| | | | Boris Johnson, Vindicated? | | Now that he's secured a new Brexit deal with the European Union, The Spectator calls it a "spectacular vindication" of Prime Minister Boris Johnson's approach: His determination to leave the EU on Oct. 31 no matter what, despite looking as if it would produce little but failure, has "focused minds in Brussels" and led to a new agreement, after all.
The BBC explains what's in the deal: Most significantly, it creates a two-tiered customs border with Ireland, a sticking point that had generated fears of political tension and even violence. Technically, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (which will remain in the EU) will see a customs border go up, but in practice it will be enforced on the whole island, with goods likely to be transported seeing duties imposed. The deal negotiated by Johnson "is the opposite to that struck by Theresa May in that the more you look at it, the better it seems," The Spectator writes.
That said, there's no guarantee Parliament will pass it. The Guardian's Polly Toynbee is unimpressed: "Johnson is back exactly where Theresa May was … with an EU deal agreed only to be blocked at Westminster," she predicts. "[I]t would be a dose of his own medicine, as he was her prime rebel." | | The US and Turkey Need Each Other in Syria | | President Trump's withdrawal from northern Syria has brought condemnation on multiple fronts, from head-shaking on over his "bizarre, threatening" letter to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoฤan (as The Guardian's headline put it), to observations that the move gives Russia greater influence—an opinion heard from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and in Wall Street Journal op-eds.
And yet, there's plenty of blame to go around in Syria, Sinan Ulgen of the Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies in Istanbul argues in The New York Times. What's more, whether they like it or not, the US and Turkey need each other there, he writes. Turkey is the only NATO ally bordering Syria and the West's best chance to shape the outcome there. For Turkey, working with the West in Syria (rather than feuding with it) would allow Ankara to maintain important American and European ties that give weight to its regional ambitions and supply leverage as it negotiates with Russia and Iran over Syria's future. | | Economics Are No Longer Neutral | | | So argues Michael Lind in a National Interest essay. Economists have long held that free trade is good for everyone and that the world benefits when countries specialize in particular types of production. But the world is learning otherwise, Lind writes: As economic nationalism rises, and as the post-Cold-War peace thaws, countries are remembering that they need to maintain strong manufacturing economies to build weapons, if the need for war arrives. The world has seen a return of "geoeconomics," he argues, in which competition is now linked to economics, not only in the weaponization of trade but in the return of protectionism out of national self-interest. "Power politics is back," he concludes. "The dream of a global free market is dead." | | The Folly of American Security Partnerships | | The war in Yemen has provided a sad reminder that the US sometimes struggles to oversee how American-made weapons are deployed. As Elana DeLozier of the Hoover Institution argued in June, US weapons have been used sloppily by Saudi Arabia, leading to civilian casualties; as America is the world's largest arms exporter, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the risk of blowback looms.
In an essay for The Washington Quarterly, Bilal Y. Saab writes that the problem starts at home, with a broken bureaucracy that fails to prioritize the vetting of US allies who receive weapons or the building of institutions within partner countries' militaries. (The Pentagon, for instance, has two bodies responsible for overseeing arms transfers to US partners; one is tasked with overseeing strategy and partner development more actively, but the other is helmed by a higher-ranking official and enjoys more influence. Defense and State Department programs, meanwhile, can overlap, and the two departments don't communicate effectively.)
"'Transfer and forget' has been the unwritten policy for decades," Saab writes of US arms transfers, noting that commanders spread weapons among many recipients, for the purpose of gaining influence with local partners. A better strategy would involve more careful planning, a focus on helping partner militaries develop and professionalize, and a US bureaucracy that communicates and sets those priorities. | | Does the US Need a Government Fund to Export Its Technology? | | | In a recent paper published by the Center for a New American Security, Daniel Kliman argues it does. China is exporting technology to developing countries through its so-called "Digital Silk Road" initiative, while the US relies on its tech giants to compete. In Kliman's view, the US would be wise to establish a government agency—a "Digital Development Fund"—that would "offer lines of credit to U.S. companies (and select foreign firms) to undertake information-connectivity projects across the developing world." | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment