Search

1361. Ukraine, Gaza, and the International Order

Author:
Faisal Devji
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
The ongoing crises in Ukraine and Gaza show the urgent need for a new internationalism that comes to grips with the increasing independence of middle and smaller powers around the world. Such a vision must reject the effort to re-impose a failed framework of unilateral U.S. primacy, or an effort to shoehorn multiplying regionally specific conflicts into an obsolete model of “great power competition” that recalls the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. In both Ukraine and the Middle East, the United States has been unable to impose its will either militarily or diplomatically. Smaller nations have successfully defied American–backed military force. Even more concerning, a significant share of the global community has failed to follow the U.S. diplomatic lead and support the U.S. interpretation of international norms. But opposition to the United States has not been supported by a superpower peer competitor to the United States, along the lines of a Cold War model. The current emerging world order is instead characterized by “regionalization,” a situation where middle and even small powers around the world feel free to circumvent or even defy U.S. interpretations of global norms based on more local interests and regional security concerns. The stage was set for the current situation by the U.S. attempt to assert unilateral power during the War on Terror in ways that appeared to give the United States alone a de facto exemption from global norms and institutions. These actions reduced the legitimacy of the post–World War Two international order that the United States had helped to create, and led many in the international community to seek alternatives to a system that seemed to grant the United States almost arbitrary power to define the rules. The U.S. foreign policy establishment must come to grips with the newly deglobalized and regionalized world order. A failure to do so poses a grave threat to U.S. power and influence, as relationships with key emerging powers such as India, or even traditional U.S. allies in Europe and Asia are not immune from the kind of de–globalizing and regionalizing forces seen in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Topic:
Cold War, International Law, National Security, Hegemony, Grand Strategy, Armed Conflict, International Order, Russia-Ukraine War, and 2023 Gaza War
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Eastern Europe, Palestine, Gaza, and United States of America

1362. Paths to Crisis and Conflict Over Taiwan

Author:
Michael D. Swaine and James Park
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Taiwan is the most likely flashpoint for a U.S.–China conflict, unmatched in its combustible mix of conflicting interests, high stakes, and eroding trust and assurances. A full–blown war over Taiwan has become a startling possibility. Suspicion, threat inflation, zero–sum framing, and worst–casing are increasingly dominant factors in U.S.–China interactions over Taiwan, driven by preconceived ideas of the other’s intentions based on history and ideology, and domestic pressures in each country to prioritize military deterrence and even aggression. Amidst this emerging threat of direct conflict, numerous scholars, experts, and military strategists have focused on how to discourage China from invading Taiwan through military force alone — warfighting perspectives that typically share glaring and mutually reinforcing faults that, if overlooked, may only help to pave the path toward conflict. Analysts’ emphasis on military deterrence tends to obscure the utmost importance of political reassurances to avert conflict, particularly the United States reaffirming and recommitting to its original understanding of the One China Policy; this fixation on the military dimension feeds into the destabilization of the Taiwan issue, brought about by heightened suspicions of the other side’s intentions. Policymakers and pundits, in turn, tend to underestimate the possibility of inadvertent escalation, driven by an environment of distrust, pressure in Washington and Beijing to appear tough on the other, and a lack of comprehensive crisis management mechanisms. By examining the common analytical blindspots regarding a conflict over Taiwan, this report sheds new light on how the political and social dynamics fueling mutual hostility between Beijing and Washington could play a much more decisive role in a future crisis over Taiwan, rather than factors that earn far more attention, such as calculations about military capability and resolve. Averting a destructive crisis will require the United States and China to build off recent diplomatic progress to restore a deeper mutual understanding concerning Taiwan through policies and actions including: Mutual recognition of the interactive nature of the growing crisis over Taiwan, to which Beijing, Washington, and Taipei contribute. A clearer, more credible U.S. commitment to its successful, long–standing stance on Taiwan: the One China Policy and strategic ambiguity. Continued U.S. rejection of both unilateral Taiwan independence and any unambiguous commitment to Taiwan’s defense. A credible Chinese affirmation of its continued commitment to peaceful unification without any specific deadline. The development of a broad–based crisis communication mechanism that includes both military and civilian dialogue.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Crisis Management, Joe Biden, and Regional Security
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, and United States of America

1363. Responsibly Demilitarizing U.S.–Mexico Bilateral Security Relations

Author:
Aileen Teague
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
These are trying times for U.S.–Mexico relations. As America’s opioid epidemic reaches unprecedented proportions, U.S. politicians have begun to advocate unilateral military action against Mexican drug cartels in sovereign Mexican territory. This approach would not only do extraordinary damage to one of America’s most vital international relationships, but also carry a real risk of importing violence to the United States. The calls for military action have infuriated Mexico’s leaders, who in turn criticize America’s broken and inhumane border security and Washington’s inability to curb the seemingly insatiable demand for drugs in the United States. The basis for the neighboring nations’ security cooperation, the 2008 Mérida Initiative, seems to have failed, largely failing to stem the tide of violence and instability in Mexico, or to halt the cross border flow of migrants, guns, and drugs. The result is poor regional security and a deteriorating bilateral relationship. There is reason to hope that the Plan Mérida’s replacement, the U.S.–Mexico Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health, and Safe Communities, will strengthen bilateral cooperation and help put security relations on a path to demilitarization. However, since the State Department announced the framework in 2021, little progress has been made in developing the shape and contents of this program. The continued failure to articulate how the Bicentennial Framework will represent a meaningful break from failed policies in the past suggests militarized enforcement may still dominate security relations for years to come. This status quo poses grave risks to both countries. But through the Bicentennial Framework, U.S. policymakers have the potential to make meaningful changes in bilateral security relations by: Rejecting U.S. unilateralist measures against Mexico Developing more robust policies to halt U.S. arms flow to Mexico Reducing the military’s role in enforcement functions and redirecting military entities toward civil action and development Supporting Mexico–led development programs By decreasing the scope of militarization in regional security policies through an appropriately designed Bicentennial Framework, the United States and Mexico can achieve healthier and more balanced relations, and eliminate the risk of a worst-case scenario: unilateral U.S. military intervention next door.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Global South, Borders, Restraint, and Security Cooperation
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, Global Focus, and United States of America

1364. A Conversation on the Role of Diaspora in Feminist Peace Movements

Author:
Christine Ahn and Marie Berry
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
Christine Ahn is the Founder and Executive Director of Women Cross DMZ, the International Coordinator of the Korea Peace Now! campaign, and co-founder of the Feminist Peace Initiative.She is the recipient of the 2022 Social Activist Award from the Nobel Peace Laureates, the 2020 Rotary International Peace Award, and the 2020 US Peace Prize from the US Peace Memorial Foundation for her bold activism to end the Korean War, heal the wounds from the war, and women’s leadership in peacebuilding. Dr. Marie Berry is the Director of the Sié Chéou-Kang Center for International Security and Di- plomacy and an Associate Professor at the Josef Korbel School at the University of Denver. She is also the co-founder and convener of the Inclusive Global Leadership Initiative (IGLI), an effort to elevate and amplify the work that women activists are doing at the grassroots to advance peace, justice, and human rights across the world.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diaspora, Feminism, Peace, Interview, and Political Movements
Political Geography:
Asia and Korea

1365. The Making and Diasporization of Iranian Sexual, Religious, and Political Asylum Seekers

Author:
Navid Fozi
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
Since the 1979 Revolution in Iran, waves of Iranian migrants, mostly asylum seekers, have formed diasporas composed of four to six million people.1 Asylum- seeking thus illustrates one of the most significant modes of Iranian global mobil- ity. The continuous revolutionary conditions perpetuated by the Revolutionary Guards and Revolutionary Courts have been identified as the sole contributor to the diasporization of Iranians.2 I argue that such a myopic focus on revolutionary moments obfuscates the marginalizing historical processes that have shaped asylum- seeking as a means of engagement with domestic and global inequality. The Islamic Republic has heralded a culmination of Iranian diasporic displacement unleashed by the deterritorializing effects of neoliberal world capitalism through economic globalization and mobility to meet labor demand.3 Coupled with the apparatuses of the modern nation-state, the judiciary, police, and education system have given the traditional exclusionary practices a modern character. I will draw on my fieldwork with Iranian asylum seekers and refugees in tran- sit through Türkiye pursuing permanent resettlement, mainly in North America, Australia, and Europe. These Iranians compose heterogeneous populations that embark on an arduous journey from the Global South to the Global North. They form diasporas of communities whose marginality in Iran predates the Islamic Re- public. Each group finds its own niche while becoming part of the Iranian diaspora. Bahá’ís born into Bahá’i families, heterodox Muslim mystics, and the ethno-religious communities of Kurdish Yársán constitute a group of Iranian asylum seekers who embrace religious ideals and practices that differ from Iran’s official religion: Shīʿi Twelver Islam. As I discuss later, this Shīʿi strand developed in sixteenth-century Iran and promoted a messianic expectation for the return of the twelfth Shīʿi Imam.
Topic:
Religion, Diaspora, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Iran and Middle East

1366. Performing Diasporic Resistance: (Re)Claiming the Heritage Language

Author:
Shushan Karapetian
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
“All wars are fought twice, the first time on the battlefield, the second time in memory,” writes Pulitzer Prize-winning author Viet Thanh Nguyen.1 In the landscape of memory, language is the theater of war. Through language, we frame the narratives of our experiences and transmit those narratives for the historical record as individuals and collectives. The chronology and processes so profoundly articulated by Nguyen have merged in the recent decade such that combat on the physical battlefield does not necessarily precede the curation of narratives about the war. They now take place synchronously. Due to advances in digital media and communication technologies, the landscape, strategies, and potential combatants have outgrown geographic, physical, and temporal limitations. Civilians can now participate in military conflicts through digital and participatory warfare enabled by the hyperconnected battlefield of social media platforms. In parallel with actual fighting in combat zones and the official narratives of the states involved in war, new participatory modalities within a global digital battlefield are impacting the representation, perception, participa- tion, and memorialization of conflict. The mobilization of transnational human resources by diasporas can enlarge the scope of civilian participation in warfare, impacting war’s narration, cura- tion, and framing. In this current environment, language becomes the theater of war, not just within the post-combat landscape of memory, but also during combat—in the parallel digital battlefields of modern-day participatory warfare. It is, therefore, important to consider how language is viewed and used during war, particularly the heritage language of diasporan civilians. More specifically, we must assess the extent to which the heritage language is employed as both a symbolic and strategic tool in wartime transnational activism in processes through which diasporic identities are fashioned. In this essay, I examine the role of the Armenian language in the unprecedented transnational mobilization of Armenian communities across the globe during and after the 2020 Nagorno- Karabakh War.2 I argue that transnational actors (re)claimed the Armenian language as an act of resistance in the context of participatory warfare, which not only intensified the existing symbolic range of the Armenian language as a central identity marker, but also introduced a novel instrumental element for many Armenians.
Topic:
Diaspora, Language, Participation, Heritage, and Resistance
Political Geography:
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Global Focus, and Nagorno-Karabakh

1367. Imaging the Diaspora: Imperialism, Immigration, Individualism

Author:
K.J. Noh, Ashton Higgins, and Michelle Alas
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
K.J. Noh is a political analyst, educator, and journalist focusing on the geopolitics and political economy of the Asia-Pacific. He has written for Dissident Voice, Black Agenda Report, Asia Times, Counterpunch, LA Progressive, MR Online, and People’s Daily. He also does frequent commentary and analysis on various news programs, including The Critical Hour, The Backstory, By Any Means Necessary. and Breakthrough News. He recently co-authored a study on the military transmission of infectious diseases and its implications for Covid transmission.
Topic:
Imperialism, Diaspora, Immigration, Interview, and Individualism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

1368. Unveiling Dissent: Eritrean Diaspora Festival Turmoil and Social Media Mobilization

Author:
Yonatan Tewelde
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
Amidst the TikTok videos that inundated the Eritrean digital landscape during the summer of 2023, a tapestry of dissent unfolds. A wounded protestor, his head swathed in bandages, is ushered into an ambulance: a powerful testament to the toll of resistance. A striking photograph captures a black man in a blue shirt adorned with the raised fist logo of Birgade Nhamedu (a new, diaspora Eritrean, youth-led movement). He is handcuffed and escorted by three stern riot police officers, his silent defiance echoing louder than words. Videos depict intense street clashes between two factions in Israel, one clad in blue shirts and the other in red, hurling projectiles amidst tear gas clouds, their battlegrounds emblazoned with the fervor of discord. The lens then shifts to scenes of vulnerability, with two young women kneeling before the police, one clad in the emblematic blue shirt, the other brandishing the Israeli flag and a gallon of milk, a poignant plea for justice. Across borders, from Ontario to Seattle, a sea of blue-shirted protestors unites in dance, protest, and celebration. However, the more forceful videos paint a vivid picture of upheaval; festival venues overrun, tents ablaze, and the clash between the dissenting blues and the establishment’s red emblematic of a struggle that transcends geographical boundaries. These TikTok vignettes, widely shared and discussed with viral fervor, capture the essence of a burgeoning movement of global dissidents led by young Eritrean refugees. Their resistance is motivated by their opposition to an authoritarian government that has been in power since 1991. This movement represents a visceral reaction to the years of forced military conscription from which the prostestors sought refuge. The struggle unfolds as a response to a range of egregious acts, including enslavement, imprisonment, enforced disappear- ance, torture, persecution, rape, and murder. These inhumane acts have been systematically carried out since the Eritrean government authorities assumed control of the territory in 1991. The United Nations has since condemned these actions as crimes against humanity.1
Topic:
Diaspora, Social Media, Dissent, and Mobilization
Political Geography:
Africa and Eritrea

1369. The Mexican Space Industry: Past, Present, and Future

Author:
Katya Echazarreta
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
Mexico has been a participant in the ever-evolving global space industry for almost four decades now. Over that period, there have been opportunities for the country to enter the emerging field as a prominent actor. However, upon a close analysis of Mexican history, it is evident that this particular industry was most likely defined by private commercial needs first and social needs second.1 As demand for space technology grew, the need for a space agency became ap- parent. However, the Mexican Space Agency’s development was misconstrued from its inception. Its purpose was to financially stimulate the Mexican space industry as opposed to centering on the development of an astronaut program or the construction of rocket technology. The initial financing of $800,000 did not properly set the agency up for success. At the time, it was believed that Mexico would catch up to Brazil and Canada in their technological development over a period of ten years.2 However, the test of time has proven this to be far from the case. In the years that followed, Mexico was again presented with an opportunity to change its course with the Space Activities Constitutional Reform gaining traction in 2023. This reform would prioritize Space activities as a means of national development and grant the country’s Congress the rights necessary to create secondary laws to regulate the industry for both government and com- mercial players. By allowing not only national but also international players to get involved, Mexico would become a more prominent player in the Space Industry.3 As the commercial space industry continues to grow into projected estimates of $1 trillion or more by 2040, Mexico finds itself in an ideal moment to regulate its own space activities to encourage active participation in the field.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Reform, Space, Innovation, and Industry
Political Geography:
Latin America and Mexico

1370. The Evolution and Ethics of Accountability Sanctions

Author:
Mark Ferullo
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
When Yahya Jammeh seized power in The Gambia in 1994 in a bloodless coup d’état, the young army colonel’s promise to eliminate corruption seemed disin- genuous. At the time, few Gambians could have anticipated how corrupt and cruel his rule would be. His Excellency Sheikh Professor Al-haji Dr. Yahya A.J.J. Jammeh Babili Mansa, as he titled himself, brutalized his country for over two decades. In 2022, The Gambia’s Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Com- mission exposed the extent of his violence, revealing that he commanded a hit squad that crushed dissent through murder, torture, and rape. His claim that he could cure AIDS with herbs might have been dismissed as the delusions of an out-of-touch autocrat were it not for the loss of life this lie caused during the medical trials.1 When the United States placed economic sanctions on Jammeh in 2017, most Gambians had little sympathy for their former leader, and few denied he deserved punishment.2 By then, Jammeh had fled the country, but the United States sanctioned him anyway. Jammeh joined 12 other individuals—including an organ-trafficking surgeon from Pakistan, a Guatemalan Congressman who ordered the killing of a journalist, and a Ukrainian police commander who oversaw the shooting of peaceful protestors in Kyiv during the Revolution of Dignity three years prior—as the first designations under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. “There is a steep price to pay for their mis- deeds,” said Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin at the time.3
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Sanctions, Economy, and Accountability
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America