Author: STEPHANIE BREWSTER

Paul Musgrave has a very interesting article on The Beautiful, Dumb Dream of McDonald’s Peace Theory and how the theory falls apart. The latest blow comes from McDonald’s and Burger King franchises in Azerbaijan weighing in on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with clear pro-Azeri messages on social media. Musgrave points out the irony of “a company once held up as a disincentive to war becom[ing] a participant in one.” (The posts have since been deleted and both companies did not comment on political speech from franchisees.)

While Armenia does not have a McDonald’s, so in this case the theory somewhat holds, other conflicts have involved two parties with McDonalds. NATO bombed Serbia shortly after Friedman’s book came out, but technicalities could get around this case disproving the theory. Since then, however, the 2006 Lebanon War, the 2008 Georgian-Russian War, and the 2014 Crimean crisis all involve “militarized disputes” between nations that both have McDonald’s.

Ultimately, the Golden Arches Theory isn’t really about McDonald’s, but about the theory of capitalist peace. McDonald’s doesn’t even begin operations in countries that haven’t reached a certain level of economic development. Capitalist peace suggests that economic development and integration is the way to maintain peace among nations. While this theory has had some merit, Musgrave points out the theory doesn’t account for countries choosing other values over economic gain. Uncertainty over the United States’ commitment to preserving the international order encourages nations to accept economic pain as a necessary consequence of improving their own security.

As the effects of global climate change continue to make themselves apparent, it would be reasonable to assume even more nations will find conflict with other McDonald’s nations worth the cost. Ultimately, scarcity invites competition and as resources become even more scarce, countries will likely be pressed to ensure their own survival. If the Coronavirus pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that there is a large segment of the population that simply cannot be moved to do the right thing for the protection of others. Convincing nations to cooperate and tackle climate change together rather than compete for scarce resources without devolving into even more armed conflicts will be an extraordinary challenge. Idealistic theories of Golden Arches and an unending American hegemony are unable to meet the moment.

While a lot of focus in cybersecurity is rightfully on securing federal systems, a vulnerability that is becoming even more obvious are a nation’s cities. In 2018, the city of Atlanta was the victim of the SamSam ransomware attack. It brought critical services to a halt and erased important city data, like videos from police officers’ dashboard cameras. Atlanta was the largest city affected, but nearly 200 other cities and companies were victims of the SamSam attack, including Newark, NJ.

An inspector’s report before the attack took place revealed incredible vulnerabilities in Atlanta’s systems including 2,000 vulnerabilities marked as “severe” and 100 servers running an old version of Windows Microsoft had stopped supporting 3 years earlier. The SamSam virus relied on “brute force” rather than more common phishing attacks. This meant it was looking for weak or default passwords to gain access.

A few days ago, the city of Saint John in Canada revealed it was the victim of a ransomware attack and had yet to determine whether to pay the ransom. While it did not believe personal information had been compromised in the attack, it encouraged residents to monitor their bank accounts and acknowledged some city services would be unavailable or running on analog processes until they could regain access and secure the systems.

Atlanta was able to keep critical infrastructure like water and emergency services running in part because it was prepared to go to manual backup processes. It is essential that cities be prepared for cyber attacks crippling key systems, but it is also evident that city and state governments need to take cyber security more seriously. A city government, especially of a major city like Atlanta with one of the world’s busiest airports, is a tempting target. Gaining access to city records could also make it easier to target persons of interest who happen to reside in those cities.

I’m often surprised at how many people lack awareness of basic cyber security measures, like keeping software up to date and using strong passwords and two-factor authentication. While everyone could benefit from learning foundational concepts, city employees should receive advanced training and city infrastructure should be held to higher standards. Working for a major tech company has certainly taught me a lot about cyber security, but the key thing I learned is that while it’s certainly important to have secure code and strong firewalls, the primary way systems are breached is through front-line employees. Leaving devices unlocked and unattended, weak passwords, or offering potentially sensitive information to someone posing as a fellow employee without verifying their identity, and of course, clicking links in suspicious emails are all common ways employees can compromise security, and much easier for bad actors than hacking a system’s code.

Two Iranian citizens were indicted in US court over the SamSam attacks, but are almost certain to never appear. Protecting the federal government is critical to our national defense, but we shouldn’t forget to protect our cities and the critical services they provide.

I found this article by former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder very interesting. He suggests that a consequence of the Trump Administration’s “America First” foreign policy may be further breakdown of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Trump and Pompeo’s disdain for alliances have brought America’s commitment to protecting its allies, including if Article 5 is triggered, into question. While the Biden Administration will certainly work to rebuild alliances and reassure allies of the U.S. commitments, our allies and adversaries can hardly be blamed for noticing that 70+ million Americans voted for Donald Trump’s re-election, despite everything, and draw the conclusion a future, less incompetent administration could come to power and revive Trump’s disastrous foreign policy.

Daalder argues that the greatest threat to the NPT is not from adversaries, but from allies who conclude they can’t trust in U.S. protection and pursue nuclear capabilities so they can protect themselves. While I appreciate his concerns about our allies fearing they can’t trust the U.S. to protect them, I would like to believe his concerns are slightly overblown. He opens with a suggestion that Europe worried the U.S. might not defend Poland and the Baltic States from a nuclear threat from Russia. I see no reason Russia would suddenly decide to start nuking its neighbors. If that became a genuine concern, or if any NATO member was threatened or attacked, the U.S. is not the only nuclear state in NATO. The UK and France both have nuclear arsenals that are more than capable of responding to any Russian aggression and protecting Europe.

He mentions South Korea and Turkey as two allies who might be motivated to acquire nuclear weapons. I’m sure Erdogan would love a handy excuse to break the NPT and pursue nuclear capabilities for his own ambitions, but I doubt it would be driven by any real concern about the U.S., especially as Erdogan is friendly with Russia and France and the UK are capable of protecting a NATO ally. The UK and France do not have ICBMs, however, potentially limiting their response range if a threat occurs far from Europe. Their submarines may have stepped up patrols around the world in response to uncertainty from the U.S., but it’s impossible to know.

I also find it hard to imagine South Korea seeking nuclear weapons against North Korea. The threat from North Korea appears to be directed further from home for the most part, as evidenced by their pride in showing off their new ICBMs. It would be likely to only increase the risk to South Korea if they inflamed tensions by acquiring nuclear weapons. I could see this situation pushing South Korea to forge closer ties with China in a hope China will protect the region from North Korea’s nuclear weapons and help constrain the threat.

I think the greatest threat to nonproliferation comes from the states we are already aware of, Saudi Arabia and Iran. While Iran seems interested in the U.S. re-entering the JPCOA, I fear Saudi Arabia and Iran’s power struggles and proxy wars in the region make it even more likely both will become nuclear states. I can’t see any situation where one accepts the other having nuclear weapons if they do not. The focus has been on Iran for some time, but Saudi Arabia is likely not waiting around to find out if the JPCOA will halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In recent weeks, both nations have thrown accusations at each other and called on the IAEA to investigate the other. Perhaps the U.S. and other signatories could use this to their advantage. Already, Riyadh knows their time of impunity from Washington is at an end. If the U.S. commits to ensuring Saudi Arabia is held to the same rules and investigations as Iran and neither will be allowed to posses nuclear arms, perhaps it could help prevent both from becoming nuclear states. Obviously, nothing is that simple, but I worry that especially during the Trump Administration, Saudi Arabia has been allowed to fly under the radar and needs to be checked before they destroy any chance of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Yesterday, just before noon Eastern Time, U.S. media called the election for President-elect Joe Biden. Cities across the country and around the world reacted in celebration to the news. Church bells rang in Paris and people across the U.K. set off fireworks to mark the occasion. I haven’t yet been able to find another election that received this kind of reaction from America’s allies. Though President Trump has yet to concede, and is in fact continuing to insist he actually won the election, world leaders began to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.

The sentiment of our allies can be summed up in a tweet from Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo: “Welcome back America!” Other leaders were slightly more diplomatic in their statements, but all expressed their excitement to work with the incoming Biden-Harris administration on a multilateral basis. A few organizations were especially relieved by the election results. The Director General of the WHO extended his congratulations and eagerness to work with the new administration. President-elect Biden has promised to reverse President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the WHO. The Secretary General of NATO specifically called out the President-elect’s dedication to the alliance in his statement. The feeling is mutual here in the U.S. A Reuters photographer yesterday captured a photo of a man celebrating Biden’s win at Black Lives Matter Plaza in D.C. with a NATO flag draped around his shoulders. A close ally of Trump’s Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was quick to celebrate the election of Kamala Harris. Vice President-elect Harris’ mother immigrated from India at the age of 19, and her village is celebrating Harris’ election, calling her the pride of the village.

Other leaders who were closer to President Trump have held off on commenting. Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel waited much longer than other leaders and in his message did not refer to Biden as the President-elect, as he did in his statement on the Trump victory in 2016. He immediately followed his message to Biden with a message of gratitude to President Trump for his support of Israel and pro-Israel policies, including the recognition of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Palestinian leaders have a different view, with official Nabil Shaath telling Turkish media: “There was nothing worse than the Trump era. Good riddance.” Russia, China, Turkey, Brazil and others have not offered their congratulations to the new administration, though Putin was very quick to do so in 2016.

Another interesting note is that some world leaders appear to be pushing back on President Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud in their statements. French President Emmanuel Macron said “America has chosen its new president,” and German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas welcomed “clear figures” that decided the election. Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny congratulated Americans on “defining the new leadership in a free and fair election.” He went on to say, “this is a privilege which is not available to all countries.”

One notable exception is Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa, who falsely claimed Donald Trump won re-election after his 3AM speech on election night and has since doubled down. The Prime Minister has tweeted or retweeted hundreds of times in favor of Trump’s election, bashing President-elect Biden and amplifying Trump’s and other Republicans baseless claims of voter fraud and election fraud along with conspiracy theories. He has also echoed U.S. Republican complaints about social media “censorship” of these claims. This could make Slovenian-U.S. relations awkward come January 20, 2021.

Overall, it is clear America’s allies and adversaries recognize President-elect Biden’s win means a return to the foreign policy positions that have been more or less consistent since 1945: an emphasis on multilateralism and strong ties with our allies, a strong NATO to counter Russian aggression, and a warning for authoritarian regimes.

I read an article today in the New York Times “As the U.S. votes, a frazzled world holds its breath.” While U.S. Presidential elections are always a matter of global interest, this particular one seems not only far more stressful at home, but also abroad. There were many in the U.S. and likely many among our friends and allies that did not expect the dramatic departure from standard U.S. foreign policy that the Trump administration has pursued. Republican leaders at the time told worried Americans and allies that they should relax, there would be “adults in the room” to curb his worst tendencies. This, of course, hasn’t played out the way they imagined.

Our allies in NATO now rightly worry a second term for Trump means the end of the alliance, and possibly of U.S. participation in multilateral organizations in general. Trump’s enamorment with dictators and rapport with authoritarians would likely lead to greater instability as the U.S. no longer serves as a check on dictators and would-be dictators and imperialists.

A few weeks ago, I read that Russia and China were waiting to engage with Iran to see what the outcome of the election might be. Since then, Putin made a statement saying he saw no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, which many saw as undermining President Trump’s new favorite conspiracy. When invited to explicitly support Trump after he suggested on a public conference call that Biden could not have “made this deal” with Sudan, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demurred, saying “Well, Mr. President, one thing I can tell you is we appreciate the help for peace from anyone in America. And we appreciate what you’ve done enormously.” The president appeared visibly deflated by Netanyahu’s statement.

One line in today’s New York Times article that I found interesting suggested that at least some in the Israeli government fear a second term for Trump could lead to a deal with Iran they would not like as Trump would no longer need the electoral support of evangelicals. I can see how this might be a consideration, but I wouldn’t anticipate Trump’s stance to change too greatly. And to be fair, he has (not really jokingly) suggested he should be eligible for a third term because Democrats were “so unfair” to him in his first. He’d want to keep evangelicals in his corner for that fight.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about how Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s imperial ambitions were creating tensions within NATO, particularly with Greece and France. Rather than de-escalating tensions, Turkish relations with France have continued to deteriorate in recent weeks.

The first area of tension is the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh between Azeri and Armenian forces. The United States, Russia, and France are unified in their pursuit of a ceasefire and peaceful solution to the conflict. The three nations, and Iran, who shares a border with both Armenia and Azerbaijan, do not want this to become a regional war, and Russia has a defense pact with Armenia. Turkey backs Azerbaijan, however, and is accused by Armenia and France of sending hundreds of Syrian fighters to help Azerbaijan. The bad blood between Turkey and Armenia, enhanced by Turkey’s continued refusal to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, plays a role in this conflict. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has accused Turkey and Azerbaijan of “pursuing a policy of genocide and ‘reinstating the Turkish empire.'” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian has accused Turkey of and “internationalizing” the conflict, which Ankara denies.

The second area relates to recent events within France. Laïcité, or state secularism, is an essential component of French national identity. Macron announced an effort to study Islamic separatism amid fears the nation’s Muslim residents were forming a “counter-society” rather than integrating into French society. In a speech announcing new policies, Macron said, “Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today, we are not just seeing this in our country.” Macron committed to ending foreign funding of mosques and sending foreign imams to France as well as increasing state support for economic and social mobility to keep radicals from filling a vacuum.

On October 16, a French teacher, Samuel Paty, was beheaded on the street by 18-year old Abdullakh Anzorov as Paty was walking home from school. He was targeted for showing satirical cartoons, including two of the prophet Muhammed that led to the mass killing at Charlie Hebdo, in a lesson on free speech and freedom of conscience. The brutal murder shocked France and heightened Macron’s calls for reform in Islamic communities. Macron posthumously awarded him the Légion d’honneur, France’s highest civilian award, and called him “the victim of stupidity, of lies, of confusion, of a hatred of what, in our deepest essence, we are.” He told Paty’s coffin, “We will continue this fight for liberty and for reason of which you have now become the face, because we owe it to you.”

Erdoğan chose to respond to this by calling for Macron to have a mental health check in a televised speech, saying “Macron needs treatment on a mental level.” “What’s the problem of the individual called Macron with Islam and with the Muslims?” he asked. In response, France has recalled their Ambassador to Turkey, a first in French-Turkish relations. Le Drian called Erdoğan’s comments unacceptable behavior from an ally, and called out Turkey for failing to offer condolences or support for Paty’s family or France in the wake of the murder. The Élysée also noted Erdoğan’s “very offensive comments of recent days, particularly on the call for a boycott of French products.”

In response today, Erdoğan’s director of communications, Fahrettin Altun, posted to Twitter that these “offensive caricatures” and “accusations of separatism against Muslims” are “dog whistle politics” meant to intimidate Muslims and are unrelated to free expression. He went on to say “Europe’s hostility towards Muslims… is inseparable from the increasingly widespread hostility towards Islam, Turkey, and our president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.” And, in what might be received as a threat, he continued: “Here’s what those Europeans need to understand: Muslims won’t go away because you don’t want us. We won’t turn the other cheek when you insult us. We will defend ourselves and our own at all costs.” Erdoğan also attacked Macron again today, calling him a head case who is “obsessed with Erdogan day and night.”

Macron appeared to respond in a Twitter thread, saying, “Our history is that of the struggle against tyrannies and fanaticisms. We will continue. Freedom, we cherish it; equality; we guarantee it; fraternity, we live it with intensity. Nothing will make us back down, ever.”

EU’s Josep Borrell, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, condemned Erdoğan and Turkey’s comments as unacceptable and called on Turkey to “cease this dangerous spiral of confrontation.” The Elysée has demanded Erdoğan and Turkey “put an end to its dangerous adventures in the Mediterranean and in the region” within two months or there will be consequences. “Measures will have to be taken at the end of this year.”

Turkey’s aggression and irresponsible behavior are a frequent and tremendous headache for NATO, but could become an existential threat if a solution is not found soon.

As the United Nations arms embargo on Iran expired today pursuant to the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States will impose sanctions on “any individual or entity that materially contributes to the supply, sale, or transfer of conventional arms to or from Iran, as well as those who provide technical training, financial support and services, and other assistance related to these arms.”

Pompeo and the State Department continue to insist that “virtually all previously terminated UN sanctions” re-entered effect on September 20th after triggering the snapback provision of the JCPOA. The rest of the world disagrees. Our European allies argue that since the US is not a participant, it has no right or authority to impose snapback sanctions on an agreement it is no longer a party to. It is unclear how the United States will unilaterally enforce multilateral sanctions the rest of the world is determined to ignore, but Pompeo has stated he expects all UN member states to comply with the sanctions.

Though Pompeo’s official statement declares the embargo is still in effect, he lacks the power to turn his wishes into reality. The embargo has expired and Iran is free to purchase conventional weapons. It will be interesting to see who dares to risk Pompeo’s wrath and US sanctions. A possible outcome of this decree would be Iran moving closer to Russia and China as Western companies may not want to risk doing business with Iran and losing business with the United States. The US Presidential election is less than three weeks away, however, and in the short term, it is more likely that potential suppliers will wait to see the outcome before making a decision. Tong Zhao, a senior fellow at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, told Al Jazeera he expects China to wait and see: “Beijing would want to reboot the US-China relationship with a new US administration.”

Russia also has reason to wait and see. Putin called Friday for a one-year extension of START, which is set to expire in February. The Trump administration immediately rejected Putin’s proposal. A long-term extension or new agreement would certainly be negotiated differently in a Biden administration, as Biden was one of the original negotiators.

Though the embargo has been lifted, continuing uncertainty and potential changes in US leadership are unlikely to create a rush to sell to Iran. Most nations are hesitant to upset the balance of power in the region and want to reserve the option to reset relationships under a future Biden administration.

Republicans in the US have long been skeptical of or outright hostile to the United Nations. In January 2017, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) re-introduced the American Sovereignty Restoration Act to withdraw the United States from the United Nations and other multilateral bodies, cease all payments to the UN, and “repeal” all agreements with the UN. Rep. Rogers re-introduced it again in January of 2019. The bill has yet to make it out of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, but the sentiment behind the bills has been shared by other prominent Republicans as well as Republican voters. In 2019, Pew found that only 36% of Republicans had a positive view of the UN, compared to 77% of Democrats.

There are a few common arguments against the United Nations. The first, as Rep. Rogers’ bill implies, is that the United Nations poses a grave threat to US sovereignty. Republicans, particularly Evangelical Christians, fear the United Nations will impose ‘globalist, liberal’ values on unwilling God-fearing Americans and increase what they believe to be widespread persecution of Christians in the US. The New York Times reported on a draft Executive Order in January of 2017 called “Moratorium on New Multilateral Treaties” that called for a review of all current and pending treaties. Two treaties were called out in an explanatory statement, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Of course, the United States is the only UN-member nation not to be a party to the Rights of the Child, and is one of the few nations, along with Iran, Somalia, and Sudan, not to ratify CEDAW.

The arguments against these treaties are that they unfairly infringe on US domestic policy. Parental rights groups argue he Convention on the Rights of the Child infringes on the rights of parents. They believe children “belong” to parents and this treaty will lead to parents being forced to send their children to public school overruling parents’ desires in religious and sex education. There is also fear that if rights are recognized, welfare must be expanded to provide for those things, which Republicans oppose. Parental rights leader Michael Farris, general counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom and founder of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association and Patrick Henry College, has put forward an amendment to the Constitution to enshrine these rights, which has been supported by Republican Senators. The explanatory statement in the draft order also specifically calls out that the treaty could be used to ban spanking, a common practice in conservative homes. The ACLU has argued that these concerns are overwrought. The US had a large role in devising the treaty and it incorporates a great deal of US law. It is true that some US laws would need to be adjusted, however. The US is also the only country in the world to sentence children to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Similar arguments are made against ratifying CEDAW. The administration claims it would “prohibit the celebration of Mother’s Day,” for instance. Of course, many other nations that have ratified the treaty, like the UK, celebrate Mother’s Day, so it is unclear how they drew that conclusion. The same groups who have successfully halted the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment argue that the US Constitution protects women so CEDAW is not needed. They argue that because CEDAW promotes reproductive rights, access to contraception, and gender equality in all spheres of society, it will lead to discrimination or even legal consequences against those who believe in “traditional family values.”

The other primary complaint is that the UN has an anti-Israel bias. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has called the UN a “forum for anti-Semitism” and introduced legislation to “combat systemic bias and targeting” against Israel. The United States, particularly the Republican party, has sought to defend Israel in the UN by vetoing resolutions challenging Israel on Palestinian rights and settlements in disputed territories. Republican’s support for Israel is largely based on an Evangelical Christian belief that the nation of Israel is important for fulfilling end-times prophecy. Citing God’s promise to Abraham and the prophecy of Balaam, they argue that if the United States turns its back on Israel, God no longer bless the US and it will ultimately be destroyed.

Despite the rhetoric of Republican leaders, polling has shown high levels support among Americans for the United Nations and ratification of CEDAW and Rights of the Child. No doubt if Vice President Joe Biden should win the election, he will seek to rebuild the US’ reputation and leadership at the UN. Should President Trump win re-election, however, speculation has already begun that he would withdraw the US from NATO and the United Nations. Evangelicals and Republicans might cheer, but the world will be less equipped to meet global challenges without US funding and leadership.

National security experts are raising alarms about increased threats after news broke of President Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis and subsequent hospitalization. They have identified a few key areas of risk to US security posed by the latest crisis. First, there is the operational risk posed by an uncontained outbreak among senior levels of the United States government. We are still waiting for the White House to conduct contact tracing and key members of the line of succession like Vice President Mike Pence and President Pro Tempore of the Senate Chuck Grassley are refusing to quarantine or even be tested. With conflicting information being given about the President’s condition and his doctors being undermined by his own Chief of Staff, Americans, as well as our allies and adversaries, are looking for reassurance that someone is in charge of the United States and that the line of succession is secure and ready to step in if the President becomes too ill to fulfill the requirements of his office. It is also unclear how many members of the national security apparatus are ill or need to quarantine. While quarantined, they will not have access to the classified servers or key information needed to discharge their duties, hindering the United State’s ability to identify and respond to threats.

The second risk is that whether through lack of timely and accurate intelligence caused by the first risk or through illness, the President and other key decision makers will not be capable of making timely and informed decisions regarding US national security. In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson contracted the pandemic raging in his day, the Spanish Flu. He had fallen ill after arriving in Paris for the peace conference to negotiate the end of World War I. We now know that Wilson became extremely ill, hallucinating and giving unreasonable and unpredictable orders. In the end, he agreed to the harsh punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles he had previously opposed as nonnegotiable. These terms contributed directly to World War II. Aides at the time tried to hide how ill he was, claiming he had a cold. It is unknowable if the terms of the treaty would have been different had Wilson been healthy and in full control of his mental faculties, but it is fair to speculate that his illness and the coverup caused great harm to US and global security. Presidents lying about their health is nothing new, but given the deficit of trust this administration already has, the lies will not provide confidence and a sense of calm this time. In fact, they have already fueled speculation that it is just as likely the President’s doctors are lying to keep him from panicking as it is they are lying to keep the American people and our allies from panicking.

The final risk is strategic. The US’s adversaries like Russia and China may choose to take advantage of a moment of chaos and weakness to further their own goals while they think attention is directed elsewhere and the US will be unable to respond. Putin is most likely to take this path, as he appears to thrive on chaos, particularly when it is the US in chaos. But as Samantha Vinograd points out, both China and Russia have been working to undermine the United States’ reputation as a global leader able to solve these kinds of crises. With the President himself refusing to take the necessary precautions to protect his own health as well as his staff and their families’, it’s much easier to discredit the United States as a competent nation. It also is another reminder that for this administration, national security is secondary to the President’s political goals.

Greece and Turkey were both admitted to NATO in 1952 with the hope relations between the two nations would improve. This has not necessarily been the case, and tensions between Greece and Turkey have flared up several times in the time since. In 1974, Greece and Turkey nearly went to war over Cyprus. According to Carnegie Europe, it wasn’t so much the NATO alliance that held the peace as it was the United States pressuring the two nations to come to terms, with the US “basically impos[ing] a ceasefire on Turkish forces operating in Cyprus.”

With the United States withdrawing from its leadership role in both NATO and the world, there is growing concern over the latest dispute between Turkey and other members of NATO. The core of this dispute is over energy and territorial waters. Turkey is attempting to drill for oil and gas in the Eastern Mediterranean and has begun venturing into waters claimed by Greece and Cyprus. Turkey claims it has equal rights to those resources, but this is, of course, disputed by Greece and Cyprus. Turkey has sent a drilling ship with a naval escort into Greek waters. Greece has responded with its own navy. Both nations have been conducting naval exercises and exchanging heated words.

Also drawn into this dispute is France, who backs Greece and Cyprus. Earlier this summer on June 10th, a French frigate on a mission for NATO tried to inspect a Tanzanian-flagged cargo ship it suspected was smuggling arms to Libya. It claims it was harassed by Turkish naval vessels accompanying the cargo ship. France accuses Turkey of violating the UN arms embargo. Turkey denies the allegations and claims the French frigate was the aggressor. Reuters reported that NATO conducted an investigation but swept the report under the rug to avoid further antagonizing Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. France has joined Cyprus’ calls for sanctions against Turkey if they fail to withdraw their vessels from Greece and Cyprus’ waters.

Erdoğan has lashed out at French president Emmanuel Macron in recent days, telling him “Don’t mess with Turkey” and accusing him of trying to be a new Napoleon, quite the projection from a man who appears to be determined to revive the Ottoman Empire. Some French commentators have suggested France cannot rely on NATO or Germany to reign in Turkey and must take the lead themselves. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged parties to find a diplomatic solution, but did add “We remain deeply concerned by Turkey’s ongoing operation surveying for natural resources in areas over which Greece and Cyprus assert jurisdiction in the Eastern Mediterranean.” Given President Trump’s relationship with Erdoğan, it seems doubtful the US will take any meaningful action to halt Turkish aggression against fellow NATO members.