ACE

Category: Europe

  • Understanding US Relations with Switzerland: Key Insights into Trade, Diplomacy, and Strategic Interests.

    Understanding US Relations with Switzerland: Key Insights into Trade, Diplomacy, and Strategic Interests.

    Introduction

    Switzerland, known for its neutrality, abstains from military alliances and international conflicts, playing a significant role in global peace and diplomacy. It frequently hosts diplomatic conferences on international humanitarian law. Over time, shared characteristics in their political systems and joint efforts in international organizations have strengthened relations between the United States and Switzerland. Currently, the United States stands as Switzerland’s primary trading partner, accounting for 16.3% of its total exports. Therefore, the relationship between the U.S. and Switzerland is vital for the economic development, security, and maintenance of global peace for both nations.

    Quick Facts

    History of U.S.─Switzerland Relations

    Despite their history of close cooperation, certain factors have strained the relationship between the United States and Switzerland in the past. In the 1990s, tensions arose due to the World Jewish Congress lawsuit against Swiss banks regarding the handling of stolen Nazi gold during World War II. The U.S. argued that Switzerland, as a neutral country, had inadvertently aided the Nazi regime, thereby prolonging the war. Switzerland disputed this claim, leading to heightened tensions. Additionally, Swiss banking secrecy has been a contentious issue, with U.S. authorities alleging that it hampers oversight and facilitates money laundering schemes. To address these challenges, the United States and Switzerland established the U.S.-Swiss Joint Economic Commission (JEC) in 2000. This commission focuses on fostering trade relations, combating money laundering and terrorism, and protecting intellectual property rights. Subsequent agreements, such as the Enhanced Political Framework and Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum, have further enhanced the JEC’s mandate.

    In 2013, Switzerland signed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) to ensure that Swiss banks operating in the U.S. comply with surveillance and accountability measures. This requires Swiss banks to report offshore accounts to the Internal Revenue Service.

    Furthermore, in 2019, the U.S. Senate approved the Double Taxation Treaty with Switzerland, aimed at promoting entrepreneurship and facilitating the creation of new businesses in both countries, thereby fostering employment and new industries.

    Despite past disagreements, both nations remain committed to spreading democratic values and institutions globally. Their cooperation extends to providing economic development assistance and humanitarian relief to developing nations.

    Strategic Interests

    • Trade: In 2021, Switzerland emerged as the seventh-largest foreign investor in the United States, injecting a total of $315 billion into the country. Trade between the two countries primarily takes the form of services, with the US exporting business services, financial services, and licenses, and importing licenses, information services, and insurance services.
    • Security: As a neutral nation, Switzerland plays a diplomatic role in mediating current international conflicts. Since 1980, Switzerland has served as the protecting power between the United States and Iran, facilitating open lines of communication and providing consular and diplomatic assistance to Iranian citizens in the U.S. and Americans in Iran. Presently, Switzerland has offered to assume a similar role in the Russo-Ukrainian War, although the Russian government declined this offer. Switzerland is a valued partner of NATO and engages in numerous operations mandated by the United Nations (UN) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). However, due to Swiss law prohibiting participation in combat operations for peace enforcement, all operations are manned by volunteers.

    Neutrality

    In 1920, the League of Nations formally acknowledged Switzerland’s state of neutrality, which prohibits the country from participating in international wars, supplying mercenary troops to belligerent states, and favoring any belligerent state in the exportation of war material. However, this neutrality law does not extend to internal conflicts and does not apply to military operations authorized by the United Nations Security Council.

    Currently, Switzerland’s neutrality is under scrutiny due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The nation is restricted from sending weapons and ammunition to Ukraine as per its neutrality law. However, given the urgency of the situation, Swiss authorities are reassessing the centuries-old declaration of neutrality. Many politicians are exploring avenues to support Ukraine without violating Swiss neutrality laws.

  • Understanding U.S. Relations with Germany: History, Trade, and Strategic Interests 

    Understanding U.S. Relations with Germany: History, Trade, and Strategic Interests 

    Introduction

    Germany is the largest economy in Europe by GDP. Its diplomatic ties with the United States play a significant role in ensuring political stability in Europe and fostering economic development between the two nations. Alongside the United States, the European Union stands as a key supporter of Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. Currently, Germany holds a prominent position in NATO, leading the Very High Readiness Joint Force (VJTF). Additionally, Germany ranks as the fifth-largest trading partner of the United States, with annual bilateral trade exceeding $260 billion in goods and services. Therefore, the relationship between the U.S. and Germany is vital for the economic growth, security, cultural exchange, and mutual interests of both nations.

    Quick Facts

    History of U.S.─Germany Relations

    Until the 20th century, commerce and immigration were the primary factors shaping the relationship between the U.S. and Germany. However, during WWI, Germany’s alignment with Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire, known as the Central Powers, and the U.S.’s support for the Allies, including the United Kingdom, Russia, Italy, and Japan, disrupted their relationship. Germany’s threats to the U.S., such as unrestricted submarine warfare and attempts to form a partnership with Mexico to invade the United States, turned them from rivals to enemies. Relations were later restored through peace and trade treaties signed in 1921 and 1923.

    In 1941, Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor prompted the U.S. to declare war on Japan, thus becoming an enemy of the Axis powers, which included Germany, Italy, and Japan. Despite lacking a formal relationship, many German refugees found sanctuary in America, including notable figures such as Thomas Mann, Albert Einstein, Marlene Dietrich, and Kurt Weill.

    Following Germany’s defeat in WWII, the Potsdam Conference divided the country into Western and Eastern regions, dominated by the U.S., U.K., France, and the Soviet Union, respectively. The formation of NATO by the Western bloc and the Warsaw Pact by the Eastern bloc marked the onset of the Cold War. Post-WWII Germany symbolized democracy in the West and communism in the East, with West Germany emerging as a strong military and economic power. The reunification of Germany in 1990 solidified its relationship with the U.S.

    In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Germany, as a NATO member, sent troops to Afghanistan to support the U.S., although it opposed the Iraq War in 2003 due to concerns over destabilizing the Middle East.

    Friction arose in the U.S.-Germany relationship in 2013 following mass surveillance disclosures, where the FBI and NSA illegally collected personal data of German citizens. This led to Germany canceling the 1968 UKUSA Agreement, an intelligence-sharing pact with the U.S. and U.K.

    The relationship between the two nations has been influenced by the stances of their respective presidents and chancellors. During the Trump and Merkel administrations, differences over trade, immigration, and relations with Russia strained ties. However, with the election of Joe Biden and Olaf Scholz, both countries’ relationship has strengthened, marked by shared political ideas and increased cooperation, particularly evident during the Ukraine War, which bolstered their economic and political ties.

    Understanding the Current Relationship

    In 2022, Germany took significant steps to support Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War by donating 5,000 helmets and a complete field hospital. Initially, Germany refrained from providing military assistance to Ukraine, which strained its relationship with the United States. However, during a meeting between Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President Joe Biden in February 2021, Scholz reiterated Germany’s alignment with the United States in supporting Ukraine while expressing a cautious approach to avoid escalating tensions with Russia.

    Germany’s reluctance to engage militarily stemmed partly from the belief that economic integration could help deter further conflict, along with considerations of its reliance on the Nord Stream 1 pipeline for affordable natural gas.

    The Nord Stream 1 pipeline, a key source of natural gas from Russia, had been a major factor in Germany’s neutrality stance. However, in late August 2022, gas flow through the pipeline halted due to Western sanctions and equipment leaks. With Germany no longer dependent on Russian gas, the country shifted its position and began providing military support to Ukraine. This support includes armored fighting vehicles, air defense, artillery, and other resources to bolster Ukrainian sovereignty.

    In response to Germany’s shift, the United States became a significant supporter by agreeing to supply Germany’s demand for natural gas through a 20-year contract, supplying 2.25 million tonnes per year. This partnership reflects a strategic move to strengthen ties between the two nations while supporting Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression.

    Strategic Interests

    • Trade: In 2023, Germany exported €14.1B and imported €8.46B from the United States. Main German exports to the US include automobiles, machinery, and pharmaceuticals. Main US exports to Germany include aircrafts, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, and medical equipment.
    • Security: Since January 2023, Germany has assumed leadership of NATO’s Very High Readiness Joint Force (VJTF). This force serves as a crucial component and the primary responder for NATO’s territorial defense, with the capability to deploy and take action in any location within 48–72 hours. Germany has shouldered a significant portion of the responsibility for defending European territory against the threat posed by Russia, maintaining approximately 8,000 troops on standby for rapid deployment.
    • International cooperation mechanisms: Both nations are members of several international organizations dedicated to fostering alliances for global security, economic cooperation, and peace. They are part of prominent groups such as the G-7, G-20, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These memberships reflect their commitment to international cooperation and their roles as key players in addressing global challenges.
    • Sustainable development: The U.S.-Germany Climate and Energy Partnership, established in 2021, aims to foster long-term development in four key areas: hydrogen, offshore wind, zero-emission transport, and third-country cooperation. Through this partnership, the goal is to promote environmental sustainability and advocate for shared values, with the aspiration of inspiring other nations to adopt similar initiatives.

    Future DevelopmentsThe Just Energy Transition Partnership, comprising G7 members, is dedicated to assisting developing nations in expanding and transitioning to renewable energy sources. Recent commitments indicate that the United States will invest $8.5 billion and Germany €700 million in South Africa. This investment aims to prevent up to 1.5 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over the next two decades. Furthermore, both countries are committed to the Paris Agreement and are actively developing strategies to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Introduction to NATO Peacekeeping in Kosovo

    Introduction to NATO Peacekeeping in Kosovo

    Kosovo is a highly contested area between Serbians and Albanians,who both view Kosovo as ancestral land. Control of Kosovo passed between the Ottoman Empire, Serbia, and Yugoslavia throughout the 1800’s to 1900’s, and Kosovo declared formal independence from Serbia in February of 2008. 

    Key Dates

    • 1946: Kosovo is absorbed into Yugoslavia.  
    • 1974: Kosovo is given autonomous status within Yugoslavia. 
    • 1990: Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic removes autonomous status, putting Kosovo under Serbian rule. Protests begin. 
    • 1996: Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) increases attacks, followed by a crackdown by the Serbian government. 
    • 1999: NATO begins aerial attacks on Serbian targets, Yugoslav and Serbian forces begin a campaign of ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians. Eventually a peace agreement is signed and a UN administration takes over.
    • 2008: Kosovo declares independence.   

    Crisis and Ethnic Conflict

    Ethnic conflict in Kosovo largely stems from historic systemic grievances between ethnic Serbs and Albanians. Authoritarian leadership, especially under the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary capitalized on tensions between the two groups, often favoring one above the other for political reasons. Furthermore, both Kosovar Serbian and Albanian political factions perceived the situation in Kosovo as an irredentist conflict. This implies that both groups assert their right to unite Kosovo with other territories inhabited by their respective ethnic majorities, such as Serbia or a ‘Greater Albania‘. In such cases, diplomatic solutions are difficult to achieve. 

    The state of the conflict in Yugoslavia in 1998 concerned leadership in NATO, the UN, and the international community. As Yugoslavia broke apart, the budding nation-states often disputed territory and rights as ethnic groups struggled to determine the shape of the new governments. Conflict in Kosovo further destabilized the Balkans during the late 1990’s. Despite an established cease-fire, ongoing violence prompted NATO leadership to opt for military intervention. Prior to the intervention, indicators of ethnic cleansing included actions like widespread displacements and confiscation of identification and property documents. By the time peace terms were reached, numerous governments and organizations estimated the death toll to be in the thousands.

    NATO Intervention 

    Before NATO’s intervention, numerous efforts were made by the international community to negotiate and establish cease-fires. In January 1999, six nations (France, Italy, Germany, Russia, UK, and US) convened for international mediation in the conflict. However, their attempts to secure an agreement between Kosovar Serbs and Albanians proved unsuccessful. Concurrently, NATO had issued a warning to the parties that the organization was prepared to carry out air strikes if the violence persisted.

    In March 1999, NATO initiated air strikes as part of Operation Allied Force. These strikes were carried out without a UN resolution, sparking debates about the operation’s legitimacy. The air strikes primarily targeted Serbian military strategic targets such as weapons, communication and supply lines, as well as oil sources. During this period, significant humanitarian aid was provided to the refugees alongside these efforts. President Milosevic eventually opted for peace negotiations in early June 1999 upon recognizing the campaign’s failure. Despite his regime’s focus on asserting Serbian dominance, the incurred losses were substantial. Since then, NATO peacekeeping troops have continued their presence. However, tensions escalated in 2023 due to Serbian protests against elected ethnic Albanians in local government, leading to clashes between demonstrators and NATO peacekeeping forces.

    US Interests and Reaction 

    The United States is a strong ally of Kosovo, having supported the NATO intervention in 1999. The recent rise in tensions has raised concerns among the majority of Congress about potential instability in the heart of Europe. Additionally, the US made substantial investments in providing aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo.

    While the US aims to support Kosovo and maintain its role as a mediator alongside Russia, recent use of force is viewed unfavorably by policymakers as it intensified tensions. Decisionmakers are likely concerned about the potential for a second front of destabilization in Europe, especially with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

    International Reactions 

    In 1999, public opinion in Europe regarding the airstrikes was varied. While many countries saw the Balkan conflict as a threat to European security and favored some form of action, there were differing stances. For instance, France withheld support due to the absence of a UN mandate. Meanwhile, neighboring nations like Greece, while not endorsing military intervention, provided medical assistance and peacekeeping troops to NATO, believing that military force wouldn’t resolve the dispute.

    Countries in the region, such as Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Albania, often responded based on their strongest domestic ethnic affiliations. Even if they didn’t have the political will to participate in the airstrikes, neighboring states still assisted through humanitarian aid, accepting refugees, granting NATO airspace access, or supporting diplomatic resolutions. Russia strongly criticized the NATO air strikes, and public opinion largely favored Serbia, given their deep historical, cultural, and political connections. Moscow leadership was unsure about the extent of their influence in neighboring countries post-Soviet Union dissolution. As air strikes persisted and talk of a ground invasion arose, Russian leadership, led by Boris Yeltsin, became worried about the potential economic repercussions of the conflict on Russia’s relations with the West. Under Russia’s influence, Milosevic eventually halted the campaign against Kosovar Albanians.

  • Failures and Successes of the Paris Agreement

    Failures and Successes of the Paris Agreement

    Introduction

    The Paris Agreement, passed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in 2015, is an international legislation addressing climate change. Though not the first of its kind, it has had a significant impact on the geopolitical landscape. Despite facing setbacks and failures, the agreement has proven to be effective in addressing climate change, considering its historical context and political perspectives.

    Background

    Climate change is defined by the United Nations as “long term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns”, a pattern that has accelerated as a result of human influence. Climate change has been at the heart of political differences for over a decade, as individuals, businesses, and governments try to balance economic needs with environmental protection. The Kyoto Protocol of 2005 is a contract that operationalized the United Nations Framework on the Convention of Climate Change, and it was one of the first acknowledgements of climate change as an international problem. It set the stage for the Paris Agreement by setting goals to limit greenhouse gasses and mitigate the effects of climate change and uniting the international community to collaborate against a common problem. 

    The United Nations created 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) in 2012, which are social, economic, and political goals that revolve around international climate vulnerability. These goals were created as a call to action for the United Nations to work towards a sustainable future. However, there were many other aspects of climate change that the protocol and goals did not address, leading to the creation of the Paris Agreement. This agreement encouraged world leaders to take action against climate change and mitigate the consequences of this global problem.

    Introduction to the Paris Agreement

    The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015 by 194 parties, including the United States, is an international treaty where each country commits to following the agreement’s regulations and taking steps to mitigate the effects of climate change. The agreement’s main goal is to limit the global average temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius and establish an action-oriented framework.

    Countries follow a 5-year cycle, during which they submit their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), outlining their national climate action plans. These plans are tailored to each country’s unique economic, political, and social situation and aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. NDCs represent each party’s mandatory call to action.

    The Agreement also provides financial and technological assistance to signatory countries to help them implement their climate action plans effectively. Developed countries are expected to take the lead in providing financial support due to their greater resources and capabilities. This support framework is customized to meet each country’s specific needs, encouraging both developed and developing nations to take action.

    The Paris Agreement includes an Enhanced Transparency Framework, where countries report their climate actions and progress. After a review, they receive recommendations for future plans. Overall, the Paris Agreement is a comprehensive and effective piece of legislation that urges countries to make a significant difference in combating the effects of climate change.

    Successes

    Previously, experts predicted that global temperature would rise about 7 degrees Fahrenheit. However, since the implementation of the Paris Agreement, the previous prediction has decreased to a global rise of about 5 degrees Fahrenheit. This marks a major step in the fight against climate change. However, it is not clear if the Paris Agreement directly led to the reforms which reduced temperature predictions, or if government actors and activists who were already mobilizing against climate change would have undertaken the same actions regardless of the international agreement.

    The Paris Agreement achieved notable success by encouraging countries like Japan, China, and the EU to set carbon neutrality goals and embrace net zero targets. Net zero means each country commits to reducing emissions close to zero, with any remaining emissions reabsorbed without significant environmental impact. This progress has led to substantial emission cuts and efforts to mitigate climate change. Other countries are inspired to adopt similar goals, promoting global sustainability.

    Another success of the Paris Agreement lies in creating a collaborative community of countries. The United States, as a member, works alongside other signatory parties to combat climate change. The European Council actively promoted all EU member states to join the Agreement and take action against climate change. This unity among EU countries and the United States in aligning with the agreement and working together has contributed to the success of achieving this goal.

    Failures

    The main challenge associated with many international agreements is enforceability. While the Paris Agreement requires monitoring and reporting of carbon emissions, it does not have the ability to force a country to reduce emissions. Most actions related to reducing carbon emissions have to be passed by legislative bodies or heads of states, and agreements with the international community come second to those forms of decision making. If a country who signs onto the Paris Agreement fails to meet its obligations, other countries might use soft power to coerce actions, via sanctions or diplomatic means. However, major powers like the U.S. and China are less susceptible to this form of peer pressure, and they are also the countries currently responsible for the most emissions. 

    Some also question whether the Paris Agreement goes far enough in setting ambitious goals for carbon emission reductions. In order to receive widespread support, some costly and aggressive elements had to be abandoned. Based on the policies which have been enacted, the Earth is currently not on track to stay below the stated goal of a 2 degree Celsius increase in temperature.

  • Introduction to the New Transatlantic Agenda

    Introduction to the New Transatlantic Agenda

    Background

    Following the Second World War, the United States and Western European powers have built a strong relationship based on shared values such as democracy, free trade, and human rights, culminating in the New Transatlantic Agenda. The New Transatlantic Agenda was an agreement signed between the US and the EU in 1995, which outlined commitments for increased bilateral trade, shared foreign policy visions, and combating global issues like climate change. The US Department of State summarized the following goals:  

    • promoting peace, development, and democracy around the world
    • responding to global challenges
    • contributing to the expansion of world trade and closer economic ties
    • building bridges across the Atlantic by encouraging closer communication between people

    Effects

    The non-binding agreement marked the beginning of contemporary US and EU relations. In the decades following the NTA, the US and the EU have maintained many of these promises.

    Since the signing of the NTA, embassies have been created on both sides. The US mission to the EU is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium and the EU delegation to the US is located in Washington D.C..

    Pro-NTA

    Those in favor of expanding the relationship between the US and EU see the shared values and pursuits between the two as mutually beneficial. Some may also see the alliance between the US and EU as acting as a global stronghold to defend these values, establishing what is sometimes referred to as the “liberal international order”, as opposed to other rising powers in the world including Russia and China.

    Anti-NTA

    Others do not view deepening the US-EU alliance as beneficial to the US. While the European Union is home to many of the world’s most advanced economies, economic growth has been slow in recent decades in comparison to other trading partners. Some believe the US should prioritize relations, especially trade relations, with rapidly growing economics like Brazil and India, and focus on countries with sectors and resources which are strategically important, like Taiwan’s semiconductor industry. In addition, the US has historically shouldered much of the burden for defense spending in Europe through NATO, so prioritizing the relationship does have tangible costs.

  • Pros and Cons of 2023 NATO Military Aid to Ukraine

    Pros and Cons of 2023 NATO Military Aid to Ukraine

    Introduction

    The North Atlantic Trade Organization, NATO, has maintained a strong relationship with Ukraine since the 1990s. NATO allies uphold that Ukrainian sovereignty is a shared security goal. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 furthered cooperation, especially through the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP). This aid package has aimed to improve Ukraine’s security and defense sectors through military improvement programs. Since Russia’s February, 2022 invasion, NATO has been a crucial partner in organizing support and aid for Ukraine. Aid includes both lethal and non-lethal aid, from medical aid to bullets to armed troops. However, the scope of aid from NATO lies mostly in weapons as Ukraine cannot invoke the necessary articles to request troops because it is not a NATO member. Individual countries have also provided substantial aid and implemented sanctions against Russia. 

    NATO Aid in 2023

    • January 20th: NATO announced a joint effort with the United States to provide air defenses and armored vehicles. This is seen as crucial support to counter frequent Russian missile attacks.
    • February 7th: Denmark, Germany, and Netherlands announced the Leo A5 Initiative to give Ukraine 100 Leopard 1 A5 battle tanks and training. This in addition to recent agreements from Germany to supply Leopard 2 tanks. Both Leopard tanks are easy to use and train soldiers to operate. 
    • February 8th: NATO leadership disclosed in a press conference that NATO allies are sending additional aid including armored infantry vehicles, Javelin anti tank missiles, artillery, ammunition, and rockets for HIMARs, an American rocket launcher.

    US and Other Support

    The United States has given the most aid thus far to Ukraine. The Biden Administration has announced three major military aid packages:

    • January 6th: The Biden Administration committed to a $3.075 billion security package including artillery rounds and ammunition, air defense capabilities, and armored vehicles. The package includes financing towards capacity building and modernization of Ukraine’s Army.   
    • February 3rd: The Biden Administration authorized a Presidential Drawdown of $425 million and $1.75 billion in Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). USAI allows the federal government to procure materials or weapons from industry rather than Department of Defense supplies, allowing the government to maintain support without depleting US military supplies.     
    • March 3rd: The Secretary of State announced a $400 million aid package to Ukraine including ammunition, equipment, and air defense capabilities. 

    Aid from Europe

    • The European Union has provided lethal aid for the first time in its history. Recent aid has included arms and military training. 
    • Other individual countries have sent aid and support to Ukraine. Finland, a country seeking to join NATO, announced a $400 million package on January 20th which included heavy artillery and munitions.

    Key Benefits

    US support for Ukraine indicates to American allies that the United States upholds its security promises. The war in Ukraine has revitalized defense efforts from European countries and caused them to increase their contributions to NATO. The increased cooperation has strengthened both diplomatic and military trust between European nations through organizations like NATO and the EU. In addition, as European nations turn away from Russian oil and gas imports, nations are potentially increasing the use of alternative, low emission energy sources like solar and wind that are better for the environment. As a result, European nations may achieve their climate and clean energy goals sooner than expected.  

    Key Concerns 

    There are noted concerns from policymakers and the larger American population, alike, about funding a war without a clear end. 

    • With fears of a recession, some may believe the current flow of aid may be unsustainable for the US government long term. American military spending annually outpaces any other government, and continued aid may be unsustainable politically.  
    • The greatest concern for NATO allies is the implications of escalation. US and Russian leaders have discussed nuclear weapons. Concerns about avoiding escalation informed the decision not to enact a no-fly zone over Ukraine. A no-fly zone would have effectively prevented air strikes but global leadership feared risking nuclear retaliation from Russia.   
    • US spending on Ukraine could have implications for other potential conflicts such as the ability to respond if China moves to forcibly reclaim Taiwan, which remains a national security concern.    

    The Future 

    The end of the war in Ukraine is so far uncertain, but there are moments for hope for peace in Ukraine. There are many calls for peace talks and a ceasefire as casualties continue to rise, which include a recent UN resolution that calls for an immediate Russian withdrawal from Ukraine. The General Assembly has voted to successfully pass the resolution, which may carry political consequences for Russia and their allies. The resolution is a declaration of the General Assembly’s will or opinion, and not legally binding. However, the resolution may be used to encourage a ceasefire, peace talks, or even justify continued aid in the future. 

  • The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and US-EU Relations

    The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and US-EU Relations

    The Inflation Reduction Act 

    The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) was signed by President Joe Biden on August 16, 2022. The bill was designed to reduce US dependence on fossil fuels in the transportation and manufacturing sectors. It will also create clean energy jobs, and is projected to create up to 9 million jobs by 2030. 

    Consumer spending on gasoline and energy has risen sharply since 2016. The IRA reduces transportation costs for Americans by offering incentives to consumers and businesses to purchase electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. Under the law, citizens can claim tax credits of up to $7500 for the purchase of electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. Vehicles and citizens must meet certain requirements to qualify for the full credit, including:

    • 50% of battery components must be assembled in North America. 
    • 40% of critical raw materials used to make the electric battery must be extracted in the United States or a country with which the US has a trade agreement. 
    • Single filers must have an annual modified adjusted gross income of less than $150,000, or $300,000 for married couples filing jointly. 

    In addition to incentives for consumers, the IRA provides $1 billion to fund zero-emission buses, trucks, and other commercial and government-owned vehicles. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 helps the United States achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement, an international treaty created to limit global warming to less than 2°C, which it formally rejoined in January 2021. The European Union and its twenty-seven Member States also signed the Paris Agreement. To meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, the European Union created The EU Green Deal. With the United States and the European Union both committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, leaders were optimistic that the relationship between the European Union and the United States would be strengthened. 

    European Response

    To meet the Biden Administration’s Buy American guidelines, the IRA limits tax credits for hydrogen-powered and electric vehicles to those that have final assembly in North America. European leaders expressed concern that the IRA would have a negative impact on EU automobile and auto parts makers. Germany, France, and Italy have significant auto industries and economists predicted job losses if automakers relocate some of their operations to North America to take advantage of the IRA’s generous subsidies.

    Auto industry leaders appealed to the EU Commissioner for the Internal Market, Thierry Breton, to raise their concerns with the Commission and the Biden Administration. President Emmanuel Macron of France traveled to the United States in late November to discuss the matter directly with President Biden. Biden committed to try to “tweak” the IRA to be more inclusive of European automakers. Breton also began to challenge the European Commission to act quickly to modify its internal market rules to protect the automotive sector in Europe. Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, who protects the level playing field of the Single Market, expressed concern about matching US subsidies. She ensures compliance with State Aid rules contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Articles 107-108 of the treaty specifically address State Aid. Public subsidy of industry by an individual Member State can incentivize businesses to relocate to Member States that provide subsidies, either in the form of funding, favorable taxation, or other means. Subsidies can potentially cause tension among Members and weaken the European Union. State aid disproportionately harms Member States with smaller economies that are not capable of providing direct funding or foregoing tax revenues, so aid that disrupts competition is prohibited. Although it is common practice in the United States for local and state governments to offer incentives to industry to relocate, it is prohibited in the European Union. The European Union is not a federal government. It is a supranational government whose members are independent countries. If Member States fail to cooperate and honor the treaties of the European Union, there is a risk of fragmentation of the Union. 

    Breton, Vestager, leaders of Member States, and industry representatives agreed the European Union needed a response to the IRA; however, they disagreed about what form that response should take. Proposals from Breton, Macron, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz strongly favored creating EU funded subsidies and allowing Member States to extend national subsidies to industry. Commissioner Vestager and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte expressed the concerns of 11 smaller Member States who opposed relaxing State Aid rules, arguing subsidies could place them at a disadvantage within the European market. The European Union has a complex decision-making process, which makes rapid policy responses difficult. In the United States, Congress can quickly propose laws and pass legislation, as it did in the case of the IRA, which was announced on July 27, 2022, and signed into law on August 16. In contrast, the Green Industrial Plan designed by the European Commission was not proposed until nearly six months after the IRA went into effect. It will accelerate the transformation of Europe’s automotive manufacturing network by speeding up regulatory decision-making. 

    Some IRA provisions had unintended consequences for the European Union and its relationship with the United States. Initially welcomed by EU leaders as a positive step toward meaningful climate action, business leaders quickly identified subsidies that could harm European manufacturers. The fear of European job losses strained US-EU relations. The IRA also caused disagreement among Commissioners and Member States about how to design and finance its own subsidy plan. Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen urged compromise and maintaining good relations with the United States. 

    Common Goals, Aligned Actions

    Leaders of the European Union and the United States have relied on their strong relationship and shared values to reach limited compromises on the interpretation of the IRA. On December 29, 2022, the United States Department of Treasury announced that Americans will be able to use the IRA tax credit to lease electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles from European automakers. The U.S. Department of Energy created an online tool that allows taxpayers to verify where an automobile was assembled to ensure they can claim the credit. American policymakers continue to review the law and adjust the tools as they refine their interpretations of it. The law may benefit European automakers who have North American assembly plants and provide American consumers with more choices. Finally, talks between US and EU leaders about the IRA have prompted increased dialogue among leaders to coordinate efforts to combat climate change by reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Comprehensive, coordinated policies like the IRA and the Green Deal Industrial Plan help the US and the EU work together to achieve their shared climate goals.

  • The West Sanctions Russian Energy

    The West Sanctions Russian Energy

    West Sanctions Russia to Deter Aggression Against Ukraine

    The United States and its allies imposed sanctions on Russia when the country annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. The US believed annexation threatened to reverse post-Cold War borders in Europe and endangered security, the rule of law, and human rights in Europe and beyond. However, the sanctions were limited in scope, and President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine eight years later on February 24, 2022. This time a much stronger package of financial, trade and travel sanctions was imposed to curtail Russia’s ability to wage war and deny it access to finance and technology to upgrade its military capabilities. The sanctions froze much of Russia’s foreign reserves held abroad and targeted  oligarchs, financial institutions, export-oriented companies, and state actors. The energy sector was not sanctioned. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), oil and natural gas exports made up 45% of Russia’s federal budget.

    Dependence and Disunity: the Challenge in Implementing Sanctions

    Infographic on US and EU energy dependence on Russia

    The United States is not a major consumer of Russian oil and gas, but decided not to implement energy sanctions because European allies depend on energy supplies from Russia. When asked whether the US was considering energy sanctions, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics Duleep Singh acknowledged at a White House press briefing, that “our measures were not designed to disrupt in any way the current flow of energy from Russia to the world.” At that time, rising domestic inflation and spiraling energy prices threatened the post-Covid economic recovery. The US Treasury prohibited financial transactions with Russian financial institutions, but included an exception for fossil fuel exports from Russia through “a general license to authorize certain energy-related transactions with the [Russian] Central Bank”.

    European countries were divided on energy sanctions. The EU as a bloc is highly dependent on Russian energy and receives 25% of its oil imports and 45% of its gas imports from Russia. European nations have found it more difficult to achieve energy independence because supplies from Russia are integrated into their energy infrastructure. Many EU members receive energy via pipelines connected to Russia, which take years to build.

    President Biden signed an Executive Order in March  2022, which broadened sanctions to the energy sector. He recognized that “we’re moving forward on this ban, understanding that many of our European Allies and partners may not be in a position to join us.” The US measures took immediate effect, prohibiting the import of Russian crude oil, petroleum and petroleum products, liquified natural gas and coal as well as any new US investment in the Russian energy sector. 

    On March 2, the European Commission applied sanctions against Russian financial institutions, but omitted two of the largest banks—SBERbank and Alpha Bank. The decision was likely taken to allow energy import payments. The US, on the other hand, sanctioned both banks and their subsidiaries. On June 3, the Council of the European Union adopted its 6th package of sanctions which targeted Russian oil and additional Russian banks, including SBERbank. EU members agreed in the 6th package to prohibit “the purchase, import or transfer of crude oil and certain petroleum products from Russia to the EU.” However, the sanctions will not be applied immediately, they will be implemented gradually; within six months for crude oil and eight months for other refined petroleum products.

    Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia raised concerns over the proposed energy embargo and urged the EU to extend the timeline or to allow other flexibilities. These countries negotiated an exception for the continued use of the Druzhba pipeline. Germany and Poland agreed to stop using oil from the Northern branch of the same pipeline. The EU noted that “as the majority of the Russian oil delivered to the EU is seaborne, these restrictions will cover nearly 90% of Russian oil imports to Europe by the end of the year.” So far, Russian gas has not been sanctioned.

    Impact of Sanctions

    The sanctions imposed after the invasion impacted the Russian economy immediately. The rouble plunged as overseas assets held by the Russian Central Bank were frozen. Key machinery and technology needed to maintain industrial production could not be imported. More than 1,000 foreign companies left the country, creating a vacuum of goods and services. Inflation grew, and prices for scarce items kept rising. The long-term forecast for the Russian economy was dire. However, the economy did not collapse, the rubble recovered after its initial dip, boosted by earnings from energy exports, because the majority of payments were done in rubles. Restrictions on Russian energy also impacted the economies of sanctioning countries. Reuters reported from Moscow on July 18 that President Putin claimed that “it was impossible to cut Russia off from the rest of the world, and that sanctions imposed by Western countries would not turn the clock back on Russia’s development.” 

    Russia withstood sanctions because the energy sector, its biggest source of export revenue, was able to operate freely for months following the invasion. Oleg Ustenko, the Chief Economic Adviser of the President of Ukraine, in an article in the Financial Times, criticized the energy sanctions since Russia still “can sell oil, gas and coal directly to every country except the US.” He added that “the measures the West has taken so far cover less than 5% of Russia’s pre-war crude oil exports.” In spite of this criticism, the energy sanctions have stopped new foreign investments in Russia’s energy sector, disrupted the flow of critical technology from the West that supports the fossil fuel industry, and caused a slow but gradual drop in Russian energy export volume. However, higher energy prices mean Russia can earn more from its energy exports than before the invasion.

    Increasing the Effectiveness of Sanctions

    Several strategies have been proposed and/or implemented.

    • The sixth EU package of sanctions prohibited EU operators from insuring and financing the transport of oil to third countries. This came into effect at the end of 2022. The United Kingdom and Norway joined the EU sanctions. The maritime insurance industry is concentrated in these two countries and Luxembourg—an EU member. If oil tankers are uninsured, Russia will be unable to ship oil by sea to major third party customers such as China, India and Turkey.
    • The US Treasury Department is considering implementing a price cap on Russian oil to ensure that revenue from energy exports goes down while global supplies remain stable. This has not gained traction among the G7 and EU countries. 
    • It would be possible to implement secondary sanctions on countries which purchase Russian energy. However, this strategy has also failed to gain traction.

    Despite their limitations, the current sanctions will have long-term impacts on the Russian economy. The West is counting on the sanctions to gradually bring Russia to the negotiating table, while the Russian government is counting on waning public support in the West.