The conjucture of the first few decades of the twenty-first century witnessed Alex Callinicos usefully mapping the contours of imperialism as set out in his pivotal book Imperialism and Global Political Economy. As somewhat of a successor text, this is now accompanied by The New Age of Catastrophe that seeks to address today's conjuncture of the multidimensional crisis (or polycrisis), the conditions of which are situated as immanent to capitalism as a totality. The creativity of Imperialism and Global Political Economy flowed from Callinicos offering an innovative reading of Nikolai Bukharin to propose a theory of imperialism at the intersection of two logics of power: capitalistic and territorial, or two forms of competition, economic and geopolitical. The book bears repeated revisiting. Indeed, I have done so recently in an article for the pages of International Affairs (see 'Mainstreaming Marxism', International Affairs 99: 3, 2023). There I demonstrate how unique Marxist approaches to both the structural theory of anarchy (drawing from Nikolai Bukharin) and racial capitalism (drawing from C.L.R. James) have been silenced by mainstream imitators (namely, Kenneth Waltz and E.H. Carr). There is also much wider engagement with Callinicos' theorising on capitalism and the state-system in Global Capitalism, Global War, Global Crisis (Cambridge University Press, 2018), co-authored with Andreas Bieler.
As an 'antechamber' to the present, the Introduction and Chapter 1 of The New Age of Catastrophe offers a theoretical framing of the argument by recovering and reasserting a discussion of totality as a category in order to overcome the atomisation and isolation-effect of capitalism. Drawing from Lukács and others the method of totality is legitimised in order to constitute capitalism as a comprehensive system of multiple mediations rather than as a set of separate, independent, isolated categories and facts. As Callinicos wonderfully puts it, 'even the best mainstream scholarship tends to fragment the totality' (p. 8). This reader was left wanting more on the methodological standard of totality as emblematic of a dialectical critique of the slicing-up and fragmentation of knowledge by mainstream perspectives. In The New Age of Catastrophe Callinicos endeavours to engage with the developing totality of the crisis of capitalism through a set of conjunctural moments that encompass the destruction of the biosphere (concentrating on the metabolic rift with nature); economic stagnation (converging in the tendency for the rate of profit to fall); geopolitical conflict (focusing on inter-imperialist rivalry); political reaction (addressing contemporary right-wing populism); and ideological contestation (questioning gender and race as intersecting or interweaving forms of agency with class antagonisms). The book offers individual chapters on each of these five moments in the present conjuncture of the multidimensional crisis of capitalism. The main theme to pick up on for the rest of this review is the recognition of the conjuncture as a fusion of different moments of crisis within the totality of capitalism and how contemporary right-wing populism and far-right politics is treated in the book. Throughout The New Age of Catastrophe the long-term trend of neoliberal authoritarianism is addressed, whether it be through some of the earlier work on authoritarian [...] The post The new age of catastrophe appeared first on Progress in Political Economy (PPE).
Hello friends! Welcome to another episode of Fully Automated!
Our guest for this episode is none other than James A. Smith, co-host with David Slavick of The Popular Show. Smith is also the author of Other People's Politics: Populism to Corbynism (Zer0 Books, 2019) and coauthor with Mareile Pfannebecker of Work Want Work: Labour and Desire at the end of Capitalism (Bloomsbury, 2020).
Smith is a defender of the idea that the 2016-2020 "Bernie moment" was a real opportunity to advance the cause of socialism. While it can be tempting today to look back and think that it was doomed from the start, Smith argues that the failure was largely self-inflicted. This means there are lessons that can be learned from the failure. However, he notes, the left today "seems worryingly uncurious about the regressive influence earlier defeated lefts have sometimes inadvertently had."
Smith believes that the left needs to rethink its approach to political freedom. Following up on our recent episode with Efraim Carlebach on the 10-year anniversary of Mark Fisher's famous essay, "Exiting the Vampire Castle," we chat with Smith about his recent Sublation essay, "Capitalist Realism All Over Again" (3.17.2023).
As he puts it, the left has "struggled to apply the book's insights," all too often succumbing to political correctness and "anti-political moralism." Meanwhile, as evidenced in the government response to the coronavirus pandemic, capitalist elites are claiming that crises that are "too important to be hazarded to democratic oversight or protest." When the left abandons this fight, the right will try to fill in the gap, claiming that only it can stop the power grab.
We also ask Smith about some of his recent episodes, including his interview with Matt Taibbi, one of the main journalists behind The Twitter Files. Like Taibbi, Smith believes that capitalist elites today are leveraging state powers to censor social media activity, essentially constituting a strategy of "revenge against both left and right populism."
We also discuss a number of foreign policy matters, from the west's war for NATO expansion in Ukraine to the iconoclastic left's bankrupt analysis of Israel's war in Gaza. Concerning the latter, many otherwise insightful critics have suggested that Hamas is essentially a bonapartist organization, seeking to create an islamic state. How does Smith respond to these critics? Moreover, given the difficulty of imagining the construction of a working class party in Gaza today, what should be the left position on this terrible war?
Smith can be followed on Twitter/X @thepopularpod. Curious listeners can also follow up on Smith's work on Jacobin, where he has published numerous articles on the state of the British left:
"The Labour Party Is Ignoring Britain's Muslims. A Judge-Led Inquiry Won't Change That" (12.12.2023)
"Labour's Left Needs to Regain the Insurgent Spirit That Made Jeremy Corbyn Leader" (07.31.2023)
"The Labour Left's Fatal Contradictions Are Still Unresolved" (11.04.2021)
NOTE: This is a re-post of Episode 13 of Class Transmissions, which was posted on Feb 4, 2024. I want to thank Class Unity for letting me share this work with listeners of Fully Automated.
Please check out Class Unity's website: here
Class Unity can be followed on Twitter/X here: @Class_Unity
We're going to do that unattractive thing again. Prance our egos around as we say we told you so. Core Lithium has stopped mining and has warned of a big write-down on the value of its assets as the collapse in the battery material's prices takes a heavy toll on Australian producers.The Northern Territory's only lithium producer told investors on Friday that it would revert to processing stockpiled ore and suspend operations at its Grants open pit mine.There's nothing particularly wrong with this Finniss mine. New, well made, decent deposit, they've been producing, the material is up to specification. It's a fine lithium mine in fact. It's also, as you can see, now closed. For the lithium price is now below production costs. Which is one of those really pretty big signals that there's no lithium shortage. As we said back in September in fact. There's a list out there of some 300 would be lithium mining companies. For that's what the market response has been - the lithium price rises, men with hammers go out to tap the world. And, amazingly, given that lithium is not in short supply, only in currently short extraction, they find it. The value of lithium in the ground falls further and faster than this 75% fall in the purified stuff too. The share prices of those would be lithium miners are falling - globally and near in unison. Because we've found enough and it only took a couple of years. It was also done without politics or even subsidy.And a year ago. And 18 months ago.It simply is not true that there's a shortage of these critical minierals - not in any real sense of there not being enough atoms around. Nor in the sense of there not being enough mineable atoms around. There can be, sometimes is, a shortage of open holes in the ground that people are currently extracting them from. But we've a system to deal with that - prices. Prices go up more people dig holes. Supply increases, prices come back down. As the man said, the cure for high prices is high prices.Now, if that were all then it wouldn't be worth remarking upon. But every government and non-government is mithering about supplies of critical minerals. The UK govt, the one you and we pay for, has taskforces and ministerial reports about them. Of less than, as one of says elsewhere, sensible activity. The US, the EU and everyone else we've noted have similar wastes of bureaucratic egghead time and effort. The WEF and any number of NGOs have teams working on this same non-existent problem. There is no shortage of minerals and the shortage of holes is cured by prices. There, we're done.So, could we please disband all these task forces? Gralloch the bureaucracies and ignore the NGOs? We don't have a problem and we've solved it anyway - with that old one of liberty, markets and prices. As so many problems can be and as so many bureaucratic structures adamantly fail to recognise.That last is at least understandable, you know, Upton Sinclair. But that's no reason for us all to allow them to get away with it. So, let's not.
Now, of course, this is a boss complaining that the bureaucracy won't allow him to do what he wants to do: The UK competition regulator is stifling innovation and entrepreneurship by taking too long to make decisions, according to a senior Adobe executive who is overseeing its $20 billion takeover of Figma.In an interview with The Times, David Wadhwani, president of Adobe's Digital Media business, said: "The process should not take 15 months to get to this stage. I think we can all agree that expediting these kinds of decisions is important for innovation and for doing the right thing by consumers and customers to make these decisions faster and move more quickly."In November, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said it was minded to block Adobe's multibillion-dollar takeover of the app interface design business Figma because it could harm competition in product design, image editing and illustration. A final decision will be made by the end of February next year.We're even prepared to accept, for the moment and for this argument only, that the concerns of the CMA are valid. Maybe it will cause problems in some corner of this market. You know, maybe.But now the point we've made before. There are two types of economic growth, there's simply processing more economic resources into more output. Not very green, it's also how all of the Soviet Union's growth turned up. More iron ore and coal to make the steel for the machines to dig up more iron ore and coal. There's also becoming more efficient at our use of economic resources. This is what produced about 80% of the economic growth in the market economies in that long 20th century. Becoming more efficient is also known as increasing productivity. We can talk about total factor productivity (how efficient we become at using everything) or the one that politics currently whines about, labour productivity. How much more value do we gain from an hour of human labour? This productivity increase - it comes from either doing new things, or doing old things in new ways. As above, this has historically been 80% of total growth. The speed of GDP growth is the speed at which we do those new things or things the new way. This is also the same, in concept, as the speed of productivity growth.So, now we've a bureaucracy taking 15 months to even decide whether they might have a concern about someone suggesting a new arrangement for doing something or other. Sure, that new thing might be bad. Might be good too. But at some rate of bureaucratic cogitation the time spent to think through it causes as much damage to economic and productivity growth as simply allowing a bad thing to happen.We're not getting richer precisely and exactly because we've a bureaucracy deciding how we should be getting richer. The answer is obvious - simply abolish the Competition and Markets Authority. Replace it, perhaps, with something efficient, that doesn't, by definition, make us poorer. Or a coin toss, likely to do less harm.Given that example we have of a sensible political reaction to bureaucracy in Argentina, so, where's that chainsaw gone?
Three Baltic foreign ministers gathered earlier this week to make the case for embracing Ukraine's maximalist war aims and pursuing a total defeat of Russia."Ukraine is not fighting for their own freedom; Ukraine is fighting instead of us," Estonian FM Margus Tsahkna proclaimed when he joined the FMs of Latvia,and Lithuania at the hawkish Hudson Institute think tank on Monday to share their perspectives on security issues in Northern Europe.The Baltic officials also argued for the continuous expansion of NATO to deter Vladimir Putin — including eventually allowing Ukraine to join the alliance—and the necessity for "American leadership" in NATO.Yet many of these talking points are detached from actual reality on the ground in Ukraine and will only perpetuate the cycle of violence in Eastern Europe.The three Baltic FMs said that Ukraine's total victory is imperative for peace in Europe and security for NATO. FM Tsahkna's eight-point plan for Ukrainian victory advocates for further sanctions on Russia, utilizing frozen Russian assets for Ukraine's reconstruction, incorporating Ukraine into both the EU and NATO, and relying on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's peace plan as the only way to preserve Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The ministers also agreed that a peace plan without Russia's total defeat would only delay inevitable future invasions from Russia. "Cutting a deal would be great for the autocrats," Latvian foreign minister Krišjānis Kariņš said as he noted that the world is actively observing the war in Ukraine. In the eyes of the Baltic FMs, only a hard power "containment" strategy can deter Vladimir Putin's imperial ambitions. "We will have this Russia problem or challenge for a long time. NATO needs to focus on how to contain them for the next twenty years with strength," Kariņš continued. Peace in Europe depends solely on the threat of force. But Ukraine's prospects of total defeat of Russia are nonexistent. Kyiv has suffered massive losses, as Russia's capture of Avdiivka last month was Russia's most considerable territorial advance since its victory in Bakhmut in May 2023. Furthermore, Ukraine is running out of troops. The Ukrainian military has faced an average personnel shortage of 25% across its brigades and is unlikely to mobilize the required number of men to match Russia's manpower advantage. Draft dodging has become rampant throughout Ukraine as thousands have fled the country. As a result, Ukraine is on the brink of a demographic catastrophe, which would imperil Ukraine's future after the war concludes.Additionally, according to the Baltic FMs, Putin has been the best salesman for NATO expansion, given that both Finland and Sweden ended their many decades of neutrality and joined the alliance. "Russia has erased the idea of a neutral zone. It's either Europe and NATO or Russia," said Kariņš. Therefore, neutrality is not an option for a post-war Ukraine since neutrality serves as a "green light" for Putin to invade as he did in Georgia in 2008. The Lithuanian foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis went as far as to say that "European security architecture will not be whole, secure, or safe without Ukraine."Without a hard power deterrent, countries that have remained neutral, such as Georgia and Moldova, will fall next to Putin's aggression.While the foreign ministers of the Baltic countries made several references to Putin's imperialistic tendencies, they discounted the possibility that NATO expansion fanned the flames of Russian nationalism and expansion. As Dr. Joshua Shifrinson has highlighted, "Russian nationalism and imperialism did not develop in a vacuum." Instead, NATO expansion gave Russian nationalists a cause to rally behind as it reinforced their belief that Moscow's national interests were at stake. The Baltic FMs also insisted that there is no substitute for U.S. leadership. "Without U.S. leadership, I don't think we will have a happy ending," Landsbergis asserted. While the Baltic countries are doing their part by exceeding the 2% spending guideline, the United States must work to defend the "rules-based system" created by the United States following World War II. Russia is actively posing a "direct challenge to U.S. power and authority," as FM Kariņš puts it. Thus, the war in Ukraine is not only a regional problem but a global problem. Additionally, the way of life enjoyed in NATO countries, including in the Baltics, is also under direct threat.Despite NATO's technological and military superiority to Russia, the Baltic FMs worry that Putin expects the West to be politically unprepared. Russia's economy is geared toward war, given that nearly 40% of its budget is spent on defense. Russia's regular army is also expanding, signaling Russia's refusal to end the war effort and its potential to challenge the NATO alliance. Therefore, NATO must get up to speed and unite against the Russian threat. Lastly, the Lithuanian FM proposed that NATO members should restrict themselves when referring to the Russian missile that recently briefly entered Polish airspace. "I'm a proponent of not drawing red lines for ourselves. If we say specifically that we're not going to do A, B, C and make a whole list of things we are not going to do, it sounds like an invitation for Putin to try," Landsbergis said. But adopting an aggressive strategy is not the best path forward for NATO. Expanding the member base will not make its participants safer. Finland and Sweden's ascension into NATO ended many decades of neutrality, under which both countries have become prosperous democracies. It also elongated NATO's border with Russia by 820 miles. Adding more countries to the alliance, including Ukraine, will be more of a liability than an asset.Moreover, an aggressive force posture from NATO spearheaded by the United States is unnecessary to satisfy a "containment" strategy toward Russia. Despite its ability to adapt throughout the war, Russia has still fallen far short of its maximalist aims to subjugate Ukraine as a vassal state. U.S. aims in Europe have historically been counter-hegemonic. The current realities suggest that no European state can establish itself as a regional hegemon. Thus, Russia has little to no hope of defeating NATO through conventional means. There is an alternative option. Washington and Kyiv should pursue a diplomatic path to preserve Ukraine's sovereignty while avoiding a NATO-Russia conflict. There remain reasons for Russia to come to the negotiating table, given that Moscow wants to establish a "demilitarized zone," de facto Western acquiescence to Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas, and a legitimate role to play in Europe's security order. However, Kyiv and its allies should pursue this path urgently, as Ukraine's leverage will inevitably decrease over time.
Yet another insistence that the oil companies are blah blah (cont pg 94). It isn't, of course, the oil companies that create emissions, it's people using fossil fuels to cook their dinner, transport themselves around and keep their homes toasty. Major oil companies have in recent years made splashy climate pledges to cut their greenhouse gas emissions and take on the climate crisis, but a new report suggests those plans do not stand up to scrutiny.The research and advocacy group Oil Change International examined climate plans from the eight largest US and European-based international oil and gas producers – BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni, Equinor, ExxonMobil, Shell and TotalEnergies – and found none was compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels – a threshold scientists have long warned could have dire consequences if breached.The fault is not in our companies but in ourselves, Dear Brutus.But there's another issue illustrated here. Those doing this complaining are not taking climate change seriously themselves.The authors broke the assessment's criteria into three categories: ambition to curb fossil fuel exploration and production, integrity of methods used to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and commitment to overseeing just and "people-centered transitions" away from fossil fuels.What is that "just and people centered" doing there? All eight firms also failed to "meet basic criteria for just transition plans for workers and communities where they operate," and none met "basic" human rights criteria. Though some have human rights policies on the books, none have demonstrated sufficient plans to adhere to them, the authors say.Sure, we think a just society is a good idea. We might - almost certainly will - differ on the definition of just that should be the gaol but still. So too we think human rights are important but we're still hung up on that idea that the only rights are those negative ones, not the positive that are insisted upon by so many. But now think through the climate change pitch itself. This is such an imminent emergency that we've simply got to change everything and right now. No, we don't believe it but accept it as a rhetorical point for a moment. So, OK, that means we've got to do everything right now. Without worrying about those other things - just transitions and equitable societies and so on. As with actually being at war it's necessary to prioritise, obviously. But here we've got the insistence that the "people-centered" part is just as important as the actually beating climate change part. Which is a downgrading of the importance of dealing with climate change. Therefore the people making that claim aren't taking climate change seriously, are they? And, of course, to that same extent nor should we. Another way to approach the same point. If just and people-centered and so on are of equal importance to climate change itself then don't we have to have the debate on what is just and people-centered? Like, say, liberty, freedom, capitalism, markets and the inequity that seem to be associated? Why is it only that one moral view that is being considered?
Political economy seminar Extroverted Financialisation: Banking on USD Debt Speaker: Mareike Beck, University of Warwick When: Wednesday 17 April, 3-4pm, 2024 Where: A02 Social Sciences Building, Room 341, The University of Sydney, and Zoom About the talk: I will speak about my new book, Extroverted Financialisation: Banking on USD Debt, forthcoming with Cambridge University Press. The book offers a new account of the Americanisation of global finance. It advances the concept of extroverted financialisation as an original framework to explain US-led financialisation. The paradigmatic case study of German universal banks is used to demonstrate that the transformation of global banking towards US-style finance should be understood as a response to a revolution in funding practices that originated in US money markets in the 1960s. This new way of funding led to the securitisation of USD debt and rapid globalisation of USD flows, which has fundamentally reshaped the competitive dynamics of global finance as this has empowered US banks over their European counterparts. I argue that this has caused German banks to partially uproot their operations from their own home markets to institutionalise themselves into US money markets. I show that to be able to compete with US financial institutions, German banks had to fundamentally transform the core of their own banking models towards US-style finance. This transformation not only led to the German banks' speculative investments during the 2000s subprime mortgage crisis but also to rising USD dependency and, ultimately, their contemporary decline.
About the speaker: I am an Assistant Professor in International Political Economy at the University of Warwick. Previously, I was Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at King's College London, after having finished my PhD at the University of Sussex. My research agenda focuses on the drivers and socio-economic impacts of financialisation at the global and everyday level. My work has addresses this in three inter-related areas. First, I am interested in a social history of global finance. My book project Extroverted Financialisation: Banking on USD Debt (under contract with Cambridge University Press) develops a novel conceptualisation, extroverted financialisation, to frame the US Americanisation of global finance. I am particularly interested in the uneven nature of the USD-based global financial architecture, and how this has shaped financial globalisation, innovations in on- and offshore finance, and financial instability. Secondly, using a feminist political economy approach, I investigate how everyday asset management and global asset management interact to produce various forms of asset-based inequalities in financialised economies. My third area of interest concerns creative and performative methodologies for knowledge exchange and impact. I regularly engage with civil society groups and local communities. For example, in May 2023, I directed and performed in an aerial acrobatics circus show that performed feminist political economy theorising of homes in their dual function as (1) an everyday living space and (2) a global financial asset. The post Seminar: Mareike Beck, Extroverted Financialisation: Banking on USD Debt appeared first on Progress in Political Economy (PPE).
From Richard Nixon to the Israel lobby, the late Republican Congressman Paul Norton "Pete" McCloskey Jr. challenged the most powerful elements of the ruling class on the American people's behalf.On September 29, 1927, McCloskey was born in San Bernardino, California. He was raised in South Pasadena. After graduating high school in 1945, McCloskey joined the Navy and attended Occidental College as well as the California Institute of Technology. In 1950, he graduated from Stanford with a Bachelor's degree.When the Korean War began, McCloskey joined the Marines where he led a rifle platoon in a bayonet charge to take a strategic hill. He won the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, and two Purple Hearts. He remained a Marine Reserve officer for several years thereafter. In 1953, McCloskey earned his law degree from Stanford and became a deputy district attorney in Alameda County until 1954.Subsequently, from 1955-1967, he practiced general and environmental law in Palo Alto, while giving lectures on legal ethics at the Santa Clara and Stanford law schools. He was inspired to enter politics after he saw President Jack Kennedy give a speech in 1963 during a conference regarding civil rights.In a 1967 special election necessitated by the death of Rep. J. Arthur Younger, McCloskey won his seat representing the San Mateo district in Congress. With the Vietnam War already raging, McCloskey ran as an antiwar candidate defeating the beloved film star and his fellow Republican Shirley Temple Black along with the Democrat Roy Archibald.While serving seven terms in Congress, McCloskey became the first GOP representative to both oppose the war – including by calling for a repeal of the despicable Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which ostensibly authorized the unconstitutional war – and demand Nixon's impeachment.In 1972, he fought a quixotic battle attempting to unseat Nixon for the GOP nomination for President, arguing "I'll probably get licked, but I can't keep quiet." He won 19.7 percent of the vote against Nixon at the New Hampshire primary. McCloskey was emphatic, "To talk, as the president does, of winding down the war while he is expanding the use of air power is a deliberate deception."He was prevented from speaking against Nixon and the war at the Republican National Convention that year as a result of a rule written by John Ehrlichman, his old friend and law school debate partner, stating a candidate could not get to the floor with fewer than 25 delegates. McCloskey only had one.In 1975, he traveled to Cambodia to observe the mass destruction left by the massive US bombing campaign. Yale's Ben Kiernan, a leading historian on Cambodia, estimates the US dropped approximately 500,000 tons of bombs on the country between 1969-1973. According to the BBC, "the number of people killed by those bombs is not known, but estimates range from 50,000 to upwards of 150,000."Then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger approved nearly 4,000 bombing raids on Cambodia between 1969-1970. He infamously stated during a declassified 1970 telephone conversation "It's an order, it's to be done. Anything that flies, on anything that moves. You got that?"McCloskey condemned the atrocities committed in Cambodia, declaring that Washington had unleashed "greater evil than we have done to any country in the world, and wholly without reason, except for our benefit to fight against the Vietnamese."In the early 1980s, McCloskey began criticizing the immense power and pervasive influence of the Israel lobby on American foreign policy. He supported then-chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization Yasser Arafat. His position was that Palestinian militancy and resistance, including the use of terrorism, was a reaction to the brutality of the illegal Israeli occupation, ongoing since 1967, in the West Bank and Gaza.He vehemently opposed Israel's expansion of Jewish-only colonies in the territory intended by the United Nations as land for a future Palestinian state. He advocated for the implementation of UN resolutions which declared the so-called settlements illegal. McCloskey even put forward a resolution to withhold $150 million in US aid to Israel in order to pressure Tel Aviv to remove the settlements.Facing intense backlash from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), McCloskey ultimately withdrew his amendment. After Israel, under the leadership of Likudnik Prime Minister Menachem Begin, passed its 1981 Golan Heights annexation law, he denounced the move as an "aggressive and imperialistic action." In response to this violation of Syrian sovereignty, McCloskey also implored Congress to rescind the $2.2 billion in US taxpayer money Tel Aviv was due to receive in 1982-1983."Until Congress is willing to stand up to Israel, every time that we step back and deliver them F-16s, or accept the bombing of downtown Beirut, we will accept whatever they want to do," McCloskey thundered. AIPAC poured money into his opponents' campaigns and he was unseated during the 1982 election."In 1982, McCloskey lost to future governor Pete Wilson in a primary election for the U.S. Senate. He told The Times that his controversial positions on Israel might have contributed to his defeat," the Los Angeles Times reports. "He has been supportive of the Palestinian people's plight since the late 1970s," Helen McCloskey, his longtime press secretary whom he married in 1982, told the outlet. "Of course, now that is very relevant," she added.Even after leaving politics, McCloskey continued to oppose the Israel lobby and its depredations against the American people. As Paul Findley, the former Illinois congressman and McCloskey's co-founder of the Council for the National Interest, has written:AIPAC's endeavors did not stop McCloskey from seeking out justice in issues related to the Middle East. In 1993, the district attorney of San Francisco released 700 pages of documents implicating the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, a major Jewish organization that calls itself "a defender of civil rights," in a vast spying operation. The targets of the ADL operation were American citizens who were opposed to Israel's repression of Palestinians and to the South African government's policy of apartheid. The ADL was also accused of passing on information to both governments. After experiencing "great political pressure," the district attorney dropped the charges, prompting victims to file a suit against the ADL for violation of their privacy rights. They chose Pete McCloskey as their attorney.McCloskey and his clients, two of whom were Jews who had been subjected to spying after criticizing Israeli policy in the occupied territories, revealed an extensive operation headed by ADL undercover operative Roy Bullock, whose files contained the names of 10,000 individuals and 600 organizations, including thousands of Arab Americans and national civil rights groups such as the NAACP. Much of Bullock's information was gained illegally from confidential police records. In April 2002, after a nine-year legal battle, McCloskey won a landmark $150,000 court judgment against the ADL.During the second Iraq War, McCloskey also highlighted the heavy influence of the Likud as well as the neoconservatives in spearheading the push for Washington's illegal and disastrous invasion.In a 2005 interview with Scott Horton, host of Antiwar Radio and now editorial director of Antiwar.com, McCloskey rebuked the arguments for the war and excoriated the neocons proliferating throughout the George W. Bush administration,We killed a lot of people [in Vietnam], we killed a million Vietnamese, 55,000 Americans, and wounded four or five times that many in a war we shouldn't have fought in the first place… [And in the case of Iraq,] it's the same problem. I don't know how you earn the love and affection and the minds and hearts of the ordinary Iraqi when you're blowing up his houses and killing his relatives… [Paul] Wolfowitz, and [Douglas] Feith, and this man [Richard] Perle, and John Bolton appointed to the UN [ambassadorship], those men have considered Israel almost as the 51st state. I don't think there's any secret that we've gone to war in Iraq, not to protect against the Iraq threat to the United States, but to stop the Iraq threat to Israel, the same men that have taken us into this policy and this war… [including] Perle [had been] advising the Israeli government in 1996 to take out Iraq [in the "Clean Break" document written for then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu]. Of course, now they're pushing to take out Iran. Well why are we wanting to take out Iran? Because it represents a threat to Israel.During the interview, McCloskey continues to rail against the iron grip of the Israel lobby in American politics and warns of the consequences of the extraordinary deference to Israel regarding Washington's relations with the Middle East,And this whole policy over the last 20 years has ignored [UN Security Council] Resolution 242 which… allowed the creation of the state of Israel but said it should be side by side by a Palestinian state made up of the West Bank and Gaza. And our refusal to comply with the United Nations and now trying to appoint Bolton as our representative to the United Nations sends a signal to the world that whatever Israel does the United States is going to support, including Israel's known possession of atomic weapons… And the only reason we take these policies is because the [lobby] through AIPAC has scared every congressman into fearing they'll lose their seat if they in any way vote against Israel.In a sense, McCloskey's antiwar career came full circle in 2014 when he visited North Korea. While there, he met with a fellow veteran from the opposite side of the battle, a retired three-star general who had also been wounded. "I told him how bravely I thought his people had fought, and we embraced… We ended up agreeing that we don't want our grandchildren or great-grandchildren to fight, that war is hell, and there's no glory in it," McCloskey said.Last week, the former congressman passed away at his home in Winters, California as a result of congestive heart failure, according to family friend Lee Houskeeper. McCloskey was 96 years old.American congressmen seldomly, if ever, conduct themselves with any honor or courage. Too often we see our supposed representatives in the legislature shamelessly carrying water for the war party, lying to their constituents, regurgitating propaganda from foreign lobbies and arms-industry funded think tanks. With well over $30 trillion in debt, most of our lawmakers happily continue robbing the American people to fund the American Empire.McCloskey's example and legacy is one to emulate if we desire to avoid full-scale war with any of the current White House's favored targets: Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang, or Tehran. Given that we already stand on the precipice of nuclear conflict with Russia and soon China, concurrently committing mass slaughter in Palestine, and edging towards war with Iran and its allies across the Middle East, we could use a great man like former California Congressman Pete McCloskey.This article was republished with permission from Antiwar.com
To many observers, the leadership of President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has marked an emerging shift in the Indo-American relationship, pointing towards a new era of mutual alignment. A plethora of bilateral summits proclaiming a "high-level of engagement" to craft "an enduring India-U.S. partnership," expanded joint-defense collaboration, the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogues, deepening technological linkages, and shared security interests regarding the rise of China indicate there may have been a substantial shift in Indian strategy.While relations are undeniably strong, policymakers should remain skeptical that this stems from an underlying geopolitical alignment. Despite moving closer to the Western camp, India maintains a strategy of multi-alignment and will likely continue to do so in the coming decades.We Have Been Here BeforeThis is not the first time that there has been an apparent Indo-American rapprochement. India's doctrine of nonalignment, combined with their linkages to the Soviet Union and American diplomatic relations with Pakistan, caused distrust throughout the Cold War. Yet, the partnership blossomed after the turn of the millennium under the Bush administration, with significant cooperation in counter-terrorism, advanced technological development, democracy promotion, and environmental protection.Despite India's nuclear program and subsequent nuclear tests violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), George W. Bush lifted economic and military sanctions in 2001. In 2006, India and the United States signed the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, which allowed access to civilian nuclear reactor technology.Much like today, there were several joint agreements. If you file off the dates, many mirror Biden and Modi's pledges, with commitments to expand joint exercises, defend democracy, and create cooperative groups such as the Defense Policy Group (DPG), which resulted in new American arms sales to India.There was considerable optimism at the start of the Obama administration that India would officially pivot into the Western camp. However, this hope was illusory. New elections in India brought in elites who favored strategic autonomy. Obama inflamed fears around American credibility by improving relations with China and discussing a potential G-2, a core Indian concern. Despite inching closer towards alignment for the past decade, India rapidly flipped away from the United States by joining China-led initiatives such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Furthermore, India continued to maintain its reliance on Russian arms, which limited the potential for joint military planning.Obama tried to mend the rift, but it was too little, too late, and the alliance has maintained a distinctly transactional feel until the present day. A lesson should be learned: seemingly strong Indo-American bonds can crack when security interests shift.Flashpoints for TensionsMuch like in the Obama administration, a confluence of factors could easily reverse recent gains. India and Russia remain partners despite the invasion of Ukraine. In line with much of the Global South, they have consistently abstained from condemning Russian actions and refused to sanction Russian oil (although allegedly this may have been in line with Washington's desire to stabilize oil prices). Perhaps most importantly, India's military remains reliant on Russian arms. Recently, they started to somewhat distance themselves from the Russian defense industry, but India still calculates that a strong relationship with Moscow is necessary to prevent isolationism that would push them further into China's strategic orbit.This limits India's commitment to one of the main American security architectures in the Indo-Pacific, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD). Russian arms are not interoperable with the rest of the QUAD's forces, which could dampen air and sea superiority in a crisis. But even if India tried to fully transition away from Russian arms, Russia has sold them the largest share of weapons for decades. The limited interoperability of Russian and American arms complicates any large-scale shift by magnifying costs and risking Indian defenses in the meantime. Regardless of how the American relationship develops, Russia will continue to be a fixture in Indian security interests for the foreseeable future. India has new concerns about American reliability, especially after the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Already, there are concerns that the weapons left behind are arming Kashmir separatists trying to split from India in favor of Pakistan. While relations under the Trump administration were not hostile, a return to an 'America First' foreign policy could make India calculate they need to hedge their bets away from the United States if they don't trust Trump's willingness to assist in a crisis.Perhaps the most recent flash point in the relationship was the attempted assassination against Sikh activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, an American citizen, on American soil. All signs point to Indian officials being directly involved with the plot, which could be unacceptable to the United States.This points to a broader divergence between New Delhi and Washington: Indian democratic backsliding. It seems increasingly doubtful that Indo-American relations, as some have argued, can be grounded by shared ideological values. The rise of Hindu nationalism has tarnished Indian democracy, leading to discriminatory legislation against Muslim Indians and a substantial increase in hate crimes. Modi himself recently implied Muslims were "infiltrators," a common Islamophobic trope in Hindu nationalist hate speech. Outside extra-judicial killings, Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has increasingly escalated assaults against India's democratic principles. Political opponents, from politicians to activists to journalists, have been jailed under the pretense of anti-corruption measures, with peaceful protests violently stamped out. Most measurements of democratization have downgraded democratic India's status to "partly free" or even an "electoral autocracy."None of this is to gloss over the United States' electoral flaws, but India's trajectory is directly contradictory to the "shared values" expressed in the joint summits and implies that should security interests diverge, there won't be much tethering Indo-American coordination.Indian Multi-Alignment and Great Power AmbitionsIt is undeniable that Modi's foreign policy choices are motivated by great power desires. India is the world's most populous country and in a position to surge economically. A consumer boom and wage growth are likely incoming, with plenty of room for industries to meet the needs of the growing consumer class. Its population size will create a powerhouse working class to power growing markets for emerging technologies, clean energy, and businesses seeking new supply chains outside of China. Additionally, India is increasingly trying to position itself as the voice of the Global South, which often puts it in opposition to American and European interests. India has one of the strongest militaries in Asia and the ability to project power regionally. The Indian Ocean's name is no coincidence. India will not give up regional hegemony without a fight. To achieve these goals, India cannot play second fiddle to America forever. It is increasingly clear that India's strategic approach is to keep its options open so it can take advantage of whatever side best suits its interests. This is not to imply that there will be an imminent breakup. For the time being, there is a growing bipartisan understanding in Washington that China is the largest long-term threat to American security, which makes for a natural partnership with India, which fears Chinese territorial encroachment. India's threat perceptions seem to be locked in after military crises in 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2022.As of now, the BJP is positioned to maintain power after the 2024 election, making it unlikely to impact the trajectory of the relationship barring an unforeseen anti-American faction gaining footing. Should the party expand its hold over Parliament, the surface of the relationship may remain the same, but centralizing Modi's power would only exacerbate his authoritarian and hawkish leanings.Still, India's growing illiberalism shouldn't be a barrier for the moment. The United States has a long history of working with dictatorships that have questionable human rights records. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pinochet-controlled Chile immediately come to mind. Security interests frequently trump moral qualms. But should the security situation change — as a result of U.S.-China rapprochement, a surprise change in Indian or American leadership, or a crisis of credibility — policymakers may find that there is not much at the core of the relationship. India may be useful to American strategists who want to balance China for now, but make no mistake, India will not sacrifice its core interests to appease the United States. Security relationships can seem momentarily strong, but they are a house of cards vulnerable to shifting geopolitical winds.
Tucked between Moldova and southwestern Ukraine is Transnistria, a Russian-backed separatist entity. Officially known as the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic, many describe this statelet as a Soviet time capsule. Transnistria's capital, Tiraspol, is filled with Lenin statues, Soviet era architecture, and streets named after Karl Marx and famous Soviets while the Transnistrian flag features a hammer and sickle. Existing within Moldova's internationally recognized borders, no U.N. member-state recognizes this breakaway republic's independence — not even Russia.Amid the USSR's implosion in the early 1990s, Russian-speaking separatists in Transnistria feared growing Moldovan nationalism and the possibility of Moldova, which had just declared independence, reunifying with Romania. Russian troops and Cossack fighters helped Transnistrian paramilitary groups fight Moldovan forces in the Transnistria War (1990-92), which killed up to 700 people.To this day the conflict remains frozen. Since 1992, officials in Moldova's capital, Chișinău, and Tiraspol have prevented military clashes. Over the past three decades, the Moldova-Transnistria file has not concerned Washington too much. That is until recently.
Peter Hermes Furian via shutterstock.comRussia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 raised concerns about this frozen conflict unfreezing. Given that 1,500 Russian soldiers have been present in Transnistria as "peacekeepers" and as part of the Operative Group of the Russian Troops since the 1990-92 war, some analysts warned of Transnistria opening a second front against Kyiv while intensifying pressure on Chișinău. Such a scenario would risk Romania, which is linguistically, ethnically, historically, and culturally tied to Moldova, clashing with Russia — a high-stakes confrontation considering Romania's NATO membership.In April 2022, the acting commander of Russia's Central Military District announced that Moscow sought to form a land bridge linking the Donbass to Transnistria. Doing so would have expanded the Ukraine war into Moldova's internationally recognized borders and cut the Kyiv government off from access to the Black Sea, landlocking Ukraine.Yet, Ukrainian forces prevented Russia from seizing Odessa and other parts of the would-be Donbass-Transnistria land bridge. Consequently, concerns in the West about Transnistria vis-à-vis the Ukraine war eased.Last month, however, Tiraspol asked Russia for protection from the perceived threat posed by Moldova's pro-EU government. In response to this call for Moscow's protection, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Chișinău was "following in the footsteps of the Kyiv regime" by "canceling everything Russian" and "discriminating against the Russian language."On March 17, a drone hit a military site in Transnistria, destroying a helicopter, which according to Moldova's Bureau for Reintegration Policies "has not worked for several years," and ignited a fire. Authorities in Tiraspol claimed that the Ukrainians waged this attack from Odessa. Both Kyiv and Chișinău denied any involvement in the military site explosion. The Ukrainian government accused Moscow of being behind this "provocation in Transnistria with a kamikaze drone attack on a military base."Adding to this tension is the fact that on that same day a man threw two Molotov cocktails at the Russian embassy in Chișinău. At the time, Russian citizens in Moldova were at this diplomatic mission voting in their country's presidential election. Moldovan authorities detained the individual, who was identified as a dual Moldovan-Russian citizen.As of writing, the public has not been provided with any evidence to substantiate Tiraspol's claims about Kyiv being behind the attack on the helicopter. If Ukraine carried it out, perhaps it was Kyiv's warning to Moscow about the dangers of making any bold moves vis-à-vis Moldova-Transnistria in response to Tiraspol's request for Russian protection from the U.S.- and EU- backed government in Chișinău. However, it is important to again stress that Ukraine's responsibility for this episode has not been proven.Meanwhile, some experts maintain that if Russia prevails in Ukraine, Moldova would be the next Eastern European country that Moscow attacks. "[Russia] has long used Transnistria and the separatists there, just like the ones in Donbass, as instruments to keep Moldova off balance and there are many other ways that Russia has destabilized, or tried to destabilize, Moldova," Matthew Bryza, the former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia, told RS."But Russia has no ability now to invade Moldova. Yes, it has a military base there. But I think Russia has enough on its plate right now in Ukraine and…unless it prevails Ukraine, it won't do something similar in Moldova. But if it does succeed in Ukraine, I fear Moldova would be next," added Bryza. However, the former U.S. diplomat emphasized that he does not expect Moscow to prevail in Ukraine.A Russian invasion of Moldova-Transnistria does not currently seem to be an option for the Kremlin. Transnistria, unlike Ukraine and Georgia, does not border Russia and Moscow lacks the manpower to take control of the Ukrainian regions of Mykolaiv and Odessa. Nikola Mikovic, a Belgrade-based political analyst, does not believe that Russia could do in Moldova-Transnistria what it did in Ukraine beginning in 2014."Under the current circumstances, when Russia has a hard time capturing villages around Avdiivka in the Donbass, seizing Odessa is extremely unlikely to happen. Therefore, Russia does not have capacity to turn Moldova-Transnistria into its 'next target,' while Chișinău, firmly backed by the West, can destabilize the breakaway region at any time," Mikovic told RS.Although difficult to predict how a second Donald Trump administration would respond to Russian moves on Moldova-Transnistria, it can probably be taken for granted that the Biden White House would strongly back Chișinău under such circumstances. "It's simply not possible with any degree of accuracy to predict now how the Biden administration would react if Russia invaded Moldova…other than the obvious which is there'd be strong U.S. support for Moldova and probably military assistance," said Bryza."Moldova occupies an important geopolitical location on the borders of NATO and the EU, and NATO is very concerned about checking any potential Russian expansion westward. Also, it would not bode well for Ukraine if it were suddenly to face even a small number of Russian troops attacking it from the west," John Feffer, the director of Foreign Policy in Focus, told RS."So, Moldova might become like Quemoy and Matsu, the tiny islands that Beijing tried to seize in the Taiwan Strait in 1958. Taiwan, like Ukraine, was the ultimate prize, but the islands were steppingstones, and the U.S. was determined to defend the little islands at all costs," added Feffer.Geography limits Russia's means to maneuver vis-à-vis Transnistria. Thus, keeping the Chișinău-Tiraspol conflict frozen best serves Russia's interests. Leveraging groups in Moldova with pro-Moscow sentiments such as the Gagauz minority to possibly change the government in Chișinău is a card which the Kremlin might possibly try to play. Either option could help Moscow further its agenda of preventing Moldova, which became an EU candidate in June 2022, from integrating into Western institutions, chiefly NATO."Russia wants to secure the perimeter of the 'Russian world.' But that doesn't have to be a firm border. It will be content to establish a zone of fragmentation that encompasses Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova and that serves as a kind of moat to protect fortress Russia. This is not a reconstruction of the Soviet Union. It's not a bid to confront NATO directly. But it nevertheless exacts enormous costs on the people of those fragmented countries," offered Feffer.To preserve the status quo in Moldova-Transnistria, "the Kremlin will almost certainly have to continue making behind-the-scenes concessions to the West and Ukraine," commented Mikovic. "For instance, it's entirely possible that Moscow provided 'security guarantees' to Kyiv that it will not strike the so-called decision-making centers in the Ukrainian capital, in exchange for Ukraine's passive approach regarding Transnistria."The Serbian expert on Russian foreign policy noted that at any time NATO could coordinate with Kyiv to enable Moldova to bring Transnistria under Chișinău's control through force. "For me, it's a big mystery why Western policy makers and strategic planners have still not taken such an action," Mikovic told RS.A major win for Washington would be an unfreezing of the Moldova-Transnistria conflict with a potential joint Ukrainian-Moldovan operation defeating the Moscow-backed separatists. Yet, even if the West would back Kyiv and Chișinău in pursuit of such an outcome, there are no indicators that Moldova is considering such a military solution to this frozen conflict."For the foreseeable future, Chișinău will likely continue putting economic pressure on Tiraspol, aiming to weaken the breakaway region's de facto independence, and force it to reintegrate into Moldova," said Mikovic. "In the long-term, though, a military conflict should not be ruled out."
Prior to the war in Ukraine, Russian and Ukrainian interests had already been deadlocked in a heated battle. But this clash wasn't being waged on the streets of Kyiv, it was being fought on K Street in Washington D.C. The combatants donned suits, not camouflage. Their targets weren't hardened military units, they were U.S. policymakers in Congress and the executive branch. Their goal wasn't total victory, it was to win hearts, minds, and, above all, votes for their cause. This was the lobbying battle before the Ukraine war. As I documented in a Quincy Institute brief, this David vs. Goliath style battle between a small, relatively low-funded, but remarkably zealous Ukrainian lobby had largely been thwarted by a multi-million dollar lobbying and PR campaign by Russian interests. But when Russian President Vladimir Putin made the disastrous decision to invade Ukraine two years ago, this Russian influence advantage in D.C. quickly evaporated. Within a week of the war's onset, U.S. sanctions effectively decimated Russia's influence in Washington, forcing a number of top lobbying and public relations firms to sever ties with their Russian clients. Since then the Ukraine lobby has been largely unopposed in its efforts to steer U.S. foreign policies related to the war. The Ukraine lobby has helped pave the way for more than $100 billion in U.S. assistance to Ukraine and meticulously crafted the media narrative to maintain U.S. public support for Ukraine's war effort.The Ukraine Lobby Since the War BeganIn the two years since the war in Ukraine began, 46 different firms or individuals have been registered under FARA to represent Ukrainian interests. This includes lobbying heavyweights like BGR Government Affairs, Hogan Lovells, and Hill & Knowlton, as well as international public relations firms like Qorvis Communications. In total, these firms have received nearly $10.92 million from Ukrainian clients since 2022, according to FARA data compiled by OpenSecrets. Just as in the year before the war — when FARA registrants reported conducting 13,541 political activities on behalf of their Ukrainian clients — the Ukraine lobby has been working feverishly since the war began. A Quincy Institute analysis of FARA records found that, since the war began, Ukrainian interests have reported doing more than 12,000 political activities on behalf of Ukrainian interests, primarily contacting Congress, the executive branch, and media outlets. By far the busiest firm working on behalf of Ukrainian interests has been Yorktown Solutions, which has represented the Federation of Employers of the Oil and Gas Industry of Ukraine, the Civil Movement For a Just Ukraine, and the Primary Trade Union Organization of State Enterprise National Nuclear Energy Generating Company, better known as "Energoatom."For just one of these clients — the Federation of Employers of the Oil and Gas Industry — Yorktown has reported doing 8,296 political activities since the war began. To put that remarkable workload in perspective, it equates to an average of more than 11 emails, phone calls, and meetings completed every day on behalf of just one client. No other foreign client registered under FARA has had more work done on their behalf in the past two years, according to a Quincy Institute analysis of FARA records.Since the war began, Yorktown hasn't hidden the fact that one of the primary objectives behind all this work is to increase U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. "We've gone from energy security to security," Daniel Vajdich, President of Yorktown Solutions, told Politico less than a month after the war began, explaining the firm's shift away from lobbying related to the Nordstream 2 pipeline and towards acquiring U.S. military assistance for Ukraine. Vajdich added that, "It is 24 hours, even when we're sleeping the phone is on, and the phone is going off, and there are phone calls from Kyiv, and there are phone calls from others here in Washington both in and out of government … We speak to the administration. We speak to Capitol Hill. We certainly speak to media as well."In addition to its Ukrainian clients, Yorktown has also been working feverishly for the Centre for a European Future, reporting more than 4,000 political activities on behalf of the Belgium based non-profit whose objectives revolve heavily around Ukraine and include, "rebuilding Ukraine," "joining NATO," and "securing compensation for the war."The Pro-Bono Push for UkraineAt just under $11 million in reported FARA spending by Ukrainian clients since the war began, the Ukraine lobby isn't funded at the level of perennial influence powerhouses in Washington, like Saudi Arabia, whose lobbying and public relations firms have received more than $70 million from the Kingdom since 2022, according to OpenSecrets. But, the actual dollar amount of spending on lobbying, public relations and the other influence efforts done on behalf of Ukrainian interests is deceptive, as many individuals, and even some of the most prominent lobbying firms in D.C., have been working for Ukraine pro-bono. In fact, of the 46 different firms and individuals that have been registered under FARA to represent Ukrainian clients, 29 have done the work for free.Working for Ukraine pro-bono became somewhat trendy in the Washington influence industry shortly after the war began. Many of the firms registered under FARA to represent Ukrainian interests for free, however, appear to have done little work on behalf of Ukrainian interests. Some reported just a handful of contacts with congressional offices on behalf of Ukraine. Another reported a "one day pro bono effort" for a Ukrainian Parliamentary Delegation to the U.S. In one infamous case, a firm registered under FARA claiming to be working pro-bono for the Ukrainian ambassador to the United Nations, only to deregister just days later after the ambassador publicly explained that he was not actually working with the firm. On the other hand, a number of lobbying and PR firms have done a considerable amount of work for Ukrainian interests at no charge to their clients. A Quincy Institute analysis of FARA records found that Plus Communications tops this list with nearly 3,000 political activities reported in its pro-bono work for the Ukrainian PR Army, a non-profit organization that purports to help, "global media tell the accurate story of this war through the perspectives of Ukrainian experts, authorities, and witnesses." Plus Communications' work involved pitching interviews with prominent Ukrainian officials to seemingly every mainstream U.S. media outlet, including Fox News, The Washington Post, and NPR. Another major pro-bono endeavor is being run on behalf of the Ministry of Culture and Informational Policy of Ukraine, specifically in relation to the ministry's "Advantage Ukraine Initiative," which seeks to attract international investment in Ukrainian industries, with the top choice being the defense industry. Several firms are registered under FARA to support this pro-bono initiative, including Hill & Knowlton Strategies, Ogilvy Group, and Group M. The latter has reported nearly 300 emails to major media outlets, most of which were in reference to "ad materials" for Advantage Ukraine. The firm's FARA filings show these ads include slogans like, "Davos is over. The opportunities in Ukraine have just begun," and "Imagine an investment where you get applauded by shareholders AND the public?"Group M's collaborator on the Advantage Ukraine Initiative, Ogilvy Group, is also one of several firms that have been working pro-bono for Ukraine while taking money from firms that are profiting from the Ukraine war. As Eli Clifton and I previously reported for Responsible Statecraft, Hogan Lovells, BGR Government Affairs, Mercury Public Affairs, Navigators Global, and Ogilvy Group have all done pro-bono work for Ukraine interests while also lobbying on behalf of weapons makers that could profit from the war.The Ukraine Lobby TodayWhile the size of the Ukraine lobby has decreased since the early months of the war, 18 firms are still registered under FARA to represent Ukrainian interests. Most of them are still doing the work pro-bono, and many of them remain intent on shaping U.S. foreign policy to Ukraine's favor. More so than at any time since the war began though, they're having to fend off an American public which increasingly believes the U.S. is providing too much aid to Ukraine. How this tension pans out remains to be seen, but there is little doubt that the Ukraine lobby has all the ammunition it needs to continue winning the lobbying battle in Washington.
Since October, Egypt has joined most of the international community in calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. With Egypt being the only Arab country to border Gaza, Cairo's stakes are high. The longer Israel's war on the besieged enclave continues, the threats to Egypt's economy, national security, and political stability will become more serious.Located along the Gaza-Egypt border is Rafah, a 25-square-mile city that until recently was home to 300,000 Palestinians. Now approximately 1.4 million Palestinians are sheltering in Rafah because of the Israeli military's wanton destruction of Gaza City, Khan Younis, and other parts of the Strip. Having asserted that four Hamas battalions are now in Rafah, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that deploying Israeli forces to this Palestinian city is necessary for his country to defeat Hamas amid this war. As of writing, Israel's military is preparing to launch a campaign for Rafah.Officials in Cairo fear that Israeli military operations in Rafah could result in a large number of Palestinians entering the Sinai. "An Israeli offensive on Rafah would lead to an unspeakable humanitarian catastrophe and grave tensions with Egypt," said European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell on February 10.Not only could such a scenario fuel massive amounts of friction between Cairo and Tel Aviv, but it could also severely heighten tensions between the Egyptian public and President Abdel Fatah el-Sisi's government. It's easy to imagine a mass expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza into Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, which would amount to essentially a "Nakba 2.0," triggering widespread unrest in Egypt if the government in Cairo is widely seen by Egyptians as playing a role in permitting, if not facilitating, such an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza. Along with economic considerations, this is one of the main reasons why Cairo has articulated that Israel depopulating Gaza of Palestinians and forcing them into Egypt is a red line that Tel Aviv must not cross."The biggest concern for Cairo is related to the fate of the [Palestinians in Gaza] forcibly evacuated by the Israelis and who might find a 'safe haven' in Sinai. An uncontrolled influx of Palestinians into the [Sinai] Peninsula would be an enormous burden on Egypt, which would have to manage a problematic situation from a political and security point of view, as well as having to justify internally to its own public opinion an imposition that came from outside," Giuseppe Dentice, head of the Middle East and North Africa Desk at the Italian Center for International Studies, told RS."It is no coincidence that Cairo has reinforced the border with Gaza, closed the Rafah crossing, and warned Israel that any unilateral action involving a forced exodus of the Strip's inhabitants to Egyptian territory could jeopardize not only bilateral relations, but the preconditions for peace and stability guaranteed in the [Camp David Accords]," added Dentice.On February 15, Maxar Technologies, a Colorado-headquartered space technology company, captured satellite images showing Egypt's construction of a wall roughly two miles west of the Egypt-Gaza border. The following day, the London-based Sinai Foundation for Human Rights said that this construction "is intended to create a high-security gated and isolated area near the borders with the Gaza Strip, in preparation for the reception of Palestinian refugees in the case of [a] mass exodus."What might happen to the Camp David Accords?On February 11, two Egyptian officials and one Western diplomat told the Associated Press that Cairo might suspend the 1979 Camp David Accords if Israeli troops wage an incursion into Rafah. A day later, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry denied such reports about his government's plans to freeze the peace treaty with Israel, yet he emphasized that Egypt's continued adherence to the 1979 deal would depend on Tel Aviv reciprocating. Alarming to Egyptian officials were Netanyahu's statements late last year about the Israeli military taking control of the Philadelphi Corridor (a nine-mile-long demilitarized buffer zone between Gaza and Egypt which was established in accordance with Egypt and Israel's peace treaty) because such a move on Israel's part would be a breach of the Camp David Accords.Are Egyptian officials serious about possibly freezing the historic peace deal? Or does such talk amount to empty threats issued for political purposes at home, as well as pursuing certain Egyptian aims vis-à-vis Washington and Tel Aviv? Mouin Rabbani, a political analyst and co-editor of Jadaliyya, told RS that if these statements from anonymous Egyptian officials are geared toward a domestic audience but Cairo doesn't follow through, Sisi's government could have a "potentially serious problem on its hands."Ahmed Aboudouh, an associate fellow with the Chatham House and a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council, doubts that Egypt would go as far as suspending the Camp David Accords. "In the end, Egypt is unlikely to take the first step to tear the treaty up unilaterally," he said.But what Egypt is doing is embracing "discursive strategic posturing" whereby Cairo uses "rhetorical escalation" and directs messages at three audiences, Aboudouh told RS. First is the domestic audience to say that Cairo is standing up for Egypt's core security interests as well as the Palestinian cause. The second is Washington to relay the Egyptian government's anger at the Biden administration for not stopping Israeli actions that threaten to displace Palestinians into the Sinai. Third is to Netanyahu, generals in the Israeli Defense Forces, and the Israeli intelligence community.Gordon Gray, a former U.S. Ambassador to Tunisia, also discounts recent suggestions that Cairo would suspend its peace treaty with Israel for three main reasons. "First, Egypt does not seek military confrontation — even an inadvertent one — with Israel. Second, Egypt does not want to risk losing U.S. military assistance ($1.3 billion annually), which was granted as a direct result of the Camp David Accords. Finally, while Egypt abhors the Israeli military campaign in Gaza, it shares Israel's views about the threat Hamas poses," said Gray in an interview with RS.What would come from Egypt freezing the treaty?Despite many experts believing that Egypt would not freeze the Camp David Accords, that potential scenario should be considered. There are important questions to raise about what it could lead to in terms of region-wide ramifications, as well as Cairo's relationships with Western capitals. But it's difficult to predict how events would unfold if Egypt took that step because there would be so many unknown variables in play.Egypt could act in different ways after suspending the peace treaty with Israel. Rabbani asked, "Would it simply declare the peace treaty suspended and leave it at that or would it stop implementing provisions of that treaty?"Regardless, any freezing of the Camp David Accords by Egypt would inevitably bring a layer of instability to Egyptian-Israeli relations never seen since Jimmy Carter's administration, which — with help from Iran, Morocco, and Romania — brought Egypt's then-President Anwar Sadat and Israel's then-Prime Minister Menachim Begin together in northern Maryland's Catoctin Mountains to sign the peace treaty in September 1978. The response from Washington would likely be extreme, particularly given how central Egyptian-Israeli peace has been to U.S. foreign policy agendas in the Middle East for almost half a century while surviving a host of regional crises, including Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and all the previous Gaza wars."The U.S. is certain to act true to form and retaliate against Egypt without holding Israel in any way accountable for producing this crisis, and Washington may well cease foreign assistance to Egypt, which is a direct function of its peace treaty with Israel. The EU will probably announce it is launching an investigation of the Egyptian school curriculum or some other nonsensical initiative," Rabbani told RS.Irrespective of how Egypt approaches its relationship with Israel, the fact that officials in Cairo are suggesting a potential freeze of the Camp David Accords speaks volumes about the Gaza war's impact on Israel's diplomatic standing in the Arab world. With the probability of more Arab countries joining the Abraham Accords in the foreseeable future having essentially dropped to zero, the pressing question is not which Arab government might be next to normalize with Tel Aviv. The focus has shifted to questions about how Arab countries already in the normalization camp, such as Egypt, will manage their formalized relationships with Israel at a time in which Israeli behavior in Gaza is widely seen across the Arab-Islamic world as genocidal.
Niger's July 26 military coup, which ousted President Mohamed Bazoum, has created a volatile situation. While France and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) threaten military action against the Nigerien junta under the guise, respectively, of protecting French diplomatic and military facilities and restoring Niger's constitutional order, the crisis risks escalating into a regional conflict.Each of Niger's seven neighbors has a unique set of interests and perspectives on Niger's situation. Algeria, which shares a 620-mile border with Niger, is focused on promoting stability and a return to Niger's constitutional order while also preventing foreign powers from violating the country's sovereignty.Algiers is concerned about instability spilling into neighboring countries (including Algeria) and violent extremists exploiting the turmoil in Niger itself. Memories of Algeria's "Black Decade" (1991-99), in which a jihadist insurgency and a state-led crackdown led to much bloodshed, remain vivid in Algerian minds. No Algerian takes peace and stability at home for granted."National security officials in Algiers already have their hands full due to increasing tensions with Morocco to the west, continued instability in Libya to the east, and the worsening economic situation in Tunisia, also to the east," Gordon Gray, the former U.S. ambassador to Tunisia, told RS. "Uncertainty to the south, i.e., along the border with Niger, is yet another problematic development they will need to deal with."In 2012, three hardline jihadist terrorist groups — al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa, and Ansar Dine — gained control of two-thirds of Mali, including territory bordering Algeria. Algerians worried about these armed extremists' ability to threaten Algeria's security. The 2013 In Amenas hostage crisis further informed Algeria's understandings of its vulnerability to transnational terror groups operating in neighboring countries. Today, Algerian officials have similar concerns about instability in Niger creating opportunities for the ISIS- and al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups operating in the country to wage attacks throughout the region.Algerian officials also worry about the devastating impact that the situation could have on Niger's 25 million people. ECOWAS-imposed sanctions on Niger in the wake of the July 26 coup do not include humanitarian exemptions, and Algeria's government worries that political turmoil and a worsening economic situation in Niger could prompt refugee flows into Algeria and other neighboring countries, further threatening regional stability.Algeria's concerns about Niger's crisis go beyond the threat of terrorism and worsening humanitarian disasters. Although in favor of restoring Niger's constitutional order, Algiers strongly opposes military intervention by foreign forces."Algeria opposes all kinds of external intervention in North Africa and the Sahel, whether it is military or political. Algiers stands firm by the principle of sovereignty and considers any foreign presence in its neighborhood as an infringement on the local countries' sovereignty, regardless of the nature of the foreign intervention or presence," Ricardo Fabbiani, North Africa project director for the International Crisis Group, told RS."For Algeria, a military intervention against Niger would be a catastrophe. The Algerians point out that the previous interventions in Libya and Mali have exacerbated pre-existing problems, rather than solving them," he added. "These operations have a significant political and security impact, with repercussions that can be felt for decades."In this sense, Algeria occupies a somewhat unique position — at odds with both France and ECOWAS threatening to wage a military campaign to reverse the coup on one side, and Burkina Faso and Mali vowing to militarily assist Niger's junta if ECOWAS attacks on the other.Seeing itself as a regional heavyweight, Algeria's sensibilities and principles guide the country's foreign policy. Having existed as a French colony before waging a war for independence (1954-62), Algerians view national sovereignty as sacrosanct. This history helps one understand the North African country's past opposition to foreign interventions in Libya, Iraq, Mali, and Syria.Viewing itself as a vanguard in anti-imperialist, pan-African, and Arab nationalist causes, Algeria will always oppose Western (especially French) military intervention in Africa, the Middle East, or anywhere in the Global South. Whereas many states evolve in their foreign policy strategies, Algeria's firm commitment to certain principles, concepts, and institutions has remained consistent over the decades, making Algiers' stance vis-a-vis Niger both predictable and characteristic.Within this context, Algeria is playing a leading role in advocating for a diplomatic solution to the Nigerien crisis that prevents any external military intervention. Last month, Foreign Minister Ahmed Attaf visited three ECOWAS member-states — Nigeria, Benin, and Ghana — on orders from President Abdelmadjid Tebboune. After the visits, Attaf proposed a six-month transition plan to bring civilian rule and democracy back to Niger.He stressed Algeria's opposition to foreign military intervention and affirmed that external actors will be barred from transiting Algerian airspace as part of any intervention. The six-point plan's objective is to "formulate political arrangements with the acceptance of all parties in Niger without excluding any party" within the six-month-window, according to Algeria's top diplomat, who has also had contacts with junta members, as well as Nigerian civilian leaders. Overseeing this process should be a "civilian power led by a consensus figure."Before Attaf announced Algeria's plan, Niger's military leadership, backed by Burkina Faso and Mali, laid out its own very different plan. The junta called for a three-year transition period to restore constitutional order. ECOWAS has summarily rejected that plan, asserting that three years is much too long. Some members even called the junta's proposal a "provocation."Algeria is hoping that its proposal offers a middle ground that saves face on all sides but also leads to a restoration of democracy in Niger while preventing any military action against the landlocked and sanctioned country.Fortunately for Algeria, there is growing international support from foreign governments, such as Italy's, for its mediation efforts as the standoff over Niger intensifies. "If successful, this diplomatic effort could strengthen Algeria's role in the Sahel, which is one of Algeria's long-term goals in the area," said Fabiani.Washington has not yet taken a position on Algeria's plan and has generally followed a more cautious approach than Paris, a source of irritation between the two NATO allies. Despite an early unsuccessful mission by a top State Department official to engage the junta, the U.S. has thus far declined to label Bazoum's ouster a "coup," a legal determination that would require the U.S. to end military aid to Niamey, a key counterterrorism partner in the Sahel for years."The United States remains focused on diplomatic efforts toward a peaceful resolution to preserve Niger's hard-earned democracy," a State Department spokesperson told RS. "We all want a peaceful end to this crisis and the preservation of the constitutional order."Looking ahead, officials in Algiers understand that they must address the Nigerien crisis pragmatically while accepting the limitations of Algeria's influence in Niamey. Algerian policymakers are "working on a shortened timeline for the transition" and Algiers "thinks that the coup is difficult to reverse," which leaves them believing that "the quickest route out of this predicament is by accelerating the transition announced by the military junta and guaranteeing Bazoum's personal safety," explained Fabiani. "Yet, it is unclear what leverage Algeria has to make this happen and, most importantly, how willing to listen are the military authorities, given the regional polarization around this issue.""Today, Algiers doesn't want to antagonize the military junta in Niger, nor does it want to push for a military intervention," Dalia Ghanem, a Middle East and North Africa Senior Analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies, told RS. "Yet, Algiers learned that this noninterference stance is no longer efficient because it leaves the door open to foreign meddling like in Libya. The country's [leadership is] hence stuck between an old doctrine and the new regional realities. The country had no other [option] than [to] maximize security at its borders and this can't be done without hard choices being taken."In the public eye, Algeria will continue investing diplomatic energy into its six-month transition plan. Yet, as Gray told RS, "Behind the scenes, Algeria will be seeking ways to cooperate with the military junta to ensure the security of its southern border."
Dear Mr. President: I am a U.S. military spouse, and I am begging you to hold your ground regarding Rafah and demand an end to Israel's current offensive there.On March 10th, you referred to an invasion of Rafah in southern Gaza as "a red line." When I heard you say that, I (and other military families I know) breathed a little easier. Humanitarian organizations have been warning for months that an assault on Rafah would cause unspeakable civilian catastrophe, and so we appreciated clarity from you (and repeatedly since then) that such a military misstep would not be supported by the United States.Unfortunately, the moment has come to stand firm in your convictions. Yesterday, several outlets reported that Israeli forces have begun conducting strikes against Rafah. I shudder when I think about what is about to unfold.After the horrific and deadly attack against Israel on October 7th, our organization joined with the international community in condemning Hamas's brutality, and in supporting Israel's objectives to free the hostages and defend itself within the rule of law. Over the subsequent weeks and months, we grew appalled by the nature of Prime Minister Netanyahu's military response, which has resulted in the deaths of over 35,000 Palestinians, and a spiral of retaliatory violence across the region. There must be meaningful consequences for our ally as they progress further across this red line. You cannot waver on your commitment.U.S. military troops may not have boots on the ground within Gaza, but our service members' safety and wellbeing are still directly impacted by what is happening there. Many of us have loved ones deployed to the region, either for regional security purposes or to construct the aid-delivering pier you championed during your State of the Union address. Israeli attacks on Rafah will almost certainly antagonize adversaries in the region, which senselessly increases risk to U.S. service members nearby.None of us in the military community is immune from the risk of moral injury, no matter how far we are from any line of fire. This conflict has forced many of us into an unresolvable dilemma. How can we feel proud of our service commitments to defend allies, ensure regional stability, and prevent terrorism – while at the same time, the allied troops you are asking U.S. service members to support include military units that have been credibly accused of human rights abuses by international humanitarian organizations? Those hidden costs of war are permanent, and their impacts trickle down from the service member to their entire families. Not to mention, the military's future as a flourishing all-volunteer institution at a time when retention and recruitment are at all-time lows.As I close, I will commend how you've tried repeatedly to counsel our close ally by invoking the memory of 9/11, and the mistakes U.S. foreign policymakers made in response that led our country into an endless, unwinnable war. Those comparisons feel poignant this week in particular, as 21 years ago Americans were told by their President that the invasion into Iraq was done and settled, a declaration we later learned was far from true.History threatens to repeat itself now, as Prime Minister Netanyahu embarks on his own ill-conceived invasion. And I fear whether it will sweep U.S. military families along with it. You said it before, Mr President: "There's nothing…low risk or low cost about any war." I urge you, as one of the many military families who will live with the consequences of the decisions you make today, and as a voice representing many who are unable or afraid to speak up: remain steadfast in your condemnation of a Rafah invasion. And continue, with urgency, all efforts toward a sustainable ceasefire.Sincerely,Sarah StreyderThis article was republished with permission from Sarah Streyder.
The Senate passed a bill Thursday that would dramatically expand a compensation program for Americans affected by U.S. nuclear weapons testing and uranium mining. "It is time to rebuild these communities," argued Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a sponsor of the bill, prior to the vote. "This isn't about some kind of welfare program. This is about doing basic justice by the working people of this nation, whom their own government has poisoned." The bipartisan, 69-30 vote marks the second time in the past year that the Senate has approved an expansion to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which gives money and medical benefits to uranium miners and people who lived downwind of the Nevada Test Site, where the U.S. military carried out most of its nuclear testing in the 1950s and 60s. The first RECA vote came last July, when 62 senators approved an amendment to the annual defense policy bill that expanded RECA coverage. Despite intensive lobbying from Hawley and Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), congressional leadership stripped the measure from the final version of the bill following a Congressional Budget Office finding that the expansion would cost as much as $150 billion over 10 years. The latest RECA expansion bill cut some of the benefits included in the amendment and managed to bring the price tag down to about $5 billion per year. These changes should make the proposal more likely to pass the House, where some Republicans have expressed concern about the potential costs of the expansion. Hawley dismissed worries about the bill's price tag, saying last week that he told Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that "I didn't hear a lot of grousing about the cost when we were voting on Ukraine funding or anything else for that matter." It is unclear how many Americans will be eligible for compensation if the expansion gets through the House. In New Mexico, where the first ever nuclear test took place, some victims have had more than 20 family members get radiation-related cancers. One activist told RS last year that she lost seven family members to diseases she believes are linked to nuclear testing. President Joe Biden declared his support for the bill Wednesday. "The President believes we have a solemn obligation to address toxic exposure, especially among those who have been placed in harm's way by the government's actions," according to a White House statement. The bill would expand eligibility for "downwinders" — those who lived downwind of U.S. nuclear tests — to include victims in Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Guam, and Colorado. It would also extend RECA to cover all of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, as well as people living near nuclear waste sites in Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alaska. The vote came 11 years to the day after Tina Cordova, a leading activist of RECA expansion and a cancer survivor, lost her father to a cancer that she believes was caused by the "Trinity Test" — the first ever nuclear explosion, recently depicted in the blockbuster film Oppenheimer. "The cancer metastasized to his neck and throat before becoming inoperable and consuming his body," said Sen. Lujan of New Mexico during the debate prior to today's vote. Cordova "made it her life's mission to fight for justice [and] compensation for her family and the thousands of victims of our nation's nuclear weapons program," the lawmaker added. Cordova, who will be Lujan's guest at Thursday's State of the Union address, told RS in December that the decision to strip RECA expansion from last year's defense policy bill was "shockingly immoral.""Today, the Senate took another step forward in the long journey to delivering justice to Americans suffering from radiation exposure," Lujan said in a statement after the vote. "Let's be clear: the fight is not over. I urge the House to pass RECA without delay and get help to families who are deeply suffering."
