ACE

Category: Foreign Policy region

  • Failures and Successes of the Outer Space Treaty

    Failures and Successes of the Outer Space Treaty

    Since the inception of space exploration, numerous countries have aimed to harness the potential of this vast and unclaimed domain. At the outset of the Space Race, the United States and the Soviet Union recognized the imperative of establishing regulations to curtail the escalation of nuclear arms technology. This Space Race was initiated to curb the proliferation of nuclear weaponry through destructive satellites, a novel security concern for both nations. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (OST) was formulated and ratified by a majority of countries globally, with its key provisions ensuring that:

    • No sovereign nation can lay claim to an area of outer space or any celestial body
    • Weapons of mass destruction cannot be stationed in space
    • The Moon and other celestial bodies must be used for peaceful purposes
    • Outer space must be used for the benefit of all mankind
    • States are liable for damage they cause in space

    Under the terms of the Treaty, disputes or violations are mediated within the United Nations. However, there is no obligation for any country within the UN to mediate such a dispute, and questions exist about how effectively this could be done if needed. The OST remains the main governing legislation over space travel and exploration, and the further development of technology and increasing use of outer space makes it more relevant every year.

    Successes of the Outer Space Treaty

    The Outer Space Treaty has been in effect for more than five decades, and it is currently recognized by 136 countries. The treaty aimed to serve as a foundation for future space laws, designed to accommodate new space-related developments. Since then, additional treaties were established in 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1984 to further build upon the principles laid out in the OST.

    On the global stage, the Outer Space Treaty (OST) was initially drafted as a bilateral accord between two nations with strained relations. It has been suggested that this treaty could potentially serve as a means to mend bilateral ties between China and the United States. When the OST was formulated, the Soviet Union and the United States were engaged in a confrontational dynamic, yet the treaty laid the groundwork for subsequent agreements in space law, with a focus on preventing nuclear proliferation. This historical precedent could become particularly significant in light of recent heightened international tensions. The annexation of Ukraine by Russia led to the abandonment of various non-proliferation agreements, such as the New START treaty. Furthermore, in January 2023, a Chinese surveillance balloon entered U.S. airspace and remained aloft for seven days before being brought down. The OST’s track record demonstrates its potential to foster beneficial international agreements beyond its own scope, and it holds the promise of once again being utilized as a framework for productive international collaboration.

    One crucial provision of the treaty limits the exploitation of space resources, an issue becoming increasingly important with the commercialization of space. The words of the treaty are clear, stating that “outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claims of sovereignty, by means or use of occupation, or by any other means.” The celestial bodies in our solar system hold a plethora of resources fit for human use, such as limitless solar energy, fresh water from asteroids, and valuable matter that is extremely rare or even nonexistent on Earth. These resources have the potential to bolster the global economy and aid in scientific discovery in the near future. Additionally, utilizing these resources on other planets or celestial bodies could give us the ability to make space travel more economically viable and common, and it would aid in extending the range of human influence to a solar level. The provisions of the treaty guard these valuable resources from being appropriated by any one nation or party, as it was agreed upon that they must be used for the benefit of humanity. The treaty also uses intentional vagueness to safeguard against loopholes and misinterpretations, most strongly in Article II. The term “or by any other means” was intentional; it acts as an umbrella term that has strong preventative authority over any avenue of national appropriation, such as enforced claims of sovereignty rather than physical occupation. No territorial claims can be laid or enforced on any celestial body, ensuring that their use will not be exclusive to any specific party.

    Failures of the Outer Space Treaty

    The ambiguity of the Outer Space Treaty has been used effectively in certain areas, but some experts find it lacking in other areas. As space becomes more commercialized, private companies will be accountable for an increasing share of spacecraft in an industry historically monopolized by government agencies, especially within the United States.

    An emerging concern related to space utilization is the escalating pollution of outer space with debris that lingers in orbit indefinitely. The Federation of American Scientists reports that there could be as many as 170 million fragments of debris currently orbiting the Earth, posing a potential threat to future space travel originating from our planet. The growing accumulation of space debris in low-earth orbit brings about challenges in terms of tracking and managing, thereby impeding upcoming space missions. Moreover, as the volume of space debris increases, the likelihood of collisions among these orbiting fragments rises. This generates smaller fragments that can then collide with existing debris, perpetuating a cyclical process known as the Kessler Syndrome. There is a theoretical risk that this scenario could eventually trap humans on Earth, rendering safe exit from the atmosphere unfeasible due to an uncontrollable buildup of space debris.

    As stipulated by the Outer Space Treaty, nations bear responsibility for the debris they generate, even if it’s the result of activities conducted by non-governmental entities. This implies that any damages caused by debris could be attributed to the home nation of the private organization accountable for producing the debris. However, this framework becomes precarious due to the fact that the Liability Convention within the Outer Space Treaty establishes a liability system based on fault for space-related damages, yet it does not offer a precise definition of “fault.” The absence of a clearly defined legal standard highlights both the obstacles arising from the ambiguity present in the Outer Space Treaty and the capacity of private and governmental entities alike to evade liability.

    The OST grapples with a lack of precise definitions in certain provisions, notably concerning the demarcation between international airspace and outer space. This shortfall is particularly significant as nations can lay claim to sovereignty over airspace but not outer space as delineated in Article I of the treaty. Since there is no consensus on the specific elevation at which national airspace ends and outer space begins, the OST’s capacity to prevent claims to areas in low-earth orbit becomes questionable. This issue gave rise to a brief international policy crisis known as the Bogota Declaration. The declaration sought to assert control over the outer space directly above equatorial countries like Ecuador, Colombia, Congo, Zaire, Uganda, Kenya, and Indonesia. These nations contended that the equatorial space was a natural resource not falling under the definition of outer space provided by the OST, and their aim was to assert sovereign rights over this area. Although the Declaration ultimately lacked international recognition and failed, the risk of sovereign claims over space persists. The lack of substantial action to address this issue before it fell apart suggests that limited means exist to enforce the treaty’s provisions if a similar situation arises.

    Certain articles of the treaty are also frequently circumvented, with the most notable example involving the development of nuclear weapons delivery systems through non-weapon space propulsion technology. This approach allows countries to indirectly test the performance of weapons delivery systems through ostensibly peaceful spaceflight. This practice circumvents the prohibitions outlined in Article IV of the treaty, which stipulates that outer space must be used for peaceful purposes and prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons in orbit. This design strategy was prominently employed by India in the development of its first ballistic missile, the Agni-I. This was achieved through cooperative efforts involving the United States, France, Germany, and Indian rocket scientists, who were provided with key design elements from technology being developed for peaceful purposes. The Agni series of missiles, India’s largest nuclear-capable missiles, emerged solely from the cooperative work of rocket scientists with no immediate aim of nuclear proliferation.

    Relation of the OST to Private Space Commercialization

    The Outer Space Treaty’s blend of legal strengths and weaknesses lends itself to a relatively flexible interpretation within the realm of legal space commerce. If a private entity were to violate any of the provisions outlined in the treaty, it is doubtful that the United Nations would be able to effectively enforce it, given that “in practice the United Nations has never been able to fully develop into an effective dispute settlement system.” This allows corporations to consider the legal consequences of their actions later, which gives leeway to focus on commercialization and expansion first. The guidance established in the Outer Space Treaty was drafted at a time when space exploration was exclusively scientific, and it opened up a universe of opportunities to obtain space capital. The policy of most private spacefaring corporations is “whatever is not prohibited is legal” which is creating an emerging industry that will likely be the source of major economic growth and development in the near future.

    Opportunity for capitalization is plentiful, notably in the future industry of asteroid mining technology, the next expected development in spacefaring economies. It has been proposed that asteroids could be mined for rare elements such as platinum, and development of this technology began in 2006 when Planetary Resources started work on this long-term goal. Asteroids are rich in valuable minerals and elements, and a platinum-rich asteroid 500 meters wide is estimated to hold approximately 175 times the annual global platinum output. Planetary Resources was bought out recently by Consensys Space, who then released all asteroid-mining development information for public use. Asteroid mining technology is still in the development stage and has the potential to be monopolized by whoever deploys it first, whether an American company or our international competitors. This industry holds the capacity to contribute trillions of dollars to the worldwide economy. However, an issue of international dispute could emerge if a single nation gains exclusive control over asteroid-mining technology and the associated advantages. Although asteroid mining might not be immediately feasible, its significance in global space law is expected to grow over the next several decades.

    In April 2022, the White House declared that the U.S. government would cease engaging in kinetic tests of anti-satellite weaponry. Nonetheless, the development of anti-satellite weapons without kinetic space testing would persist. Private defense contractors, such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, are likely to undertake this development, with the intention of deploying these weapons if a satellite threat materializes in the future. This decision appears to be aimed at curbing the creation of space debris for which the United States would be held accountable, while enabling ongoing research and development of anti-satellite weaponry. In 2022, the United States spent an estimated $877 billion dollars on defense, more than the total defense spending of the closest ten countries, combined. Of that, $18 billion went to the United States Space Force, and this organization requested $30 billion for the 2024 fiscal year, more than a 66% increase in spending within two years. 

    Private space travel is also an increasingly lucrative business, with companies already working to get an edge in this loosely regulated sector. NASA recently granted private spaceflight to the International Space Station, and three passengers aboard a privately owned SpaceX rocket have paid $55 million each for a trip to the ISS. In the coming years, space policy will become increasingly consequential, and policymakers will need to formulate regulatory frameworks that will decide what stake private companies will have in space.

  • US Response to Iran’s Space Program 

    US Response to Iran’s Space Program 

    Amid US concern over Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the Middle Eastern nation’s space programs have also come under scrutiny. Tehran’s interest in space dates back to 1957, when the country joined the United Nations Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). Iran’s recent technological achievements have raised concerns about the potential for expanded space development to accelerate the country’s acquisition of a nuclear arsenal.

    History of Iran’s Space Program 

    Since joining COPUOS, Iran has participated in several international discussions regarding Space, including the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Iran has maintained a state-run space program, the Iranian Space Agency (ISA), since 2003. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) also runs a separate space program within the country as part of the IRGC Aerospace Force. According to the United States Institute of Peace, the IRGC is more heavily involved than the ISA in the development of solid-fuel rockets, which have the potential to be converted into missiles. 

    In 1998, Iran showcased its satellite capabilities with the Mesbah satellite program, established through a partnership with the Russian Federation. The Mesbah was intended for civilian image capture but was often speculated to have potential spy satellite features. While the Mesbah was never launched, the agreement marked an early sign of ongoing cooperation between Russia and Iran in space and military technology endeavors.

    US-Iran Relations 

    The relationship between the United States and Iran has been marked by a history of diplomatic struggles. During the Trump administration, tensions escalated when the IRGC was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). The IRGC has been a state sponsor of Shia terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria, as well as the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. The Iranian government has also been responsible for numerous cyber attacks on foreign governments and private corporations. Eutelsat, a French satellite operator, reported in October that Iranian state actors had intentionally jammed two of its satellites. 

    Washington has made clear its intention to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities. This objective is reflected in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was agreed in 2015 by Iran, the EU, and the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The JCPOA includes specific stipulations to prevent the development of Iranian nuclear weapons. In 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, but both President Biden and Tehran have publicly supported resuming the deal. 

    Iran’s space programs have also raised concerns for US officials regarding the dual-use nature of space program technologies and the potential for their application in advancing the nation’s nuclear capabilities. There is a recognized correlation between the growth of space programs and weapons programs. Space technology holds the potential for application in missile development, particularly evident with IRGC solid-fuel rockets and space launch vehicle technologies. These connections played a role in the US-imposed sanctions on Iran in 2019. US intelligence indicates the expansion of Iran’s missile program through rocket launch tests, and the successful 2020 launch of the Noor-1 satellite by the IRGC suggests advancements in Tehran’s ability to develop and deploy missiles.  

    The US State Department has publicly expressed concern over Iranian rockets and their potential for use in delivering nuclear weapons. Members of Congress have supported Biden’s promise to reenter the JCPOA, but are critical of Biden’s lack of progress on the deal. During a visit to Israel, President Biden committed the US to use “all elements of its national power” to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. American officials are also worried about Iran’s significant alliances forged via its space programs, notably with Russia and China. Iran provided drones and missiles to Russia during its conflict with Ukraine, and some scholars are concerned about the potential expansion of Russian and Iranian influence into Latin America as well.

    Future DevelopmentsIn June 2023, analysts reported that Washington and Tehran are coming to an informal agreement to limit Iranian uranium enrichment to 60%. The level of enrichment needed for a nuclear weapon is 90%. In exchange for a cap on enrichment, Washington will work to unfreeze Iranian assets. Nuclear deal talks have grown stagnant in part due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but analysts speculate that an informal agreement may open the door for further diplomatic talks.

  • Introduction to the India-China Space Race

    Introduction to the India-China Space Race

    Introduction 

    India and China have heavily invested in their respective space programs since the 1960s, with both countries vying to become a leading space power. The space race between the United States and the Soviet Union had a major influence on China and India, leading the two Asian nations to make space development a priority. Both countries see space development as a means to achieve national development goals, maintain political power, increase national pride, and gain international respect. In recent years, the Asian space race has shifted away from an ideological superpower rivalry to focus on economic and national security benefits. 

    The Chinese Space Program 

    The Chinese space program is run by the China National Space Administration (CNSA), a civilian agency focused on defense-related technology. The CNSA does not oversee China’s astronauts. China’s manned space program is the China Manned Space Engineering Office (CMSEO), part of China’s Central Military Commission Equipment Development Department (CMDED).

    The People’s Republic of China (PRC) sent astronauts into space for the first time in 2003 and has since conducted several other manned missions. The Chinese Manned Space Agency has been a source of great national pride for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), with President Xi Jinping closely associating himself with the program’s success. China has also developed a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) that rivals the American Global Positioning System (GPS). In May 2023, the PRC announced several expansions to its current space program, including updates to its existing Tiangong space station and a plan to land astronauts on the moon by 2030.

    China has also rapidly expanded its arsenal of space technology for military purposes, including anti-satellite (ASAT) technologies. The PRC’s expanding ASAT capabilities have drawn concern from American national security experts. Many Chinese satellites are directly run by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), which some American national security analysts fear could pose a security risk. 

    The Indian Space Program 

    India’s national space program is made up of the civilian Space Research Organization (ISRO) and the military Defense Space Agency (DSA). The DSA oversees India’s ASAT technology, which the Indian space program demonstrated with a successful test in 2019. The founding of the DSA in 2018 has shifted India’s space focus towards military applications. 

    India has also seen a rise in space technology companies and currently contains over 140 space tech start-ups. In June 2020, Indian PM Narendra Modi publicly pushed for private sector involvement in space technology. In 2022, Indian space start-ups garnered around $120 million in private investments, with investments predicted to increase in the coming years. 
    India’s space sector has also benefited from US tensions with Russia and China, which are major providers of satellite launches that geopolitical tensions have closed off to American customers. A 2021 report from the American intelligence community labeled China’s space program a major security concern. NASA also plans to retire the International Space Station in 2031; China’s Tiangong space station remaining in orbit would allow the PRC significant influence in space, a major concern for the US intelligence community. In June 2023, India emerged as a new American ally in space by signing the Artemis Accords, a non-binding agreement with the United States to set space exploration and use norms. India has also announced its plans for an ISRO space station and sent a joint mission with the US to the International Space Station in July 2023.

  • Introduction to U.S.-Spain Relations

    Introduction to U.S.-Spain Relations

    Quick Facts

    Introduction

    Spain’s shift to democracy in 1978, solidified by its new Constitution, also signaled a move from isolationism to greater international collaboration. This was followed shortly by Spain’s entry into NATO in 1982 and the European Union in 1986.

    Spain consistently ranks as the EU’s fourth most populous and economically significant nation by GDP. As of July 2023, Spain holds the presidency of the EU Council. The United States maintains a robust relationship with Spain through these global entities. It stands as the EU’s primary trading partner and consistently appoints a U.S. military officer as the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

    History of U.S.–Spain Relations

    Spain was the first country to colonize North America, beginning with present-day Florida in the 1500’s, and expanding northwards from Central America into the American Southwest and up along the Pacific Coast. Spanish colonies coexisted in relative harmony with the United States, and established diplomatic relations with them in 1783. An important early diplomatic event between the two countries was the Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819, through which the U.S. obtained Florida from Spain and Spain gave up its rights to the Pacific Northwest.

    The Spanish-American War of 1898 emerged from conflicting interests in Spanish-ruled Cuba. It led to Cuban independence, the U.S. gaining Puerto Rico and Guam, and the U.S. purchasing the Philippines. During the 20th century, Spain dealt with internal conflict, which caused their neutrality in World War I and limited engagement in World War II. As a result, Spain stood as the sole surviving Fascist state in Europe after the war. For a long time, it followed isolationism, but in the two decades after World War II, Spain started welcoming tourism and collaborating with the U.S. Soon after the war, the two countries signed the Pact of Madrid. This pact allowed the U.S. to establish military bases on Spanish soil in exchange for military and economic assistance. This marked the beginning of lasting U.S.-Spanish cooperation.

    This cooperation grew stronger when Spain became a democracy in 1978. Besides joining NATO and the EU, Spain collaborated with the U.S. in various military efforts, including the Gulf War in 1990, the post-9/11 conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Although Spain has consistently followed the U.S.’s lead in these endeavors, domestic disagreements over participation in Iraq and disagreements between the two on relations with Cuba marked a short-lived deterioration of the U.S.-Spain relationship, which improved after Spain committed to increased involvement in Afghanistan. 

    Strategic Interests

    Spain, the U.S., and China

    Spain leans towards China for imports, with 9% coming from China compared to 4% from the United States. While the U.S. and Spain share similar political values, economic dynamics play a role. The Trump Administration’s protectionist policies and competition with China can push Spain to align more closely with the U.S. Despite this, Spain’s reliance on China for imports and telecommunications networks complicates the decision to move away from China. Spain has been under mounting pressure from the United States concerning their utilization of Huawei’s telecommunications system, due to raised security worries. This primarily stems from China’s exploitation of “crucial infrastructure to gather intelligence on potential vulnerabilities and [using] spear-phishing to conduct cyberespionage in order to acquire technological capacity and economic and security intelligence.”

    In the face of a bipolar global economic system, Europe—with Spain included—is attempting to position itself as an alternative to both the United States and China. Spain’s relative openness towards China can put Spain’s relationship with the U.S at risk, and if U.S-China relations continue deteriorating and becoming more antagonistic, Spain might feel alienated from the U.S and forced to pick a side.

  • US Response to Putinist Ideology in Russia

    US Response to Putinist Ideology in Russia

    Introduction

    Amid Russia’s ongoing conflict and occupation of Ukraine, the underlying motives driving the war have become increasingly evident. A significant focal point has emerged around the personal aspirations and geopolitical perspective of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin’s authoritative leadership style has positioned him as a central figure in Russia’s actions and choices, where his personal beliefs and principles influence the direction of the nation he governs. Upon dissecting Putin’s ideology, it becomes apparent that his system is inherently antagonistic toward the United States and its allied nations. This hostility stems from the foundational principles on which his ideology is constructed, as well as the broader objectives it seeks to accomplish beyond the confines of Russia’s borders. 

    Characterizing Putinism:

    Vladimir Putin’s ideology, often referred to as Putinism, does not adhere to a rigid set of traits that dictate all of Russia’s actions. Putin’s nearly quarter of a century rule has seen Russian politics change drastically as the democratic system established after the dissolution of the Soviet Union has been gradually replaced by an authoritarian system headed by Putin. However, recurring principles in the domestic and international spheres can be identified.

    Domestically, Putinism’s most prominent characteristics are authoritarianism, political illiberalism, and social conservatism. In practice, this manifests as a political system in which Putin leads as a strongman with his party, United Russia—a loyal state security apparatus—and various allied oligarchs wield control over the media, internet, economy, and political process. Civil rights are curtailed while rights of marginalized groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, are met with open hostility.

    Internationally, Putinism can be categorized by three characteristics:

    These principles are significant because all three characteristics build upon and sustain one another, and they are fundamentally opposed to and hostile towards the United States and its allies. Each of these principles offers a lens through which Russia’s foreign policy can be understood.

    Eurasianism

    Eurasianism is the concept that Russia, as well as the other former members of the Soviet Union and Russian Empire, comprise a distinct civilization separate from Europe. This “Eurasian Civilization” has been the result of Russia’s history as a site of conquest for various nomadic empires including the Huns and the Mongols. A core principle of Eurasianism asserts that ideas originating in the West, including those stemming from the Enlightenment, are inherently detrimental to Russia’s Eurasian civilization. As a result, proponents of Eurasianism advocate for the rejection and active opposition to these Western-born concepts. 

    A significant aspect of Russian foreign policy is the Eurasianist perspective regarding the inevitable consolidation of states within the Eurasian civilization into a unified Eurasian state under Russia’s leadership. This viewpoint gained recent prominence, as evidenced by a foreign policy charter released by the Kremlin in March of this year. The charter identified Russia as a “unique country-civilization” and a prominent Eurasian power, asserting its role as the destined leader of the “civilizational community of the Russian world.”

    The Eurasianist component of Putinism contributes to its adversarial stance toward the United States. Through the Eurasianist perspective, opposition to the United States and its allies is seen as crucial to safeguarding the integrity of the Eurasian civilization against the encroachment of Western influence. Consequently, this viewpoint transforms the rhetoric of conflict with NATO from mere propaganda into a genuine ideological belief held by Putin’s Russia.

    Russian Nationalism

    Putin’s nationalism draws heavily from the veneration of two predecessors of the Russian Federation: the historical Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. The prestige, power, and legacy of both states are central to Putin’s particular brand of nationalism. 

    Having served as a former officer of the Soviet KGB, Putin holds a distinct reverence for the legacy of the Soviet Union, even describing its collapse as the most significant calamity of the 20th century. This sentiment has left a lasting impression on Putin’s Russia. Notably, the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany remains a pivotal aspect of the new national narrative Putin aims to construct. During Putin’s leadership, this triumph has been integrated into the core identity of contemporary Russia, serving as a cornerstone in framing the nation’s present actions. This was particularly evident in Putin’s initial justification for Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, which he described as an effort to “denazify” the country. By branding adversaries as Nazis or Fascists, support for Russian actions is spurred through an emphasis on Russia’s Soviet legacy. This narrative positions these actions as a continuation of the Soviet struggle against Nazi Germany, thereby generating support for Russia’s activities.

    Russia’s historical antecedents have been leveraged not only for domestic propaganda but also as a rationale for its aggressive actions towards neighboring countries. Notably, Russia’s actions concerning Ukraine and other nations like Georgia can be interpreted as components of a wider aspiration to regain the status and influence once held by the Russian Empire. Putin himself has articulated this sentiment on various occasions, drawing parallels between his leadership and historical figures such as Peter the Great. In these instances, he draws analogies between Peter the Great’s extensive territorial expansion of Russia in the 17th century and his own engagement in the conflict in Ukraine, illustrating a perceived continuum of Russia’s pursuit of power and territorial influence.

    Anti-Americanism

    While the Soviet Union’s anti-Americanism and broader anti-Western sentiment were rooted in the ideological contest between capitalism and communism during the Cold War, Putin’s Anti-Americanism within Putinism adopts a unique character influenced by the Eurasianist perspective on the West. Under this framework, Western Europe and the United States are perceived as embodying inherent malevolence that demands a defensive posture. It is notable that despite this departure from the Soviet era, Putinism maintains the Soviet anti-imperialist narrative within its Anti-Western standpoint. In practice, Putinism adeptly integrates both Eurasianist rhetoric and anti-imperialist arguments to rationalize Russian actions. By referencing previous interventions in regions like Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya, this form of Anti-Americanism portrays Russian actions as a counterforce to American imperialism, positioned to safeguard the interests of the developing world.

    Putinism’s anti-Westernism and anti-Americanism inevitably places Russia on confrontational grounds with the United States and its allies. The centrality of hostility towards the United States and its allies in the ideology of a robust military power which has already demonstrated aggressive action in Ukraine makes the real world implications of Putinism a particularly relevant threat. 

    Charting the Implications for the United State’s and the American Response

    In broad strokes, Putinism aims to dislodge the current world order. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the most direct implementation of this aim. However Russia is also seeking to accomplish this goal by sowing internal discontent in the United States and its allies as well as expanding influence in states and regions with animosity towards the United States and the West. West African states which were previously French colonies have been the strongest examples of this method. Amidst coups and increasing hostility towards France, various states in West Africa have become increasingly aligned with Russia. The Wagner Group, a mercenary group with links to the Russian government, has established a presence in countries such as Mali. 

    The Russian invasion of Ukraine has stood out as a prominent realization of Putinism’s objectives. However, the American response to this invasion can be viewed as a notably successful strategy for countering Russia’s ambitions. Specifically, the provision of consistent military assistance to Ukraine before and during the ongoing invasion has yielded favorable outcomes. The resilient resistance put forth by Ukraine has significantly strained Russia’s capacities and triggered a weakening of its military legitimacy. This setback has hindered Putinism’s objectives.

    The persistent pressure stemming from Russia’s involvement in the conflict in Ukraine has introduced substantial challenges to the nation’s stability. Consequently, this strain has impeded Russia’s ability to pursue other avenues for advancing its objectives, including efforts to destabilize regions and cultivate relationships with countries harboring tensions towards the United States or its allies.

    Future Outlook

    Perhaps the most peculiar outcome of Putinism so far is its potential impending self implosion. Failure to secure a swift victory in Ukraine has delegitimized the aims and rhetoric of Putinism internationally. More damningly, the strain which the war has put on Russia internally is perhaps the biggest sign that Putinism is already in decline. The lack of response by Putin to the Wagner Group rebellion in June of this year demonstrated how significantly Putin’s rule, and by extension Putinism, has been weakened by Ukraines steadfast resistance. Thanks in large part to the continuing material support to Ukraine, which enabled Ukraine to fend off Russia’s military, the initial actions necessary to defeat Putinism have perhaps already been put into place by the United States and its allies.

  • Introduction to Israel-US Relations

    Introduction to Israel-US Relations

    Fact Sheet

    A small country in terms of landmass, Israel spans 21,937 sq km in the Middle East, bordered by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. It stands as one of America’s robust economic allies, boasting a 2021 GDP of $488.5 billion and a 6.5% growth rate in 2022. With a population exceeding nine million, Israel is highly diverse, with 74% Jewish, 21.1% Arab, and 4.9% representing other cultures. In terms of religion, it comprises 74% Jewish, 18% Muslim, 2% Christian, and 1.5% Druze, while the remaining 4.5% adhere to other religions.

    The United States and Israel share a robust economic relationship, with a trade value of $47.0 billion in 2019. Israeli exports to the U.S. comprised $26.9 billion, and U.S. exports to Israel were $20.2 billion. Key traded goods include pharmaceuticals, technology, and raw minerals. Additionally, the U.S. provides substantial military and development aid to Israel, sending over $3.8 billion in assistance to the Israeli government in 2020.

    History of Israel-US relations

    Since its inception on May 14th, 1948, the United States has maintained a steadfast relationship with Israel. The U.S. was the first nation to recognize Israel’s sovereignty upon its declaration of statehood. Although initial hesitation existed, particularly after World War II, due to concerns about a Middle Eastern arms race, the U.S. eventually deepened its military ties with Israel, especially as the USSR militarized Arab states. This marked the beginning of a longstanding military alliance. U.S. military aid played a crucial role in Israel’s conflicts, including the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Beyond the military sphere, Israel’s advanced technology and trade sectors have solidified its position as a vital trade ally. The U.S. also values Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East, considering it a bastion of democracy and a close ally.

    The U.S.-Israel relationship plays a crucial role in mediating the Israel-Palestine conflict, stemming from the UN’s adoption of Resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine in 1947. Territorial disputes escalated after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and the 1967 conflict, leading to the occupation of disputed territories by Israel. The U.S., while broadly supporting Israel, has opposed the full absorption of disputed land. It has actively pursued diplomatic solutions, leading diplomatic efforts after the 1967 and 1973 wars. Through the United Nations Security Council, the United States was a key player in passing Resolutions 497 (1981), Security Council Resolutions 252 (1968); 267 (1969); 298 (1971); 446 (1979); 445 (1979), all of which condemned Israel’s territorial expansion. Moreover, the U.S. has been a leading actor in brokering compromises, hosting the 1978 and 2000 Camp David accords. The overall commitment remains to a “two-state solution,” advocating for a fair division of land between Israel and Palestine for peaceful coexistence.

    Modern U.S.-Israel Relations

    In the modern era, the U.S.-Israel relationship has grown more complex. Critics within the United States argue that America’s defense aid to Israel contradicts its goals for Israel-Palestine, as U.S. weapons may be used against Palestinians. Despite this, military cooperation, particularly in cyberwarfare, information, and technology, has deepened. Israel’s democracy has faced challenges, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government adopting increasingly conservative views, leading to a weakening of the judiciary, reduced human rights, and restricted freedom of speech. Recent spikes in Israeli-Palestinian violence have heightened regional unrest. Consequently, recent meetings between U.S. officials like Secretary of State Blinken and President Biden and Israel have centered on democracy promotion and regional de-escalation, reflecting strains in the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

    In a controversial foreign policy move in 2018, the United States, under the Trump administration, relocated its embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem and officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This decision sparked controversy as the international community considers East Jerusalem as occupied territory, and Palestinians aspire to have it as their capital. Critics argue that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital undermines peace processes, while proponents contend that it supports Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as its capital.

    Shared Israel-US Interests

    Historically, the United States and Israel share a commitment to common values and goals, rooted in their democratic principles. This alignment forms the basis of their strong relationship, evident in the significant aid, trade, and support that Israel receives from America. This mutual understanding is crucial for both nations.

    In terms of U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East, supporting Israel serves multiple purposes. Elevating Israel as a geopolitical power provides the U.S. with a democratic ally to promote its values in an unstable region. Israel’s status as a nuclear power also aligns with U.S. security interests, leading to a shared commitment to safeguarding Israel’s capabilities. Some liberal politicians find affinity with Israel’s historically progressive politics, although this sentiment has waned in recent years. Moreover, Israel’s advanced cyber defense technology and strong economy contribute to a symbiotic relationship, allowing the U.S. to leverage mutual economic growth through this partnership.

  • Pros and Cons of US Aid to Afghanistan

    Pros and Cons of US Aid to Afghanistan

    Providing Aid Since 2002

    After the attacks against the United States on September 11th, 2001, the U.S. launched a “war on terror,” a global counterterrorism campaign to combat al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as well as to topple the Taliban government in Afghanistan. The United States invaded Afghanistan as a part of this campaign. In 2002, after the surrender of the Taliban, President George W. Bush called for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and compared his plan to rebuild the country to that of the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild Europe after World War II. Since 2002, the United States has been the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and has provided billions of dollars in reconstruction, security assistance, civilian assistance, and humanitarian aid to the country.

    The U.S. Withdraws, The Taliban Takeover 

    In August 2021, the United States withdrew its last remaining troops from Afghanistan, ending the 20-year-long war in the country. Shortly after, the Taliban seized control of the Afghan government. Since their takeover of the government, there have been numerous reports of the Taliban violating the civil and human rights of the Afghan people. In response, the U.S. has changed its approach in Afghanistan to focus on providing humanitarian aid rather than reconstruction. 

    Since August 2021, the U.S. has provided more than $1.1 billion in assistance to meet the basic needs of the Afghan people and to prevent an economic collapse. However, the current Taliban control of Afghanistan raises the question: Should the United States continue to provide aid to Afghanistan with the risk of funding the Taliban?

    Arguments for Continuing Aid: Afghanistan is a Country In Need 

    In Afghanistan, a humanitarian crisis looms over the country. As of 2021, 42% of the population faces acute food shortages, and there is a risk of an economic collapse as the prices of food rise. One analysis by the World Bank found that the price of goods had increased by 42% between 2021 and 2022. The World Bank further states that Afghanistan will need continued international support to fund basic services, support faster economic growth, and consolidate and sustain any potential reduction in violence following a political settlement with the Taliban.

    There are moral arguments that the United States should continue to provide aid. In a statement, the United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, called upon countries to provide funding for the people of Afghanistan. Calling it their “darkest hour of need.” In terms of the United States, Afghans For A Better Tomorrow, an activist group, claims the United States has a moral obligation to continue to provide aid to Afghanistan after its 20-year war and due to its “messy and irresponsible” withdrawal from the country that has put millions of lives at stake. 

    Arguments Against Continuing Aid: Mismanagement

    According to research and reports, previous aid and reconstruction projects by the United States in Afghanistan lacked collaboration between agencies and had insufficient monitoring, with U.S. agencies rarely coordinating their efforts in the country. Many U.S. officials believed the solution to the insecurity in Afghanistan was pouring more resources into Afghan institutions. However, the lack of progress with the increased resources made it clear that fundamental problems in Afghanistan would not be solved by changing resource levels. According to a SIGAR report, a combination of these issues led to billions of dollars wasted on projects in Afghanistan. Many believe that sending taxpayer dollars without oversight or quantifiable results is irresponsible, and that these aid projects must be accountable to taxpayers as part of the social contract.

    Furthermore, there is no guarantee the Taliban is not diverting the aid money. Since the takeover by the Taliban, the U.S. can not guarantee that the Taliban is not misappropriating the aid money provided to the country. John Sopko, the Special Inspector for Afghanistan Reconstruction, testified, “Nor can I assure you that the Taliban are not diverting the money we are sending for the intended recipients, which are the poor Afghan people.” In fact, there are accusations that the Taliban has already diverted aid money to itself and has begun using it as another revenue stream. This also has moral implications for the U.S., as the Taliban government has significantly rolled back protections for women in the country, as well as committed numerous human rights violations. Foreign aid is a main form of income for the country, and indirectly funding the regime, intentionally or not, may empower the Taliban to continue its violent crackdown.

    The situation in Afghanistan has put the United States in a challenging situation. The United States must decide whether to continue providing aid to Afghanistan, which might increase the likelihood of financial loss and unintentional funding of the Taliban, or to stop such assistance, which could result in a serious humanitarian crisis in the nation.

  • Introduction to US-Ireland Relations

    Introduction to US-Ireland Relations

    Source: CIA World Factbook

    Ireland, known as the Emerald Isle, is home to more than 5 million people and boasts a rich and distinct history. Once a British Empire colony, Ireland has been politically divided since 1921 into Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, and the Republic of Ireland, an independent nation. The Reformation in England and the separation between Henry VIII and the Catholic Church in Rome deeply impacted Ireland. Tensions arose due to King James I’s strategy of urging Protestants to settle in the northern province of Ulster, aiming to prompt the Irish population to convert from Catholicism.

    Today, Ireland maintains strong cultural ties with the United States as a result of mass migration due to famine from 1845-1855. Recent presidents have reiterated the shared sense of cultural identity that extends to many members of the Irish-American community as a result of the diaspora. Ireland has been a member of the United Nations since 1955 and a NATO member since 1973. Brexit, the decision by England to leave the European Union, seemingly re-ignited the debate surrounding the status of Northern Ireland for many politicians and scholars, demonstrating the ongoing tensions between the Republic of Ireland in the south and Northern Ireland. 

    Quick Facts

    Overview of History with the US 

    The foundation of the modern Irish state can be traced back to the 1900s and World War I. The desire for Irish nationhood, similar to other emerging nations, was fueled by the principles outlined in former US President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points and the establishment of the League of Nations. From 1919 to 1921, various factions in Ireland engaged in a violent struggle for independence. Sinn Fein, meaning “We Ourselves,” emerged in 1905 as the political arm of the paramilitary IRA (Irish Republican Army). This group advocated for a unified Irish state and separation from the UK.

    The party proclaimed an Irish Republic, which was met with resistance from the British administration and the predominantly Protestant unionist province of Ulster (now known as Northern Ireland). In reaction, the Irish Republican Army was established to combat the British administration. Since their inception, both Sinn Fein and the IRA have experienced divisions leading to various splinter groups and internal changes. Following negotiations that led to separation from the UK, Ireland’s lower house of parliament, known as Dáil Éireann, became part of the League of Nations in 1923, marking the creation of the Irish Free State. However, the divisions between the northern and southern regions, as well as between Protestant and Catholic communities, persisted.

    During the 1800s, potatoes were vital for sustenance in Ireland. The Potato Famine began when a disease wiped out most of the Irish potato crops. Many believed that the British government provided inadequate assistance, leading to widespread starvation. The scarcity of resources resulted in a severe crisis. Around 1.5 million people emigrated to America between 1845 and 1855. These migrants encountered numerous challenges, including bias and poverty, as they gradually assimilated into American society. The narrative of Irish-Americans progressing from marginalized individuals to holding the highest office in the country remains a source of cultural pride. These connections have played a significant role in American diplomacy with Ireland. Presently, the Irish-American community maintains a strong connection to their Irish heritage. This bond between Ireland and Irish-Americans has impacted American policymaking, prompting leaders to employ diplomatic approaches to address conflicts. As of 2021, over 31 million Americans identified themselves as having Irish ancestry. Several US presidents, including John F.Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden, have openly discussed their Irish-American heritage while in office.

    The Troubles, lasting from the 1960s to the 1990s, began with a civil rights movement in Northern Ireland led by the Catholic minority. They faced inequalities compared to the Protestant majority. The situation escalated into violence, with both sides contributing. This conflict heavily impacted Irish politics, especially given the ongoing debate about whether Ireland should secede from the UK—a desire largely held by the Republic of Ireland but not by Northern Ireland. The issue was complicated by acts of terrorism by factions of the IRA and other groups.

    Irish-American communities during that time were torn between backing Irish unification and independence and feeling uneasy about supporting further violence by the IRA. President Clinton and the US government played a pivotal role in the Good Friday Agreement, a significant post-Cold War diplomatic initiative. This agreement successfully involved Sinn Fein in legitimate democratic processes. It achieved important milestones such as the disarmament of all parties and increased representation for the Catholic minority. It allowed Northern Ireland to remain a part of the UK. Although the Good Friday Agreement didn’t completely resolve all tensions among Ireland’s population, it paved the way for a more lasting peace. 

    US Interests 

    Ireland and the United States share deep cultural and economic ties. The two nations have maintained diplomatic ties since 1924, and President Clinton implemented substantial economic cooperation efforts that played a crucial role in stabilizing Ireland. This led to a strong and ongoing economic collaboration that continues to this day.

    • Ireland’s foreign direct investment in the US in 2019 was approximately 343.5 billion dollars.
    • More than 900 US-owned firms operate in Ireland, including Google and Facebook. 

    Ireland has pushed a foreign policy that centers peace, multilateralism, and military neutrality. Through the UN, Ireland has promoted peacekeeping and aid to crises in nations including Afghanistan, Syria, and Ethiopia. These support similar strategic interests of the United States to maintain peacekeeping efforts in these regions. Furthermore, Ireland has also given $134 million in nonlethal aid to Ukraine. 

    Brexit complicated the peace created through the Good Friday Agreement as the UK left the European Union. It necessitated a customs border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which many feared would reignite the conflict by encouraging remilitarization in the area. The crisis was averted with a special trading status, but is not fully resolved. The United States’ strategic interests lie in the larger European communal security and integration as a transatlantic partner. Furthermore, the US has interests in maintaining the agreement as a historic success in American diplomacy.

  • US Response to France’s Diminishing Influence in Africa

    US Response to France’s Diminishing Influence in Africa

    Introduction

    Since its decolonization, France has held outsized influence in French-speaking (Francophone) African countries, cemented by its policy of Françafrique, which was designed to keep Francophone countries firmly within France’s sphere of influence. Through this policy, France was able to continue to protect and promote French interests in Francophone Africa.

    However, this sphere of influence has been waning, with France slowly losing its economic influence in the region, and struggling to provide the regional security benefits it once did. Recently, France removed all their soldiers from Mali and Burkina Faso, and was unable to prevent a coup in Niger, despite having troops stationed. With France now seeking a reset of relations within the region as a whole, it provides both opportunity and danger to US interests in Francophone countries, and Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole.

    Background Information

    After World War II, France, along with other European empires, began facing increasing pressure to grant independence to their colonies. France, however, did not want to lose the benefits it gained from its African colonies. As France granted its colonies independence, it also worked to set up a pré carré (translated as one’s little corner) system in their former African colonies that would keep the newly independent nations firmly within France’s influence. This was done by setting up Francophone Africa’s economy in a way that tied the countries to France by creating a regional currency and economic bloc, which allowed France to maintain access to essential resources. France also maintained a military presence in the new countries, which allowed France to intervene militarily within the states to protect France’s interests, and made it the de facto stabilizer of the region.

    This system began to fall apart in the 1990’s, when the French government supported Juvenal Habyarimana’s Rwandan regime despite concerns of increased ethnic tension, which ended up being the cause of the Rwandan genocide. This severely shook Francophone Africa’s trust in France, as the nations viewed France’s support of Rwanda as protecting French interests at the expense of African lives. This concern surrounding France’s reliability and worth as a partner was further enforced by France’s own shifting view of the partnership, as it sought to scale back its military presence on the continent. This reduced trust in governments that had relied on French help to secure their countries. Economic investment also began to shift away from the previous, French dominated, economic system, lowering confidence in France’s value as an economic ally.

    All of these developments have led to a souring of opinion of France in Francophone Africa, and has left the door open for other countries to increase their influence in the region. However, this weakening influence has also decreased the security of the countries, as France struggles to provide regional security as it previously did, and Francophone countries struggle to replace France’s role as a stabilizer in the region. In recent years, France has had to withdraw soldiers from Mali and Burkina Faso, which were stationed in those countries to help fight terrorist groups. France has also watched as regimes supportive of French interests have been overthrown by coups, most recently in Niger.

    US Response

    The US’s response to France’s diminishing influence has been mixed so far, with the US increasingly expanding its economic ties to Francophone African countries, but working with France often on regional security issues.

    On economic issues, the US has been working to increase its economic ties with Sub-Saharan Africa, including Francophone Africa, and have therefore used previously existing acts, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act, to help boost trade and improve economic ties with Francophone African countries specifically. The US has also increased its push for a free trade zone throughout all of Africa, which would undercut France’s regional economic strength with Francophone countries, while increasing US access to resources and goods found in French-speaking African countries.

    When it comes to military and regional security issues, the US has expanded their military footprint in Africa, establishing a military base in Djibouti and creating AFRICOM, the United States Africa Command, which coordinates security efforts and crisis response on the African continent.

    However, US and French interests are more aligned when it comes to security, so the two nations have often found themselves advocating for the same outcome, especially with counterterrorism efforts in the Sahel region. This has often led both countries to push for the same outcomes, such as in response to the coup in Niger, although these efforts have had less success.

    Potential Benefits

    The potential benefits from the US increasing its influence are mostly found in the economic sphere, where it can sell themselves as a strong partner based on a strong record of trading with English-speaking African countries, which are viewed in Africa to generally be a ‘step ahead’ of their Francophone counterparts. The US has also emphasized equal partnerships with African nations, which resonates well with Francophone countries. Increased trade and economic ties with Francophone Africa are beneficial because of the increased access to markets and resources they provide, but also because they provide the US with an ability to demonstrate its value as an economic partner to the developing world, which tends to view US involvement as imperial, rather than as a partnership.

    Another benefit for increased US participation in Francophone Africa is counteracting Russia and China’s influence in the region. China, specifically, has used the ‘Belt and Road’ initiative to increase its influence throughout Africa through loans and investments in infrastructure in the developing world. This program now has 44 Sub-Saharan African countries as partners, and China continues to invest heavily in new infrastructure projects in partner countries, along with seeking to increase trade with the continent. By increasing ties to Francophone countries, the US would limit the chance that those countries would end up becoming more hostile to US interests through an increased alignment with China and Russia.

    Potential Drawbacks

    A major drawback of increasing US influence in Francophone Africa is that security concerns tend to be similar for Western nations. This means weakening France’s sphere of influence further puts US security interests at risk, especially considering the current state of the Sahel region. France is still a strong security partner for Francophone African countries outside of the Sahel, and weakening them further could lead to more instability throughout the entire region, especially considering that the US could struggle to step in as a security partner 

    Furthermore, this action would create an opportunity for geopolitical competitors like Russia and China to expand their security influence in Africa. These countries are already becoming more engaged in the Sahel region and across Africa. They could highlight their recent successes, like Russia’s Wagner Group aiding in stabilizing countries where France and Western nations faced challenges. This could make them more appealing to Francophone African countries as partners, shifting countries away from Western interests. This would run contrary to US goals in the region, especially considering that the US is more aligned with France in most global interests.

  • US Involvement in Central African Mining

    US Involvement in Central African Mining

    Cobalt, originally seen as a simple byproduct of copper or nickel mining, has recently become a critical mineral due to its use in lithium-ion batteries. These batteries are lightweight and rechargeable, and are important features in portable technology and energy grids. Cobalt’s demand is on the rise as eco-friendly technology, made possible with rechargeable batteries, provides an alternative for fossil fuels. The International Energy Association’s special report on critical minerals predicts that cobalt will see over a 60% rise in demand as countries attempt to meet the Paris Agreement’s emission goals. 

    Much of that cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as the central African nation is home to over 70% of the world’s cobalt production. Still, the country’s history of conflict and corruption has stifled economic development, resulting in widespread poverty and a substantial informal sector. These factors complicate involvement. While minerals such as cobalt provide an incentive for external investors and a symbol of potential prosperity, their coveted nature can lead to conflict and further issues for those who participate in its extraction.

    US Energy Demands and Domestic Production

    Recent US policies reflect a demand for green energy and the corresponding necessary resources. In 2021, Biden passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law which included an emphasis on electrical vehicles and clean energy technologies. The following year’s Inflation Reduction act invested in new energy projects and other technology that uses cobalt. Investing in DRC cobalt mines could provide the foundational resources for many of the new projects. As part of these new pieces of legislation, the Biden Administration aims to focus locally and encourage internal markets for clean energy rather than relying on foreign powers with competing interests.

    Because of this, some argue that the US should focus more on mining cobalt domestically. For example, Representative Strauber of Minnesota claimed that investing in Congolese projects both supports the pervasive human rights abuses and sacrifices domestic job opportunity. If the US can mine Cobalt domestically, then this would directly speak to Biden’s goal of a more domestic clean energy industry. However, local mining has been expensive and inefficient with only three projects opening since 2002. One project in the Idaho Cobalt Belt took over 20 years to begin production. Through these mines, the US was able to produce 700 tons of cobalt in 2021, but it still had to import 9,900 tons to match demands. Increasing involvement within the DRC could help address the rising need for cobalt and avoid dealing with potential rivals.

    Competition with China

    The most prominent rival is China, who dominates cobalt mining in the region. Chinese corporations provide infrastructure investments in exchange for mining opportunities as a way to expand influence and secure control over early stages of the energy supply chain. In 2005, then-DRC president, Joseph Kabila, negotiated with China to reach a $6 billion infrastructure deal to fund schools, hospitals, and roads in exchange for copper and cobalt. As of 2023, China owns all but one cobalt mine within the country.

    Even so, the Congolese people often feel exploited by current contracts with the Chinese and hope to secure a more equal partnership. Reflecting this new goal, the DRC is looking to re-negotiate the aforementioned infrastructure-for-minerals deal. In 2022, the DRC government began investigating Chinese mining companies for evading payments. One such investigation resulted in restricting China Molybdenum Co.’s control of the Tenke Fungurume mine. The recent pushback against China may also spur an effort to find new partnerships with countries such as the US.

    In a May 2022 speech, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken characterized the US strategy towards China as one of economic competition for both technology and foreign influence. Investing in the DRC’s cobalt mining would increase US power in both. Currently the US is not a dominant player in either the production or the raw material side when it comes to battery technologies, and the DRC’s dissatisfaction with China is an opportunity for the US to improve its position in the energy supply chain. 

    Already, the US has attempted to expand connections to the DRC through a Memorandum of Understanding focused on electric vehicle batteries. This agreement between the DRC, US, and Zambia expresses a shared interest in improving growth within the African countries’ mining and industrial sectors. However, the memorandum does not include any legally binding components or funding, making the agreement more symbolic than functional. Moreover, the US is starting at a disadvantage when it comes to controlling mines since it sold the one American-owned DRC cobalt mine to China in 2016.

    Human Rights Abuses

    The US is hesitant to increase ties with the DRC’s mining industry because of the many current human rights abuse scandals. NPR has referred to the cobalt mining projects within the DRC as modern day slavery due to the extreme poverty and coercive forces leading people into the mines. New projects displace villages, leaving the people at risk of homelessness and often creating situations where the only economic opportunity is to work in the mines The slave-like conditions are part of a process called artisanal mining which is done informally and without heavy equipment. Artisanal miners then sell their resources to industrial mining companies. The inhumanely acquired resources enter the formal supply chain through money laundering, untraced and unquestioned. 

    To address this issue, the Fair Cobalt Alliance works to improve labor conditions for artisanal miners and harness their production to create a more formal supply chain. American corporations such as Google have invested in the project, suggesting an avenue for US soft power and influence within the region. Other multinational corporations involved in the mining process include Microsoft, who has “committed to responsible and ethical sourcing” of cobalt and Apple, who aims to decrease reliance on mines altogether due to the history of inhumane conditions. These actions by larger companies apply pressure to DRC mines to improve labor standards and lay the groundwork for future relationships.

    Even so, the DRC has not met the US’s standards for eliminating human trafficking and is on the US Department of State’s watchlist. Trafficking also often leads to child labor, which the US has made efforts to address. The Combating Child Labor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Cobalt Industry (COTECCO) project focuses on child labor in artisanal mining and trains DRC representatives to combat the issue. By expanding its engagement in the mining sector and at a national level, the US has the potential to tackle issues at both the policy and corporate levels. Such an undertaking is both expensive and time consuming when the US has historically utilized less controversial partners such as Norway and Canada for cobalt.

    FTA Opportunity

    The US could improve trade with the DRC directly through a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) as this would deepen ties between the countries and allow for additional benefits under Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Through expanding trade agreements with the DRC, the US can incentivize closer ties and provide subsidies or tax cuts around targeted resources to ensure American companies are some of the most compelling buyers. As it stands now, the IRA pushes the DRC away because many of the plan’s critical mineral subsidies are restricted to countries with FTAs.

    FTAs can also incorporate explicit incentives to advance specific policy objectives that the US aims to tackle in a given country. For instance, the US’s FTA with Peru contains specific environmental goals to minimize deforestation. An FTA with the DRC could incorporate guidelines that directly address human rights abuses within the mining sector. There is also an incentive to include an environmental component similar to the Peruvian FTA as current DRC mining has resulted in crop death and damaged soil within the surrounding areas due to cobalt’s toxic nature. Expanding mining projects within the Congo Basin also threatens the forest and surrounding ecosystems.

    The cobalt mines within the DRC raise a complicated challenge. While the United States races against China for control of energy sources and technology, the inhumane conditions and ecological threats associated with congolese mining are heavy deterrents. Moving forward, the US must decide how to address the rising demand for cobalt without compromising its foreign policy goals.