevention efforts more difficult.

The rise of nonstate groups complements that of individuals. Over the past decades, multinational corporations, nongovernmental organizations, community groups, and labor unions have proliferated globally. These have been enabled by the Internet, which also has created groups that exist entirely online, e.g., online gaming communities. This proliferation was not always positive: illicit and criminal networks; armed nonstate actors and paramilitary organizations; terrorist groups; private military contractors; domestic militia groups; and other malignant or misanthropic groups also increased in number. In 2022, according to the ACLED, “nonstate groups were involved in 64 percent of all armed, organized activities globally and perpetrated 76 percent of all violence targeting civilians.”84

The ANSA phenomenon is problematic not just for its scale but also its heterogeneity and complexity. According to Michael von der Schulenburg, a former UN diplomat, ANSAs “are extremely diverse [and] include ideologically, religiously and ethnically motivated groups…; rent seeking groups such as warlords, rebel forces, pirates, clans and gangs; and outright criminal organizations such as transnational crime syndicates, drug and arms cartels and human traffickers.” For these reasons, he argues, “in the realities of most armed conflicts, political insurgents, criminal syndicates and state-sponsored paramilitary often become indistinguishable.”85

Even as states remain the central actors within the international system, individuals and nonstate groups are altering relationships with state authorities, gaining more prominence, and thereby rebalancing the global power architecture. Their rise raises major questions about both the social contract within states and the Westphalian state model that (nominally) has been the premise of international relations for centuries. These questions carry significant implications for designing and implementing conflict prevention and peacebuilding strategies, identifying and engaging key actors, and maintaining common objectives over the longer run.

Implications for structural conflict prevention

(Likely) permanence and significance of ANSAs in conflict-management settings. A minimum of 195 million people live in ANSA-controlled areas, of which some sixty-five million are under the exclusive control of these groups.86 In many cases, ANSAs provide paragovernance activities such as taxation or health services, as was or is the case in the territories controlled by the jihadist group; the terrorist group al-Shabaab; and ANSAs operating in the Sahel.87

Globally, ANSAs are proliferating, posing challenges for multilateral institutions and states. The lack of sanctioned guidelines from the UN makes engagement with ANSAs difficult, including in situations where their involvement might assist peace and security outcomes.88 The securitization of this subfield, a remnant of the counterterrorism agenda, precludes nonmilitary approaches such as dialogues and training with some ANSAs that might advance peace and security goals, including respect for international humanitarian laws and the safe passage of humanitarian aid.89

Implications for conflict prevention institutions

Defining responsibilities becomes more challenging. As the role of individuals and nonstate groups expands, including by taking on governance roles especially where states are weak, there is a greater need to define operational guidelines for cooperation on the ground. For example, during the pandemic, the Iraqi government’s poor pandemic response gave informal militias, the Popular Mobilization Forces, an opening to furnish a pandemic response of their own, thereby helping them to increase their popular legitimacy.90 More positively, some actors such as corporations or philanthropies can play some key roles, such as pandemic response or climate financing, also raising challenges for their inclusion, management, and coordination with state authorities.

Implications for conflict prevention norms

Inclusivity in conflict mediation and beyond. Elite mediation processes rarely work if they are not inclusive and representative of larger segments of a population. Individual and group empowerment means that the pressure on multilateral institutions to be inclusive of nonstate actors in their mediation and negotiation processes should continue to increase. Although broader participation means increased complexity and requires careful sequencing of efforts, the benefits are outsized. Women and youth are essential groups in civil society, whose early inclusion in mediation, negotiation, reconciliation, or other peacebuilding processes capitalizes on their unique knowledge and skills, increases the chances of success of the deals reached, and ensures more equitable outcomes.91 More generally, inclusion itself is a conflict prevention tool: inclusion of individuals and groups within all aspects of society (government, economy, etc.) is critical to defusing grievances against other groups and the government.92

Not all nonstate actors are alike, of course, and not all are easily integrated into mediation and negotiation processes. By far the most complex and contested cases involve ANSAs, the groups that possess military and (often) political power in affected conflict zones (and hence cannot be ignored in conflict mediation processes) yet frequently act in bad faith and/or are unsavory actors on the battlefield and among civilian populations. Because of the proliferation of ANSAs in general (and proliferation of the number of conflicts where ANSAs are the central actors), to date there has been no single template for dealing with them in Track 1 or Track 1.5 processes.93

Implications for operational conflict prevention

Challenges to exclusivity of UN mediation. High-level, elite peace agreements brokered through UN-sanctioned efforts are becoming more difficult to achieve in isolation, given more complex environments, the proliferation of conflicts, and the proliferation of ANSAs and other nonstate actor groups. There is both an increased demand for mediation and an increased supply of institutions (including nongovernmental organizations) to provide it. The AU, EU, “the European Institute of Peace (EIP), the Crisis Management Initiative (CMI), the Dialogue Advisory Group (DAG), the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD), and the Community of Sant’Egidio,”94 are just some of the institutions that provide direct or indirect support to mediation efforts. HD, for example, has been involved in mediation efforts in Mali, albeit with limited impact.95 There are many other positive examples of organizations, including non-Western organizations, that have been important mediators in conflicts around the world, such as Cambodia’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Colombia’s El Centro de Investigación y Educación Popular (CINEP), and Myanmar’s Euro-Burma Office (EBO).96

A broader consequence of having nonstate actors involved in mediation is the volume of effort. Nonstate mediators, including regular citizens, can engage all parties, including ANSAs and insurgents, in ways that states cannot. Some agreements are arrived at entirely among armed groups. In Burkina Faso and Mali, local truces, formal and informal, among belligerents including ANSAs and violent extremist organizations have been reached, sometimes with little or no outside mediation.97 Although often temporary, they can offer communities some stability. While such agreements do little to bolster the legitimacy of broader efforts aimed at national justice and peace, different kinds of agreements serve different purposes, which speak to the need to bolster complementary approaches to resolving conflicts. It should be noted that such peace agreements may have some downsides in that they can further fragmentation, decreasing cohesion and support for the state and entrenching rather than addressing the root causes of conflict dynamics.98

These developments mean that the UN’s role will need to change.99 UN envoys should be “conductors, not soloists,” according to one expert, coordinating roles within mediation efforts.100

C. Climate and Earth systems

Climate change is arguably the most important driver of change shaping the long-term future of international affairs. If viewed solely in ecological terms, this trend has a high degree of certainty, meaning that the ongoing carbon loading of the atmosphere and oceans is certain to transform the planet’s ecosystems. For scientists, the uncertainties surround the pace and scale of those transformations, not whether they will occur. Much will depend on the speed with which the global economy decarbonizes. The climate’s transformative impacts on human systems will be far reaching, and if left unchecked, likely will alter the scale, location, and intensity of conflict globally, making planning and execution of global, national, and subnational conflict prevention efforts far more challenging.

Scenarios released by the UN indicate that temperatures will increase in the 2030s above the target of 1.5°C codified in the 2015 Paris Agreement, with the world on track for a 2.4°C to 2.6°C temperature increase.101 Scientists estimate that the world has less than a decade left to dramatically change emissions trajectories before irreversible damage sets in.102

Climate change causes or worsens extreme weather events, heat waves, flooding, drought, ocean acidification, and more, which increase social and economic disasters, human fatalities, economic losses, societal fragility, and forced migration.103 The extent of disruption varies regionally and increases with rising temperatures: for example, in the United States, for every degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature the gross domestic product will shrink by 0.7 percent.104

The costs of adapting to a climate-changed world are staggering—estimates suggest that between $315 billion to $565 billion would have to be spent annually by 2050 on climate adaptation efforts.105 As shown by debates at the recent annual Conference of Parties (COPs) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), there have been terse global negotiations about who will pay for climate adaptation.

Climate change long has been regarded by the climate security community as a “threat multiplier” that if unchecked will exacerbate societal, economic, and political fragility, while worsening conflict dynamics.106 For decades, this community labored to have its assertions about the climate-security-conflict nexus taken seriously within governments, multilateral institutions, and other policymaking settings. That effort has paid off in that this nexus now is widely regarded as an important (if tragic) feature of the global conflict landscape, with serious work done on the topic within multiple institutions around the world.107 For poverty-stricken communities and those in conflict zones, adaptation problems are more acute owing to institutional and governance shortcomings.108 Climate impacts also are expected to be greater for women and girls.109

A view of a cracked ground near the Sidi El Barrak dam with depleted levels of water, in Nafza, west of the capital Tunis, Tunisia, January 7, 2023. REUTERS/Jihed Abidellaoui

Implications for structural conflict prevention

Exacerbation of instability. Climate change disrupts economic systems and access to critical natural resources, in turn reshaping their governance and allocation in society. These effects undermine food and water security, especially in poor and vulnerable societies, and thereby induce out-migration and conflict. Climate change could exacerbate conflict dynamics and create new escalation ladders, especially in conflict-prone or fragile sociopolitical and socioeconomic contexts, and where institutions are unresponsive to changing conditions on the ground (for example, unable or unwilling to address rising water insecurity). Conflict prevention and peacebuilding institutions will have to develop an improved understanding of these climate drivers, how they map onto conflict dynamics, and how they will alter core processes.110 Across poor and wealthy societies alike, climate change might increase existing public dissatisfaction, fray societal trust, polarize citizens, and amplify social grievances.111

Implications for conflict prevention institutions

Impact of climate change on institutional strategies and operations. Foreign and security policy institutions the world over are struggling to incorporate climate security into their strategic and operational portfolios. Institutions within the conflict management system, including the UN, are in the same situation in that they will have to account for the multiplicity of climate impacts on the peace and security problem set as well as their approaches to assessing the problem.

Much thinking is underway on this front. For example, the UN’s DPPA has attempted to include climate considerations within “analytical and planning mechanisms as well as . . . prevention, mediation and peace-building strategies” through new guidance in areas such as mediation.112 Its work in this space is facilitated by the Climate Security Mechanism, a joint initiative of the DPPA, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) that works across these programs to provide analysis.113

Emphasis on early warning systems. A climate-altered world will increase the need for robust and thorough early warning systems that provide analysts with timely and accurate information about where climate-induced changes might have the most impact on societies, particularly fragile societies, and on conflict. Such systems therefore can assist in providing analysts with information regarding where and when conflict prevention and peacebuilding activities are most likely to be needed. EWS can help identify how local and regional climates will change (meaning chronic and acute changes in precipitation and temperature, as examples), inform local populations about those changes, and help policymakers adapt planning and investments to help mitigate and adapt, all of which should increase transparency and trust and minimize loss of life and livelihoods. If EWS is applied properly in these contexts, such systems would assist with conflict prevention and its escalation.114

There are numerous databases, dashboards, and EWS systems that cover pieces of the climate security equation. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the East African trade bloc, is an example. IGAD has developed multiple data tools and EWS dashboards that monitor and assess hydrological and climatological conditions in the region.115

Yet despite the existence of such tools, there remains a significant amount of work to be done in this space around the world. The complexity and difficulty in building these kinds of real-time EWS systems that track the multiplicity of Earth system changes, map those changes onto all world regions, and then link them to other drivers of conflict—all at a level of granularity that allows analysts to forecast when and where conflict is more likely to occur—is an enormous technical and bureaucratic challenge.

Implications for operational conflict prevention

Complexity of operating environment. Climate change adds an important layer of complexity to international relations, the global system, and governance. As a threat multiplier, climate change is “already increasing food insecurity, water scarcity, and resource competition, while disrupting livelihoods and spurring migration.”116 In places such as the Sahel, which contains many agricultural and pastoral subsistence economies, climate disruptions have enormous potential for disruption and deprivation, thus exacerbating tensions over scarce resources.117 Climate will drive more complex crises, which exist when multiple challenges occur simultaneously in the same place.118

As a result, conflict management institutions will be forced to adjust how they conduct their work. The greater frequency and severity of natural disasters will strain resources for conflict management efforts at domestic and international levels while adding yet another layer of political and socioeconomic complexity to the task. Further, the same trends will make it harder for such institutions to conduct their work, given climate disaster impacts on conditions on the ground.

D. Technological revolutions

Although technological change is an omnipresent feature of the modern world since the Industrial Revolution, the speed and significance of technologically driven change arguably is greater today than at any time in history.119 The technologies under development now have the potential to remake society in every way, owing to their unprecedented capabilities, in positive and negative senses.120 The multilateral conflict-prevention architecture is not being spared from these developments.

The impacts of technological development are among the more difficult drivers to forecast for two big reasons. First, only rarely are technological breakthroughs predictable, which means that it is difficult to anticipate when, where, and who will produce a truly groundbreaking discovery. Second, it is almost as difficult to forecast what the second and third order impacts of any new technology are likely to be, for better and for worse.

These caveats aside, several of the key technologies that are likely to influence the future of international affairs and the multilateral system include:

  • Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML).
  • Information technologies (the internet, 5G, 6G).
  • Automation and manufacturing technologies (e.g., 3D printing).
  • Advanced computing technologies (e.g., quantum computing).
  • Remote sensing and monitoring technologies (e.g., satellites and drones).
  • Health technologies (biotechnologies).121

Some types of technological change can scale to near-universal levels, although scaling can take decades if not longer, as occurred historically with the railroad and automobile. The length of universal adoption underscores that technological progress is an uneven phenomenon. Advanced technologies are not uniformly available to all people immediately upon their creation. Quite the contrary: most often, new technologies take much time for universal adoption. The internet is an apt example. The International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) seminal Global Connectivity Report 2022 reported that although two-thirds of humankind uses the internet, one-third remains offline even though the internet has existed for decades. The ITU report asserted that “multiple digital divides [now exist], across and within countries, between men and women, between youth and older persons, between cities and rural areas, between those who enjoy a fiber connection and those who struggle on a spotty 3G connection.”122 Access to reliable internet service is a critical component of social and economic development—its availability is so important that it is difficult to imagine how advanced societies now could function without it.

Technological change can be a double-edged sword. Social media, for example, enables nonviolent resistance, democratic protest, documentation of violence, and sharing of information among groups (state and nonstate alike) that are engaged in finding solutions to conflict. But social media also amplifies harmful narratives, facilitates the recruitment of at-risk youth into ANSAs, and further polarizes societies. In the United States, given that some 48 percent of adults get their news from social media at least occasionally, it becomes easy to understand how misinformation can spread quickly and contribute to societal division.123 Technological change therefore presents new risks and opportunities for conflict prevention and peacebuilding.124

Implications for structural conflict prevention

Cyber conflict. Cyber conflict is not new, but it is proliferating and scaling: cyber activities are commonly employed by state and nonstate actors alike to disrupt, divert, steal, and to achieve strategic impacts.125 Cyberattacks and cybercrime are common and increasing throughout the world.126 This trend will continue given the relatively low barriers to entry into cybercrime and cyberattacks for bad-faith actors such as authoritarian governments, criminal networks, and terrorist groups.

The UN has supported creation of the Open-Ended Working Group that focuses on developing rules for states and responsible behavior in cyberspace.127 However, progress has been difficult given the transference of major power competition into the digital arena. For this reason, managing cyber conflict should remain a key priority area for the UN given the likelihood of increased cyber activity by state and nonstate actors alike.128 To counter the risk of escalation to physical conflict, the UN can focus on norms development, cyber diplomacy, confidence-building measures, and innovative concepts such as “cyber peacekeepers.”129

AI and social media are creating a more contested information environment. Newer technology tools such as AI/ML and older ones such as social media together will alter the information environment, making it both faster and more contested. The significant downside risk is that the pace and content of disinformation (through, for example, AI/ML-generated deepfake videos and other content) will negatively impact conflict dynamics as they will give bad-faith actors even more capabilities to alter and even define the information landscape. This problem has been much in evidence already with just social media on its own, which can be and has been used by various actors (state and nonstate) to create or amplify false narratives that have a direct bearing on conflict dynamics, often exacerbating existing polarization. Nonstate actors in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, the Central African Republic (CAR), and elsewhere have proven themselves adept at using social media to amplify misleading narratives, contributing to distrust among local communities, insurgents, and the government.130

Disinformation also can be manufactured by state actors. During the Wagner Group’s deployment in CAR and Mali, Russia pushed narratives that were “predominantly pro-regime, anti-French, and pro-Russian” via local proxies such as Radio Lengo Songo in CAR (although not an AI/ML or social media example per se, this case does underscore the importance of state actors using communication tools to spread information and disinformation).131

Communication runs in more than one direction. Hence, the same tools that are used for disinformation can be employed by good-faith actors to relay accurate information and to counter false and misleading narratives from elsewhere. Social media also can be used to counter disinformation. For example, in West Africa, ECOWAS used social media to conduct training sessions, run online campaigns, enable storytelling, and counter harmful narratives online.132 In Ukraine, social media is used to debunk Russian false narratives.133

Implications for conflict prevention and conflict prevention norms

Automation changing the battlefield. Advanced automated systems, driven by AI/ML and remote-sensing capabilities, are beginning to change battlefields. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) have appeared in Ukraine and elsewhere, including in sub-Saharan Africa, either in interstate warfare or in asymmetric contexts (e.g., fighting insurgent or criminal networks.)134 Given the pace of AI/ML development, by the mid-2030s automation could be ubiquitous on battlefields and across multiple warfighting domains.

Automated technologies might increase conflict and instability for several reasons. First, weapons and systems can be deployed without a full understanding of their battlefield impacts or rules for their use. For example, as UAV operators are far from the battlefield, they may become desensitized to their targets. Second, automated weapons could enable all conflict actors, including governments and ANSAs, to assault human rights, as has occurred with automated surveillance systems used by authoritarian countries to control their citizens.135 On the battlefield, such systems might have insufficient capabilities to properly differentiate between civilians and combatants, risking poor decision-making about lawful targets.

Implications for conflict prevention institutions

Digital technologies for good. The list of applications of digital and emerging technologies in conflict prevention is extensive and includes the following:136

  • Improving early warning, for assessment of insights and trends as well as response processes to supplement offline engagement, as ECOWAS Early Warning and Response Network (ECOWARN) did in West Africa.137 The applications are numerous, from the identification of patterns of violence through the use of AI, to improving satellite imaging capacity with the help of better space assets.
  • Facilitating the coordination or deployment of humanitarian assistance, from using geolocation services to monitor Ebola outbreaks138 to the use of drones to deliver critical medical aid,139 or other assistance in the aftermath of a natural disaster.
  • Assisting with reconciliation and postconflict peacebuilding efforts by “offering tools that foster collaboration, transform attitudes, and give a stronger voice to communities.”140
  • Enhancing performance, efficiency, and resource allocation within multilateral institutions, for instance in peacekeeping operations.141 Powerful AI/ML-based algorithms could improve the quality and speed of decision-making.142

Institutions will need to assess the potential impact of such technologies on their processes and activities, develop normative frameworks for their use, and integrate them into operations. As with climate change, DPPA has made some initial forays into this space. In 2018, DPPA set up an innovation unit to “test new technologies for . . . conflict prevention, peace mediation and peacebuilding work [and to improve] analytical tools and practices” for more rapid and focused action.143

Implications for operational conflict prevention

Digital diplomacy and activism on the rise. The COVID-19 pandemic required swift adaptation. Diplomacy moved online, which both limited engagement (i.e., reduced or eliminated face-to-face interaction) and expanded it, given the explosion of meetings online.144 Women-led peacebuilding efforts adapted to the new digital world during COVID-19 using platforms such as Zoom, Signal, and WhatsApp.145 Although the post-pandemic world is returning to more in-person engagement, the trends toward virtual engagement are unlikely to return to pre-pandemic levels.

Digital technologies are changing the face of mediation. Digital technologies can be helpful in conflict mediation, for example by providing better communication platforms to the negotiating parties, increasing inclusivity by helping identify and engage actors who should sit at the negotiating table, especially those coming from historically underrepresented groups such as women and youth, and helping with strategic communications via use of social media to promote positive outcomes and peaceful narratives.146 As an example, in 2020, the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) conducted the “first-ever, large-scale digital dialogue online with Libyan youth . . . [to] inform the UNSMIL-facilitated intra-Libyan dialogue tracks about . . . outstanding security, political and economic issues.”147 UNSMIL later engaged in additional similar digital dialogues with other Libyan stakeholders.148

Convergence of peacekeeping and the digital world. In 2021, the UN secretary-general released a strategy for the digital transformation of UN peacekeeping, with a focus on mandate implementation and personnel safety.149 Two complex matters should be prioritized concerning the nexus between peacekeeping and emerging technologies: protecting civilians from AI-related and other harm that can infringe upon their human rights; and building internal capacity and collaborations to ensure data integrity and internal network protection against activities that can undermine peacekeeping operations and with them, the credibility surrounding the UN mandate.150

Back to top

IV. Scenarios

This section presents four scenarios based on the trends and uncertainties discussed in section III. Each scenario is a plausible story of how the drivers of change might combine to shape the world over the next ten to fifteen years. This section is not a prediction: none of the scenarios are offered as the most probable future outcome. The reader should regard all of the scenarios as equally plausible.

Directly following these global scenarios is an assessment of how the four scenarios in this section might play out in the Sahel, a region that illustrates many of the challenges resulting from the interplay of the driving forces outlined in this report. If the peoples and communities of the Sahel region are to have a positive future, then the various actors involved—multilateral organizations, national governments (within and outside of the Sahel), subnational governments, and nonstate actors—will have to come to grips with these forces, despite the many pressures that these drivers will bring. As a result, the Sahel region was chosen as a case study precisely because it offers a complex and important illustration of where conflict dynamics may be headed over the coming decade and where the possibilities might lie for finding solutions.

Scenario 1: Major power clash

The world in 2033 is dominated by the rivalry between two powerful countries, China and the United States. Throughout the late 2020s and into the early 2030s, China continued in its quest to displace the United States as the world’s hegemon. To date, it has not succeeded. China’s economic slowdown, which started in 2023, has continued (admittedly, it still grew at rates typical of a mature economy). Added to this problem has been China’s demographic winter, which has limited the country’s rise and prevented it from becoming a true global hegemon. China’s struggle to displace the United States did not mean smooth sailing for the formerly sole superpower, however. Through the 2020s, the United States struggled to lead given ongoing turbulence in its domestic politics, which hampered both its reputation abroad and its ability to act boldly economically or diplomatically when it most counted.

Locked into an increasingly adversarial relationship yet being unable to achieve economic or military superiority over the other power, both the United States and China pursued aggressive policies oriented around the recruitment of new allies and partners. China focused much of its effort on other authoritarian countries, conveying influence through the export of technologically infused goods and services and infrastructure investment (though the Belt and Road Initiative was pared back owing to domestic concern in China about its debt). The United States took a different route, focusing more on democratic states through diplomatic, political, and economic means. America remained committed to its partners but failed to mount a major effort to win over partners beyond its sphere of influence. Both nations were cognizant of the flawed optics of military support and stayed away from directly providing arms within their spheres.

In a fashion parallel to the Cold War, the United States and China eventually settled into a state where each had a defined grouping of countries that it considered within its own sphere of influence. And as occurred during the Cold War, both countries chose noninterference over confrontation within each other’s sphere of influence.

The strategic competition between the United States and China split the world’s nonaligned states into two groups. The first were states that were of strategic value to one or both countries, countries that both major powers saw as valuable for different reasons, for example as important trading partners, for key natural resources, or simple geography. In these countries, the United States and China aimed to limit the ability of the other nation to intervene. Key regions here included: the Great Lakes Region of Africa, the South Pacific, and parts of Latin America.

For states within this first group, the conflict prevention and peacekeeping equation proved to be a difficult one. These states were nonaligned, but at the same time they were also seen as strategically valuable to either major power (and sometimes both). Hence, UNSC resolutions for peacekeeping missions in these countries tended to be vetoed by either the United States or China, which were reluctant to watch the other power fiddle in what each saw as something it alone valued. Some affected states received peacekeeping and peacebuilding assistance from regional bodies such as ECOWAS. Many took bilateral aid—economic, military and otherwise—from wherever they could find it. In many cases, they leveraged the two major powers against one another, as had occurred during the Cold War.

The second group of nonaligned countries offered minimal strategic value to either the United States or China and were treated accordingly by the major powers. In these nations, the United States and China were less willing to invest, seeing efforts as unlikely to result in a major payoff. Yet these countries’ lack of perceived strategic value also had an upside. Both the United States and China showed a willingness to cooperate on peacekeeping missions in these countries, precisely because they were perceived as having a lower strategic status. Both countries had other motives too. The United States wanted to avoid the optics of a unilateral intervention and China remained committed to its principle of sovereignty promotion. This meant that despite the ongoing rivalry between two of the P5 states, the UNSC managed to continue to function in a core role, which was the authorization of peacekeeping missions, as occurred for example in the Sahel.

The world’s conflict zones were not only in those areas that were nonaligned with the major powers. Conflict occurred in areas of the world that were within the two powers’ spheres of influence. For states that the major powers deemed within their spheres of influence, in cases of intrastate or interstate conflict there was no possibility of both the United States or China authorizing a mission at the UNSC. This meant that the United States and China, plus whatever allies and partners they could muster, dealt with instances of conflict as they saw fit and on their terms. Not all of this was post hoc conflict resolution and peacekeeping. At least some of their actions focused on the prevention of conflict within or between states they viewed as partners, which meant employment of social and economic development tools and extended diplomatic overtures.

The clash between the major powers had other consequences. China continued its investment in alternative multilateral institutions, including the AIIB and the BRI (which, despite hiccups, survived as China found that the money it poured into the initiative paid diplomatic dividends around the world). These efforts were designed at least in part to advance China’s goals and priorities outside of the UN system. At a certain point, the AIIB and the BRI hit their limits and began transitioning from efforts to gain new partners to shoring up support among existing ones.

Yet China also regarded the UN as an important forum for maximizing its influence and legitimacy around the world. China acted within the UN when it could and where it saw opportunities, shaping the institution to its will as best it could. This included placing Chinese nationals in leadership positions within the UN, for example as envoy for the Great Lakes Region. There was some concern that Chinese nationals in these roles represented the interests of the Chinese state rather than working on behalf of the United Nations (unsurprisingly, this narrative was pressed hard by the United States). There was little proof that Chinese nationals did this any more than other UN executives.

China approached UN peacekeeping operations differently than it did in the 2020s. It shifted away from deploying specialized, highly skilled troops for support and logistical operations to supplying more soldiers on the front lines of peacekeeping mandates. China’s motivation for increasing its blue helmet presence was the same as for its other interests within the UN system, namely, to boost its profile within the institution and increase goodwill among affected states in conflict regions, and within the UNSC and UNGA.

The United States continued to be an important funder of UN peacekeeping operations and offered specialized assistance in myriad forms. However, as it always had, the United States shied away from sending foot soldiers, worried as ever of the optics of it losing troops in multilateral peacekeeping missions abroad.

Finally, and paradoxically, there was some halting progress on the provision of global public goods. Perhaps the most important was that both the United States and China saw making progress on climate mitigation goals as a means to boost their economies through technological innovation and show the world some diplomatic leadership in the process. As such, both countries find ways to cooperate within the UNFCCC. Cooperation around key emerging technologies, however, continued to prove difficult to manage as both the United States and China sought to isolate the other from first-mover development. Recognizing the large strategic value of technology, neither nation was willing to share or collaborate in this space. This competition had knock-on effects as both sought to restrict or eliminate the others’ firms from competing in foreign markets.

Scenario 2: Networks of power

In the mid-2020s, another global pandemic accelerated cooperation within the international system. Although this second global pandemic, coming so soon after COVID-19, portended public health, economic, social, and even political disaster, its impacts were far less severe than feared owing to the willingness of key actors, state and nonstate alike, to build networked approaches to solving the problem. Within a few years after the pandemic’s onset, this unprecedented global cooperation inspired action in other fields and toward other problems such as climate change and even conflict prevention and peacebuilding. Now in 2033, the world is in a different and better place than it was in 2023.

In the early 2020s, few would have argued that such a change was in the offing, given the myriad obstacles to effective global governance: rising tensions among nuclear-armed powers, including the major powers; the slow return to robust economic growth after the COVID-19 pandemic; the debt challenges overshadowing much of the world (rich and poor countries alike); conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and the Sahel; the democratic world’s ongoing struggles; and swiftly changing Earth systems.

Underneath these real problems, however, there were some countervailing and promising signals. Although democratic deficits were real, reflecting disenchantment with government and fears of the erosion of the social contract from AI-driven unemployment, there was at the same time a growing willingness among citizens to engage on these problems through civil society and within their democratic systems. This spirit animated younger generations, especially Gen Z, who were just entering the workforce and politics. Their activism coincided with rising engagement from nonstate actors—NGOs, firms, and philanthropies—and even from some governments and multilateral institutions. This engagement was sporadic rather than systematic and extended only to a few policy arenas. But some leaders had come to realize that partnerships across and among different stakeholders had been successful in responding to public health challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance brought together research and technical health institutions, foundations, private-sector partners, individual states/governments, and multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and WHO.

This was the setting when, in 2026, another global pandemic arose, this one an easily transmissible version of a deadly avian flu. As this pandemic began to sweep around the world, leaders from the public, private, philanthropic, and nonprofit sectors all understood the need to act swiftly and in coordinated fashion. Much of this interest in a speedy and coordinated response was owed to experience from the COVID-19 pandemic, but much of it also was owed to the preexisting desire to engage in cooperative and networked action to address problems. The result was an upwelling of interest in leveraging resources and skills from wherever they could be found. Governments acted fast but not alone, finding willing partners in pharmaceutical companies to develop new vaccines, tech companies to employ their AI/ML capabilities for everything from contact tracing to big data analytics, social media companies to combat disinformation, and philanthropies to provide significant financial support. Citizens around the world also engaged, understanding the important roles they had to play in combating the disease and in maintaining social coherence and solidarity in the face of yet another crisis. The flu itself helped in one critical sense: it was a far deadlier version of a common communicable disease, and which had a much shorter incubation period than COVID-19, factors which dramatically reduced the impacts of disinformation surrounding it.

There was a critical international response to this latest transnational threat. Through its public health institutions, most critically the WHO, the UN played an important if traditional role as a leading research and convening organization. Yet the timing also appeared right for the UN to invest heavily in the secretary-general’s 2019 call for networked and inclusive multilateralism. As was the case with national governments around the world, the UN’s institutions rapidly augmented their engagement with state and nonstate actors of every kind, including national and subnational governments (e.g., municipalities and regions), philanthropies, the private sector, nonprofits, academics, and grassroots citizens’ groups. It worked on everything: humanitarian funding to mitigate the deadly pandemic’s impact; vaccine development and (eventual) distribution; and community engagement. Critically, in this fluid crisis, other international actors engaged in similar fashion. Regional multilateral institutions such as the African Union responded likewise, as did the various global groupings of states—the G20, G7, BRICS, and others.

As was true of the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919, the trajectory of this flu was swift, global, and deadly—but also mercifully short, ending by 2027. Although this pandemic left a grim trail of death in its wake, there was one silver lining. The demonstrable success from widespread collaboration not only left behind a new cooperative spirit—building upon pre-pandemic roots—it also demonstrated that inclusive and networked multilateralism could work in practice. This time, there was enough political, economic, and demographic heft to make a difference, with not only policymakers sensing a true shift but private firms, philanthropies, subnational governments, large nonprofits, grassroots groups, and ordinary citizens as well.

The UN continued to accelerate and invest in its convening, mediation, and consultative capabilities, deepening and extending its partnerships with institutions of all kinds at global, regional, national, and local levels. Moving to a more networked model becomes the central focus of UN reform.

The UN’s thematic aperture expanded as well, extending beyond public health and disease to the panoply of issues confronting the world, including conflict. Growing inclusivity and diversity of actors created flexibility in approaches to conflict prevention, conflict resolution, and peacebuilding. Localization of mediation efforts, for example, became more common, as did the development of frameworks for engaging with ANSAs, or at least those deemed legitimate and supportive of basic human rights.

By the mid-2030s, the world’s problems were far from being solved. Yet there were at least new approaches and a new willingness to experiment and cooperate, and that mattered enormously. Civil society groups formed and sprang into action around the world, some with great success, others far less so, some good, some not so good. In many places facing conflict or recovering from conflict, the state was more of a hybrid entity, sharing governance responsibilities with mixtures of citizen and paramilitary groups, private-sector firms and philanthropies, and nongovernmental organizations. In the Sahel, for example, coalitions emerged to address various crises. Solutions became more ad hoc, localized, and harder to scale. Yet the emergence of nonstate actor coalitions, which included good-faith actors that were empowered by the new conditions, was slowly reshaping power dynamics in the region, leading to new social contracts and, quite often, new hope for the people who lived there.

Scenario 3: Fragmentation

Looking back from the year 2033, it is clear that the world has been unable to grapple with the myriad problems that it has faced for a decade and even longer. Many of these problems were well known in 2023, when analysts were talking about a polycrisis, a term coined for the interplay of multiple crises that heightens the collective impact.151 Over the 2020s and into the 2030s, a combination of factors prevented the world from arriving at workable solutions to any of its major problems. Although hardly the only cause, a massive and worsening ecological crisis, still unfolding, has been a central and unpleasant driver of this change and an unwelcome part of the world in 2033. Unfortunately, there are few workable political mechanisms for dealing with this crisis and many others. The global system has fragmented.

The centrifugal forces that were at play in the early 2020s continued to erode the multilateral system through the middle of the decade. US-China tensions, always at the limit, never boiled over. Nor did tensions between Russia and the US-led NATO over Ukraine. Yet those relationships also did not get better, which hampered governance efforts across all manner of global challenges. This situation was worsened by ongoing strife within the US-led system of alliances revolving principally around geoeconomic policies. The Biden administration continued to press allies and partners to comply with its increasingly punitive measures aimed at China’s tech development, for example, targeting exports of semiconductors (chips) and chip-making equipment. Combined with unrelated US legislation that subsidized and even mandated some domestic manufacturing in areas such as chips and Greentech, the Biden administration found itself having to negotiate constantly with disaffected allies and partners. Reflecting a gloomy mood, The Economist magazine ran a New Year’s 2025 issue titled “Globalization is dead .”

Low global growth, combined with ongoing shockwaves from Russia’s war in Ukraine on global food security, for example, impacted poorer countries especially. Poverty and inequality within and among countries remained stubbornly high during the 2020s and into the 2030s. To make matters worse, tech transfers from the rich to the poor world also slowed down, the result of an increasingly zero-sum tech development environment. With it, the pacing of high-value-added service industries in the Global South was reduced. The upshot was that human development indexes faltered in the 2020s, and diplomats at the UN spoke in hushed tones about the sustainable development goals, deeming them all but unattainable.

Yet none of this was even the worst of it. In 2027, just as the world breached the 1.5°C threshold set by scientists as a climatological tipping point (and formally acknowledged in the Paris Agreement), a devastating El Niño event developed, worsening what had already been bad conditions around the world. This event, coupled with ongoing carbon loading of the atmosphere and reductions in aerosol pollutants (ironically, such pollutants had helped to slow atmospheric temperature rises), brought extreme conditions to much of the world, outweighing even the worst of the already-hot years of the early- and mid-2020s. New temperature records were set everywhere, from Alaska to the Indian subcontinent to South America, while the seemingly unending list of record drought and flooding got even longer. Fire became a default condition for much of the world, as forests began to dry out and even die back, as happened in the vast Amazon basin.

The predictions that the climate security community had offered for years, perhaps decades, began to come true around the world: swiftly rising food and water insecurity; public health crises from extreme heat and disease proliferation; disrupted supply chains; and fire and flooding. Famine struck in the Sahel and Pakistan, with millions at risk for their lives. Migrant crises arose around the world, for example Central American climate refugees poured north toward Mexico and the United States.

The multilateral system fragmented owing to the combined scale and complexity of overlapping and mutually reinforcing disasters. Although UN agencies and individual countries dedicated themselves to addressing the crises, they were overwhelmed and under resourced.

Wealthier nations invested heavily in domestic disaster management and resilience but had few remaining means, and almost no willingness, to direct funds toward the rest of the world. These governments did not honor their financial commitments to key funds such as the Green Climate Fund, with the $100 billion commitment for investments in climate adaptation expiring in 2025, even before the onset of the 2027 El Niño event.

Multilateral funding for and cooperation around conflict resolution and peacebuilding stagnated and then began to decline. Much of the funding that remained for peace and security efforts came from China, with significant strings attached, worsening debt traps and eroding lending standards related to human rights, for example.

Stripped of its conflict prevention and peacekeeping center, the UN became a technocratic institution that dispensed useful advice and provided valuable services, but otherwise could not secure peace and security.

Unfortunately, climate disruptions continued after 2027, which despite the El Niño event did not prove to be an unusual year after all. In 2033, the climate clearly has changed for the worse, disrupting entire ecosystems and creating permanent crises that fragile governments in particular are unable to deal with. Mass migration events, arising from agricultural implosions and natural disasters, have become a regular feature of the landscape, which has only caused wealthier nations to pull the drawbridges up even tighter.

The climate crisis is now, in 2033, a permanent feature of our world, worsening fragility, exacerbating polarization, causing mass hardship, discontent, and outrage, and undermining institutions. As states have proven unable to deal with the cascading problems, governance gaps are increasingly filled by bad-faith nonstate actors, often but not always in fragile states, that try to seize power wherever possible.

In regions such as the Sahel, all this is a disaster. The feeble multilateral interventions at the global level are insufficient to counter the region’s destructive dynamics, exacerbating food insecurity, growing social polarization, and emboldening ANSAs. Governance gaps widen in the Sahel as weak and corrupt governments are incapable of dealing with the climate crisis, leading to spiraling conflict and the largest forced out-migration from the region in history.

Scenario 4: Reinvigoration

In the early 2020s, the multilateral system was unable to address the world’s biggest problems, including interstate and intrastate conflict. This situation owed much to the intransigence of the world’s major powers, which were uninterested in cooperation within the UN Security Council and other key multilateral forums and, worse, had been antagonizing one another for years. In 2025, China and the United States got what both had been fearing yet also planning for, which was a showdown over Taiwan. The resulting crisis, which was worse even than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 in bringing the world close to a nuclear Armageddon, reset not only their bilateral relationship but the multilateral system as well. The UNSC and other key multilateral instruments for resolving conflict were reinvigorated, the result of a newly found desire to have the major powers play much more constructive and cooperative roles in the global system.

Through 2023 and 2024, a gridlocked multilateral system had been incapable of managing peace and security matters around the world. Diplomatic successes were few and far between. Russia’s war in Ukraine, for example, was at a stalemate and risked becoming a true frozen conflict. Neither the US-led NATO nor Russia and its ally China seemed interested in making a decisive move in one direction or another to resolve the situation in Ukraine. Other conflicts around the world, for example in the Sahel, were given a low priority by the major powers and therefore by the UNSC.

All of this changed in 2025, when China under President Xi Jinping decided the time had come to make a play for Taiwan. Although long feared in Washington, Xi’s play was not the expected full-scale invasion but rather a blockade of the island, an unorthodox move that appeared to give China maneuvering room vis-à-vis the United States and its allies while maximizing pressure on Taiwan. As Washington and Moscow had in 1962, Washington and Beijing maneuvered for advantage within an ever-more dangerous and increasingly nuclear-hued crisis.

And for weeks, the world watched the escalations on television and via social media: first the sober announcements from both capitals, other states, and UN leadership, then the opening acts of intimidation at sea and in the air around Taiwan, and finally reports of the two countries’ armed forces shooting at one another—a step that the Soviet Union and the United States had managed to (almost) completely avoid in 1962. At each stage, rhetorical and bureaucratic escalation matched the physical acts, first at the UNSC where both countries accused the other of acting in bad faith, then to both countries announcing they had placed their nuclear forces on highest alert, and finally to leadership telling their citizens, as calmly as they could muster, to be prepared for a nuclear exchange.

For the public watching around the world, this showdown evolved from apathy to disbelief to deep worry and finally to mass panic. Rally-around-the-flag demonstrations in China, the United States, and their allies quickly faded as both powers began talking openly about the risk of nuclear escalation, including at UNSC emergency meetings, held daily throughout the crisis. Impromptu street marches and sit-ins focused on peace took the place of nationalistic rallies, including among publics in the Indo-Pacific and Eurasian regions that feared being targeted by nuclear warheads should the worst occur. These events occurred even in regions with little fear of direct targeting, such as Latin America and Africa, owing to the real risk of an apocalyptic nuclear winter that would occur should the United States and China exchange only a fraction of their nuclear arsenals. Toward the end, as shooting began around Taiwan, mass panic set in nearly everywhere. The situation was not helped by the social media environment, where bad-faith actors used AI tools to generate deepfakes showing realistic attacks on ships, aircraft, and even Taipei, most of which had yet to occur. Few could differentiate between reality and fiction, which helped sow confusion and mass panic.

It took several kinetic incidents, including the sinking of a few ships, for Presidents Xi and Biden (the US leader having been reelected) to find their way to a truce. Years later, as with the Cuban Missile Crisis, it came out that both sides had come within millimeters of escalating to conventional missile attacks on one another’s territory (the United States on bases in southern China, and China on bases in Guam and Hawaii). Fortunately, cooler heads indeed prevailed, as had occurred in 1962.

The crisis having subsided, the two leaders agreed to meet for an extraordinary bilateral summit. There, they signed a declaration reiterating the need for multilateral cooperation, including an announcement of arms control negotiations, and pledged their joint support for managing, containing, and reducing conflict around the world. The effect of this summit was so profound on elite and public opinion the world over that many compared it to the Reagan-Gorbachev summit at Reykjavík in 1986.

The two leaders appeared to be genuine in their convictions, which were buttressed by overwhelming sentiment in support of multilateralism from every corner of the world. Governments representing the two countries’ allies and partners as well as the world’s nonaligned states pressed hard for a return to multilateralism to ensure that such a near-death experience would never happen again.

With the United States and China in the lead, and with the support of most other countries, there was a recognition of the need to reinvigorate the UN system’s core functions, especially conflict resolution, which once again were seen as having failed in preventing this near catastrophe. The P5 agreed to UNSC reforms, which included the expansion of the number of elected seats and reforms to various processes that give elected seat holders more influence in setting the body’s agenda and in coalition building. Yet there was no veto reform, so concerns persisted that the world would return to gridlock within the UNSC. However, those concerns were temporarily assuaged given the willingness of the world’s two greatest powers to cooperate, which they did on more occasions than not from 2025 to the mid-2030s.

The severity of the Taiwan crisis ensured that the conflict prevention and peacebuilding architecture also would be subject to an overhaul. There was a marked increase in interest within the UNSC to revitalize engagement in conflict zones. Existing peacekeeping missions were reauthorized, and new ones deployed, including special missions to monitor situations among and between nuclear powers, for example India and Pakistan. There was some progress in managing interstate conflicts, where the bulk of the multilateral diplomatic and mediation efforts focused. In 2027, the war in Ukraine formally ended with a peace deal. Through the late 2020s and early 2030s, there was a reinvestment in the Sahel, which enjoyed broad material and financial support from the P5, including both the United States and China, in turn helping to stabilize the region and end much of the fighting there, if only temporarily.

Regarding arms control, China, the United States, and Russia started promising talks that were hoped would result in binding agreements, as had occurred during the Cold War. Under the auspices of the UNSC, promising talks on the Korean peninsula were started for normalizing relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (aka North Korea), and serious multilateral negotiations restarted concerning Iran’s nuclear program.

Although this reinvigoration of the historic tools of multilateral conflict prevention and peacebuilding was welcomed, peace activists around the world remained concerned that the system had not been overhauled sufficiently. Among other worries, they feared that intrastate conflicts had been given too little attention and imagination. Within the UNSC, they pushed for what they called a new Charter for Resilience that would push countries away from the post-Cold War model of military intervention and focus on an indirect model that would invest in partnerships with local populations within affected countries.


Regional case study: How the scenarios could play out in the Sahel

By Soda Lo

Scenario 1: Sahel languishes amid bipolar clash

During the mid-2020s, conditions in the Sahel continued on a difficult and downward path. Strategic disinterest in the region from the United States and China, meddling from other external powers, worsening impacts from climate change, and the region’s own internal dynamics all resulted in a proliferation of conflict and disorder in the region. Mali and Burkina Faso—the two most conflicted states in the region—continued their downward trajectories. The string of contagious regional coups from the early 2020s did little to help matters, and often made them worse, fostering internal turmoil, governments ceding territory to extremist groups, and generally contributing to pervasive instability. States in the Sahel continued to struggle with their lack of territorial governance, the proliferation of ANSAs, and conflict- and climate-induced intraregional migration, all of which created a spillover effect into neighboring countries. The 2023 Niger coup—facilitated by a faction of the state’s military—was emblematic as regional institutions such as ECOWAS proved unable to deal with both the coup and insecurity spillover from Mali to its neighbors. Even traditionally stable nations like Nigeria and Senegal began to be rocked by the region’s devolving situation.

External parties alternated between being constructive and harmful in the Sahel. In the case of Russia, it was the latter. Although severely weakened by its war in Ukraine, Russia proved a damaging presence. Its Wagner Group (the mercenaries were never formally absorbed into the Russian military) continued to have free reign to promote its own interests in the region, as in the 2010s and early 2020s, engaging in violent, criminal, and destabilizing operations.

All of this transpired in the context of the worsening geostrategic split between the United States and China, which divided the world into three groups, consisting of the two powers’ individual spheres of influence plus a group of states that fell outside these two spheres. And it was this major power competition that proved of enormous significance for the Sahel, a region which neither the United States nor China defined as being of high strategic value.

China watched developments in Africa with interest and apprehension. Its significant economic ties with the continent spurred a rising interest in securing bilateral alliances and partnerships in Africa, but that interest did not extend to the Sahel. This region, while a focus of concern for Beijing, existed far outside its sphere of influence. The same logic held true in Washington. As such, neither state was eager to take an active role in the region.

Spurred by a lack of direct bilateral assistance, in 2026 several nations in the Sahel approached the UNSC with a plea for help, asking for a direct multilateral intervention to quell the violence. With neither China nor the United States exercising a veto (and China pushing Russia to not exercise its veto), the UNSC approved the intervention.

As the peacekeeping mission took shape, it was clear that the contours of UN involvement in the region had changed along with global conditions. The United States was an active participant, but in a limited leadership role, providing advisers, logisticians, technical support, and medical staff. In part out of heightened caution concerning US domestic politics, the administration refrained from sending a large number of troops and aimed to keep its contingent on bases as much as possible, away from potential conflict. China, conversely, took a more active role, eager to prove its worth as an engaged partner. Among other things, it supplied the region with a visible troop presence.

Scenario 2: Sahelian networks of power

Through much of the 2020s, the Sahel region faced persistent and endemic border-transcending threats of extremism, terrorism, and insurgencies, just as it had in the 2010s. But the 2026-2027 influenza pandemic had a similar impact in the Sahel as it did elsewhere in the world: despite its awful death toll, the challenge nonetheless helped to galvanize state and nonstate actors within and outside the region—even within the most conflict-affected states such as Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger—to coordinate whole-of-society, collaborative, and creative approaches to addressing conflict. Countries, multilateral institutions, and civil society embraced a form of networked multilateralism that drew resources from every level of the international system, including the United Nations, individual states and governments, regional organizations, civil society actors, and even local communities.

The influenza pandemic proved to be a key moment around the world, underscoring the need not only to find new ways to deal with the world’s mounting problems but also avenues for incorporating more participants in governance. The Sahel was no different, with public-, private-, and philanthropic-sector institutions finding newfound energy to address the region’s chronic challenges through utilization of their combined efforts and embrace of novel solutions. Their perspectives were enriched by the leadership and engagement of civil society groups such as international and national nongovernmental organizations and local community groups, which provided both useful insight on the causal roots behind instability and conflict and leadership toward successful (if often ad hoc) on-the-ground approaches that had been underway for quite some time in scattered local settings around the Sahel.

Seizing the moment and the space that had been opened by its member states to so engage, the United Nations took on a greater consultative, financing, and organizational role. It financially supported and more closely coordinated with regional organizations, civil society groups, philanthropies, and multinational corporations to deepen collective efforts aimed at development and conflict management. The leadership and engagement of civil society groups counted for much here, allowing the formal institutions to go well beyond hard security concerns to create and fund innovative approaches to addressing the underlying development and socioeconomic factors behind conflict. A multitude of experimental and often successful (occasionally not) initiatives sprang up across the Sahel, dedicated to promoting socioeconomic development, combating food insecurity, improving educational attainment, fighting climate impacts, and other outcomes. All this helped build trust among civilian populations—who often co-created and ran the experiments—and lessened the appeal of extremism.

The networked ideal applied to many state and multilateral actors in addition to the UN, all of which proved more willing to work alongside not just nonstate actors but one another as well. Individual states in the region worked more cooperatively within regional organizations such as ECOWAS and the AU—with the support and participation of the same civil society and community actors that pushed hard for such outcomes. Western powers that had previously withdrawn military and humanitarian support from select Sahelian nations, such as the United States and France, now partially reversed their decisions, sending funds and other support through multilateral and regional institutions and networks.

This model began to strengthen the systems that would allow the Sahel to become more resilient and malleable. An example was the strengthening of the region’s existing early warning systems, such as the ECOWAS Early Warning and Response Network (ECOWARN), which received more funds and more technical capabilities (partly driven by AI- and remote sensing-enabled upgrades), and gained more credibility as a useful tool among ECOWAS member states.1 Similar stories abounded regarding the rejuvenation of other such EWS tools, for instance the region’s National Early Warning System (NEWS), which is a part of the alert and response mechanism that supports ECOWARN.2

By strengthening these kinds of proactive information-sharing mechanisms, data could finally be leveraged for actionable, fact-based strategic responses to conflicts and security concerns. More importantly, there were actors—state and nonstate alike—who were willing to not only receive the data and analyses that tools like ECOWARN and NEWS gave them but also act on their findings.

Scenario 3: Fragmented Sahel

During the 2020s and into the 2030s, the Sahel’s trajectory went from bad to worse, the result of the mix of trends and uncertainties that beset the world as a whole and the region. For the Sahel, the conditions in 2033 are now disastrous. Drastic climate impacts, felt everywhere in the world including the Sahel, have worsened both the conditions on the ground—food and water availability, as just one example—and the ability and willingness of various actors to engage in the region. What little interest remains among global multilateral institutions to address the Sahel’s problems fail to counter the region’s downward spiral. The Sahel is the foremost example of the global race to the bottom of limited international cooperation, heightened and strained competition, and increased conflict. In the Sahel, there are more coups d’état and insurgencies, more civilian deaths from terrorism, and more conflict among and between communities.

Arguably, years before the worst of all this began in the horrible El Niño year of 2027, the Sahel stood out as the regional vanguard of global fragmentation. Following the 2023 Niger coup, a multitude of events simultaneously occurred. The withdrawal of Western—primarily American and French—forces and aid left the region vulnerable and more susceptible to the rising influence of bad-faith actors and groups, which were already prevalent in the region. Insurgents and mercenaries filled even more of the region’s governance gap. The regional institutions aiming to counter this, primarily ECOWAS, continued to be handicapped by internal conflicts within their membership ranks. Amid threats of military interventions, the coup leaders from Mali and Burkina Faso rallied alongside Niger’s leadership, creating a coalition of coup leaders and sympathizers who stood united against the democratically elected leaders of the Sahel. This schism—coupled with strained internal dynamics and the organization’s inability to do much about peace and conflict in the region—resulted in the erosion of confidence in the effectiveness of these institutions. While they continued to exist, their roles were relegated to figureheads.

While efforts continued to fight extremism in the region, even before the 2027 climate crisis there was a deteriorating political and economic climate in the region, international partners and financial institutions were withdrawing, and in general there was limited international cooperation regarding the Sahel. Stability was already on the decline.

Unfortunately, the horrible El Niño year of 2027 and the onset of what looks like a permanent shift in the earth’s climate made all of this much worse. What began as a temporary ceasing of Western humanitarian aid in the aftermath of the coups of the early 2020s became a permanent part of the development landscape, with aid trickling into Sahelian states. After 2027, such moves were motivated by rising isolationism in the wealthier parts of the world toward the poorer parts. Even China, the largest exogenous player on the continent, limited and reduced its own engagement with the entire continent, including the Sahel. Just as Western countries were motivated by a desire to protect themselves from rising security risks found in the worst-affected parts of the Global South, the PRC was reluctant to subject itself to the region’s risks. China engaged more frequently through bilateral pathways and confined itself mostly to interactions with wealthier African nations such as Nigeria.

Some non-African states found opportunity. Russia, for example, attempted to deepen its influence, primarily via the Wagner Group. It found that the lack of governance around critical minerals and overall mining operations, coupled with the rise of informal and ungoverned spaces, gave the mercenary group the ability to profit from this instability.

Chaos across the Sahel has had a profound impact on the quality of life for most of its residents. The region’s economic and financial fortunes declined, meaning that one of the world’s poorest regions generated even worse poverty rates. Poverty, the climate crisis, and other plights including food insecurity, made intraregional and out-migration spike. In 2033, the outlook for the region is grim.

Scenario 4: Sahel, reinvigorated

In the early to mid-2020s, multilateral approaches to addressing the Sahel’s conflicts were unraveling, at the same time as a series of coups in the region were giving it the Coup Belt nickname. External states’ interventions in the region extended mostly to provision of military weaponry and training, as well as some humanitarian aid. Multilateral approaches to addressing conflict and violence were failing, as demonstrated by the failure of MINUSMA in Mali and the subsequent string of coups.

The significant turn in the Sahel’s fortunes, as was the case for other world regions, occurred in 2025 when the United States and China barely managed to avoid a thermonuclear exchange over Taiwan. The newfound cooperative spirit that followed, a spirit animated as much by the rest of the world as by the two major powers, increased global cohesion and led to the revitalization of the multilateral system, including within the United Nations. The United States, joined by partners in Africa, Asia, and Europe, devised a multilateral plan to bring stability to fragile Sahelian states. At the UNSC, the other permanent members agreed, directing the United Nations to establish a new mission and equipping it with the resources that were believed necessary to effect true change. The material and financial support from the P5, with both the United States and China collaborating, ensured that this issue of shared importance was given the attention it deserves. The new mission began operations in 2026, with financial and material support from a large network of donor countries, including both the United States and China.

Nor was that all that happened after the 2025 Taiwan crisis. Within the United States, the crisis also animated a desire to recommit to US leadership around the world. There was an upgrading of the Global Fragility Act, which had been signed into law in 2019, to ensure that the ten-year plan that the Biden administration had formulated in 2023 had some chance of realization around the world, including in the Sahel. As the law called for, the US government prioritized its analysis pillar to assess the underlying, causal factors that were believed to perpetuate conflict, placing emphasis in its strategy on civic engagement, competent and effective democratic institutions, the rule of law, and proper checks and balances in addition to the provision of military training and resources.

The upshot of all this activity was a multilateral reengagement in the Sahel, properly resourced, with sufficient political backing, and across multiple dimensions along the conflict management spectrum. There was a turn from prescriptive to proactive policies that ensured that the structural and long-term bases of peace and security were not ignored in favor of short-term, kinetic, and hard security solutions. External parties, including forces from the UN peacekeeping mission plus national governments’ resources, worked to provide and build combat-proficient security forces, but the priorities shifted to helping people and communities secure their own futures and to hold accountable their governments, with an emphasis on rebuilding the public trust that had largely been lost.

Civic engagement became a priority, including an emphasis on targeting youth whose economic opportunities were being unmet and whose political voices were being silenced. While many had been (and many remained) vulnerable to recruitment by extremist organizations due to their discontent, young Sahelians largely acted as the vanguards of change within the region, consistently active and engaged, aspiring for better futures. Through these and other efforts across the region, the multilateral system, its core institutions, and its arsenal of peacekeeping mechanisms once more had started to prove effective at bringing about positive change in the Sahel and elsewhere.


Back to top

V. Questions for policymakers

This report has assessed how core trends and uncertainties are reshaping the world, the contours of conflict, and the management of conflict. This section asks five questions that policymakers should consider as they assess how best to navigate the interaction of the trends and uncertainties over the coming decade. Some answers to these five questions are easier to implement and can be scaled relatively quickly. Others will require a broader shift in how institutions approach conflict management and the conflict cycle, requiring both more time and resources for successful implementation.

Some of the questions and potential responses presented in this section are consistent with topics discussed in UN Secretary-General Guterres’s A New Agenda for Peace. Where there is overlap, this work offers steps for the UN to build beyond its findings.

1. How should multilateral organizations such as the UN adapt to and manage a multipolar world?

As discussed at length in the trends and uncertainties section, the UN’s core security apparatus, the UNSC, today is marked by sustained disagreements among the P5 nations. Those disagreements mirror the ideological and geopolitical divergencies among (principally) China, Russia, and the United States. It is tempting to dismiss efforts to find mutual ground among these powers, given the unlikelihood of positive results. Our Common Agenda recognizes the risk of increasing tensions among the major powers and the need for diplomacy to take place during times of high tension. Indeed, conflict will not pause in an era of increased tensions among major powers.

The UN as an institution was never designed to be a cure-all for conflict, violence, and warfare, but rather as a forum wherein states could attempt to find collective solutions to such problems. Given the sensitivities among major powers to interventions that could impinge upon their sovereignty or interests, the UNSC was never meant to enable collective security responses to international crises through majoritarian decision-making processes. Hence the veto given to the P5 states. (At the time of the UN’s founding, the P5 were the world’s remaining major powers.) The UNSC’s system of permanent membership, including the veto, “was explicitly built to be unfair, giving the victors of World War II an outsized role in international peace and security . . . and it was explicitly structured to be easily deadlocked, with any of the P5 able to unilaterally grind its work to a halt,” as two United States Institute of Peace (USIP) analysts put it.152

This means that although policymakers (and others) should temper their expectations for UNSC reform, and although the current state of play among the major powers is discouraging as reflected in the UNSC’s (frequent) deadlock regarding its peace and security agenda, cooperation remains possible despite it all. For example, in 2013 and 2014 the United States, China, and Russia all voted to approve the MINUSMA mission in Mali.153 Though this mission has now fallen apart, the fact that all five of the P5 states agreed to its formation shows that common ground existed within the UNSC, at least at the time, regarding this area of the world.154

A longer look back into history shows that sporadic cooperation among the major powers on peace and security matters did occur. During the Cold War, although the Soviet Union and United States infrequently cooperated, they did join on some important matters within the UN framework generally and on occasion within the UNSC. For example, they backed creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1957 and signed the UN-brokered Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968.155

There are analogous opportunities among the major powers today. For example, China’s interests might align with those of the United States in some parts of the world where both countries seek stability more than they do gaining an upper hand over their geopolitical rival. Here, some analysts point to Africa and the Middle East as examples of regions where such conditions hold.156

Also like the Cold War, cooperation among great powers in an era of multipolarity will likely resemble more limited and targeted interventions in scope. MINUSMA’s renewal in 2022, before it was dissolved, offers a hint of what may come. At that time, although the mission was renewed, there was debate within the UNSC regarding the scope of MINUSMA’s human rights reporting mechanism. This dispute led to China and Russia abstaining in the vote and a declaration by Mali that they would not enforce the human rights provisions of MINUSMA’s mandate.157 This event suggests that policymakers should be prepared for interventions, if they are to be approved by the UNSC, to have a tighter mandate compared with past missions.

It also suggests that policymakers should reconsider what success looks like within the confines of the UNSC. As Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the UN under-secretary-general for peacekeeping operations has stated, “the ultimate goal of peacekeeping” that encompasses the entirety of the peace process or the conflict cycle is unlikely to occur anytime soon. Rather, as the International Crisis Group rightly notes, missions should focus on other goals short of the ultimate one such as providing aid and protecting civilians.158 Such goals are practical, useful, and achievable. For example, the UN mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, MONUSCO, has made aid delivery and infrastructure development across the DRC a focus of its work.159

The implications of multipolarity extend well beyond the UN as an institution for addressing peace and conflict. Here it is well worth discussing minilateralism as a solution set to conflict management. Minilateral approaches to international governance problems refer to the formation of (often) small coalitions of actors—quite often, state actors but occasionally state and nonstate actors in tandem—that have a desire to address a specific type of problem in the world. Minilateral approaches often are utilized when the multilateral system has failed to address and solve a problem and/or when minilateral participants want to avoid the strictures (institutional, legal, or otherwise) that the multilateral system imposes.

Although the roots of minilateralism extend back centuries, this approach to international governance has been enjoying a renaissance owing to the difficulty of finding comprehensive solutions to the world’s myriad challenges within the multilateral system. Advocates of minilateralism insist that the format easily attracts both state and nonstate actors alike that are interested in addressing specific problems in (often) ad hoc diplomatic arrangements. Minilateralism’s virtues can include geographic and thematic flexibility, speed of formation and work modalities, convenience, nonideologically based groupings, and the power that comes from networked relationships. Minilateral arrangements have been increasing in number and significance across regional settings, including Asia and the Middle East, for example the Quad, AUKUS (Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), and I2U2 (Israel, India, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates).160

UN peacekeepers (UNIFIL) vehicles drive in the Lebanese village of Wazzani near the border with Israel, southern Lebanon, July 6, 2023. REUTERS/Aziz Taher

For the United Nations and other multilateral institutions that are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the global conflict-management system, minilateralism presents as much risk as opportunity. On the risk side, USIP’s Andrew Cheatham writes that minilateralism “cannot take the place of multilateral organizations” because those are “based on norms and laws” that reflect a set of universal democratic ideals.161 Minilateralism, he argues, has the potential to dilute the multilateral system’s global governance model and undermine its norms, laws, and standards. On the opportunity side, minilateralism’s virtues—nimbleness, ease of inclusion, and issue- and region-specific purpose—mean that the UN can find many ways to insert itself into such processes when doing so suits its purposes, if not as a formal participant then at least in an advisory or other role.

There is little to suggest a reversal in the minilateral trend, given its upsides for participants in a world characterized by messy and complex problems that no single global institution is equipped to solve on its own. According to Paul Heinbecker, a former Canadian diplomat, “peace, order and progress will increasingly demand shifting combinations of multilateral, minilateral and bilateral cooperation between governments . . . [and] require a wide variety of institutional responses—some evolutionary, others revolutionary, some inside the United Nations System and Breton Woods institutions and others outside of them. . . . No country or small group of countries can long dominate this complex, integrating, changing world or alone determine its future.”162

2. How can multilateral organizations plan for and adapt to conflict management challenges brought on by the evolution of Earth systems and emerging technologies?

In a rapidly changing global environment, the UN needs to have a better sense of risks and opportunities that are on the longer-term horizon. Strategic foresight and futures thinking is a well-established and highly respected field that for decades has established its value in large public- and private-sector organizations the world over. Mainstreaming foresight and futures practices within the UN and other multilateral conflict resolution and peacebuilding bodies can make them nimbler in the face of emerging risks and opportunities that are arising within the global system.

A piece of good news here is that the UN secretary-general has embraced a future-oriented agenda, as outlined in Our Common Agenda, published in 2021, and the Summit of the Future, a high-level UN conference planned for September 2024.163 Our Common Agenda called for strengthening “international foresight” capabilities within multilateral conflict resolution and peacebuilding bodies. UN agencies appear to be trending toward institutionalization of foresight and futures thinking.

Two bodies stand out in this regard. The first is the Climate Security Mechanism, a joint operation managed by multiple UN agencies. CSM works at the nexus of Earth systems change and conflict, and seeks to provide policymakers with a greater understanding of their intersection. While a good start, to be truly effective, the resources and mandate behind CSM need to be scaled. As CSM itself notes, the mechanism consists of a small, New York headquarters-based team that lacks the mandate and capacity to coordinate broader UN work on climate security. As a result, due to budgetary constraints and institutional capacity, much of CSM’s engagement takes place remotely through virtual relationships.164 Scaling the CSM through an appropriate budgetary increase and an expanded mandate would allow it to work closely with more UN agencies, implement on-the-ground field work, and expand its remit to cover the entire world (its current focus areas are the Arab states, Latin America and the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Similarly, the rapid development and advancement of technology is also changing the world that policymakers will have to navigate as well as providing them with powerful tools to manage it. Mainstreaming foresight thinking is important to develop an understanding of the different possible trajectories that technological advancement may take, including their future impacts on conflict. The DPPA has created what is calls an Innovation Cell that is tasked with utilizing novel approaches to its work, including greater emphasis on “data-driven foresight [consistent] with its early warning role.”165 A focus of the Innovation Cell is the Futuring Peace project, which studies how emerging technologies such as generative AI may alter the UN system in the future.166 The work of the Innovation Cell is important and timely, but like the CSM its funding and mandate are limited. The Innovation Cell should be empowered to work with UN agencies beyond the DPPA by increasing its mandate or funding. One possibility might be to change where the Innovation Cell is located within the UN system. The UN should consider moving the Innovation Cell from the DPPA to the secretary-general’s office.

Beyond the UN, other multilateral organizations should seek to improve their foresight capabilities, including as they relate to Earth systems and technology. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and regional bodies such as the European Union, ECOWAS, SADC, NATO, and more should all seek to develop or build out their capabilities in this space through increases in financing or expansions of mandate. Where existing systems such as early warning mechanisms are in place, multilateral institutions should integrate foresight techniques to allow for their data analytics to be mapped onto decision-making processes that focus on longer time horizons.

Foresight is a practice that is designed to anticipate disruption and assist organizations to develop strategies that are resilient in the face of many possible futures. Indeed, foresight is the primary instrument and analytical lens behind this study. And as this study has endeavored to show, the UN will confront a rapidly changing world, marked by new opportunities and challenges resulting from alterations in the global balance of power, technological and ecological disruptions, and other drivers of change.

3. What will the role of nonstate actors be in this space going forward and how can the UN and other multilateral institutions both leverage opportunities and manage threats posed by nonstate groups?

As section III endeavored to show, nonstate groups are playing an important role in international affairs. This category includes both ANSAs such as terror groups and transnational organized criminal groups, as well as groups with a more positive intent including private philanthropies that fund vaccine development or nutrition assistance. The UN and other multilateral organizations will need to continue engaging with such groups, using their expertise to their advantage where they can, while limiting the negative impacts that they might have.

Minilateralism includes an assertion that states and international organizations should form partnerships with nonstate actors, at least on occasion, if their efforts are to succeed. Nonstate actors’ roles in the global system are important enough to warrant their own assessment. Private- and philanthropic-sector actors often provide resources for addressing global challenges in areas ranging from public health to climate change to hunger and conflict. For example, in response to COVID-19, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation authorized up to $300 million in forgivable loans to support vaccine manufacturing in low- and middle-income countries and up to another $300 million for the procurement of vaccines and treatments in low- and middle-income countries.167

Gavi, established in 1999, is perhaps the most apt and strongest example of a public-private model that was designed to attack a major global problem: access to immunization. Gavi marries significant financial assistance and technical expertise from dozens of corporate and philanthropic partners with those from multilateral institutions including the World Health Organization, World Bank, and the United Nations Children’s Fund, known widely as UNICEF.168

Tapping into philanthropies and the private sector offers a way for multilateral institutions such as the UN DPPA not only to overcome funding shortfalls they may be facing to complete their work, but also to augment their own capabilities.169 Given the scale of the conflict management problem, the DPPA should embrace a partnership model to secure donations from private and philanthropic actors and to find other pathways and capabilities for doing its work. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA), as another example, already does so, having secured a partnership with (once again) the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. According to their press release announcing the partnership, the Gates Foundation “brings a global network of partners and expertise in technology and innovation, while UNFPA contributes country-level reach, experience working with governments and expertise in family planning and reproductive health.”170

There are several considerations for DPPA and other multilateral organizations to successfully engage private and philanthropic partners in a common endeavor. First, partnerships will have to provide an attractive value proposition wherein they can provide tangible results in the real world (and with impacts that justify costs). They will need to demonstrate that such tangible results will occur only if all actors work in concert. Demonstrating this value proposition will incentivize external actors to invest in a UN-led or UN-managed partnership. Doing so also would discourage private donors from entering the conflict prevention and peacebuilding space unilaterally. Second, for private-sector and philanthropic actors who become partners, multilateral organizations such as DPPA must find ways to leverage their preexisting capabilities for maximum positive impact on the conflict prevention and peacebuilding spaces. Potential partners from the tech sector, as an example, offer valuable capabilities ranging from AI/ML processing to big data analytics to remote sensing and much more. Third, organizations such as DPPA will need to ensure that private and philanthropic partners understand that although their voices and participation are critical, only the public organizations have final decision-making responsibilities regarding core priorities and tasks.

Beyond private and philanthropic partners, multilateral organizations will need to manage the growth of ANSAs. Membership within the United Nations is confined to nation-states, which means that the UN is confronted with an awkward conflict-management challenge involving nonmember groups. ANSAs are playing an increasingly powerful role in conflicts, where they can sometimes claim more legitimacy than the state itself, in large part because states often have weak or even nonexistent governance capacities across parts of their territories. Across all UN peacekeeping and conflict prevention operations, the UN will have to contend with this complex of weakened state capacity on the one hand and heightened ANSA capabilities on the other. Minilateralism is unlikely to work when engaging ANSAs, as minilateral institutions tend to offer limited technical knowledge, have minimal financial backing, and do not possess the organizational infrastructure and know-how to engage as the UN can.

In adapting to the reality posed by nonstate actors, including ANSAs, the UN ideally should establish clear and concise guidelines about engaging such actors in all conflict phases (before, during, and after conflict). The established policies should include red lines that the UN should not cross, for example ensuring there is no engagement with ANSAs that commit human rights violations. Policies should include metrics to determine if ANSAs have enough popular legitimacy in areas they control to justify serious engagement with them.

These policy goals are relatively easy to state and more difficult to realize, owing to both political sensitivities within the UN (i.e., member states’ reluctance to have the UN acknowledge the legitimacy of ANSAs for political negotiation) and the difficulty of finding ANSAs that meet the above criteria. UN institutions, including the UNSC, for years have developed guidelines for engaging with ANSAs for humanitarian purposes, but have been extremely hesitant to do the same within conflict prevention and peacebuilding processes, owing largely to push back from states.171

A central challenge for any sort of operational guidance is that no two conflict situations are the same. While some of the main themes, causes, and even actors may transfer over between conflicts, each conflict is unique. As such, the above guidelines should be developed in a way that does not make them definitive, but rather allows them to be customized and applied to each conflict situation in a way that will result in the most positive possible outcome.

A key example of the need to define these guidelines can be seen following the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan. The UN has a clear mandate to protect civilians, including those living in territory controlled by ANSAs.172 There exists debate within the UN about how to approach and engage the Taliban, including within the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) regarding the government’s actions to exclude woman from public life and concerns over the harboring of terrorists, thus limiting the ability of the UN to even start to protect civilians.173 The dire situation in Afghanistan demands that the international community find productive ways to engage and promote human and civil rights, despite lack of a clear international consensus on how to approach the situation in Afghanistan. Developing a set of guidelines to guide interactions with ANSAs could result in a more effective international response the next time a situation like the Taliban’s rise to power occurs.

The UN and other multilateral institutions are hardly the only public-sector actors struggling to come to grips with how to deal with ANSAs in conflict settings. Important states in the conflict management space, especially donor states such as the United States, also face the question of whether and how to engage such nonstate actors. Lauren Mooney and Patrick W. Quirk write that such groups “pose a thorny policy dilemma” for the US and other state actors for the reasons outlined above. Like the UN, these states have yet to devise clear guidelines for selecting which groups to engage and under what principles. They assert that those principles ought to prioritize democratic governance, local dialogue, and human rights.174 However, as others rightly note, a lack of defined guidelines can be effective, allowing special envoys to operate under the radar without following a set of rules, a process that can sometimes result in success.175

4. How can the UN support regional bodies in advancing their conflict prevention and peacebuilding goals in line with global multilateralism?

Assuming the UN continues to be plagued by major power competition, especially within the UNSC, regional organizations like the AU and ECOWAS likewise should continue to play an outsized role in conflict management.176 These regional organizations are smaller (they have fewer member states), operate closer to the ground within specific regional geographies, and often possess high legitimacy and buy-in from their member states. Most often, these organizations are a step removed from the great power competition that plagues multilateral bodies like the UN and its decision-making organ, the UNSC.

The UN should continue to prioritize its engagement with and increase its financial and technical support of regional institutions (as practicable), given their importance in regional settings and as levers for the UN. Cooperative provision of institutional and expert knowledge, for instance, should be prioritized and strengthened. An example concerns UN engagement with the AU. Our Common Agenda notes that the UNSC should more systematically interact with the AU, rather than treating its recommendations in ad hoc fashion. The UN should revisit funding the AU; past proposals have called for the UN to fund 75 percent of AU-led peace operations, with the AU picking up the remaining 25 percent.

At the same time, the UN and the DPPA should expand its development and promotion of tailored strategies to manage conflict within individual states. This model would have the UN deepen its work with individual state governments to develop strategies for both preventing and responding to conflict within their borders. Such an approach would have the UN engage host states to build trust and capacity that would be sensitive to highly localized settings.

Beyond strategy development, the UN and other multilateral bodies should also invest in building institutions within nations that can carry out these strategies. The UNDP has already undertaken efforts to do this, creating local peace communities (LPCs) in Ghana, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Malawi, and South Africa, to name a few examples. (LPCs are broad-based community forums that “meet regularly to discuss emerging conflicts or tensions affecting a district, municipality, town or village.”)177 These efforts utilize UNDP staff who are trained in peacebuilding to assist LPCs, local governments, and other stakeholders.178 Further funding of these resources can be a helpful tool to ensure the effective implementation of locally developed strategies.

Although there are pitfalls to be avoided in this model—the UN would have to ensure that any coordination efforts were consistent with its mandate and ideals—the promotion of such localized approaches might have several benefits. These include their flexibility, sustained engagement with national and subnational leadership, and the possibility of greater buy-in from major powers owing to the approach’s respect for state sovereignty. China, for example, often used state sovereignty as a rationale not to support UN-sanctioned multilateral interventions.179

5. How can the UN, and particularly the UNSC, overcome concerns that it lacks legitimacy, especially in the Global South?

A longstanding criticism of the UNSC is that power is held in the hands of the body’s permanent members, the P5, reflective of the global distribution of power at the end of World War II in 1945, when the UN was founded. A growing number of Global South states and outside observers increasingly see the UNSC and the UN as a whole as an organization lacking legitimacy. Reforming the UNSC, whether by function or by structure, would allow the body to overcome a perception that it is a (largely) Western-led body that is unrepresentative of the world and that, accordingly, fails to act in the interests of the UN’s member states. For this reason, and for years, countries in the Global South have called for permanent seats on the UNSC to rebalance the body geographically, economically, and demographically. According to this argument, the inclusion of one or more nations from Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and elsewhere would assist the UNSC and other institutions to be more responsive to conflicts in those regions.

Although decades old, calls for reform have become louder since US President Biden endorsed UNSC reform in an address to the UN General Assembly in 2022. “The United States supports increasing the number of both permanent and non-permanent representatives of the council,” he said, including “permanent seats for those nations we’ve long supported and permanent seats for countries in Africa [and] Latin America and the Caribbean.”180 Since his address, the US proposal has called for the addition of six permanent seats on the UNSC, albeit none holding veto power.181 The Biden administration continues to work with partner nations to develop a plan for reform.182 Other states, such as India and Italy, have also tabled their own proposals for UNSC reform,183 and states such as Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, and South Africa have all expressed an intent to join the UNSC.184

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken chairs the U.N. Security Council meeting on famine and conflict-induced global food insecurity in New York, U.S., August 3, 2023. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

UNSC reform, if defined narrowly as the addition of new permanent (veto-holding) seats, might be the least plausible policy recommendation on this list, in terms of the odds of coming to fruition. There are numerous serious obstacles standing in the way, including the resistance of P5 members to dilution of their power within the UNSC as well as the number of non-P5 states that have no interest in seeing other states become permanent members. The veto within the UNSC is designed to give the body a deliberative mechanism that will slow action and even prevent it, while protecting the interests of its permanent members.

Beyond major power alignment, there are concrete actions that might spur greater cooperation within the UNSC, including among the E10, which are the body’s ten elected (nonpermanent) members. One way to do so would be by expanding “pen holding” privileges, which refers to the current system that enables P5 countries to draft and circulate statements, declarations, and resolutions. Currently, the United States, United Kingdom, and France hold the pen on twenty-three out of thirty-three country-specific files at the UNSC, including eleven of twelve countries in peacekeeping contexts.185 What this means is that a small number of P5 states have extraordinary power to shape the UNSC’s substantive and procedural work, which other members view as unacceptable. For example, France holds the pen on files related to Mali and the Central African Republic, despite both of those states’ opposition to its role, given France’s history and recent presence in West Africa.186

Yet as the pen-holding example shows, even without P5 reform, it is possible to retain and even strengthen the institution’s ability to function. The E10 has had an important role here. Aside from insisting on changing the rules around pen holding, E10 members also have built new coalitions among one another and with P5 states, and have strategically utilized the rotating UNSC to shape the Council’s work where they can.187

Outside of further developing pen-holding privileges, the UN should also explore expanding the UNSC beyond the E10. Currently, the ten elected members come from five different regional groupings: three from the Africa group, two from the Asia and Pacific group, one from the Eastern Europe group, two from the Latin America and the Caribbean group, and two from the Western European and Others group.188 (Of the P5 members, China is in the Asia and the Pacific group, Russia is in the Eastern Europe group, and the UK, France, and the United States are all in the Western European and Others group.)189 By offering more elected seats to Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia, the UNSC can help to overcome some of the claims that it geographically concentrates power in the Global North.

Outside of Security Council reform, the nature of UN peacekeeping interventions will also need to be addressed. UN peacekeeping interventions are often faced with the criticism that they are led by foreign powers having little respect for the host country’s government and institutions.190 UN peacekeeping operations are built around the principle that the host country consents to the mission, though there is no document that codifies this and there is no way to ensure consent for the mission is given at subnational government levels. Rather, consent is believed to have been granted at the start of the mission and is not negotiated until the mission mandate is up for renewal.

Creating a strengthened consent regime that incorporates and respects the wishes of host states will result in UN operations gaining legitimacy and support. To this end, the UN should define a standardized consent document (as the current system relies on documents that fall short of express consent). A new document process, to be developed and executed by DPPA and the host nation, would establish the boundaries of host nation consent, including the scope of operations and conditions under which a renewal would occur.

Although a revised consent document process could proceed based on an agreement solely with elites representing the host government, the challenge is to find consensus outside of that small circle of national elites. To build and sustain the baseline for the mission’s success, DPPA should devise ways in which it can canvas elites outside of a nation’s capital during the initial consent process and iteratively thereafter.

Back to top

About the authors

This body of work was generously supported by the United States Institute of Peace.

The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world.

1     Our Common Agenda–Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations, 2021, 60, https://www.un.org/en/content/common-agenda-report/; and Our Common Agenda Policy Brief 9: A New Agenda for Peace, United Nations, July 2023, 11, https://dppa.un.org/en/a-new-agenda-for-peace.
2     Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict, World Bank and United Nations, 2018, 234, https://www.pathwaysforpeace.org/.
3     “Annan Report Stresses ‘Culture of Conflict Prevention,’ ” New Humanitarian,June 22, 2001, https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/report/22549/united-nations-annan-report-stresses-%E2%80%9Cculture-conflict-prevention%E2%80%9D; and Pathways for Peace, World Bank and UN, 234.
4    “Terminology,” United Nations Peacekeeping, n.d., https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/terminology.
5    Erik Melander and Claire Pigache, “Conflict Prevention: Concepts and Challenges,” in Konfliktprävention zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, eds. Walter Feichtinger and Predrag Jurekovic (Vienna: Austrian National Defence Academy, 2007), 9-17,  https://www.bmlv.gv.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/konfliktpraev_02_concept-challenges_e_melander_c_pigache_10.pdf; and Barnett R. Rubin and Bruce D. Jones, “Prevention of Violent Conflict: Tasks and Challenges for the United Nations,” Global Governance 13, no. 3 (2007): 391–408, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27800668.
6    Melander and Pigache, “Conflict Prevention”; and Rubin and Jones, “Prevention of Violent Conflict.”
7     The term was coined by then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who referenced the illicit arms trade, HIV/AIDS,  and conflict diamonds as examples of transnational risks. See Rubin and Jones, “Prevention of Violent Conflict.”
8    An illustrative scenario has played out in the Sahel, where members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) pledged a military intervention if civilian rule in Niger was not restored after the July 2023 coup. See Okeri Ngutjinazo, “Niger Junta Digs In as ECOWAS Ponders Next Step,” Deutsche Welle, August 8, 2023, https://www.dw.com/en/niger-coup-ecowas/a-66467839.
9     White Paper: Sustaining Peace and UN Peacekeeping, United Nations Peacekeeping, October 2020, https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/ipi_gowan-fortis_wp_sustaining_peace.pdf.
10    “Terminology,” United Nations Peacekeeping.
11    An Agenda for Peace, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Report of the United Nations Secretary-General,January 31, 1992, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/145749?ln=en; Report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations on Uniting Our Strengths for Peace: Politics, Partnership and People, A/70/95–S/2015/446, June 17, 2015, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N15/181/45/PDF/N1518145.pdf?OpenElement; for the full series of reports, see https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/policy-issues-and-partnerships/policy/sg-reports.
12    UN Security Council, Resolution 2282, S/RES/282 (April 27, 2016), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/827390?ln=en; and UN General Assembly, Resolution 262, Review of the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture, A/RES/70/262 (April 27, 2016), https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_262.pdf.
13    Paul Romita, “The UN Security Council and Conflict Prevention: A Primer,” International Peace Institute, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep09518.
14    Pathways for Peace, World Bank and UN.
15    “Resolutions and Decisions of the Security Council,” UN-iLibrary, accessed on November 20, 2023, https://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/periodicals/24120898.
16    “New WBG Strategy Focuses on Conflict Prevention and Partnerships for Peace and Security in Africa,” World Bank Group, February 27, 2020, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/02/27/new-wbg-strategy-focuses-on-conflict-prevention-and-partnerships-for-peace-and-security-in-africa.
17    World Bank Group Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence 2020–2025, World Bank Group, February 27, 2020, https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/844591582815510521/world-bank-group-strategy-for-fragility-conflict-and-violence-2020-2025.
18    “Fragility, Conflict & Violence,” World Bank Group (webpage), updated April 27, 2023,  https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/overview#2.
19    “Fragile and Conflict-Affected States,” International Monetary Fund, accessed on November 20, 2023, https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/fragile-and-conflict-affected-states.
20    “The African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA),” African Union, October 2, 2012, https://www.peaceau.org/en/topic/the-african-peace-and-security-architecture-apsa.
21    “The Peace & Security Council,” African Union, accessed November 20, 2023, https://au.int/en/psc.
22     “The ECOWAS Conflict Prevention Framework,” Economic Community of West African States, Regulation MSC/REG.1/01/08 December 10, 1999, https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/39184-doc-140._the_ecowas_conflict_prevention_framework.pdf.
23    “Member States,” Southern Africa Development Community, https://www.sadc.int/member-states.
24    “SADC Panel of Elders,” Southern Africa Development Community,” n.d., https://www.sadc.int/services-and-centres/sadc-panel-elders.
25    “SADC Begins Peace Building Support Programme in Northern Mozambique,” ReliefWeb, June 14, 2022, https://reliefweb.int/report/mozambique/sadc-begins-peace-building-support-programme-northern-mozambique.
26    “The African Union,” United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (UN DPPA), n.d., https://dppa.un.org/en/african-union.
27    “Missions and Operations,” European Union External Action Service, January 23, 2023, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/missions-and-operations_en; and “Multi-Year Appeal 2023–2026,” Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, January 2023, https://dppa.un.org/sites/default/files/multi-year_appeal_2023-2026_1.pdf.
28    Drew Thompson and Byron Chong, Built for Trust, Not for Conflict: ASEAN Faces the Future, United States Institute of Peace, August 26, 2020, https://www.usip.org/publications/2020/08/built-trust-not-conflict-asean-faces-future.
29    For example, see J. Dana Stuster, “Who Are You Calling a Great Power?,” Lawfare (blog), January 15, 2023, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/who-are-you-calling-great-power.
30    “Funding the United Nations: How Much Does the U.S. Pay?,” Council on Foreign Relations, August 22, 2023,  https://www.cfr.org/article/funding-united-nations-what-impact-do-us-contributions-have-un-agencies-and-programs.
31    United States Agency for International Development, accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.usaid.gov/; and Yu Jie, “What Is China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)?,” Chatham House, September 13, 2021, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/what-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-bri.
32    Ben Smith and Arabella Thorp, The Legal Basis for the Invasion of Afghanistan, House of Commons Library, February 26, 2010, https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05340/SN05340.pdf.
33    Jack Detsch, “Wagner’s African Hosts Regret Letting Them In,” Foreign Policy, September 25, 2023, https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/25/wagner-africa-mali-libya-car-prigozhin-putin-russia/.
34    Jeffrey Robertson, “Middle-Power Definitions: Confusion Reigns Supreme,” Australian Journal of International Affairs 71, no. 4 (2017), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10357718.2017.1293608.
35    Adam Chapnick, “The Middle Power,” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 7, no. 2 (1999), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/11926422.1999.9673212.
36    “Ukraine Black Sea Grain Export Deal Extended, UN and Turkey Say,” Al Jazeera, March 18, 2023, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/18/russia-ukraine-black-sea-grain-deal-extended-un-turkey; and “Turkey Urges Libya to Avoid Steps That Could Renew Clashes,” Reuters, March 24, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkey-urges-libya-avoid-steps-that-could-renew-clashes-2022-03-24/.
37    Nathaniel Allen, “How Boko Haram Has Regained the Initiative and What Nigeria Should Do to Stop It,” War on the Rocks, December 24, 2019, https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/how-boko-haram-has-regained-the-initiative-and-what-nigeria-should-do-to-stop-it/; Ann-Kristin Sjöberg and Mehmet Balci, “In Their Shoes: Health Care in Armed Conflict from the Perspective of a Non-State Armed Actor,Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Spring 2023, https://www.amacad.org/publication/their-shoes-health-care-armed-conflict-perspective-non-state-armed-actor.
38    Lynn H. Miller, “The Idea and the Reality of Collective Security,” Global Governance 5, no. 3 (1999), https://www.jstor.org/stable/27800235?read-now=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
39    Carl Bildt, “Dag Hammarskjöld and United Nations Peacekeeping,” United Nations, 2011, https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/dag-hammarskjold-and-united-nations-peacekeeping; and Séverine Autesserre, “The Crisis of Peacekeeping,” Foreign Affairs, December 11, 2018, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/crisis-peacekeeping.
40    “Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression (Articles 39-51),” United Nations, accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-7.
41    “The Responsibility to Protect: A Background Briefing,” Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, January 14, 2021, https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/the-responsibility-to-protect-a-background-briefing/; and Jonas Clark, “Libya and the ‘Responsibility to Protect,’ ” United States Institute of Peace, March 1, 2011, https://www.usip.org/publications/2011/03/libya-and-responsibility-protect.
42    Heidarali Teimouri and Surya P. Subedi, “Responsibility to Protect and the International Military Intervention in Libya in International Law: What Went Wrong and What Lessons Could Be Learnt from It,” Journal of Conflict and Security Law 20, no. 1 (2018), https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/127937/3/R2P%20and%20international%20intervention%20in%20Libya.pdf.
43    Tim Murithi, “The African Union’s Transition from Non-Intervention to Non-Indifference: An Ad Hoc Approach to the Responsibility to Protect?,” Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft 1, (2009): 94-95 https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/ipg/ipg-2009-1/08_a_murithi_us.pdf.
44    On “megatrends” language, see, e.g., Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, National Intelligence Council, December 2012, www.dni.gov/files/documents/GlobalTrends_2030.pdf; and “Welcome to 2030: The Mega-Trends,” European Policy and Analysis System, April 2019, https://ec.europa.eu/assets/epsc/pages/espas/chapter1.html.
45    Mathew Burrows and Anca Agachi, “Welcome to 2030: Three Versions of What the World Could Look Like in Ten Years,” Atlantic Council, December 21, 2021, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/welcome-to-2030-three-visions-of-what-the-world-could-look-like-in-ten-years/
46    Derek Saul, “China and India Will Overtake U.S. Economically by 2075, Goldman Sachs Economists Say,” Forbes, December 6, 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/12/06/china-and-india-will-overtake-us-economically-by-2075-goldman-sachs-economists-say/?sh=6711a27b8ea9l; Economist, “Will China’s Economy Ever Overtake America’s?,” September 6, 2022, https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/09/06/will-chinas-economy-ever-overtake-americas; and Jonathan D. Moyer et al., “In Brief: Fifteen Takeaways from Our New Report Measuring US and Chinese Global Influence,” Atlantic Council, June 16, 2021, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/in-brief-15-takeaways-from-our-new-report-measuring-us-and-chinese-global-influence/.
47    The IMF global economic outlook warns of higher cost of living, stagnating growth, and the highest inflation in decades. See “World Economic Outlook: Countering the Cost of Living Crisis,” International Monetary Fund, October 2022, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2022/10/11/world-economic-outlook-october-2022; and Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2008).
48    Victor Shih, “How China Would Like to Reshape International Economic Institutions,” Atlantic Council, October 17, 2022, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/how-china-would-like-to-reshape-international-economic-institutions/.
49    Paul Vecchiatto, “BRICS Draws Membership Bids From 19 Nations Before Summit,” Bloomberg News, April 24, 2023, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-24/brics-draws-membership-requests-from-19-nations-before-summit; and “What Is BRICS, Which Countries Want to Join and Why?,” Reuters, August 21, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/world/what-is-brics-who-are-its-members-2023-08-21/.
50    Carien du Plessis, Anait Miridzhanian, and Bhargav Acharya, “BRICS Welcomes New Members in Push to Reshuffle World Order,” Reuters, August 24, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/world/brics-poised-invite-new-members-join-bloc-sources-2023-08-24/.
51     Bruce Jones and Andrew Yeo, China and the Challenge to Global Order, Brookings Institution, November 2022,https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/FP_20230214_china_global_order_jones_yeo.pdf.
52    Kartik Jayaram, Omid Kassiri, and Irene Yuan Sun, “The Closest Look Yet at China’s Economic Engagement in Africa,” McKinsey & Company, June 28, 2017, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/middle-east-and-africa/the-closest-look-yet-at-chinese-economic-engagement-in-africa.
53    James McBride, Noah Berman, and Andrew Chatzky, “China’s Massive Belt and Road Initiative,” Council on Foreign Relations, February 2, 2023, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative.
54    Richard Gowan, “China’s Pragmatic Approach to UN Peacekeeping,” Brookings Institution, September 14, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-pragmatic-approach-to-un-peacekeeping/.
55    “UN Security Council Meetings & Outcomes Tables,” Dag Hammarskold Library, accessed November 20, 2023, https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick/veto.
56    Richard Gowan, Minimum Order: The Role of the Security Council in an Era of Major Power Competition, United Nations University, 2018 https://cpr.unu.edu/research/projects/minimum-order.html#outline; on the recent conflict in Gaza, see Michelle Nichols, “US Vetoes UN Security Council Action on Israel, Gaza,” Reuters, October 18, 2023,  https://www.reuters.com/world/us-vetoes-un-security-council-action-israel-gaza-2023-10-18/.
57    Angad Singh Brar, “The Russia-China Congruence at the UNSC,” Observer Research Foundation, August 1, 2023, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-russia-china-congruence-at-the-unsc/; Jolie Myers and Ari Shapiro, “U.N. Chief: Security Council Gridlock Blocks Effective Coronavirus Response,” National Public Radio, June 9, 2020, https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/09/873060941/u-n-chief-security-council-gridlock-blocks-effective-coronavirus-response; and António Guterres, “Secretary-General’s Opening Remarks at Press Conference in Nairobi, Kenya,” United Nations Secretary-General, May 3, 2023, https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2023-05-03/secretary-generals-opening-remarks-press-conference-nairobi-kenya.
58    Sakura Murakami, “UN Chief Says It’s Time to Reform Security Council, Bretton Woods,” Reuters, May 21, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/world/un-chief-says-its-time-reform-security-council-bretton-woods-2023-05-21/.
59    Shamala Kandiah Thompson, Karin Landgren, and Paul Romita, “The United Nations in Hindsight: Challenging the Power of the Security Council Veto,” Just Security (online forum based at Reiss Center on Law and Security, New York University School of Law), April 28, 2022, https://www.justsecurity.org/81294/the-united-nations-in-hindsight-challenging-the-power-of-the-security-council-veto/.
60    Ignatius Annor, “African Calls for Representation at UN Signify ‘Isolation’: Analysts,” Voice of America, September 28, 2022, https://www.voaafrica.com/a/african-calls-representation-un-/6767652.html.
61    “Joint Statement from India and the United States,” White House, September 8, 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/09/08/joint-statement-from-india-and-the-united-states/. On the Quad and Beijing’s reaction to it, see Bates Gill, “China’s Response to the Quad,” Asia Society Policy Institute, May 16, 2023, https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/chinas-response-quad.
62    Howard W. French, “Why the World Isn’t Really United against Russia,” Foreign Policy, April 19, 2022, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/19/russia-ukraine-war-un-international-condemnation/.
63    Adriana Erthal Abdenur, “UN Peacekeeping in a Multipolar World Order: Norms, Role Expectations, and Leadership,” in United Nations Peace Operations in a Changing Global Order, eds. Cedric de Coning and Mateja Peter (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-99106-1_3;  Abdenur’s piece draws on the work of Benjamin de Carvalho and Cedric de Coning, Rising Powers and the Future of Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding, Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre, November 2013,  as confirmed via interviews as well with representatives from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
64    United Nations Conflict Prevention and Preventive Diplomacy in Action: An Overview of the Role, Approach and Tools of the United Nations and Its Partners in Preventing Violent Conflict, United Nations Department of Political Affairs, accessed November 20, 2023, 6, https://dppa.un.org/sites/default/files/booklet_200618_fin_scrn.pdf.
65    Maintaining a Coalition in Support of Ukraine at the UN, International Crisis Group, March 31, 2022, https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/eastern-europe/ukraine/maintaining-coalition-support-ukraine-un.
66    Maintaining a Coalition in Support of Ukraine at the UN.
67    “The Role of the Secretary-General,” United Nations Secretary-General, accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/the-role-of-the-secretary-general; and United Nations Conflict Prevention, United Nations Department of Political Affairs.
68    “Guterres Calls for ‘Coalition of the World’ to Overcome Divisions, Provide Hope in Place of Turmoil,” United Nations News, September 20, 2022, https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1127071.
69    As Richard Gowan notes, “major power cooperation had created a framework for a highly developed international conflict management system that—for all its failures—contributed to an overall decline in conflicts worldwide in the later 1990s and first decade of this century. This (with some relatively minor institutional tweaks and reforms) is the conflict management architecture that is still in place today. But the return of major power competition and a range of other challenges over the last decade created daunting challenges for this architecture.” Richard Gowan, Major Power Rivalry and Multilateral Conflict Engagement, Discussion Paper Series on Managing Global Disorder No. 8, Center for Preventive Action, Council on Foreign Relations, December 2021, 9, https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/Gowan_MajorPowerRivalry_0.pdf.
70    Tanner Larkin, “How China Is Rewriting the Norms of Human Rights,” Lawfare, May 9, 2022, https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-china-rewriting-norms-human-rights.
71    China’s Influence on the Global Human Rights System: Assessing China’s Growing Role in the World, Human Rights Watch, September 14, 2020, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/14/chinas-influence-global-human-rights-system.
72    Ted Piccone, “China’s Long Game on Human Rights at the United Nations,” Brookings Institution, September 2018, https://www.brookings.edu/research/chinas-long-game-on-human-rights-at-the-united-nations/.
73    Jon Gambrell, “Iran Has Enough Enriched Uranium to Build ‘Several’ Nuclear Weapons, UN Says,” NewsHour, Public Broadcasting Service, January 26, 2023, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/iran-could-build-several-nuclear-weapons-un-says.
74    For a review of the Iraq war’s origins and consequences, see the collection of essays in “How the War in Iraq Changed the World—and What Change Could Come Next,” Atlantic Council, March 15, 2023, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/how-the-war-in-iraq-changed-the-world-and-what-change-could-come-next/#sovereignty.
75    Xenia Avezov, “‘Responsibility While Protecting’: Are We Asking the Wrong Questions?,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, January 30, 2013, https://www.sipri.org/node/409.
76    Avezov, “‘Responsibility While Protecting’ ”; and Kai Michael Kenkel and Cristina G. Stefan, “Brazil and the Responsibility While Protecting Initiative: Norms and the Timing of Diplomatic Support,” Global Governance 22, no. 1 (January–March 2016): 41–58, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44861180.
77    Gowan, Major Power Rivalry. A separate challenge relates to the cooperation of the host state of the peacekeeping mission. In cases such as Mali, the leaders (in this case a junta) actively limit the ability of the UN mission to operate there and arguably see MINUSMA as a service provider rather than a tool for genuine political transformation and governance changes.
78    Cedric de Coning, “How UN Peacekeeping Operations Can Adapt to a New Multipolar World Order,” International Peacekeeping 26, no. 5 (November 2019): 536–539, https://nupi.brage.unit.no/nupi-xmlui/handle/11250/2712042; see also Cedric de Coning, “UN Peacekeeping Operations in a New Multipolar World Order,” Complexity 4 Peace Operations (blog), October 22, 2019, https://cedricdeconing.net/2019/10/22/un-peacekeeping-operations-in-a-new-multipolar-world-order/.
79    Richard Gowan and Daniel Forti, “What Future for UN Peacekeeping in Africa after Mali Shutters Its Mission?,” International Crisis Group, July 10, 2023, https://www.crisisgroup.org/global-mali/what-future-un-peacekeeping-africa-after-mali-shutters-its-mission; and Meressa K. Dessu and Dawit Yohannes, “What Do Protests Say About UN Peacekeeping in Africa?” Institute for Security Studies, October 28, 2022, https://issafrica.org/iss-today/what-do-protests-say-about-un-peacekeeping-in-africa.
80    For a comparison of development progress during the 2000s versus 2010s, see Lauren Chandy, “New Insights: Best Decade Ever?: Measuring Success—Comparing the Progress of Global Development in Relative vs. Absolute Terms,” Office of Global Insight & Policy, United Nations Children’s Fund, January 27, 2020, https://www.unicef.org/globalinsight/stories/new-insights-best-decade-ever.
81    Marlon Graf et al., : Global Societal Trends to 2030: Thematic Report 3, RAND Corporation, 2015, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR900/RR920z3/RAND_RR920z3.pdf.
82    Eduardo Olaberria and Carmen Reinhart, “The Reversal Problem: Development Going Backwards,” World Bank Blogs, April 15, 2022, https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/reversal-problem-development-going-backwards.
83    The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022, United Nations, July 7, 2022, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/.
84    Clionadh Raleigh, Katayoun Kishi, and Trey Billing, “ACLED Conflict Severity Index: A New Measure of the Complexities of Conflict,” Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, January 19, 2023, https://acleddata.com/conflict-index-january-2023/.
85    Matthew Bamber-Zryd, “ICRC Engagement with Armed Groups in 2023,” Humanitarian Law & Policy (blog), International Committee of the Red Cross, October 10, 2023, https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2023/10/10/icrc-engagement-with-armed-groups-in-2023/.
86    Bamber-Zryd, “ICRC Engagement.”  
87    On groups in the Sahel, see, e.g., Center for Preventive Action, “Violent Extremism in the Sahel,” Global Conflict Tracker, Council on Foreign Relations, last modified August 10, 2023, https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/violent-extremism-sahel.
88    Jeffrey Feltman, “UN Engagement with Nonstate Armed Groups for the Sake of Peace: Driving without a Roadmap,” Brookings Institution, January 15, 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/un-engagement-with-nonstate-armed-groups-for-the-sake-of-peace-driving-without-a-roadmap/.
89    Lauren Mooney and Patrick Quirk, Toward a Framework for Transatlantic Cooperation on Non-state Armed Groups, Atlantic Council, May 23, 2022, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/toward-a-framework-for-transatlantic-cooperation-on-non-state-armed-groups/.  
90    Jarrett Blanc, Frances Z. Brown, and Benjamin Press, “Conflict Zones in the Time of Coronavirus: War and War by Other Means,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, December 17, 2020, https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/12/17/conflict-zones-in-time-of-coronavirus-war-and-war-by-other-means-pub-83462.
91    Veronique Dudouet and Andreas Schädel, “New Evidence: To Build Peace, Include Women from the Start,” United States Institute of Peace, March 11, 2021, https://www.usip.org/publications/2021/03/new-evidence-build-peace-include-women-start.
92    Pathways for Peace, World Bank and UN, xxv.
93    Feltman, “UN Engagement.”
94    Jeffrey Feltman, “UN Envoys Should Be Conductors, not Soloists: Reflections for the Oslo Forum,” Brookings Institution, June 18, 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/06/18/un-envoys-should-be-conductors-not-soloists/.
95    “Reducing Armed Conflict in Mali,” Better Evidence Project, Center for Peacemaking Practice, Carter School for Peace and Conflict Prevention, George Mason University, https://bep.carterschool.gmu.edu/reducing-armed-conflict-in-mali/.
96    As discussed in Jamie Pring and Julia Palmiano Federer, “The Normative Agency of Regional Organizations and Non-governmental Organizations in International Peace Mediation,” Swiss Political Science Review 26, no. 4 (December 2020): 429448, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spsr.12426.
97    Sam Mednick, “Can Local Dialogues with Jihadists Stem Violence in Burkina Faso?,” New Humanitarian, December 16, 2021, https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/2021/12/16/can-local-dialogues-jihadists-stem-violence-burkina-faso.
98    A UN DPPA Practice Note on mediating at local level advises UN mediators to assess “the risk that local mediation could displace violence into neighbouring locales. As in all conflict settings, mediators will need to weigh the risks of intervention against the political cost of inaction.” See Engaging at the Local Level: Options for UN Mediators, Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Practice Note, United Nations, September 2022, 6, https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/DPPALocalMediationPracticeNote.pdf.
99    Feltman, “UN Envoys.”
100    Feltman, “UN Envoys.”
101    “IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers,” in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. Valérie Masson-Delmotte et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 18, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf; and “Climate Change: No ‘Credible Pathway’ to 1.5C Limit, UNEP Warns,” UN News website, October 27, 2022, https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129912.
102    Rachel Ramirez, “Historical Emissions Caused the Climate Crisis. But It’s What We Do Today That Will Make or Break It, Study Shows,” CNN World, https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/world/climate-warming-emissions-study-intl/index.html.
103    Total global climate migration could be as high as 300 million in the future, according to some estimates. Abraham Lustgarten and Meridith Kohut, “The Great Climate Migration,” New York Times, accessed November 20, 2023, ﷟https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/23/magazine/climate-migration.html. More generally, environmental pressures, especially climate change, will likely increase the number of intraregional migrants from anywhere between 44 million to 216 million, depending on the sustained action to be taken by the international community.
104    Kathleen Maclay, “Study Maps Out Dramatic Costs of Unmitigated Climate Change in the U.S.,” University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley News website, June 29, 2017, https://news.berkeley.edu/2017/06/29/new-study-maps-out-dramatic-costs-of-unmitigated-climate-change-in-u-s.
105    Candace Rondeaux and Melissa Salyk-Virk, “Calculating the True Cost of Adaptation in Our Climate-Stressed Future,” New America, November 30, 2022, https://www.newamerica.org/planetary-politics/blog/calculating-the-true-cost-of-adaptation-in-our-climate-stressed-future/; and Too Little, Too Slow: Climate Adaptation Failure Puts World at Risk, United Nations Environment Programme, 2022, https://www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2022.
106    National Security and The Threat of Climate Change, CNA Corporation, accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.cna.org/archive/CNA_Files/pdf/national%20security%20and%20the%20threat%20of%20climate%20change.pdf; “Climate Change Recognized as ‘Threat Multiplier,’ UN Security Council Debates Its Impact on Peace,” United Nations, accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/fr/news/climate-change-recognized-%E2%80%98threat-multiplier%E2%80%99-un-security-council-debates-its-impact-peace; and Josh Busby, “It’s Time We Think Beyond ‘Threat Multiplier’ to Address Climate and Security,” New Security Beat (blog), Environmental Change and Security Program, Wilson Center, January 21, 2020, https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2020/01/its-time-threat-multiplier-address-climate-security/.
107    See, e.g., the body of work at the International Crisis Group, including “Absorbing Climate Shocks and Easing Conflict in Kenya’s Rift Valley,” International Crisis Group, April 20, 2023, https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/east-and-southern-africa/kenya/b189-absorbing-climate-shocks-and-easing-conflict-kenyas-rift.
108    Bernice Van Bronkhorst and Franck Bousquet, “Tackling the Intersecting Challenges of Climate Change, Fragility, and Conflict,” World Bank Blogs, January 27, 2021, https://blogs.worldbank.org/dev4peace/tackling-intersecting-challenges-climate-change-fragility-and-conflict; and Katariina Mustasilta, The Future of Conflict Prevention: Preparing for a Hotter, Increasingly Digital, and Fragmented 2030, European Union Institute for Security Studies, May 2021, https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/CP_167_0.pdf.
109    “Explainer: How Gender Inequality and Climate Change are Interconnected,” UN Women, February 28, 2022,  https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/explainer/2022/02/explainer-how-gender-inequality-and-climate-change-are-interconnected.
110    Florian Krampe, “Climate Change, Peacebuilding, and Sustaining Peace,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, June 2019, www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/pb_1906_ccr_peacebuilding_2.pdf.
111    Krampe, “Climate Change.”
112    “Addressing the Impact of Climate Change on Peace and Security,” United Nations Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, accessed November 20, 2023, https://dppa.un.org/en/addressing-impact-of-climate-change-peace-and-security.
113    Climate Security Mechanism: Progress Report, United Nations Environment Programme, May 2021, https://dppa.un.org/sites/default/files/csm_progress_report_2021_final.pdf.
114    Catherine Defontaine, “Setting Up Early Warning and Response Systems to Prevent Violent Conflicts and Save Lives,” World Bank Blogs, February 15, 2019, https://blogs.worldbank.org/dev4peace/setting-early-warning-and-response-systems-prevent-violent-conflicts-and-save-lives.
115    “IGAD Disaster Risk Management Programme,“ IGAD Climate Prediction and Application Centre, accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.icpac.net/our-projects/igads-disaster-risk-management-programme.
116    Robert Blecher et al., “Climate, Environment, and Conflict,” International Crisis Group, accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.crisisgroup.org/future-conflict/climate-environment-and-conflict; Bernice Van Bronkhorst and Franck Bousquet, “Tackling the Intersecting Challenges of Climate Change, Fragility, and Conflict,” World Bank Blogs, January 27, 2021, https://blogs.worldbank.org/dev4peace/tackling-intersecting-challenges-climate-change-fragility-and-conflict.
117    Beza Tesfaye, Climate Change and Conflict in the Sahel, Council on Foreign Relations, November 2022, https://www.cfr.org/report/climate-change-and-conflict-sahel.
118    Emma Schwartz, “4 Facts: What is a Complex Crisis,” Project Hope, July 1, 2022, https://www.projecthope.org/4-facts-what-is-a-complex-crisis/; and Ulrich Eberle and Alan Boswell, “Floods, Displacement, and Violence in South Sudan,” International Crisis Group, accessed November 20, 2023, https://southsudan.crisisgroup.org/.
119    Dan McCarthy, “Tech is Improving at an Exponential Rate. Here’s What That Means for Society,” Tech Brew (newsletter), November 24, 2021, https://www.emergingtechbrew.com/stories/2021/11/24/tech-is-improving-at-an-exponential-rate-here-s-what-that-means-for-society.
120    Klaus Schwab, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What It Means, How To Respond,” World Economic Forum, January 14, 2016, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/.
121    Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, US National Intelligence Council, 86-100, https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/GlobalTrends_2030.pdf; and Global Trends, 2040: A More Contested World, National Intelligence Council, 54–65, https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf.
122    “Universal and Meaningful Connectivity: The New Imperative,” International Telecommunications Union, accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/statistics/2022/05/29/gcr-chapter-1/.
123    Mason Walker and Katerine Eva Matsa, “News Consumption across Social Media in 2021,” Pew Research Center, September 20, 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/09/20/news-consumption-across-social-media-in-2021/.
124    For a list of technologies to mature by 2032, see Chuck Brooks, “Welcome to 2032: A Merged Physical/Digital World,” Forbes, December 18, 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckbrooks/2021/12/18/welcome-to-2032-a-merged-physicaldigital-world/?sh=290f103f5e12.
125    Burrows and Agachi, “Welcome to 2030.”
126    Charles Griffiths, “The Latest 2023 Cyber Crime Statistics (updated October 2023),” AAG IT Services, October 2, 2023, https://aag-it.com/the-latest-cyber-crime-statistics; and Clare Stouffer, “115 Cybersecurity Statistics and Trends to Know in 2023,” Norton, September 1, 2022, https://us.norton.com/blog/emerging-threats/cybersecurity-statistics.
127    Louise Marie Hurel, “The Rocky Road to Cyber Norms at the United Nations,” Council on Foreign Relations, September 6, 2022, https://www.cfr.org/blog/rocky-road-cyber-norms-united-nations-0.
128    Our Common Agenda Policy Brief 9, United Nations.
129    Branka Panic, “Cyber Blue Helmets–Can Cyber Peacekeepers Help Sustain Peace in Cyberspace?” Center on International Cooperation (blog), May 2, 2022, https://cic.nyu.edu/resources/cyber-blue-helmets-can-cyber-peacekeepers-help-sustain-peace-in-cyberspace/.
130    Albert Trithart, “Disinformation Is a Growing Threat for UN Peacekeepers,” International Peace Institute, December 14, 2022, https://theglobalobservatory.org/2022/12/disinformation-a-growing-threat-for-un-peacekeepers/.
131    Trithart, “Disinformation Is a Growing Threat.”
132    Caleb Gichuhi, Leveraging Technology for Peacebuilding in the ECOWAS Region: Documentation of a Consultative Process, ECOWAS Commission, October 2021,  https://howtobuildup.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Leveraging-technology-for-peacebuilding-in-the-ECOWAS-region.pdf.
133    Megan Specia, “‘Like a Weapon’: Ukrainians Use Social Media to Stir Resistance,” New York Times, March 25, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/25/world/europe/ukraine-war-social-media.html.
134    Nathaniel Allen and Marian “Ify” Okpali, “Artificial Intelligence Creeps on to the African Battlefield,” Brookings Institute, February 2, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/artificial-intelligence-creeps-on-to-the-african-battlefield/.
135    Adrian Shahbaz, “The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism,” Freedom House, accessed November 20, 2023, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2018/rise-digital-authoritarianism.
136    “Technology and Security: Briefing,” Security Council Report, May 22, 2022, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2022/05/technology-and-security-briefing.php; and The Impact of New Technologies on Peace, Security, and Development, Independent Commission on Multilateralism, May 2017, https://www.ipinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/New-Technologies.pdf.
137    Gichuhi, Leveraging Technology for Peacebuilding in the ECOWAS Region.
138    Margaret Monyani, “Technology Can Help Deliver Aid and Services More Effectively–but Can Be Harmful If Users Don’t Know Its Risks,” Institute for Security Studies, September 1, 2022, https://issafrica.org/iss-today/digital-humanitarianism-in-africa-hope-or-hype.
139    “Using Drones to Deliver Critical Humanitarian Aid,” United Nations World Food Programme, accessed November 20, 2023, https://drones.wfp.org/updates/using-drones-deliver-critical-humanitarian-aid.
140    Helena Puig Larrauri and Anne Kahl, “Technology for Peacebuilding,” Stability International Journal of Security and Development 2, no. 3 (2013), https://stabilityjournal.org/articles/10.5334/sta.cv.
141    “Harness Digital Technology to Protect Peacekeepers, Civilians, Security Council Urges, Adopting Presidential Statement,” United Nations Press Release, August 18, 2021, https://press.un.org/en/2021/sc14607.doc.htm.
142    Clara Baltay, “Friend or Foe? The Role of Modern Technology in Conflict and Peace,” Organization for World Peace, November 9, 2020, https://theowp.org/reports/friend-or-foe-the-role-of-modern-technology-in-conflict-and-peace/.
143    “Getting to Grips with New Tech in Prevention and Peacemaking,” Politically Speaking, UN DPPA online magazine, on Medium (platform), November 22, 2019, https://dppa.medium.com/getting-to-grips-with-new-tech-in-prevention-and-peacemaking-7ee5fc6461ce.
144    Pierre Vimont, “Diplomacy During the Quarantine: An Opportunity for More Agile Craftsmanship,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2, 2020, https://carnegieeurope.eu/2020/09/02/diplomacy-during-quarantine-opportunity-for-more-agile-craftsmanship-pub-82559.
145    “Connected by Their Phones, Women Peacebuilders Lead COVID-19 Prevention Efforts across Libya,” UN Women, June 19, 2020, https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/6/feature-women-peacebuilders-lead-covid-19-prevention-efforts-across-libya.
146    Digital Technologies and Mediation in Armed Conflict, United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, March 2019, https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/DigitalToolkitReport.pdf.
147    “UNSMIL Conducts the First-Ever Large-Scale Digital Dialogue with 1000 Libyan Youth Online,” United Nations Support Mission in Libya, October 17, 2020, accessed November 20, 2023, https://unsmil.unmissions.org/unsmil-conducts-first-ever-large-scale-digital-dialogue-1000-libyan-youth-online.
148    “ASRSG Williams Conducts Digital Dialogue with 1000 Libyans,” United Nations Support Mission in Libya, January 17, 2021, accessed November 20, 2023, https://unsmil.unmissions.org/asrsg-williams-conducts-digital-dialogue-1000-libyans.
149    Strategy for the Digital Transformation of UN Peacekeeping, United Nations Peacekeeping, September 17, 2021, accessed November 20, 2023, https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/20210917_strategy-for-the-digital-transformation-of-un-peacekeeping_en_final-02_17-09-2021.pdf.
150    Eleonore Pauwels, Peacekeeping in an Era of Converging Technological and Security Threats, United Nations Department of Peace Operations, April 2021, accessed November 20, 2023,  https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/06_24_final_pauwels_converging_ai_cyberthreats_digital_peacekeeping_strategy_1.pdf.
151    Kate Whiting and HyoJin Park, “This Is Why ‘Polycrisis’ Is a Useful Way of Looking at the World Right Now,”  World Economic Forum, March 7, 2023, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/polycrisis-adam-tooze-historian-explains/.
152    Anjali Dayal and Caroline Dunton, “The U.N. Security Council Was Designed for Deadlock–Can It Change?,” United States Institute of Peace, March 1, 2023, https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/03/un-security-council-was-designed-deadlock-can-it-change.
153    United Nations Security Council, Resolution 2531, S/RES/2531, June 29, 2020, https://minusma.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/s_res_25312020_e.pdf.
154    David Lewis and Edward Mcallister, “U.N. Peacekeeping Mission in Mali Set to End on June 30,” Reuters, June 27, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/world/un-peacekeeping-mission-mali-end-june-30-french-draft-resolution-2023-06-27/.
155    “U.S.-Russia Nuclear Arms Control, 1949–2021,” Council on Foreign Relations, accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-russia-nuclear-arms-control.
156    See, e.g., arguments by Jeffrey Feltman in Mercy A. Kuo, “The US and China at the UN: Global Diplomacy,” Diplomat, February 9, 2021, https://thediplomat.com/2021/02/the-us-and-china-at-the-un-global-diplomacy/.
157    Ten Challenges for the UN in 20222023, Special Briefing no. 8, International Crisis Group, September 14, 2022,https://www.crisisgroup.org/b8-united-states/ten-challenges-un-2022-2023.
158    Gowan and Forti, “What Future for UN Peacekeeping?”
159    Carine Tope R’Ridasi, “North Kivu: Tanzanian Contingent of MONUSCO Launches ‘Health and Peace’ Campaign,” United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, January 11, 2023, https://monusco.unmissions.org/en/north-kivu-tanzanian-contingent-monusco-launches-%E2%80%9Chealth-and-peace%E2%80%9D-campaign.
160    C. Raja Mohan, “The Nimble New Minilaterals,” Foreign Policy, September 11, 2023, https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/11/minilateral-alliances-geopolitics-quad-aukus-i2u2-coalitions-multilateralism-india-japan-us-china/; and Jean-Loup Samaan, “The Minilateral Moment in the Middle East: An Opportunity for US Regional Policy?,” Atlantic Council, July 5, 2023, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/the-minilateral-moment-in-the-middle-east-an-opportunity-for-us-regional-policy/.
161    Andrew Cheatham, “In Competition with China, the U.S. Should Double Down on Multilateralism,” United States Institute of Peace, July 19, 2023, https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/07/competition-china-us-should-double-down-multilateralism.
162    Paul Heinbecker, “Reconfiguring Global Governance: Global Governance Innovation,” Centre for International Governance Innovation, August 29, 2013, https://www.cigionline.org/articles/reconfiguring-global-governance-global-governance-innovation/.
163    “Summit of the Future,” United Nations, accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future.
164    Climate Strengthening Mechanism Progress Report, United Nations, May 2021, https://dppa.un.org/sites/default/files/csm_progress_report_2021_final.pdf.
165    Strategic Plan 20232026, UN DPPA, accessed November 20, 2023, 30, https://dppa.un.org/sites/default/files/dppa_strategic_plan_2023-2026.pdf.
166    Futuring Peace home page, UN DPPA, accessed November 20, 2023, https://futuringpeace.org/.
167    “Funding Commitments to Fight COVID-19,” Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, last modified January 12, 2022, https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/articles/covid19-contributions.
168    “Gavi’s Partnership Model,” Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance website, accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.gavi.org/our-alliance/operating-model/gavis-partnership-model.
169    “Multi-Year Appeal: 2022 Mid-Year Report, 01 January to 30 June 2022,” UN DPPA, accessed November 20, 2023, https://dppa.un.org/sites/default/files/mya_2022_mid_term_report_final.pdf.
170    “UN Population Fund Hails Bill and Melinda Gates’ $2.2 Billion Donation to Fund Population and Health Activities Worldwide,” Press Release, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/1999/02/aboutuspr990211; “UNFPA and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to Boost Family Planning in Developing Countries,” Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Social Inclusion,” United Nations, https://social.desa.un.org/sdn/news/unfpa-and-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-to-boost-family-planning-in-developing-countries.  
171    Feltman, “UN Engagement.”
172    Feltman, “UN Engagement.”
173    “Induce Taliban to End ‘Gender Apartheid’ in Afghanistan through All Available Means, Speakers Urge Security Council, Alarmed by Growing Oppression of Women, Girls,” Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, United Nations, September 26, 2023, https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15421.doc.htm.
174    Mooney and Quirk, Toward a Framework.  
175    Feltman, “UN Engagement.”
176    “Ten Challenges for the UN in 2022–2023,” International Crisis Group, September 14, 2022, https://www.crisisgroup.org/b8-united-states/ten-challenges-un-2022-2023.
177    An Architecture for Building Peace at the Local Level: A Comparative Study for Local Peace Committees: A Summary for Practitioners, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.un.org/en/land-natural-resources-conflict/pdfs/UNDP_Local%20Peace%20Committees_Summary_2011.pdf.
178    An Architecture for Building Peace at the Local Level, UNDP.  
179    Mario Barelli, “Preventing and Responding to Atrocity Crimes: China, Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect,” Journal of Conflict and Security Law 23, no. 2(2018), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243794.
180    Brett Schaefer, “A Narrow Path to Reforming the UN Security Council,” Geopolitical Intelligence Services, November 18, 2022, https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/security-council-reform/.
181    Missy Ryan, “U.S. Seeks to Expand Developing World’s Influence at United Nations,” Washington Post, June 12, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/12/biden-un-security-council-reform/.
182    Ryan, “U.S. Seeks to Expand Developing World’s Influence.”
183    Prashant Jha, “India Pushes for Reforms in UNSC at Two Key Meets,” Hindustan Times, September 24, 2022, https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/india-pushes-for-reforms-in-unsc-at-two-key-meets-101663956502734.html; and “The Italian Plan for Reforming the UN Security Council,” Decode39 (website), February 22, 2023, https://decode39.com/5919/italy-plan-un-security-council-reform/.
184    Schaefer, “A Narrow Path.”
185    Julie Gregory, “Sharing the Pen in the UN Security Council: A Win for Inclusive Multilateralism?,” Global Observatory, International Peace Institute, April 7, 2023, https://theglobalobservatory.org/2023/04/sharing-the-pen-un-security-council-inclusive-multilateralism/.
186    Gregory, “Sharing the Pen.”
187    Dayal and Dunton, “U.N. Security Council.”
188    “Regional Groups of Member States,” UN Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, accessed November 20, 2023, https://www.un.org/dgacm/en/content/regional-groups.
189    “Regional Groups of Member States,” UN.
190    This recommendation is distilled from insights in Julie Gregory and Faith Goetzke, “Host-Country Consent in UN Peacekeeping: Bridging the Gap between Principle and Practice,” Stimson Center, September 8, 2022, https://www.stimson.org/2022/host-country-consent-in-un-peacekeeping-bridging-the-gap-between-principle-and-practice/.

The post The future of multilateral peacebuilding and conflict prevention appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Advancing US-Colombia cooperation on drug policy and law enforcement https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/advancing-us-colombia-cooperation-on-drug-policy-and-law-enforcement/ Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:00:00 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=705700 Consumption and price of the drug has remained stable in the United States in recent years. However, the current trend of falling coca leaf and cocaine prices in Colombia present a natural incentive for coca growers to find alternative forms of income, which could mean a higher rate of success for alternative development programs.

The post Advancing US-Colombia cooperation on drug policy and law enforcement appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
A report by the Atlantic Council’s US-Colombia Advisory Group; honorary co-chaired by Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN)

With Geoff Ramsey and Isabel Chiriboga

Executive summary

On September 7, 2023, the Petro administration presented a new strategy to combat the illicit drug trade in Colombia—at a time when illicit coca cultivation is at an all-time high. The strategy’s emphasis on rural development and on offering viable economic alternatives for illicit crop growers, as well as changing counternarcotics priorities in Washington, provide a set of new opportunities for US-Colombia collaboration.

The United States and Colombia have a thirty-year track record of collaboration on this issue. Yet there is still a long road ahead, especially considering the growing concerns over the proliferation of organized crime in Colombia and the region writ large. In this context, progress on US-Colombia counternarcotics cooperation will require a delicate balance between reducing large-scale coca cultivation and building the capacity of security services to disrupt organized criminal networks, as well as investing in the rural communities most affected by this phenomenon.

At the same time, there is a growing recognition in the United States that the illicit drug trade is a shared responsibility primarily fueled by demand. Consumption and price have remained stable in the United States in recent years. However, the current trend of falling coca leaf and cocaine prices in Colombia present a natural incentive for coca growers to find alternative forms of income, which could mean a higher rate of success for alternative development programs and crop-substitution efforts if combined with a comprehensive law enforcement strategy.

The United States and Colombia should continue to collaborate closely to address the problems arising from the supply and demand for illicit drugs in this global context. This is crucial considering the emergence of new drug markets in West Africa and Europe, as well as the connections of certain trafficking organizations to fentanyl production. These dynamics, as well as a lack of state presence and the absence of economic alternatives in many parts of rural Colombia, have created longstanding challenges for both countries. Moving forward, it is crucial that both nations align their strategies to make the most impactful use of US assistance. The recommendations presented here are meant to bolster the approach to a decades-old problem.

US-Colombia Advisory Group recommendations

1. Enhance international cooperation efforts to dismantle organized crime groups and bolster interdiction operations.

Under Colombian law, any individual arrested by a Colombian authority at sea must be presented to a judicial officer within forty-eight hours. In practice, this means that offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) must leave their station. During that time, there is a gap in maritime coverage. The United States can support Colombia by offering essential equipment and training to incorporate advanced technology into OPVs. This could involve leveraging video processing techniques to facilitate due process during apprehensions at sea, thus negating the need for the vessel to return to port, while ensuring the protection of the rights of the accused and full compliance with Colombian law.

2. Define precise and inclusive guidelines for the manual eradication of “industrial” plantations, while working to develop additional metrics to measure progress.

In replacing coca and other illicit crops with other industrial-scale agricultural yields, several factors should be considered. These include the type of industrial crops best suited for coca-growing areas, the presence of an external market for large-scale production, and the fulfilment of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards overseas so that these products can have a guaranteed market access. To comply with these requirements, the Colombian government should promote public and private alliances to produce industrial-scale crops with SPS standards approved.

3. Strengthen coordination efforts between national and local governance on rule of law and state presence in conflict-torn communities.

The Petro administration should enhance coordination efforts between the national government and local authorities. While the current drug and security strategies outline fundamental areas for progress, they can better incorporate perspectives from local government at the level of cities and municipalities. These include persistent budgetary concerns exacerbated by growing migration pressures and the need for greater coordination on the implementation of nationwide policies.

4. Expand and strengthen US-led capacity-building programs for the prevention and detection of money laundering and financial crimes, with a focused emphasis on cyber-based illicit transactions.

Certain sectors, including banking, gold mining, legal advisory, and real estate are particularly vulnerable to money laundering. To address this, Colombian law enforcement, military forces, and intelligence units should enhance existing partnerships with their US counterparts to significantly upscale training and capacity-building with an emphasis on cyber-based illicit transactions. Special attention should be given to small financial cooperatives and credit providers, which are at a higher risk of unwittingly facilitating illegal transactions.

5. Advance the implementation of a holistic bilateral counternarcotic agenda through a careful balance of effective drug policies.

The United States and Colombia should prioritize policies that will mitigate the escalating violence and security challenges Colombia faces. This includes enhanced cooperation efforts on real-time intelligence sharing on drug trafficking including routes, money laundering, and key individuals, and promoting advanced technologies for surveillance, interdiction, and data analytics to combat traffickers. Once the security situation is under control cooperation should focus on making those conditions sustainable through long-term social programs.

6. Work with affected communities to develop an environmentally sustainable approach to transition to legal crop cultivation while mitigating further environmental damage.

The United States could be a key partner in accompanying the Colombian government in shaping the preservation of the Amazon, as it will require restructuring a portion of Colombia’s debt to allocate the saved funds toward initiatives focused on forest preservation, sustainable land use, and community development. To achieve this, both countries can begin by collaborating on a detailed framework that outlines specific conservation targets and reforestation goals to then decide on the allocation of saved debt funds toward a combination of projects, particularly in areas with coca cultivation.

7. Advocate for the creation of a multilateral trust fund that can provide sustained funding for crop substitution and alternative development programs to curb the growing illicit drug-production trend.

Colombia’s new anti-drug strategy carries an estimated cost exceeding $21 billion over the next decade. To secure international support and incentivize donors to contribute to the long-term success of crop substitution and an alternative development program, we propose the establishment of a trust fund led by a recognized international financial institution. Given that the World Bank has a proven track record of efficiently mobilizing resources through trust funds,1 it may be best suited to leverage its extensive convening power on both the international stage and within individual countries.

About the US-Colombia Advisory Group

Since its founding in 2017, the Advisory Group has been co-chaired by Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Ben Cardin (D-MD). This year, upon Senator Blunt’s retirement, Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) assumes the honorary chairmanship alongside Senator Cardin.

Senators Cardin and Hagerty are both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where, in addition to other assignments, Senator Cardin serves as Chairman and Senator Hagerty as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on State Department & USAID Management, International Operations, & Bilateral International Development. The two senators bring additional regional and global expertise to their honorary co-chairmanship: Senator Cardin is a member of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights, & Global Women’s Issues; and Senator Hagerty is a member of the Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, & International Cybersecurity Policy.

In 2023-2024, the Advisory Group will provide a concrete plan on how to navigate the potential changes in US-Colombia relations. A new administration in Colombia represents a unique opportunity to work with an increasingly diverse set of actors in the public, private, and civil society sectors to deepen US-Colombia economic and diplomatic ties. The Advisory Group will advance concrete recommendations where the United States and Colombia can advance long-lasting peace and socio-economic prosperity that mutually benefits each country.


About the writers

Geoff Ramsey is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center. Ramsey is a leading expert on US policy towards Venezuela and has traveled regularly to the country for the last decade. Before joining the Atlantic Council, Ramsey directed the Venezuela program at the Washington Office on Latin America where he led the organization’s research on Venezuela and worked to promote lasting political agreements aimed at restoring human rights, democratic institutions, and the rule of law. Prior to that, he carried out research and reporting on security and human-rights issues in Colombia, Uruguay, and Brazil with InSight Crime and as a consultant for the Open Society Foundations. His work has been published or cited in Foreign Policy, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Economist, and other major media outlets. Ramsey earned a master’s degree in international affairs from the American University School of International Service, as well as a bachelor of arts in international studies with a minor in Spanish from American University.

Isabel Chiriboga is a program assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, where she contributes to the center’s work on Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Chile. She also helps steward the Center’s Advisory Council. During her time at the Atlantic Council, she has supported the work of the US-Colombia Advisory Group, the US-Chile Integration Program and the center’s programming around the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings. Her work has been published in Foreign Policy, Miami Herald, The National InterestGlobal Americans and the New Atlanticist. Prior to her time at the Atlantic Council, Chiriboga worked as a research assistant at the London School of Economics’ Department of International Relations conducting research on the impact of land inequality in Argentina’s democratization. Prior to that, she worked at the embassy of Ecuador in Washington, where she supported the trade agreement negotiations process between Ecuador and the United States. Originally from Ecuador, Chiriboga has lived in the United States, Spain, and the United Kingdom. She has a bachelor’s degree in international economics and international affairs from Trinity University. Chiriboga also completed a year-long study abroad program at the London School of Economics.  

About the Center Director

Jason Marczak is the Vice President and Senior Director of the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, joining the center in 2013 for its launch. He has more than twenty years of expertise in regional economics, politics, and development, working with policymakers and private-sector leaders to shape public policy. Marczak has also been an adjunct professor at the George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs since 2016. Among his previous positions, he served as director of policy at Americas Society/Council of the Americas in New York City and co-founder of Americas Quarterly magazine. Marczak is a frequent English- and Spanish-language contributor to major media outlets, and a sought-after speaker, and has testified before the US Congress on key regional developments. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Tufts University and a master’s degree in international affairs and economics from the Johns Hopkins University Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.


US-Colombia Advisory Group

We are beyond grateful to our US-Colombia Advisory Group members for their passion, commitment, expertise, and leadership. Members who provided crucial input and have decided to have their names associated with this report are listed below.

Honorary Co-Chairs

The Hon. Ben Cardin
US Senator (D-MD)
United States

The Hon. Bill Hagerty
US Senator (R-TN)
United States

Members

Alejandro Mesa

Ambassador Anne Patterson

Ambassador Carolina Barco

Ambassador Kevin Whitaker

Ambassador P. Michael McKinley

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

Ambassador Rand Beers

Ambassador Roger Noriega

Ambassador William Brownfield

Angela Tafur

Cynthia Arnson

Felipe Ardila

Josefina Klinger

Juan Esteban Orduz

Kristie Pellecchia

Minister Maria Claudia Lacouture

Minister Mabel Torres

Minister Mauricio Cardenas

Michael Shifter

Muni Jensen

Stephen Donehoo

Steve Hege

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Adrienne Arsht for her generous support, without which the work of this Advisory Group would not have been possible.

Foremost, thank you to Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) and Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) for their leadership as honorary co-chairs of this group. It is always a true pleasure and honor to work with them and to see how successful bipartisan efforts come to fruition. Thank you to Robert Zarate, Nick Checker, Lucas Da Pieve, Michael Manucy, Tom Melia, Brandon Yoder, Stephanie Oviedo, and Aidan Maese-Czeropski for facilitating the unwavering cooperation of our honorary co-chairs.

Isabel Chiriboga, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center (AALAC) program assistant, was an instrumental force behind this project from start to finish. She played a key role in coordinating the Advisory Group, drafting the report, and organizing multiple strategy sessions. We also thank Enrique Millán-Mejía, AALAC consultant, who provided crucial expertise, important feedback, and logistical support for this project, and Lucie Kneip for her research and editorial support throughout the publication process. The success of this project is also thanks to the leadership of Jason Marczak and Geoff Ramsey, who worked to convene the Advisory Group and whose passion for a prosperous US-Colombia strategic partnership is reflected in this brief.

For decisive input, thorough research, and as an exceptional adviser on the topic we thank Ambassador Kevin Whitaker. For their precise editorial assistance and flexibility, we thank Cate Hansberry and Mary Kate Aylward and Beverly Larson. We would also like to extend our thanks to Nancy Messieh, Andrea Ratiu, and Romain Warnault for their design of another Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center publication.

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.

The post Advancing US-Colombia cooperation on drug policy and law enforcement appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ukraine aims to hold Russia accountable for heritage site attacks https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-aims-to-hold-russia-accountable-for-heritage-site-attacks/ Tue, 21 Nov 2023 14:43:44 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=706219 Ukraine is working to document Russian attacks on the country's cultural heritage that Ukrainians argue are part of a broader Kremlin campaign to erase Ukraine's national identity, writes Mercedes Sapuppo.

The post Ukraine aims to hold Russia accountable for heritage site attacks appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has included what many see as a systematic campaign to destroy Ukraine’s cultural heritage. In response to these efforts, a dedicated unit of Ukraine’s Territorial Defense Forces has been formed to carry out the specific task of investigating the targeting of cultural heritage sites across Ukraine. Led by lawyer Vitaliy Tytych, this unit has begun the Herculean task of documenting destruction not witnessed in Europe since the days of Hitler and Stalin.

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 heritage protection unit carries echoes of the World War II era “Monuments Men” and the US Army’s 2019 creation of a Cultural Heritage Task Force charged with ensuring the US military is equipped to preserve local heritage sites. However, there are key differences: Ukraine’s new Territorial Defense Forces unit is not only working to protect the physical cornerstones of Ukraine’s national identity, but to collect an expanding body of evidence for future prosecutions.

Since the full-scale invasion began on February 24, 2022, Russia has been accused of committing countless war crimes in Ukraine. Targeted attacks on Ukraine’s cultural heritage are seen as part of a broader strategy to eradicate all traces of Ukrainian national identity, which Russia regards as an existential threat to its own imperial identity. Some Ukrainian cultural leaders have defined the Russian invasion as “a heritage war.” Ihor Poshyvailo, the director of Kyiv’s Maidan Museum who currently serves in the Ukrainian military’s cultural heritage protection unit, has described Russia’s invasion as a war “against our historical memory. Against our soul.”

By mid-November 2023, UNESCO had verified damage to 329 cultural sites in Ukraine since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. This includes damage to 125 religious sites, 143 buildings of historical and artistic importance, 28 museums, 19 monuments, 13 libraries, and one archive. From Odesa’s National Art Museum to Kherson’s regional library, and from Kharkiv’s Drobytskyi Holocaust Memorial and Memorial to Victims of Totalitarianism to Zaporizhzhia’s Popov Manor House museum, Russia has shelled, bombed, and looted Ukraine’s cultural heritage extensively across the country.

The Russian military’s campaign to erase Ukrainian national identity is sparking strong resistance and a determination to hold Russia internationally accountable. The recently formed Territorial Defense Forces unit is working alongside a growing network of cultural industry experts committed to cataloging Russian crimes.

Ukrainian museum experts have set up the Heritage Emergency Response Initiative (HERI) to document Russia’s attacks while working in coordination with UNESCO. HERI works to collect resources to support museums across Ukraine, responding to regularly updated requests from different regions of the country. Some museum staff have been painstakingly evacuating their collections and storing them to protect priceless works of art from Russian aggression, while others have stayed behind despite obvious dangers to help safeguard Ukraine’s cultural heritage.

Ukraine’s cultural guardians are also receiving international support. One year after the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the US Department of State announced that it would invest $7 million to support Ukraine’s cultural heritage protection efforts. In addition, the US Army’s Civil Affairs and Psychological Operation Command has joined forces with the Smithsonian Cultural Rescue Initiative to train Ukrainian soldiers in protecting cultural heritage during armed conflict.

The Smithsonian Institution has also partnered with the Kosciuszko Foundation to provide museums with the necessary tools and technology to safely store priceless works of art. Across the Ukrainian border in neighboring Poland, the Polish Ministry of Culture and National Heritage has established a Cultural Assistance Center to help coordinate domestic and foreign actions to protect Ukraine’s cultural resources.

In a March 2023 study commissioned and published by the European Parliament, researchers determined that the protection of cultural heritage in armed conflict is covered by international humanitarian law, human rights law, cultural law, and criminal law. A report for the European Union Advisory Mission Ukraine found concrete evidence that cultural property has been intentionally targeted during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Russia’s war in Ukraine is being fought along many different fronts. This includes the targeting of cultural heritage as Russia attempts to erase Ukraine’s national identity and impose an imperial identity on a conquered nation. The creation of a dedicated Territorial Defense Forces unit reflects Ukraine’s determination to expose this genocidal agenda. By documenting the deliberate destruction of their country’s cultural heritage, Ukrainians aim to raise international awareness of the criminal objectives underpinning Russia’s invasion. Ultimately, the aim is to hold Russia accountable for its crimes.

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

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Ukraine aims to hold Russia accountable for heritage site attacks appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Wartime Ukraine is making historic progress toward EU membership https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/wartime-ukraine-is-making-historic-progress-toward-eu-membership/ Tue, 21 Nov 2023 14:05:15 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=706208 The Ukrainian authorities have made clear they view EU membership as a strategic priority and are fully committed to pursuing this goal, even while defending themselves against Russia’s ongoing invasion, writes Mark Temnycky.

The post Wartime Ukraine is making historic progress toward EU membership appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
In early November, the European Commission recommended that EU accession negotiations begin with Ukraine. EU leaders are now expected to confirm this decision in mid-December. This would represent a major milestone in Ukraine’s long quest for European integration that would reflect the historic changes taking place throughout Ukrainian society and in the country’s political arena.

In the last week of November, Ukraine marked ten years since the start of protests in late 2013 over then president Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to turn away from an association agreement with the European Union. When thousands of Ukrainians flooded into central Kyiv’s Independence Square (“Maidan Nezalezhnosti”) to oppose this sudden U-turn, Yanukovych responded with a heavy-handed crackdown that transformed a protest movement into a revolution. By the time the Euromaidan Revolution was over three months later, dozens of protesters had been killed and Yanukovych had fled to Russia.  

In the immediate aftermath of the revolution, Russia launched a military operation to seize control of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. This was to prove the first act in ten years of escalating Russian military aggression against Ukraine that would eventually lead to the full-scale invasion of February 2022.

Russia’s use of force has caused untold suffering but it has failed to reverse Ukraine’s historic pivot toward Europe. On the contrary, Ukrainian public support for European integration has surged over the past decade to record highs, while enthusiasm for closer ties with Moscow has evaporated.

Political developments have mirrored this historic shift in Ukrainian public opinion. In summer 2014, new Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko reversed his predecessor’s rejection and signed a landmark association agreement with the EU. Following the successful implementation of anti-corruption reforms and other measures to bring Ukrainian legislation more into line with European Union norms, Ukraine secured visa-free EU travel in 2017.  

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.

In the first days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy officially applied for EU membership. The move was a clever piece of political theater that drew attention to Russia’s war aim of derailing Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration and robbing the country of its independence. European leaders certainly seemed to recognize the significance of the moment. Four months later, they officially granted Ukraine EU candidate nation status.

Candidate status was accompanied by a list of seven recommendations Ukraine needed to address before it could be considered for full EU membership. Tasks included judicial reform and progress in the fight against corruption along with measures to tame the influence of oligarchs, improve press freedoms, and protect national minorities.

Ukraine’s progress over the past year on these seven points was deemed sufficient by the European Commission to recommend the opening of official membership talks. This progress included steps to reform appointments within the judiciary and measures targeting graft. Meanwhile, new legislation has imposed restrictions on the ability of oligarchs to influence Ukrainian politics. The European Commission responded by stating that Ukraine had implemented “important measures to curb the oligarchs’ grip on public life.”

Significant challenges remain. The recent European Commission report recommending membership talks called on Ukraine to further revise existing legislation protecting the rights of national minorities. This has long been a point of contention, particularly as EU member state Hungary has stated its determination to block Ukraine’s EU integration until its demands regarding Ukraine’s Hungarian minority are met.

While multiple obstacles lie ahead, Ukraine’s reform efforts have drawn praise from senior EU officials in Brussels. “Ukrainians are deeply reforming their country, even as they are fighting a war that is existential for them,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a recent address. “Ukraine has completed well over 90 percent of the necessary steps that the Commission set out last year in its report.”

Ukrainians are now looking forward to the next EU summit in December and are optimistic that European leaders will back the opening of official accession negotiations. This would be a genuine geopolitical breakthrough for the country, although it would not guarantee Ukraine’s future place among EU member states. Advancing toward membership would still take time, but the start of talks would provide some very welcome momentum to Ukraine’s European integration drive, while also acknowledging the considerable progress the country has made toward meeting the reform requirements set out by the European Union in summer 2022. 

Ukraine has defied expectations by implementing ambitious and comprehensive reform measures in the most extreme of wartime conditions. This reflects Ukraine’s commitment to a European future and underlines the importance of EU integration for Ukrainians at a time when they are fighting for their country’s survival.

The Ukrainian authorities have made clear that they view EU membership as a strategic priority and are fully committed to pursuing this goal, even while defending themselves against Russia’s ongoing invasion. It is now up to EU leaders to make history in the coming weeks by officially opening accession negotiations.   

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

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Wartime Ukraine is making historic progress toward EU membership appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Nusairat in LA Times: What Biden’s staunch support for Israel’s war in Gaza will cost America https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/nusairat-in-la-times-what-bidens-staunch-support-for-israels-war-in-gaza-will-cost-america/ Mon, 20 Nov 2023 17:03:17 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=713045 The post Nusairat in LA Times: What Biden’s staunch support for Israel’s war in Gaza will cost America appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

The post Nusairat in LA Times: What Biden’s staunch support for Israel’s war in Gaza will cost America appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Warrick in The National: US President Joe Biden condemns ‘unconscionable’ Hamas attacksWarrick in The National: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/warrick-in-the-national-us-president-joe-biden-condemns-unconscionable-hamas-attackswarrick-in-the-national/ Fri, 10 Nov 2023 19:10:35 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=702730 The post Warrick in The National: US President Joe Biden condemns ‘unconscionable’ Hamas attacksWarrick in The National: appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

The post Warrick in The National: US President Joe Biden condemns ‘unconscionable’ Hamas attacksWarrick in The National: appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Future of the Cities Summit of the Americas https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/future-of-the-cities-summit-of-the-americas/ Wed, 08 Nov 2023 21:30:00 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=701068 The first-ever Cities Summit of the Americas created a new platform for mayors across the hemisphere to build partnerships with civil society organizations–particularly those focused on the region and/or local governance–private sector companies, and one another.

The post Future of the Cities Summit of the Americas appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
The first of a six-part series following up on the IX Summit of the Americas commitments.

A report by the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center in partnership with the US Department of State. This readout was informed by multi-stakeholder dialogues focused on facilitating greater, constructive exchange among multi-sectoral thought leaders and government leaders as they work to implement Summit commitments.

Executive summary

The first-ever Cities Summit of the Americas created a new platform for mayors across the hemisphere to build partnerships with civil society organizations–particularly those focused on the region and/or local governance–private sector companies, and one another. While attendees and observers from national and local government agreed the new forum should continue in some fashion, the task is now to identify new and existing mechanisms to institutionalize the mayoral convening.

Connecting the Cities Summit to the Summit of the Americas process, empowering stakeholders to contribute to the Cities Summit, and connecting subnational perspectives to hemispheric diplomacy mechanisms could help transition the summit from inaugural to continual.

Coverage

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.


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 post Future of the Cities Summit of the Americas appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Nusairat quoted in Wall Street Journal on post-war Gaza planning https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/insight-impact/in-the-news/nusairat-quoted-in-wall-street-journal-on-post-war-gaza-planning/ Wed, 08 Nov 2023 14:46:01 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=703497 The post Nusairat quoted in Wall Street Journal on post-war Gaza planning appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>

The post Nusairat quoted in Wall Street Journal on post-war Gaza planning appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Faith leaders highlight Russian religious persecution in occupied Ukraine https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/faith-leaders-highlight-russian-religious-persecution-in-occupied-ukraine/ Thu, 02 Nov 2023 22:10:56 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=699675 A delegation of Ukrainian faith leaders recently visited the United States and participated in a panel discussion to address Russia's policies of religious persecution and repression in occupied Ukraine.

The post Faith leaders highlight Russian religious persecution in occupied Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine first began in 2014, Russian aggression has included often-overlooked religious elements accompanied by the cynical use of religious narratives weaponized by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill.

Ukrainian religious communities in areas under Russian occupation have faced years of suppression and discrimination. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the religious dimensions of Russia’s war of aggression have spread as Russia expands and intensifies its attacks on the Ukrainian people and culture. This has included the repression of beliefs as well as physical attacks on religious leaders, relics, and places of worship.

In spite of Russia’s crimes, Ukrainian society remains resilient, united, and determined to resist. In a demonstration of this unity and tenacity, a delegation of high-level religious leaders from the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations (AUCCRO) recently visited Washington DC to highlight the impact of Russia’s ongoing invasion on religious communities and Ukraine’s religious freedom. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim members of the delegation participated in a panel discussion to address these topics together with members of the American public.

The delegation arrived in the US at a critical time amid political debate over a new aid package for Ukraine. The religious leaders had a unified message of thanks for the United States and a shared request for continued support. They underlined that Ukraine is engaged in a battle for the future of global security that is also a fight for freedom of religion.

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 full-scale invasion has changed the nature of religious life in Ukraine. Religious communities have been forced to confront the violence of the invasion and adapt as members are impacted by the war, including suffering war crimes and facing religious persecution at the hands of Russian occupation forces.

Archbishop Yevstratiy Zoria of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine stated that Ukrainians are “eyewitnesses of Russian atrocities.” This was echoed by Chief Rabbi Bleich, who stressed that Ukraine’s religious leaders “represent millions of people that were displaced, the women and children being killed every single day.” Further emphasizing the impact of the Russian invasion on today’s Ukraine, Bishop Ivan Rusyn of the Ukrainian Evangelical Church said the war “is about the very existence of our freedom, identity, values, and culture.”

The delegation acknowledged the importance of Ukraine’s pluralistic religious landscape and addressed concerns, often spread by those questioning the legitimacy of aid to Ukraine, about the religious climate in the country. Freedom of religion is a critical part of modern Ukrainian society. In stark contrast, the Kremlin authorities in Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine have suppressed these freedoms along with other basic human rights.

As Bishop Ivan Rusyn explained, those living in temporarily occupied territories are being targeted simply for practicing a faith different to that imposed by Russia. An investigation into Russia’s religious persecution in occupied regions of Ukraine found 43 cases of targeted persecution of clergy and more than 109 acts pressuring churches and religious figures representing Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Jehovah’s Witnesses since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Expert testimony at the United Nations has highlighted incidents of violence against Ukrainian religious communities included disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture, and unlawful deportations perpetrated by Russian forces against clergy and members of religious communities.

Beyond Russian-occupied territory and across the whole of Ukraine, religion has been physically targeted. In a February 2023 report, the Institute of Religious Freedom found that nearly 500 religious sites and spaces were damaged, destroyed, or looted during the first year of the Russian invasion.

Bishop Rusyn highlighted the grave impact of Russia’s war on Ukraine’s religious communities and recounted how his seminary in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha had been struck by six Russian missiles. “We have pastors and chaplains who were murdered,” he stated , imploring American audiences to “please hear our cry.”

During their discussion about Russia’s war on Ukraine and its impact on religion, visiting faith leaders also addressed concerns regarding recent developments in unoccupied Ukraine. A recent draft law adopted by the Ukrainian parliament addressing Russian influence has drawn significant attention to the state of religious freedom in wartime Ukraine. While some narratives decry the law as a threat to religious freedom, all members of the delegation stressed that the law will in fact protect Ukrainians against the Kremlin’s ongoing attempts to weaponize religion through the Russian Orthodox Church.

This step against what the delegation identified as a Russian-controlled church comes as no surprise when considering recent actions by the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox Church has emerged as a prominent supporter of the war, with Russian Patriarch Kirill backing the invasion and assuring Russian soldiers that they will be absolved of all sins should they die in Ukraine. Orthodox private military companies have also reportedly been established to fight against Ukraine.

Bishop Rusyn stated that AUCCRO members do not consider the recent draft legislation to be a threat to religious freedom in Ukraine. Instead, he and fellow panel members emphasized that the protection of religious freedom should not be used as an excuse to permit Russian influence.

In his closing remarks, Ambassador John Herbst drew attention to Russian propaganda narratives surrounding religion in its war on Ukraine. One of the main lines of propaganda employed by the Kremlin and its proxies depicts Ukraine as a nation of Nazis, despite substantial evidence debunking such claims.

Russia’s claims are particularly troubling in light of the Kremlin’s own record of persecution. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022, the Russian authorities have continued to persecute religious minorities across Russia as part of a wider crackdown on Russian civil society.

Russian attacks on different religious denominations in occupied regions of Ukraine are just one aspect of the Kremlin’s efforts to extinguish Ukraine’s pluralistic national identity and impose an authoritarian Russian model on the country. As Rabbi Bleich explained, “Ukraine is taking the heat for the democratic world.”

Delegation members stressed that supporters of freedom and human rights should treat Ukraine as a priority in the defense of global security and democracy. Lapses in support lead to vulnerabilities that create opportunities for Russia. The delegation’s presentation to the American people painted a clear picture of the dangers posed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the threat this represents to the core value of religious freedom.

Shelby Magid is deputy director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. Mercedes Sapuppo is a program assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Faith leaders highlight Russian religious persecution in occupied Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Zelenskyy should say a Churchillian “no” to wartime elections in Ukraine https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/zelenskyy-should-say-a-churchillian-no-to-wartime-elections-in-ukraine/ Thu, 19 Oct 2023 18:44:39 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=694388 If Winston Churchill were still with us, he would surely be advising Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ignore mounting international pressure to call elections in wartime Ukraine, writes Alan Riley.

The post Zelenskyy should say a Churchillian “no” to wartime elections in Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
If Winston Churchill were still with us, he would surely be advising Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ignore international pressure to call elections. Much like Ukrainians in 2023, the British in 1940 were fighting a war of national survival. Every October for five consecutive years, the wartime British government led by Winston Churchill obtained legislative consent to postpone scheduled elections and extend the life of the sitting British parliament.

Churchill’s reasons for doing so were obvious and in many ways apply equally to today’s Ukraine. In 1940, Britain sought to avoid the distraction and potentially divisive impact of elections in order to maintain national resilience and focus all its energy on the war. The Churchill government also recognized the impracticality of holding an election with millions of displaced people across and beyond the nation, and saw that it would be virtually impossible to ensure a fair test of public opinion with Britain under daily attack and engaged in a global war.

In line with Ukraine’s peacetime election cycles, the country was due to hold a parliamentary election in late 2023 and a presidential vote in spring 2024. However, the introduction of martial law following Russia’s February 2022 invasion means elections cannot currently take place. Nevertheless, in recent months some international officials and commentators have begun calling for Ukraine to stage elections in 2024, arguing that this would underline Ukraine’s democratic credentials.

According to the same logic, critics say failure to hold elections would discredit efforts to portray Ukraine as an emerging democracy defending itself against autocratic Russia, thereby weakening one of the central narratives underpinning Western support for Ukraine. Needless to say, Moscow can be expected to exploit any Ukrainian hesitancy in order to fuel skepticism toward Ukraine throughout the democratic 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.

So far, President Zelenskyy has responded cautiously to calls for wartime elections. He is clearly reluctant to dismiss the idea outright for fear of being labelled undemocratic, but has stressed that Ukraine would need considerable international support in order to organize elections in what are extremely challenging circumstances.

The logistical obstacles to holding elections in wartime Ukraine are formidable. Approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory is currently under Russian occupation. Many millions of Ukrainians are living outside the country as refugees, with millions more displaced internally. It would take considerable time and resources, to say the least, to create a credible electoral register.

The safety issues raised by a nationwide election campaign amid Russia’s ongoing invasion are similarly immense. How could soldiers fighting on the front line effectively participate in the campaign? Can politicians hold public meetings or campaign rallies without fear of being targeted by Russian air strikes? Aside from Kyiv, most Ukrainian cities have only limited air defenses. The prospect of holding any sort of public meeting in such conditions is fraught with danger.

The many safety concerns related to campaign meetings would apply equally to polling stations on election day. A single Russian attack on a polling station during voting hours could easily result in dozens of deaths. Russia’s track record for bombing civilian targets and public gatherings during the current war means there can be little doubt the Kremlin would seek to attack election-related events.

It is also reasonable to question the wisdom of exposing the country to a period of intense internal political competition amid a war of national survival. How could national unity be sustained through a three-month election campaign?

Clearly, technical innovations could be found to address some of these concerns. Perhaps Ukraine could deploy digital solutions for both campaigning and voting. Ultimately, however, the arguments against holding elections are compelling if not overwhelming. Any attempt to organize Ukrainian elections in today’s wartime conditions would be profoundly impractical and unsafe. Millions of refugees, displaced people, service personnel, and those living in Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine would all potentially be unable to vote. It would amount to a dangerous as well as dubious exercise in democracy.

While some in the West seem to think holding elections in wartime Ukraine is a good idea, the British government of 1940 would certainly not have agreed. One of the most striking aspects of the debate within the British parliament during World War II over the postponement of scheduled elections was the fact that there was almost no debate at all.

This lack of debate is underlined by the fact that Hansard (the British record of parliamentary debates) appears to record only one instance of Prime Minister Winston Churchill being asked about postponed elections in the course of the entire war. The pressing and obvious need to extend the life of the existing parliament until the defeat of Nazi Germany was clear to everyone.

Ukrainians can draw a number of lessons from past British practice during their own war of national survival. Notably, British politicians during World War II recognized that organizing elections amid a major war is likely to imperil the objective of victory. This was so self-evident to the British of the early 1940s that parliament hardly saw the need to discuss each of the five annual prolongation bills tabled by the Churchill government. It is also worth underlining that nobody attempted to criticize Britain’s position on wartime elections as “anti-democratic,” either at the time or in subsequent decades.

When a country is engaged in a war of national survival, the top priorities must be the prosecution of the war with maximum vigor and the maintenance of national unity. Any attempt to stage elections in today’s Ukraine would almost certainly distract from these two objectives. Crucially, millions of Ukrainians would be excluded from any wartime voting, while the authorities cannot possibly guarantee the safety of those who would theoretically be able to participate.

The utter impracticality of holding elections in wartime Ukraine would have been immediately apparent to Churchill and others from his era. Unfortunately, some Westerners from today’s far more comfortable generation do not appear to understand the terrible reality that Ukraine now lives with.

Dr. Alan Riley is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Zelenskyy should say a Churchillian “no” to wartime elections in Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Humanitarian aid cannot be weaponized. Gazans are depending on it. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/gaza-israel-hamas-humanitarian-aid/ Wed, 18 Oct 2023 22:40:34 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=693970 Despite urgent appeals for aid and multiple deliveries to Egypt, no outside aid appears to have made it into Gaza.

The post Humanitarian aid cannot be weaponized. Gazans are depending on it. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
On October 13, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)—an impartial, neutral humanitarian organization key to the origin story of the Geneva Conventions—issued a rare and exceptional public statement reminding parties to the escalating Israel-Hamas conflict of their obligations under international humanitarian law. After first condemning Hamas’s brutal attack on Israel on October 7, ICRC stated that “[t]he instructions issued by the Israeli authorities for the population of Gaza City to immediately leave their homes, coupled with the complete siege explicitly denying them food, water, and electricity, are not compatible with international humanitarian law.” The ICRC’s decision to depart from its standard practice of confidential communications to governments—given its usual strict adherence to independence and neutrality—is telling of the severity of the looming humanitarian crisis and the urgency in its appeal to governments that have stalled in getting life-saving aid into the Gaza Strip. 

Five days after the ICRC statement, the situation stands as follows: the last working seawater desalination plant in the Gaza Strip shut down on October 17 from lack of fuel. Hospitals in Gaza have entered a state of collapse, running out of fuel, basic supplies, and even painkillers. The United Nations (UN) warned that water shortages have now “become a matter of life and death,” with civilians in Gaza drinking contaminated water from the only aquifer that exists in the Gaza Strip. 

This dire situation exacerbates the precarity that already existed in Gaza, where more than sixty percent of the population faced food insecurity. The ICRC has mobilized sixty tons of humanitarian aid but says safe access is urgently needed. The UN World Food Programme said that 300 tons of food are either already at the Egyptian border in Rafah or on their way. Countries like Turkey, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates have already sent various planes with supplies to Egypt. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, announced that the European Union (EU) is launching an EU Humanitarian Bridge operation with several flights to Egypt, beginning this week, to deliver supplies to verified humanitarian organizations on the ground.

Yet, despite urgent appeals for aid and multiple deliveries to Egypt, no outside aid appears to have made it into Gaza. Until October 18, Egyptian officials alleged that Israel was not cooperating with humanitarian assistance delivery efforts at the Rafah crossing and that air strikes nearby further stalled aid efforts. The Rafah crossing is located on the border between Gaza and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and is the only border crossing from Gaza not controlled by Israel and the only exit not leading into Israeli territory. 

Earlier, the head of Israel’s National Security Council, Tzachi Hanegbi, indicated that any aid efforts must broach the issue of the hostages taken by Hamas on October 7, saying that the “issue of returning the hostages… must be a central component of any humanitarian effort.” A senior adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained that Israel wants guarantees that humanitarian aid will not end up with Hamas. Secretary of State Antony Blinken noted that the US shares “Israel’s concern that Hamas may seize or destroy aid entering Gaza or otherwise preventing it from reaching the people who need it.”

On October 18, the Israeli military announced that humanitarian aid would be made available “if necessary” in Al-Mawasi, south of Gaza City, again urging residents of northern Gaza to evacuate. Following Biden’s visit to Israel on the same day, Netanyahu’s office said it would allow Egypt to deliver limited quantities of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip—the first concrete indication during a ten-day siege that aid would be allowed in. Once again, few details were shared. The statement only said that Israel would not “thwart” humanitarian assistance deliveries, limited to food, water, or medicine, but no mention of fuel, which is critical for hospitals and water treatment. Additionally, the aid will only be allowed into the southern part of Gaza, and the statement did not say when aid would begin to be allowed in. The statement also made clear that Israel would not allow any humanitarian assistance from its territory into Gaza “as long as our hostages are not returned.” President Biden indicated that the assistance would be subject to inspections and could only go to civilians. 

Given the ongoing humanitarian crisis and humanitarian aid piling up, it’s necessary to understand the legal obligations at issue. Specifically, international humanitarian law provisions regarding humanitarian assistance vary based on the classification of the conflict. This is a complicated question on which much disagreement exists, especially regarding Gaza and the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Many in the international community argue Israel’s role in the West Bank and Gaza Strip constitutes an occupation. Others instead view the current conflict with Hamas, a non-state actor, as a non-international armed conflict, arguing that Israel’s withdrawal of troops from Gaza in 2005 meant it was no longer in “effective control” of the territory such that even if it had been an occupying power before, it ceased to be one. Israel’s Foreign Ministry released a report in 2009 where it stated that the “Gaza Strip is neither a State nor a territory occupied or controlled by Israel” and that “as a matter of policy,” Israel “applies to its military operations in Gaza the rules of armed conflict governing both international and non-international armed conflicts.”

Regardless of the legal classification of the conflict, there is, at a minimum, an obligation to allow humanitarian assistance to be delivered to the civilian population by an impartial and non-discriminatory humanitarian organization if refusal to do so would result in mass starvation. The law of occupation, for example, imposes a positive obligation on the occupying party to provide humanitarian aid itself or, if unable, to facilitate its delivery to the occupied territory. 

Under Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the occupying power “has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population,” and “it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.” Under Article 56, it also “has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory.” Additionally, Article 59 establishes that if the “whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal,” adding that all parties “shall permit the free passage” of humanitarian assistance provided by other states of impartial humanitarian organizations.

However, Israel does not consider itself the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. While its self-assessment does not determine whether it is an occupying power, it does govern Israel’s policy and conduct. A legal classification of the current conflict is beyond the scope of this post for the reasons mentioned above. And, ultimately, no matter how the conflict is classified, there is an obligation to allow humanitarian assistance for civilians in extreme situations where refusal to do so would result in mass starvation. In this sense, it is crucial to note that the obligations regarding humanitarian assistance apply to all parties to the conflict, that is, equally to Hamas and Israel. 

The ICRC notes that the rule is that, subject to the right of control, all parties to a conflict must allow humanitarian relief for civilians, impartial and conducted without adverse distinction. This is a norm of customary international law and applies in international and non-international armed conflicts. Customary international law norms apply universally, regardless of whether states have ratified certain treaties. Additionally, non-state armed groups, like Hamas, are bound by customary international law and certain treaty provisions.

But what does “subject to the right of control” mean? It means that the consent of the belligerent parties is required for impartial humanitarian organizations to deliver assistance to civilians in the territory under their control. However, consent cannot be arbitrarily denied or founded on unlawful reasons. 

Nevertheless, Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (governing international armed conflicts but instructive for the interpretation of the customary norm) subjects the free passage of humanitarian aid to the condition that the party allowing for it “is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing… that the consignments may be diverted from their destination.” This speaks directly to the fears expressed by Israel and shared by the United States that Hamas may divert or seize the aid intended for civilians for its purposes. 

The commentary for Article 23, however, explains that a “doubt as to the destination of consignments would not be sufficient reason for refusing them free passage” and that, instead, “the fears of the Power imposing the blockade must be based on serious grounds, i.e. they must have been inspired by the knowledge of certain definite facts.” It adds that “supervision by a neutral intermediary,” like the ICRC, “should afford the blockading Power adequate assurances.” 

While concerns that Hamas may divert or seize aid are clearly relevant in assessing Israel’s obligation to allow entry of assistance, conditioning this entry on the release of hostages is not supported by the law. It is generally accepted that a party’s consent may be withheld for reasons of military necessity, however, the withholding cannot itself result in a violation of humanitarian law and must be necessary and proportionate. Ultimately, the ICRC has observed that if “a civilian population is threatened with starvation and a humanitarian organization which provides relief on an impartial and non-discriminatory basis is able to remedy the situation, a party is obliged to give consent.” Lastly, the ICRC has also clarified that a party conducting a siege must allow the free entry of food and other essential items for the civilian population. 

Given the clearly deteriorating situation in the Gaza Strip and the extremely rare statement issued by the ICRC that the denial of food, water, and electricity to civilians, crucial for their survival, is not compatible with international humanitarian law, it is evident that humanitarian assistance delivered by impartial and non-discriminatory humanitarian organizations must be allowed to enter Gaza. Israel’s October 18 approval of entry of humanitarian aid to Gaza from Egypt, following an hour-long meeting with President Biden, is a step in the right direction. At the same time, it is also essential to ensure that this life-saving aid makes it to the intended recipients: civilians. As the commentary to Article 23 notes, “constant surveillance is necessary to ensure that the articles are in actual fact received by those for whom they are intended and that any illegal trafficking is made impossible.” But even that cannot be done if the aid cannot enter as soon as possible. The survival of civilians depends on it.

Lisandra Novo is a staff lawyer for the Strategic Litigation Project at the Atlantic Council. She was previously a judicial fellow at the International Court of Justice, a Fulbright scholar in Spain researching post-conflict transitional justice, and a visiting professional at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

The post Humanitarian aid cannot be weaponized. Gazans are depending on it. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Russia’s Ukraine invasion highlights the need for fundamental UN reform https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-ukraine-invasion-highlights-the-need-for-fundamental-un-reform/ Thu, 12 Oct 2023 19:06:17 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=691121 The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has highlighted the ineffectiveness of the current international security architecture and underlined the need for fundamental reform of the United Nations, writes Paul Niland.

The post Russia’s Ukraine invasion highlights the need for fundamental UN reform appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Sanity prevailed at the UN this week when Russia failed to win a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. However, this minor setback for the Kremlin cannot disguise the far deeper dysfunction within the UN that has been revealed by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Ever since the invasion began in February 2022, Moscow has used its position as one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to block efforts to end the war or hold Russia accountable. Faced with relentless Russian obstruction, UN leaders have been forced to focus on mediation efforts, while the United Nations General Assembly has been limited to voting on a series of largely symbolic resolutions condemning the invasion. If the purpose of the UN is to prevent major wars, the current approach is obviously not working.

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 full-scale invasion of Ukraine has focused international attention on Russia’s problematic role as one of the most influential nations at the United Nations. Some have asked why Russia has not been expelled for its attack on Ukraine, and have pointed to the expulsion of the Soviet Union from the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, in response to the November 1939 invasion of Finland.

Others have questioned the legal status of the Russian Federation as a UN member state, noting that Russia has never actually gone through the proper formal and recognized procedures of applying to become a member of the United Nations. The Soviet Union was a key founding member of the United Nations and enjoyed a seat on the UN Security Council, but the USSR officially ceased to exist on December 26, 1991. Russia then took over the vacated Soviet seat at the top table of the United Nations without any further formalities.

When Czechoslovakia ceased to exist just two years later, the two new nations that had once been component parts of that country, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, both formally applied for and were granted membership status in the United Nations. The same is true for the states that were once part of Yugoslavia. This is a step that Russia never took. The Charter of the United Nations states that “the admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations shall be effected by a decision of the General Assembly.” While Slovakia and the Czech Republic went through this procedure, the Russian Federation did not.

The UN Charter also states that membership of the body is contingent on “accepting the obligations contained in the present Charter.” On these grounds, too, Russia does not meet the required standards. The UN Charter states that all United Nations members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” By invading Ukraine and attempting to annex entire Ukrainian regions, Russia has evidently violated this fundamental commitment expected of all UN member states. It can therefore be argued that Russia’s membership of the United Nations is invalid as it was not formally applied for, and because the invasion of Ukraine places Russia in direct breach of the UN Charter.

This raises obvious questions over Russia’s continued presence among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Russia’s status within the UNSC is particularly controversial as Moscow stands accused of repeatedly abusing its veto power to further its own foreign policy objectives and avoid censure for breaches of international law. The Security Council’s five permanent members are the only nations to wield veto power.

Almost twenty months since the invasion began, few would argue that the devastating scale of Russia’s attack on Ukraine has highlighted the shortcomings of the United Nations. As noted by Tom Grant, a Senior Fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is the most serious violation of the UN Charter in the Charter’s history.” How can a country engaged in Europe’s largest invasion since World War II and led by a man wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes be allowed to undermine an organization committed to maintaining world peace?

The absurdity of Russia’s position among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council is fueling calls for fundamental reform of the United Nations. For two years in a row, the reform of the United Nations Security Council has featured in US President Joe Biden’s annual address to the UN General Assembly. The reform debate centers on the need for the highest body at the United Nations to be more representative. At present, the UNSC lacks any permanent members from Africa or Latin America, and is also missing valuable input from emerging powerhouses such as India and significant developed economies including Japan.

One of the roadblocks to such reform is the current make-up of the Security Council, which under the existing regulations would be required to vote to approve any expansion of the UNSC. This would likely be blocked by Russia, due to perceptions in the Kremlin that any expansion would weaken the Russian position. Tellingly, other permanent members would also see their influence diluted by an expanded UNSC, and yet the push for this reform is being led by one of them, the United States.

Other possible reforms of the United Nations include the removal or restriction of veto powers for permanent members of the UN Security Council. This could potentially prevent individual countries from unilaterally derailing efforts to address global crises or uphold international law. Some critics feel even this would not go far enough, and argue for a complete rethink of the role played by the United Nations in international affairs.

The UN was founded in 1945 to maintain international peace and security, but it has been unable to prevent one of its leading members from invading a neighbor and committing war crimes not witnessed in Europe since the darkest days of twentieth century totalitarianism. Clearly, the UN Security Council is broken and the entire UN approach to issues of war and peace is no longer fit for purpose.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a watershed moment in world history that will have a profound impact on the future of international relations. If the United Nations wants to survive as an institution and remain relevant in the decades ahead, it must be ready to embrace fundamental reform.

Paul Niland is the founder of Lifeline Ukraine.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Russia’s Ukraine invasion highlights the need for fundamental UN reform appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ecuador’s presidential election is a choice between the future and experience https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/ecuadors-presidential-election-is-a-choice-between-the-future-and-experience/ Thu, 12 Oct 2023 18:47:47 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=690902 Ecuadorians head to the polls on October 15 to vote in a runoff election between Daniel Noboa and Luisa González.

The post Ecuador’s presidential election is a choice between the future and experience appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Ecuadorians head to the polls on October 15 to vote in a runoff election for the country’s next president. Daniel Noboa and Luisa González are the primary contenders, with Noboa currently leading in the polls by a 7 percent margin. Initially, the candidates embarked on their election campaigns with contrasting platforms and visions, with Noboa embracing a forward-looking agenda and González drawing from past experience. These different visions for Ecuador, one looking to the future and the other to the past, have in common an acknowledgement of popular discontent with the current status of the country, which is haunted by extreme violence, few employment opportunities, and disappointment in democratic institutions.

In the days before the runoff election, Ecuador experienced several significant political developments, starting with the assassination of seven suspects linked to the killing of presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio in two Ecuadorian prisons. The jail killings were followed by an alleged testimony from a survivor of one of the attacks implicating González’s party in the assassination of Villavicencio. While these allegations are still under investigation, they may influence public opinion in the lead-up to Sunday’s vote.

Ecuador is currently plagued by killings, car bombings, shootings, and a deepening security crisis. Transnational criminal gangs from Albania, Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia, along with local criminal organizations, vie for control of territory to profit from illicit drug, human, and arms trafficking. Ecuadorians have fled their country in record numbers since 2021, almost surpassing levels seen during the notorious Feriado Bancario—Ecuador’s historic economic crisis in 1999. It is no wonder Ecuadorians are so desperate for a change in leadership and a new approach to address these challenges.

The newcomer and the throwback

Noboa’s rise in Ecuadorian politics as a newcomer and the youngest presidential candidate in Ecuador’s history garnered significant attention from voters. Noboa’s vision for Ecuador is portrayed as forward-looking, with a focus on three main areas: addressing the security crisis, creating employment opportunities for the youth, and improving healthcare access. His proposals include creating isolated maritime maximum-security prisons to alleviate the jail crisis, which has resulted in more than eighteen massacres in 2023 alone; the creation of a centralized intelligence unit to encourage efficient information sharing; and increased access and use of technology, such as drones and advanced military equipment to combat organized crime.

Regarding employment, Noboa’s campaign has focused on connecting with students in the attempt to comprehend their challenges, with employment being the leading preoccupation of many. He has proposed a plan of “educating to employ” to facilitate their transition into the job market while providing tax incentives to companies that hire university graduates. Access to healthcare and medicine shortages is a concern as well, and Noboa has pledged to address these limitations by institutionalizing and upscaling the country’s system of medical brigades.

On the other hand, González has built her campaign by drawing upon her party’s experience and achievements in Ecuadorian politics. She has underscored that the country did not experience its current problems during her party’s government from 2007 to 2017. Her approach to the security crisis is reminiscent of former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa’s strategy, focusing on prison control and drug decriminalization, along with negotiation and dismantling of large criminal organizations. González’s emphasis on women, single heads of families, and the transportation sector remain the main target of her political campaign and align with past efforts of her party. However, following a disappointing first presidential debate on August 13 and a failure to close the gap in polling against Noboa, González has gone through a rebranding process. As the election nears, she has tried to positioned herself as someone that will rule differently than former politicians of her party, trying to appeal to younger voters, which compose more than 30 percent of Ecuador’s electorate.

In both presidential campaigns, however, there have also been two points of consensus. The first has been a clear attempt by both to “differentiate” themselves from current President Guillermo Lasso, which is unsurprising given his low approval ratings and widespread dissatisfaction with his government. Both candidates have criticized the current administration as part of their campaign strategy, while also proposing plans that resonate with the electorate. Notably, attacks on each other have been limited, primarily in response to the population’s urgent need for politicians to focus on action instead of rhetoric.

The second point of consensus seems to be on issues related to climate change, environmental protection, and sustainability. This is an area in which Ecuador has pioneered in the last couple of years through its historic debt for nature swap, the expansion of its marine reserve and its Amazon conservation efforts.

What’s at stake for Ecuador, the US, and the broader hemisphere

Should the frontrunner Noboa secure victory on Sunday, he will face a herculean task. The next president will face climate change repercussions such as El Niño, rising violence and organized crime, and diminished faith in democratic institutions—and financial constraints to deal with them. Ecuador will close 2023 with a fiscal deficit of $2.8 million, or 2 percent of its gross domestic product, making it likely that a new government will struggle to find enough money to fulfill campaign proposals and address these challenges. Some analysts speculate that González’s party may have deliberately positioned themselves to lose this election, foreseeing a turbulent period for the incoming government and planning to reclaim power in 2025.

The United States, facing declining influence in the region, has much at stake in Ecuador’s future. Regardless of who wins, the United States should consider doubling down on its engagement with Ecuador, particularly on the main points of consensus, including security and climate change. Both are priorities for the United States. They offer an opportunity to continue strengthening US-Ecuador relations, which have improved since full diplomatic relations were reestablished in 2012 following Ecuador’s expulsion of the US ambassador a year earlier. Expanding on this progress could allow the United States to secure a strategic footing in Ecuador and gain broader access to the region, particularly as global challenges such as food insecurity, migration, transnational crime, and climate change become even more pressing.

Whether Noboa or González wins on Sunday, Ecuador’s choice will shape its trajectory and its place in the changing geopolitical landscape of Latin America.


Isabel Chiriboga is a program assistant at the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center and is originally from Ecuador.

The post Ecuador’s presidential election is a choice between the future and experience appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
Gaza under siege: A doctor recounts the humanitarian cost of war https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/gaza-hamas-seige-doctor/ Thu, 12 Oct 2023 16:38:55 +0000 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?p=690949 Dr. G is no stranger to war zones. He’s a plastic and reconstructive surgeon who often volunteers when bombs and disasters strike.

The post Gaza under siege: A doctor recounts the humanitarian cost of war appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>
“The bombing is so intense I haven’t been able to get to the hospital,” Dr. Ghassan Abu Sitta messaged me on WhatsApp on October 9. I’ve known him for nearly a decade, and he is also a board member of my charity. He’s a brusque bleeding heart who, like many, floats in and out of the spheres of war and disaster zones and has adopted a dark sense of humor to cope.

When Dr. G, as we call him, finally does get to the hospital, the situation is harrowing. Israel has been relentlessly bombing the Gaza Strip and its two million inhabitants since the militant group Hamas’ surprise attack on October 7. Dr. G can’t let himself ponder on the gravity of the calamity, and he certainly can’t let his mind wander into his own pain. It’s a coping mechanism born out of the necessity for self-preservation and, more importantly, to deal with the overwhelming scope of the task at hand.

“Unknown child no. six: Ten or eleven years old. Brought out from the rubble of his family home in Sheik Radwan neighborhood. Half [of his] face missing and a fist-sized defect in his left axilla. Total operative time three hours,” Dr. G posted on X, formerly known as Twitter.

I have to Google “axilla”—it’s the part of the body where the shoulder and arm connect. I know Dr. G well enough to know that he’s defaulting into medical terminology not just because that is what he speaks, but because it creates a wall. He’s sticking to the medical side of it, avoiding treading into the emotional space from which there will be no return. He can’t risk that now. If he does, he will not be able to breathe, stand, or hold the scalpel.

“That is someone’s baby boy,” he wrote, closing the X thread.

Dr. G is no stranger to war zones. He’s a plastic and reconstructive surgeon who often volunteers when bombs and disasters strike. He’s been to Yemen, treated the injured from Syria, went to the scene of the 2020 Beirut port blast, and has traveled to the Gaza Strip numerous times as a volunteer with Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) at Gaza’s Shifa Hospital. He is of Palestinian origin and has a Palestinian identity card, allowing him to get into Gaza on this occasion via the Rafah crossing with Egypt. He did so just before the crossing was bombed and shut down by the Israelis later that same day.

Gaza has been under a blockade for more than fifteen years, but even a siege can be made more suffocating than it was before. This time, there is a complete blockade of food, fuel, medicine, water, and electricity, as Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant laid out on October 9. Israel has always had a policy of collective punishment, according to rights organizations and United Nations experts. Add that to the level of unprecedented violence carried out by Hamas—which has ruled the strip since 2007—with the mass killing and kidnapping of civilians, there is no holding back, and none of Israel’s powerful allies are calling for restraint.

The issue is less with Israel’s right to respond and more with its response historically being collective punishment. US President Joe Biden’s comments on October 11 are viewed by some as the United States giving carte blanche to Israel to go all out. To them, there is a sense that the US is pulling the plug on international human rights, which is contrary to the Biden administration’s policy.

This is nothing like Dr. G has ever experienced before.

Shifa Hospital’s corridors and grounds are full of families with children sleeping on mattresses or piles of carpets.

“Last night, the bombing did not stop a single minute,” Dr. G said, his voice pausing at the enormity of it. “It’s only day three, and we have 4,500 wounded in a health system that is already on its knees because of the siege—a health system that has a capacity of 2,200-2,500 beds.”

Gaza’s civilians live in an open-air prison that is heavily bombed each time Hamas attacks Israel. And, this time, the gloves are off. Israel has already stated that its aim is not precision but rather destruction and is telling Gaza’s civilians to leave. This is darkly ironic, of course, because Israel knows that there is nowhere to go, and moving around the Gaza Strip under this level of bombardment is impossible.

Civilians are cramming into the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) schools, as if the United Nation’s (UN) blue logo can provide a measure of safety. Municipalities cannot clear garbage and sanitation services have shut down. The UNRWA had to close down all fourteen of its food distribution centers; it’s just too risky.

“We are not distributing food ourselves, which is very dramatic,” Tamara al-Rifai, a UNRWA spokeswoman, tells me. “What is more dramatic is what my colleagues told me this morning, which is that our own food supplies that we are supposed to use in the shelters—where we now have over 175,000 people—are running low. If we don’t have more supplies coming in, we are running out of food in a few days.”

There is very little drinking water, especially since no more bottles of water or trucks are coming in from Israel. As Tamara points out, everything is connected. With dwindling fuel supplies, they cannot run the desalination systems in schools that have been turned into shelters. There are so many displaced families staying in schools that are not prepared to become shelters, meaning that they lack proper toilets and hygiene kits. Families are trying to take refuge in any building with the two blue letters: UN. This includes health centers, which, in turn, hampers the ability of health workers to provide health services.

No one was ready for this because no one expected this. According to Tamara, the UNRWA can take on 150,000 displaced people, but the numbers are already at 175,000 and increasing by the hour.

“Egypt is being pressed by the UNRWA over the issue of humanitarian access, access of goods, to allow humanitarian personnel in and out, and to pressure the Israelis to protect UN buildings and civilians,” Tamara tells me.

Parents try to keep their children calm and distract them, but what can they do when it’s not just the bombs that echo through the streets but also the sounds of the chaos between airstrikes? While many of Gaza’s residents are not surprised, at the same time, they are horrified by some of the apathy towards their suffering. They are not Hamas. The vast majority of them do not even support Hamas. No one I have spoken to in Gaza celebrated Hamas’s recent actions. Many Gazans feel they are viewed as being less than human because, as one man I heard from said, “Our skin is not a different color.”

There is no way to evacuate the wounded or get extra supplies. Gaza’s power plant is already out of fuel. There is no electricity in Gaza. Fuel to run the generators for hospitals will run out. Fuel to run ambulances will run out. Medical supplies are already dangerously low, from pediatric airway tubes to antiseptics. Dr. G already had to clean the body of a girl that was 70 percent burnt with soap and water because the hospital was out of antiseptic.

The great fear is that Gaza will go totally dark. Not only will fuel run out, but cell phones will die and connectivity will be cut off. Gazans will be killed in large numbers. The extent of it won’t be known until it has already happened.

Tamara is already struggling to get through to her UNRWA colleagues in Gaza. Communications are difficult and phone lines are down, all of which hinder the non-governmental organization’s operational capability.

In his last post on X, on October 11, Dr. G wrote, “And underneath the mud and gravel and cacked blood, you find the braids and the pink hairband. A beautiful six-year-old girl with horrific facial injuries. Mother dead.”

Arwa Damon is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and president and founder of the International Network for Aid, Relief, and Assistance (INARA), a nonprofit organization that focuses on building a network of logistical support and medical care to help children who need life-saving or life-altering medical treatment in war-torn nations.

The post Gaza under siege: A doctor recounts the humanitarian cost of war appeared first on Atlantic Council.

]]>