ACE

Category: Foreign Policy

  • USAID: Understanding an Agency in Limbo

    USAID: Understanding an Agency in Limbo

    What is USAID?

    USAID, or the United States Agency for International Development, is an independent government agency responsible for administering foreign aid and implementing international development projects related to public health, food security, trade, and democratic governance abroad.

    USAID was created in 1961 via an executive order by President John F. Kennedy immediately after he signed the Foreign Assistance Act into law. Both moves aimed to consolidate existing American foreign aid programs while also creating a tool of soft power to counter Soviet influence at the height of the Cold War. The creation of USAID brought together existing foreign assistance programs to form a collective agency that would spearhead efforts to promote social and economic development abroad. By 2023, USAID was one of the foremost aid agencies in the world, providing nearly $42 billion dollars per year in foreign assistance and leading global initiatives to combat disease. On its now-archived website, the agency framed its objective as a twofold mission: furthering American interests while improving lives in the developing world. 

    USAID Cuts

    On January 20th, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order halting almost all foreign assistance for 90 days to assess the efficiency and consistency of the aid with U.S. foreign policy. He stated that the United State’s foreign aid industry and bureaucracy “are not aligned with American interests” and are often “antithetical to American values.” In light of this executive order, Secretary of State Marco Rubio paused all federal USAID funding. Organizations including the American Bar Association, government employees’ groups, and major health associations immediately responded with lawsuits, leading a federal judge to file an injunction against the funding freeze on February 13th. 

    Since then, the Trump Administration has followed through with reported plans to cut jobs at USAID from around 10,000 to 290 positions around the world, placing thousands on administrative leave or terminating them entirely. Recently, reports have emerged suggesting a top USAID official appointed under Trump has threatened remaining employees with dismissal if they speak to the press about “unauthorized” subjects. Construction crews began removing USAID signage from the Ronald Reagan government building in D.C. this week. 

    Lawsuits and Pushback

    On February 19th, the same federal judge who issued the initial injunction against the funding freeze ordered the State Department to respond to a motion filed by several health organizations alleging that the Department is in contempt of court for continuing to shut down USAID programs. The judge gave the State Department’s Office of Budget and Management until 1pm Eastern Time on February 20th to respond. 

    Several agencies and lawmakers have also chimed in on the issue, with many emphasizing that  the administration’s actions are unconstitutional. During a rally against the USAID cuts, Representative Schatz (D-HI) stated, “If you want to change an agency, you introduce a bill and pass a law. You cannot wave away an agency you don’t like or disagree with by executive order”. Public health officials have also warned that the administration’s efforts to dismantle USAID will result in preventable disease outbreaks, including an mpox global emergency.

    In response to another lawsuit, U.S. district judge Carl Nichols temporarily blocked the Trump Administration’s continuation of mass USAID layoffs after the administration failed to produce a plan to ensure the safe evacuation of USAID workers stationed in unsafe situations abroad. 

    As lawsuits against the present efforts to dismantle USAID continue to emerge, the administration’s actions throughout February suggest the agency and its funding will remain in legal limbo for the foreseeable future. 

  • Understanding China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Southeast Asia and the U.S. Response:

    Understanding China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Southeast Asia and the U.S. Response:

    Introduction:

    The BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) is a 2013 trade route plan aimed at improving China’s connectivity to the rest of the world. The plan seeks to stimulate China’s economy through investing in infrastructure projects including railways, bridges, and airports abroad. This project also strives to connect countries in the Global South and Eastern Europe to China via land and maritime networks in hopes of increasing trade and economic growth. It is estimated that over 150 countries are partnered with the BRI across six continents.

    The BRI in Southeast Asia

    Southeast Asia is a key region of the BRI. The plan’s extensive funding supports a range of urban development initiatives in Southeast Asian nations, making it difficult to pinpoint its specific effects on local policies. Projects under the BRI encompass everything from infrastructure development to special economic zones to cultural activities.

    In the Philippines, the BRI has led to many large-scale infrastructure projects, but has also been criticized for expanding illicit sectors and selectively benefiting economic elites. Indonesia plans to leverage the BRI to enhance connectivity between Java Island and its eastern regions, fostering cultural interconnectivity and economic opportunities. In Cambodia, BRI-funded transportation projects, like the Phnom Penh-Sihanoukville Expressway, have reduced travel time and improved safety between major cities. For landlocked Laos, the BRI presents a chance to boost its economy and global standing through enhanced transportation infrastructure. Malaysia has seen improvements in human resource development due to the BRI-funded Malaysia-China Kuantan Industrial Park (MCKIP) project.

    While the BRI has contributed to several developments across Southeast Asia, it also raises concerns about debt dependence and disregard for environmental health and safety. Countries borrowing from China for large infrastructure projects risk falling into “debt traps”, which can force them to favor the interests of their donor nation and hinder their ability to invest in local development. Forms of “debt trap diplomacy” such as the BRI have been found to spur long-term economic downturn in beneficiary nations. Environmental impacts are another major concern. In Thailand, a high-speed railway project threatens deforestation and community displacement, particularly near the culturally significant city of Ayutthaya. In Vietnam, the Vinh Tan 2 Thermal Power Plant is discharging excessively hot wastewater into the sea, negatively affecting marine life and local agriculture. There is also a coal ash dump site near Vinh Tan, and local households are complaining about nearby crops dying and withering as a result. In Indonesia, the rapid development at the Morowali Industrial Park (IMIP) poses worker safety risks. These drawbacks have led critics to deem the BRI  “China’s belt and road to nowhere”.

    BRI’s Impact on US Foreign Policy

    Given ongoing criticism that the U.S. has struggled to match China’s vision for economic expansion, the U.S. plans to counter the BRI with a similar project. In 2022, President Joe Biden announced the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) at the G20 Summit. This project has similar goals to the BRI, such as increasing connectivity and economic integration with the rest of the world. While the IMEC is targeted at India, the Middle East, and Europe, China’s project extends mostly to countries in the Global South, especially Southeast Asia. 

    The split between Global North and Global South is relevant to the U.S. and China’s competing policies. While India and Saudi Arabia are the only countries in the IMEC that represent the Global South, China’s BRI puts special emphasis in expanding reach into Global South markets. While this marks a significant opportunity for China to expand its influence in developing nations, it also risks backlash from countries who feel the BRI is doing more harm than good to local economies. Since the IMEC emerged significantly after BRI, the U.S. aims to learn from its shortcomings as it launches a new strategy.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, the BRI has significantly impacted Southeast Asia, driving infrastructure development and economic growth while also raising concerns about debt dependency and environmental harm. The future of BRI in the region will depend on balancing development with local welfare and environmental considerations. As the U.S. responds with the IMEC, it will aim to learn from these challenges to foster sustainable partnerships in its target regions. 

  • U.S. Response to the Tigray Conflict in Ethiopia: Key Actions and Implications 

    U.S. Response to the Tigray Conflict in Ethiopia: Key Actions and Implications 

    Introduction 

    The Tigray War in Ethiopia demonstrates a complex and multifaceted conflict with various historical, political, and regional dimensions. Bordering Eritrea, Tigray is Ethiopia’s northernmost region and is home to an estimated 7 million ethnic Tigrayans. The region was governed by the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), a leftist and ethnic national political party that formerly ruled Ethiopia from 1991 to 2018. It came into power when the TPLF overthrew the government of the People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia after mobilizing enough Tigrayans for its ethno-nationalist movement. 

    The civil war between the TPLF and Ethiopian government began on November 20th, 2020, when the newly appointed prime minister Mr. Abiy failed to uphold his promise to conduct national elections and extended his term as prime minister in June 2020. With the TPLF losing control of the national government and the belief that Abiy was attempting to centralize power, the Tigray State Council held local elections in defiance. The federal government, on the other hand, saw this as a declaration of war. The civil came to a resolution on November 3rd, 2022 through a peace agreement, with the United States (US) and other agents played a critical role. 

    US-Ethiopia Relations 

    The United States and Ethiopia have maintained diplomatic relations since 1903, fostering a long-standing and significant partnership based on shared interests in promoting peace, stability, and economic development. Ethiopia holds a unique position as the only African nation never colonized, maintaining its independence for over a millennium. The U.S. has regarded Ethiopia as a key guarantor of security in the Horn of Africa, contributing to the stabilization of countries like Somalia and South Sudan.

    As the largest bilateral donor in Ethiopia, the U.S. has provided substantial humanitarian assistance, totaling an estimated $3.16 billion, in response to conflicts and ongoing droughts. However, despite the positive government-to-government and people-to-people relations, recent mistrust has emerged due to concerns over the actions of the Abiy government. This mistrust escalated when the Biden administration declared in March 2023 that all sides involved in the Tigray conflict were guilty of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    US Involvement in the Tigray War 

    The US, as a significant international player, has been involved in the Tigray War in Ethiopia through diplomatic means, humanitarian assistance, and has been pressuring parties involved to seek a peaceful resolution. The US was outspoken in its criticism of alleged atrocities by Ethiopian forces and their allies during the Tigray war, which resulted in tens of thousands of fatalities before a peace accord was reached. The Biden administration also implemented visa restrictions targeted at Ethiopian and Eritrean officials responsible for the conflict and suspended the country’s membership in the African Growth and Opportunities Act, a preferential trade pact. According to Cameron Hudson, a  former US diplomat and intelligence official, the implementation of visa restrictions is a “major strategic shift in the Horn Africa, to go from an anchor state for US interests to become a potential adversary to US interests.”

    Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently visited Ethiopia in March of 2023 to meet with government and Tigrayan officials as well as victims of the conflict.  He noted that Ethiopia “needs to make more progress implementing a peace agreement with the Tigray region before relations with the US are normalized.” While the peace agreement made at the end of 2022 between the two conflicting regions terminated the war, hundreds of thousands of people were killed and suffered massacres, gang rapes, and other abuses from both sides. Blinken made sure to explain in a gathering of Ethiopian civil society leaders that “justice and accountability would be an important part of building a durable peace.” 

    Involved Agents 

    • TPLFI: Originally formed in the 1970s as a small guerilla band in the northern region of Ethiopia, the TPLF eventually grew to provide the core of the Ethiopian government in 1991. Representing one side of the Tigray war, the TPLF succeeded in mobilizing enough troops to defend their values, territory, and people. 
    • Ethiopia: After the conflict began in November, the Ethiopian National Defense Forces quickly captured many of Tigray’s central cities, including the regional capital, Mekele, with approximately half a million people. Ethiopian Air Force also committed war crimes when it bombed a camp for internally displaced persons in Dedebit Town of Tigray with an armed drone in January 2021 and again in Tigray’s capital, killing hundreds of civilians in hospitals and schools. 
    • Eritrea: A country once part of Ethiopia, Eritrea fought and won a brutal, decades-long war of independence that ended in 1991. When the two countries went to war again in 1998 in a territorial conflict that cost an estimated 100,000 lives, Prime Minister Abiy reached out to Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki and forged a historic peace accord aimed at putting the countries’ mutual enmity in the past. Eritrean forces repeatedly aided Ethiopia in the Tigray war and demonstrated itself as a staunch ally. Eritrean troops were blamed for the mass killing at Axum, a central Tigray region in Ethiopia, in the early period of the war. 
    • United Nations (UN): The UN led a joint investigation in 2021 with Ethiopia’s state-appointed human rights commission and found that all sides fighting in the Tigray war- Ethiopian government forces, Tigray forces, and Eritrea’s military- had committed violations that amounted to war crimes. The commission also revealed that Ethiopian forces had resorted to “starvation of civilians” as a tool of war and that Ethiopia and Eritrea forces were found to be responsible for “sexual slavery”- while Tigray forces were not. 
    • African Union (AU): Former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, the African Union chief mediator, led the mediation talk in South Africa between the two parties. She said Ethiopia’s government and Tigrayan authorities have agreed on “orderly, smooth and coordinated disarmament” along with “restoration of law and order, restoration of services and unhindered access to humanitarian supplies.” While neither Eritrea nor regional forces allied with the Ethiopian army took part in the talks in South Africa, the agreement reached was praised by Obasanjo as an “African solution to an African problem” and would allow humanitarian supplies to Tigray to be restored. 

    Effects of the War 

    Refugees and others have said that forces on the ground are responsible for sexual violence, ethnic-based targeted attacks, and large-scale looting. The UN estimated that nearly three million Tigrayans urgently need assistance due to lack of access to water, food, and healthcare. The food and nutrition security issue is especially concerning, for USAID and the World Food Programme suspended aid after discovering that Ethiopian soldiers and officials were stealing massive amounts of food in May of 2023. 

    With the civil war concluding with a peace agreement, Ethiopia has a new duty to consolidate a political arrangement that accommodates its diverse population of 110 million people and ensure basic measures of security and justice. Without this new configurement, a critical voice for African interests on the global stage would be lost and external actors would be empowered to engage in conflict. 

    Conclusion

    While the Tigray War has concluded, the conflict highlights broader tensions between ethnic groups in Ethiopia and could ensure wider instability in East Africa’s most populous country. Furthermore, the war caused severe damage to essential social services, for it expanded to the neighboring regions of Afar and Amhara. This affected more than 20 million people, of which approximately three quarters were women and children, and 5.5 million people have been forced to flee their homes and take refuge in other regions within Ethiopia.

  • Failures and Successes of the BRICS Alliance

    Failures and Successes of the BRICS Alliance

    Background

    Officially founded in 2009, BRICS is an informal, multilateral economic alliance between Brazil, Russia, China, India, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. The acronym “BRIC” (later adapted to include South Africa) was originally coined by Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill in a 2001 paper wherein he highlighted the potential for Brazil, Russia, India, and China to eventually rival the G7 (U.S., Canada, France, U.K., Germany, Japan, and Italy) economically. Today, the alliance is sometimes referred to as BRICS+. The overarching goal of BRICS is to create a system of transnational governance wherein countries of the Global South share equal representation in economic and political institutions historically controlled by Western nations. This involves establishing an international financial network that rivals the current dollar-based system, and promoting development in the Global South. 

    Structure

    Presently, BRICS is not a formal institution such as the UN or OPEC. The group meets annually, with the chairmanship rotating between member states, and all policy decisions made by consensus. It is currently chaired by Russia, where the annual summit will be held in October 2024. According to the summit’s official website, the group plans to discuss the potential inclusion of 30 new countries in some capacity, as well as strategies for the development of a more coordinated foreign policy platform.

    Successes and Potential

    • Creation of Banks and Funds: The most ambitious programs enacted by the BRICS alliance thus far have been the creation of the New Development Bank and the Contingency Reserve Agreement. Founded in 2015 with an initial capital base of $50 billion, the New Development Bank (NDB) will fund infrastructure and development projects in BRICS countries and other nations in the Global South. The Contingency Reserve Agreement (CRA) is a $100 billion fund established to provide liquidity for BRICS during economic crises. Both of these institutions were created to combat the influence of US-led economic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. 
    • Addressing Development in the Global South: BRICS has successfully implemented policies pertaining to one of their slated goals: development in the Global South. Examples include: Improving access to clean water in Guwahati, India, river restoration and ecological protection projects in China, and establishing the BRICS Agriculture and Rural Development Forum, which aims to address poverty and food insecurity. 
    • Attracting New Member States: Membership in BRICS has proven attractive to developing nations worldwide, including several Asian countries. Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam have all taken the necessary steps to apply for membership, while other Asian nations such as Myanmar and Sri Lanka are openly considering applying. 
    • Potential for Peacebuilding: The inclusion of rival countries in the Middle East such as Iran and potentially Saudi Arabia indicates that BRICS membership may be used to facilitate peace and development in a region historically preoccupied with US sanctions and military involvement. The expansion of BRICS would challenge the heavy U.S. influence in developing countries, which BRICS member states see as a successful step towards equalizing power on an international scale. 

    Failures and Critiques 

    • Intra-group Disagreements: Differing cultural values, contrasting political ideologies, and competing economies all pose obstacles for BRICS to strengthen cohesion and thus influence. The group’s two largest members in terms of population and GDP, India and China, disagree about whether or not the group should expand, and have also engaged in armed border disputes in recent years. 
    • Lack of Global Economic Influence: Despite efforts to “de-dollarize” by promoting trade between member states in local currencies, the USD still dominates international trade. The dollar was present on at least one side of nearly 90% of all international trade transactions in 2022. The dollar was on one side of 97% of all trades involving the Indian rupee, and 94% of all trades involving the Chinese renminbi. Furthermore, much of the world’s international commodity trading is priced by the dollar, and the dollar frequently comprises the foreign currency reserves of many countries’ central banks. Globally, 58% of foreign exchange reserves were held in dollars, including an estimated 50% in China and India. 
    • Risk of Unilateralism: While the growth of all BRICS members has slowed since its conception, China’s economy is larger than any other economy within the agreement, and trade within the alliance mostly flows through China. This runs the risk of BRICS becoming an exclusively China-led group as opposed to a mutual power-sharing alignment of non-Western nations. With China now being the United States’ major rival globally, China’s de-facto leadership within the agreement will necessitate a strong U.S. response. Whether U.S. foreign policy will take a continued adversarial approach, or a new, collaborative effort remains to be seen. 
  • 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.

  • Pros and Cons of Implementing Sustainable Fishing Practices

    Pros and Cons of Implementing Sustainable Fishing Practices

    The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982, is a comprehensive agreement that defines the laws and regulations for the world’s seas and oceans. UNCLOS exists to ensure that as we move into the future, conversations are being had about our oceans and how to protect them, while still protecting the economies that rely on them. As the world population continues to increase and conversations around climate change encourage higher fish consumption, there is an increasing reliance on fisheries around the globe. Sustainable fishing practices are used to ensure that the environmental health of fisheries doesn’t diminish, while still utilizing them to feed the planet. The three tenets of sustainable fishing practices are sustainable fish stocks, minimizing impact on marine ecosystems, and effective management of operations. At the core of sustainable fishing practices is the desire to ensure longevity of fisheries and the benefits they provide to our global economy. “According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, about 79 percent of seafood is sustainable. However, not all fishing practices are exemplary, and there is a limit to how much we can take from the ocean.” 

    The implementation of sustainable fishing practices under UNCLOS is crucial for global conservation efforts. While the United States is not a party to UNCLOS, its adherence to UNCLOS principles demonstrates a commitment to sustainable fishing. The collective efforts of all UN members in implementing sustainable fishing practices can significantly impact marine ecosystems. Despite past hesitations, the US has embraced sustainable fishing measures, aligning with UNCLOS values and regulations to promote marine conservation on a global scale.

    Pros of Implementing Sustainable Fishing Practices

    There are both economical and environmental benefits to implementing sustainable fishing practices. In 2013, the New Economics Foundation (NEF) report calculated the time it would take to fully restore over-exploited fish stocks, and found that if fishing in those areas was completely halted, they could be fully restored in five years, surpassing the 2013 fish supply levels in the EU in only four years. The result would be an initial economic loss, since fishermen would need payment during the transition to sustainable fishing practices. However, all initial costs would be recovered within 4-5 years, with “each year thereafter seeing a net benefit on the investment.”

    Implementing sustainable fishing practices is crucial for protecting marine ecosystems and preserving marine biodiversity. According to the 2018 Living Planet Report by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the fishing industry has been a major contributor to the loss of marine biodiversity due to overfishing. Sustainable fishing techniques, such as selective fishing, can help minimize these impacts. Selective fishing targets only commercial value fish, reducing bycatch and allowing for the use of non-target species like fishmeal for livestock feed, thus minimizing food waste. By preventing overfishing and promoting sustainable practices, marine biodiversity can be preserved and even recovered, ensuring the viability of fishing industries for future generations. 

    Cons of Implementing Sustainable Fishing Practices

    Economically, there are many costs associated with implementing sustainable fishing practices. As previously mentioned, it could be years before there is a return on initial investments. In the meantime, the world still relies on fishing to feed the population, and to support economies of food systems. Socially, many coastal communities and cultures around the world have traditions that revolve around fishing. Implementing sustainable fishing practices as law may negatively impact these traditions, altering cultures that have been around for centuries. 

    Lastly, the World Wildlife Foundation critiques current sustainable fishing practices in the sense that funds have not been successfully allocated toward improving fishing practices and the health of the oceans. “The sustainable seafood movement has been very good at developing eco-labelling incentives and technical mitigation solutions yet poor at keeping track of, or adopting, leading-edge sustainable business practices.” A 2019 study at Bournemouth University found that while sustainable fishing is implemented with the intention of preserving marine ecosystems, “it requires ecological devastation in terms of fish numbers (a removal of up to 80% of the initial level) to reach a population capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.” Furthermore, their study found that the ocean’s capability to absorb greenhouse gasses may be decreased by current sustainable fishing practices, suggesting that current techniques that are used for sustainability must be reimagined in order to truly have a positive impact on global warming and ocean ecology. One suggestion is a return to slower, more traditional forms of fishing, like the hook-and-line method, taking only what is needed to feed a population and no more.

    Conclusion

    The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was initially designed to create a framework by which all countries knew the laws and expectations for how to conduct business pertaining to the global ocean system. Whether through implementing sustainable fishing practices, or not, we are all a part of one ocean, and UNCLOS hopes to create a unified approach to protecting this ocean, and the billions of people who rely on it.

  • Introduction to US Relations with Estonia

    Introduction to US Relations with Estonia

    Estonia, a small country at the northern end of the Baltic states, has received increased focus from Western media in light of the deepening divide between the West and Russia in Eastern Europe—exemplified by the war in Ukraine. Estonia, a NATO ally of the United States and member of the European Union, spent the Cold War under Soviet rule and two centuries as part of the Russian Empire. Today, Estonia is recognized for incorporating digital innovation with democratic governance and public services, leading some to refer to it as a “digital democracy”. 

    Estonia, located at the northern end of the Baltic states, has gained increased attention from Western media due to the growing divide between the West and Russia in Eastern Europe, particularly highlighted by the war in Ukraine. As a NATO ally of the United States and a member of the European Union, Estonia has a history of Soviet rule during the Cold War and centuries as part of the Russian Empire. Today, Estonia is known for blending digital innovation with democratic governance and public services, earning it the nickname of a “digital democracy.”

    Fact Sheet

    History of US-Estonia Relations

    Following the Russian Civil War and World War I, Estonia declared independence, leading to the establishment of diplomatic relations between Estonia and the United States in 1922. However, during World War II, Estonia faced occupation by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, eventually falling under Soviet control. It wasn’t until the end of the Cold War in 1991 that Estonia regained its independence. Throughout the Cold War period, the United States never formally recognized Estonia as part of the Soviet Union. Instead, the U.S. maintained diplomatic relations with Estonia’s separate representatives, reflecting its continued support for Estonia’s independence.

    Estonia’s Tensions with Russia

    Since its independence, Estonia has grappled with tensions with Russia regarding the treatment of its sizable ethnic Russian minority. Many long-term Russian residents in Estonia, including those born there, were not automatically granted Estonian citizenship. Although some eventually obtained citizenship, those lacking proficiency in Estonian faced statelessness. Russia’s President Putin has cited discrimination against Russian minorities to justify actions in Ukraine, raising concerns of potential application of similar arguments against Estonia.

    Estonia’s admission to NATO in 2004, along with the other Baltic states, expanded the Western alliance up to Russia’s borders, contributing to increased tensions between Estonia and Russia. This westward shift is further evidenced by Estonia’s acceptance into the EU in the same year.

    US Strategic Interests

    • Strategy and conflict: Russia’s war in Ukraine has renewed America’s focus on its alliance with the Baltic states, including Estonia. As other Eastern European nations fear that they could be next to face Russian aggression, Estonia’s ambassador to the United States has remarked that the war represents “existential risks” to their nation and allies. The Baltic states are seen as the most strategically vulnerable part of NATO to a Russian invasion. Wargames conducted by the RAND Corporation in 2014 and 2015 found that Russian forces could reach Tallinn and Riga in as few as 60 hours. Due to Estonia’s membership in NATO, a Russian attack on Estonia would likely compel its allies, including the United States, to respond.
    • NATO alliance: Estonia also has a unique role in NATO. Consistent with Estonia’s emphasis on digital innovation, the country hosts the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence from which NATO’s cybersecurity operations are based. 
    • Aligned value system: Since the end of the Cold War, Estonia has exhibited increased alignment with America’s values on the world stage. Previously a communist republic, Estonia now has a free market and has made significant reforms towards liberal democracy, demonstrating a shift away from its historical ties with Russia and towards a Western alignment.
    • Economic ties: Over the same time, Estonia has developed closer economic ties to the United States, with the US moving from Estonia’s fourteenth largest trading partner to its fourth largest from 2017 to 2019. The two countries have also signed several economic agreements over the last few decades. 

    Future

    As concerns about the security of the Baltics increase, the addition of Finland and Sweden into NATO could contribute to enhanced security in the region. Since the start of Russia’s war in Ukraine, Estonia has provided around $400 million in military aid to Ukraine. The Baltic states have been united in their support for Ukraine, and Estonia has called upon its NATO allies to increase their defence spending to 2.5% of their GDP to support Ukraine. The likely goal moving forward for Estonia and NATO is to deter further Russian aggression against its bordering states by preventing their success in Ukraine.

  • US-Brazil Relations Post-2022 Brazilian Presidential Election

    US-Brazil Relations Post-2022 Brazilian Presidential Election

    Brazil Before the Election, 2022 Presidential Election Results, & Aftermath

    From 2019 to 2022, Brazil was led by the popular conservative, President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro publicly questioned Brazilian governmental institutions and drew upon religious and cultural identities in a way that many have criticized as weakening democracy in the country. Brazil’s foreign policy was also less predictable and less multilateral as Bolsonaro seemed skeptical of Western international institutions. Instead, Bolsonaro deepened Brazil’s economic and diplomatic relationships elsewhere, notably with like-minded conservative leaders such as China’s Xi Jingping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. U.S.-Brazil relations also strengthened during this time, with Bolsonaro and then-President Donald Trump sharing close political and personal alignment. 

    In the 2022 Brazilian presidential elections, Bolsonaro was challenged by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—a popular leftist who was president of Brazil from 2003-2011. In October, Lula beat Bolsonaro with 50.9% to 49.1% of the vote to win the presidency. Bolsonaro repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the election, despite Brazil’s Defense Ministry finding no evidence of manipulation in the votes. The political unrest culminated on January 8th, 2023, when his supporters stormed Brazil’s Congress. The attack was similar to, and arguably inspired by, the January 6th insurrection in the U.S..

    Recent reports reveal that President Biden’s administration was directly involved in protecting the peaceful transfer of power in Brazil. Senior U.S. officials formally and informally pressured Bolsonaro and his administration to accept the results in the months leading up to the election. Biden and his administration harshly condemned the January 8th attack and stated their support for Lula.

    A Changing Relationship with the U.S.

    Lula’s administration seems to be challenging the U.S.’s role in Latin America and the international sphere. He has publicly questioned the use of the U.S. dollar as the global currency of business and championed broader use of other currencies, specifically the Chinese Yuan. He has advocated for the strengthening of political power of the Latin American bloc in the international order while de-emphasizing the role of the UN Security Council countries (China, France, Russia, U.S., and U.K.). Lula also explicitly defied the U.S. by receiving Iranian warships over its objections. 

    Perhaps most notably, Lula has strengthened relations with the U.S.’s top rivals: Russia and China. Unlike the U.S. and most of its allies, Brazil has maintained a position of deliberate neutrality with regard to the war in Ukraine. While Lula condemned Russian president Vladimir Putin’s actions, he refused to enact sanctions and stated that some of the blame for the conflict falls on Ukraine and NATO. Instead, Lula has advocated for peace negotiations, suggesting that Brazil act as the lead negotiator. 

    At the same time, Brazil, like many countries, is increasing economic ties with China. Brazil is now the second-largest borrower of Chinese state loans and China has surpassed the U.S. as Brazil’s biggest trading partner. During Lula’s high-profile visit to China in April, Xi stated that China-Brazil relations were “a high priority.” This is concerning to the U.S. as it attempts to curb China’s economic rise and maintain its own status as the world’s most important economy. 

    Along with Russia, India, China, and South Africa, Brazil is a founding member of the BRICS economic grouping. BRICS is widely seen as a rival to the U.S.-led group: the G7. Lula has been a strong advocate of expanding the influence of BRICS since he took office, and in August 2023, BRICS extended membership to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina, and the United Arab Emirates, greatly expanding its reach and prestige. 

    Taken together, Lula’s actions since gaining the presidency seem to indicate a challenge to the U.S.-centric international status quo. Some experts argue that Lula is attempting to create a “multipolar world order” where Brazil is one of many countries that dictate international relations. 

    Promoting Democracy in Brazil

    Many countries are experiencing democratic backsliding, and Brazil is an especially important case. While it seemed that Brazil might become less democratic under Bolsonaro, Lula’s election might have reversed that trend. 

    The Biden administration considers promoting democracy a major goal. In 2021, Biden stated that safeguarding democracy is the most important challenge and initiated various actions to achieve this. During Lula’s 2023 visit to Biden, they mainly talked about democracy. They also covered topics like minority rights and safeguarding the Amazon Rainforest. Additionally, the State Department and USAID have started financially assisting “democratic bright spots” worldwide, including Brazil which was designated as one in 2022.

    Yet, the U.S. attempts to promote democracy often don’t yield desired results. For instance, in countries labeled as democratic bright spots, which the U.S. views as likely to stay democratic, there is no evident proof of this. Another criticism is that the U.S. should not meddle in other countries’ governments, particularly given its history of sometimes violent intervention in Latin American nations in the name of democracy. Some scholars additionally argue that focusing on promoting democracy is harmful to the U.S. as it draws attention away from the security concerns and economic competition that should dictate foreign policy. However, others say the opposite, arguing that democratic promotion is a critical aspect of this competition—especially in Latin America where the region has explicitly pledged to uphold democracy in the Inter-American Democratic Charter.

    Security Concerns and Global Competition

    As an emerging global power, Brazil’s alignment with the U.S. or one of its rivals could alter the international balance of power. These states are termed by some academics as “global swing states,” and maintaining positive relations with such countries is important if the U.S. wants to maintain its influence in global politics.

    After U.S.-Brazil ties weakened during Lula’s first presidency, both the Biden and Trump administrations pursued close relations with Brazil. Trump and Bolsonaro were close due to their political similarities. In 2019, the U.S. designated Brazil a “Major Non-Nato Ally,” further solidifying ties between the two countries. Biden has also attempted to keep close relations with Brazil, emphasizing his shared liberal values with Lula. However, Biden has criticized Brazil when its agenda does not align with the U.S.’s own, but has taken no further punitive steps. 
    Some have argued that this approach has made the U.S. look weak compared to Brazil, particularly with regards to Lula’s blatant defiance of U.S. goals regarding the Iranian warships. Others say that the focus on ideological cooperation with Brazil is leaving an economic vacuum, allowing China to strengthen trade relations with Brazil and gain more influence in the country and region. Some experts recommend a more nuanced approach where the Biden administration would focus on specific areas of concrete cooperation with Brazil, instead of expecting Lula to match Biden’s broader agenda.

  • Pros and Cons of the Feed the Future Program 

    Pros and Cons of the Feed the Future Program 

    Introduction 

    For several decades, the United States has led the global fight to eradicate world hunger. Since the early twentieth century, food aid has served as a component of U.S. foreign policy. From President Truman’s Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe after World War II to President Obama’s Feed the Future program to help developing countries generate agricultural sustainability, the United States has continuously provided international food assistance. This assistance costs an estimated $4 billion per year.

    Background 

    The Feed the Future program is an United States’ initiative to combat world hunger. Led by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and created by the Obama Administration in 2010 in response to the 2007-2008 global food crisis, the initiative “works hand-in-hand with partner countries to develop their agriculture sectors, resilience, nutrition, and break the vicious cycle of poverty and hunger.” Feed the Future partners with various companies, organizations, governments, and individuals to help farmers obtain and maintain higher productivity levels and seeks partner countries committed to investing in their food security and nutrition. The program originally targeted 19 countries, however; as of 2022, the program has expanded to 27 countries. The program claims it is successful in its goals; however, critics have pointed to the lack of monitoring and a lack of cooperation with local farmers.

    The Success of the Program

    According to Feed the Future’s measurements, the program succeeded in achieving its goals. As of 2020, the Feed the Future program lifted 23.4 million people out of poverty, prevented 3.4 million children from stunting, reduced hunger in 5.2 million families, and, between 2011 and 2021, the program generated $17.9 billion in agricultural sales to help farmers. The program also succeeded in non-food-related areas, especially in the field of female economic empowerment. So far, the program has given 2.6 million more women access to credit, unlocked over $630 million in loans for women, given 3.3 million more women reasonable workloads, and has helped 3.7 million more women have input in farming decisions. Hunger can significantly impact health outcomes. According to the National Library of Medicine, chronic undernutrition “retards linear growth,” otherwise known as stunting. “Inadequate nutrition over a short period of time” results in wasting, or the condition of being underweight.

    The program also produced positive results when examining outcomes in individual countries. A 2020 report from Feed the Future recorded their progress between 2010 and 2020 in Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Zambia, Rwanda, and Tajikistan. The report found that since the implementation of Feed the Future:

    • Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Zambia, and Rwanda experienced poverty reduction,
    • Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Zambia experienced a decline in hunger, 
    • and Ethiopia, Zambia, and Tajikistan reduced child stunting.

    A 2019 study from Stanford found that the Feed the Future program gave positive results for children under five years old in Sub-Saharan Africa compared to countries without this program. The study found that these countries benefited from the program with a 3.9% comparative decline in child stunting, a 1.1% decline in wasting, and a 2.1% greater decline in underweight children compared to countries without the Feed the Future program. These decreases translate to “around two million fewer stunted and underweight children aged less than five years and around a half million fewer children with wasting.” However, another article from Stanford suggests that the original study did not use a control group, nor did they account for any bias. Therefore, according to the article, it is possible that the Feed the Future program did not solely achieve these results. 

    Monitoring and Inclusion in Feed the Future

    The Stanford article suggests one documented issue with the Feed the Future program: its lack of monitoring. In May 2023, The Government Accountability Office (GAO) sent a letter with recommendations for the Feed the Future program. The letter stated that the program lacks adequate monitoring of its programs and is limited in its ability to use performance data to assess the initiative because they have not set wide-performance goals. The GAO recommended that the Feed the Future program implement wide-performance goals to “determine how the results of Feed the Future’s projects contribute to this overarching goal.” According to the GAO, the Feed the Future program has failed to implement its recommendations as of 2023.
    Another documented issue with the program is the program’s lack of collaboration with local farmers. Researchers have found that the program is restrictive in what it allows farmers to grow. If farmers in the partner countries want to switch from the provided crops, they will not receive any help or guidance from the program. Additionally, the program focuses more on value chain development and small shareholder farms. The focus on value chain development and small shareholder farms leaves out the local landless farmers and those in acute poverty. Researchers recommend that the program target more of the marginalized groups who are at more risk of food insecurity.