On November 17th, President-elect Joe Biden announced that former Secretary of State John Kerry will join his administration as Climate Change Envoy, or “climate czar.” Former Secretary Kerry has advocated for government action to address climate change – at both the state and federal level – for decades. Nor is Kerry a stranger to tackling diplomatic tasks relating to climate change; after all, it was his job to lock down commitments to reverse the trend towards a runaway climate reaction from nearly two hundred countries at the Paris Climate Change Conference in 2015.
The United States has its work cut out vis a vis re-gaining international trust in its climate commitments. The Trump Administration has done much to erode this trust through actions it has taken that even go beyond its decision to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement in August 2017. A slew of deregulation initiatives and executive orders have scaled back many climate-friendly Obama-era precedents and regulations.
Former Secretary Kerry’s appointment has been hailed universally as a positive step in the right direction and a strong indicator of intent. The fact that the climate czar will have a seat at the National Security Council gives the issue of climate change the largest degree of deference it has ever enjoyed in the United States government. However, Kerry’s diplomatic overtures can only do so much. It should be noted that the effect that the new climate czar position may have are stringent on the incoming administration’s ability to introduce climate-friendly domestic policies.
The current impact of COVID-19 has caused many countries, governments, and international organizations to realize the vast impact that global health securities such as pandemics, medical and food shortages, and by extension, biological agents, may have on global security. The outbreak has taken toll on economies, societies, and the disruption to supply chains showed the potential impact to various nations as well.
This also highlighted the need for a multilateral approach to global health security. The Global Health Security Agenda has expanded to address and handle such concerns, greatly influenced by the current, ongoing pandemic. The acceleration of priorities towards securing food and resource scarcities and preventative health measures has been a key concern for future pandemics and lessons learned from COVID-19. Below is some information on the GHSA:
After a deal signed between the United States and the Taliban in February in Doha, Qatar, the tensions in Afghanistan have increased creating competition among anti-government militants. Islamic State Khorasan (ISK) dispute with the Taliban for political success and influence bringing more violence to the Country. The peace deal signed with the United States dealing to halt bombing urban center and break up the relationship with other terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda Nevertheless, attacks from the Taliban have increased by around 50% in the last months, the Taliban has used military operations increasing concerns about the group is trying to establish a discriminatory and totalitarian regime in the country.
Many people in Afghanistan blame the Taliban for hosting and collaborating with terrorism groups, the war by the Taliban has undermined Afghanistan’s political stability, security, and economic development, weaken the government’s functionality and territorial control, allowing others militant groups such as ISK gain more control over the country. These groups are trying to build leverage through violence and claiming the honor of resisting the US and its partners. They are fighting to create frustration and chaos to expand their operational reach and lethality, thereby creating transnational inspiration for the movement.
The conflict in Afghanistan is going up, it is a combination of proxy wars and terrorism, the proxy dimension of the war since the 1980s produced countless intended and unintended consequences such as state fragility, terrorism, sectarianism, war crimes, social fragmentation, and radicalization. On the other hand, mistakes made on all sides, especially by the Trump administration in Washington, created both inspiration and hope for many extremist groups in the region.
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.
These terms seem to appear as God’s inevitable punishment and hang over us like a Damocles sword. At least since the 1979 World Climate Conference in Geneva. At that time, experts discussed climate change with the result that the continued burning of fossil fuels and the progressive destruction of forests on earth would lead to a massive increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Huge states in his Environmental Threats to Security[1]
For many, a link between resource depletion and military power politics calculations began to become apparent in the economic downturn of the 1970s and then become firmly established after the conclusion of the Cold War.
But we humans do not want to blame ourselves for the misery we have caused. Specialists are insurance companies that are objectifying Climate Change thus profiting from risks and opportunities of climate change[2]. Much like life insurance is in fact death insurance. It would be important to put an end to the myths surrounding climate change. One of those tales is that the population will migrate from south to north. The assumption that refugees from disaster impacted areas would move beyond their homeland is not correct. Most of them, whether due to violence or natural hazards will stay close to their area of origin. Quite the reverse, the reason to leave the homeland is mostly man-made, and the result of irresponsible actions by politics and those elected to govern. Mixing both, distorting the chain of causation and numerous misconceptions create unnecessary fear and a hostile environment for refugees around the world.
Werrell et al[3], in their analysis of the connections between the uprisings in Syria and Egypt in 2011, examine the Failed States Index and the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index and conclude that
…measurements of state fragility in particular, but also climate vulnerability, may need to take into account a broader array of factors, draw from a more comprehensive array of sources
A similar scientific investigation is the 2018 report of the “Lancet Countdown on health and climate change” which tracks 41 indicators[4]. An impressive drawing shows how intertwined all this is.
The pathways between climate change and human health in: The 2018 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change
Franz Josef Strauß, the legendary Prime Minister of Bavaria, used to say: “Speak simple, but think complicated – not the opposite way round” The topic is quite complicated. And there is no such thing as a “natural” disaster, the climate does not change, as well as security does not threaten us just by itself. We, humans, are responsible.
[1] Hough, Peter. “6. Environmental Threats to Security.” Understanding Global Security. 4th ed. Routledge, 2018, p. 147
[3] Werrell, Caitlin E. & Femia, Francesco & Sternberg, Troy. “Did We See It Coming?: State Fragility, Climate Vulnerability, and the Uprisings in Syria and Egypt.” SAIS Review of International Affairs, vol. 35 no. 1, 2015, p. 44.
Unless you’re a regular reader of nuclear weapon development capabilities, the name Mohsen Fakhizadeh probably didn’t mean much before this week.
His name is making international headlines after the successful assassination mission carried out near Tehran on Friday. The details are gruesome and point to clear signs the actions were deliberately coordinated.
A failed car bomb was followed by a string of gunfire. Fakhizadeh was later pronounced dead at the hospital.
Public sources have yet to name the responsible parties involved, but it’s a safe bet that Israeli forces contributed helpful hands. Their covert boots on the ground methods produce a recognizable signature. For example, in September of this year, working in a similar fashion but more efficient manner than the hit on Fakhizadeh, Mossad operatives riding a motorcycle in the streets of Tehran shot and killed Abu Muhammad al-Masri, a member of al-qeada’s top leadership responsible for the fatal attacks on U.S. Embassies in Africa.
If the hit on Fakhizadeh had been a U.S. mission, we might have sent AMG-114 hellfires, as was the case in eliminating Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and seven others in Iraq without incurring civilian casualties, in January of this year.
As we think about Who Makes Policy, it’s important to consider all aspects of the policy landscape, including defensive measures. In some scenarios, the most effective policy measures to curtail ambition to develop a nuclear weapons program are eliminating its brain trust, such as in the lethal strike against Fakhizadeh. It’s an eerily discomforting feeling reaching this realization; nevertheless, it’s relevant and at times necessary for the security interests of the United States and our global partners.
Reading the climate change articles this week, I felt that the disproportionate challenges faced by the Global South – which is comprised by countries that were not the major polluters responsible for the escalation of climate change in the 20th century – were addressed only briefly. I also was surprised that none of the articles really made the case for policies of managed retreat to higher ground alongside more transformative technological solutions like sucking carbon out of the air, carbon taxes, etc.
Climate change is recognized as an urgent security problem on a global scale, but its effects will be felt most immediately and acutely by communities of the Global South. An uptick in droughts and major storm events, combined with inadequate infrastructure and high reliance on the agricultural sector have left the region particularly exposed to this threat. Major cities in this region are commonly located on coasts or major waterways and thus face the immediate impacts of rising seas. Urban centers are primary destinations for climate refugees escaping the drought, deforestation, and food insecurity increasingly faced by rural and agricultural economies – contributing to existing problems of overcrowding, slum expansion, and insufficient housing supply in cities. As the region grapples with a changing climate, the science suggests the brunt of these changes will impact the region’s most vulnerable: women and children, the poor, and those with low levels of mobility.
The urban poor are most vulnerable to rising temperatures. The poor are most likely to live in insecure structures without proper heating or cooling infrastructure and are least likely to have ready access to clean water or green space that serves to offset rising temperatures. Further, the development of informal housing in dangerous or risk-prone areas is often encouraged by regulations and zoning laws that restrict housing supply and deny poor communities land tenure. As a result, already overcrowded slums are overflowing as migrants arrive from coastal areas ravaged by climate change’s most immediate effects, or from agricultural communities where changes to weather patterns have devastated their crops and ability to make a living. As new arrivals to cities, migrants find access to affordable housing and transportation is limited, and many migrants struggle to gain employment as they lack formal education and skills translatable to the urban economy. In this way, it is easy to see how environmental degradation can lead to security threats and conflict over scarce resources – particularly among populations already suffering from various forms of deprivation.
In the face of rising sea levels, some scientists and scholars have suggested that the response should be a systematic retreat to higher ground or mass movement to climate resilient terrain. Moving inland, they argue, is not a defeatist measure; it is simply a practical one. This approach has not gained a great deal of traction in climate change policy conversations, primarily because relocation is drastic, complicated, and costly, and would mean moving local communities – often the poorest and most vulnerable – from the places they call home. Programs of this nature would require a particularly high level of buy-in from policymakers and communities, which the concept does not currently enjoy. However, proponents of retreat say these policies are framed as prohibitively difficult until they are deemed inevitable, pointing to islands of the South Pacific and Indian Ocean that have hastily adopted policies of retreat and relocation, recognizing that their environments will soon be underwater. These scholars contend that, if well-managed, retreat would be a prudent, proactive measure to head-off an inevitable reality that many communities will face down the line. Such policies are not only prudent for communities of the Global South but also low-lying and coastal communities in the United States. New York has experimented with such policies in the wake of Hurricane Sandy in parts of Long Island and Staten Island, offering to buy damaged homes for pre-storm value in exchange for owners moving to less vulnerable areas.
I put managed retreat in the category of adaptive solutions rather than the transformative solutions needed to address the problem on a global scale, but both need to be discussed side by side by policymakers.
China has powered up its first domestically-built nuclear reactor, and the construction of 6 more are underway at home and abroad. According to China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) the country’s first reactor using Hualong One technology was successfully connected to the grid and started generating electricity at the Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant in the southeast Fujian Province on Friday morning. The announcement was made with hopes that China will become more energy-independent and to export its design across the globe.
This accomplishment means that China has “broken the monopoly of foreign nuclear power technology and officially entered the ranks of advanced countries in nuclear power”, CNNC said. This “further enhances the confidence of countries in China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Awakening the Dragon”, it added. So, clearly, this development was not just meant for domestic consumption alone, but to take China’s prestige to another level. We all know how China has been using its Belt and Road Initiative to influence its neighboring countries and beyond and thus indebting them. But I hope this leverage will advance cooperation with nations in need of civilian nuclear power.
We are told that the reactor, which was connected to the national grid on Friday, can generate 10 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity each year and cut carbon emissions by 8.16 million tons. So, this new technology is definitely welcome as the world is envisaging clean energy at a moment when the global GHG emissions are at an all time high. If China safely commercializes this, then the developing world might have to transition and follow suit in the use of this technology and give up fossil fuels for the sake of climate change.
Claimed to be the Architect of Iran’s Nuclear Program, Iranian Nuclear Scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was ambushed and killed in the city of Absard, about 44 miles east of the capital Tehran. The ambush happened with explosives and machine gun fire, where he was rushed to the hospital and died there. While no immediate claim of responsibility, the Iranian Foreign Minister has pointed the finger at Israel as the prime suspect. The killing is seen is just as grave as the assassination of Qassem Soleimani back in January. Iran has vowed retaliation as they threatened to “strike as thunder at the killers of this oppressed martyr and will make them regret their action. “It seems that despite the lack of concrete evidence, Israel will be on the list for Iran to blame for this act of terror as they mentioned. This also can lead to further deteriorations in relations between the US and Iran as the final weeks of the Trump presidency are here and would leave a Biden presidency in a deep hole in regards to Iran.
Fakhrizadeh was regarded as the “main keeper of Iranian knowledge of its nuclear programme.” His face was never shown until April 2018 in effort to keep in secret as other Iranian nuclear scientists were killed, with suspicions of them being killed by Israeli assassins. He is hailed as a martyr in Iran, and was also according to Western and Israeli intelligence officials a key figure in an atomic bomb program that was stopped in 2003. In a presentation by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Fakhrizadeh was a central figure in the presentation as he accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons and using its nuclear program for that reason. In his presentation, Netayahu said “Remember that name, Fakhrizadeh.”
This situation of course can possibly lead to a confrontation in the Middle East between Iran and Israel. This also could possibly put the United States in a bad light as Iran has accused the US of provoking Iran as best as they can before the Biden Presidency begins, which is doubtful at this point. This also can be just words alone as Iran vowed the same action when Solemani was killed and nothing happened. Only time will tell what will happen after more is revealed about this event.
Alejandro Mayorkas, President-elect Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Department of Homeland Security, is expected to tackle the issue of cybersecurity as he brings vast experience in that respected area. Mayorkas worked under the Obama administration as deputy DHS Secretary and during his tenure he contributed vastly in a deal with China that briefly reduced Chinese hacking targeting U.S. companies back in 2o15 as well as acting in increasing cybersecurity intelligence that government shared with industries.
With this pick to the DHS, the cybersecurity experts are hoping for Mayorkas to boost cooperation globally in the field of cybersecurity and to restore the good relationship between industry and government on cybersecurity that has been strained by the current administration. The experts also expect a key issue such as cybersecurity to be top of the list and not demoted to secondary like the Trump administration has shown, as it appears to be clear that this time around cybersecurity will surely be a top priority for Homeland Security.
There will be many issues that Mayorkas and Co will be facing once they are in the DHS Seat such as the 5g infrastructure transition, the cybersecurity of elections, and of course protecting the US against foreign cyberattacks as some of its issues it has to tackle, including the low employee morale around the DHS currently too. However, it still has to be remembered that he has another huge task in rolling back the immigration polices implemented by the Trump administration, but make no mistake cybersecurity efforts aren’t too far behind
