2020: Resolutions for Leaders

Firstly, welcome! Bienvenidos! Huan Ying! Thank you for taking a break from browsing your preferred social media platform to check out this new blog about international affairs. The aim of this little project is to hopefully inspire a little more conversation about what goes on beyond the sunny shores of the UK among any who read it. I hope you find it engaging, informative and friendly at a time when political discourse is as toxic as many of us can remember. The aim will be one new post every fortnight, dedicated to a particular issue or topic in global politics today. Certainly, there's never been a better moment to write, read or learn about global political issues, from this year's U.S. Presidential Election and the protests in Hong Kong and the Middle-East, to the climate crisis. If there is something you wish to see discussed in a future post, feel free to let me know either by direct message or by comment.

For this introductory post, however, the subject will be a little more timely. The start of a new year is always a time for trying new things. For many that means committing to living a healthier life, reconnecting with old friends or taking up a new hobby. Yet, this new year also heralds the start of a critical decade for us all. At a moment when people and their leaders are looking inward, the challenges facing the world affect all its citizens irrespective of their politics, faith or nation. Whether these challenges come in the form of existential threats, humanitarian catastrophes or systemic inequality, it is incumbent upon world leaders to commit to resolving them. To do so not only requires a demonstration of leadership so sorely lacking, but also a willingness among citizens to overcome a divisive previous decade. It is no understatement to say that the course of the next ten years will be set by our capacity to do just that, and I believe that there is no better moment than the start of a new decade to embrace the nature of the challenges ahead.

So what of the issues facing us? Below are, in my opinion, just some of the major foreign policy areas which defined the previous decade and should be given priority in the New Year's resolutions of global leaders at the outset of this new one. Addressing them will require ambition, leadership and an understanding as to the urgency of these challenges. Above all, however, making progress on these fronts requires cooperation of the type distinctly lacking in the previous decade.

1. A serious commitment to tackle the climate crisis

Time is running out to reverse the catastrophic effects of climate change. We all have seen the photos from Australia over the holidays, as flame columns fifteen kilometres high drive people from their homes and turn the sky red in scenes reminiscent of The War of the Worlds. What some may not know is that Moscow is also experiencing unique weather patterns, in the form of its warmest winter since 1886, forcing Kremlin officials to blanket the city in fake snow. Meanwhile scientists have warned that enough ice has melted in Greenland to raise the average global sea level by more than a millimetre. Should any be tempted to take these cases in isolation, one may also point out that, according to NASA, 17 of the warmest 18 years ever recorded have all occurred since 2001. Yet, although instances of natural disasters and alarming research discoveries of the type discussed above will make headlines and generate discussion for a day or two, inevitably the news cycle moves on and conversation at the highest levels of government shifts.

By now, the cycle of events is all too familiar. Scientists or the U.N. will issue a new report highlighting the climate emergency, followed by world leaders committing to token carbon-reduction goals by a non-enforceable, arbitrary 'deadline'. When this commitment inevitably fails to bring about the required change, governments will claim they tried their best, but that in the end the changes required are 'unrealistic'. Worse, when people take to the streets in protest in response to the lack of urgency among their national leadership in tackling this issue, the discourse shifts from adressing the concerns of the demonstrators to denouncing them as 'too radical'. This in turn restricts the opportunity for a serious discussion of the climate crisis by either dismissing it as 'a political issue' or denying the existence of the problem altogether.

Whether or not someone supports the specifics of a 'Green New Deal' or the Paris Agreement  from a policy standpoint should not in any way determine their understanding or acceptance of the urgent nature of the climate crisis. Allowing one's view to be limited on the basis of such policies only serves to truly make the debate a political one, as opposed to existential. It is entirely possible, indeed even desirable, to draw from different approaches to tackling the issue in any discussion that may be had. The exact nature of the approach to be adopted, such as emissions reduction levels and sustainable quotas, can all be negotiated. Getting to that discussion, however, rests upon an honest admission from our leaders as to the urgency of the problem, and on people getting into the room to begin with. Whether we choose to confront this existential problem on our own terms or wait for it to come to us, time is of the essence.

2. Diplomacy to reduce nuclear stockpiles

The previous decade began with the New START treaty between Russia and the United States, reducing the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 per country. It then witnessed the successful implementation of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, in which the Iranian regime agreed to limit domestic uranium enrichment in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. Yet since then, the decision by the United States to withdraw from that deal and reimpose sanctions has resulted in Iran re-starting its domestic enrichment programme as it no longer received the economic benefits of operating within the JCPOA. Moreover, 2019 saw the end of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, a major arms control initiative negotiated by Presidents Gorbachev and Raegan, whilst North Korea has continued to test nuclear missiles in an ominous message to Seoul, Tokyo and Washington.

It is no coincidence that the United States finds itself at the centre of international nuclear diplomacy. Preventing new states from acquiring nuclear weapons (non-proliferation) is a priority in the foreign policy of any president, yet Washington has found it increasingly difficult in recent years to maintain a stable non-proliferation regime. Although the current administration's approach to nuclear policy has led to Iran restarting its nuclear programme and an emboldened North Korea, throughout history the US has struggled to lead the global non-proliferation mission. It remains the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons in combat, holds the world's largest nuclear stockpile and retains the option to use them pre-emptively. 

Thus, as non-proliferation efforts by the US run aground on charges of hypocrisy, it appears a shift in American nuclear strategy is required. Last January, top Senate Democrats introduced a bill that would prohibit the US from striking first with a nuclear weapon. Should the U.S. wish to prove its desire to achieve a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons, a significant first step would be to adopt a no-first-use policy as a show of its commitment to this goal and encourage key allied nuclear weapons states- such as the UK and France- to follow suit. Forming a coalition of states in support of such an anti-nuclear doctrine, followed by appropriate reductions of stockpiles, would enhance the legitimacy of the anti-nuclear mission that the U.S. wishes to lead by being seen to honour its commitment to move towards disarmament whilst ensuring its nuclear deterrent remains in place until international conditions improve to facilitate such a move. Yet the first step must be a commitment to the type of complex diplomacy conducted between the Reagan and Gorbachev administrations, both of whom made historic progress on the nuclear issue. One can only hope that by the end of this decade, our leaders find the ability to cooperate on issues of mutual concern in a likewise manner.

3. Resolving the humanitarian crisis in Yemen

In today's rapidly moving news cycle, there are inevitably stories which slip through the cracks and out of public conversation. That of the civil war in Yemen is certainly the most tragic. The conflict, between the Yemeni government and the Houthi rebels, began in 2014 in response to an anti-government uprising and has since deteriorated into the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Intervention in 2016 by a Saudi-led coalition of Gulf states in support of the Yemeni government, and Iran in favour of the Houthis, served to intensify and prolong the conflict, turning the poorest country in the Middle-East into the site of a terrible proxy war. The UN estimated in April 2019 that the war was on track to claim over 100,000 civilian casualties by the turn of the year. In addition, Oxfam reports that in 2018, one non-combatant was killed every three hours on average.

The causes of these deaths range from air strikes, to famine brought about by bombings of crucial agricultural deposits and a mass-outbreak of cholera. Both factions involved in the war and their preferred proxies have been accused of war crimes and other violations of international law by the UN, whose humanitarian chief Mark Lowcock described the situation on the ground as 'like the apocalypse'. Meanwhile, U.S. counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda and IS militants bring a third conflict to the already stricken country. Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Gulf coalition fighting against Iran and its proxies, remains a key strategic partner for the U.S. in the Middle-East, and is the single largest buyer of American arms. One of those, a laser-guided MK-82 bomb made by US weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin, landed on a school bus, killing the 40 children aboard instantly, in August 2018.

Many pundits, journalists and activists in the US are now calling for a re-evaluation of their governments relationship with the Saudis. A partnership based on fossil fuels, arms deals and geopolitical security benefits has proven increasingly unpopular, as a result of growing awareness of the impact of Saudi oil on the global climate and Riyadh's appalling human rights record. Conditioning of military assistance to the Saudis would be part of an international solution, along with taking measures to curtail Iran's provocative behaviour. Yet it would appear that those are the easy parts. Any resolution to the civil war must address the grievances of the Yemeni people which caused the initial uprising against a government perceived by many to be mired in corruption, as well as ensuring that the threat posed by the regional branches of Al Qaeda and IS is not left unchecked. In the meantime, the world's worst humanitarian crisis deteriorates further with each passing day, and will continue to do so until the international community resolves to do something, anything, to stop it.

4. Support democratic movements around the world

Our final resolution follows a year in which democratic protestors have made headlines, and driven institutional change, around the world. In Algeria, the so-called Revolution of Smiles followed President Abdelaziz Bouteflika's announcement in February of his intention to seek a fifth term in office, and ended with his resignation in April. Simultaneously in Sudan, the dictator Omar al-Bashir was ousted from power following protests against his rule and an eventual coup d'état. Whilst the situation immediately following the military takeover teetered on a knife edge, those who bravely took to the streets against al-Bashir continued their resistance, defying imposed curfews and violence
perpetrated by the army in the capital Khartoum, before civilian political leaders finally brokered a power-sharing agreement with their military counterparts last September.

The protests did not cease there. Over summer, the world was transfixed by the Umbrella Protests in Hong Kong, against an extradition bill that effectively surrendered civil liberties in the territory to the Chinese government. Braving tear gas and rubber bullets used against them by the police, the protestors successfully pushed back to the extent that the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, was forced to withdraw the controversial bill. Since then, the scope of the protests have expanded to include a demand for full democracy, whilst clashes between police and protestors have grown increasingly violent. Meanwhile in Lebanon this autumn, a tax on WhatsApp users proved the final straw for citizens no longer willing to tolerate austerity policies and poor infrastructure, whilst at this very moment in New Delhi, students in particular face brutal violence as a result of their opposition to amendments to citizenship laws which aim to restrict Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

What these protests all have in common is a demand among citizens for accountable leadership and democratic governance, as well as a commitment to change both their own lives, and those of others, for the better. At a moment when faith in the strength of the democratic process is waning in many countries, the bravery of those who stand against despotic regimes and corrupt leadership should remind us to take neither our institutions, flawed as they may be, nor our freedoms for granted. Liberal democracy will endure so long as people around the world who do not have it demand it, and as we whose institutions come increasingly under threat do not allow democratic principles to be eroded or manipulated. With that in mind, the images from Hong Kong, Delhi, Khartoum and elsewhere carry a message for our leaders- that in standing with them, perhaps we might encourage those in power to reflect upon their own governance.