Risks to Global Stability in 2016

By Adrienn Keszei - Oct 12, 2015

 

(Source: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=176293 )

New York — As 2016 approaches, it is important to keep close watch of the political and economic risks worldwide to evaluate their potential global impact. Although it is difficult to precisely assess the consequences of single events in terms of global stability, the following list explains some of the major risks for the following year(s):

-          The Russian intervention in Syria may have wide-ranging global consequences for the next year. Although a possible clash with the U.S. over their different strategies to solve the Syrian civil war is a low probability risk, if it happens, the conflict will have high risk implications for global stability. While Putin’s decision to help the Syrian government defeat the militant groups may produce some positive results in the short term, it is possible that the country will not be able to fully control the extent of its involvement in the civil war. It is possible that the following events will require a deeper involvement from the Russian military, which could alienate the Russian public from Putin. Depending on how long and how deep Putin’s involvement in the civil war will be, it may have serious political consequences for Putin’s regime in the long term.

-          The Paris Climate Conference in December 2015 may have significant global implications for the following years. As the 190 nations will meet, their differing views are likely to cause a major falling out between the industrialized and the emerging markets. Although numerous countries have previously committed to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions to some extent, more serious efforts must be made to limit the emerging threat of the greenhouse effect. However, even if the developed countries could agree to significantly change their energy policies, poor states do not have the financial means to invest in clean technology. They would expect rich countries to provide the funding for them to adapt their economy and infrastructure to the new global energy policies. Even if an agreement is reached regarding the environmental issues, cooperation between the participating states will be problematic.

-          The stagnation of the Eurozone is likely to remain a major problem for the next year. Ever since the global financial crisis of 2007-08, the economy of the European Union has been unable to return to its previous growth-path. The present migrant crisis will further reduce the prospects of major GDP growth for 2016, as most of the developed countries in the bloc will have to focus on restructuring their immigration policies and resolving short-term issues related to the huge influx of migrants. Although a turnaround is not out of the picture, the current GDP growth path of the EU is quite worrying, and raises questions in terms of its ability to sustain the bloc and lift the Eurozone from stagnation.

-          Although at first glance water scarcity may seem like an isolated issue only influencing specific countries and regions, it is becoming a global phenomenon. Poor water management is causing severe damages to the environment in the Middle East, Africa, and in parts of Asia as well. Australia is under extreme pressure due to the growing drought, and other developed countries are threatened as well—California in the U.S. has been especially challenged by water shortage. Furthermore, it is also threatening business and industry interests; the extractive industry, agribusiness or the manufacturing sector all heavily rely on water. The regulatory risks due to the new policies will further aggravate the investment risk, causing tremendous impacts for the global economy. In addition, geopolitical tensions are also expected to cause disputes over water resources in many regions.

-          The recent developments in the conflict between the government forces and the militant Kurdish PKK group are raising the risk of a Turkish civil war. Militant attacks on the Turkish military and the serious nationalist demonstrations have shown that the current climate of political polarization might lead to open conflict between the two sides. Although at this point it may be a moderate risk only, in case of another civil war ensues, it is unknown how serious the conflict could become. It may happen that military intervention from other countries will be necessary. As civil wars in the neighboring region have been damaging for global stability, a conflict in Turkey would certainly upset world politics even more.

Although some of the risks discussed above may have a low probability at present, it is crucial to carefully consider all the potential risks for the following years, so that we can take evasive action early on. Looking at risks from different perspectives may always change the order of priority, however, decision makers must realize that all threats are concurrently present and all of them need to be mitigated to ensure global stability.

The forecasting on geopolitical challenges in 2016 lends a perspective on how the world order might be reshaped by the following risks to global stability.

  Economic slowdown of BRICS

    China is going through its structural transformation, from a focus on manufacturing and exporting, to an emphasis on domestic consumption and investments. This is causing a general economic slowdown in the Emerging Markets (EM), particularly among the so-called BRICS nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Chinese government is projected to further reform the state planned economy to maintain China’s high growth in 2016.

           Brazil’s GDP growth decreased from 2.7% in 2013 to 0.1% in 2014 (WorldBank, 2014) and is expected to be in recession for the next two years; the rising value of the US dollar and depreciation of Chinese currency this year worsens Brazil’s prospects, which heavily rely on commodity exports to China, its largest trade partner.

    Western sanctions on Russia’s annexation of Crimea and a sharp drop in oil prices have caused similar economic stagnation in Russia and the GDP growth in Russia dropped from 1.3% to 0.6% in 2014 (WorldBank, 2014) and will also suffer a recession this year. Meanwhile, South Africa’s resource dependent economy is also suffering from the downturn in global commodity prices and China’s lower appetite for imports of raw materials. Indeed, only India appears to be growing at a healthy pace among the BRICS nations, and the IMF predicts that India will overtake China as fastest-growing economy in 2016. Even so, such optimism still does not compensate for the shadow that hangs over BRICS countries and other EM economies, most of which will struggle to grow at potential this year.  

  Maritime disputes in East Asia

Last week China said it would not tolerate any violation of areas it claims as its territorial waters

in the name of freedom of navigation, a warning to the United States’ plan to sail warships close to  artificial islands China has been building in the South China Sea. Although the two sides finalized an agreement on reducing the possibility of aerial clashes during Chinese President Xi’s visit to Washington last month, no real progress regarding the South China Sea’s maritime disputes has been made.

China also has island disputes with Japan in the East China Sea that recently were the subject of security legislation in the Japanese parliament. The bills, which provoked a strong response from China and Beijing repeated its contention that Japan’s alliance with the U.S. is meant to contain China’s influence over East Asia region. China will aim to change Asia’s status quo regardless of US and Japanese views, either through a peaceful strategy or through inevitable military conflicts with the U.S. and Japan. The maritime tension will continue to be a risk to regional stability in East Asia in 2016.

  ISIS and terrorism

    ISIS’s violent extremism makes it the State of Terror, and its shocking expansion from having a presence in two to ten countries during the past year keeps the world watchful. Different from al Qaeda, whose goal focused on driving the West out of the Middle East from remote redoubts, the ISIS wilāyah acts more aggressively and reinforces its leadership through seizing territory, conducting rape and murder, recruiting and governing in its homeland to solidify the organization’s expansion. ISIS’s interference with Syria civil war worsens the armed conflicts in that region. By July 2014, ISIL has controlled a third of Syria's territory and most of its oil and gas production, thus establishing itself as the dominant force in the Syrian opposition.

    ISIS and terrorist attacks still remains as a threat to global security in 2016.

  Russia

The Russian intervention  in Ukraine and subsequent economic sanctions on Russia have aroused the country’s antipathy against the West. Putin’s promotion of Russian Orthodox Church aims to deepen the union of politics and religion to unite the Russian society. His emphasis on national identity feeds a tide of rising Russian nationalism that diverts public attention from domestic stagnant economy to foreign affairs with anti-U.S. attitudes.

Russian involvement in the Syrian civil war has reached a critical point and how the Western reacts will be crucial. While Russia supports the Assad government’s role in fighting against ISIS, Western powers argue that a new government should formed in Damascus without Assad, whose forces have been responsible for more deaths in Syria than all other factions combined.  What happened to Afghanistan during 1979-1989, whereby a failed Russian invasion left a power vacuum for terrorists to fill, threatens to recur in Syria.. States’ political interests in Syria’s ongoing armed conflicts will shape future order in the region. In both Ukraine and Syria, the Russian government’s anti-Western foreign policy will ensure instability = in 2016.

  The U.S.’s presidential election

Though whoever will be the next president of the U.S. does not directly impose risk to global stability, his or her policies indeed have impact on the world order in 2016. Since 9.11, the Bush administration had changed the U.S.’s traditional war policy that focused on preemption to a new diplomatic initiative on preventive action. The consideration of America’ costs in Iraq and Afghanistan made the Obama administration decide to withdraw troops from both war zones. Some even claim that America has stopped playing its role of world police and has become more indifferent to regional conflicts, as reflected in Obama’s seeming compliant attitude toward Russia’s intervention in Syria. Though some cointinuity can be expected if Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, wins in November 2016, the field of Republican challengers is diverse, unsettled and filled with foreign policy neophytes whose campaign slogans sound dangerously unilateral. In either case, changes will result from the next president of the U.S.will influence international stability in 2016.

5 greatest risks to global stability looming ahead in 2016

By Anya Degtyarenko 

NEW YORK, Oct. 12 — With the end of the Cold War, the world entered the new era: multiple regional economic and political powers are about to reshape the world order. The startling trends had been much in evidence during 2015: complete breakdown in relations between the US and Russia with Putin’s aggressiveness; an escalating international crisis in the Middle East, a shattering economic and social state of the European Union, and the fearful economic effect of Chinese slowdown. While the world doesn’t seem close to “stable” today, the global stability implies the existing political status quo, allowing moderate and predictable international economic and social progress. Geopolitical factors that threaten the predictable order are, therefore, the risks causing global instability. Five of these top risks will be prominent in 2016. 

1. European Instability

European integrity and reputation of stability will continue to be challenged in 2016.  Eurozone economic weakness, coupled with the migration crisis and following political repercussions will be hitting European Union in its weak spots. The inflation rate has fallen again in 3rd quarter of 2015, to just 0.3 percent, and the unemployment rate is stuck at 11.5 percent — and prospects for 2016 might be worse. Economic weakness makes the EU reluctant to hurt Moscow; cutting it off from the global financial system would strike the EU too. Following the economic fragility, “Brexit”, the possibility of Britain quitting the EU, is the next risk sign of  European fragmenting. Economic stagnation and lack of political cooperation produced infirm responses to the Ukraine, Iraqi and Syrian crises. The bottom line of  the list is a migration crisis with no obvious solution. Migrant inflow from the African continent, dictated by demography and economic gaps, is going to increase and the EU must develop a common approach or risk further political and social challenges to its unity. 

2. China

While the world is focused on the situation in Middle East, ISIS and Putin, the problem with China will approach shortly. The growth targets for 2016 keep lowering, and it will affect China’s trade partners at first place. Commodities dependent countries booming on exports to China, like Japan, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, Thailand, will continue to suffer, raising the risk of political unrest in the most unstable of them. GDP in the US and already the struggling and the Eurozone will decline. While the world is anticipating China’s economic slowdown, the Chinese Communist Party seeks to demonstrate its political and military power. It is building up its influence in the South Sea and closed the air space in Eastern China, which the US does not recognize. Its actions in Syria pose a major threat to the US-allies in the Middle East. Chinese hackers are believed to pose threat to the US cyber security. On top of the economic interdependence between the US and China, the political tension between powers will highly increase. 


3. The Middle East 

The expansion of the Islamic State, as well as Saudi Arabia and Iran, will continue to complicate the situation in the Middle East. ISIS ideology will continue to spread out, setting up new units and disrupting the status quo power of the Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. Meanwhile, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is unresolved, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon will promote violent  clashes with Israel. With the US-Iran nuclear deal and impending lifting of sanctions, the struggle for dominance between Iran and Saudis will feed violent proxy wars in the region like those underway in Syria and Yemen. The threat of the Assad regime collapse and his successor will be on the agenda of 2016. With the US scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2016, there is a risk of the collapse of Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan into semi-failed states. Some of these conflicts may yield an actual oil supply disruption, as in 1973, 1979, and 1990, with the results reflected in risking prices. Weakened economies and civil wars in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, will turn millions of people into refugees and continue to destabilize Europe economically and socially. Furthermore, lasting hopelessness and growing unemployment will produce more anti-western jihadists among Arab Youth who will find their way to stage terrorist attacks in the US, Europe or Russia. 



4. Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia will contribute to global instability and already existing turmoil in the Middle East. Its importance as an oil exporting nation has made economic interdependence with the West inevitable, That, in turn, set up strong political and military relationships that at times have been a source of tension for both sides that will be tested in 2016. Saudi Arabia is facing multiple risks for its economy, succession and regional stability. With the trend favoring continued low oil prices, the Saudi budget deficit will increase, which was already $100 billion in 2015. This will produce risks for the Kingdom’s credit rating, capital outflows and negative responses on international markets. As the country will be close to running out of its financial and oil reserves, the region will be more destabilized. Besides this tight economic situation, the US-Iran nuclear deal shuttered the 70 year history of the American and Saudi relationships of the status quo powers. Russia’s dramatic intervention to the balance of power  in the Middle East will signal that the US is not responsible for defending its friends and allies anymore. With ongoing succession conspiracy inside the House of Saud, that  will leave the Saudis more vulnerable than ever, and cause more friction in the relations with Iran.  


5. Russia 

Russia is a tricky factor when calculating global destabilization factors in 2016. Against the backdrop of the weak Eurozone, the economic sanctions imposed after Crimea were not enough to mortally weaken Russia. Arguably, they made Putin even more aggressive and revisionist. As the Russian economy tumbles, Putin will increase its anti-Western economic policy, targeting the companies and investors inside of Russia. Its nuclear capability and intend on territorial and political expansion, especially in the region of the US-allies, continues to pose threat to the security of Western world and overall, global stability. With the Ukraine left in the “frozen conflict” state, Putin moved his attention to Syria. Putin’s intervention in Syria intends to insert Russia as a rival to the US-superpower role in the regional conflict. That clearly had implications for further extension beyond the region. Russia will continue its provocative behavior against NATO states (e.g. violating Turkey air space).  Further, China uniting with Russia against ISIS and US-backed allies will pose great risk of expelling NATO as a power organization and eventually shifting the US influence in the region. Failure to defend the NATO ally from Russia-China coalition will disrupt the whole balance of power and the attempt of the US to return to its primary power in the region will trigger the World War III. 

Pope Francis: Politician or Pope?

By Adrienn Keszei

NEW YORK, Sept. 28 - The Pope’s recent visit has generated a lot of discussion about the relevance of his title and moral authority. The origins of the papacy go back about 2000 years - if we consider Peter the Apostle to be the first pope - and it has been frequently questioned whether or not popes should have a say in world politics. The Catholic Church has the single largest religious body, and the number of Christians alone proves that the papacy is still a very relevant institution. But does that mean he should also be able to influence politics? According to a mini-survey conducted out and about in Manhattan, people have strong opinions about the pope’s role, and they do not necessarily approve of his efforts to bring about change employing his moral authority.

“Because of his global position, he has a very widely accepted, respected and valued opinion”, Elizabeth Trocchia said. “It depends on what he is discussing, but I think that he has more of a sway than he should sometimes”

The Vatican’s role in history and the notorious corruption of the Holy See during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance give the pope something of a steep hill to climb. Popes have had tremendous influence in European politics, but since losing its sway with the Reformation, the institution has had a hard time re-establishing its moral authority in a part of the world that has become increasingly  disenchanted with religion. Of course devout Catholics will always support the Vatican and political leaders have a generally good relationship with the pope; from time to time, however, when a pope proposes new ideas or has agendas that could interfere with politics, his role in the world’s political scene is heavily questioned by the public.

“I think the pope can be much more influential than politicians because there are a lot more religious people than politically active people, so many more people will listen to the pope than the president for example”, Maya Benain told a reporter. “As bad as it sounds, I feel like popes in general have so much power that they can just brainwash people…figuratively.”

Others attribute less influence to the institution of the papacy. “I think he has a political role similar to that of the queen in the UK, “claimed Niki Foth. “He can motivate those who support the church, but he cannot make decisions”.

Pope Francis, probably the most progressive pope ever to head the Church of Rome, established a surprisingly modern attitude about LGBT rights and the issue of abortion. This augments pleas that seem more in keeping with his predecessors – an appeal for a peaceful solution to the war in Syria, for instance, and his recent warning that Europe faces the threat of terrorist recruiters passing as migrants, or his call for urgent action on climate change. He is clearly becoming involved in social, political, and economic issues worldwide to a greater extent than his modern predecessors.

Precisely because of his progressive attitude and style, both liberals and conservatives may find particular arguments of the pope appealing, especially if those are perfectly aligned with someone’s political agenda. When Pope Francis addressed the United Nations last Friday, his main concern was environmental action, but also the potential harm done by those trying to work towards sustainability. He warned the General Assembly to consider how the fight against climate change could cause further suffering to the poor. Whether or not this distinguished group of political leaders will actually listen to him remains unclear.

Jeff Goad, who braved a 40-minute ferry station and street lockdown due to President Obama’s arrival at the General Assembly, said he believes the pope may be able to influence issues that are out of his reach. “Yes, I believe the opinions are relevant, he’s the leader of the world’s largest religion and lots of people listen to him because he’s powerful and important. Whether or not I feel like he should be a moral authority, popes end up building a lot of political power; they are religious leaders who have tremendous sway.”

“I find it kind of odd that although he is not supposed to be a political figure, people would look to him for his political views, “said Elizabeth Trocchia. Indeed, the popularity of Pope Francis stems from the fact that he is not a political, but a moral figure, and even if he cannot be an active participant in decision making processes about war and peace, people often look to him for moral guidance.

Whether or not we want to accept it, he is transforming the institution of the papacy. Some worry that this change may bring about a Vatican that has too much of an influence. Granted, he is not a politician—although the Vatican has a governing body and is a sovereign entity recognized by international law—but he is the most politically involved pope the world has seen for a very long time. He is someone whose moral opinion is often highly valued even in secular circles and he can use his moral authority in controversial issues quite brilliantly, Regardless of people’s concerns, however, at the moment the pope does not have much influence in political issues. It has yet to be seen how influential he could become in the future.

Healing the Christian-Pagan divide

By J.F. Mezo

NEW YORK, Sept. 26 – It’s just before 11 a.m. and the annual NY Pagan Pride Harvest Festival has kicked off with an opening circle to celebrate the Autumn Equinox in Washington Square Park. The din of shamanic drums and the rows of vendors offering from jewellery and cauldrons to herbs and incense are a marked contrast to the event that dominated the week here – the visit of Pope Francis, who  just two days ago the Pope held a public mass just 25 blocks north in Madison Square Garden.

The opening ritual of the Pagan Pride Day is a world away from the Church. The first key speaker, Jeff Mach, asks for the crowd’s attention, drawing their eyes to the main stage and the historic Judson Memorial Church behind it. For Pagans, a lot rides on the notion of peaceful coexistence, acceptance and an open-minded approach to different religious beliefs; it’s not just their public image, they explain, but the fact that many of them come from Roman Catholic families that do not take well to their personal convictions.

“People still stare,” says the Tribal Coordinator of the Queens Branch of the Spiral Scouts, who goes by her Pagan name, Gem.. “There are many misconceptions, even within our families.”

When asked about said misconceptions, Pagans have a lot to say. “My students think Wicca [a modern branch of Paganism] equals Paganism and that Pagans are flaky, out of touch, unable to deal with 21^st century life and basically half-crazy” says Chip O’Brien, a high school teacher representing Hekate’s Sacred Temple at the Pagan Pride Day. His  experiences at the Catholic high school he attended left him perplexed by the Church’s unwillingness to adapt and its anachronistic, frozen-in-time approach motivated his search for a different path. He expresses admiration that Pope Francis seems to be bridging the divide between the religious and secular worlds that only seemed to be growing during the reign of his predecessors in the Vatican. 

Some Pagans believe that it will take more than one pope to bring about an era of peaceful coexistence between the Church and the multitude of Pagan religions (Druidism, Wicca, and Ásatrú, just to mention a few). But there is one thing they all appear to agree on: Pope Francis is making a difference.

The Pope has demonstrated never-before-seen willingness to get involved in worldly matters, as he was the first Pope to address the US Congress on Sept. 24 and he has also been very vocal about matters, such as the refugee crisis, the excesses of capitalism or climate change. This, Pagans believe, might eventually help bridge the divide between them and the Catholic Church as protecting and preserving the environment has always been a top priority for many – if not all – branches of Paganism.

“Have you seen the renewable energy booth yet?” says Christabel, a volunteer at the Pagan Pride Day Info tent who gestures towards a small table covered in bright yellow brochures that read “Global Warming/Climate Change Is Here”. The sponsoring organisation, United for Action, has little to do with religion, be it Pagan or Christian, but it wouldn’t be out of place at a  Catholic event these days either – a demonstration of the effect Pope Francis' message is having on previously alienated  communities.

By bridging the divide between the Church and the State by addressing the Congress and in pushing the Church to adapt to the 21^st century when offering forgiveness for the “sin of abortion” during the upcoming Year of Mercy, Pope Francis has already opened many doors. By forcefully engaging the debate on climate change, he may unlock another; one that has been firmly locked since the rise of Catholicism.

“It is great that the Pope promotes some of the same ideas that we have” says Christabel, who comes from a Catholic background. She says she was initially hesitant to join the Pagan community but has been amazed by the openness, acceptance and diversity she encountered within the ranks of this often misunderstood circle. “But the past is still there – we have to let it go.”

And letting go has never seemed easier than now, when Pagan groups can celebrate the Autumn Equinox in public in the wake of the visit of the Pope. In this new era of opening doors, Pagans and Christians are often passionate about the same issues and family members frequently find themselves backing the same causes even though one of them prays to the Lord and the other to Bastet.

“The goal” says Jeff Mach “is to coexist in peace, do good and work together.” And seeing that this year’s Pagan Pride Day book drive collected enough money for the charity City Harvest to feed 1600 people in need, there is hope among the faithful that this is no longer a fantasy.

UN Speech and Syria tragedy: how does Putin visit affect the US-Russia troubling relationship?

Jewel Samand/Getty Images 

By Anya Degtyarenko

NEW YORK, Sept. 27 — Russian President Vladimir Putin’s address to the U.N. General Assembly on Monday will be his first such appearance since 2005. Putin’s aides have billed the speech as a bold proposal that could provide a way out of the Syrian crisis. In fact, by changing to topic of conversation from Ukraine to Syria, Putin the would-be peacemaker sees “a golden opportunity,” as New York Times noted last week, to serve his strategic goals.

For the most of the world, Syria is a scene of tragedy. Russia’s perspective is unique, however, as one of the few major powers (Iran being the other) that supports the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The US and others have consistently rejected the notion that support for Assad is the best way to counter the rise of the bloody fanatics of the Islamic State (ISIS). Putin, we can assume, will insist on disagreeing at the UN this week.

The details of Putin’s address remain secret but the goal of breaking the two-year isolation of Russia appeared to be well on the way to being achieved. On Thursday, President Barack Obama agreed to what the White House said were "repeated requests" for a meeting with Vladimir Putin. The two leaders were reported to have their formal meeting on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly on Monday.

“Until the beginning of the Russian operation in Syria, the US-Russia relationship looked like chess game, in which one player does not pay attention to the board in general (USA), and the other party is constantly moving and hustling to draw attention to yourself, ” said Vasily Gatov, Senior Fellow of USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership & Policy. He added that while Syria is an important argument in the equation, this is not exactly a transformative attention and American policy is not going to change.”

Igor Mintusov, Russian political consultant and professional manager of election campaigns, agreed.“For Putin, the Syria issue is the reason to meet with Obama while for Obama, it is the reason to attend the meeting.”

Coincide general consensus exists among Russian affairs experts that no smooth way forward exists for US-Russia relations in spite of Putin’s recent diplomatic efforts. Award-winning journalist and Russian affairs analyst Andrew Nagorski considers that Putin's speech at the UN or his meeting with Obama won’t change anything fundamentally in the US-Russia relationship: “It's a transparent attempt by Putin to try to demonstrate that Russia still counts on the world scene. His country and its citizens are paying the price for those destructive policies.” Nagorski remarked the irony of that Putin “had many chances early in his rule to work with the West and the rest of the world to promote an agenda that would be a win-win situation.” And regardless of the UN speech, “those are all blown chances now.”

The prominent Russian political consultant Evgeny Minchenko claimed that “we find ourselves in a situation of the New Cold War, which is not easy to get out.” Evgeny pointed out that the talks are less likely to improve the relationships: “Americans pay much more attention to overthrow Assad. So the role of Putin, who protects the illegitimate government of Syria, can only be seen as  negative.” He also proposed that while Obama’s mandate is almost over, Putin is going to run for another term in 2018 and probably stay until 2024. Mark Galeotti, an expert in transnational crime and Russian security affairs, is skeptical about progress between Putin and Obama. “Moscow will need to make some substantive moves over the Donbas (Eastern Ukraine) before there can be any greater reward,” Mark explained that out of the talks with Washington. He expected Putin to push but for Obama to hold the line because “after all, it rankles that at present the Americans are treating Moscow as even more of a pariah than Tehran.”

Meanwhile, far from the halls of power, communities of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians worldwide are waiting for the outcome of Putin’s speech. In New York, “A Stand Up To Putin at the UN” rally got under way at 10 a.m. on Sunday, the morning before the speech. Another rally was to take place when Putin starts his speech on Monday. Vera Golubkova, who attended the Sunday protest, said: “For me it is first of all an act of solidarity with Ukrainians. I was born and raised in Russia. There is a lot of tension not just between Russian and Ukraine, but also between Russian and Ukrainian communities in the US. It is important for me to let local Ukrainians know that not all Russians have lost their minds.”

Considering the described troubling factors in the history of US-Russia relations, the tension is evident. Expert opinion hints towards a quite negative perspective of the relations. The opinion of Russian and Eastern European immigrants, however, does not represent the opinion of Russian citizens, who hope to benefit from Putin’s diplomacy. The war against ISIS is the point where US and Russian interests intersect and explain the willingness of Washington to understand Putin’s decisions. The negotiations on Syria cannot, however, compromise Putin’s intervention in Ukraine. The situation is likely to remain painful and “frozen” until time and, possibly, the results of the upcoming presidential elections in both countries push some major shift towards progress.

When World Leaders Collide - a New Level of Security Surrounds the Pope's UN Visit

Photo by Nick Allen

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nickallen/3648586485

By Craig Moorhead

NEW YORK, Sept. 28 - New York City is no stranger to high levels of security.  Post-9/11, some say that no other city in the world is under closer scrutiny when it comes to safety and security. Come September every year, the city and the nation gear up for the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), bringing heightened levels of security both on the ground and in the shadows that make up the U.S.'s intelligence and homeland security command centers.

This year, as New York prepares to play host to over 170 heads of state for the 70th Session of UNGA, concern for the possibility of violence is heightened yet again by the fact that the city will also  host  the Pontiff, Pope Francis.
 

New Yorkers generally shrug off road closures and security screenings that accompany this yearly ritual. Along with the usual police cordons and metal detectors, there are restrictions on items like bicycles, backpacks, and “selfie” sticks.
 

The Pope’s visit ups the ante. This is the 4th time a Pope has ever addressed the General Assembly. . With.  Pope Francis' visit has been designated a national special security event (NSSE) by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). An NSSE is a significant national or international event determined by DHS to be a potential target for terrorism or criminal activity.  In order to adequately provide security for the incoming heads of state and his Holiness Pope Francis, the authorities are taking a whole of government approach.
 

On the ground, the New York Police Department (NYPD) has put in place more than 6,000 officers to protect the United Nations and the Pope. These officers are supported by considerable resources including almost 1,800 police cars, 800 tons of barricade forming concrete blocks, and nearly 40 miles of fencing and other barriers.  CBS New York quotes NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence and Counterterrorism John Miller, "It’s a lot of hardware and a lot of humans". Setting the backdrop for the unprecedented NYPD presence is a complex collaboration of local, state, and federal agencies working to ensure these upcoming events launch within a secure and safe environment.  A 1998 presidential directive established the procedure for NSSEs, placing the U.S. Secret Service at the top of the pyramid when it comes to planning for such events.  As such, the Secret Service has led the combined effort for these events’ security and the FBI has been assigned lead on conducting intelligence collection related to the Papal Visit and the UN General Assembly. The FBI also has a lead role on emergency management should a crisis occur. 
 

Although these agencies have been planning and coordinating for months, holding various exercises and drills for all personnel involved, these agencies are making a special request. Even with the massive investment being put into providing security for the UN and the Pope; these security services are also relying on the average citizen to do their part.
 

One of the most important aspects of security management is human intelligence, the collection of information coming in at the grass roots level.  An FBI press release urges citizens to come forward, "the agencies involved also rely heavily on the public to increase their capacity to ensure security at the papal-related events and other large gatherings".  Anyone with information is encouraged to contact the authorities or submit a tip online at tips.fbi.gov.
 

This approach is consistent with the Department of Homeland Security campaign "If You See Something, Say Something". The campaign, launched in 2010, is a joint initiative between the Department of Justice's Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative and the DHS. What started with the objective of training law enforcement officials at the local and state level to recognize indicators and behaviours of terrorism and related offences, has now been extended to everyday citizens walking the streets of New York.

In response to the burden being placed on average New Yorkers to provide security from some of the globe's biggest political names, the authorities are acknowledging the stress these events are putting on the city.  Assistant Director of the FBI's New York Field Office Diego Rodriguez recognizes that security measures present many challenges for inhabitants of the city. He asks that New Yorkers remember "while an event this size has the potential to cause inconveniences, I ask you to enjoy this wonderful time…as we prepare for the many historic events that will take place". Though it may come as little comfort to the commuter trapped in gridlock, U.S. security officials are putting out the message that we are all in this together.

The United Nations at 70: demise of a decrepit institution or start of a new chapter?

Photo by Luke Redmond

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lukeredmond/1795084139

By Craig Moorhead

NEW YORK, Sept. 20 - Born in the aftermath of World War II out of the failure of its predecessor, the League of Nations, the United Nations (UN) this year has reached an important milestone.  After 70 years of international diplomacy, the UN has weathered the storm of a great many crises, controversies, and scandals. However, in the years to come  the UN will face its greatest challenge yet, maintaining its relevancy in international affairs. In order to do this, the seminal international organization of the 20th century will need to reform if it is to have a positive impact on the international issues that plague our time.

The Untied Nations supreme executive body, the Security Council, has long been ruled by five permanent members: China, Russia, Britain, France, and the United States. These powers, victorious after the Second World War, have used this historical privilege to dominate world affairs over the UN's 70 year history. Despite the monumental failures of these 'Great Powers' to prevent tragedies at Srebrenica in 1995, in Rwanda the year before, and most recently in the Syrian Civil War; the status quo has served us well since 1945. Despite successfully averting nuclear war, others claim that the P5 have held dominion over the Security Council for too long, and reform is needed.

Today, many states are calling for the current distribution of power on the Security Council to be reconsidered. Proposals vary from expanding the number of permanent members, to increasing the size and tenure of the non-permanent seats, to both. Others have proposed changes to how the P5's veto is used (the five permanent members are able to cast a veto on any resolution which results in its failure to be adopted regardless of support from the rest of the Council). The stated rationale behind these varied proposals is that over the past seven decades the distribution of power in international affairs has shifted. The developing nations insist that the Security Council's makeup must be more representative to reflect this. There are also questions of efficiency in light of the councils most notable failures to succeed in its mandate of ensuring 'the maintenance of international peace and security'.

Remember that for career diplomats representing their nations at the UN Headquarters in New York City, a seat on the Security Council is seen as capstone to their careers, the ultimate feather in one's cap. Ultimately behind all of the proposals for a specific nation's inclusion in the Council lies the desire of that nation's diplomatic core to increase its prestige and consequently its states position. Even if we are to concede that the Council should be more representative of the developing world, there are far more considerations to be made than pleasing any one nation when it comes to Security Council reform. For example, including India as a permanent member would inevitably anger its neighbor and rival Pakistan, who would then have to be included to prevent conflict. The same parallel can be drawn elsewhere. Consider that it can take over a year to plan even something as innocuous as a UN official dinner for fear of seating the wrong nations next to one another. One can easily extrapolate the implications the nuances of international affairs have for even the most mundane functions to something as significant as safeguarding international peace and security.  Security Council reformation is further complicated by the fact that it would be unfathomable for a current P5 member to give up its position. This means that any discussion about reforming the Security Council will inevitably mean its expansion. 

Therein lay the final rationale for reforming the Security Council, greater efficiency. Simply stated, if a council of 15 cannot effectively pass resolutions to solve a crises like the one going on in Syria, what possible benefit could we derive from adding another 10, 20, or even 30 voices into the mix? Calls from pro-reform nations to consider efficiency as a primary driver for change should be taken with a grain of salt, see their true motivations above: power and privilege.

To be sure, the current set-up in the UN Security Council is far from ideal. Yes, the balance of power has shifted away from many of those 'Great Powers'. Yes, the failure of the Council to prevent atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, and now Syria is troubling and demoralizing to say the least. One can clearly see the need for action, but the question remains what might that action be? None of the current proposals to reform the Security Council make any sense when considering efficiency and the need for action on dire issues concerning global security. If anything they will only further stagnate a quagmire of politicking that has inundated the Security Council for much of its existence.

At 70 years old, the UN is faced with a herculean task. Find a way to appease everyone and gain some momentum on the world's current crises (of which Syria is but one of many); or fade away into irrelevancy as those disgruntled states take their resources elsewhere. The League of Nations only survived 26 short years, by all accounts the United Nations has outdone its predecessor in every respect. Let us hope that they do not both in the end share the same fate.

---