This is old news. The report merely revealed information that was leaked and well-known years beforehand: the brutal murder of Khashoggi would not have been possible without the approval of the crown prince. The declassification of the report was largely a symbolic move, much like the general nature of American response to Saudi Arabia and other allies who consistently violate human rights. 

Saudi Arabia has long been a country marred by questionable actions, most notably the decade-long war in Yemen. The Yemen Civil War began after the Shiite Houthi rebels overtook the Sunni government’s capital in late 2014. Fearing Houthi links to Iran, Saudi Arabia formed a coalition with other Sunni Gulf states with hopes of restoring power to Yemen’s incumbent government. As the Saudi-led coalition intervened with airstrikes and economic isolation, a full-blown humanitarian crisis emerged. Yemeni civilians faced famine and an endless downpour of strikes, leading to tens of thousands of casualties, thousands of deaths (including those of children), and millions of people displaced. Despite the global concern, during the first five years of the Yemen War, Saudi Arabia was the largest arms importer in the world — and 73% came from the United States. By supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia and other states in the coalition, the United States ultimately fueled a devastating human rights catastrophe. 

During his campaign, Biden promised to end support for the Saudi-backed war. So far, his administration has temporarily suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states and has revoked Trump’s designation of the Houthi rebels as a foreign terrorist organization. It’s worth noting that these actions do exceed those of previous administrations. However – especially if the arms sales ban is not made permanent – these are mainly emblematic in nature. They signify a reluctance to take hard action and a desire to subdue calls for accountability. 

Shortly after these actions were announced, the backtracking ensued. Biden clarified that the crown prince himself would not be penalized, claiming that the diplomatic cost would be too high. Instead, Biden’s aides described a series of travel restrictions on lower-level Saudi officials among other actions, denying giving Saudi Arabia a pass. According to White House officials, instead of reaching out to the crown prince directly, Biden opted for a call to his father, King Salman. During the brief phone call, Biden reportedly raised the idea of recalibrating the U.S.-Saudi relationship. However, approaching the aging king, rather than the prince who appears to be calling the shots, is likely another mechanism to avoid direct accountability.

The United States is not likely to take harsh action against Saudi Arabia, especially against the crown prince himself. Albeit, Biden was correct in highlighting the diplomatic cost of doing so, as Saudi is a critical ally in ensuring Middle East stability and in confronting Iran. Biden faces the unfortunately difficult task of balancing security interests and basic human values. However, it does illuminate America’s double standards when it comes to human rights. 

Directly punishing world leaders is not unheard of for the United States. It has imposed sanctions on a handful of world leaders: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Kim Jong-un of North Korea, President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela and Robert Mugabe, the former prime minister of Zimbabwe. Many of these punishments came after various human rights violations among other sources of conflict. However, none of these nations were American allies. In fact, they were the opposite. The unwillingness of the United States to punish M.B.S after a brutal and clear violation of human rights — against a U.S.-based journalist nonetheless — reflects its stance on human rights violators: pursue when convenient. 

It’s not as if Saudi violations have not been up to par with other perpetrators. Migrant workers, religious minorities, women, and other vulnerable groups have all faced questionable treatment in Saudi Arabia. Families affected by 9/11 have taken to the courts, seeking accountability from the Saudi kingdom for providing material support to Al-Qaeda after some Saudi officials had been linked to the horrific attacks. Thus, the Khashoggi murder report could not have been the final straw for the U.S. government to finally reconsider relations with Saudi Arabia. It was an opportunistic maneuver to appease human rights activists and fulfill a back-burner campaign promise, which likely would not have even occurred if the United States was still heavily dependent on the Gulf for oil. 

The United States has consistently shown that it is a champion of human rights — when convenient. If an American ally commits a crime, whether that be Saudi Arabia or even Israel, the United States usually will not pursue accountability. This is not the era of American isolationism; the United States is not shy in actively involving itself in conflicts around the world. 

However, the conflicts it chooses to insert itself in reveal a clear double standard where adversaries are punished and allies go unchecked, even if they have thousands of deaths on their hands. 

The post U.S.-Saudi Relations Under Biden: American Moral Hypocrisy in Full Force appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The Biden administration is inheriting a host of problems from its predecessor. But with its relatively blank slate, the administration needs to make its mark on the sphere of international development. 

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) — which experienced a budget cut of over 22% under the Trump administration — seems to have lost its teeth over the past four years. Once a hallmark for international assistance and development, USAID suffered under leadership from the White House in the last four years. In particular, Trump’s foreign policy doctrine of selective engagement and withdrawal has only hurt its cause. But with new leadership in 2021, there are many options in play. Should the Biden administration opt for gradual improvement or ambitious innovation? What issues should it tackle first? To make up for lost time, it seems as though innovation is the only viable strategy — beginning with reforming the foreign aid system. 

According to the World Bank, in 2018, over $165 billion was spent on official development assistance. Yet, foreign aid is still a topic of controversy in the international community — and for many reasons. Among scholars and practitioners, there is uncertainty over how foreign aid is defined and measured, as well as how it should be allocated. Additionally, one topic of contention is what the underlying motivations of donor countries are and how intent may hinder USAID’s effectiveness in promoting development. 

In its current form, the foreign aid system is flawed. The burdens of aid and a donor dominated system have distorted the development process – only providing short-term relief in developing countries while reinforcing weak institutions and corruption.

From Michael Todaro and Stephen Smith, foreign aid is best defined as: “all official grants and concessional loans in currency or in kind that are aimed at transferring resources from developed nations to less-developed nations on development, poverty, or income distribution.” 

Most aid comes with strings attached, known as “tied foreign aid,” or conditional foreign aid, giving little bargaining power to recipient countries. Donor countries often control how aid is used, choose who the recipients are, and define its terms and conditions. Tied aid can have detrimental consequences for recipient countries. It can burden them with debt repayment, a current reality for much of the developing world. It can also drive up import costs since developing countries are often required to purchase capital and goods from the donor, when they could find better low-cost goods for development.

Aid without conditions, known as “untied aid,” or unconditional aid, has its own set of drawbacks. Untied aid is often given to a country with little to no research; historical precedent shows a high likelihood that corrupt officials use it to reinforce their own power. In all forms, foreign aid can prove harmful to the development process.

Scholars often identify the foreign aid regime as using a system of “top-down strategies,” where the wealthy donor countries are the key decision-makers. In practice, there is a clear pattern of donors promoting their strategic interests rather than helping the countries with the most need. 

The United States’ aid allocation is a prime example of this. South Asia, where nearly 50% of the world’s poorest people live, receives only $8 per person in aid. Meanwhile, the Middle East, a region of particular strategic interest to the United States (due to political influence, natural resources and geopolitical caution), has well over triple South Asia’s per capita income but receives nine times the per capita aid. Since the War on Terror began following the events of 9/11, the largest country-level aid recipients were Iraq with $61 billion and Afghanistan with $133 billion. Meanwhile, India, which has the largest number of impoverished people in the world, received only $2 per person in aid. 

Poverty rates should not be the only consideration for foreign aid — both Iraq and Afghanistan are war-torn nations with refugee crises, sectarian violence, among other issues. However, the majority of U.S. international assistance was not used for disaster relief or economic development — it was used for military or security purposes. It is no coincidence that the countries that receive the most aid have a significant U.S. military presence, while the country with the largest amount of poverty received much less aid. 

The European Union (EU) displays a similar trend. According to Allison Carnegi and Nikolav Marinov in the American Journal of Political Science, the country of origin of the European Council’s president affects which countries receive aid. There was a “consistent, large, and uncontroversial finding [that]former colonizers give disproportionate amounts of aid to their former colonies.” Quantitatively, a country that normally receives $20 million in aid would receive about $3.6 million more if the president is from their former colonizer country. Since the presidency rotates every six months, this creates tremendous volatility in the European Council’s aid plans. 

It is clear that foreign aid allocation is a mechanism of control, rather than an act of benevolence on the part of developed countries. Donors are not promoting development. Instead, they reinforce the distribution of power skewed in their favor, at the expense of developing countries.

Developed countries as the decision-makers in foreign aid present other issues. Their allocation strategies often suffer from complex data problems – those at the top simply do not have enough information to help developing countries. 

This explains the long history of bureaucracies mistaking symptoms of underdevelopment as causes. Donors often identified low levels of investment, poor education and the absence of modern industry as causes of underdevelopment. In reality, the source of underdevelopment is weak institutions and policies. This is evident in Zambia’s case. If lack of capital was the fundamental cause of Zambia’s underdevelopment, massive amounts of aid should have addressed this. However, without institutional reform, Zambia has seen virtually no increase in per capita income and remains underdeveloped. William Easterly in Foreign Policy calls this phenomenon the “Utopian Nightmare.” 

Donors could pursue institutional change but they hold back for economic reasons. When deciding between changing actions or altering institutions, donors opt for the less costly option: changing policies, although their efforts are eventually short-lived.

The current foreign aid system provides “band-aid” solutions rather than long-term relief. Aid culture has left Africa debt-laden and more vulnerable economically. African countries pay up to $20 billion in debt repayment per annum, at the expense of investing in education and health. Aid has also fueled corruption. The World Bank has contributed $100 billion for development, but in the DRC, Malawi, and Zambia, corrupt leaders used development funds for their personal gain. 

NGO-led aid has seen some success, like with smallpox eradication and child survival. However, foreign NGOs have failed to spur sustainable development. Even after billions of dollars of development aid and numerous hours of NGO work, Kenya is miserably worse off, with nearly six in every ten people living on less than two dollars a day, and the figure is rising. Foreign NGOs providing food aid and other resources create an unsustainable dependency due to the short-term nature of their work. This dependency weakens the state, ensuring that the government is not held accountable for its mismanagement; it also removes the incentive for institutional reform that would actually promote development. 

For foreign aid to be effective, there needs to be more accountability and coordination between donor and recipient countries. There has been some progress through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and its successor, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but more needs to be done to fix a system of “top-down strategies” and donor domination. 

So what can the Biden administration do? 

Working with USAID, it must issue global developmental policy that reworks foreign assistance programs and promotes institutional reform. In the near term, that should include strengthening health systems to respond to COVID-19 and bolstering democratic governance amid rising authoritarianism. The administration must also engage with international initiatives: listen to the needs of recipient countries and coordinate with other donor countries on how to meet them. As it reenters the Paris Climate Agreement, the U.S. needs to pull its weight and support developing countries in honoring their commitments. 

Aid can no longer just be donors throwing money at the problem; it should be geared towards long-term prosperity. Without significant reform, the foreign aid system will remain ineffective and hinder development. 

The post Under Biden, the United States Needs a New Approach to Foreign Aid appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The School of the Americas (SOA) was founded in 1946 in the Panama Canal Zone, and intended to function as a training ground for the increasing number of Latin Americans attending U.S. service schools. Under the Panama Canal Treaty, SOA was expelled from Panama in September 1984 and moved to Fort Benning in Georgia. The Army facility brought in recruits from across the Americas, and classes were taught in Spanish to accommodate foreign students. By 1949, SOA produced 749 U.S. military personnel and 251 Latin American graduates, representing 10 different countries. In 1956, Spanish became the official language of the school, and classes stopped being taught in English.

After the Cuban revolution in 1959, the U.S. Military adopted a security policy to counter the “international communist conspiracy,” and in 1961 President John F. Kennedy ordered the school to begin teaching “anti-communist” counterinsurgency. The School of the Americas began training in riot and mob control, special warfare, jungle warfare, intelligence and counterintelligence. 

The Cold War saw the United States back numerous bloody coups against democratically-elected Latin American socialist leaders in favor of supporting, training, and arming military dictators. The United States has had its hand all over the region in the 20th century, the coup of Salvador Allende and U.S. support for dictator Augusto Pinochet being one of the most infamous examples. The School of the Americas has been given the moniker “School of the Dictators” and “School of the Assassins” as almost a dozen Latin American dictators have been graduates of the institution. Panama’s drug-dealing dictator Manuel Noriega and El Salvador’s Roberto D’Aubuisson are just two examples.

As part of the U.S.-backed war in El Salvador between 1980-1992, a massacre occurred in 1989 at Central American University. Six Jesuit priests, a sixteen-year-old girl and her mother were killed. The non-governmental organization School of the Americas Watch (SOAW) was founded in 1990 to denounce the massacre. This NGO has also existed as the leading advocate for the permanent closure of the SOA. SOAW has done reporting on the extensive crimes of the school as well as its graduates and led the public movement to close the school.

In September of 1996, in response to a Freedom of Information request and rising public scrutiny, the Pentagon released SOA training manuals, which advocated for torture, blackmail, and extortion, among other human rights atrocities. The U.S. Military used American tax dollars to train Latin Americans how to torture, terrorize, and repress populations.

Public pressure calling for the closure of SOA grew, and when a congressional task force found those responsible for the 1989 UCA massacre were trained at SOA, something had to be done. The House of Representatives narrowly killed a bipartisan bill to shut down SOA, and instead, it was closed in 2000 and reopened in January 2001 as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) under the Defense Department, rather than the Military.

United States imperialism is still alive and well, fueling an international reign of terror that has spawned almost a dozen dictators and countless human rights violators. The School of the Americas was never really closed. Instead, it was given a fresh coat of paint, simply rebranding the same education that promotes violence and terror in the Global South. 

This education reinforces a cycle of violence in the Americas. It starts with security sector forces, trained by the United States to use torture, extortion, and abductions on populations of the Global South. As a result, asylum-seekers migrate North to escape from violence, often after a family member has already been tortured, arrested, or kidnapped. At the U.S.-Mexico border, caravans of people are denied refuge and detained, deported, or killed. 

From either end, it’s the United States terrorizing and killing innocent people.

It’s a bloody system spawning from the U.S. destructive foreign policy in Latin America, ranging from sanctions to outright coups, that seeks to strangle the region with unfettered capitalism and Washington-backed despots.

Since 2019, SOA / WHINSEC has trained over 83,000 Latin American security forces. The school has held “human rights training” as a central pillar since before the 2001 rebranding, and after the change in leadership, the Defense Department doubled down on this focus by offering courses on “human rights.” However, these efforts are meaningless when it has no correlation to graduates respecting the most basic laws of international human rights.

In 2015, SOA / WHINSEC graduated its first U.S. border patrol agent. The U.S. border patrol has secured contracts to purchase millions of bullets in ammunition and in the past 15 years have killed over 100 people as a result of excessive force, many of whom were not on American soil.

In September of 2019, an unredacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) report revealed that ICE agents will now begin training at the facility. ICE has also contracted a private company for almost $1 million to build realistic models of U.S. cities in Fort Benning, meant to simulate raids ICE agents conduct in places like Chicago and Arizona. The models are typical family style residential homes, complete with props that include furniture, clothing, and toys.

ICE and U.S. border patrol have been under fire for years for their inhumane policies and gross human rights violations. Immigration policy has been a major concern in the recent presidential election. From the child separation policy at the border to the recent reporting of forced sterilization by ICE, the crimes committed under the guise of border security are severe.

Today, agents are being trained in Fort Benning, and instructed in the ways of violent, military dictators. The extent of U.S. militarism has never been contained to our borders, and its effects are not without consequence. The School of the Americas must be shut down, permanently, and the United States must begin a process of owning and reconciling its violent history.

The post Close the School of the Americas, Again appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Venezuela’s recent downward spiral illustrates the profound economic and political effects oil price fluctuations have on the world’s oil-producing countries. Venezuela’s economic crisis continues to go from bad to worse. The Venezuelan Bolivarian socialist economy has collapsed from a fatal collision of low oil prices and poor economic policy. The result is economic chaos, from rampant inflation to import fraud to shortages of basic consumer necessities. As the economy plummets, political unrest builds in Venezuela.

Current president Nicolas Maduro, Hugo Chavez’s handpicked successor, has sought to continue the Chavez socialist dream and align himself squarely with the revolutionary leader’s popularity and charisma. However, as falling oil prices have made government spending (especially spending on major social programs) unsustainable and destroyed the economy, Maduro has been confronted with the failure of his political vision. He has turned to attacks on political opposition to appear strong and United States-bashing and conspiracy theories to distract his people—for example, claiming that, “there’s a world campaign against Venezuela.” Recovery for Venezuela will not come easily or at all as long as sound economic policy comes second to rhetoric, and the nation’s economic and political instability will have implications for both South America and the United States’ interests in the region.

The drop in oil prices dented the economies of many oil-producing countries around the world and had an especially significant effect on highly oil-dependent economies like Venezuela. Oil is Venezuela’s economy—Venezuela’s petroleum revenues account for about 50% of the country’s GDP and contribute more than 95% of the country’s hard currency income. It has been estimated that President Maduro’s government will require oil prices of about $117 a barrel in 2015 just to break even with government spending. As oil prices hover around $60, the economy faces a fiscal chasm.

The revenue-budget gap has been made much, much worse by historically poor economic policy. For example, strict currency controls (including an overvalued, three-tiered dollar-to-bolivar exchange rate) along with a heavily import-reliant economy have fueled a raging currency black market, incentivized fraudulent imports and created shortages of essential consumer goods like food and medicine. These extreme shortages have been created by several factors including a lack of diversified domestic production, price controls and scarce funds with which to pay for imports. The scarceness of consumer goods has truly brought the economic crisis home for ordinary Venezuelans who frequently must do without or wait in extremely long shopping lines. In February, Venezuelan officials at last announced and began to implement a plan to tackle one major political roadblock and retool currency controls—but this change may well be too little, too late.

Meanwhile, the economic crash has evolved into political instability, with massive street protests rocking Caracas since February 2014. Protestors, mainly students, have focused on social and economic problems like the collapsing economy and shortages of basic necessities. Although protest-associated violence seems to have peaked in early 2014, the causes of Venezuelan instability have not been addressed; Venezuela’s economy remains dire, Maduro’s approval ratings are around 25%, and the fairly recent imprisonment of well-known opposition leaders such as the mayor of Caracas has amplified public outrage. Smaller protests and demonstrations continue to occur and the country teeters on the brink of fresh unrest, while political opposition groups and leaders remain highly visible and vocal. Maduro does not fully control the media or public political debate, and will likely continue to face noisy opposition and low approval ratings.

Distract, deny and blame has been Maduro’s chosen response to political upheaval—Maduro has become a bit of a conspiracy theorist, claiming that the imperialist US government is plotting a coup against him, creating artificial instability and threatening Venezuela’s statehood. The Obama administration’s first major response was a March Executive Order that declared Venezuela a national security threat and placed sanctions on seven Venezuelan officials accused of corruption and violating human rights. Maduro sought to make political hay out of this move via noisily aggrieved measures such as starting a 10-million signature petition drive (to be presented to President Obama at April’s Summit of the Americas) and banning several US diplomats from the country, saying, “They can’t come to Venezuela because they are terrorists”. Such scapegoating techniques have neither significantly improved his domestic approval ratings nor done anything at all to address the real economic, political and social problems Venezuela faces. Meanwhile, Maduro has sought to enhance his personal power, winning expanded decree powers in the name of “anti-imperialism” in the face of supposed US aggression.

Venezuela is in the midst of a storm of economic disaster and political turmoil, made much worse by falling oil prices but inseparable from corruption, deceit and mismanagement in politics. As President Maduro fails to implement substantive political and social reforms or practical solutions to the country’s economic problems, Venezuela will remain a domestically unsteady and destabilizing force in South America. The United States will also remain closely involved as Maduro works to dodge blame and incriminate US “imperialism”, and as the US tries to achieve policy objectives in proximate countries, such as attempting to normalize relations with Cuba. Of all of the world’s petro economies dented by the oil price dive, Venezuela has fallen fastest, loudest and hardest because, in Venezuela, instability runs deeper than oil. President Maduro’s Chavez-socialist policies and interest in building personal power have historically trumped realistic economic policy. Venezuela today combines this problem of governance with collapsed oil prices—economic chaos and political unrest has been and will continue to be the result.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post How do you solve a problem like Maduro? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

“Nation-building” is an often-abused phrase that can be construed to mean a variety of things. Typically, it refers to the development of strong institutions to stabilize a developing nation and set the foundations of domestic prosperity. Increasingly, it refers to the development or modernization of basic infrastructure at a national level. But these definitions more accurately describe “state-building,” the development of governing institutions and the building of physical infrastructure, than the construction of a nation. A nation is a politically unified group of people united by shared values and heritage, and cannot be built by either the pen or the shovel.

There is a third definition of “nation-building” which, like the first two definitions, is not literally the construction of a nation of people, but is nonetheless prerequisite to the development of a flourishing and unified nation. Indeed, it is perhaps the prerequisite for any successful nation to flourish in a geographic space. This third form might be better described as “empire-building”, though without the connotation of the subjugation of less powerful peoples. This version of “empire” refers to the establishment of political unity and security over vast domains.

The United States had six main geopolitical imperatives for empire-building from its birth. By the dawn of the 20th century, it had largely achieved these and set the foundations for global power status. Statesmen from Alexander Hamilton to John Quincy Adams, and Henry Cabot Lodge to Theodore Roosevelt, all contributed to the attainment of these imperatives in their own ways. The resulting dominance over America’s strategic theater is their lasting gift to posterity—a gift so crucial to our existence as a nation that most forget its blessings of order and security until they are threatened.

First, in order to sustain a robust foreign policy in the inherently dangerous late 18th and 19th centuries, the young United States required a durable economic base to provide for its forces, sustain the legitimacy of its government and keep apace of the technological breakthroughs of its rivals. As the 19th century went on, economic independence became more and more critical, and thus the Hamiltonian proponents of the American System encouraged a strong manufacturing sector to augment the already-prosperous agricultural economy and invigorate the finance and commerce of the coastal hubs. Not mired in poverty but rather in wealth, the United States had the resources it needed to fund its various geopolitical adventures. By the late 1800s, the US was the economic powerhouse of the world.

Second, the leaders in New York, Philadelphia and, finally, Washington needed to keep the diverse nation unified under a single banner—a balancing act that was increasingly complicated with every territorial expansion and surge in immigration. Regional hostilities between the plantation South and the industrial North flared into crises, eventually culminating in the Civil War. In that great epic, President Lincoln determined once and for all that the United States would be a single, unified nation-state. Were it not unified under the Star-Spangled Banner, the United States would never have been able to exert unparalleled influence over its near abroad—North America and the Greater Caribbean Basin.

Third, the leaders of the young United States needed to ensure that the new nation dominated the core heartland of the American continent—that is, they needed to expand American power from the Atlantic Seaboard to the fertile plains of the Great Lakes, the Ohio River basin and the Mississippi-Missouri River system. This core heartland was the foundation of much of America’s agricultural wealth subsequent to the Louisiana Purchase, and provided the newly continental nation with much-needed strategic depth, or spare geographic space to retreat into and operate from in the event of invasion. With the Greater Mississippi Basin bought from France and Britain expelled from much of the Old Northwest, Americans now had a reasonably secure geopolitical core.

Fourth, the United States sought to expel foreign powers from North America to prevent their use of North American resources, strategic ports on the Pacific and Gulf Coasts and other strategic sites from which they might project power from the American heartland. This was accomplished through settlement, purchase, diplomacy, war and a host of other means. The United States purchased Florida from Spain, Louisiana from France and Alaska from Russia, negotiated a settlement with Great Britain over the Oregon Territory, conquered California and New Mexico from the Mexicans, and annexed Texas. Dominating the continent and dealing with no significant threats from imperial powers, the United States could rest at ease.

Fifth, the young United States had to ensure that the areas around American territory were friendly and would not pose a threat. In halving Mexican territory in the Mexican-American War, the United States significantly reduced Mexico’s power, and by the end of the 19th century was taking steps to ensure that threats emerging from Mexico – like the infamous Pancho Villa – could not directly threaten Americans across the border. After the War of 1812, Canada, which had only barely escaped American conquest, sought to integrate itself economically with the colossus to its south. In both cases, wars of attrition preceded friendly and non-threatening relationships. Finally, through a series of interventions in almost every Caribbean and Central American country, as well as in a few South American countries, the United States secured hegemony over the Greater Caribbean Basin, although never formally. This area would come back to haunt Uncle Sam during the Cold War.

Sixth and finally, the United States needed to dominate the seas around the American continents and ensure that no European navy could ever approach America’s shores, choking off American commerce and naval maneuverability. This became particularly imperative in the aftermath of the War of 1812, when a British fleet sailed up the Chesapeake and Potomac and burned Washington, DC to the ground. After various attempts in the early 19th century, the effort finally succeeded by the early 1900s, marked by the Great White Fleet’s successful circumnavigation of the globe and demonstration of American naval prowess to the world. This, in turn, set the United States in position to begin claiming colonies of its own and exerting greater dominance in world affairs.

These six geopolitical imperatives – a strong economy, a united nation, dominance over the North American heartland, expulsion of European powers from North America, primacy among the other regimes of the Western Hemisphere, and control of the seaward approaches to the United States – largely defined American grand strategy throughout the first century of the republic. As the United States transitioned into world power status, a new set of geopolitical imperatives befitting of a world power became increasingly relevant as America butted heads with other powers and found stake in crafting a safe and amenable world order. American strategists grapple primarily with these newer imperatives today, striving to prevent the rise of a hegemon in any region of Eurasia, to dominate the world’s oceans and maintain the global economic system, and to build and utilize international institutions to forward these and other ends.

However, the fundamental baseline of American geopolitical strength – continental dominance – remains the baseline of American foreign policy. If anything threatened those six geopolitical imperatives, then the strategists of the United States would respond immediately. These strategists did so in Latin America many times during the 20th century, most famously when the Cuban Revolution installed a Communist regime 90 miles from Florida. Currently, increasing American attention towards the nearly failed state in Mexico represents another iteration of this strategy—seeking order in America’s near abroad. We have not yet resolved this particular problem, but dealing with it is core to America’s strategic interests and necessary for American security.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post The Contemporary Geopolitics Series: Continental Dominance, Global Influence appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

There are generally two types of monarchies that exist today. The first type is as an absolute monarchy, in which the sovereign possesses supreme autocratic powers over his state and people. The second type is a constitutional monarchy, in which a system of government is established by a constitution or convention that mandates some form of an elected government overseen by a monarch. In almost all monarchies, succession is hereditary. Only a few monarchies, such as Cambodia and Kuwait, allow citizens to select a new sovereign from within the royal family. The majority of monarchies have an ironclad succession process. This continuous rotation of power and wealth among a select few royal families ensures the survival of an elite class that is inaccessible to the general population.

Absolute monarchies still exist today, but they are very few in number. These countries include Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Brunei, Swaziland, and Vatican City. In these nations, the sovereign has absolute control over his state’s resources and population. Powers include setting the country’s general direction, such as Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal, who directed Saudi Arabia’s budget to match his personal priorities of technological and economic progress to modernize society in the 1970s. On the other hand, monarchs may utilize their state’s resources to satisfy their personal needs and desires, such as the acquisition of luxury items such as Oman’s “Super Yacht.” In these societies, there is virtually no opportunity for representative government and all power is concentrated in the hands of one person. No wonder absolute monarchies frequently draw heavy criticism from the international community

Even if an absolute monarch’s dramatic level of power seems foreign and excessive to the democratically oriented observer, this level of authoritarianism is to be expected from such a system of government. More surprising and interesting are the powers reserved for royals of constitutional monarchies with democratic systems of government, or shadow monarchies. There is a diverse set of countries that fall into this category, including Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Thailand, Jordan, and Denmark. Perhaps the most significant and popular shadow monarch of the contemporary period has been the Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (UK), who officially exercises authority over 15 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK. Official descriptions regarding the duties of the monarch in England suggest a more “ceremonial” role as a symbol of “stability, continuity, and national focus” rather than an executive role. However, England does not have a written constitution, and many of the duties that have been undertaken by Parliament were delegated by the monarchy out of “convention.” In other words, the Queen has transferred some of her official duties as Head of State to the Parliament, although she can invoke her right to royal prerogative at anytime. The legislature in the UK can pass laws, but those possible affecting “the Crown’s interests” must receive the consent of the Monarch. The Crown has invoked the power of the royal consent and veto for at least 39 pieces of legislation in the contemporary period. The Queen also possesses other powers such as dismissing/appointing the Prime Minister and other ministers, declaring war as head of the Royal British Armed Forces (British soldiers swear allegiance to the Monarch), and making treaties. The royal prerogative in the case of the Queen of the UK and other Commonwealth realms is very robust, and her powers are clearly more than strictly ceremonial.

Not all shadow monarchies possess the same degree of power, however. Belgium and Sweden stand on opposite ends of the spectrum of constitutional monarchies. The Monarchy of Belgium is relatively powerful and similar to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom. The King is endowed with numerous powers according to the Belgian Constitution, such as signing and promulgating laws passed by the Federal Parliament, acting as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and appointing/dismissing ministers of government. In addition, Article 88 of the Belgian Constitution states, “the King’s person is inviolable, his ministers are responsible.” This law basically means that the monarch possesses immunity from any type of prosecution. Clearly, the Monarch of Belgium is rather powerful and can dominate his elected counterparts if he so chooses. However, the Monarch of Sweden is much weaker in comparison. Sweden’s monarch was essentially stripped of his executive authority in 1975 by legislation, thus reducing the sovereign to a purely ceremonial role. Therefore, the King of Sweden is no longer considered a chief executive of the government and does not have nearly the same degree of reserved rights or privileges as the King of Belgium.

Besides conventional governmental authority and power, many monarchs also hold a position of religious or moral authority. The King of Thailand, for example, is designated as the “Upholder of the Buddhist religion and Upholder of all religions.” The British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, is awarded the title, “Supreme Governor of the Church of England” and is frequently referred to as the “Defender of the Faith.” These roles, while sometimes not well defined, endow various monarchs from across the globe with a sense of moral authority and superiority. By being placed at the head of religious life in addition to political life, these monarchs are afforded even greater power, influence, and legitimacy.

Shadow monarchies that permeate the globe are vestiges of a different era. As the United States seeks to foster a democratic world order, it is rather perplexing that some of these monarchs still possess such tremendous power today. Elected governments of constitutional monarchies seem to be chipping away at the authority of their respective sovereign monarchs through legislation or convention, but much power still rests in the hands of this elite class. Debating the moral implications and efficacy of these monarchical systems is a different matter, but it cannot be denied that the power of these monarchs is certainly underestimated and, perhaps more importantly, unknown.

The post The Unknown Power of Shadow Monarchs appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.