Diplomacy

Africa Diplomacy Featured Geopolitics Security and Conflict Territorial disputes

How Turkey’s Maritime Deal with Libya Could Ignite a Regional Dispute

On November 27th, 2019, the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) in Libya signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Turkey that redrew the maritime borders of the two countries across the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. The GNA was the internationally recognized interim government established in Tripoli after years of political fragmentation in Libya, where rival administrations have risen up since the 2011 revolution that ousted Muammar Gaddafi. Following elections in 2014, two competing power centers emerged with one in the west centered in Tripoli and another in the east centered in the city of Tobruk, where the House of Representatives (HoR) and its allies established a rival administration aligned with the Libyan National Army (LNA) under General Khalifa Haftar. This MoU, which defined a shared Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) between the two countries, effectively carved a corridor across waters claimed by many countries including Greece, Egypt and Cyprus. This set off a major international legal and diplomatic dispute. In the years since then, the agreement lacked a full ratification, especially from the HoR and the LNA. However, in August 2025, the HoR signaled that it may finally ratify the 2019 treaty with Turkey. That decision would effectively be the end of the final obstacle to affirm Turkey’s claim to a vast maritime zone off the Libyan coast and could pave the way for joint offshore gas exploration, bringing Turkey closer to a long-sought geopolitical goal of asserting maritime sovereignty and unlocking potentially lucrative gas and oil fields in the region.

This move has alarmed Greece and Egypt, both of which regard the deal as a violation of international maritime law. For Greece especially, the Turkey-Libya EEZ corridor effectively bypasses major Greek islands including Kastellorizo and Crete, and extends Turkey’s reach into the central Mediterranean. The deal also has profound implications on the unity and coherence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the Mediterranean as the alliance has to attempt to uphold legal maritime rights of member states like Greece while maintaining partnerships with Turkey on critical issues such as immigration and regional security.

The MoU is very important to Turkey’s geostrategic goals. Turkey has long sought to expand their EEZ since much of their potential reach has been blocked by a plethora of Greek islands that lay near their coastline. This is part of the Turkish government’s Blue Homeland, or Mavi Vatan, doctrine, which is a cornerstone of the modern Turkish naval and geopolitical strategy. The Blue Homeland doctrine challenges what Turkey perceives as an unjust maritime status quo, shaped by international treaties and post-World War II arrangements that heavily favor Greece. The current Turkish regime, under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has fully integrated the Blue Homeland doctrine into its foreign policy and rejects the interpretation of maritime zones by Greece privileging islands over mainland coastlines on delimitation matters, arguing that delimitation should respect continental shelves and mainlands rather than granting islands extensive EEZs.

The Turkey-Libya MoU creates a corridor for Turkish offshore energy exploration, potentially giving Turkey an advantage in hydrocarbon licensing in areas that Greece and Cyprus have already targeted. Now that Libya’s eastern parliament might agree to ratify the treaty, this will clear the way for Turkey to explore these offshore sections in Libyan waters. While the earlier GNA was replaced in 2021 by the Government of National Unity (GNU), the agreement still recognizes the treaty it signed with Turkey, which has allowed Turkey to tactically shift toward the eastern Libyan HoR, thus hedging its earlier single-track Tripoli alignment. This means that, once ratified, the deal gives Turkey a two-fold payoff with one in energy in regards to offshore gas exploration, and the other in geopolitics with an expanded footprint in the Mediterranean flank. The fact that Turkey is pressing the eastern Libyan legislature to ratify confirms that Turkey views this as an important strategic move.

Meanwhile, for Libya, especially the eastern-based factions, the benefits of the deal are very multifaceted. It is first important to note that Libya still remains intensely fragmented, with competing power centers and an economy that is in dire need of investment. A potential partnership with Turkey, who is one of the most active external investors willing to commit to investing in Libya, offers vast advantages to reconstructing the country. If the MoU is ratified, Turkey is expected to invest in contracts in security, energy and infrastructure. However, while economics and reconstruction is important for Libya, the most important part of this deal is legitimacy and international recognition. If the eastern HoR ratifies the deal, it signals to the broader international community that it is a relevant and active actor in Libyan foreign policy. This image-boost will tremendously help its bargaining position in relation to Tripoli and other international partners. Thus, the shift eastwards is a strategic move by Libya’s eastern power-center to leverage Turkey for its own ends.

In response to the MoU, Greece and Egypt both signed their own maritime delimitation treaty in August of 2020. Greece and Egypt argued that Turkey’s map writes off the Greek island of Crete and ignores the role of islands in delimitation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) framework. Obviously, at the heart of this controversy lies a long-standing geopolitical rivalry between Turkey and Greece. While these two countries are NATO allies on paper, their mutual distrust runs deep and is rooted in centuries of conflict, from the Ottoman Empire’s decline and the 1923 population exchanges, to the Cyprus crisis in the 1970s and the perennial disputes over airspace and maritime borders. Essentially, Greece views the deal as a direct assault on its sovereignty.

As both Greece and Turkey are very important NATO allies, this deal places NATO in a strained and uneasy position, as it will test their ability to maintain an already fragile unity while managing the competing priorities within their own members. Turkey’s geographical position within NATO is strategic because it creates a vital area for military zones of influence spanning the Black Sea, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the Caucasus. NATO relies heavily on Turkey for its regional intelligence networks and as an important southern flank that faces both Russia and the Middle East. However, this dependency also gives Turkey a political leverage within the region, which it uses to push for its own strategic goals. Greece, meanwhile, expects its NATO allies, including the United States, to completely support the integrity of its own EEZ. This tension puts NATO in a situation where it has to attempt to mediate the conflict without alienating either side, all while avoiding open conflict between two of its members.

This treaty between Libya and Turkey might appear on the surface to be a normal, bilateral maritime treaty but it is in fact a major contention in the geopolitical landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean. By redefining their maritime boundaries, the Turkey-Libya MoU exacerbates a fragile balance of power in the region that will fuel tensions between Greece and Turkey as well as in NATO as they struggle to contain internal division while preserving cooperation. If Libya’s eastern parliament votes to ratify the MoU, it will mark a turning point as what was once a contested agreement will morph into a heated diplomatic dispute on who controls the Mediterranean seabeds as well as the rules of engagement in the Mediterranean basin.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

January 5, 2026 0 comment

Asia Diplomacy Featured National Security Pakistan Security and Conflict Territorial disputes

The Crescent Decade: The Strategic Rise and Implications of the Pakistan–Azerbaijan–Turkiye Alliance

written by Rahil Siddiqi

In celebration of his nation’s independence day, Azerbaijani Prime Minister Ilham Aliyev was joined by his Turkish and Pakistani counterparts in Lachin to discuss and establish mutual areas of cooperation. Speaking to attendees and the media in late May of this year, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan offered his perspective on the budding tripartite relationship: “Pakistan, Turkiye, and Azerbaijan are three countries, but one nation.”

The following applause echoed throughout the city of Lachin, which only five years prior had been annexed by Baku in its successful Second Nagorno-Karabakh War with Armenia. The site of the summit was certainly not chosen by mere coincidence, and served as a victory lap for Azerbaijan and its closest allies in what analysts and pundits alike have described as an incredibly successful collective decade of geopolitics. Taken together, these developments suggest that the Pakistan-Turkiye-Azerbaijan alignment may not merely be an ad hoc partnership of convenience, but instead an emerging geopolitical bloc shaped by budding regional insecurities. As the global powers grow more fragmented and isolated in their international priorities, coalitions like this one are poised to play a far greater strategic role in Eurasia’s future political and security landscape.

Just one decade prior, the three states found themselves in very different geopolitical circumstances. Domestic violence fueled by sectarianism and an increasingly tumultuous political arena rocked Pakistan, as ties with its traditionally closest ally, the United States, strained with the difficulties behind the war in Afghanistan. Despite repeated attempts by the foreign ministry, Pakistani efforts to raise the Kashmir issue continued to stall on the international stage as India furthered ties with a Western world once nominally aligned with Islamabad’s interests.

President Erdoğan of Turkiye—forever ambitious in navigating his nation’s strategic Eurasian geopolitical position—found himself strangely isolated as international pressure mounted over a failing peace process with the Kurds in the Southeast and a shaken up network of Middle Eastern alliances following the Arab Spring’s regional realignment. Just one year later, Erdoğan’s grip on power would be challenged through a coup, the greatest threat against his control in Ankara since taking charge in 2003.

Aliyev’s Azerbaijan continued its low-intensity border clashes against Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, with the casualty ratio favoring its rival to the west. Baku’s infamous caviar diplomacy – treating important delegates to expensive gifts as a form of lobbying – faced setbacks as widespread allegations of corruption plagued diplomatic proceedings for the Caucasian nation already surrounded by regional rivals.

While Pakistan, Turkiye, and Azerbaijan enjoyed cordial relations with one another, ties prior to this decade can be described as surface level and disconnected. Today, that picture has changed. What had once begun as a nominal relationship through shared interests has evolved into a strategic trilateral partnership with regional policy implications, especially in economic arrangements, defense cooperation and critical diplomatic maneuvering.

Over the course of the late 2010s and 2020s, converging strategic needs, combined with a global realignment of international relations, pushed the three nations into deeper collaboration. Two watershed conflicts in particular reshaped the trajectory of the trilateral relationship: Azerbaijan’s victory in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, and the much more recent May 2025 conflict between Pakistan and India. Each conflict highlighted the extent to which Pakistan, Turkiye, and Azerbaijan were willing to openly back one another, and each demonstrated how previously localized confrontations could accelerate a broader geopolitical repositioning.

The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War was the first major indication that the Pakistan-Turkiye-Azerbaijan triumvirate could produce a visible impact on the battlefield. Turkiye’s drone technology, intelligence support, and diplomatic messaging proved decisive for Baku’s rapid territorial gains in the contested region. Pakistan, while not a direct participant in the conflict, emerged as one of Azerbaijan’s most vocal supporters in the international media and diplomatic arenas, positioning Islamabad as firmly behind Baku’s narrative at forums such as the United Nations. Islamabad and Ankara’s astute backing of their ally stood in sharp contrast to Baku’s opponent, as Armenia—while garnering global sympathies regarding the humanitarian plight in Artsakh—struggled to attain genuine military aid and backing. The war in Nagorno-Karabakh not only shifted the power balance in the Caucasus, but also set the ideological foundation for a more assertive and pronounced trilateral posture; one where diplomatic ties were backed by hard power and coordinated messaging.

Nearly five years later, a conflict in early May between Pakistan and India further entrenched these bonds. The brief but intense conflict, sparked by clashes along the Line of Control (LoC) and amplified by a series of escalatory reactions on both sides, marked the most significant military confrontation between the two nuclear-armed neighbors since 2019. As cross-border Pakistani and Indian air and artillery strikes intensified, Turkiye and Azerbaijan emerged as Islamabad’s loudest diplomatic allies. Ankara condemned India’s actions within hours, framing the conflict as a direct result of unresolved sovereignty questions in Kashmir, while Baku similarly condemned India’s airstrikes on Pakistani infrastructure. For Islamabad, the responses stood in stark contrast to the hesitancy expressed by its traditional allies in the West or the Gulf, many of whom called for de-escalation without assigning blame. The trilateral support during the conflict ultimately signaled to Pakistani policymakers that, in an increasingly multipolar world, their most dependable partners were not necessarily a pick out of the great powers as observed in the Cold War, but like-minded regional allies whose own struggles and ambitions mirrored Pakistan’s. The conflict thus became a symbolic partner to Azerbaijan’s triumph in 2020, with both wars reaffirming the necessity of deepened ties.

While military and diplomatic ties remain at the forefront of the three nations’ relationship, economic ties have begun to emerge as a consequence of such. Azerbaijani energy investments in Turkiye deepened, and preliminary talks emerged on expanding rail and transit corridors linking Anatolia with South Asia. While many such projects remain in their early stages, they reflect a shared desire of a multi-leveled partnership that extends beyond support during episodic crises.

While talks about cementing the relationship between Pakistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkiye intensify into forming a potential “Three Brothers” alliance, potential internal rifts emerge. Baku’s entrenched military and intelligence cooperation with Israel represents one of the clearest pressure points within the trilateral relationship. While Azerbaijan views Israel as a vital counterweight to another rival in Iran, both Pakistan and Turkiye approach that partnership with caution. Pakistan, constrained by its longlasting vocal pro-Palestine stance and its reliance on stable relations with Iran to manage sectarian spillover, cannot fully embrace a security alignment that strengthens Israel’s regional position. Turkiye, too, has recently embraced a confrontational foreign policy against Tel Aviv over the War in Gaza and sees Azerbaijan’s deepening ties with Israel as a variable that can disrupt Ankara’s careful balancing act with Tehran. Iran’s periodic threats and military posturing along the Azerbaijani border only amplify the risk that any Azerbaijani-Israeli coordination would inflame Tehran, forcing Pakistan and Turkiye into a regional crisis they would much rather avoid.

For Turkiye, the alliance’s trajectory is constrained by the country’s ongoing struggle to balance its regional ambitions with NATO obligations. Any escalation involving Pakistan or Azerbaijan—especially one that opposes American, British, French or German preferences—could place Ankara in a precarious position, forcing it to choose between its Western or regional partners. Already, this tension has already surfaced in past disputes over F-16 modernization and sanctions tied to Turkiye’s defense procurement choices, rising from concerns about technological share with more Eastern aligned nations such as Pakistan and China.

Pakistan, meanwhile, is economically bound to Beijing through CPEC and relies heavily on Gulf monarchies for stability through labor remittances and political backing. Any new trilateral policy that disrupts current Gulf or Chinese interests—such as Turkiye and Saudi Arabia’s competitive gambit for leadership within the Muslim world—could place Islamabad in an awkward diplomatic triangle. While Three Brothers offers significant opportunity, Pakistan cannot easily alienate partners that directly influence its fiscal survival.

Whether this Eurasian partnership becomes a formal pact or remains an emergency coalition, its evolution demonstrates an emerging fundamental truth behind contemporary geopolitics. In a world where the once established centers of projected power are increasingly distracted or divided, new coalitions are emerging from peripheralized corners, forged not exclusively by ideology but by necessity, opportunity, and the broader pursuit of strategic autonomy.

January 6, 2026 0 comment

Democracy Diplomacy Europe Featured Globalization Human Rights International Law Society and Culture

Geneva, Still the Peace Capital? Reflections from an American Student Abroad

written by Charlie Donlan

Introduction

While walking through the old town of Geneva, Switzerland on my first day in this unfamiliar city, I came across a building with an unexpectedly familiar label: Alabama. As an American, I immediately questioned why a room in the Geneva City Hall was named after one of our 50 states. After reading the plaque posted on the wall, I realized that the Alabama Room was the site of two of the most influential events in the history of international law.

The room was named after The Alabama Arbitration, an international dispute over England’s role in prolonging the American Civil War by supplying the Confederacy with warships. The agreement signed in this room in 1872 resulted in Britain paying the United States millions in damages, representing one of the world’s first cases of international arbitration.

The reason this site was chosen for the negotiations was because of an event that took place in the same room just 8 years earlier. Delegates from 12 nations gathered in this room in 1864 to sign the first Geneva Convention, protecting wounded soldiers and medical personnel on the battlefield. The agreement not only represented the first treaty of international humanitarian law, but also inspired a legacy of global cooperation around expanding universal human rights through international law.

These watershed events, and many that followed, helped establish Geneva as the global “Capital of Peace”. However, today Geneva’s reputation hangs in the balance. The declining effectiveness of bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, disputes over Swiss neutrality, and a changing world order threaten Geneva’s ability to broker peace amidst increasingly violent conflict in the world.

Despite these challenges, Geneva remains a relevant and vitally necessary hub for diplomacy. As a student, I have seen firsthand the commitment of Geneva’s international community to preserve the city’s reputation of peacekeeping.

Geneva as the “Peace Capital”

The city of Geneva has both a historical and a symbolic significance in the world of diplomacy. In 1863, a committee was formed in Geneva with the goal of caring for those wounded in battle, which would go on to become the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The following year the ICRC helped coordinate the first Geneva Convention, and over the next 50 years the Red Cross expanded its global reach by establishing National Societies to implement its mission around the world.

At the end of the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles established the League of Nations with the goal of preventing another world war through diplomacy and collective security. Given its central location and already impressive reputation for peace and neutrality, Geneva was chosen to host the headquarters of this intergovernmental organization in 1920. However, the League of Nations eventually failed to prevent the outbreak of World War II.

The end of the Second World War saw the birth of the United Nations (UN) in 1945. The UN, built on the League of Nations model, today unites 193 member states around three central aims: peace and security, human rights, and development. While its main headquarters is in New York City, the UN maintains its operational headquarters in Geneva.

Today Geneva is home to 40 international organizations, including the UN and other affiliated agencies like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Health Organization (WHO). The city also hosts more than 400 non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Doctors Without Borders and CARE International. Finally, more than 180 states are represented by a Permanent Mission in Geneva.

Beyond Geneva’s history of hosting institutions and agreements fostering peace, the city has long upheld the traditional Swiss principle of neutrality. In 1815, the Congress of Vienna brought international recognition to Switzerland’s policies of abstaining from participation in armed conflict, foreign military aid, and military alliances. While it has since taken steps that call into question its continued commitment to neutrality, Switzerland still boasts an unparalleled reputation of impartiality.

Geneva as a Reflection of the World’s Crises

Given its presence on the international diplomatic stage, Geneva is a city that revolves around the world’s most pressing conflicts and tensions. The meetings that take place and the decisions that are made in Geneva have direct implications for the lives of people all over the world. Recently, Geneva has been at the center of some of the most urgent dialogues between states on issues like trade, human rights, and national security.

Amidst global uncertainty over US President Donald Trump’s tariff proposals, American and Chinese delegations met in Geneva in May to negotiate a compromise. These preliminary negotiations have since resulted in a substantial reduction of initial American and Chinese reciprocal import tariffs.

Geneva is also at the center of the ongoing crises in the Palestinian Territories. At the 59th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva last month, the latest findings of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory were presented to the world. Their latest report spotlights the destruction of schools and religious and cultural sites in Gaza and other restrictive Israeli actions in the West Bank.

Most recently, Geneva hosted discussions in June between several European nations and Iran concerning the latter’s involvement in the conflict with Israel and the future of the Iranian nuclear program. Clearly, Geneva remains relevant to both multilateral diplomacy and international human rights protection.

Geneva as a Relic of the Past

Despite the demonstrated relevance of Geneva in international affairs, many argue that the city’s success in providing an effective platform for multilateral diplomacy has significantly diminished over the last two decades. Executive Director of the Geneva Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue David Harland is at the forefront of this school of thought. Harland argues that diplomatic solutions to global security crises have declined since 2010, marked especially by the gridlock of the UN Security Council and the dismantling of existing international agreements. He places much of the blame on the West for adopting a foreign policy of “not speaking to those you don’t like” and insisting that others conform to certain democratic norms as a prerequisite for engaging in diplomacy.

The United States plays a part in Geneva’s fading legitimacy as a global peacemaker. Over the past decade, the United States has withdrawn itself from several key intergovernmental bodies. Under both terms of President Donald Trump, the US withdrew from the World Health Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, and the Paris Climate Accord. Additionally, the US withdrew from the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization in 2017 and has disabled the WTO’s dispute settlement system by declining to appoint a member to the Appellate Body since 2019.

In recent years, the Swiss government has also taken several actions that have impacted its reputation as a neutral arbiter. In February of 2024, Switzerland decided to implement EU sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. As a result, Russia now claims that Geneva no longer represents a neutral negotiating site. Additionally, the Swiss government temporarily withheld funding to the UN agency for Palestinian Refugees and banned Hamas from negotiating in Switzerland. These actions demonstrate Switzerland’s recent attempts to balance its own security needs and its desire to avoid creating a safe haven for terrorist organizations with its historic role of political impartiality. However, such decisions may also create barriers to Geneva’s ability to foster diplomatic solutions for two of today’s most dire conflicts.

Geneva as an Intellectual Melting Pot

Reflecting on my time as a student in Geneva, it is impossible to ignore the immense diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and worldviews presented to me on a daily basis. The population of Geneva is incredibly diverse, with around 41% of people coming from a non-Swiss origin or nationality. The academic environment I experienced was similarly diverse, with around 39% of students (representing 161 countries) and 47% of professors (representing 33 countries) at the University of Geneva coming from a non-Swiss origin or nationality as of 2022. Clearly, students and educators from all over the world remain attracted to the opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue offered in Geneva.

My curriculum abroad gave me the opportunity to have discussions with my peers on the most pressing issues impacting our respective countries. I was constantly confronted with perspectives that challenged my understanding of the world and some of my most deeply rooted opinions of my own country of origin. I often approached these conversations in the classroom as if I myself were a diplomat representing my country.

I also had the opportunity to learn from professors at the top of their respective fields in an international environment. For the first time, I was exposed to an academic perspective of the United States as a “them” rather than a “we”. This perspective instilled in me an understanding that what Americans reduce to politics, is often seen by the rest of the world as policy. In my classroom discussions, there was rarely a mention of “democratic” or “republican” foreign policies, but rather “American” foreign policies. This is not to say that the international community is naive to the political divisions present in the United States. Instead, it is a testament to the fact that the actions taken by the United States (regardless of the people in power) have lasting impacts on foreign perceptions of American ideals.

It is no secret that the United States has recently taken steps towards isolationism and has distanced itself from some traditional allies. This trend is nowhere more evident than in the relationship between the US and Europe, which is now as fragile as ever. Tensions between the US and European allies over issues like trade and the conflict in Ukraine have created unprecedented rifts in relationships that trace back even before the formation of NATO in 1949.

Despite tensions between governments, the conversations I had with my European peers were grounded in respectful curiosity rather than hostility. Europeans know what the US government thinks, but they are curious about what Americans think. They regularly ask how aligned the American public is with the actions of its government. What strikes me the most is the patience of Europeans to continue to engage in dialogue with Americans. While some are more outspoken and critical of the United States than others, there is almost always a level of decency and respect that many Americans do not seem to reciprocate. Ultimately, my experience has illustrated that the relationship between the United States and Europe is resilient and there is hope for a future of mutual cooperation.

Geneva as an Imperfect Utopia

While the multicultural learning environment I was exposed to has challenged my perspectives in many ways, it has also shown me that there is a consensus among Geneva’s international students and educators. The academic community is largely united in its belief that Geneva has a crucial role to play in ensuring international security going forward. There is hope among academics that the next generation of leaders will work to restore trust in international peacemaking institutions. It takes diversity to recognize the importance of cooperation, and Geneva’s diversity is both what created its reputation for peace and what will save it.

Geneva still represents a utopian vision of a peaceful future. However, peace is not meant to be perfect, either in process or in outcome. Peace requires making concessions, recognizing faults, and putting aside disagreement or even hatred. These behaviors are extremely challenging for people, and they are even more challenging for nations of people. It is much easier to avoid confrontation than to pursue peace. Unfortunately, leaders continue to settle for what’s easy. The greatest threat to peace is people refusing to engage with those they disagree with. Ultimately, my experience in Geneva has shown me that peace is developed just as much in the classroom, dorm room, and dining room as it is in the Alabama Room.

Image source: openverse

August 8, 2025 299 comments

Africa Diplomacy Donald Trump Economics Featured Free Trade International Trade The International Economy United States

Trump’s Misguided Tariffs: Collapsing African Economies and the Death of the African Growth and Opportunity Act

written by Chaitanya Kishore

On April 2, President Donald Trump announced tariffs on virtually every trading partner of the United States in what he called “Liberation Day.” He said the day would “forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn.” As part of Trump’s tariff plans, every American trading partner had a baseline 10% tariff imposed on their exports to the United States. Many countries also were hit with further tariffs beyond the 10% baseline. One of the hardest hit regions by the recently announced tariffs was sub-Saharan Africa. Countries in the region include Lesotho which was hit with a 50% tariff, Madagascar with a 47% tariff, Mauritius with a 40% tariff, Botswana with a 37% tariff, and South Africa with a 30% tariff.

On April 9, Trump announced that he was pausing most additional tariffs after the 10% baseline tariff for three months. However, if the tariffs are to go into effect, they will likely devastate the economies of numerous developing economies in sub-Saharan Africa. The impact will be even more amplified as African countries are still working to recover from the dismantling of USAID, which provided significant foreign aid to many African countries, by the Trump Administration. The tariffs on African countries will not only damage economies in Africa, but also raise prices of goods for American consumers.

Many economists agree that the formula used by the Trump administration to determine tariffs on American trading partners is faulty and misguided, which led to unnecessarily high tariffs on many countries. First, the tariffs were determined based on the U.S. trade deficit in goods, as opposed to actual tariffs imposed by American trading partners on the U.S. This move punishes smaller African countries such as Lesotho and Madagascar, which import less American goods than they export to the U.S.. Another issue is the U.S. trade deficit measure only considers manufactured goods, not services, which the U.S .exports more than it imports. If the trade deficit measure was calculated including services exported by the United States, it would decrease for nearly every country in the world the U.S. trades with. Additionally, in calculating the trade deficits, the Trump administration primarily relied on the retail prices of goods, as opposed to import prices as many economists have suggested. If this correction was applied to the formula, Lesotho should have had a tariff rate of 13.2% imposed instead of the 50% tariff rate that was actually announced.

Trump’s tariffs on countries in Africa also signal the likely end of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). AGOA was first implemented in 2000 and provides countries in sub-Saharan Africa duty-free access to American markets for thousands of products. AGOA was passed under President Bill Clinton and has been the centerpiece of American trade policy in sub-Saharan Africa for the past 25 years. Thirty five African countries are eligible for duty-free access under AGOA for goods such as motor vehicle parts, textiles, and agricultural products and AGOA has been credited for industrialization and job creation in these countries.

Support for AGOA in the United States has historically been bipartisan and renewed twice under Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic President Barack Obama. Many American politicians see the AGOA as a way to improve U.S. influence in the continent and to limit China’s influence in Africa. But, AGOA is set to expire this year in September. Although the Biden administration supported its renewal, it was unable to enact policies to renew AGOA. In light of Trump’s announced tariffs on many sub-Saharan African countries, the renewal of the AGOA seems highly unlikely, signaling the end of the act after 25 years. The end of AGOA is also coming at a time when China’s influence in the continent is growing and more African countries are entering into trade relations with China. Almost every country in sub-Saharan Africa is part of the Belt and Road Initiative and has taken on significant amounts of Chinese debt. If the United States ends AGOA and goes forth with its tariff plan, it will likely push more African countries to develop even stronger economic ties to China, which poses a threat to American trade.

An example of an African country whose economy will likely collapse if Trump’s tariffs are to take effect is Lesotho. The 50% tariff imposed on Lesotho is the highest rate out of all the countries in Africa. Trump has described Lesotho as a country “nobody has ever heard of.” The textile industry in Lesotho, which produces for brands like Levi’s jeans, is the country’s largest private employer and employs about 40,000 workers. Textiles also make up 90% of Lesotho’s exports and 45% of the country’s exports go to the U.S. The country’s exports to the United States are valued at close to $300 million and make up 10% of Lesotho’s GDP. The AGOA is also credited with supporting the growth of the textile industry in Lesotho and Lesotho is the fourth largest beneficiary of AGOA. The end of AGOA severely threatens Lesotho’s textile industry, the foundation of the country’s economy.

The unemployment rate in Lesotho was at 25% in 2023 and a significant portion of the population lives below the poverty line or lack access to basic education, health care, and clean water. Also, one in four adults in Lesotho have been infected by HIV, which is one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world. The tariffs on Lesotho will likely affect the country’s ability to respond to and will exacerbate the unemployment, poverty, and health crises facing the country. Because of the significant impact Trump’s tariffs will have on Lesotho’s textile industry, many economists predict that the tariffs will collapse the country’s entire economy. The tariffs will most likely lead to the closure of textile factories and a significant loss of jobs, worsening the country’s high unemployment. This will affect other industries in the country that rely on textile workers spending their money, such as retailers and property owners. If the textile industry collapses, Lesotho’s entire economy will likely collapse with it.

The negative effects of Trump’s tariffs will also impact American consumers since they will pay an additional price on unique African goods and crops from countries hit with tariffs. For example, Madagascar is one of the largest exporters of vanilla and American consumers buy more than a thousand tons of it annually. If Trump’s tariffs take effect, American consumers will likely see the price of vanilla rise drastically and may be forced to lessen their consumption of vanilla or use cheaper alternatives. Similarly, Botswana, one of the largest diamond exporters in the world, relies on trade with the U.S.for the sale of diamonds. American consumers will now pay higher prices on diamonds as well. Ivory Coast, which was hit by a 21% tariff, is the world’s largest exporter of cocoa, so Americans will also see prices rise for this good as well. South Africa also exports billions of dollars worth of vehicle parts to the United States, which may raise prices for American consumers and car manufacturers.

The Trump administration’s approach to trade policy in sub-Saharan Africa is greatly misguided and risky. The administration should reverse its tariff plan for sub-Saharan Africa, or at the very least significantly lower the tariff rate. It should also renew the AGOA before its expiry later this year. The high tariffs and the end of AGOA will likely collapse growing economies in Africa and reverse two and a half decades of economic progress and development. The death of AGOA will mostly benefit China’s position in Africa and allow it to develop even closer trade relations with more African countries.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

May 19, 2025 1,440 comments

President Trump standing in front of a large American flag.

Diplomacy Donald Trump International Law Vladimir Putin

Trump’s New World Order

written by Brianna Bell

Two days after Donald Trump won the United States presidential election in November, Russian president Vladimir Putin took the stage in Sochi, Russia. “In a sense,” he announced, “the moment of truth is coming.”

Now, over a month into Trump’s presidency, Putin’s declaration is taking on new meaning: the moment of truth is here, but it is here not just for Russia or the US. The ramifications of this moment of truth will reverberate on a global scale.

Trump is prioritizing might over diplomacy, and by doing so, he is effectively rewriting the rules of US diplomacy. In each new foreign policy action he has taken since the inauguration, he has revealed his “contempt for anything that looks like cooperation between the strong and the weak,” as journalist and novelist George Packer explains. This is the era of the strongman, and Trump has signaled a strong desire to rule like one. He has made clear that it is his view, just as it is Putin’s and Xi Jinping’s, that the most powerful countries should be able to determine the rules of the road, while smaller, less powerful countries have no choice but to listen and follow.

Accordingly, Trump has been flexing the US’s power from the moment he stepped into office. He has suspended aid to Ukraine; turned his back on Europe; ignited a trade war; sent asylum seekers escaping persecution in China, Iran, and Afghanistan to a remote camp in Panama; and threatened to annex Canada; bomb Mexico, buy Greenland; take over the Panama Canal; and “clean out” Gaza.

Through these actions, the US has taken a sledgehammer to its previous policy positions, alienated its allies, and lost much of its international credibility. And in exchange? Trump has garnered only trivial political gains and “great television.” Trump inherited a country of tremendous power, one underpinned by a set of strong alliances and the world’s largest economy. Now, through his actions, he is taking it apart.

On the international front, this is dangerous for three main reasons.

First, by estranging the US’s allies, Trump is chipping away at the country’s position as a dominant world leader, which will eventually undermine its influence in international affairs. Trump has created artificial crises in relations with both Denmark and Canada, two of the US’s closest allies for over 80 years. In doing so, as historian and professor Timothy Snyder contends, he has created a “bloodily moronic situation in which the United States will have to fight wars to get the things that, just a few weeks ago, were there for the asking.” Trump’s claim that the US should absorb Canada and Greenland in no way benefits the US. Instead, as French center-right politician Claude Malhuret argues, he is only proving to Denmark, Canada, and the US’s allies at large that “being his ally serves no purpose, as he will not defend you.” Without strong and dependable allies, the US’s influence wanes. Trump is therefore working the US into what has the potential to be a very tight spot: fighting meaningless battles while cut off from long-standing security advancements and diminished in international importance.

Second, Trump’s actions are likely to harm America’s long-term security. Trump has instigated a strategic surrender to Putin in an attempt to end the Ukraine war, preemptively ceding crucial and long-held positions to Moscow because he wants “to see it end fast.” Prioritizing speed, he is not considering the costs of such a deal. Putin’s ambitions go beyond Ukraine, and he is not negotiating in good faith. He has made it abundantly clear that he aims to establish a new, dominant position for Russia in Europe. A deal with Trump is not going to sway him from this goal. Therefore, Trump’s haste to reach a deal – practically granting Putin everything he wishes – will imperil Europe and make Russia a more assertive and attractive ally to the US’s adversaries around the world.

Third, Trump is rewriting international norms and expectations – and not in a good way. Jon Favreau, political commentator and former speechwriter for President Barack Obama, points out that the world has been watching every move Trump has made. As Trump has threatened to take over Canada and Greenland, demeaned Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and ceded to Putin, “all the bad actors in the world” have been watching and realizing that “Trump and the United States aren’t going to step in” if they decide to do something similar.

Consequently, this is the emerging picture of the world order: international relations and foreign policy are no longer being determined by multilateral rules and institutions. Instead, they will be decided by strongmen and business-esque deals. Former MI6 chief Alex Younger says that this is “Donald Trump’s mindset, certainly Putin’s mindset [and] Xi Jinping’s mindset.” The post-World War II world order has held for 80 years, managing to stave off wars among the great powers. But now it’s collapsing. Norms are being ignored, allies turned against, and might now makes right.

“A serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order,” Putin said in Sochi. Malhuret described it as a “war.” This is the moment of truth. What happens over the next months and years of Trump’s presidency will have far-reaching consequences that will change fundamental aspects of the US’s international relations, as well as geopolitics more broadly. The new world order is turning the previous one on its head, but this is a change – an irreconcilable struggle, a war – that will not happen quietly. “We were at war with a dictator,” said Malhuret on Europe’s stand against Putin. “Now we are at war with a dictator backed by a traitor.”

April 3, 2025 344 comments

Authoritarianism Diplomacy Featured Russia Security and Conflict United States Vladimir Putin

What August’s Prison Swap Indicates About Future U.S.-Russian Relations

written by Josephine Murphy

In the wake of major Russian political dissident Alexei Navalny’s death in February, a prisoner swap between the United States and Russia seemed unlikely—even impossible—to most. August 1st, 2024 proved to be a turning point, however, when 16 prisoners were released from Russian captivity. This was a shock to many, especially since articles published even two weeks prior to the swap’s occurrence expressed uncertainty about when a prisoner swap may occur. The surprise exchange has set forth in motion conversations regarding a potentially less strained relationship between the U.S. and Russia, as well as ushering in the question of what’s next for the prisoners left behind; August’s prison swap was the largest swap between Russia and the U.S. since the Cold War.

Navalny rose to the global spotlight for his opposition of President Vladimir Putin in 2011, holding a significant presence as Putin’s main political opponent who lost a bid for Mayor of Moscow in 2013. Navalny was subsequently barred from running in the 2018 election in Russia due to falsified embezzlement charges. He survived a poisoning by Soviet nerve agent in 2020, recovered in Germany, and returned to Russia in 2021, where he was immediately detained. He was subsequently given years upon years in sentences and imprisoned, and ultimately died this February in a remote Siberian Prison.

Negotiations for the August prisoner swap have been in motion since late 2022, around the time American basketball player Britney Griner was released from Russian custody in exchange for Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, who has since returned to the arms market. This was the last prisoner swap to include Russian spies since the beginning of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. However, there have been many roadblocks, such as Nalvalny’s significance to both sides creating a stalemate that effectively stalled negotiations after his death. Thus, his death stalled the negotiations significantly, with the West losing steam. For Russia, the release of assassin and Putin-ally Vadim Krasikov was non-negotiable, something that the U.S.’ allies struggled to grapple with, creating further hesitation by the West.

Among those released on the American side included Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, whose imprisonment under false claims of espionage in early 2023 sparked the hashtag “#FreeEvan,” and former Marine Paul Whelan, who was held in Russia for over five years due to claims of spying and previously expressed his outrage at being left behind in past exchanges, such as the Griner exchange. Many U.S. nationals have been detained under false claims of espionage and false or exaggerated drug charges, yet the exact number of those currently left in custody remains unknown due to Russian secrecy—something at the core of Russian governing and diplomacy.

Despite the unknown number of individuals left behind, the families of those known to be detained by Russian authorities have been very outspoken in expressing their disdain. Many have criticized the release of a large number of non-Americans in an American-led swap and the length of their relatives’ detainment. In a time where the U.S government has often been criticized for its over-involvement in foreign affairs, particularly when it comes to Israel and Ukraine, only three of the 16 individuals released being American contributed heavily to this sentiment. For instance, the family of Mark Fogel, a teacher still being held on marijuana possession charges, said in a statement, “This fight has been met not with support and understanding, but with stonewalling, double standards, and—today—abandoning Marc to die in prison for less than an ounce of medical marijuana prescribed to manage his severe decades-long spinal disease.” The U.S. government is currently facing a major change in administration, and with this likely will come a change in the relationship between U.S. and Russia, creating greater uncertainty around the future of each of the imprisoned.

Given the long negotiation period and secrecy surrounding the Russian prison swap, there is so much uncertainty that has largely left these families and American nationals with little-to-no hope. One detainee’s boyfriend has been left to wonder if “her trial came too late and she was left behind.” However, to help these families cope with the detainments and help bring their loved ones home, the first step and often most challenging step is obtaining an official designation of “wrongly detained.” Even once that is established, countries such as Russia simply do not care about the status of their imprisonments, as they are inherently undemocratic nations.

The future goals that the U.S. should set are simultaneously clear yet complicated. In order to help the U.S. prisoners and mitigate future damage to the political image of the U.S. on a foreign policy level, there must be some level of commitment to prisoners of other nations, as international cooperation has proved necessary in every successful exchange with Russia thus far. However, at the same time, there must be an emphasis on the freedom of American prisoners in order to prevent further outrage from families and to help reaffirm the commitment of the U.S. to its own citizens during its negotiations. Most of all, it must always be emphasized that in negotiations with Russia, foreign diplomacy is the foremost factor over the law itself.

Image source: Wikimedia commons

January 14, 2025 322 comments

China Diplomacy Donald Trump

BRICS Is Growing, But Its Future Remains Uncertain

written by Zack Apt

President-elect Donald Trump’s recent tweet threatening a 100% tariff on BRICS nations comes at a pivotal moment in the group’s history. BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) was created sixteen years ago by Russian President Vladimir Putin to create a counterweight to the Western-dominated financial and political order. At the 16th BRICS Conference held in Kazan, Russia welcomed four new members: Iran, the UAE, Egypt, and Ethiopia. The threat of tariffs, if countries choose to abandon the dollar, provides an insight into the strategy for countering the growing organization, which demonstrates the expanded role it will play in the global future. While BRICS is unlikely to overtake the liberal international order, the inevitable multipolarity calls for a reevaluation of US-led institutions and deeper engagement with critical developing regions.

BRICS aims to increase economic opportunities for developing nations in the Global South by coordinating trade deals and creating an alternate currency for global trade. The organization created new financial institutions such as the New Development Bank (NDB), which President Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping hope will compete against the World Bank. While this is unlikely in the near term, BRICS has proved effective in evading Western sanctions and can provide an effective alternative trading system. New members such as the UAE and Iran are notable due to their large oil and energy exports (increasing BRICS global oil share to 44%) and the increase of prominent African nations in the organization is a sign of a shifting continent. The members also presented a list of 13 ‘partner countries’ including Indonesia, Bolivia, and Nigeria, indicating a growing reach in the Global South. Leaders such as President Xi and President Putin have been explicit about the goal of BRICS: to create a multipolar world in which America and the dollar are not singularly dominant in global finance and international relations.

Russia’s push for BRICS expansion reflects its reliance on the bloc to counteract the impact of Western sanctions. British policymakers recently warned that the realization of a BRICS alternative currency “would make it impossible for the West to impose sanctions on countries like Russia, China, and Iran”. Western sanctions are levied on a variety of behaviors, but if the main three adversaries (Russia, China, Iran) are immune to sanctions, they are essentially given a free pass to continue acting with impunity. Even without a BRICS financial system, Russia’s economy has not weakened to the extent experts predicted following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Russia surpassed expected growth in 2024 by 0.4% due to its ability to find alternative trading partners for oil export. As BRICS expands and adds nations adversarial to the US, the rise in sanction evasion reduces the US’ ability to enforce its version of international law.

China’s growing prominence on the international stage and decades-long desire to dethrone the US is reflected in its active role in expanding BRICS. Through this forum, China is undeniably a dominant global player who oversees the burgeoning world order as Western institutions decay. China must note how Russia has swiftly avoided the threat of Western sanctions through BRICS as it eyes a potential invasion of Taiwan. A strengthened BRICS means their sphere of influence grows with the hope that reliance on the US diminishes in the long term. As China continues its unprecedented non-wartime military buildup, BRICS increases reliance on the Chinese economy and makes middle powers hesitant to oppose potential Chinese aggression. Russia and China undeniably seek to use BRICS to reshape the global order and dethrone the US, though it remains to be seen whether the heterogeneous group they assembled seeks the same.

A key country to watch as BRICS grows is India, which has proven uniquely effective in walking the tightrope between the East and West. As an original member, India’s global influence has grown in recent years as China and the US have increasingly courted their support. While its recent surge in trade with Russia, particularly in oil imports, has helped Moscow evade sanctions and bolstered BRICS’ position against Western pressure, India’s trade relationships with the US remain indispensable. The US is India’s largest trading partner, with a diversified portfolio of exports including IT services, pharmaceuticals, and textiles. President Biden solidified the status of “The Quad”, an intelligence-sharing organization that incorporates India into Western security-related institutions. However, Trump’s threat of tariffs could force Modi’s hand, reducing his ability to balance relations between BRICS and the West. As the animosity between the US and BRICS intensifies, India’s ability to act as a stabilizing force in global geopolitics will be critical in determining the trajectory of this competition. As the US builds relations with India, it remains to be seen whether it is a transactional effort to grow economically or a deliberate effort to draw India deeper into Western institutions. This dual reliance underscores India’s challenge in navigating an increasingly polarised global order and will be an indicator of geopolitical winds.

The incorporation of prominent African nations into BRICS is a telltale sign that the West is losing influence in Africa. China aggressively courted the African continent through its Belt and Road Initiative, investing heavily in Egypt and Ethiopia. Russian proposals have bolstered Africa’s economic outlook through the development of power plants, favorable bilateral trade deals, and the promise of global leadership. The UN Secretary-General recently stated that “no African countries had a seat at the table during the creation of Bretton Woods”, implying that the new world order would be created with the needs of the Global South at the forefront. Many African nations view Russia and China as good faith actors compared to the old global order tainted by colonialism and slavery. Public opinion in Africa shifted to favor China over the US for the first time in decades, as the US fails to match the Chinese efforts to modernize Africa. These worrying signs reiterate the obvious: the US must articulate a compelling vision for African partnership that prioritizes development and collaboration, or risk being left behind in shaping the continent’s dynamic future.

Despite undeniable progress, BRICS remains undecided on its identity as an organization. There is a clear split between middle powers who seek to benefit from both West and East, and burgeoning superpowers who want to create a rival global system. Members of BRICS range from monarchies (UAE and Iran) to democracies (South Africa, India, and Brazil) to autocratic regimes (China and Russia), creating a lack of shared values and varied obligations to public opinion. In addition, China’s slumping economy may give pause to member countries who joined on the assumption that China can compete against and surpass the American economy. Member nations disagree on significant topics, such as the war in Ukraine or UN Security Council reforms. It appears each nation utilizes the ambiguity of BRICS to improve its own geopolitical standing without consistent and shared values, calling its long-term viability into question.

The US must improve institutions and conditions for Global South nations to slow the momentum of BRICS. They can begin by improving trade relationships with middle powers such as India and Egypt, and formalizing trade deals in Africa. US trade with Africa was cut in half between 2010 and 2017, and is among the lowest trading partners of the continent. Since 2006, the US dropped from having 130 major trading partners to just 49 in 2021. The US must use its economy as an asset to assist development projects and create lasting trading partners in critical regions such as Africa and Latin America where it is losing influence. The US should also look to the future and formalize AI governance rules that safeguard democracy as technology continues to dominate crucial industries. By assuring countries that they take this issue seriously and will assist in the proper implementation and security of AI, the US will gain credibility in the future. Finally, the US should re-engage with crucial partners in the BRICS sphere as it has done with India. These steps can effectively counter BRICS by providing legitimate reasons to deepen relations with the US beyond punitive measures.

If recent social media posts are any indication, a confrontation between BRICS and the West is imminent, and the US needs to be careful not to respond in a manner that self-fulfills the prophecy China dispels. An effective American foreign policy to counter BRICS must involve strengthening global institutions to provide more economic opportunity for developing nations in Africa, the Indo-Pacific, and Latin America. The instinct to sanction BRICS nations into compliance is a counterproductive step that ignores the causes behind BRICS expansion. The US must revamp the existing international order to fit the needs of developing countries, or they will be successfully persuaded by China. The dollar will not be dethroned anytime soon, but the growing influence of China and Russia must be countered with better solutions, not only tariffs and threats.

December 23, 2024 314 comments

Diplomacy Sports

Basketball Diplomacy: The International Impact of the NBA

written by Charlie Donlan

I. Introduction

The Most Valuable Player award in the National Basketball Association, a league that has historically been dominated by players born in the United States, has been awarded to a foreign-born player in each of the past six seasons. The rising globalization of sports in the 21^st century is not unique to basketball, as similar trends have emerged in baseball, soccer, and across the landscape of sports. Given the trend of sports globalization, two questions are raised: (1) What caused the rapid rate of globalization we are experiencing in the 21^st century, and (2) What implications does the globalization of sports have on international relations?

II. Shifting NBA Demographics as a Reflection of the Times

The globalization of the NBA began with the players themselves, who then generated shifts in fanbases. The NBA consisted of almost entirely American-born players up until the early 1980s when players like Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing entered the league. Although players like Ewing and Olajuwon achieved historic success and broke down barriers for international players to follow, they rose to stardom through the American collegiate basketball system before entering the league. This was a common theme for most foreign-born players in the NBA up until the late 1990s and early 2000s.

In 1994, the NBA appointed David Stern as the league commissioner; he would serve for the next 20 years. Stern understood the importance of expanding the NBA’s influence abroad more than anyone who held the position before him. Stern made his position on the NBA’s expansion very clear, saying, “There are 250 million potential NBA fans in the U.S., and there are 5 billion outside the U.S. … We like those numbers.” The new commissioner not only set ambitious goals for the league going forward but also delivered on them.

Following the appointment of David Stern as commissioner in the 1990s, the NBA used several strategic policies in order to encourage global expansion. One of these policies included giving international players who come from countries with large consumer markets, like China, preferential treatment and payment. In 2001, the NBA helped create the Basketball Without Borders program, which seeks to develop young international talent by holding camps for players age 18 and younger from all over the world. These camps include basketball training sessions as well as seminars and workshops teaching campers important life skills. The NBA, heavily invested in finding the next generation of basketball talent, is simultaneously helping the international youth develop skills that will make them successful off the court.

The growth of the NBA’s international player pool beginning in the late 1990s was seemingly exponential. The 1998-1999 season saw 30 international players on NBA rosters. Just two years later, the number of foreign-born NBA players had nearly doubled to 57, and by the 2007-2008 season, that number had nearly doubled again to 109 players. Finally, the most recent season saw 125 international players from 40 different countries represented on NBA opening-night rosters. Clearly, there has been a steep upward trend in the NBA’s international player presence since the turn of the century.

In order to understand how this rapid globalization of sports has occurred, it is important to analyze these trends in the broader context of the international political economy. In the early 1980s, around the same time that the NBA first began to expand globally, the political and economic doctrines of neoliberalism were adopted by several Western leaders. Neoliberalism is an extreme form of free market capitalism that was pioneered by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s and involved reducing government regulation and other barriers to international trade. While critics point out the detrimental impacts these economic policies have had on the developing world, neoliberalism gave corporations, like the NBA, financial incentives to expand overseas.

III. The “Soft Power” Achieved on the Court

The globalization of the NBA has given the United States an incredibly valuable platform to display the country’s excellence on the world stage. There are countless examples of nations boasting their military power, technological advancement, resource abundance, or wealth in order to show their superiority or strength internationally. However, the NBA functions as a more unconventional diplomatic tool for the United States to advance its foreign policy standing through “soft power.” The idea of “soft power” is when countries use persuasive strategies that glorify certain aspects of their culture in order to spread their influence. While the aforementioned “conventional” strategies of diplomacy involve coercive methods meant to demonstrate disparities between countries, the strategies of “soft power” often invoke acceptance and camaraderie through the celebration of cultural excellence. This is nowhere more evident than in the growth in international recognition of NBA stars.

The “soft power” associated with the NBA can largely be traced back to the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona. Up until 1992, the United States was not allowed to send NBA players to the Olympic Games, which had long been considered a competition for amateur athletes. After a disappointing performance from the United States Men’s National Team in the 1988 games, there was a push for the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) to level the playing field and allow NBA players to compete against professionals from other countries. When FIBA voted to allow NBA players to compete in the 1992 Olympic Games, the stage was set for the NBA to be displayed in front of an international audience. The 1992 United States Men’s Olympic Basketball Team, otherwise known as the “Dream Team,” will go down in history as one of the greatest sports teams ever assembled. Comprised of some of the biggest stars the NBA has ever seen, including Michael Jordan, the “Dream Team” went on to win the gold medal at the 1992 Olympics and set a precedent of basketball excellence that is associated with the NBA today.

The influence of the “Dream Team” went beyond just basketball. The worldwide recognition of the NBA stars on the “Dream Team” was utilized by the United States to advance its cultural influence abroad. In 2023, Dirk Nowitski, Pau Gasol, and Tony Parker, widely considered to be three of the most influential international players of all time, were inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame. All three of these players credit the performance of the “Dream Team” at the 1992 Olympic Games as an inspiration to pursue their dreams of being in the NBA. The German basketball legend Dirk Nowitski explains the impact of the 1992 Olympic U.S. Men’s Basketball team on his career: “I had just started playing basketball in ’90, ’91…I was about 12, 13. I was just starting to be an NBA fan. MJ just won his first championship in ’91. Then, ’92 happens, and I remember I was watching every game. It had a huge impact on me, and I wanted to be like these guys, and I wanted to be in the NBA. That was a huge moment.” Just like Nowitski grew up idolizing NBA greats like Michael Jordan, a whole generation of young athletes grew up idolizing Nowitski. In 2013, the Oklahoma City Thunder’s German point guard Dennis Schröder commented on Dirk’s impact on his generation of players, saying “I think every player, every German player, looks up to him.” Clearly, the impact of the “Dream Team” on young people in the early 1990s started a chain reaction. Young people from all corners of the world will continue to draw inspiration from the greatness of NBA players, especially players who represent their home country. The “soft power” of basketball has created an interest in the now global National Basketball Association.

IV. The NBA as a Catalyst for the Spread of American Ideals

Not only did the globalization of the NBA increase international interest in American sports culture, but it also added new consumers to the American capitalist economy. Following the 1992 Olympic Games, Michael Jordan became a household name and a global commodity in his own right. Jordan was marketed alongside iconic American brands like Nike, Coca Cola, and McDonald’s, which essentially monetized his excellence on the court for the benefit of the United States economy. By associating its stars with huge multinational corporations in the food, beverage, and apparel industries, the NBA was able to create a marketing system that pushed American consumerism into untapped markets.

The NBA also markets its star athletes to international audiences in order to push the idea that the American dream is achievable through sports. A great example of this kind of marketing is Nike’s 2019 ad celebrating Giannis Antetokounmpo, an NBA superstar from Greece and the MVP of the league that season. The ad uses images and video footage to depict Giannis’ rise from when he “lived in a single room with his entire family” to being “crowned the 2019 MVP.” The ad ends with the words, “It’s only crazy until you do it,” followed by Nike’s signature slogan, “Just do it.” The marketing strategies used in commercials like this attempt to disseminate the idea that the NBA, like America, is a meritocracy where hard work is rewarded no matter where you come from. Regardless of whether these appeals to the international community’s hope for a better life are motivated by corporate profits, the message encourages people to better themselves. Clearly, there is a way for the capitalist system to simultaneously serve business interests and the betterment of humanity.

The NBA has even been able to build diplomatic bridges with countries that are considered adversaries to American democracy. One such country is North Korea. In 2015, a group of American basketball players, including NBA legend Dennis Rodman, were invited to participate in a “foreign sports exchange program” in Pyongyang. The trip included an exhibition game with mixed teams consisting of Harlem Globetrotters and members of the North Korean Men’s National Basketball Team playing alongside one another. More importantly, the game was observed by thousands of North Korean fans, including the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, who was seated next to Dennis Rodman for the entirety of the game. Following the game, Dennis Rodman spoke to the crowd and declared that while the United States and North Korea may not be “on good terms,” he considers Kim Jong Un a “friend for life.” The North Korean dictator even invited the group of Americans to dinner afterwards, where he and other North Korean ministers expressed their hopes that the exchange would “promote understanding between the peoples of the two countries.” While the legitimacy of the North Korean leader’s words are often brought into question, the camaraderie shared by the players on the court cannot be denied. The fact that a former NBA player and two Harlem Globetrotters were the first Americans to ever meet a dictator who stands as one of America’s biggest ideological adversaries is a testament to basketball’s unique ability to transcend politics.

V. The Future of the NBA and Sports Diplomacy

In the 21^st century, we are just now seeing the full effects of the globalization that began with the rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s. The NBA’s goals of expansion, which first began to show results in the early 1990s, continue to gain support from the international community. The increasing success of foreign players in the past 20 years is a testament to the NBA’s investment in developing international talent. The more basketball infrastructure and development programs that are created internationally, the more the NBA’s talent pool will continue to grow.

As the NBA and the sport of basketball continue to grow in popularity, the mixing of diverse cultures will become more and more salient. In order to continue advancing American foreign policy interests throughout the 21^stcentury, the United States should continue to invest in global sports development. Not only does international sports development grow the American economy, but it also provides a common ground for people of all different backgrounds to come together. Unlike international competitions over geopolitical, military, or technological power, the competitions that take place on the basketball court have a level playing field where everyone is subject to the same rules. Ultimately, sports bring out the best in people, and fostering international inclusion brings out the best in sports.

Image source: Unsplash

October 28, 2024 346 comments

Diplomacy Featured Guest Article United States

From Silence to Solidarity: United States Public Diplomacy in Response to Genocide in the 20th Century

written by thegeneration

By Sariah Perera, University of Southern California

Introduction: Genocide and Public Diplomacy

Genocide is a human creation – both the action and the word itself. In 1948, Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew and international lawyer, coined the phrase “genocide” to describe the atrocities committed against Jews in Nazi Germany. Lemkin would go on to secure the passage of the first United Nations human rights treaty to ban the newly defined crime of genocide. Genocide, as an act, however, has stained human history long before the formal definition was established. One of the earliest recorded instances is the Assyrian Empire’s brutal campaigns in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, involving mass killings, forced relocations, and widespread cultural destruction. Throughout human history, conquerors, colonizers, and regimes have engaged in the systematic extermination of indigenous or minority populations, such as the widespread Mongol invasions and European colonization of the Americas. While the term “genocide” was not coined until the mid-20th century, significant precursor events include the Armenian Genocide during World War I, where the Ottoman Empire orchestrated mass killings of its Armenian minority population, and the Holocaust during World War II, in which Nazi Germany systematically exterminated a population of six million Jewish civilians and five million Poles, Roma, homosexuals, political opponents, and others.

In the aftermath of the devastating carnage of the mid-20th century, the diplomatic community found itself at a crossroads, grappling with the undeniable reality that violence and death are integral to the human story. The echoes of two world wars reverberated across the global human consciousness. A collective commitment emerged as nations surveyed the smoldering ruins and contemplated the irrevocable toll on humanity. The aftermath of World War II witnessed the birth of a new era in international cooperation – the United Nations. Conceived as a bastion of hope and an embodiment of shared responsibility, the United Nations became the crucible in which the world’s leaders sought to forge a more just and harmonious future. In this spirit, the United Nations Geneva Conventions emerged as a testament to the commitment to mitigate the horrors of armed conflicts, establishing fundamental principles to safeguard the lives and dignity of civilians and combatants alike. However, perhaps one of the most poignant responses to the atrocities of World War II was encapsulated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, creating a resolute international legal framework. The Convention defined genocide as a crime under international law, binding ratifying nations to prevent and punish acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

As the United Nations and its associated conventions crystallized, the stage was set for a global community united in purpose, poised to intervene and protect the inherent dignity of every individual, irrespective of their origin or identity. After World War II, however, Iraq targeted its Kurdish minority during the Iran-Iraq war; Bosnian Serbs set out to destroy Muslims and Croats during a Balkan civil war; and Rwandan Hutu nationalists exterminated roughly 800,000 Tutsi civilians amidst a civil war against a Tutsi rebel force. The continuous existence of genocide threatens the legitimacy of public diplomacy by compromising moral credibility, diminishing trust, and undermining a nation’s advocacy for human rights. Genocide – and the inability of the global community to condemn or stop genocide – stains a country’s image, eroding its soft power and diplomatic effectiveness, as it raises questions about its commitment to shared global values and collaborative efforts against mass atrocities. Within this historical backdrop, it is essential to navigate the complexities of United States public diplomacy in the face of genocide, scrutinizing the fidelity to these noble ideals and the intricate dance between rhetoric and action on the international stage. Through analyzing case studies of mass atrocities in Armenia, Cambodia, and Rwanda and the subsequent United States public diplomacy response, it is possible to formulate a comprehensive strategy to prevent and address genocidal atrocities in the 21^st century.

The Armenian Genocide (1915-1923)

In 1915, the Young Turks presided over the killing by firing squad, bayoneting, bludgeoning, and starvation of nearly one million Armenians. Mehmed Talaat, the former Turkish interior minister, and the Young Turks justified the “deportation” of Armenians by asserting its imperative to quash Armenian revolts – a facade for the desired eradication of the Armenian minority in the Ottoman Empire. The international community, loosely established at the time, did not widely condemn the Ottoman horrors. Still, Britain and France, who were opposed to the Ottoman Empire during World War I, publicized the atrocities of the Armenian genocide. The British Foreign Office meticulously searched for and published photographs of massacre victims and Armenian refugees. Since Britain was already at war with the Ottoman Empire, many British officials believed the most efficient way to end the atrocities would be to defeat the German-Austrian-Turkish alliance. On May 24, 1915, the Allied governments delivered a joint declaration that took the unprecedented step of condemning “crimes against humanity and civilization.” The declaration further warned the members of the Turkish government that they would be held “personally responsible” for the massacres.

During World War I, the United States was determined to maintain its neutrality in the global conflict and refused to join the Allied declaration. President Woodrow Wilson chose not to formally protest or pressure either the Turks or their German backers under the justification that the Turks had not violated the rights of any Americans. Within the Ottoman Empire, however, the United States Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr., responded to the Ottoman deportation and slaughter of its Armenian minority by urging Washington to condemn the Ottoman Empire and pressure Germany. Morgenthau defied diplomatic convention by personally protesting the atrocities, denouncing the regime, and raising money for humanitarian relief. He was joined by former President Theodore Roosevelt, who went a step further, calling on the administration of Woodrow Wilson to enter World War I and forcibly stop the slaughter. However, the United States’ foreign policy remained committed to neutrality and insisted that the Ottomans’ internal affairs were of little concern to the American public. An estimated one million Armenians were murdered or died of disease and starvation as a result.

American media, however, gave Ottoman atrocities steady coverage. The New York Times published 145 stories in 1915, speaking of Ottoman “massacres” and “atrocities” against Armenians. These reports relayed accounts from missionaries, Red Cross officials, local religious leaders, and survivors of the mass atrocities, creating a multifaceted account of the crimes and garnering American awareness and support for condemnation. Viscount Bryce, former British ambassador to the United States, pleaded that the United States use its influence, stating, “If anything can stop the destroying hand of the Turkish Government, it will be an expression of the opinion of neutral nations, chiefly the judgment of humane America.” As casualties rose, the United States maintained its neutrality with the Ottoman Empire, even after entering the war against Germany in April 1917. In the end, Turkey broke off ties with the United States.

The lack of immediate public diplomacy efforts from the United States established a pattern that would be repeated. Throughout the remainder of the 20^th century, the United States would constantly remain reluctant to cast aside its neutrality and formally denounce a state for mass atrocities until after the crimes had been committed. From a diplomacy standpoint, the United States wavered in its legitimacy as a global advocate for human rights. In the aftermath of World War I, the United States engaged in numerous diplomatic and public advocacy efforts to address the Armenian Genocide and seek accountability for war crimes committed by the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 included provisions for prosecuting Ottoman officials responsible for atrocities, but geopolitical shifts and the Turkish War of Independence led to the abandonment of this treaty. The King-Crane Commission, appointed by President Woodrow Wilson, highlighted the Armenian Genocide and recommended international measures for justice. Public awareness campaigns, congressional resolutions, and the presentation of evidence during the Paris Peace Conference underscored the United States’ commitment to acknowledging and addressing the genocide. However, the complex geopolitical landscape hindered immediate justice, and it would take decades for the international community, including the United States, to formally recognize the Armenian Genocide.

In April 1981, over sixty years after the Ottoman atrocities toward Armenians, President Ronald Reagan issued a proclamation marking Holocaust Remembrance Day. In that proclamation, Reagan referenced the Armenian atrocities, using the term “genocide” to describe the tragic events; he said, “Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it – and like too many other such persecutions of too many other peoples – the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.” Reagan’s use of the term “genocide” in this context was a significant moment as it marked a formal recognition of the Armenian genocide by a sitting president. It laid the groundwork for subsequent discussions and efforts toward official recognition. More recently, in April 2021, President Biden’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide marked a significant moment in the ongoing debate over historical accountability. While carefully phrased, acknowledging the Ottoman authorities’ role, the statement unequivocally labeled the events as genocide, aligning with President Reagan’s similar usage in 1981. This move was unsurprising given the 2019 Congressional recognition of the Armenian genocide and the strained diplomatic relations between the United States and Turkey. Ostensibly grounded in human rights, these declarations often serve as strategic moves in the geopolitical chessboard, serving as diplomatic tools to reconcile accountability.

Public diplomacy initiatives in the United States regarding the Armenian Genocide encompass a range of projects aimed at raising awareness, fostering understanding, and commemorating the historical tragedy. Organizations such as the Armenian National Institute and the Armenian Genocide Museum of America actively contribute to the diplomatic aim of awareness and accountability through educational materials, exhibits, and events across the United States. The Armenian Assembly of America engages in advocacy efforts and organizes briefings to promote Armenian-American issues, including genocide recognition. Various documentary films, such as “Intent to Destroy” and “The Promise,” serve as powerful tools for reaching diverse audiences and creating public opinion through visual storytelling. Efforts to include the Armenian Genocide in school curricula, such as the “Teaching the Armenian Genocide” program, contribute to domestic educational diplomacy within the United States. The Congressional Armenian Caucus, composed of American lawmakers, plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion through briefings, statements, and resolutions on Capitol Hill. Social media campaigns, annual commemorations on April 24^th, and the active engagement of Armenian-American communities further contribute to the multifaceted landscape of public diplomacy initiatives, shaping perceptions and fostering continued dialogue on the Armenian Genocide. United States public diplomacy regarding the Armenian genocide centered on post-crime accountability as opposed to real-time condemnation.

Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian Genocide (1975-1979)

The genocide in Cambodia occurred in the backdrop of the Cold War and the steadfast American desire to quash the spread of communism around the world. In Cambodia, two wars preceded the mass atrocities, the United States war in Vietnam and a subsequent civil war in Cambodia. The Cambodian genocide, orchestrated by the Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime from 1975 to 1979, resulted in the mass killing of an estimated two million civilians. For nearly four years, the Khmer Rouge rendered Cambodia off the grid, making it impossible for outsiders to enter and allow media outlets to accurately report on the atrocities, resulting in the deaths of almost two million Cambodians. The United States’ public diplomacy response followed a similar pattern as in the Armenian genocide. In advance of the seizure of Phnom Penh, numerous early warning signs of the organization’s brutality were met with unfilled hope for a natural resolution. The Khmer Rouge sealed the country after their victory, delaying and misrepresenting the international reporting and opinion of their atrocities. However, even after the facts had emerged, United States foreign policy was once again poised towards non-engagement and non-condemnation.

The public diplomacy and foreign policy response from the United States is widely intertwined with its historical role in the region in the decade prior. In Vietnam, the United States intended to prevent South Vietnam from becoming Communist; however, massive American casualties and American brutality strengthened domestic opposition to the war. In 1968, as coverage of the My Lai massacre revealed American use of defoliants and napalm, American lives, as well as honor, were being lost in Vietnam. When President Richard Nixon took office, he expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia, pointing to sanctuary being provided to North Vietnamese units in Cambodian territory. In March 1969, Nixon ordered American B-52s to begin bombing Cambodia. The operation was nicknamed “Operation Breakfast” after the setting in which National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and U.S. military advisors drafted their bombing plans. The mission was kept top secret for fear of domestic protest, now begging the question as to whether these bombing plans constitute war crimes under international law. The incursion into Cambodia had nothing to do with Cambodians but rather the United States’ position regarding the war in Vietnam. Cambodia’s civil war, a conflict in which the genocidal Khmer Rouge would win, would also mark this violence. Still, between March 1969 and August 1973, United States military planes dropped 540,000 tons of bombs in the Cambodian countryside, resulting in the deaths of countless Cambodian civilians.

In February 1974, Kenneth Quinn, a United States foreign service officer, sent Washington a detailed report entitled “The Khmer Krahom [Rogue] Program to Create a Communist Society in Southern Cambodia.” In this forty-five-page report, Quinn wrote, “The [Khmer Rogue] programs have much in common with those of totalitarian regimes in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, particularly regarding efforts to psychologically reconstruct individual members of society.” Quinn’s reporting was unique from that of his State Department colleagues because, at the time, United States government officials rarely interviewed refugees and instead relied on official government sources. Ultimately, Quinn’s reports were never heeded.

When the Ford administration started citing “very factual evidence of the bloodbath” years later, the credibility of the United States had already faltered. Nixon and Kissinger had carpet-bombed Cambodia and tainted the reputation of United States foreign policy in Southeast Asia. The American public had learned to dismiss what it considered official rumor-mongering and anti-Communist propaganda as a consequence of the Cold War. In the United States, media and editorial neglect regarding Cambodia resulted from “Southeast Asia fatigue,” making the decline in Cambodian coverage directly impact American public opinion – or lack of opinion. As a result, it would be nearly two years before most would acknowledge that the reports of mass atrocities and “bloodbath” were accurate, delaying the public diplomacy response until after the atrocities had concluded.

In response to the genocide in Cambodia orchestrated by the Khmer Rouge regime from 1975-1979, the United States engaged in various public diplomacy initiatives to address the humanitarian crisis. The United States government condemned the Khmer Rouge’s brutality and inhumane actions, with President Jimmy Carter expressing concern over human rights abuses, crimes against humanity, and mass killings. Public statements, including speeches and press releases, aimed to raise awareness about the atrocities and urged the international community to take restorative action. Additionally, the United States contributed significant humanitarian aid to assist survivors, particularly in the form of food assistance, medical support, and refugee relocation programs. United States diplomatic efforts included pushing for independent investigations into the genocide in Cambodia and advocating for accountability on the international stage – ranging from Amnesty International to the United Nations. Today, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum hosts a special exhibition on the heinous reign of the Khmer Rogue in Cambodia. While the overall public diplomacy response faced challenges due to the lingering impact of the Vietnam War, these specific initiatives demonstrated a commitment to addressing the Cambodian genocide on both humanitarian and diplomatic fronts.

The Rwandan Genocide (April 1994- July 1994)

In December 1990, the Hutu newspaper Kangura published its “Ten Commandments of the Hutu,” resembling Hitler’s Nuremberg laws and the Bosnian Serbs’ 1992 edicts. The commandments included divisive and inflammatory statements towards the Tutsi population in Rwanda, claiming “every Tutsi is dishonest in business,” all positions of power “should be entrusted to Hutu,” and “the Hutu should stop having mercy on the Tutsi.” In addition, the precursors of the Rwandan genocide witnessed the appalling role of media manipulation through the infamous Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM). RTLM played a central role in spreading hate propaganda, fueling ethnic tensions, and inciting violence against the Tutsi population. The radio station, known for its extremist broadcasts, dehumanized Tutsis, encouraged mass killings, and served as a tool for coordination among perpetrators. The broadcasts not only fueled the intensity of the genocide but also contributed to the dehumanization and vilification of the Tutsi community. The RTLM highlights the dangerous potential of media in exacerbating ethnic strife during times of conflict, underscoring the importance of responsible journalism and the prevention of hate speech to mitigate the risk of mass atrocities from occurring.

The Rwandan genocide of 1994, marked by the mass slaughter of approximately 800,000 ethnic Tutsis by the Hutu majority, posed a significant challenge to United States public diplomacy. The United States’ response to the genocide was widely criticized for its perceived inaction and lack of robust intervention. Despite mounting evidence of the unfolding atrocities, the international community, including the United States, hesitated to intervene militarily. The most frequently cited reason for United States non-intervention in Rwanda is President Clinton’s intention to avoid another failed mission, like the one that occurred in Somalia just six months earlier. However, like in the case of Vietnam and Cambodia, salient foreign policy measures should not hinder the American obligation to prevent mass atrocities from occurring. The United States’ public diplomacy efforts during the crisis were marred by a sense of regret and the acknowledgment of a failure to prevent the genocide. In later years, President Bill Clinton expressed remorse for the international community’s insufficient response. The Rwandan genocide stands as a sobering chapter in United States foreign policy, prompting reflections on the ethical responsibility of nations to prevent and respond to mass atrocities and emphasizing the crucial role of public diplomacy in shaping international perceptions of such crises.

In the course of 100 days in 1994, the Hutu government of Rwanda virtually succeeded in exterminating the country’s Tutsi minority. It was the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century. The warning signs were early and evident, pointing to an increasingly unstable situation capable of sliding into genocide. The United States understood the conditions in Rwanda before and during the genocide, but the United States officials decided against taking a leading role in confronting the slaughter in Rwanda. A declassified White House email from Eric Schwartz to Susan Rice and Donald Steinberg on April 19, 1994, warned of a possible genocide. This email, however, would be of no actionable use. Instead of intervening in the conflict, United States officials confined themselves to public statements, diplomatic overtures, and initiatives for a ceasefire – all while never using the word “genocide.”

In the wake of mounting evidence and international media coverage, the United States finally launched substantial operations in July 1994, in a supporting role to assist humanitarian relief efforts for those displaced by the genocide. If the United States had responsibly intervened earlier and identified the crime of genocide, the tragic outcome could have been altered. In future scenarios, the United States must lead and bring all national elements of power to prevent genocide and mass acts of violence. The United States and the international community should prioritize robust public diplomacy campaigns that emphasize early recognition of potential crises, a commitment to prevention, and the swift mobilization of coordinated international efforts in the face of mass atrocities.

Overarching United States Public Diplomacy Response

In times of mass atrocities, the United States has generally fostered a public diplomacy response of non-engagement and non-condemnation. Once atrocities have concluded, the United States usually engages in public awareness and memorial efforts, focusing on post-atrocity diplomacy instead of preventative genocidal diplomacy. Preventing genocide using public diplomacy is achievable, with a committed international community required to lead the effort. The United States must embrace the reality that a failure to responsibly intervene when genocide conditions surface does not absolve it from future intervention. Instead, a failure to prevent genocide guarantees future involvement – too late and after millions of innocent lives are lost. By recognizing early warning signs, United States public diplomacy can be used to counter messages of divisiveness and hateful propaganda.

Lessons for Future Public Diplomacy

Instances of genocide in the 20^th century, including the Armenian Genocide, Cambodian genocide, and Rwandan genocide, provide valuable lessons for future public diplomacy endeavors, particularly in the face of mass atrocities. First, timely and accurate communication is paramount to preventing and addressing mass atrocities. Swift and transparent responses from the international community and effective public diplomacy campaigns are essential in mobilizing support and raising awareness. Second, acknowledging historical wrongs and expressing genuine remorse enhances the credibility of public diplomacy efforts. The importance of aligning rhetoric with concrete actions cannot be overstated, as demonstrated by the impact of perceived inaction in cases like Rwanda. Additionally, proactive diplomacy and early intervention are critical to preventing the escalation of conflicts into genocidal acts. Future public diplomats should consider the insights of foreign service members and media sources with weight and importance, especially in times of crisis. Future public diplomacy initiatives should prioritize the ethical responsibility of nations to protect vulnerable populations and uphold human rights. By learning from these historical cases, the international community can strengthen its commitment to preventing, responding to, and learning from genocides through principled and effective public diplomacy strategies.

Drawing from the historical lessons of the Armenian genocide, it is imperative to apply these insights to the contemporary context of the Azerbaijani seizure of the Nagorno-Karabakh region – an enclave with a predominantly Armenian population. The tragedy of the Armenian genocide serves as a poignant reminder of the catastrophic consequences that can unfold when the international community remains passive in the face of mass atrocities. As tensions escalate in Nagorno-Karabakh, there is an opportunity to leverage these historical lessons to advocate for proactive measures that prioritize diplomacy, conflict resolution, and the protection of human rights. By heeding the warnings embedded in history, there is a chance to prevent the recurrence of similar patterns of violence and displacement, fostering a commitment to international cooperation and peacebuilding in the pursuit of a just and equitable resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

United States involvement in Vietnam undoubtedly cast a shadow over its public diplomacy efforts in the wake and aftermath of the Cambodian genocide. The contentious Vietnam War, marked by significant loss of life and deep societal divisions, created a context where public trust in government actions was strained. When news of the Cambodian genocide emerged, the general skepticism fueled by the Vietnam War undoubtedly influenced perceptions of the United States’ involvement in Southeast Asia. The trauma and disillusionment from Vietnam likely contributed to a lack of public faith in United States diplomatic initiatives, hindering effective communication about the Cambodian genocide. Similarly, fears of a failed mission in Rwanda grew from prior experiences in Somalia. Future public diplomacy efforts should prioritize transparency, accountability, and clear communication to prevent such challenges. This includes a salient approach to every diplomatic situation in which prior mistakes inform future actions rather than halting any action altogether. Acknowledging historical mistakes and actively engaging in open dialogue about the complexities of international interventions can help rebuild public trust. Additionally, emphasizing shared values, ethical considerations, and a commitment to humanitarian principles can enhance the credibility of United States public diplomacy in addressing and preventing mass atrocities. Learning from past experiences is crucial in ensuring that public diplomacy effectively navigates the complexities of international crises.

Image source: Joshua Sukoff on Unsplash

April 8, 2024 312 comments

Image from NARA and DVIDS Public Domain Archive: https://nara.getarchive.net/media/three-unmanned-aerial-systems-uas-soar-in-the-sky-99dd32

Arms Control Diplomacy Featured Human Rights Military National Security Security Technology

The Real Implications of Artificial Intelligence in Modern Warfare

written by Seher Alvi

A drone buzzes over a tumultuous warzone, scanning over dusty ruins and disarrayed troops. Unlike the human fighters, who are forced to deal with threats coming at them from every direction, this drone seems more single-minded, at peace with its duty of finding and eliminating a single target. When it finally locates its quarry, the next actions are simple mechanics: lock. Load. Shoot.

While the involvement of such advanced technology in warfare once seemed to be a figment of science fiction, leaps and bounds in artificial intelligence, used in fields such as facial recognition, risk processing, and many others, mean that it has become an inevitable reality. As with many other areas of innovation, the policy and treaties governing it have been left in the rearview, with only weak predictions and insubstantial precedents existing to regulate the usage of such measures. The beauty of AI technology is also its most dangerous aspect: anyone can access it up to a certain point, meaning it has already found its way into the hands of the most powerful governments and far out radicals. Terrorist groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have long been “early adopters” of newer technologies, resorting to less-tested methods in hopes of obtaining any sort of strategic advantage.

To understand the risks posed by AI, one must first understand how it works. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, “AI refers to the ability of machines to perform tasks that would otherwise require human intelligence, such as recognizing patterns, learning from experience, drawing conclusions, making predictions or generating recommendations.” The capacity to do so comes from a system known as machine learning, which is exactly what it sounds like: computers are “trained” to perform certain operations on known datasets, through which they “learn” how to apply this knowledge to external variables. The more data a machine processes, the more experience it accrues, and the more intelligent it gets. These capabilities are commonly thought of as innocuous; at this point, AI can be used in mainstream applications such as Instagram and Whatsapp to generate custom emoticons, and ChatGPT has become every student’s best friend, regardless of what they study.

Military AI is on an entirely different level. It can include drones equipped with the ability to locate and eliminate individuals of interest, such as the Israeli Harpy Drone, which can be assigned to a certain area to hunt down opponents and dispatch them using a powerful explosive. Such devices have existed for a few years now; in 2018, two small autonomous drones were used to carry out an unsuccessful assassination attempt on Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro. Less spoken-about but equally impactful is AI’s ability to aid in military strategy, as its capacity to process historical and real-time data and recognize recurring patterns makes it a valuable tool for decision-making.

On a surface level, it seems as though AI is capable of doing anything humans can, but on a more efficient level. What, then, makes it so dangerous, to the point where many argue it should merit its own set of governing principles beyond those that currently exist to overlook mechanized defense instruments? The answer can be found in the same science fiction tropes that predicted the rise of the machines far before humanity had the means to actualize it: they lack the humanity–and by extension, ethics–needed to self-regulate. Whereas even the cruelest militant has the capacity to stop themselves from carrying out an operation due to some level of moral apprehension, autonomous artificial intelligence is literally programmed to carry out its task by any means necessary, through the most optimal pathways. Even though their deployment is often governed by human users, the actual execution of their objectives is triggered instantly once an algorithm has obtained the input necessary (the identification of an enemy base, for instance) to produce its desired output, regardless of potential mitigating factors. This loss of subjectivity is what creates humanitarian concerns, and the widespread nature of the technology makes it a global issue.

Currently, the main piece of policy designed to temper the effects of such unprecedented innovation is the Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy, an initiative launched by the United States government in February of last year during the Military Domain Summit, which is held in the Hague. Endorsed by 56 states thus far, the Declaration includes measures that encourage responsibility in the usage of AI technologies, through “legal reviews”, “proactive steps to minimize unintended bias”, and “transparent” and “auditable” development processes. The document does not address humanitarian concerns brought up by many human rights groups, and also does not account for controlling terrorist exploitation of such devices. At the moment, the American Department of Defense remains at the forefront of transparency measures, publishing numerous policy briefs and strategies over recent months; however, it is unclear if this forthcomingness stems from a desire to procure rights to rapid, unfettered innovation or merely Good Samaritan concerns.

Opponents of AI have suggested multiple means to oversee the rapid growth of the industry. These include standardization of technology to ensure that no country has an unfair advantage, posing a risk to privatized intellectual property laws as well as the regulation of datasets used in machine learning in order to prevent harmful biases from finding their way into computer programming. It is clear that this issue is a nuanced one: AI is the newest step in military technology, following the lines of biochemical warfare and nuclear missiles, for example. However, its accessibility and rapidly evolving nature make it harder to regulate and, by extension, harder to morally police. Unlike other weapons technology, this represents the shift to a new era of mechanical autonomy and a secession from human sentiments. It is clear that new policies must be put into place not only to facilitate the usage of AI, but to police it.

January 30, 2024 398 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts