Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The Paris Agreement will be ten years old in 2025. It is a good opportunity, then, to reassess the feasibility of its long-term goals and understand what they mean for the current and for the next generations. In a very optimistic scenario, if the goals of the Paris Agreement are achieved, the climate crisis will have been solved by the end of the 21st century. In the meantime, though, the crisis will worsen, as temperature overshoot is very likely to occur by the middle of the century. During the overshoot period, our planet’s average temperature exceeds 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, which is the threshold proposed by the Paris Agreement. At the end of the overshoot period, which could last from one to several decades, the temperature will begin to fall until it eventually stabilises at 1.5°C at the turn of the century (IPCC 2023, 1810). Expectedly, the success of the Paris Agreement would greatly benefit the “post-overshoot generation”, namely the generation that will live in the first half of the 22nd century. But to ensure the success of the Paris Agreement, the generation that will live in the overshoot period – the “overshoot generation” – will have to remove an enormous amount of GHG (Greenhouse Gases) from the atmosphere. For now, though, it is unclear whether CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) technologies will be available at a scale that might enable the overshoot generation to achieve the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement. To aggravate the problem, the overshoot generation will also probably have to rely on as-yet untested geoengineering technologies to promote their own survival. As we can see, conflicting interests of three different generations are at stake here, namely: (1) the interests of the current generation, (2) those of the overshoot generation, and (3) the interests of the post-overshoot generation. Given the unequal distribution of power across generations (Gardiner 2011, 36), it is likely that the current generation will tend to further their own interest to the detriment of the overshoot generation, even if, in the end, the climate policies enforced by the current generation do indeed fulfil the interests of the post-overshoot generation. The best possible world is one in which the goals of the Paris Agreement are achieved. Yet, depending on the choices that we make today, the best possible world could also mean the worst possible world that human beings will ever have met on our planet. That will be the fate of the overshoot generation, squeezed between the self-serving policies of the current generation and the climate hopes of the post-overshoot generation. The implications for international relations are momentous, as we intend to show in this article. Possible pathways The Paris Agreement did not establish a concrete deadline for the achievement of the goals set out in Article 2, namely: Maintain the increase in the global average temperature well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and make efforts to limit this temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. The scientific community generally understands that the Paris Agreement aims at climate stabilization at the end of the 21st century. There are two main reasons for this. The first is a constraint imposed by our planet’s climate system. The second is a constraint imposed by agreed upon principles of justice. As for the first reason, we have to bear in mind that an immediate reduction of GHG emissions would not be followed by an immediate decline of global temperature (Dessler 2016, 91). Even if all countries decided to eliminate their respective emissions today, the global temperature would continue to rise for several decades, until it begins to recede and stabilises at the turn of the century. As for the second reason, the Paris Agreement assumed that developing countries could not immediately reduce their own emissions without compromising their own development and the prospect of eradicating poverty. Thus, the Paris Agreement also established in Article 4 that each country could continue to emit GHG until their respective emissions peaked as soon as possible. After peaking, emissions should be rapidly reduced. Thus, the attempt to achieve the goals set out in Article 2 well before the end of the 21st century might turn out to prove inconsistent with the reality of our planet’s climate system and unfair towards developing countries. The problem, however, is that the Paris Agreement did not establish a specific pathway for the achievement of its long-term goals (Figure 1). There is, indeed, a multitude of pathways, but many (if not most) of them involve an overshoot period (Geden and Löschel 2017, 881; Schleussner et al. 2016). And as there are “different interpretations for limiting global warming to 1.5°C”, there emerges the question, then, as to which interpretation could do justice to the conflicting claims of the three different generations considered as a whole, namely the claims of the current generation, those of the overshoot generation, and the claims of the post-overshoot generation (Figure 2). There has been much discussion now on the concept of a “just transition”. But this debate has focused entirely on the claims that the members of the current generation can raise against each other, and not on claims that could be raised – or presumed – across the three generations referred to above. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Glossary from 2023, for instance, contains a specific entry on this topic: “Just transitions. A set of principles, processes and practices that aim to ensure that no people, workers, places, sectors, countries or regions are left behind in the transition from a high-carbon to a low carbon economy” (IPCC 2023, 1806). The IPCC entry ends with some considerations regarding past generations: “Just transitions may embody the redressing of past harms and perceived injustices”. Interestingly, though, the entry says nothing about the normative implications of a just transition for future generations. A 2023 United Nations document defines the concept of just transition along similar lines (United Nations Economic and Social Council 2023, 3, 12–13). But, again, it understands “just transition” in terms of claims that stakeholders within the current generation, whether at national or international level, can raise against each other. As for the international level, the United Nations document makes the following statement concerning the concept of just transition as applied to international relations: “As countries pick up the pace of their climate change mitigation strategies, it is critical that developed countries do not transfer the burden of the transition onto developing countries” (United Nations Economic and Social Council 2023, 8). The problem, however, is that, as a matter of justice, it is equally critical that the current generation does not transfer the burden of the transition onto the overshoot generation, even if that burden, in the end, turns out to benefit the post-overshoot generation. Such an unequal distribution of burdens across three generations would certainly conflict with the requirements of intergenerational justice (Moellendorf 2022, 161–70; Meyer 2021). Overshoot generation and retroactive mitigation One might perhaps argue that no extra burden is being imposed on the overshoot generation, for the current generation is already having to face challenges that the overshoot generation, supposedly, will not have to face. The overshoot generation, one might suggest, will inherit from the current generation all the benefits resulting from the energy transition, but without having to bear the costs that the transition imposes on the current generation. The idea here is that by the middle of this century global emissions will have already peaked and will be declining at an accelerated pace, towards stabilisation at 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level at the end of this century. Thus, the overshoot generation can arguably reap the benefits of green energy, as long as the current generation remains free, at least for the time being, to emit GHG further, which is necessary to finance the human and technological development that the overshoot generation will need later. This claim, however, overlooks a crucial fact about the climate crisis – a fact that has not been given due attention in the public debate on climate policies. In a very optimistic scenario, the overshoot generation will not have the burden of reducing their own emissions because they will be able to rely on carbon-free energy. The problem, however, is that the overshoot generation will still have to retroactively mitigate the emissions of previous generations – including, of course, the emissions of the current generation. We call this process “retroactive mitigation”, for what is at stake here is not reduction and phasing out of one’s own emissions, but the removal of massive amounts of GHG, which previous generations failed to mitigate in the past. In a 2014 report, the IPCC realised that simply reducing GHG emissions would no longer be enough to preclude irreversible climate change. Removal of GHG would also be necessary (IPCC 2014, 12). The IPCC called attention to yet another problem: it was unclear whether CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) technologies, including DAC (Direct Air Capture), could be deployed on a global scale in time to avoid a climate disaster. In a 2018 report, the IPCC was even less confident about the future development and scaling-up of CCS technologies (IPCC 2018, 136). To make matters worse, two further factors must be taken into consideration. (1) Recent studies show that there are practically no pathways left for the achievement of the Paris Agreement goals without the massive deployment of CCS (Smith et al. 2023). And (2) it has become increasingly probable that the overshoot generation will also have to deploy geoengineering technologies to cope with ever more frequent heatwaves (Moellendorf 2022, 161–70). It could perhaps be argued that afforestation and preservation of existing forests could be used instead of CCS technologies. However, the amount of land and water that would be necessary for the creation of new forests is probably larger than the amount of land and water available. Moreover, the attempt to create new forests on such a large scale might compromise the water and food security that the overshoot generation will need to promote their own climate adaptation (Shue 2017, 205). It is also necessary to take into account the amount of time new forests need to grow, not to mention the risk of fire. In this case, forests stop absorbing GHG and become GHG emitters themselves (Gatti et al. 2021). Implications for international relations In the aftermath of the Second World War, human being’s capacity to trigger catastrophic events at a global scale became increasingly apparent. As Garrett Hardin aptly put the problem in 1974: “No generation has viewed the problem of the survival of the human species as seriously as we have” (Hardin 1974b, 561). But while even realist thinkers such as Hans Morgenthau and John Herz argued for international cooperation in the face of global threats, Hardin himself advanced what he called the “lifeboat ethics”. According to Hardin, instead of engaging in international cooperation, richer states should behave like lifeboats and resist the temptation to help individuals from poorer states to cope with environmental disasters or famines. This, he argued, might undermine richer states’ capacity to secure their own survival (Hardin 1974a; 1974b). In his The Limits of Altruism: An Ecologist’s View of Survival from 1977, Hardin resumes his criticism of international cooperation to alleviate the plight of poorer states: We will do little good in the international sphere until we recognize that the greatest need of a poor country is not material: call it psychological, moral, spiritual, or what you will. The basic issue is starkly raised in a story of personal heroism that unfolded in South America a few years ago (Hardin 1977, 64). Hardin goes on to recall the 1972 Andes plane crash, turned into a feature film in 2023. Hardin suggests that the passengers who had survived the crash would not have taken the initiative to save their own lives had they not heard on the radio that the search efforts to rescue them had been called off. Hardin’s conclusion is this: “This true story, I submit, bears a close resemblance to the moral situation of poor countries. The greatest gift we can give them is the knowledge that they are on their own” (Hardin 1977, 65). Hardin, of course, does not take into consideration the extent to which richer states themselves may be responsible for the plight of poorer states. Hardin’s self-help approach to international relations is in line with political realism. But when major realist thinkers themselves addressed the question of human survival, around the same time Hardin advocated his lifeboat ethics, they came to entirely different conclusions. Authors such as Morgenthau and Herz realized that nation-states had become unable to protect their own citizens in the face of global catastrophes triggered by the depletion of the environment or the outbreak of a nuclear war. As Morgenthau put the problem in 1966: “No nation state is capable of protecting its citizens and their way of life against an all-out atomic attack. Its safety rests solely in preventing such an attack from taking place” (Morgenthau 1966, 9). In a 1976 article on the emergence of the atomic age, Herz made a similar point: “Nuclear penetrability had rendered the traditional nation-state obsolete because it could no longer fulfill its primary function, that of protection” (Herz 1976a, 101). Both Morgenthau and Herz argued for international cooperation – or perhaps even the dissolution of the system of states (Morgenthau 1978, 539) – as the better strategy to avert global catastrophic risks (Herz 1976a, 110; 1976b, 47). Herz later also theorized about the concept of “ecological threat” and argued for the development of a new interdisciplinary field, which he aptly named “survival studies” (Herz 2003; Seidel 2003; Laszlo and Seidel 2006, 2–3; Graham 2008; Stevens 2020). During the overshoot period, as heatwaves and other climate-related extreme events become more severe and frequent, people in poorer countries are likely to suffer the most. Mass migrations are likely to occur on an unprecedented scale (Vince 2022). Given the current popularity of anti-migration measures both in the United States and Europe, it is imaginable, then, that the lifeboat ethics will strike a chord with future conservative governments. That would be an error, for the assumption that governments will be protecting their own citizens by way of making their borders impenetrable to climate migrants is misleading. The “ecological threat” cannot be held back by higher walls. Lifeboat ethics will make everyone worse-off. Back in the 1960s, Martin Luther King may not have had climate change or mass migration in mind, but his words strike us as even more poignant now: “We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now” (as quoted by former American President Barack Obama). There is only one boat, carrying three generations of hopeful passengers with equal legitimate claims to a better climate. It is a long journey. Let us not allow our only boat to go down. Final remarks The scenario in which the overshoot generation will have to live is not an encouraging one, but it is even less inhospitable than the scenario that the post-overshoot generation will have to face if the goals of the Paris Agreement are not met. It is up to the current generation to make sure that the overshoot period is as short as possible, and that the overshoot generation will not only be in a position to adapt to unprecedented climate scenarios in the history of human civilization, but also fulfil hopes of the post-overshoot generation. Figures Figure 1: Pathways compatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement (IPCC 2018, 62). FIGURE01  Figure 2: Pathways that would limit global warming to 1.5°C (IPCC 2018, 160).   Acknowledgements Marcelo de Araujo thanks Prof. Darrel Moellendorf for the invitation and the Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation for the financial support. Support for this research has also been provided by the CNPq (The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) and FAPERJ (Carlos Chagas Filho Research Support Foundation). An earlier draft of this article was presented at the University of Graz, Austria, Section for Moral and Political Philosophy, in 2024, with thanks to Prof. Lukas Meyer for the invitation. Pedro Fior Mota de Andrade benefited from financial supported provided by CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development). References Dessler, Andrew Emory. 2016. Introduction to Modern Climate Change. Second edition. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Gardiner, Stephen. 2011. A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gatti, Luciana V., Luana S. Basso, John B. Miller, Manuel Gloor, Lucas Gatti Domingues, Henrique L. G. Cassol, Graciela Tejada, et al. 2021. ‘Amazonia as a Carbon Source Linked to Deforestation and Climate Change’. Nature 595 (7867): 388–93. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03629-6. Geden, Oliver, and Andreas Löschel. 2017. ‘Define Limits for Temperature Overshoot Targets’. Nature Geoscience 10 (12): 881–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-017-0026-z. Graham, Kennedy. 2008. ‘“Survival Research” and the “Planetary Interest”: Carrying Forward the Thoughts of John Herz’. International Relations 22 (4): 457–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117808097311. Hardin, Garrett James. 1974a. ‘Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor’ 8 (September):38–43. ———. 1974b. ‘Living on a Lifeboat’. BioScience 24 (10): 561–68. ———. 1977. The Limits of Altruism: An Ecologist’s View of Survival. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Herz, John. 1976a. ‘Technology, Ethics, and International Relations’. Social Research 43 (1): 98–113. ———. 1976b. The Nation-State and the Crisis of World Politics: Essays on International Politics in the Twentieth Century. New York: D. McKay. ———. 2003. ‘On Human Survival: Reflections on Survival Research and Survival Policies’. World Futures 59 (3–4): 135–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604020310123. IPCC, ed. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge university press. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf. ———. 2018. ‘Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty’. Edited by V Masson-Delmotte, P Zhai, HO Pörtner, D Roberts, J Skea, PR Shukla, A Pirani, et al. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. ———, ed. 2023. ‘Annex I: Glossary’. In Climate Change 2022 – Mitigation of Climate Change, 1st ed., 1793–1820. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.020. Laszlo, Ervin, and Peter Seidel, eds. 2006. Global Survival: The Challenge and Its Implications for Thinking and Acting. 1st ed. Change the World. New York: SelectBooks. Meyer, Lukas. 2021. ‘Intergenerational Justice’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/justice-intergenerational/. Moellendorf, Darrel. 2022. Mobilizing Hope: Climate Change and Global Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press. Morgenthau, Hans. 1966. ‘Introduction’. In A Working Peace System, D. Mitrany, 7–11. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. ———. 1978. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred Knopf (Fifth Edition, Revised, 1978). Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich, Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Tabea Lissner, Rachel Licker, Erich M. Fischer, Reto Knutti, Anders Levermann, Katja Frieler, and William Hare. 2016. ‘Science and Policy Characteristics of the Paris Agreement Temperature Goal’. Nature Climate Change 6 (9): 827–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3096. Seidel, Peter. 2003. ‘“Survival Research:” A New Discipline Needed Now’. World Futures 59 (3–4): 129–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604020310134. Shue, Henry. 2017. ‘Climate Dreaming: Negative Emissions, Risk Transfer, and Irreversibility’. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 8 (2): 203–16. https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2017.02.02. Smith, Stephen, Oliver Geden, Gregory Nemet, Matthew Gidden, William Lamb, Carter Powis, Rob Bellamy, et al. 2023. ‘State of Carbon Dioxide Removal – 1st Edition’, January. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W3B4Z. Stevens, Tim. 2020. ‘Productive Pessimism: Rehabilitating John Herz’s Survival Research for the Anthropocene’. In Pessimism in International Relations: Provocations, Possibilities, Politics, edited by Tim Stevens and Nicholas Michelsen, 83–98. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, Springer Nature. United Nations Economic and Social Council. 2023. ‘Committee for Development Policy Report on the Twenty-Fifth Session (20–24 February 2023)’. Supplement No. 13 E/2023/33. Official Records. New York: United Nations. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n23/088/80/pdf/n2308880.pdf. Vince, Gaia. 2022. Nomad Century: How Climate Migration Will Reshape Our World. First U.S. edition. New York: Flatiron Books. The text of this work is licensed under  a Creative Commons CC BY-N

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Less than a week away from the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as the 47th President of the United States of America, not only strategic allies and trading partners but also multilateral organisations and the UN system are bracing themselves for the certainty of unpredictability.  However, taking into consideration President Trump’s first term in office, his announcements on the campaign trail, his own personality, the nomination of personnel for positions of high relevance for the international system as well as the impact of the Republican trifecta and diminished checks and balances, a substantial re-positioning of the US within the international system can be expected.   The impact of the first Trump Administration Since the UN’s founding in 1945, the relationship between the US and the United Nations can at best be described as contradictory, which is largely the result of constant tensions between domestic considerations and foreign policy goals. As the leading advocate for a successor institution to the League of Nations, the US fundamentally shaped the objectives and values of the United Nations. This support, which had been driven by national interests, started to wane in the mid-70s when enlarged membership and the creation of the G77, a group of 77 developing countries, reduced US influence.  Although the US was a leading actor in the UN’s establishment, the UN has become a secondary platform of international cooperation. Various US administrations have engaged substantially with the UN system when it served national interests. However, domestic power constellations have frequently impeded any substantial engagement that has gone beyond financial contributions.1  However, Trump’s “America First” ideology stood out from his predecessors’ policies, and particularly conservative ones, in its obstructive approach to the United Nations and disdain towards institutions such as NATO, thus rebuking the closest allies of the US. Indifference and discord towards the United Nations not only damaged the institution but also the reputation of the US. President Trump’s unilateral “America First” policy and abject disregard for multilateral institutions damaged US legitimacy as a global leader and weakened the UN. Under Trump, the transactional nature of US engagement with the UN became obvious. As long as US interests were served, constructive engagement was applied.  US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley even managed to gain the support of China and Russia on a Security Council Resolution (SC/RES/2397) that would impose harsh sanctions on North Korea (DPRK).2 However, in other areas the dominance of national interests guided US policies at the UN during the Trump administration. In showing its unconditional support for Israel, the Trump administration cut all of the US’s funding from the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and further reduced its potential role as mediator in the Middle East Peace Process.3 After accusing the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) of supporting coercive abortions and involuntary sterilisations in China without proof, the Trump administration cut all core funding for UNFPA and jeopardised many family planning programmes in developing countries.4 In the Security Council, the US position at times even aligned with Russia’s or China’s policy – particularly when other UNSC members tried to raise the nexus of climate change and security. This, as well as the US positions on the rights of victims of sexual violence in war and their reproductive health, further enhanced tensions with traditional Western allies. In addition, Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Accords, the JCPOA5, the INF treaty6, and boycotted the UN Migration Pact7 negotiations.  However, the most obstructive political manoeuvres under President Trump have certainly been the scapegoating of the WHO and the labelling of the organisation as a Chinese puppet during the COVID-19 crisis, the suspension of funding for WHO, and the subsequent withdrawal from the UN body at the height of the pandemic. By doing so, the US squandered its reputation as a reliable partner and blocked any declaration by the UNSC on the pandemic for months.  Equally harmful was the US withdrawal from the UN Human Rights (HR) Council in 2018. Not only did the US abandon a platform for denouncing human rights violations worldwide, but its departure also allowed China to disseminate its own human rights narrative. Although autocratic regimes are regularly elected to the Council and use the opportunity to ensure their own HR violations are not addressed, the US withdrawal created a vacuum and took away a powerful ally for like-minded states, particularly the European Union (EU). In the HR Council, we see an increasingly assertive China, which previously only tried to shield its domestic situation from scrutiny, but which has now come up with its own interpretation of collective, developmental rights versus individual human rights. Swift action and a prepared agenda During his first term President Trump only slowly appointed key positions in foreign relations. It took him two years to appoint an Ambassador to Geneva, for example. His ambition to fundamentally cut financial support to the UN system found its limits in Congress. The US remained the world’s largest donor of development and humanitarian assistance. Even within in the Republican party and in conservative circles, particularly in the religious and evangelical constituencies the opinion prevailed that official development assistance still served the interests of the American people.  In January 2025, the situation is different. One of the first nominations of Donald Trump after his re-election in November has been Marco Rubio, as Secretary of State, and he appointed Republican Representative Elise Stefanik as his Ambassador to the United Nations in New York.  Senator Rubio has been known so far as a supporter of US global engagement as when it serves American economic interests and national security. He is hard on China and aims for more transparency and accountability in the aid sector. He supported the fight against Malaria and other preventable and treatable diseases in the past. Although a sigh of relief went through the development community when his name was circulated, it cannot be taken for granted that he will defend their interests against the MAGA dynamics in the party and administration. As with all Trump appointments, and considering experiences from the past, the question will always be how much autonomy can they preserve, and for how long will they endure in the system?8  Although Donald Trump distanced himself during the campaign from Project 2025, a blueprint for an incoming conservative administration by the Heritage Foundation, it is to be expected that those he has so far selected not only share the views on the multilateral order but also the criticism and preconceptions brought up against the institutions.  The frontline of Trump’s anticipated crusade against multilateral organizations might this time also include those who have been spared so far: World Bank, IMF, as well as the OECD. 9 In the case of others, he might continue where the end of his first term prevented further action or the Biden administration reversed the steps he had taken. Human Rights Council The latter has been the case of the Human Rights Council. In 2018 the Trump administration had been withdrawing from the Council arguing that it had become an “exercise in shameless hypocrisy – with many of the world’s worst human rights abuses going ignored, and some of the world’s most serious offenders sitting on the council itself.”10  In October 2021, the US got reelected to the Human Rights Council. In the context of its staunch support for Ukraine, the US became the driving force behind a Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine as well as on the creation of the Special Rapporteur on Russia. However, when its reelection came up again in October 2024, the Biden administration deliberately decided not to stand as a candidate. Although some observers argue that this decision has been taken in order to avoid a backlash from a majority of UN Member States who see the unwavering US position on the collateral implications for International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights by Israel’s fight against Hamas and Hizbollah as a paramount example of double-standards. One could also argue that not being a sitting Member of the Human Rights Council at a time when the likelihood of another withdrawal is not too far away, reduces the reputational damage for the organization as well as for the standing of the US in the International System.  US Ambassadors to the United Nations in New York are generally Cabinet Members, thus directly involved in shaping policies. With Elise Stefanik, Trump has not only appointed a staunch supporter of Israel who has accused the UN of being “a den of antisemitism”11 but also a reliable anti-abortion proponent. Her positioning in New York will certainly influence dynamics in Geneva as well. And if Project 2025 is becoming the playbook that everybody expects it to be, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the US is a signatory might not remain the uncontested reference point anymore.  The U.S. Commission on Unalienable Human Rights created during the first Trump administration by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, produced a report which is projected by Project 2025 as an important guidepost for bilateral and multilateral engagements on human rights.12 The report sets out to define which rights are ‘unalienable,’ elevating religious liberty and the right to private property, while dismissing rights the report calls “divisive social and political controversies,” including sexual and reproductive rights, LGBTI rights, and the right to non-discrimination.13  The intention of Project 2025 is not only to reevaluate all multilateral engagements by the US in the light of the work of the Commission on Unalienable Human Rights, but also to forge a consensus among like-minded countries in support of human life, women’s health, support of the family as the basic unit of human society, and defense of national sovereignty. In 2020, the Trump administration sponsored in the UN General Assembly the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Women’s Health and the Protection of the Family (A/75/626) for which it gained the support of 34 Member States, including those whose human rights and women rights track records are anything but clean: e.g. Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Pakistan.14  Taking into consideration initiatives like the Geneva Consensus, the in-coming Trump administration could besides of complete withdrawal also undermine Human Rights standards by introducing almost in a similar way as China is doing, new narratives. In this endeavour, the US could even find support amongst states who are normally staunch US critics but who will seize the moment and opportunity to dismantle the liberal rules-based order that they perceive as Western dominated anyway. World Trade Organisation (WTO) To avoid another blockage in the appointment of a WTO Director General in 2025 by the US, WTO members brought forward the re-election process of incumbent Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala by two months. President Trump had already in 2020 blocked her appointment, leaving the organisation without leadership for almost seven months.  From an “America first” perspective, “America gets fleeced every day in the global marketplace both by a predatory Communist China and by an institutionally unfair and nonreciprocal WTO.”15 Thus, Project 2025 recommends to reform the WTO or to build a successor organisation and limiting its membership to liberal democracies. The main red-flag for the US at WTO certainly is the developing-country status of China in the WTO and the alleged infringements on US sovereignty – albeit ignoring the veto right the US has as the WTO is a consensus-based organisation.  However, and although Trump’s announced tariffs applied on friends and foes will be disruptive for the international trade system, one must highlight that also during the Biden administration, the US has not been a WTO member easy to engage. This held particularly true for the reform of the appellate body of the dispute settlement mechanism whose appointment process remains dysfunctional since the Obama administration. For the in-coming administration, trade is considered also as a tool for development. In this regard it does not differ too much from the reforms out-going USAID Administrator, Samantha Power, had tried to initiate.16 And it could be an area where WTO Director General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who is seen as particularly focused on the development aspects of trade, and the Trump administration could perhaps find a common ground. Humanitarian and development assistance Humanitarian assistance that already faces substantial funding gaps will certainly face new vulnerabilities with the in-coming Trump administration. Despite substantial reductions which already kicked in in 2022, the US remains the largest donor for UN agencies such as the World Food Programme (2023: 36.53% of total WFP came from US); UNHCR (2023: 38.93%); and OCHA (2023: 19.9%). Although humanitarian aid and particularly funding for food security (WFP was run by the Trump ally, David Beasley) was not contentious during Trump’s first administration, this might change. According to Max Primorac who had been Deputy Administrator of USAID during Trump’s first term, and is the author of the Project 2025 chapter on the Agency for International Development, “’emergency’ aid distorts humanitarian responses, worsens corruption in the countries we support, and exacerbates the misery of those we intend to help.[...] humanitarian aid is sustaining war economies, creating financial incentives for warring parties to continue fighting, discouraging governments from reforming, and propping up malign regimes. Nefarious actors reap billions of dollars in profits from diversions of our humanitarian assistance, but so do international organizations.”17 While criticizing the overheads international agencies have to charge in order to deliver aid in emergency situations, Trump affiliated development experts highly advocate for localisation – albeit in a slightly different fashion as progressive voices would do. The quest of the latter for enhanced equity, inclusion, and ownership of local organizations from project design to implementation remains disregarded while a case is built for aid delivery by faith-based organisations. Although enhancing the inclusion of local organizations for the right reasons is laudable, it certainly will not diminish the need for strong oversight and staff capacities on donor level. One reason why multilateral and international organisations are often used as a type of “middlemen” in aid delivery relates to the lean project management structures in Foreign and Development Ministries these days and the need for accountability mechanisms where taxpayers’ money is spent.  Drawing on the visions presented by Project 2025, development assistance under the in-coming Trump administration will have a strong focus on countering Chinese influence and will align foreign and developmental with anti-abortion policies. What is labelled as “Protecting life in Foreign Assistance”18 will inter alia reintroduce the “global gag rule” which prohibits US funding to organisations abroad that provide abortion services or information. Trump had already in his first term expanded the interpretation of it to the “Protecting Life in Global Health Policy”, and it is expected that he will include now humanitarian and development assistance as well – making it extremely difficult to assess what is included under these new rules and what not.19 In this context it is almost a given that Trump will cut again all funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) as its reproductive health services worldwide are a red-flag.20 Although UNFPA has gotten used to budget cuts by conservative US governments over the years, loosing 11% of its budget (2023) would not be easy to compensate for. World Health Organisation (WHO) and UNAIDS During the Covid-19 pandemic, the World Health Organisation (WHO) became a prime target for President Trump who inter alia accused the organisation of being too close to China and its handling of the early stages of the outbreak.21 He initiated a process to withdraw the US from it – a move that has been immediately reversed by his successor President Biden. Also for WHO, the US is currently the largest donor of assessed and voluntary contributions totalling 15.59% (2023).22 But with the negotiations of the Pandemic Treaty still underway, and the possibility for states to challenge the finalised amendments of the International Health Regulations until July 2025, it is much more at stake for WHO than just the financial implications of a disruptive relationship with the next Trump administration. With the nomination of Robert Francis Kennedy (RFK) Jr as the new Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the global health community is on high alert. On his campaign trail for president, RFK Jr. had already proclaimed to stop the pandemic treaty, as has done President elect Trump. In addition, RFK Jr has linked vaccines to autism, called the Covid-19 vaccines deadly, supports anti-vaccine organisations, and even questioned the proven fact that HIV causes AIDS.23 When 77 Nobel Laureates urged the US Senate in December 2024 to reject the nomination of RFK Jr.24, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus called for a “wait and see” attitude. He and his team are looking for areas where it might be possible to engage the Trump administration and its new HHS secretary. One area could be the epidemic of non-communicable diseases faced by Americans and which is often cited by RFK Jr. who advocates for enhanced prevention by healthier diets, environments and an active lifestyle.25  Health security has in the past always been a matter of common concern, and parties were able to work across the aisle. However, polarisation has also become a characteristic feature here. With a trifecta in place, the majority of Republicans in the House as well as in the Senate could become an issue of survival for programs such as PEPFAR. Already this year, PEPFAR, the US global flagship initiative in the fight against HIV/AIDS that had been established under Republican President George W. Bush in 2003, failed to secure bipartisan support for a full, five-year legislative reauthorization. After conservative groups had launched a campaign accusing without evidence the Biden administration to use PEPFAR money for abortions, the program only secured a temporary one-year reauthorization until March 2025.26 PEPFAR funding (6.5 billion USD in 2024) is comprised of U.S. bilateral funding and U.S. contributions to multilateral organizations addressing HIV, primarily the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund: 1.65 billion USD from PEPFAR) and UNAIDS. Particularly the latter would be severely impacted if funding would get further reduced. In 2024 UNAIDS received 50 million USD from PEPFAR27 making the US its largest donor. Personality, Ideology and Money – a toxic cocktail For most UN Agencies, Funds and Programs the US is the largest contributor in assessed and voluntary contributions. 22% of the UN budget are financed by assessed US contributions. With voluntary contributions counted in, this figure amounted in 2023 to 27.9%.28 Thus, the UN leadership is bracing itself for the worst-case scenarios. However, scraping the bottom of the barrel at times when other donors are equally becoming reluctant in financing multilateral and developmental programs, is only sustainable in the short term. In addition, the much-lamented growing influence of autocratic states such as China will only grow further when the US is creating once again a vacuum that will be filled with pleasure by its adversaries. During the first Trump administration’s withdrawal from multilateralism, the EU and EU Member States were stepping up their engagement and managed in many cases to fill the void.  To preserve a rules-based multilateral order, European governments need to be prepared not only to contribute to the empty coffers of UN institutions but also to take on a leadership role and to forge new alliances with states who are still sharing the same values. In the future, Russia will not remain the only disruptor on the multilateral parquet and China will not be the only country trying to create new narratives around human rights. By disengaging from multilateral arrangements and disregarding established collective norms, the next Trump Presidency will certainly have a negative impact on the social fabric of international cooperation.  But this should not come to us as a surprise. Multilateralism needs as a minimum requirement moral commitment to the established principles of collective decision-making, including the precondition of pacta sunt servanda. Multilateralism strives for inclusive decision-making and equality amongst those sitting around the table. Multilateralism lives on tolerance for the point-of-view of others, and the acceptance of compromises for the sake of mutual benefits. In the transactional, zero-sum world of Donald Trump neither compromise, reciprocity nor empathy are part of the vocabulary. “America First” reflects his personality and illustrates a perceived incompatibility between US national interests and multilateral engagement.29  To keep up a rules-based international order in a geo-political era of manifold crisis, like-minded states and above all Europeans have to step up their action to preserve what they treasure. Despite all the headwinds coming out of Washington, DC starting January 20th, multilateralism is not doomed to fail without US engagement. Power relations will certainly change but it must be Europe’s core interest to safeguard its influence in shaping the global order. References 1 Ostheimer, Andrea E.: The United Nations and Global Multilateral Organisations as a Playground for American-Chinese Rivalry, in: New Realities of Multilateralism, Panorama 2022, pp. 7-26.[ Panorama 2022_01_Multilateralism_cover_v3_crop.indd https://www.kas.de/documents/288143/21303801/Panorama+2022+New+Realities+of+Multilateralism.pdf/d2ed886c-83fa-6423-90b8-eeaa48ef8620?version=1.0&t=1668409843028 ].  2 Runde, Daniel F.: Competing and Winning in the Multilateral System. Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), 2020, p 4. [ https://www.csis.org/analysis/competing-andwinning-multilateral-system-us-leadership-united-nations ]. 3 Amr, Hady. 7 September 2018. Brookings. [ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from chaos/2018/09/07/in-one-move-trump-eliminated-us-funding-for-unrwa-and-the-us-role-as-mideast-peacemaker/ ].  4 Morello, Carl. 4 April 2017. The Washington Post. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/ world/national-security/trump-administration-to-eliminate-its-funding-for-un-population-fundover-abortion/2017/04/04/d8014bc0-1936-11e7-bcc2-7d1a0973e7b2_story.html]. 5 The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) had been an accord that restricted the Iranian nuclear program to mere peaceful usage.  6 The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty had limited the type of weapons systems the signatories, US and Russia could pursue.  7 The Global Compact for Safe, https://www.iom.int/resources/global-compact-safe-orderly-and-regular-migration/res/73/195 Orderly and Regular Migration is the first intergovernmental agreement covering all dimensions of international migration. It is a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law. 8 Saldinger, Adva; Igoe, Michael: “We can work with him: Aid advocates react to Trump’s Rubio pick”, 14 November 2024, [‘We can work with him’: Aid advocates react to Trump’s Rubio pick | Devex https://www.devex.com/news/we-can-work-with-him-aid-advocates-react-to-trump-s-rubio-pick-108752 ]  9 Klingebiel, Stephan; Baumann, Max-Otto: Trump 2.0. in time of political upheaval? Implications of a possible second presidency for international politics and Europe, IDOS Policy Brief, No 24/2024, [https://doi.org/10.23661/ipb24.2024]. 10 Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State, 19 June 2028 [Remarks on the UN Human Rights Council - U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Geneva https://geneva.usmission.gov/2018/06/21/remarks-on-the-un-human-rights-council/ ]  11 Elise Stefanik cited in King, Ryan; Spector, David, New York Post, 20 November 2024, [ICYMI: New York Post: Elise Stefanik vows to take on ‘den of antisemitism’ and ‘apologist for Iran’ at the UN | Press Releases | Congresswoman Elise Stefanik https://stefanik.house.gov/2024/11/icymi-new-york-post-elise-stefanik-vows-to-take-on-den-of-antisemitism-and-apologist-for-iran-at-the-un ].  12 2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-06.pdf https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-06.pdf  13 Commission on Unalienable Rights | https://bidenhumanrightspriorities.amnestyusa.org/commission-on-unalienable-rights/  14 n2034430.pdf https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n20/344/30/pdf/n2034430.pdf  15 Navarro, Peter: The case for fair trade, Project 2025, [2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-26.pdf https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-26.pdf ] 16 90% of USAID funding from US Congress is earmarked and dedicated to basic sectors such as health care, education and agriculture. At the start of the Biden administration only 5% of USAID’s budget went into economic growth programs. Miolene, Elissa: How economic growth became a forgotten priority at USAID, 10 December 2024, [How economic growth became a forgotten priority at USAID | Devex https://www.devex.com/news/how-economic-growth-became-a-forgotten-priority-at-usaid-108911#:~:text=At%20the%20start%20of%20the,lack%20of%20focus%20surprised%20her. ]  17 Primorac, Max: The Agency for International Development, Project 2025 [2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-09.pdf https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-09.pdf ].  18 [2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-09.pdf https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-09.pdf ] 19 Igoe, Michael: What we do and don’t know about Trump’s US aid plans, 15 November 2024, [What we do and don't know about Trump's US aid plans | Devex https://www.devex.com/news/what-we-do-and-don-t-know-about-trump-s-us-aid-plans-108719 ]  20 Lynch, Colum: Will Trump gut UN family planning funds….again?, 31 October 2024, [Will Trump gut UN family planning funds ... again? | Devex https://www.devex.com/news/will-trump-gut-un-family-planning-funds-again-108655 ] 21 Coronavirus: what are President Trump’s charges against WHO?, BBC Fact Check, 8 July 2020, Coronavirus: What are President Trump's charges against the WHO? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52294623   22 WHO | Programme Budget Web Portal https://open.who.int/2022-23/contributors/top25  23 Lei Ravelo, Jenny: Will RFK Jr. ‘go wild’ on global health?, 4 December 2024, [Will RFK Jr. ‘go wild’ on global health? | Devex https://www.devex.com/news/will-rfk-jr-go-wild-on-global-health-108837 ]. 24 Nobel laureates oppose RFK Jr.'s confirmation to HHS https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5031298-nobel-laureates-oppose-rfk-jr/  25 Fletcher, Elaine Ruth: ‘Give them some space’: WHO Director General on Trump Nomination of RFK Jr as US Health Secretary, 11 December 2024, [‘Give Them Some Space’: WHO Director General On Trump Nomination Of RFK Jr As US Health Secretary - Health Policy Watch https://healthpolicy-watch.news/give-them-some-space-who-director-general-comments-on-trump-nomination-of-rfk-jr-as-us-health-secretary/ ]  26 Igoe, Michael: PEPFAR chief warns waning political will could hurt AIDS fight, 22 July 2024, [PEPFAR chief warns waning political will could hurt AIDS fight | Devex https://www.devex.com/news/pepfar-chief-warns-waning-political-will-could-hurt-aids-fight-107022 ] 27 The U.S. Government and the World Health Organization | KFF https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/fact-sheet/the-u-s-government-and-the-world-health-organization/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20in%20the%20previous%20budget%20period%20(2022%2D2023,totaled%20%2428.1%20million%20(0.4%25).  28 Revenue by Government donor | United Nations – CEB https://unsceb.org/fs-revenue-government-donor  29 Loewener, Franca/Cook, Justin D.: Trump re-elected. How the Trump Doctrine reshapes US multilateral engagement and global influence. 12.11.2024 [Publication - OI] https://observatoire-multilateralisme.fr/publications/trump-reelected-how-the-trump-doctrine-reshapes-us-multilateral-engagement-and-global-influence/  The text of this work is licensed under the terms of by "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike same conditions 4.0 international", CC BY-SA 4.0

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Oren Cass, the head economist of Compass, had a column in the New York Times today touting Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs. The gist of the piece is that “free trade” has not worked out as economists’ textbooks promised and we should look to take a different path. As someone who was very critical of the major trade deals of the last three decades, I would say that they did work out very much as the economists’ textbooks promised. But they were also not “free trade,” and imposing high tariffs will not help us going forward. First, the economists’ textbooks did not promise that everyone would benefit from opening trade. They show that there would be a redistribution from some types of workers to other types of workers and/or capital. There is a famous article, co-authored by the first American Nobel Prize winner Paul Samuelson, that laid out this theoretical argument more than 80 years ago. Economists pushing NAFTA, China’s entry into in the WTO, and other recent trade deals always waved off the logic of the Stolper-Samuelson model, or alternatively promised government policies to offset the distributional impact of trade openings. As a practical matter, the policies (mostly trade-adjustment assistance) were one or two orders of magnitude too small for the job. We saw millions of workers displaced in manufacturing, as our trade deficit ballooned from 1997 to 2007. Communities across the industrial heartland were devastated as the factories that supported them downsized or shut altogether. We can have lengthy debates about the motives of working class people who switched from Democrats to Trump voters, but the fact that Democratic presidents pushed trade policies that destroyed millions of good paying jobs for non-college educated workers is not really in dispute. While it is important to recognize the damage caused by trade deals of the last three decades, it is also essential to recognize that these were not “free trade” deals even though this is what their proponents like to claim. These deals did little or nothing to free up trade in highly paid professional services, like the services of physicians or dentists. As a result, while our manufacturing workers get paid less than their counterparts in Western Europe, our physicians get paid more than twice as much as doctors in countries like Germany and Canada. The trade deals were all about lowering barriers to trade in manufactured goods, with the predictable effect of lost jobs and lower wages for manufacturing workers. But when it came to discussions of lowering the barriers to foreign doctors and foreign-trained professionals working in the U.S., most of the “free-traders” would suddenly get really dumb, as though they didn’t understand the concept of free trade. And to be clear, the economics textbooks tell us the same thing about free trade in professional services as they say about free trade in cars and shoes. If we paid our doctors the same as doctors in West Europe it would knock more than $100 billion a year ($1,000 per family) off our national health care bill. But we don’t have free trade in physicians’ services. But it gets worse. Even as we were lowering barriers to trade in manufactured goods, we were increasing barriers to trade in intellectual products in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections. These protections are government-granted monopolies, 180 degrees opposite of free trade. Yet somehow every major “free trade” deal of the last four decades included provisions making these monopolies longer and stronger both in our trading partners and in the United States. The effect of longer and stronger patent and copyright protection is to redistribute income from the rest of us to those in a position to benefit from them. Bill Gates would probably still be working for a living if the government didn’t threaten to arrest people who copied Microsoft software without his permission. And to be clear, there is an enormous amount of money at stake. The higher prices from patent and copyright monopolies almost certainly cost us more than $1 trillion a year. They cost us more than $500 billion ($4,000 per family) in the case pharmaceutical alone. Patent and copyright monopolies do serve a purpose. They provide an incentive for innovation and creative work. But they are not the only way to provide this incentive. For example, we support more than $50 billion a year in biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies. Most importantly for this argument is the recognition that patent and copyright monopolies are government policies that should be treated as such. We can argue whether they are the best policy, but they are certainly not free trade, and it is a lie to call them free trade. Tariffs and the Trump Route Forward Getting the free trade story right is important for what we think is the best route going forward. The fact that reducing trade barriers in manufacturing was bad for non-college educated workers doesn’t mean that raising those barriers now will be good news for these workers. The wage premium that manufacturing workers had enjoyed in years past had largely disappeared. This means that if we get back jobs in the auto industry or textile industry, there is little reason to think these jobs will pay better than alternative jobs in warehouses or health care. High tariffs just mean that all workers will be paying higher prices for a wide range of goods in order to shift a relatively small number of other workers into not especially good-paying jobs in manufacturing. The reason manufacturing jobs were good paying jobs was because these jobs were far more likely to be union jobs than other private sector jobs. In 1980 more than 30 percent of manufacturing jobs were unionized, compared to 15 percent for the rest of the private sector. Today, the gap is just 8.0 percent compared to 6.0 percent. That’s still a difference, but not one that has much impact. If we got back another 1 million manufacturing jobs as a result of tariffs, a very big lift, it would translate into roughly 20,000 more union workers. That’s a pretty small drop in the bucket in a labor force of more than 160 million. If we want to reverse the rise in inequality of the last four decades, we should make use of those economics textbooks rather than ignoring them, as Mr. Cass advocates. We should do everything possible to have freer trade in highly paid professional services, exposing our most highly paid workers to the same sort of competition, both domestically and internationally, that our factory workers have long faced. And we should look to shorten and weaken the patent and copyright monopolies that have shifted so much income upward and made items like prescription drugs incredibly expensive. In the absence of patent monopolies, drugs would almost always be cheap, patent monopolies make them expensive. We also need to pursue other mechanisms for supporting innovation and creative work. This is the conversation that we need to have and one that unfortunately will not take place in the pages of the New York Times or other leading media outlets. In fact, the econ textbooks have much to teach us if we actually pay attention to what they say and don’t use them selectively to push a class agenda. Originally published on CEPR (https://cepr.net/publications/a-quick-note-on-trade-and-inequality/) under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском After weeks of speculation over his future, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his intention to resign on Jan. 6, 2025. His departure will bring an end to a decade of power for the progressive politician and once-darling of the liberal left. It follows infighting in his own party and a slump in Trudeau’s popularity to the point where he trails the leading opposition candidate by over 20 percentage points. But it can’t escape notice that the resignation comes just weeks ahead of a Trump administration – and after a barrage of personal slights and threats of punishing tariffs directed at Canada by the incoming Republican president. The Conversation turned to Patrick James, an expert on Canadian-U.S. relations and Dean’s Professor Emeritus at USC Dornsife, to explain why Trudeau chose now to bow out – and what role Trump played in his departure. Why did Trudeau resign? The first thing to note is that Trudeau’s resignation is no real surprise to anyone following Canadian politics – the only real surprise is the timing. At its heart, this is a personal political decision; the reality is Trudeau’s party was doomed in the next election – which is due to take place before the end of October 2025. Barring any wild changes between now and the vote, the chances of Trudeau’s Liberal Party winning are as dead as a doornail. The opposition Conservative Party, also known as the Tories, are up in the polls by some 24 points. The Tory leader, Pierre Poilievre, has done a reasonably good job at moderating his image from that of a hard right-winger – narrowing any chance Trudeau had of capturing enough of the center he needed. My best guess is that, faced with this imminent defeat, Trudeau believes getting out now will insulate him and make it more likely that he can return to front-line Canadian politics further down the line, after a period of time in the wilderness. Is such a return likely? While in the U.S. figuratively dead presidents rarely come back to life – with Grover Cleveland and Trump the only ones to return after a reelection loss – in Canada, there is a bit more of a tradition of political resurrection. This stretches back to the country’s first prime minister, John A. MacDonald, who resigned in 1873 amid scandal only to be reelected five years later. William Mackenzie King served three nonconsecutive terms as prime minister in the first half of the 20th century. And Trudeau’s father, Pierre Trudeau, came back after losing the 1979 election to serve a fourth and final term in 1980. But I feel with Justin Trudeau it is different. At this moment in time, his parliamentary career looks beyond rehabilitation. He is deeply unpopular and has enraged many of his loyal lieutenants – with the resignation of longtime ally and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland in December adding to the pressure on Trudeau to resign. And while inflation – a scourge of left, right and center incumbents the world over – no doubt played a role in Trudeau’s declining popularity, other factors are at play, too. Canadians generally feel that given the cards he was dealt, Trudeau still played a bad hand. Under Trudeau, immigration to Canada increased massively – and many blame this for a housing affordability crisis. More generally, it seems like Trudeau, despite being the relatively young political age of 53, is out of step with politics at this precise moment in time. Trudeau, much like his father before him, is very much associated with identity politics, focusing on the perceived needs of certain groups over others. And while the merits of identity politics can be argued, what is certainly true is that it isn’t particularly popular anywhere in the world right now. Indeed, right-of-center populists such as Trump have been able to make great political capital in painting opponents as identity politicians. How did Trump’s election win affect Trudeau’s prospects? Former Deputy Prime Minister Freeland resigned in part over discontent with the way Trudeau had responded to Trump’s proposed tariffs on Canadian goods. And that discontent with the way Trudeau was dealing with the incoming Trump administration extends to a lot of Canadians, regardless of their political stripes. The Canadian economy isn’t in good shape, and a 25% tariff – as envisioned by Trump – would be disastrous. Canadians are looking for someone who can negotiate with Trump from a position of strength, and that doesn’t appear to be Trudeau. In fact, faced with being trolled and humiliated by Trump – for instance, being referred to as a “governor” rather the leader of a nation – Trudeau has faced criticism for his weak response. He symbolizes a growing sense in Canada that the country is seen by policymakers in Washington as weak. While Trudeau reportedly laughed off a suggestion at Mar-a-Lago that Canada become the “51st state,” back home the remark was seen as a test – would Trudeau stand up for Canada or not? In this sense, Trump’s election provided a challenge to Trudeau but also an opportunity to stand up to Washington – something that would have won him favor among anti-American Canadian nationalists. Instead, he is perceived to have cowered before Trump, further damaging his reputation at home. What will Trudeau’s legacy be in regard to US-Canada relations? I believe he got caught up in a dynamic that has seen a growing perception in the U.S. – as espoused by the incoming president – that Canada is freeloading militarily off its southern neighbor. President Joe Biden is more aligned politically with Trudeau, but, certainly under Trump’s first term, the Canadian prime minister was seen by Washington as one of the NATO leaders not paying a fair share for the military alliance. Partly as a result, Canada under Trudeau has dropped down the list of trusted allies – especially among Republicans. If you asked Americans to name Washington’s most trusted ally, the United Kingdom or Israel would likely beat out Canada. Trump’s statements since being reelected suggest that he sees Canada as less an ally and as more of an irrelevance. Comments regarding the buying of Greenland point at Trump’s desire to run roughshod over the desire of other nations in order to be more active in the Arctic – something that should have raised alarms in Canada. So, in short, you can characterize Trudeau’s relationship with the U.S. as OK under Biden, bad under Trump’s first administration and – potentially – irrelevant under Trump II. What happens next in Canadian politics? I see one of two things happening. The most likely scenario is that the Conservatives will win an election that could take place any time between March and October. Current polling suggests they are on course of winning over 50% of the vote. If that happens, we can expect a Canadian government much more aligned with that of the incoming U.S. administration – with a more centralist foreign policy and border reforms that will tighten immigration controls. And the timing may provide an opportunity for Trudeau’s successor to start afresh with Trump and forge a relationship that is either stronger or, alternatively, to reassert a degree of Canadian resistance to Trump. The second scenario is what I call “the French oddity.” Just like in France’s last election in which the two main anti-right parties entered a noncompetition deal to thwart the far-right National Rally, we could see the Liberal Party and the socialist New Democratic Party try something similar in an attempt to blunt Tory gains. But that is a long shot and still won’t increase the chances of Trudeau returning. As for the Liberal Party post-Trudeau, it is difficult to see who will want to lead it into a near-certain election defeat. But I believe the most likely outcome will be the party will try to tack to a more centralist, economically conservative agenda. It would truly mark the end of the Trudeau era.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Donald Trump has made clear his intent to supercharge his “America First” approach to foreign policy in his second term – and Mexico looks set to be at the tip of the spear. While many of Trump’s predecessors have also followed a “realist” strategy – that is, one where relative power is at the forefront of international relations, while diplomatic success is viewed through how it benefits one’s own nation – the incoming president has displayed an apparent unwillingness to consider the pain that his plans would inflict on targeted countries or the responses this will engender. Trump’s proposed policies threaten Mexico in three key ways: First, his goal of deporting millions of migrants would put tremendous pressure on Mexico’s economy and society as the country tried to absorb the influx. This would be exacerbated by his second threat, a sharp increase in tariffs, which could devastate the critical export sector of Mexico’s economy. And third, Trump has floated the idea of using U.S. military power to confront narcotraffickers within Mexico, which would directly impinge on Mexico’s sovereignty and could generate more violence on both sides of the border. But as a scholar of Latin American politics and U.S.-Latin American relations, I see several options that Mexico could use to push back on Trump by imposing high costs on U.S. interests. Indeed, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has already signaled how she may counter Trump’s policies. The most obvious tools are ending cooperation on drugs and immigration and imposing tariffs of her own. She could also revoke some of the decades-old tax and labor privileges that have benefited U.S. businesses operating within Mexico. And finally, she could play the “China card” – that is, in the face of worsening U.S.-Mexico ties, Mexico could turn to Washington’s biggest economic rival at a time when Beijing is seeking to assert more influence across Latin America. From conciliation to confrontration Of course, a worsening relationship is not inevitable. During Trump’s first term, Mexico’s then-president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, maintained a constructive relationship with the U.S. administration. In fact, Lopez Obrador was surprisingly cooperative given Trump’s at times hostile rhetoric toward Mexico. For example, he helped facilitate the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” program for those seeking asylum in the U.S. and also accepted Trump’s demands to renegotiate NAFTA and give it a title reflecting U.S. leadership: the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA. Sheinbaum, who took office on Oct. 1, 2024, started with a cautious approach to her relationship with Trump. She congratulated Trump on his victory and urged dialogue with the incoming U.S. president. “There will be good relations with the United States. I’m convinced of that,” she told reporters on Nov. 7, 2024. But Trump hasn’t been conciliatory. In addition to talk about dumping millions of immigrants across the border, he announced on social media on Nov. 24 that he would impose a 25% tariff on Mexican and Canadian goods – a move that would effectively abrogate the USMCA. That post seemingly ended Sheinbaum’s cautious approach. In a strongly worded response, the Mexican president cautioned that she would respond in kind. A trade war, she noted, would harm the economies of both countries; progress on immigration and drug trafficking required cooperation, not threats, she added. The impact of tariffs Sheinbaum has said she wants to avoid a trade war, but Trump’s threats have led her nonetheless to talk about how a trade war would begin. This trade war, plus other costs Sheinbaum could impose on U.S. investors, would also likely foment a coalition of opposition within the U.S. business community – a group that has been a key ally of Trump. Trump’s stated goal of putting high tariffs on goods coming from Mexico is to encourage businesses that currently exploit lower employment costs in Mexico to relocate to the northern side of the border. But that approach ignores the impact that retaliatory tariffs and investment controls would have on U.S.-based companies that rely on the Mexican market. It would have several negative effects. First, a tit-for-tat tariff war would generate inflation for U.S. and Mexican consumers. Second, it would disrupt the integration of markets across North America. As a result of the elimination of tariffs – a key component of both NAFTA and the Trump-era USMCA – markets and the production of goods across North America have become highly interconnected. The trade treaties severely reduced barriers to investment in Mexico, allowing significant American investment in sectors such as agriculture and energy – where U.S. companies were formerly prohibited. Further, manufacturers now rely on processes in which, for example, the average car crosses the border multiple times during production. Similarly, agribusiness has developed symbiotic practices, such that grains, apples and pears are predominantly grown in the United States, while tomatoes, strawberries and avocados are grown in Mexico. Given these processes, the U.S. now exports over US$300 billion of goods and services per year to Mexico, and the stock of U.S. investments in Mexico reached $144 billion in 2023. If Trump abrogates the trade deals and imposes tariffs, he might convince investors to spend their next dollars in the U.S. But if Mexico imposes tariffs, business taxes or investment restrictions, what would happen to investors’ farms and factories already in Mexico? Past experience suggests that any disruption to supply chains or U.S. export markets would awaken strong business opposition, as analysts and business groups have already recognized. Trump is not immune to pressure from U.S. businesses. During his first administration, companies successfully opposed Trump’s attempt to close the border, arguing that slowing the flow of immigrants also meant slowing trucks full of goods. Security and immigration On the issue of the border and immigration, while Trump has issued threats, Sheinbaum has stressed the importance of cooperation. Currently, the Mexican government expends significant resources to patrol its own southern border, not to mention dealing with the many potential migrants who gather in its northern cities. Mexico could demand more support from the U.S. in exchange for this work, plus the costs associated with welcoming back the estimated 4 million Mexicans who are currently in the U.S. without proper documentation. The deportation of undocumented immigrants that Trump has repeatedly promised will require other types of cooperation, such as processing border crossings, and Mexico could slow-walk this process. Mexico has already signaled that it will withhold processing of non-Mexicans. The two countries have a history of collaboration in addressing the illegal drugs trade – but here too there have also been tensions. Toward the end of Trump’s first term, for example, a Mexican general was arrested in the U.S. on drug charges. After a diplomatic uproar, he was returned to Mexico and released. In late November, Sheinbaum noted that she and Trump had discussed security cooperation “within the framework of our sovereignty.” But Trump’s campaign rheotric seemed less concerned with Mexico’s sovereignty, floating the idea of sending troops to the border or even deploying them within Mexico to counter narcotraffickers. That would clearly enrage Mexico, with consequences that would extend far beyond a willingness to cooperate on the issues of drug trafficking. A chance for China? One country that stands to benefit should U.S.-Mexican relations deteriorate is China – an issue that Mexico could exploit. China is now the first or second trading partner with nearly every country in Latin America, including Mexico. The value of U.S.-Mexico trade is over $100 billion a year, but the growth of Chinese imports into Mexico has been limited somewhat by rules-of-origin provisions in NAFTA and the USMCA. A U.S.-Mexican trade war could weaken or end any incentive to keep Chinese goods out. Further, if the doors to the United States are narrowed through tariffs and hostile rhetoric, China’s car parts and financial services would clearly become even more attractive to Mexican businesses. A U.S.-Mexican trade war, in short, would augment Beijing’s access to a market on the U.S. border. A coalition of the concerned? In sum, if Trump goes through with his threats, the result will be costs to consumers and businesses, plus a new opportunity for China. This is likely to foment a coalition of industries, investors, consumers and foreign policy experts concerned with China – many parts of which supported Trump’s campaign.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The meeting held on 6 December in Auckland, the second session of the “2+2 Format” established earlier this year, involving the foreign and defence ministers of both Australia and New Zealand, marked an important milestone in the rapidly advancing development of all aspects of bilateral relations. The Foreign Policy of New Zealand’s Conservative Government This process has become particularly evident since the conservative National Party government assumed power in New Zealand at the beginning of 2023. A few clarifications are warranted in this context. Firstly, the current government, led by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and representing the NPNZ (New Zealand National Party), officially took office in January 2023. However, it initially functioned as a caretaker government, succeeding the Labour administration under Jacinda Ardern, who had resigned prematurely. This interim status lasted until November 2023, when it shed the “caretaker” label following the general election held the previous month. It is worth noting that the NPNZ-led coalition’s victory was far from decisive, necessitating complex negotiations with a minor party to retain power. Secondly, it would be inaccurate to suggest that New Zealand entirely disregarded the foreign policy concerns of other Anglophone nations in past decades, including under Labour governments. For instance, Wellington has consistently remained a member of the Five Eyes alliance, an intelligence-sharing cooperative among five Anglo-Saxon countries. However, until the conservative government came to power, New Zealand appeared to make every effort to ensure that the significant deterioration in international relations, which began at the end of the previous decade, had no adverse effect on its relations with China. Nevertheless, the global restructuring process initiated in the second half of 2019 (notably marked by the Skripal affair) inevitably impacted New Zealand, particularly given its location in the Indo-Pacific region, which has become the focal point of the current phase of the “Great Game”. Bilateral Engagements in Relations with Australia New Zealand’s involvement in the aforementioned global restructuring is primarily occurring within the surrounding region of the vast Indo-Pacific area. Naturally, the country’s leadership has prioritised its relations with Australia, its closest partner in every respect. Within two months of shedding its “caretaker” status, New Zealand’s government, alongside its Australian counterparts, inaugurated the “2+2 Format” platform for foreign and defence ministers. The first session of this format took place on 1 February of this year in Melbourne. The mere existence of such a platform underscores the particularly close and trusting relationship between the two nations. However, the intention for closer bilateral cooperation on a broad range of issues was signalled six months earlier, during the first session of a separate “2+2 Format” involving finance and environment ministers, held in Wellington on 8 June 2023. This platform was subsequently convened for the second time on 30 July 2024 in Brisbane, Australia. Both sessions concluded with a “Joint Statement”. From the perspective of the evolving Indo-Pacific situation, special attention should be given to the second session of the defence and foreign policy “2+2 Format”, held on 6 December in Auckland. The key points of the document adopted at the session can be reviewed here. Notably, the title of the first chapter, “The Australia-New Zealand Alliance”, stands out. This chapter opens with an acknowledgment of the “natural, neighbourly, and formalised” bond between the two nations. The final element of this statement is confirmed by a significant reference to the ANZUS trilateral military-political treaty (involving the United States), which was adopted back in 1951, during the height of the Cold War. It is worth noting that until the signing of the document under discussion in Auckland, the very existence of ANZUS was likely remembered by few. This is not surprising, as for decades, international treaty reference guides consistently noted that, although ANZUS had not been formally dissolved, the United States and New Zealand had long ceased to maintain an alliance in practice. This situation stems from New Zealand’s 1984 declaration as a nuclear-free country, which resulted in the closure of its ports to American vessels with nuclear propulsion systems, even if they did not necessarily carry nuclear weapons at the time. By contrast, Japan, despite a similar “three non-nuclear principles” policy, has never taken such a step. Following the 1984 decision, which effectively marked the withdrawal of one participant from this tripartite alliance, the remaining two members restructured it to suit new conditions. However, with the end of the Cold War, even its bilateral format barely showed signs of activity. This continued until the latter half of the previous decade, a period when the world seemingly turned upside down. During this time, the Australian government, led by the conservative coalition under Scott Morrison, adopted a policy of sharply intensifying military-political ties with allies. This course has been largely upheld by the current Labour government under Anthony Albanese, which has also accelerated the development of comprehensive relations with its new ally, Japan. Canberra is also closely monitoring another key regional player: India. In summary, a particularly noteworthy development occurred on 6 December of this year in Auckland, New Zealand, when viewed from the perspective of assessing the evolving situation in the Indo-Pacific region (IPR). New Zealand Increases Engagement in the Indo-Pacific Region The meeting held on that day fits into the broader trend of New Zealand’s comprehensive engagement in the region, following Australia’s example. Indeed, the main aspects of this trend are mentioned in the final document adopted in Auckland. During his visit to Australia in August of this year, New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced his country’s intention to join the AUKUS pact (Australia-United Kingdom-United States), specifically its “Pillar II,” which focuses on the development of cutting-edge military technologies. The “Pillar I” of AUKUS, by contrast, deals with the provision of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia. Japan and the Republic of Korea are also potential candidates to join AUKUS Pillar II. However, due to internal turmoil in South Korea, Japan currently remains the more likely candidate. Incidentally, in June of this year, Christopher Luxon made a three-day visit to Japan. A government communiqué regarding the trip and his discussions with then-Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida noted the shared intention to develop various aspects of bilateral relations. This clearly signals a shift in New Zealand’s trajectory away from the popular (and to some extent accurate) stereotype of the country as a sleepy geopolitical backwater that also enjoys economic prosperity. This image has seemingly been satisfactory for New Zealanders until now. However, the geopolitical storms raging worldwide have inevitably reached even this distant nation. As New Zealand becomes increasingly involved in global disputes, it faces the prospect of previously unfamiliar challenges arriving on its shores. Finally, it is essential to note that the above developments weigh heavily on the negative side of the scale when assessing the current situation in the IPR. This does not mean, however, that there are no positive counterweights, albeit fewer in number. These positive elements suggest that the main players (at least for now) maintain control over the unfolding dynamics in the region. This is no small achievement in a world order that appears to be in upheaval.

Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском  Through its recent official and popular position towards the Gaza war, China seeks to define its position as a leader and defender of the so-called “global south” to pass the policy of transformation towards a multipolar international world in the face of the United States of America and its allies in the West. China seizes the opportunity to express the urgent need to reshape the global system led by the West under the leadership of Washington. Here, both Moscow and Beijing see Israel's war on the Gaza Strip as having led to directing Western military support efforts from Ukraine in the face of Russia, Beijing's close ally, to Israel, while China views the war from the perspective of its confrontation with America. As China attempts to express global and popular public opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as part of a much broader Chinese strategy aimed at winning the support of the countries of the Global South to its side.    Both Russia and China are working to benefit from the war in Gaza, by strengthening their roles as supporters of the countries of the Global South, and demonstrating the failure and bias of the United States and the international system led by Washington in dealing with the grievances of that large bloc of countries in the world in the South. This also serves to realize Chinese President Xi Jinping’s vision of Chinese leadership of the Global South, which includes the majority of Arab countries and Palestine, which enhances Beijing’s efforts to confront Washington and its Western allies and reshape the international system in its favor. China has exploited anti-Israel sentiments globally and at home, in an attempt to strengthen its position within the framework of the Global South.  In its strenuous efforts to express world public opinion and the feelings of peoples, China is pursuing many and varied plans to support the issues of the developing global south, most notably the Palestinian cause, and to expose what China considers to be American double standards in dealing with the Palestinians compared to Israel.    China's assumption of the presidency of the UN Security Council in November 2023 comes immediately after Operation “Al-Aqsa Flood” or the Gaza War in October 2023, succeeding Brazil, coinciding with the escalation of brutal Israeli military operations in Gaza. For this reason, China has risked angering Israel, as it sees broader stakes in the current conflict that go beyond the Palestinian-Israeli issue. Beijing sees the crisis as an opportunity to distinguish its position from the pro-Israel West and to enhance its reputation in the global south, many of whose countries strongly sympathize with the Palestinian cause, which serves China's image.  To this end, China has used a tough diplomatic rhetoric against Israeli crimes in the Gaza Strip, and has condemned the US position, especially the obstacles created by the US by voting against a series of Chinese and Russian ceasefire resolutions in the UN Security Council. In addition, China has supported various decisions of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court to condemn Israel and arrest its Prime Minister “Benjamin Netanyahu”.  China used its veto power against a draft resolution proposed by the United States of America on October 15, 2023, which did not include a call for an immediate ceasefire, or a permanent humanitarian truce for the entry of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. The Chinese Permanent Representative to the United Nations, "Chang Jun”  justified his country's opposition to the American draft resolution, because it includes many elements that divide rather than unite, and goes beyond the humanitarian dimension, and is unbalanced and mixes right and wrong, and does not reflect a strong call for a ceasefire and an end to the violence. The Chinese Permanent Representative to the United Nations “Jun” considered that the ceasefire is not just a diplomatic phrase, but means life and death for many civilians, which Washington did not understand, according to him. China also participated in the (Cairo Peace Summit 2023), which was held on October 21, 2023 in the New Administrative Capital, with China's call during the summit to stop the war in Gaza.  China's motivation for taking an interest in the Palestinian issue after the recent Gaza war may be more related to its competition with the United States and the image that China wants to project domestically and even internationally in light of its new position as a major global power. China wants to be seen as a wise and responsible superpower interested in mediation and peacebuilding. It is also likely that Beijing seeks to present an alternative viewpoint to the United States' perspective on peace to the world order, especially in the global South, where most countries in the region support the Palestinians.   Beijing has already come a long way in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, from its active support for Palestinian factions recently to their invitation to China after the recent Gaza war to complete the Palestinian reconciliation process between all the warring Palestinian factions with Chinese support.  Since the beginning of the war in the Gaza Strip, Chinese positions and statements by officials in Beijing have carried a degree of escalation in tone towards Israel’s behavior. Beijing criticized the comprehensive Israeli bombing of civilians, condemned violations of international law, called for the implementation of the two-state solution, and called for the establishment of a humanitarian corridor to allow aid to enter the besieged Gaza Strip. Chinese Foreign Minister “Wang Yi” went further, describing the Israeli bombing of civilians in Gaza as actions that go beyond the scope of self-defense.  Chinese state media have also been highly critical of Israel, and in most of their reports have cited Iranian media, with the Chinese emphasis that: “the illegal use of white phosphorus bombs by the Israeli army against Palestinian civilians exposes it to international accountability”. Chinese state media have also blamed the United States, Israel’s strongest supporter, and have been explicitly accused in Beijing, for fueling tensions in the region. China has also angered Israel by refusing to join the United States and other countries in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization, describing it instead as a Palestinian resistance movement.    In late October 2024, immediately after the Gaza war, the China Daily, a Chinese propaganda outlet, declared that: “the United States is on the wrong side of history in Gaza”. Elsewhere, Chinese state television reported that Jews represent 3 percent of the United States’ population but control more than 70 percent of its wealth. With all official and popular Chinese media keen to repeat the narratives that dominate the popular discourse in the Global South. This repetition is in line with the majority opinion in some countries of the South, and it allows China to present itself as an alternative to the image of the United States of America as a warmonger, hegemonic, hypocritical and unjust.         In July 2024, Hamas, Fatah and other Palestinian factions signed a preliminary agreement in the Chinese capital, Beijing, to form a transitional government for national reconciliation, with the aim of managing Gaza after the end of the war. The same group met in the Russian capital, Moscow, in February 2024, seeking to reach a similar agreement. At the same time, China was able to bring the Palestinian Fatah and Hamas movements together at the negotiating table in Beijing in two sessions of the National Dialogue during the months of April and June 2024, in a move that reflects China’s desire to interact with the Palestinian issue in a positive way.        Chinese official media is trying to support its position before Chinese public opinion at home and their sympathy for the people of Gaza, by emphasizing China's official discourse, which seeks to confirm that Beijing has made proposals to stop the war on Gaza, brought together the Palestinian movements Hamas and Fatah inside China, and called on the UN Security Council to calm the conflict. China also seized the opportunity of its meetings with Arab and Gulf foreign ministers to reaffirm the multiple peace plans it had previously proposed in favor of resolving the Palestinian issue. With the Chinese envoy to the Middle East “Zhai Jun” , confirming, with Palestinian and Arab officials, China's immediate call for an immediate ceasefire and providing humanitarian support to the Palestinian people.   As for the most prominent Chinese academic and research analyses of the Gaza war, Chinese Professor “Yan Shutong”, Dean of the Institute of International Relations at China's Xinhua University, described the matter as: “The Israel-Gaza war will reduce the global political influence of the United States. This has become very clear, because even its allies will have to distance themselves from it on this issue, and with the undermining of the United States' strategic relations with other major powers, the strategic balance between China and the United States will shift in China's favor”. Professor “Wang Yiwei”, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing, also said: “China is now in a better position than the United States to help resolve conflicts, whether between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Russia and Ukraine, or Israel and the Palestinians”.  In this context, Professor Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University of China, asserts that: “Beijing’s policy in the Middle East has been paralyzed by the conflict, given that the United States, which strongly supports Israel, is involved in this crisis, whether directly or indirectly. Who would listen to China?”. A report by the (international human rights organization Freedom House) described a wave of anti-Semitic sentiments on the Chinese Internet and Chinese media, especially popular ones related to Chinese social media, such as: the widely-used Chinese WeChat program, Weibo, QQ, and others. The Freedom House report confirmed that: “With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Chinese government has long promoted a narrative that places the blame squarely on Israel”. In light of the growing global and internal Chinese popular sympathy for the Palestinians, and the unprecedented spread of its manifestations within Chinese society via Chinese social media, and the holding of limited demonstrations in light of China’s sensitive internal policy towards popular demonstrations, decision-makers in Beijing find themselves facing a challenge to maintain a balanced position between the crimes committed by Israel against civilians in the Gaza Strip, and the position of the Palestinians in the Strip.   As an expert in Chinese politics and the policies of the ruling Communist Party in China, and constantly informed of all reports of Chinese think tanks and research centers, especially those related to the Middle East, it is noted that a number of Chinese analyses adopt a trend, vision, and perhaps another theory or school for the war in Gaza, namely the “theory of war between wars”, which later became clear to a large extent to be correct, meaning: that the war that was limited to the Palestinian Hamas movement and Israel, and Israel's practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, will expand to include a conflict between Israel and Iran, but through its agents in the region, which means waging wars on different fronts at the same time, namely the war of Israel against Hamas, targeting Palestinian resistance elements in the West Bank, confronting Hezbollah on the southern Lebanese front, confronting the threats of the Houthi militia in Yemen, fighting the Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq, and waging confrontations against Iran, which leads the axis of resistance.    To this end, China seized the opportunity of the 10th China-Arab Cooperation Forum, to be held on May 30, 2024, with the participation of Chinese President “Xi Jinping” and a number of Arab leaders, most notably Egyptian President “Abdel Fattah El-Sisi”, to reflect the common desire to discuss aspects of China-Arab relations and ways to enhance them, deepen consensus between China and Arab countries, raise questions about the position of Gaza in China-Arab discussions, the limits of China's role in helping to stop the Israeli aggression on Gaza, and support the return to the path of political settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, leading to the two-state solution supported by major powers, most notably China.  Here, the Arab Summit, which was held in the Bahraini capital, Manama, on May 16, 2024, adopted the necessity of calling for an international peace conference that would contribute to restoring the negotiating track. This call intersects with the Chinese President Xi Jinping’s call to hold an international peace conference during the Arab-Chinese Cooperation Forum, where he stressed in his speech before the forum on May 30, 2024, that Beijing wants to strengthen its relations with Arab countries to be a model for global stability, calling for an international peace conference aimed at ending the war between Israel and Hamas, noting that Beijing is ready to work with Arab countries to resolve issues related to hot spots in ways that support the principles of fairness and justice and achieve peace and stability in the long term. Xi Jinping stressed that war cannot continue indefinitely, justice cannot remain absent forever, and the two-state solution cannot be arbitrarily overthrown.     Based on the previous analysis, we reach the conclusion that the Chinese trend towards interacting with the Middle East issues and the recent Gaza war represents one of the pillars of the escalation of the Chinese role at the global level and among the developing countries of the Global South led by China. This trend coincided with the vision of the United States of America to limit its ties to the interactions of the Middle East, due to its high cost and to move eastward to confront the growing Chinese influence in Asia.

Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The history of Russian-American relations has been marked by numerous ups and downs, periods of cooperation and confrontation that have shaped not only bilateral relations but also had a significant impact on the global political stage. In this regard, these relations have always attracted the attention of researchers attempting to predict their development. Moreover, every U.S. presidential election is not just a change of power in the country but also an opportunity to reassess foreign policy, which, in turn, affects the interests of other nations, including Russia. Each new president comes to power with their own views, priorities, and strategies, directly influencing both bilateral and multilateral relations. One only needs to recall examples where shifts in the White House have led to dramatic turns in foreign policy — ranging from escalations in tension to attempts to set a new tone for dialogue. For instance, consider President Obama's “reset” policy towards Russia, followed by the intensification of anti-Russian sanctions when the “reset” did not unfold according to American expectations. What significance do the 2024 U.S. presidential elections hold for Russian-American relations? Will the continuity of U.S. foreign policy towards Russia persist? How might the election results impact the future of these two great powers and their interactions on the global stage? At the Intersection of Hopes and Ambitions Among the factors influencing Russian-American relations are the views, priorities, and strategies of American decision-makers. In this regard, the 2024 U.S. presidential election drew the close attention of the international community. It is expected that a change in president and government could lead to a transformation of foreign policy. The position of the elected president serves as an indicator of the likely foreign policy tactics and strategies Washington may adopt towards other countries and in addressing various international issues during the upcoming four-year term.   So, what do we know about Donald Trump? First and foremost, he brings valuable presidential experience and is well aware of the pitfalls that await him now. He is better prepared for the role than he was eight years ago. Secondly, he might challenge the deep state, which, while unlikely, cannot be entirely ruled out. He has nothing left to lose unless he amends the Constitution to create the possibility of running for a third term. Thirdly, he fiercely defends the national interests of the state in the spirit of realism. This means he can be engaged within this paradigm.   At the same time, he is a businessman, which implies that reaching an agreement with him is possible one way or another. The key is to offer him a “price” that aligns with his interests. If a foreign policy “business proposal” does not appeal to him or offer any tangible benefit, he will not even consider it.   It is also important to note that he is ambitious when it comes to wielding power. He has both the financial resources and influence within certain circles. It seems that what he lacks is global power. To realize his ambitions — such as demonstrating his ability to shape world destinies and influence international events through Russia — he may facilitate a revival of Russian-American relations from their current low point.  Whether Moscow would find this scenario acceptable is another question entirely. Nevertheless, American foreign policy does not depend solely on the desires and intentions of the president. Typically, it retains its key characteristics, even with occasional deviations from continuity in foreign policy tactics and strategies. An example of this can be seen in the shift towards a quasi-isolationist stance during Donald Trump's first term, followed by a reversal under Joe Biden's presidency (such as rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, reversing the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO, and lifting the travel ban on citizens from several Muslim and African countries). Now, a return to Trump's approach is anticipated, though the main directions of previous foreign policies across all fronts are expected to remain intact.   It is also crucial to consider the presence of the so-called deep state in the U.S., which may attempt to hinder Trump’s plans and intentions. During his first term, the deep state proved to be a significant force, preventing the president from implementing certain plans and agreements with other world leaders, including Russia — for example, in the realm of cybersecurity.  However, Trump is now more aware of the specific challenges he might face and is better positioned to shape his foreign policy strategy in a way that circumvents potential obstacles posed by the deep state, enabling him to achieve his desired outcomes. This includes negotiating and implementing agreements he reaches.  Who will prevail in this dynamic — Trump or the deep state — remains to be seen in the near future. At the same time, it is essential to consider the impact of previously made decisions on U.S. foreign policy. For example, laws are much more challenging to amend or repeal than executive orders issued by a previous president. This is particularly relevant to one of the major sticking points in Russian-American relations — sanctions. Reaching an agreement to lift sanctions would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, under current conditions, as a law can only be repealed with the approval of the U.S. Congress. In other words, the president does not have the authority to unilaterally lift sanctions without Congressional consent.   However, if such a move aligns with strengthening the global influence of the United States — particularly Donald Trump’s role — it is conceivable that he might find a way to achieve the seemingly impossible. At the same time, the U.S. president is not the sole influential figure in shaping the country’s foreign policy — Congress also plays a crucial role. The current situation is unfolding in a manner similar to 2016. The outcome of the 2024 U.S. elections resulted not only in the victory of former president and businessman Donald Trump, but also in Republican candidates securing a majority in Congress. The Republican Party now holds the upper hand, with 53 seats in the Senate compared to the Democrats' 47, and 220 seats in the House of Representatives compared to the Democrats' 215.   There is a likelihood that Republicans will be inclined to support Trump’s initiatives. However, opposition on certain issues is also possible, one of which could be Russia, particularly regarding anti-Russian sanctions, as was the case during his previous term.  In this context, it is important to note that Republican members of Congress have backed the nomination of the current Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, for the same position in the new House. The vote on his candidacy is scheduled for January 3, 2025. While he previously supported funding for Ukraine, his rhetoric has recently shifted, and he has started opposing this initiative.   Meanwhile, John Thune has become the new Republican leader in the Senate. He has already expressed his willingness to approve Trump’s cabinet appointments through a simplified and expedited process. Notably, he also supported aid for Ukraine in the past. However, this fact is now being downplayed in public discourse in the United States. In addition to the role of the president and the composition of Congress, those appointed to key foreign policy positions and the advisors to the head of state can also play a significant role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. Currently, Donald Trump, drawing on his experience from his first term, is selecting candidates for his team who are not only loyal to him but also influential and well-resourced figures, such as Elon Musk. He is choosing individuals who share his ambitions.  In this regard, Trump and Musk are quite similar — both aspire to global influence. This has led to a consolidation of Trump’s inner circle around his expressed ideas, even if some of these individuals previously held different positions on foreign policy issues. This dynamic is evident, for instance, in the case of Mike Johnson.   Undoubtedly, this alignment is primarily motivated by the desire to secure positions in the upcoming administration. However, these individuals are also well aware that if they oppose Trump, they risk being replaced by more loyal candidates. One of the top priorities on the agenda for the newly elected president is filling government positions. The importance of those he selects for his team should not be underestimated. Despite their loyalty, it is important to consider the potential, albeit limited, influence they may have on the stance of the newly elected president. First and foremost, Donald Trump has selected U.S. Senator J.D. Vance from Ohio as his vice president. Vance considers Russia an adversary of the United States but believes treating Moscow as an outright enemy is counterproductive. He has been cautious in supporting anti-Russian sanctions, remarking that the Biden administration's use of this tool against Russia has been as effective as a “damp firecracker”.   J.D. Vance has been a vocal opponent of providing aid to Ukraine and has advocated for negotiations with Russia. According to him, “just because we don’t like someone doesn’t mean we can’t talk to them from time to time”. This suggests a degree of pragmatism in the approach toward Moscow within the future U.S. presidential administration.   Nonetheless, national interests will remain the top priority for Trump’s entire team, as well as for Trump himself. In this context, one potential negotiation strategy could involve emphasizing that agreements on specific issues align with American national interests. Currently, Michael Waltz is being considered for the role of National Security Advisor. This position is one of the most significant in the U.S. administration and does not require Senate confirmation. Waltz would be responsible for briefing Donald Trump on key national security issues and coordinating the work of various agencies.   Regarding his foreign policy views, Waltz believes it is necessary to reassess the U.S. objectives in Ukraine. At the same time, he is among those who support imposing sanctions on Russia and conducting strikes deep within Russian territory. So far, no changes in his stance on these matters have been observed.   However, it is unlikely that he will openly contradict Trump. Instead, a “good cop, bad cop” dynamic may emerge, which could align perfectly with the newly elected president's objectives. After all, Trump is advancing the concept of “peace through strength”. Donald Trump plans to appoint Senator Marco Rubio as Secretary of State. In recent interviews, Rubio stated that Ukraine should seek opportunities for a peaceful resolution with Russia rather than focusing solely on reclaiming its territories. He was also one of 15 Republican senators who voted against the $95 billion military aid package for Ukraine passed in April 2024. This alignment with Trump’s position on Ukraine indicates Rubio’s intention to remain loyal to the U.S. president.   For the role of Secretary of Defense, Trump is considering Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host. Hegseth has expressed skepticism about continuing U.S. support for Ukraine, further reflecting his loyalty to Trump, consistent with other candidates being considered for positions in the new administration. Donald Trump has proposed New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Stefanik has called for “crushing actions” to defeat Russia and was one of the initiators of anti-Russian sanctions. However, she voted against a multi-billion-dollar aid package for Ukraine in early 2024.   For the position of Director of National Intelligence, Trump has nominated Tulsi Gabbard, known for her criticism of U.S. foreign policy regarding Ukraine and Russia. In early 2022, she attributed the conflict to the Biden administration's failure to acknowledge Russia's “legitimate security concerns” regarding Ukraine's potential NATO membership. Other key positions include Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of Commerce, who are responsible, among other things, for implementing anti-Russian sanctions, as well as the Director of the CIA. Additionally, the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will be led by businessman Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, Trump's former rival in the primaries.  In this context, it is important to note that Donald Trump places a high value on loyalty and support for his ideas. Consequently, members of his team are likely to carefully weigh their words to avoid contradicting him — or at least not contradicting him significantly — while subtly advancing their own views when possible.   In summary, all candidates share a common trait: loyalty to Trump and support for his ideas, particularly regarding Ukraine, even if they previously held differing views on certain issues. However, it would be premature to infer a shift in the U.S. position toward Russia based solely on their expressed desire to resolve the Ukrainian conflict. Bridges or Walls: The Shape of Russian-American Relations After 2024  The trends in relations between Moscow and Washington after 2024 will largely depend not only on the outcome of the recent elections but also on the genuine readiness of both nations for dialogue and cooperation. Notably, Russia has already articulated its position, expressing its willingness for constructive dialogue. However, the question remains: Is Washington prepared for this, considering its deeply entrenched anti-Russian background? Can Donald Trump navigate these challenges effectively, and more importantly, does he even want to?   Russian-American relations after the elections stand at a crossroads. The choice between constructive cooperation and deepening confrontation will be critical. What factors will ultimately determine the future trajectory of these relations? It is important to remember that Donald Trump is a businessman who thinks and acts accordingly. He is ambitious and seeks to influence international relations while positioning himself as a leader. Consequently, he will never agree to concessions. At best, the outcome will be compromise solutions on a range of issues that he, as U.S. president, does not consider vital but which allow him to fulfill his ambitions and emerge as the winner in negotiations. On one hand, under current conditions, the shadow of conflict will continue to loom over Russian-American relations regardless of the statements and actions of Donald Trump and his team. Among the contentious issues that will be challenging to resolve are North Korea (a longstanding U.S. adversary), relations with China (Trump would like to reduce the level of Russian-Chinese cooperation), and Iran (its nuclear program remains a major concern for the U.S.).  On the other hand, potential areas for dialogue and cooperation could include counterterrorism efforts and cybersecurity. An attempt was made during Trump’s first term in 2017, when a bilateral working group on cybersecurity was proposed following a meeting between the Russian and U.S. presidents. However, these agreements ultimately fell apart due to pressure on Trump from the U.S. deep state. It is highly unlikely that Russia and the United States will be able to overcome their significant differences, establish a mutually beneficial dialogue, restore strategic stability, or “reset” their relations over the next four years, especially given Donald Trump's stance on achieving “peace through strength”. Interestingly, Trump has expressed a desire to resolve the crisis in Ukraine as quickly as possible. However, during his first presidential term, his administration approved the transfer of weapons to Ukraine. It can be speculated that this decision was influenced by the deep state, which may have pressured him to provide military aid to Kyiv.   That said, it is improbable that Trump's current desire to end the conflict will take Russian national interests into account. Notably, he has been largely silent on the broader development of relations with Russia. One should not expect a dramatic shift in Russian-American relations. The United States will continue to act in its national interests, as it always has. However, there is now an opportunity to reopen negotiations with Donald Trump, approaching him as a businessman open to a potential win-win scenario, provided that the strategy is carefully crafted — much like Henry Kissinger once did.   Russia has made its move; now it is Trump’s turn. Whether he is capable of restoring even a minimal level of trust between the two countries, necessary for de-escalating tensions, will become evident over the next four years.

Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Donald Trump has claimed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours of taking office. He now calls for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine and the beginning of negotiations. However, history shows that what cannot be achieved on the battlefield is unlikely to be obtained at the negotiating table. Immediate ceasefire of the Ukraine war could be a double-edged sword for the United States under the current circumstances. Russia occupies significant Ukrainian territories, including Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and parts of Zaporizhzhia, amounting to approximately 18% of Ukraine’s territory. Ukraine has made incursions into the Russian regions of Belgorod and Bryansk, only amounting to less than 1% of Russia’s total territory. How can both sides achieve their goals at the negotiating table?  Trump’s special envoy Keith Kellogg suggests ending the war by halting weapon supplies to Ukraine if it refuses to engage in peace talks — and increasing weapon deliveries to Ukraine if Russia fails to do the same. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has suggested the possibility of negotiating a cease-fire deal with Russia, proposing that the status of occupied territories could be addressed diplomatically at a later stage. This reflects Ukraine’s constrained position under various pressures. Russia is open to a peace talk but is unlikely to make a huge compromise with Ukraine. Despite NATO’s extensive support, sufficient military resources such as ammunition and air defense systems have not been provided to enable Ukraine to effectively counter Russian advances and produce decisive outcomes in strategic offensives due to unclear strategic objectives and effective implementation measures.   Sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies have not crippled the Russian economy as intended; instead, the Russian economy grew by 3.1% in the third quarter of 2024, and its national debt remains at 14.6% of GDP—approximately the same level as when the war began in 2022.  In 2023, Russia spent $160 billion on military needs, accounting for about 40% of its budget. For 2025, Russia has already allocated 13.5 trillion rubles (over $145 billion) for national defense, representing 32.5% of the budget. With support from North Korea, Iran, China, and other countries, Russia is likely to sustain its efforts on Ukrainian soil. In contrast, Ukraine is unlikely to achieve a decisive victory in the short term. If its allies continue with the current strategy while reducing financial aid, Ukraine risks depleting its resources and prolonging the conflict into an unpredictable stalemate, potentially leaving it at a disadvantage during negotiations. Without doubt, an immediate ceasefire could help stop further casualties and bring some much-needed relief to the people affected by the conflict. It can also ease the immediate burden of supporting Ukraine militarily and financially, freeing resources for domestic priorities and addressing other international challenges, particularly countering China’s challenges. However, an immediate ceasefire according to the current battlefield map could also benefit U.S. rivals—authoritarian regimes. First, it would solidify Russia’s control over occupied territories, allowing Moscow to claim a partial victory and bolster domestic support. Such an outcome rewards territorial aggression and undermines international norms. Second, it could weaken the U.S. commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, signaling to adversaries that aggression can succeed if sustained long enough. European allies might interpret a ceasefire as a sign of wavering U.S. resolve, leading to fractures within NATO and weakening transatlantic unity. Allies in Asia, including Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, may question the reliability of U.S. security commitments in the region. Third, China has been closely watching the West’s response to the Ukraine crisis, focusing on the cohesion of alliances, the impact of sanctions, and the dynamics of military support. An immediate freeze of the war would demonstrate limited Western resolve and suggest that territorial aggression can yield lasting gains. This reinforces Beijing’s belief that the international community would hesitate to intervene militarily in Taiwan and encourages China to change the status quo over the Taiwan Strait, believing it can manage economic sanctions and diplomatic pressures. Fourth, an immediate ceasefire does not guarantee long-term peace. The lack of a comprehensive peace agreement leaves underlying issues unaddressed, and it merely postpones hostilities, making the prospect of sustainable peace elusive. Historically, frozen conflicts like those in Georgia’s South Ossetia and Moldova’s Transnistria have fostered prolonged instability, enabling aggressors to consolidate control over occupied territories and exert leverage over affected states. The lesson from Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea demonstrates that tolerating an aggressor only encourages further expansion of their ambitions. Instead of an immediate ceasefire agreement, it is necessary to further support Ukraine in reclaiming its territory by changing the current strategy before reaching any cease-fire deal. Historical patterns show that successful territorial recaptures often require asserting military strength before engaging in peace talks. A cease-fire without the necessary restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty risks legitimizing Russia’s invasion. A successful Ukrainian counteroffensive could not only enhance Ukraine’s leverage in negotiations but also serve as a powerful deterrent against future territorial ambitions by other authoritarian regimes globally. The United States will not compromise American national interests when mediating a cease-fire agreement between Ukraine and Russia. However, it will be an extremely challenging task for any American president to broker a peace deal at this time because a deal should uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and internationally recognized borders, align with U.S. support for a rules-based international order, and ensure a balance between both parties instead of rewarding Russian aggression. It should strengthen U.S.-European relations rather than undermine allied unity, adhere to longstanding U.S. foreign policy principles rather than prioritize political gains, and enhance the U.S.’s reputation as a reliable global leader. Otherwise, immediately freezing the war could potentially harm U.S. national interests in the long term and directly encourage the ambitions of aggressors worldwide. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/]

Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском “Changes! We’re waiting for changes!” proclaimed Viktor Tsoi nearly 40 years ago, at the dawn of the Soviet perestroika. If one were to summarize the multitude of diverse and contradictory events, trends, and sentiments of the past year in a single phrase, it would be that the modern world is eagerly awaiting change. Much like the former USSR in the 1980s, few today can clearly define what these changes should entail or what their ultimate outcome will be. Yet, the idea of maintaining the status quo has evidently found little favor with the public over the past year. This impatient anticipation of change was reflected, for instance, in the outcomes of numerous elections held over the past 12 months across the globe. In total, more than 1.6 billion people went to the polls, and in most cases, supporters of the status quo lost ground. In the United States, the Democrats suffered a resounding defeat to the Republicans, while in the United Kingdom, the Conservatives were decisively beaten by the Labour Party. In France, Emmanuel Macron's once-dominant ruling party found itself squeezed between right-wing and left-wing opposition, plunging the Fifth Republic into a deep political crisis. The seemingly stable foundations of political centrism were shaken in Germany, South Korea, and Japan. Even the party of the highly popular Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi failed to retain its parliamentary majority after the elections, and in South Africa, the African National Congress led by Cyril Ramaphosa also lost its majority. Pessimists might argue that abandoning the status quo in itself solves no problems, and the much-anticipated changes, as the final years of the Soviet Union demonstrated, do not necessarily lead to positive outcomes. Replacing cautious technocrats with reckless populists often backfires, affecting those most critical of the entrenched status quo. Optimists, on the other hand, would counter that the rusted structures of state machinery everywhere are in desperate need of radical modernization. They would add that the costs inevitably associated with maintaining the existing state of affairs at all costs far outweigh any risks tied to attempts to change it. The international events of the past year are also open to various interpretations. Pessimists would undoubtedly point out that none of the major armed conflicts carried over from 2023 were resolved in 2024. On the contrary, many of them showed clear tendencies toward escalation. For instance, in late summer, Ukraine launched an incursion into the Kursk region of Russia, and in mid-November, the U.S. authorized Kyiv to use long-range ATACMS missiles against targets deep within Russian territory. Meanwhile, the military operation launched by Israel in Gaza in the fall of 2023 gradually expanded to the West Bank, then to southern Lebanon, and by the end of 2024, to parts of Syrian territory adjacent to the Golan Heights. From the optimists' perspective, however, the past year demonstrated that the disintegration of the old international system has its limits. A direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO did not occur, nor did a large-scale regional war break out in the Middle East, the Taiwan Strait, or the Korean Peninsula. The economic results of 2024 are equally ambiguous. On one hand, the global economy remained heavily influenced by geopolitics throughout the year. The process of “technological decoupling” between the U.S. and China continued, and unilateral sanctions firmly established themselves as a key instrument of Western foreign policy. On the other hand, the world managed to avoid a deep economic recession despite the numerous trade and investment restrictions. Global economic growth for the year is expected to reach around 3%, which is quite respectable for such turbulent times, especially considering that the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have not yet been fully overcome. In 2024, the average annual global temperature exceeded pre-industrial levels by more than 1,5 °C for the first time, crossing another critical “red line”. However, the UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) held in November in Baku fell short of many expectations. At the same time, China reached its peak carbon emissions by the end of the year, achieving this milestone a full five years ahead of previously announced plans. In the past year, the UN Security Council managed to adopt only 12 resolutions, mostly of a humanitarian nature, clearly reflecting the declining effectiveness of this global governance body. For comparison, in 2000, the Security Council approved 29 resolutions, including key decisions on conflict resolution in the Balkans and Africa. At the same time, 2024 saw continued efforts to explore new formats for multilateral cooperation, including mechanisms within the BRICS group, which held its 16th summit in Kazan for the first time in its newly expanded composition. With enough imagination, one can easily find evidence in the past 12 months to confirm any omen or superstition traditionally associated with leap years. However, all these signs and superstitions predicting upheavals and catastrophes—while aligning with the pessimistic conclusions about the year now ending—do not apply to the year ahead. Human nature, after all, tends to lean more towards optimism than pessimism; if it were the other way around, we would still be living in caves. As they bid farewell to a difficult and challenging year, people around the world continue to hope for better times. And the mere act of hoping for the best is already significant in itself. As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe aptly remarked, “Our wishes are forebodings of our capabilities, harbingers of what we are destined to achieve”. Originally published in Izvestia.