| | | | Raqqa Has Fallen. Now Things Get Really Complicated | | The effort to defeat ISIS brought together factions that had their own longstanding grievances with each other. With the fall of Raqqa this week, expect those simmering tensions to resurface – sometimes violently, suggests Yaroslav Trofimov in the Wall Street Journal.
"Ever since Islamic State's rapid advances in 2014, the fight against the group created unusual alliances -- including a de facto one between the U.S. and its regional nemesis Iran. The need to confront Islamic State also held in check the longstanding rivalries between some of the region's main players," Trofimov writes.
"Nothing highlights the collapse of this temporary unity more than this week's clash between Iraq's central government and the country's Kurds, the two forces that fought side-by-side against Islamic State to liberate the other major city the extremists held, Mosul, just a few months ago. Baghdad took control of the ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk from Iraqi Kurdish forces on Monday after a brief fight, and seized several other strategic areas on Tuesday." - The fall of Raqqa doesn't mean permanent defeat for ISIS. A "virtual caliphate" and its willingness to play the long game suggests the threat from the terror group is here to stay, writes Shiraz Maher in the New Statesman.
"Despite all the military pressure it faces and its renewed focus on the internet, IS remains a potent force on the ground. As it retreats from Raqqa – as it did in Mosul – it is leaving behind a legacy of devastation," Maher writes. "There will be no Marshall Plan for Syria and Iraq to rebuild their civil infrastructure or stimulate their stagnating economies. And the many deep-rooted problems, founded on simmering sectarian and ethnic tensions, communal distrust, privation and generalized insecurity, will remain. These contributed to the rise of IS in the first place – and have been exacerbated as a result of conflict."
| | Fareed: McCain's Extraordinary Speech | | Fareed says that Senator John McCain's speech on Monday, in which he warned America against turning its back on international leadership in favor of "some half-baked, spurious nationalism," was an "extraordinary" reminder of what the United States has traditionally stood for.
"One hates to politicize a speech like this, but it was clearly a frontal attack on what is essentially President Donald Trump's worldview," Fareed says.
"Trump has for decades been expressing this extremely narrow view of America's place in the world. Since the 1980s, he has been complaining that the United States is being taken advantage of by the Japanese. More recently, he has said America is being taken advantage of by its NATO allies. And, of course, there are the complaints about the United Nations and China.
"McCain struck a very different note in his speech, and in doing so challenged President Trump head-on. He noted that for the last 75 years, the United States has been a country that is about the very opposite of Trump's worldview – one that tries to uphold international order, that tries to create a world of peace and prosperity and rules.
"Unfortunately, what we have been seeing is the United States withdrawing – from the Paris climate agreement, from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And now NAFTA seems like it could be on the verge of collapse. As a result, the foundations of the international order that John McCain so eloquently praised are crumbling before our eyes."
| | Step Aside West, Developing Nations May Have a New Champion | | | With the United States and Europe retreating, international aid is at a crossroads, write Asit K. Biswas and Kris Hartley for Project Syndicate. But all is not lost. As the West turns inward, China is poised to become the new champion of international development.
"Although Chinese ODA is still a fraction of what OECD countries spend, China has signaled its interest in becoming a development leader, especially in the health sector," they write. "At the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Summit in New York, China pledged $2 billion to help implement the SDG agenda, and China's flagship 'Belt and Road Initiative' includes health cooperation as part of its proposed strategy. In 2014, China also committed $47 million to help contain the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. While that was significantly lower than the U.S. pledge of $1.8 billion, China was among the fastest to deliver on its commitment."
"China has the tools to become a leader in international development. And, having lifted some 470 million of its own citizens out of extreme poverty between 1990 and 2005, it also has the experience. But, more than anything, China now has the political opportunity." | | How Elites Could Doom Democracy | | Election results across Europe have raised the specter of a future, even in rich Western countries, where "liberal democracy ceases to be the only game in town," writes Sasha Polakow-Suransky in the New York Review of Books. Mainstream politicians need to acknowledge voters' fears over immigration and identity, even as they resist the ideology and policies of right-wing populists.
"Too many people on the European left scoff at nationalism, mistaking their own distaste for evidence that the phenomenon no longer exists or is somehow illegitimate," Polakow-Suransky writes. "If 2016 and 2017 have proven anything, it is that this sort of visceral nationalism, or loyalty to one's in-group, still exists and is not going away. Those who dismiss this sort of national sentiment as backward and immature do so at their own peril.
"What the globalists of the transnational elite miss is that not everyone has the luxury of leaving. Those who don't have the education and skills to travel abroad often resent those who do. To compensate, they identify strongly with the place they come from and support politicians who promise to protect them from both genuine and imaginary threats. They do not have the luxury of voting with their feet, but their protest is felt at the polls."
| | A Smart (Gun Rights Friendly) Way to Cut Gun Deaths | | The United States could save hundreds of lives a year with a simple change to its gun laws that wouldn't impose a restriction on who can actually own a gun, according to a new study from researchers at Harvard Business School: Introduce waiting periods.
"Waiting periods for gun purchases are supported not only by the American Medical Association but also by a majority of Americans and a majority of gun owners," they write. "Our point estimates, based on 45 years of data, suggest that the 17 states (including the District of Columbia) with waiting periods as of 2014 avoid ∼750 gun homicides. Expanding the waiting period policy to states that do not currently have it would prevent an additional 910 gun homicides per year."
The reason? "Delaying a gun purchase could create a 'cooling off' period that reduces violence by postponing firearm acquisitions until after a visceral state [such as anger or a suicidal impulse] has passed." - U.S. policymakers need to stop using mental health as an excuse for not tackling America's gun violence epidemic, Fareed argued in his Take earlier this month.
"Given the Second Amendment, given America's gun culture, given the influence of the gun lobby, there isn't any simple answer. But there are many small fixes that might make a big difference: universal background checks, restrictions on military-style weaponry -- of which banning bump stocks would be a tiny first step -- a ban on selling to people with a history of domestic violence or substance abuse."
Watch Fareed's full Take here. | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment