Sertaç Sehlikoğlu, Working Out Desire: Women, Sport, and Self-Making in Istanbul. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2021, xvii + 295 pages
In: New perspectives on Turkey: NPT, S. 1-4
ISSN: 1305-3299
In: New perspectives on Turkey: NPT, S. 1-4
ISSN: 1305-3299
In: HBR work smart series
"Whether we're just starting out or are well into our professional journeys, we often equate our productivity with the number of hours we spend working. But do we really need to work endless hours, through weekends, and during vacations to be seen as stars? To find a healthy balance between our personal and professional lives, we need to make space for ourselves, define what we value most, and set goals that take those values into account. Boundaries, Priorities, and Finding Work-Life Balance is filled with practical advice from HBR experts that can help you answer questions like: How do I make better decisions about my time? What flexible work options should I explore-and how do I ask for them? How do I set clear boundaries surrounding my work life and my personal life? How can I pursue my passions while making time for my job? What steps can I take to protect my energy and mental health at work? You'll spend a significant part of your life working. This book will help you define what you need to feel balanced and fulfilled, on or off the clock. Rise faster with quick reads, essential advice, and relatable stories. It's not easy to figure out work when you're still exploring who you are and what you want in life. How do you translate your interests, skills, and education into a career you love while also navigating a new work environment? The Work Smart series explores topics that matter to you: being yourself at work, collaborating with (sometimes difficult) colleagues, maintaining your mental health, and more. Each title includes chapter takeaways and dozens of resources so you can go beyond the book to engage in the media you learn best. Work Smart series books are your go-to guides to step into and move forward successfully in your professional world"--
Blog: Global Voices
Last year , the State Council amended its "working rules," stressing that major policy decisions, matters and situations should report to the Central Committee of the CPC for approval.
Die Studie zur Zukunft der Arbeit wurde von Kantar Public im Auftrag des Presse- und Informationsamtes der Bundesregierung durchgeführt. Im Erhebungszeitraum 13. bis 22. Juni 2023 wurden deutschsprachige Personen im Alter von 16 bis 67 Jahren ohne Rentner*innen und Pensionär*innen in Deutschland in Onlineinterviews (CAWI) zu folgenden Themen befragt: aktuelle Lebens- und Arbeitssituation, Zukunftserwartungen, den Einsatz von KI und die Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt sowie Einstellungen zum demografischen Wandel und Fachkräftemangel. Die Auswahl der Befragten erfolgte durch eine Quotenstichprobe aus einem Online-Access-Panel.
GESIS
Using a framework of online connection and disconnection, The Paradox of Connection examines how journalists practices are formed, negotiated, and maintained in dynamic social media environments. The interactions of journalists with the technological, social, and cultural features of online and social media environments have shaped new values and competencies--and the combination of these factors influence online work practices. Merging case studies with analysis, the authors show how the tactics of online connection and disconnection interact with the complex realities of working in today s media environments. The result is an insightful portrait of fast-changing journalistic practices and their implications for both audiences and professional identities and norms
Nature was called on to justify what was based on social stereotypes and gender preconceptions ever since the Cold War. Gender discrimination in the US space programme indeed has a long history. Imaging phantoms simulating the human body or parts of it played that exact role. Right after the Second World War, the International Commission on Radiation Protection recognized the need to formulate a set of standard biological parameters, describing the "average individual," that could be used to calculate permissible radiation doses for those working with radionuclides. Designing artefacts such as spacesuits based on the universal and the standard, reinforces the importance of physicality and justifies exclusion. It prescribes femininity as much as it does masculinity, both in the singular. For long, the history of technology has focused on artefacts as technical entities and scrutinized the role of inventors, engineers, scientists, corporations, the state, regulators, the press, and of course users and consumers.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, working-class people across northern India found themselves negotiating rapid industrial change, emerging technologies, and class hierarchies. In response to these changes, Indian Muslim artisans began publicly asserting the deep relation between their religion and their labor, using the increasingly accessible popular press to redefine Islamic traditions "from below." Centering the stories and experiences of metalsmiths, stonemasons, tailors, press workers, and carpenters, Pious Labor examines colonial-era social and technological changes through the perspectives of the workers themselves. As Amanda Lanzillo shows, the colonial marginalization of these artisans is intimately linked with the continued exclusion of laboring voices today. By drawing on previously unstudied Urdu-language technical manuals and community histories, Lanzillo highlights not only the materiality of artisanal production but also the cultural agency of artisanal producers, filling in a major gap in South Asian history.
"The history of technology in South Asia has mostly been devoted to the 'temples of modernity,' accenting the monumental, the secular, and the modern. Amanda Lanzillo introduces us to a very different history, where technology, religion, and tradition domesticate modernity within intimate laboring cultures." — Projit Bihari Mukharji, Professor of History, Ashoka University
"Lanzillo explores entirely new vistas of the intertwined history of religion and labor in colonial South Asia, making a fascinating case for the flourishing of an 'artisan Islam' in the industrializing cities of the subcontinent." — Nile Green, Ibn Khaldun Endowed Chair in World History, University of California, Los Angeles
"Pious Labor opens up vital new conversations between scholars of Islam, vernacular print culture, labor, and technology studies. This work will have a major impact on the fields of South Asian history, Islamic studies, and beyond." — Julia Stephens, Associate Professor of History, Rutgers University
Blog: Blog - Adam Smith Institute
Believe it or not, there are people in the British press who are genuinely arguing that this week's Spring Budget "stuck two fingers up" to pensioners because the Chancellor decided to focus his efforts on tax cuts for working-age people, instead of throwing yet another bone to retirees. From the Mirror to the Telegraph the headlines were the same - pensioners are the big losers of this budget, pummelled by stealth tax rises and neglected by the Chancellor. Let's not mince words - this couldn't be further from the truth. However, it's useful to examine exactly how this false narrative came to be, why it isn't true, and what it can tell us about the broader direction of travel in Britain today. As I wrote in CityAM on Wednesday, this Budget represents a cautious step in the right direction against a challenging economic backdrop. In particular, we should celebrate the 2% cut to National Insurance which, combined with the 2% cut announced in the Autumn, will mean that NI has fallen to a third, from 12% to 8%. We should also welcome reforms to how Child Benefit eligibility is calculated, investments in public sector productivity, and the removal of stamp duty on shares.Of course, it wasn't all perfect. Our very own Maxwell Marlow has highlighted elsewhere the damaging effects of frozen income tax thresholds, and the Chancellor's failure to deliver any substantive fiscal measures on housing. All in all though, this was a Budget characterised by modest measures designed to get more people into work, while improving the efficiency of the public sector and rewarding working-age people for their graft. So who's to blame for spreading the idea that the Chancellor has suddenly turned against the ever-reliable grey vote? This harmful misconception is, in no small part, the result of research from the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Both have pushed the idea that pensioners are the big losers of this budget, with the Resolution Foundation suggesting that households headed by someone aged 66+ "will see losses of £770 on average", mostly due to the fiscal drag caused by frozen income tax thresholds.However, they can't seem to see the wood for the trees. This Budget maintained and extended a host of costly benefits for older people, which more than make up for any apparent losses. As the Chancellor himself has rightly pointed out, those over State Pension age already benefit from not having to pay National Insurance at all. By default, their tax burden will already be 8% lower (12% lower prior to cuts over the past two fiscal events) than their working-age counterparts.There's also spending on public services like the NHS, disproportionately used by older people. Alongside £2.5 billion in additional NHS funding, the Chancellor has invested £3.4 billion in the process of NHS digitalisation, which will enable up to 200,000 extra operations a year. It is pensioners who will see the greatest benefit from this investment.Then, of course, there is the public sector hydra known as the Pension Triple Lock. Since the Triple Lock was introduced in 2011/12, the cost of the state pension is estimated to have grown by a staggering £78 billion - that's about the same amount as the UK's entire corporation tax revenue in 2022/23. Across this Parliament alone, the state pension has risen by 31%.In April, the state pension will again increase by 8.5% (more than double the current rate of inflation), representing a £900 income boost for pensioners. It's worth reminding ourselves that the state pension is not means-tested, despite the fact that one in four British pensioners lives in a household with a combined wealth of more than a million pounds. Let me repeat that - depending on your definition, one in four British pensioners is a millionaire. They will all receive an additional £900 per annum from April. From taxation to pensions to public services, this was a budget which works squarely in the interests of pensioners. To suggest that a 2% tax cut for working-age people means neglecting retirees is risible; with the cohort of people aged 22-29 now earning less than it did in 2002, it's right that support is targeted to those earlier in their careers. So why, despite all of this, are so many commentators eager to tell us that pensioners have been stiffed by the Treasury?As is so often the case in politics, the fault lies with the politicians. Over successive Parliaments, politicians of all parties have propagated the view that the benefits enjoyed in later life are directly related to taxes paid throughout one's career. We've all heard that slippery little phrase before - "I paid into the system all my life, and now I expect to get back out". Of course, in most cases, this simply isn't true. The money that we pay in tax during our working lives does not sit in a hypothecated pot, to be drawn on in times of crisis. In fact, the money that many pensioners receive far outstrips their tax contributions - the average person born in 1956 will receive about £291,000 more in state benefits than they paid in across their lifetime. Not only did favourable economic conditions in the 1980s and 1990s allow older people to build up assets which younger people can now scarcely dream of, but the state now gives them additional support on the questionable basis that they "paid in" to the system throughout their working lives. Alas, common sense ceases to matter when the ballot box looms. Older people vote in far greater numbers than their younger counterparts, with 81% of older people expected to vote at the next election, compared to just half of those in their twenties. Governments must now contend with this 'grey vote'. There is a resultant expectation that all major fiscal events must involve a confession of faith in the Baby Boomer orthodoxy, and a vindication of that faith through ever-greater public spending. It would be far more sensible to recognise this expenditure for what it is - state assistance for old people. What else can we call money provided by the state with no expectation of returns, drawn from general taxation on working-age people?If pensioners want to hold onto their state benefits - and yes, these are benefits -, they should celebrate the tentative steps taken in this Budget to incentivise work, reinjecting a modicum of dynamism into our sluggish economy. Covering the cost of these benefits will only be possible with a growing economy, particularly as the fiscal burden grows larger every year due to our ageing population. More people working more productively means more revenue for the Treasury, and a greater likelihood that older people will continue to enjoy these favourable conditions. If our economy continues to languish in its current sorry state, beset by low growth and high taxes, it won't be long before the bill simply becomes too large to bear.
Blog: Responsible Statecraft
MUNICH, GERMANY – The Munich Security Conference came to an end today but not before EU leaders warned that international "winds" might be blowing against the West on the issue of Israel's war in GazaWhile the international meeting this weekend entertained manifold topics — from the role of the Global South to the importance of AI and food security — the Ukraine war dominated the conference, with Gaza coming in second at a considerable distance. But the focus on Israel's military operations grew more intense as the confab drew to a close, between yesterday afternoon and Sunday morning. In the press center, for example, the current situation in Gaza vied for attention with the death of Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's speech on Saturday.Indeed, Rafah was an often-repeated word Sunday in the Bavarian capital. The day before in a televised news conference, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that "total victory" against Hamas would require an offensive against Rafah once people living there evacuate to safe areas. It is difficult to see how the concept of a "safe area" can apply to any place in the Gaza Strip today. At least 28,985 people have been killed and 68,883 injured (mostly civilians) in the Gaza Strip since October 7, when 1,200 Israelis were killed and over 250 hostages taken during a Hamas attack against Israel. In a side event Sunday organized by the Consulate General of Israel in Munich, the press was shown a video, about 10 minutes long, documenting Hamas atrocities on October 7.According to the United Nations, over 75% of the Gazan population has been displaced, many multiple times. There is also a severe lack of food, medicine, and other essential items because of Israel's decision to let only a trickle of the aid trucks into Gaza needed to maintain basic conditions of life. Addressing the audience in Munich, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that peace in the Middle East requires "a prospect for the Palestinian people" and that "the security of Israel will not be ensured just by military means." In a reference to the war in Gaza, he noted that "Russia is taking good advantage of our mistakes. The blame about double standards is something that we need to address and not only with nice words. It is clear that the wind is blowing against the West." Borrell appears to share a worry openly expressed by some of the European leaders — such as Spanish president Pedro Sánchez and Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar — who have been even more critical of Israel. The concern is that Europe's failure to rein in Israel will undermine global support for Ukraine and discredit the European discourse on the importance of international law.Borrell, in sharp contrast with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, has represented the most vocal position within the EU on the growing death toll and humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza after October 7. Earlier this week, the EU top diplomat replied to Biden's recent description of Israel's military conduct in Gaza as being "over the top." Borrell noted that "if you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms in order to prevent so many people being killed." Borrell has long supported a ceasefire but any EU decision on the matter requires unanimity, and countries like Germany, Austria, and Hungary are not on board.American ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield said yesterday that the U.S. will veto an Algerian proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza to be taken up at the UN Security Council on Tuesday. According to Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. is working hard for "a sustainable resolution of the Gaza conflict," and the Algerian resolution would endanger this. In an oft-repeated dynamic over the last months, the U.S. is basically asking the international community to trust that Washington's diplomatic pressure will force Netanyahu to change course. Such an approach has failed once and again, and there is no clear reason to believe this time will be different. Yesterday afternoon, Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani noted that the efforts to reach an agreement between Israel and Hamas have been dominated by a pattern that "is not really very promising."Part of the U.S. approach to the current conflict has also been to demand that the Palestinian Authority (PA) reforms itself. Washington hopes the PA can govern the Gaza Strip after the war ends, but Netanyahu has been adamant it does not envisage any role for the PA in the Gaza Strip in the future. The Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh was in Munich on Sunday, remarking in an interview that the PA — which has grown even more unpopular in the West Bank after October 7 — is already working on introducing reforms. Shtayyeh said that the recent insistence on the topic only seeks to divert attention from the Israeli military operation in Gaza, however. In his view, Netanyahu's interest today is "to keep the war going" and argued that "Netanyahu's war is going to continue until the end of the year." The Palestinian leader was supposed to be present at a press briefing around midday, but the event was canceled on short notice due to "scheduling reasons." In a panel with his Spanish and Canadian counterparts, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi was one of the last Arab leaders to speak in Munich. He used the opportunity to note that "Israel cannot have security unless Palestinians have security."This afternoon, the Munich city center was returning to its normal state after an intense weekend of both open and closed-door meetings featuring top leaders from Europe and beyond. As security barriers were being removed and the 5,000 police officers deployed for the event, many of them from other parts of Germany, returned home, it wasn't hard to note that beyond all the talk, the world's thorniest problems, including two major conflicts, are left unresolved.
Blog: Blog - Adam Smith Institute
The High Pay Commission - hint, it's not a commission, it's a pressure group - tells us that the inequality of reward for going to work is unconscionable. The bosses of Britain's biggest companies will have made more money in 2024 by Thursday lunchtime than the average UK worker will earn in the entire year, according to analysis of vast pay gaps amid strike action and the cost of living crisis.The High Pay Centre, a thinktank that campaigns for fairer pay for workers, said that by 1pm on the third working day of the year, a FTSE 100 chief executive will have been paid more on an hourly basis than a UK worker's annual salary of £34,963, based on median average remuneration figures for both groups.This is where we get those pay ratios of 300:1 and so on from. This is bad, apparently.And, well, hmm. Several of us here have written books. Some on the subject of economics. Thinking of one specific example, the fee was £1,000. OK. Writer and publisher make their agreement, publisher pays what he thinks it's worth, writer accepts that valuation and does the work. We have a voluntary and free market arrangement. Shareholders of a FTSE100 company decide what they'd like to pay their CEO, both sides agree, we have a voluntary and free market arrangement.M. Piketty writes a book on economics which sells a couple of million copies. Given likely royalty rates that brings in perhaps $8 million (it was with a US press). We have an 8,000:1 pay ratio there between M. Piketty and another labourer in the economics mines. This is also a free market and voluntary agreement.Which leads to a question for that High Pay Commission. Why is M. Piketty's reward not at least 20 times more vile than that CEO pay ratio? We know why, obviously - free market and voluntary and none of anyone else's business. But why do they not decry it, complain of it, demand that something be done about it? It's not too, too, much to ask that people be consistent, is it?
Blog: Responsible Statecraft
Chinese diplomat Li Hui, the Special Representative for Eurasian Affairs, traveled to Ukraine, Russia, and elsewhere in Europe this week in what he described as an effort to build consensus among various parties for eventual peace talks. It is Li's second round of shuttle diplomacy since Russia's invasion just over two years ago. The diplomat first traveled to Russia and Ukraine in May 2023, shortly before Kyiv launched its unsuccessful counteroffensive.The latest visit also comes at a crucial time in the war, as Russia recently made its first major territorial gain in months, and the next tranche of aid from the United States continues to be held up in Congress.During his trip, Li is also expected to visit Brussels, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw to get a sense of whether, given these developments, thinking in European capitals has changed, and there is an opportunity for Beijing to assume the role of peacemaker.Reports suggest that there is little optimism for any substantial breakthroughs during the trip. "Beijing's continued diplomatic and economic support of Russia since the war has been a sticking point in relations with Europe, which said its trust in Beijing has eroded as it steps up scrutiny of its trade with China," according to Bloomberg. "There's also skepticism over China's 12-point peace proposal issued in February 2023 to end the war." The Bloomberg report adds that the Ukrainian ambassador in Beijing has also been given the "cold shoulder," as only a handful of his more than 40 requests to meet with Chinese ministries have been granted.Public opinion polling also shows that Ukrainians have an increasingly negative view of China and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, however, has made clear that he wants China to be present at the series of "peace summits" that Ukraine and its allies have put together since last summer. "Ukrainian people see China as a hostile country. But at the same time, the Ukrainian president and officials still want to see China at the same table with other countries to discuss [Zelensky's] peace talks," Vita Golod, chair of Ukrainian Association of Sinologists, told the South China Morning Post. "I think Ukraine still sees a Chinese mediating role because China is the only country who is welcome to Moscow and Kyiv at the same time." Kyiv may also welcome Chinese involvement in mediation because it may legitimize Ukraine's stance with the Global South, which Zelensky has been trying to win over since the start of the war. As the SCMP article notes, Ukraine is unlikely to have confidence that Beijing can act as a neutral arbiter, given China's perceived closeness to Moscow. . "On his last trip to Kyiv, Li was given a list of steps China could take – short of condemning Russia – to help Ukraine," according to the SCMP. "These included working to return children transported to Russia; maintaining the openness of the Black Sea grain corridor; and helping ensure the safety of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station, which has been occupied by Russian forces."Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi said that Chinese "efforts point to one goal: that is to pave the way for ending the conflict and starting peace talks." "Past experience shows that a conflict when prolonged tends to deteriorate and escalate even beyond the expectations of the parties involved," he added. "In the absence of peace talks, misperception and miscalculation will accumulate. (...) China supports the holding of an international peace conference at the right time" When China first indicated interest in playing a peacemaking role, Washington tepidly endorsed the possibility, but there is little indication that the two countries are willing to work together to end the conflict. In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:— Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said on Sunday that he hopes that Ukraine and Russia can negotiate a cessation of hostilities soon, given the current battlefield dynamics. "On the issue of Ukraine, our view is that both sides have reached the limits of what they can get by war. We think that it is time to start a dialogue for a ceasefire," Fidan said, according to the online Turkish media outlet Duvar. "That doesn't mean recognizing the occupation [by Russia], but issues of sovereignty and ceasefire should be discussed separately." Ankara has remained non-aligned during the conflict, providing Ukraine with some military support but refusing to join Western sanctions on Moscow. On Thursday, the Turkish president's office announced that Zelenksy would visit Istanbul for talks with his counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday. — Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) maintains that he is in no rush to bring the foreign aid bill that passed the Senate in mid-February to the House floor. There are two discharge petitions, one led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the other by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), that are looking to collect signatures that could force the bill to the floor over the Speaker's objections. "In the end, this all comes down to trust, which is in short supply in the Capitol right now," according to a report in Punchbowl News. "Can Democratic leadership work with Republican Ukraine hawks on a discharge petition that would force Johnson's hand? Is there any way Johnson and House GOP leaders [can] seek a deal with Democrats on this?"— Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been unable to forge a political consensus in Ukraine over the recruitment of thousands of new soldiers that he says are necessary to combat Russian attacks, according to The Washington Post. The lack of a clear plan "has fueled deep divisions in Ukraine's parliament and more broadly in Ukrainian society. It has left the military relying on a hodgepodge of recruiting efforts and sown panic among fighting-age men, some of whom have gone into hiding, worried that they will be drafted into an ill-equipped army and sent to certain death given that aid for Ukraine remains stalled in Washington," according to the Post. "The quandary over how to fill the ranks has confronted Zelensky with perhaps the greatest challenge to his leadership since the start of the February 2022 invasion."— A Russian missile struck the Ukrainian port city of Odessa while Zelensky was there on Wednesday. The attack hit approximately 500 to 800 meters away from Zelensky, who was visiting Odessa alongside Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, a source told Reuters. "We witnessed the strike today," Zelensky told reporters following the strike. "You see who we're dealing with; they don't care where to hit. I know that today there were victims, I don't know all the details yet, but I know that there are dead, there are wounded." U.S. State Department news:State Department spokesman Matthew Miller was asked about the attack on Odessa during a press briefing on Wednesday. "I think the strike is yet another reminder of how Russia continues to strike Ukraine every single day, and it's a reminder of Ukraine's need for air defense interceptors, and it's a reminder that the United States Congress needs to take action, as we have called on them to do, to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression," Miller said.
Blog: Responsible Statecraft
In his seminal 1957 book "The Copernican Revolution," Thomas Kuhn writes that Copernicus' "astronomical innovation" was characterized by a "plurality" that "transcends the competence of the individual scholar." Studying the Copernican Revolution, he said, provides an "ideal opportunity to discover how and with what effect the concepts of many different fields are woven into a single fabric of thought."There is a similar plurality of thought present in "How Sanctions Work: Iran and the Impact of Economic Warfare" (Stanford University Press) by Narges Bajoghli, Vali Nasr, Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, and Ali Vaez. Like astronomy, the study of sanctions transcends the competence of the individual scholar. The four authors bring diverse expertise to the task of understanding the workings of sanctions. Bajoghli is a sociologist, Nasr is a political scientist, Salehi-Isfahani is an economist, and Vaez trained as a nuclear physicist before turning towards security issues.Studies on the efficacy of sanctions policies tend to focus on policy design — are they unilateral or multilateral measures, are they are primary or secondary sanctions, and what sectors, entities, or individuals do they target? In these studies, the country imposing sanctions is placed at the center of the system, exerting forces on the sanctioned countries in its orbit. The Copernican aspect of "How Sanctions Work" is its insistence that a true understanding of sanctions efficacy arises not from an analysis of the policies, but rather from an analysis of the society and economy on which they are imposed.Setting out their aim for the book, the authors declare that "policymakers and pundits" inquiring "do sanctions work?" are asking the wrong question. That question fixates on the power of the sanctioning country and has an obvious answer. "When a country with the size and economic power of the United States imposes harsh sanctions on a country, of course they 'work': sanctions create massive disruptions in the everyday lives of citizens, impact the political culture of the targeted state, and induce shocks in the economy."The better question, the authors contend, is "do sanctions work the way they 'should'?" This inquiry puts "behavioral changes in targeted states" at the center of the model. It also allows for a more sensitive examination of how sanctions may harm ordinary people, an insight no doubt furnished by the authors' personal connections to Iran.Until recently, Western policymakers have maintained a dogmatic belief in the efficacy of sanctions despite the fact that they had clearly failed to achieve their intended policy outcomes in most countries on which they had been applied, most notably Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and Russia. But, like St. Augustine, who counseled against trying to understand the workings of the heavens, policymakers committed to sanctions policy felt it was "not necessary to probe into the nature of things."In 2018, the Trump administration unilaterally imposed "maximum pressure" sanctions on Iran, raising new concerns about the abuse of sanctions. But even as many former sanctions practitioners warned about the overuse of economic coercion, it was clear that sanctions would remain a mainstay of U.S. foreign policy. As Dan Drezner has observed, "two decades of war, recession, polarization, and now pandemic have dented American power. Frustrated U.S. presidents are left with fewer arrows in their quiver, and they are quick to reach for the easy, available tools of sanctions."In 2021, spurred by the Trump administration's brazen use of sanctions, which had frustrated allies and provoked adversaries, the Biden administration undertook an interagency review of its sanctions policy with the aim of ensuring that "economic and financial sanctions remain an effective tool of U.S. national security and foreign policy now and in the future." The review set out steps to "modernize sanctions," including by ensuring that sanctions policy is informed by "rigorous economic analysis, technical expertise, and intelligence to ensure that they are the right tool in our national security arsenal to pursue the identified objective." In May 2023, the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Asset Control hired a chief sanctions economist for the first time. Belatedly, policymakers in Washington are beginning to probe into the nature of their sanctions policies.A similar effort to better understand sanctions is also underway in sanctioned countries themselves. Despite the tremendous impact of sanctions on economic and social circumstances in Iran, it is only in the last few years that sanctions have been studied on their own terms. Prominent think tanks in Iran now have dedicated sanctions experts whose task is to understand how U.S. sanctions work and assess the costs borne by Iran's economy.For the analysts in Washington and Tehran newly evaluating sanctions and their effects, How Sanctions Work is a valuable resource. By centering the targeted country in the discussion of sanctions efficacy, Bajoghli, Nasr, Salehi-Isfahani, and Vaez demonstrate what a case study on sanctions should look like. To answer the question of how sanctions should work, it is necessary to describe how they are perceived in the target country.The book's first chapter does not begin with a discussion of what sanctions are, how they are designed, or their economic effects. Instead, we read about Fariba, a retired teacher, who recounts the precarious position she faces in Iran's sanctioned economy. Fariba once "led a solidly middle-class life in Tehran" but now constantly worries about how to get her diminished income to "stretch as far as possible."When in the third chapter we finally turn to the impact of sanctions on Iran's economy, we can interpret the assembled statistics with greater sensitivity. For example, when we read that "between 2011 and 2019, some 9 million people lost their middle-class status and joined the ranks of the lower-middle class and perhaps even the poor," we think back to Fariba and her struggle to make ends meet. This is the formal innovation that makes "How Sanctions Work" an important contribution. The authors are not presenting a great deal of new information, but rather presenting existing research in a new way. The book emerges from a series of research papers commissioned by the authors and published by Johns Hopkins SAIS (I was the author of one of those papers). The book also draws on eighty "long-form oral history interviews," including with Iranian researchers studying sanctions impacts. The authors weave together the findings of these papers and interviews with insights from the growing body of sanctions research, creating a first-of-its-kind cosmology of sanctions—a description of their forces, the bodies acted upon, and the orbits and trajectories altered.Again, a parallel can be drawn between "How Sanctions Work" and Copernicus' "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres," which Kuhn describes as a "relatively staid, sober, and unrevolutionary work." For Kuhn, the book's significance lies "less in what it says itself than in what it caused others to say. In other words, Copernicus had written a "revolution-making rather than revolutionary text." Kuhn's later scholarship established how the application of new "paradigms" advances scientific knowledge. Without the right paradigm, those who wish to innovate, whether scientists or policymakers, will not even know the right questions to ask."How Sanctions Work" concludes by calling for a paradigm shift in our appraisals of sanctions policy. "With the United States sanctioning larger economies such as Russia, and threatening more punishing sanctions on a country like China, it behooves us all— as scholars, policymakers, and concerned citizens — to critically examine economic sanctions. Put another way, it is time to understand how sanctions really work."
Blog: Responsible Statecraft
The head of Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral John Aquilino, recently warned members of the House Armed Services Committee about increasing cooperation among Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea and said, "We're almost back to the axis of evil."There has been something of a revival of this discredited Bush-era idea in recent years, and it has become more common for members of Congress and now high-ranking military officers to describe the relationships between various authoritarian states using some version of George W. Bush's ridiculous phrase. While it is true that there has been some increased cooperation between these four governments, it is dangerous and misleading to suggest that they form anything resembling a close alliance or coalition. If the U.S. were to "act accordingly," as Adm. Aquilino recommended, it would risk driving these states much closer together and creating the very axis that U.S. officials fear.Aquilino's phrasing is revealing. When he said, "we're almost back to the axis of evil," that seems to suggest that he thinks there was a real one that serves as a model for the current group. The first "axis of evil" that George W. Bush denounced in his 2002 State of the Union address was made up of three states — Iran, Iraq, and North Korea — that were united only by Washington's hostility to them. Iran and Iraq had long been enemies and remained so at the time, and North Korea was added to the mix so that it wouldn't be entirely fixated on predominantly Muslim countries. These states weren't working together, and two of them were opposed to each other. There was no axis then, and there still isn't one now.The purpose in tying together unrelated adversaries has always been to exaggerate the size of the threat to the United States to scare policymakers and the public into supporting more military spending and more overseas conflicts. If inflating the threat from any one adversary isn't enough to instill sufficient fear, the invention of an axis that includes some or all adversaries around the globe can be very useful to hawks. Because it automatically calls to mind World War II and the fight against the Axis Powers, it also helps them to demonize the other states and smother domestic dissent. Supporters of hawkish policies in each region will then have an incentive to embrace the axis rhetoric and reinforce these views among their political allies.Several current and former elected officials have referred to a new "axis of evil" in recent months. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) used the phrase last October and demonstrated its threat inflating potential: "It's an emergency that we step up and deal with this axis of evil — China, Russia, Iran — because it's an immediate threat to the United States. In many ways, the world is more endangered today than it has been in my lifetime." Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley used it to burnish her hawkish credentials when she was running for president. Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) have also indulged in the fearmongering.The four states that hawks want to lump together as part of an axis today have some dealings with each other, but their security relationships are quite weak. None of them is formally allied to Russia, and Russia and China have no obligations to come to Iran's aid. All four governments are run by intensely nationalistic leaders, and they nurse grievances over past humiliations and conflicts that make closer ties difficult to establish.Russia has turned to Iran and North Korea for arms supplies to wage war in Ukraine, but that has really been the extent of their closer security ties. Of the four countries, only China and North Korea have a formal defense treaty, but despite that, China and North Korea have a fraught relationship. Notably, China has refrained from offering Russia lethal aid in its war in Ukraine. The "no limits" partnership that the two countries announced just before the February 2022 Russian invasion has been distinguished by how limited Chinese support for Russia has been. This is hardly a global alliance in the making.The danger of basing U.S. foreign policy on imaginary things should be obvious. If U.S. policymakers believe that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea form an axis when they don't, that will distort U.S. policies toward all four states in destructive ways. Instead of identifying the best ways to address U.S. disputes with each country, including the use of diplomatic engagement and sanctions relief where appropriate, there will be a strong temptation to see every problem with each state as part of a global rivalry where there will be no room for compromise and reducing tensions. The more that officials in Washington see these states as a hostile coalition, the less inclined they will be to negotiate with any of them for fear of signaling "weakness" to the rest.Another pitfall of believing that these states form an axis is that it will undermine Washington's ability to set priorities and devise a realistic strategy to secure U.S. interests. Once policymakers are convinced that all four states are linked together as part of an axis, they will refuse to distinguish between vital and peripheral interests, and they will insist that the U.S. must "counter" the imaginary axis in every corner of the globe. It will exacerbate Washington's bad habits of overcommitment and overinvestment in less important regions.Linking Russia, China, and Iran together as part of an axis has become a favorite rhetorical move for some Iran hawks in Washington. Mike Doran of the Hudson Institute, for example, tried using this to agitate for a more aggressive policy against Iran just recently:"Iran is the weak link in the Russia-Iran-China axis. The U.S. should press hard on that weakness rather than trying to maintain the status quo. Moscow and Beijing would certainly take notice. The fastest way to bring Putin to the negotiating table is to weaken his ally, Iran. Why are our foreign policy elites unable to recognize such an obvious strategic option?"There are a few flaws with this plan: the axis in question doesn't exist; Russia and China would have no problem if the U.S. wanted to waste its resources in yet another costly Middle Eastern conflict; Russia and Iran aren't really allies; and weakening Iran wouldn't matter to the Russian government. If the U.S. mistakenly assumes that it can inflict damage on one authoritarian state by undermining the others, it will squander resources and opportunities for engagement in exchange for nothing.To the extent that these four states are working more closely than they have in the past, aggressive U.S. policies have encouraged that collaboration. The U.S. pursuit of dominance in every region creates incentives for regional powers to assist each other, and Washington's frequent use of sanctions to punish all these states gives them another reason to help each other evade sanctions. The correct U.S. approach to increasing cooperation among these states is to exploit existing divisions and to reach a modus vivendi with as many of them as possible to drive wedges between them.
Blog: Responsible Statecraft
In a Sunday interview on MSNBC, President Biden warned the Israeli government that an assault on Rafah would cross a red line, but then immediately undermined that message with contradictory statements. The president stressed that the "defense of Israel is still crucial, so there's no red lines [where] I'm going to cut off all weapons" and he said, "I'm never going to leave Israel." Biden did not spell out what consequences, if any, the Israeli government would face if it crossed the red line and actually launched an assault on Rafah, and the president sapped his warning of any force it might have had by adding so many qualifications of what he would not do. The president's interview remarks reflect the failure of administration policy in which the U.S. uses strong rhetoric to signal its displeasure without making the necessary policy changes to give their warnings teeth. Having failed to take serious measures to challenge or rein in the Israeli military campaign for five months, Biden is in a weak position of his own making. It will be difficult for him to issue demands and warnings that the Israeli government takes seriously because the Israelis have ignored so many warnings before now without paying any penalty. Biden did say that "they cannot have 30,000 more Palestinian dead," but the president wouldn't say what he would do if the assault went ahead and the civilian death toll keeps shooting up. He gave Netanyahu's government no reason to fear that an assault on Rafah would damage the relationship with Washington or affect U.S. support for the war in any way. That makes Biden's warning look like a bad bluff that Netanyahu is only too willing to call. In fact, the prime minister is already calling the president's bluff by saying that the invasion of Rafah is going forward. The president's interview comments were consistent with last week's State of the Union address in which he made several declarations about what Israel "must" do without connecting them to any specific measures he would take if Netanyahu ignored him. The announcement on Thursday that the U.S. would be setting up a temporary pier off the coast of Gaza to bring in more aid was a tacit admission that Biden's "bear hug" approach to Israel had utterly failed to buy the U.S. influence with Netanyahu. If Biden's approach were working, he would not have to resort to absurd and impractical workarounds like the pier and the ill-advised airdrops to avoid confronting Israeli's blocking of aid. When Netanyahu sees the administration tying itself in knots to avoid clashing with him, that is much more likely to encourage the prime minister to press his luck and see how much he can get away with. The U.S. has a serious problem when it comes to restraining its clients because American leaders fear alienating these states and possibly "losing" them to other patrons. The Biden administration is hardly alone in this bad practice, but it is demonstrating how dangerous it can be for the U.S. to enable its clients in their most destructive behavior and then to refuse to impose any costs on them when they go too far. American politicians and policymakers convince themselves that the U.S. needs these clients so much that they surrender all the leverage that Washington has up front and instead obsess over how to "reassure" them that the U.S. will always support them. The president says that he will never "leave" Israel, but that has to be a viable option in any relationship with a client state. The administration needs to bring its policy in line with its rhetoric, and it needs to do it at once. If an assault on Rafah is truly unacceptable to the president, it isn't enough to say that this is a red line for the U.S. The administration needs to show that this isn't an empty threat by spelling out to the Israeli government the specific benefits they stand to lose if they proceed. That should include, but not be limited to, no longer receiving U.S. protection at the Security Council and an indefinite suspension of all military aid. To prove that they are serious, the administration will need to start following our own laws regarding weapons supplies to governments that are committing grave human rights abuses and violations of international law. As long as the "flood" of weapons to Israel continues, nothing that the president and other U.S. officials say about Israel's conduct of the war means anything. Netanyahu will not be easily dissuaded from ordering an assault on Rafah. Last week, he said, "Whoever tells us not to act in Rafah is telling us to lose the war and that will not happen." That makes it essential that the U.S. apply intense pressure now while there is still time to prevent an even greater catastrophe. An assault on Rafah would drive the starving people of Gaza into a major famine. There are already severe famine-like conditions throughout the territory because of Israel's deliberate use of starvation as a weapon. An assault on Rafah would also likely have destabilizing effects elsewhere in the region. The low-level war between Israel and Hezbollah is already threatening to explode into a major conflict, and a Rafah offensive could be the spark that ignites a larger conflagration. There are reports that Iran has given the green light to Hezbollah to escalate in response to such an offensive. The Israeli government has been hinting at its own plans for escalation for months. If there is escalation in the north, it will be a disaster for both Israel and Lebanon.The Biden administration has done a great deal to stoke the war in Gaza and it shares responsibility for the current disaster, but there is still an opportunity to slam on the brakes and prevent even greater loss of life.
Blog: Responsible Statecraft
The House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday that could lead to the banning of video sharing platform TikTok. The legislation, which passed by a vote of 352-65, would require the Chinese tech company ByteDance to divest its holdings in the social media platform, or see TikTok be banned from U.S. app stores.
The bill was widely expected to pass after it made its way through a House Committee on Energy and Commerce committee markup by a unanimous 50-0 vote last week. But opposition to the legislation gained some steam in recent days, with lawmakers spanning the political spectrum expressing concerns over the rushed process, possible first amendment violations, and privacy. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) entered a briefing from the Biden administration yesterday "open" to supporting the legislation, which the president has said he will sign if it reaches his desk. But according to NBC News' Sahil Kapur, Pocan found the briefing "so uncovincing" and he eventually voted against it. ""It's very big brother-ish," Pocan said.
In the end, 50 Democrats and 15 Republicans opposed the legislation. An overwhelming majority of Republicans supported the bill despite last-minute opposition from former president and presumptive 2024 GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Supporters of the bill say that it would allow the president to designate certain social media apps and websites that are owned by foreign adversaries as a national security threat. But many Republicans who spoke during the floor debate argued that it was a way to increase the power of the national security state.
"[Supporters of the bill have] described the TikTok application as a Trojan horse. But there are some of us who feel that, either intentionally or unintentionally, this legislation to ban TikTok is actually a Trojan horse," Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said during a statement on the floor on Wednesday. "Some of us are concerned that there are First Amendment implications here. Americans have the right to view information. We don't need to be protected by the government from information. [...] We also think it's dangerous to give the president the power to decide what Americans can see on their phones and their computers."
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House intelligence committee, agreed. "One of the key differences between us and those adversaries is the fact that they shut down newspapers, broadcast stations, and social media platforms," he said in a statement shortly before voting. "We do not. We trust our citizens to be worthy of their democracy. We do not trust our government to decide what information they may or may not see."
"Really what you're saying here is if you're not fully engaged with America's three-letter agencies in content moderation, we plan to TikTok you," added Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio). "And this bill isn't just limited to TikTok. It's a coercive power that can be applied to others."
Some progressive Democrats, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) spoke out against the rushed process, as the bill went from committee markup to floor vote within four days, arguing that more overarching data privacy laws were needed. "There are serious antitrust and privacy questions here, and any national security concerns should be laid out to the public prior to a vote," Ocasio-Cortez said in a post on X.
"This is a blunt instrument for serious concerns, and if enacted, would mark a huge expansion of government power to ban apps in the future. Instead, we need comprehensive data privacy legislation, alongside thoughtful guardrails for social media platforms – whether those platforms are funded by companies in the PRC, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or the United States," said Jacobs in a press release.
"We can't credibly hold other countries to one set of democratic values while giving ourselves a free pass to restrict freedom of speech. The United States has rightly criticized others for censorship and banning specific social media platforms in the past," she added. "Doing so ourselves now would tarnish our credibility when it matters most and trample on the civil liberties of 150 million Americans."
The bill will next head to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain. Following the vote, Senate Intelligence chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) and vice chairman Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) put out a statement endorsing the legislation, saying they were "encouraged" by the vote and "looked forward to working together to get this bill through the Senate and signed into law." Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has so far not committed to bringing the legislation to the floor for a vote.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has vowed to work against any effort to push the bill through the Senate quickly, saying the bill "makes no sense whatsoever," adding that it was a First Amendment violation. Paul blocked a similar effort to ban the app last year.