Connect with us


Three Ways the U.S. Can Adjust Its Foreign Policy in 2021



With both a new year and new president, 2021 presents an opportunity for the United States to rethink its foreign policy.

The past four years have been some of the most consequential for U.S. foreign policy, with President Donald J. Trump taking a radically different approach. As some predecessors have done, Trump pushed an America-First agenda and foreign policy. This included renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into the United States-Mexico-Canada-Agreement (USMCA), pulling the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, and even refusing to extend New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) or negotiate a new disarmament treaty with the Russian Federation.

On top of that, Trump’s administration and foreign policy pulled the U.S. away from the world stage. For example, the U.S. pulled out of the landmark Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA) which would have put measures in place to prevent Iran from enriching uranium beyond levels necessary for energy production and would have systematically removed sanctions on Iran from the U.S. in return. On top of that, the U.S. also pulled its troops out of Northern Syria and pulled out of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

With a new administration just days away from taking the reins, the U.S. has an opportunity to adjust its foreign policy. There are several areas where the U.S. can step back, rethink its role abroad, and improve its foreign policies to make them more effective and beneficial for both America and the world at large.

Here are three ways the U.S. can adjust its foreign policy heading into 2021 under the new presidential administration.

Rethink International Economic Policies

As previously mentioned, the U.S. has taken steps that have both improved and hindered economic relations abroad. Early on in his presidency, Trump sought out bilateral trade agreements. This decision was based on the fact that he viewed the TPP as potentially harmful to domestic workers in the U.S. However, the bilateral agreements that were reached under the Trump administration were very limited in scope and cannot be compared to other free trade agreements (FTAs) the U.S. has in place with many other countries. Going into 2021, the U.S. should seek out more bilateral FTAs and look for opportunities to forge multilateral trade agreements. As of now, the EU ranks highest in FTAs with about 30. The U.S., on the other hand, has only 14.

Second, the U.S. needs to adjust its economic policies with China. During the last two years of the Trump administration, the U.S. and China nearly broke out into a full-on trade war. While the U.S. was able to get Chinese President Xi Jinping to agree to put more safeguards for Intellectual Property (I.P.), it fell short of meeting the goals set out by the Trump administration. However, there is already hope for both parties to make substantial progress regarding trade. For example, China’s ascent into the World Trade Organization (WTO) allowed for its increased global trade. Simultaneously, the U.S. was able to rein in China’s anti-competitive practices through the WTO’s dispute settlement body. Surprisingly, China has accepted every decision that has come down from the WTO regarding its business and trade practices, including the recent one regarding steel. Therefore, the U.S. and China can find middle ground that is beneficial for each other and, in turn, the world economy. With this in mind, the Biden administration must reach out to China, with reasonable demands, to reach further agreements on our trade, I.P. law/protections, and more regarding our strongly tied economies. These are absolute necessities for China, the U.S., and the world, because if China or the U.S. were to engage in a trade war or suffer a form of sudden economic decline, it could send the world economy tumbling.

Lastly, the U.S. must push to complete the Doha Development Round of negotiations. The Doha Round has been under talks since 2001. Under the WTO, the world has seen reductions in tariffs and other trade barriers, which has boosted trade and helped the world economy grow and prosper. It is estimated that the WTO has managed to prevent nations from facing tariffs of around 32% worldwide on their exports. The previous round of negotiations, the Uruguay Round, took only 7 years to negotiate. With 20 years nearly passed since this round started, it is time for the U.S. to pull the world together and finish the Doha Round.

Extend Olive Branch to Russia

Going into 2021, not only are America’s global economic policies in need of refreshing, but also relations with the Russian Federation. Both the Obama and Trump administrations were not successful at garnering a successful relationship with Russia. Under Obama and Trump, the U.S. made attempts to either reset or improve relations to no avail.

While President Barack Obama was still in office, relations with Russia soured and then further escalated with intelligence reports pointing to Russia as culprit for cyber intrusions, Russia’s renewed and expansive foreign policy, and with the Magnitsky Act. Nevertheless, Mr. Obama was able to sign New START with then-President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev.

On the other hand, nearly the same story can be said of the Trump administration. While Trump voiced both on the campaign trail and in the early days of his presidency that he sought to improve relations with Russia, he could not accomplish such. On top of that, Trump, like his predecessor, also placed further sanctions on the Russian Federation. While he is known for not listening to the intelligence community, the U.S. government and the Democratic Party were keen to criticize Russia for hacks and possible executions. Unfortunately, this further complicated Trump’s work in hoping to improve relations. However, in the end, he refused to seek an extension for New START or sign a new nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia.

With 2021 upon us, it is time for both the U.S. and Russia to begin working together on areas that common ground already exists. While neither the U.S. nor Russia may be the first one to give up in this tit-for-tat game that has been souring their relations and world politics, they can instead turn around and begin working together. Amidst all the political games, the U.S. and Russia have managed to continue cooperating in the realm of space. Having retired its space shuttle program, the U.S. has been joining Russian Soyuz launches to and from the International Space Station (ISS) over the past decade or so. While this is a minute area of cooperation, it shows that both the U.S. and Russia are capable of agreeing on things. On top of that, both the U.S. and Russia have an extensive history of working together to lower the number of nuclear arms in their arsenals. With that in mind, the coming administration must start here.

In about one month, New START will expire, leaving both the U.S. and Russia open to expanding their nuclear arsenals. While it is unlikely that either nation would do so, it is imperative that the incoming Biden administration immediately extend the treaty by one year so that a new agreement can be forged. Furthermore, the U.S. and Russia should seek to expand beyond this scope and find a common solution for the worldwide issue of nuclear arsenals. It would be naïve to assume that the U.S. and Russia would be willing to sign a worldwide agreement banning nuclear arms in the next year. Still, they can make forward progress on that goal which U.N. Resolution L.41 from 2017 called for (both the U.S. and Russia voted against it). For the relationship between these two nations to improve, they have to start small.

Going further, the U.S. should focus its efforts on other areas of common ground between the U.S. and Russia. For example, they can cooperate on both terrorism and drug trafficking. Both nations take these issues very seriously, which would allow them to find common ground. From there, they would be able to expand the scope of both government and law enforcement interactions amongst themselves. At the same time, the U.S. should look for opportunities to reduce sanctions against Russia. In tandem, both reductions in sanctions and continued cooperation can foster a snowball effect. This, in turn, could sow the seeds needed for a better future relationship between the U.S. and Russia that is both peaceful and productive for themselves and the world.

Tackle Climate Change

In contrast with the previous and incoming administrations, the Trump administration did not view climate change the same. During Trump’s first year in office, the U.S. pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, which included legally binding limits on emissions. Beyond the scope of international affairs, the Trump administration relaxed many regulations that minimized pollution and fossil fuel use. At the same time, many other nations have prioritized going green. For example, Germany has consistently prioritized limiting fossil fuels and going carbon neutral by 2050. In the past year, China also announced its own similar plan to slash carbon emissions by over 60% by 2030. The U.S. is more than capable of prioritizing renewable energy both at home and abroad, which is vital since the U.S.’ hesitation stems from domestic politics.

In 2021, the incoming administration must rejoin the Paris Climate Accord. By rejoining, the U.S. will signal not only that it is taking Climate Change seriously, but that the U.S. will be stepping back into its former role as a global leader of change and prosperity. The U.S. must lead by example in this area. Going further, the U.S. can improve conditions for many struggling with energy needs by providing developing nations with microloans or other forms of assistance. This will not only get developing nations moving in the right direction in terms of carbon emissions, but will provide energy for those struggling already.

The U.S. and the incoming administration have an excellent opportunity to improve foreign relations for all drastically. 2021 presents a chance for the U.S. to rethink and refine its foreign policy in many areas. The first recommendation is to rethink America’s foreign trade and economic policies. These policies will not only allow the U.S. to prosper but also the world. Second, the U.S. must rethink its relationship with Russia. Relations can easily be improved by starting with the areas we have previously worked together on. Alongside that, the U.S. must be willing to slowly wipe the slate clean with Russia so that the relationship can be given the proper chance it needs to develop. Lastly, the U.S. needs to return to the Paris Climate Accord and reassess its foreign policy stance regarding climate change.

Again, it’s time for the U.S. to step back and refresh not only itself but its foreign policy. The incoming Biden-Harris administration has already given a preview of the tone and change they seek to bring to Washington. Whether Biden administration follows through or not, this is America’s moment to step up to the plate.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading


Was Trump better for the world than Biden, after all?



Joe Biden
Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

Joe Biden and the State Department just approved a major deal with the Saudis for 500mln in choppers maintanance. Effectively, the US sold its soul to the Saudis again after the US intelligence services confirmed months ago that the Saudi Prince is responsible for the brutal killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The Biden administration is already much more inhumane and much worse than Trump. Biden doesn’t care about the thousands of American citizens that he left behind at the mercy of the Taliban, the Biden administration kills innocent civilians in drone strikes, they are in bed with the worst of the worsts human right violators calling them friendly nations. 

Biden dropped and humiliated France managing to do what no US President has ever accomplished —  make France pull out its Ambassador to the US, and all this only to go bother China actively seeking the next big war. Trump’s blunders were never this big. And this is just the beginning. There is nothing good in store for America and the world with Biden. All the hope is quickly evaporating, as the world sees the actions behind the fake smile and what’s behind the seemingly right and restrained rhetoric on the surface. It’s the actions that matter. Trump talked tough talk for which he got a lot of criticism and rarely resorted to military action. Biden is the opposite: he says all the right things but the actions behind are inhumane and destructive. It makes you wonder if Trump wasn’t actually better for the world.

Continue Reading


Biden’s worrisome construct of security and self-defense in the first year of his term



Official White House Photo by Carlos Fyfe

US President Joe Biden’s foreign policy is failing so far. He can’t get the Iran nuclear diplomacy on track. The Afghanistan withdrawal was a disaster seen by all, placing an unusually high number of weapons and armaments in the hands of the Taliban and leaving everyone behind, to the point that one wonders if it was intentional. The US military has been able to accomplish far more impressive and bigger logistics tasks in the past, so when they want to they can do it.

More worrisome, however – and because it is also oriented towards future impacts – is Biden’s construct of vital concepts such as security, international peace and self-defense which has already displayed a consistent pattern during the first year of his term. The signs are already there, so let me bring them out to the surface for you.

Treating a counter-attack in self-defense as an original, first-move strike

This is a pattern that can be noticed already in Biden’s reading of what constitutes defense. It first struck me in a place where you might not think of looking. It originated from the criticism of the previous Trump administration’s support for the destructive Saudi Arabia campaign on Yemen, leaving Yemen as the biggest famine and disaster on the planet. To avoid the same criticism, the Biden administration decided to do what it always does – play technocratic and legalistic, and hope that people won’t notice. On the face of it, it looked like Biden ended US participation by ending the “offensive” support for Saudi Arabia. Then in the months after the February decision, reports started surfacing that the US actually continues doing the same, and now most recently, some troops from Afghanistan were redirected towards Yemen. Biden didn’t end Yemen; he set up a task force to examine and limit US military action only to defensive capabilities, which sounds good to a general observer. It reminds me of that famous Einstein saying that all the big decisions were to be taken by him and all the small decisions were to be taken by his wife, but there hasn’t been one big decision so far. So see, it just turns out that everything falls under defense, ask the lawyers. Usually no one would object to the well-established right to defend yourself. The problem with that is that the US is actually in Yemen. Treating any counter-strike and any response to your presence as an original, first-move attack is not only problematic but it also simply doesn’t work in legal terms. It goes along the lines of “well, I am already here anyways, so your counter-response in self-defense is actually an attack and I get to defend myself”. If the issue was only with terrorist or rebel organizations (because let’s face it, who cares about the Houthies in Yemen?) I don’t think we would be discussing this. But as you guessed it, this approach can already be traced as a pattern in Biden’s thinking and the way he forges alliances, draws red lines and allows things to happen, and it stretches to areas that most people definitely care about such as a possible military conflict between the US and China.

Let’s take the newest development from today. The US just announced that it has entered into a trilateral partnership with the UK and Australia in the Indo-Pacific, which is encirclement of China par excellence. Where it gets interesting is that the trilateral partnership is purported to be only for “advanced defense capabilities”. The equivalent of this is someone from another city squatting at the door step in your apartment, inviting two others to join, and then when in the morning you push them and step on them to go to work, the squatters claiming that you attacked them and calling the police on you in your own apartment. This is Biden’s concept of self-defense: since I am already here in your space, you are attacking me.

The US is trying to start something with China but it doesn’t know how to, and China seems completely unconcerned with the US.  Chinese leader Jinping doesn’t even want to meet Biden, as became clear this week. China doesn’t care about the US and just wants to be left alone. They already said that in clear terms by reading it out loud to Wendy Sherman last month. Biden didn’t have to ask for a meeting in that phone call this week because he already knew the answer. Wendy Sherman got a clear signal on her China visit that the US president won’t be getting that coveted red carpet roll-out any time soon.

So the story says that the US is going all the way to the other side of the world and staging military presence there but only to defend itself. The US has no choice but to move in to defend all the US citizens at risk in the Indian Ocean — that’s the stand-up comedy line of the week. It is staging military presence right at China’s doorstep — if not in Chinese waters, and the idea is “yes, that’s your turf but now that I’m here, if you push me to leave, you are attacking me”. This is the strategy of narcissists and those that are looking to point the finger to their opponent when they just don’t have anything, so they stage something. China is in the long-term game, playing against itself. The US is that number 2 that’s trying to create provocation. In the Indo-Pacific, the US is biting more than it can chew. China is not a big mouth or one to throw around military threats. That’s the US style: “be very careful, we might bomb you if you don’t do what we say”. A dog that barks doesn’t bite. On the other hand, China is more like a Ferrari — it will go from 0 to 200 in seconds and then it will go back to its business. The US and Biden will be left whimpering but no one will jump to save the US from its own folly because self-defense in the US packaging is not even bought by the US government itself. Even they don’t buy their own packaging. So why should anyone else?

Treating embarrassing discoveries and things that don’t go my way as a threat to international peace

This one is a big one. With this one, Biden is playing with the queen, namely action under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter in the name of international peace and security. A threat to international peace and security is grounds for action under Chapter 7 which includes military action, and it’s never to be spoken lightly. Words have consequences. The UN Security Council rarely specifies grounds for action under chapter 7 for threats to international peace and security but it’s enough to take a look at the practice: resolutions were passed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, in response to 9/11, against Kaddafi who was marching toward Benghazi to wipe out the people in 2011, in relation to genocide, etc. Grounds for a threat to international peace can’t be “because I don’t like the way things are turning out for me”.

Peace and security are not like beauty – in the eye of the beholder. There has to be an actual or imminent attack and actual military action or violence. Loose interpretations of threats to peace and security are a sign of weak leadership.

Leaders who construct dissent and criticism as terrorism in relation to the Black Lives Matter movement, as I have argued about the FBI previously in the left media, are weak leaders. In smearing Martin Luther King, the FBI argued national security. As director Oliver Stone said in Cannes this summer, when he was investigating the JFK assassination, every time he was getting close, he heard “national security”. 

You can see a lot about the character of a nation by the way it constructs security, and notice traits such as narcissism, weakness, cheating. The Biden Administration has to know that a threat to international peace and security can’t be “things that make my government look bad”. In 2001, the world followed the US in Afghanistan because there was an actual military attack. The world won’t follow the Biden administration on a bogus threat to international peace that can best be summed up as a major embarrassment for the US government. Suggesting a link is a threat to the fabric of international society. Not only is it a sign of national narcissism but also a sign of arbitrariness and authoritarianism. Treating criticism and the exposure of US government crimes as if it were a military attack is what horror movies are made of. What’s next? Droning journalists?

Treating issues which are a subject to treaties, rules and negotiations as a threat to international peace  

The Biden security construct stretches to various regions, including my own. This first struck me with Biden’s executive order regarding the Western Balkans when he tied blocking these countries from EU accession to a threat to international peace, which carries significant consequences. If a country, let’s say Bulgaria, is exercising its lawful right to veto EU processes, hypothetically, based on Biden’s understanding, the US could table a resolution for Chapter 7 action to punish an EU member-state for blocking the accession of an EU candidate because that’s a threat to international peace. That could hypothetically lead to military action against an EU country making use of its veto. Biden doesn’t have a veto in the EU. Do you know who does? Bulgaria. So until Biden becomes an EU country he doesn’t have a say.

Biden was visibly irritated that the process of EU accession has been stalling for quite some time, especially with N. Macedonia and Albania at the EU’s doorstep, so he decided to give it a go. Let’s not forget that the Balkans are a favorite Biden region and this goes back to the 1990s. I have written about it before: Biden is stuck in the 2000s when if you mentioned the Western Balkans the words international peace were a guaranteed association. Not anymore. Negotiations, rules and voting are the peaceful and reasonable way to resolve issues, agree or even not agree in some situations, and are the opposite of war and aggression. Treating these ways as a threat to peace is just the rhetoric of those who can’t get their way. But it’s also indicative of a worrisome trend with Biden that anything that the US government doesn’t like can be dressed as a threat to international peace, which carries the most significant of all consequences in the international arena.

Treating lawful counter-measures as a threat to national security

Perhaps the best and most fascinating example of lawful counter-measures I ever heard was brought by Andrew Clapham at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. Here is the story. The UK issued unlawful sanctions on a country. In response, lawful counter-measures by that country targeted jam exports because a jam factory in Scotland was the key to turning the elections. The targeted counter-measures worked, hit jam exports, discontent people in the region voted the other way and the government that put in place the sanctions to begin with was ousted. This was a brilliant example that you hit where it hurts and you do it lawfully. Counter-measures don’t have to be identical. The US likes to put tariffs on Louis Vuitton bags in retaliation when it deals with France, for example. In the Trump trade wars, Europe would hit bourbon and jeans exports as a counter-measure. You hit their signature product. Not all counter-measures are illegal and count as an attack. International law is full of examples.

Similarly, lawsuits against a government are a lawful counter-measure. This area reveals another part of Biden’s worrisome construct of national security. A threat to sue the US government cannot in and of itself be a threat to national security. Tortured reading of what is national security is a sign of weak leaders, narcissists, those on the losing end, or straight up losers – or all of the above. 

Treating lawful counter-measures as a cause for self-defense is not only a sign of a wrong understanding of self-defense, but is the ultimate sign of narcissism. Usually those who attack know better and brace for impact in anticipation of the counter-measures. Narcissists, on the other hand, cry that they are being attacked when they receive a counter-strike in response. Strategists know better.

Mistreatment of whistleblowers, critics and opponents as spies and as a threat to national security

This one is an easy one. Only losers treat whistleblowers and critics as spies and as an automatic threat to national security. Take the treatment that Gary Stahl has received at the hands of the Biden Administration and the FBI, for example. Again, the US government doesn’t get to construe a huge embarrassment (in what will soon be revealed to shows the true criminal nature of the US government) as a threat to international peace. This is a problem for America. Not only doesn’t China plan to attack militarily the US any time soon over what’s to come, but China is largely unconcerned with the US and would like to be left alone. Any talk about a risk of military conflict could only mean that it is the US that plans to attack because they are embarrassed they got caught red-handed and the world will see the US government’s true nature. Talk of threat to international peace has a very high threshold. No one cares about how America would feel – that’s your problem, not an issue of international peace. 

The Biden concept of security is that of an ugly, pretentious, old woman who is told she can’t enter because her ticket is not valid. She then throws a feat screaming she was attacked, beaten and insulted, expecting everyone to be on her side. But the world simply doesn’t care about the problems of this pain-in-the-ass anymore. The US government will have to try much harder if they want to present the issue as anything close to security and self-defense, let alone a threat to international peace. That tune is old and there are no buyers. 

The US surely thinks very highly of itself if they think that a scandal like that is worthy of a military conflict but literally no one else sees the US as this important anymore. This scandal will matter only to America in what it reveals about all the layers of the US government across rank, institutions and administrations. That’s it. It ends there. Any talk of Chapter 7 threshold is war mongering and no one will care. 

People talk about the Biden doctrine on Afghanistan but the Biden doctrine that will be sealed in history will be something along the lines of “Anytime I get caught, it’s a threat to international peace and security.” This is how Biden will be remembered in history: for creative writing endeavors in the security field and no substantial foreign policy achievements. 

Continue Reading


Biden’s credibility restoration plan



Joe Biden
Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

Although damages of the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan cannot be easily undone, by taking a series of wise steps, Biden can send a strong signal that America is coming back.

Joe Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan has shattered his reputation as a safe haven for allies. This is while, he pledged to restore U.S. leadership after Trump by confronting China’s and Russia’s growing totalitarian ambitions, restoring historic alliances with European allies, and ending the never-ending conflicts in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

But he is not the only President whose decision has eventually damaged the United States’ global reputation. Donald Trump’s capitulation deal with the Taliban, Barack Obama’s indolence in Syria, and George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq have all tarnished the United States’ credibility around the world. The question now; however, is no longer whether Biden and his predecessors should have acted differently. It’s how the United States can minimize the damage.

Biden should begin by speaking the truth. So far, the President has failed to admit the failure of his withdrawal plan. Biden ought to be straightforward with himself, the American people, and the whole world.

Biden’s policy should, of course, vary depending on the area and global conditions. To promote its interests in the Indo-Pacific area, the United States should station a few ambassadors, including a Navy or Coast Guard attaché, in the Pacific Island countries of Tonga, Tuvalu, and Kiribati. In addition, a considerable number of troops currently stationed in Afghanistan should be redeployed to the Pacific. Finally, Biden’s administration should engage with U.S. defense contractors to speed up the transfer of military equipment to Taiwan. Getting Taiwan its armaments swiftly would be a powerful show of support as a steadfast ally, as well as provide modern platforms to prevent a Chinese amphibious invasion.

The Biden administration should also do all in its power to rebuild relations with European partners. For the very first time, NATO invoked Article 5, which identifies an assault on one member as an assault on all. Since then, soldiers from a variety of countries have fought and died alongside US troops. Nonetheless, Biden decided to leave Afghanistan without consulting the governments of these countries, leaving them to plan emergency rescue efforts for their populations. Close allies of the United States are understandably enraged. America’s behavior is being chastised in Paris, Berlin, and the British House of Commons on both sides of the aisle.

Last month, at a meeting of regional leaders in Baghdad, Macron made it clear that, unlike the Americans, he was dedicated to remaining in the Middle East. “Whatever the American choice is,” he stated in public remarks in Baghdad, “we will maintain our presence in Iraq to fight terrorism as long as terrorist groups function and the Iraqi government requests our assistance.” It was a clear example of Macron’s idea of “strategic autonomy,” which implies European independence from U.S. security policy, and an attempt to use the United States’ humiliation to underline that Europe and Washington were not always on the same page. At an emergency G7 summit, Mr. Biden is said to have turned down allied requests to extend the August 31 deadline for exit.

The Biden administration’s recent decision not to penalize Nord Stream 2 pipeline participants has enraged Europeans as well. Poland and Ukraine underlined their worries in a joint statement about the ramifications of choices taken on the pipeline without the participation of nations directly impacted, claiming that Nord Stream 2 poses both geological and ecological risks to Europe.

As a result, whether it’s diplomatic recognition of the Taliban regime, humanitarian aid for the Afghan people, or any other major issue, the US should not take any more action without engaging partners. Mr. Biden should also dispatch senior members of his national security team to Europe and other regions of the world to reinforce America’s commitment to their security.

As to the Middle East, Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security advisor, in a Foreign Affairs article described “America’s opportunity in the Middle East,” suggesting that diplomacy may work where previous military interventions have failed. The United States’ involvement in the area is frequently portrayed in military or counter-terrorism terms, and as a binary option between going all-in or going all-out. Instead, Sullivan advocated for a strategy that relied more on “aggressive diplomacy to generate more long-term benefits.”

Accordingly, the President and his team in Vienna should get the new Iranian administration back to the negotiating tables and rejoin the JCPOA and ease the tensions in the Middle East. Also, the United States should do all possible in Afghanistan to secure the safe transit of Afghans who qualify for U.S. visas to the Kabul airport – and to keep flights flying until they are able to leave. This should apply to both Afghans who dealt closely with the United States’ military, and to those who engage with U.S. media and humanitarian organizations and must get visas from a third country. In addition to ensuring that the United Nations and humanitarian groups have the resources they need, the United States should cooperate with its Security Council allies to guarantee that the Taliban does not hinder the free flow of help.

Moreover, to follow any influx of jihadists to Afghanistan, intelligence agencies will have to rededicate resources and increase surveillance. They must be pushed to coordinate their efforts on the Taliban in order to keep the most threatening groups under control. The United States could set an example by agreeing to accept a fair share of any displaced Afghans. Neighboring countries like Iran and Pakistan, which already have millions of Afghan refugees, are closing their borders.

Biden may not be able to prevent all of the disastrous repercussions of the Afghan catastrophe, but he must act now before the harm to U.S. interests and moral stature becomes irreversible. By taking these steps, he can send a strong statement to the world that he has learned his lessons and that America is coming back.

Continue Reading



Africa Today2 hours ago

Africa faces 470 million COVID-19 vaccine shortfall this year

Africa needs around 470 million doses to accomplish the global of fully vaccinating 40 per cent of its population by the end of the year, the World Health Organization (WHO) said...

Human Rights4 hours ago

UN Women’s feminist roadmap tackles triple crises of jobs, care and climate

The UN’s gender equality and empowerment organization on Thursday published a flagship feminist plan for economic recovery and transformation, which...

Energy News6 hours ago

Strength of IEA-ASEAN energy cooperation highlighted at Ministerial meeting

IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol spoke today to Energy Ministers from across Southeast Asia about the latest global and regional...

Economy8 hours ago

A New Strategy for Ukraine

Authors: Anna Bjerde and Novoye Vremia Four years ago, the World Bank prepared a multi-year strategy to support Ukraine’s development...

Diplomacy10 hours ago

International Relations Amid the Pandemic

We could rest assured that COVID-19 will be defeated, sooner rather than later. The excessive angst and fear we currently...

Environment12 hours ago

‘Tipping point’ for climate action: Time’s running out to avoid catastrophic heating

The temporary reduction in carbon emissions caused by global COVID-19 lockdowns did not slow the relentless advance of climate change....

Finance14 hours ago

Dubai Chamber Continues Bolstering Economic Ties Between UAE And Africa

United Arab Emirates has launched its 6th edition of Global Business Forum Africa (GBF Africa) that aims at scaling-up and...