Connect with us


The 2021 Canadian Federal Election and the Arctic

Avatar photo



On August 15, 2021, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau paid a visit to the new Governor-General Mary Simon, Queen Elizabeth II’s representative in Canada, asking to dissolve parliament and call an election two years ahead of schedule. Trudeau asserts that Canadians must vote on a vision for the country’s recovery after the turbulence of the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency measures implemented by his minority government. Trudeau and his Liberal Party of Canada are attempting to emerge from this election with a majority government that they were unable to attain two years ago, in 2019. Since then, the Trudeau Liberals have been governing with the support of the other parties in parliament, such as the New Democrat Party, the Conservative Party of Canada, the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party.

The Canadian Arctic is typically not a major issue in federal election campaigns. In the 2019 federal election, only one candidate for Prime Minister (out of five) visited the Arctic, with Arctic issues only mentioned twice in nationally televised debates. Despite the Canadian Arctic’s absence from the previous federal election, there is reason to believe that the Arctic will play a greater role in the 2021 campaign. The Canadian Arctic is important to Canada’s national identity as “The Great White North” and Canadian’s identity as Northerners. The Canadian Arctic represents 40% of Canada’s total landmass and is inhabited by some 150,000 people, over half of whom are indigenous peoples. Canada’s Arctic population is not highly urbanized and pales in number to other Arctic states—Russia’s largest Arctic city, Murmansk, has at least double the population of the entire Canadian Arctic. Despite this fact, Canadians are likely to pay greater attention to the region as voters’ priorities shift. Ipsos polling shows that COVID-19 is no longer the most prominent issue for Canadian voters and that issues such as climate change, healthcare, cost of living, as well as indigenous issues, will outweigh the pandemic in voters’ minds.

The Canadian Arctic is an essential component of any national strategy regarding climate change as the Canadian Arctic experiences the effects of climate change far more acutely than the other parts of the country. Increased accessibility to natural resources as a result of climate change will also be a challenge for any future federal government seeking to balance economic development with mitigating the impact of climate change. Indigenous issues will also draw the North into greater focus following a series of discoveries at Canada’s former residential schools where the unmarked graves of children were unearthed earlier this year. Northern communities, in particular Indigenous northern communities, live far below the standard of living enjoyed by most Canadians. Just under 70% of Inuit households in Nunavut are food insecure, and life expectancy for Inuit Canadians is 72.4 years whereas Canada’s non-Indigenous population stands at 82.9 years. Besides, infrastructure in the North is well below the national standard, with many communities having no access to reliable drinking water or electricity grids. Security concerns in the Canadian Arctic are also becoming more prevalent in the Canadian political discourse. In large part, due to the impact of climate change and geostrategic concerns about Russian and Chinese activities in the Arctic region, Canada has been forced to re-evaluate its limited military and security presence in the Canadian Arctic.

What will the 2021 Canadian federal election mean for the Canadian Arctic? How do Canada’s main parties seek to approach the Arctic and how will the results of this election impact Arctic stakeholders at home and abroad? This article will evaluate Canada’s three largest parties and their party platforms and commitments for the Canadian Arctic. Canada’s smaller parties, namely the Green Party of Canada, The Bloc-Quebecois and the People’s Party of Canada, will not be considered for this article. The Green Party has yet to release any information on its Arctic platform at the time of writing, the Bloc-Quebecois is a regional party dedicated to Quebec nationalism, and the People’s Party of Canada does not have any presence in the Canadian Parliament.

Liberal Party of Canada

The Liberal Party of Canada has been in government since Justin Trudeau won the 2015 federal election, defeating the incumbent Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Back in 2015, the Liberal’s sought to differentiate themselves from Harper’s approach to the Canadian Arctic which was largely predicated on security issues and resource extraction development. The Trudeau government intended to focus less on military and security issues—instead, Trudeau made climate change mitigation, indigenous rights, diplomacy and cooperation hallmarks of his party’s Arctic policy. This approach culminated in the 2019 Arctic and Northern Policy Framework Through 2030, a policy document similar to the Russian Strategy for Developing the Russian Arctic Zone and Ensuring National Security through 2035. Both documents identify government priorities and strategies for achieving socio-economic development in the Arctic region and outline government approaches to national security concerns.

In both Russian and Canadian cases, these policy documents are intended to provide a long-term strategic outlook to stimulate investment and streamline government spending into priority areas. The Liberal government has outlined 8 priority areas for the Arctic, some of which are more domestically-oriented while others point to Canada’s geopolitical role as an Arctic state. In the case of domestically-oriented goals, the government aims to improve the resiliency of Northern communities, to strengthen infrastructure and close the infrastructure gap that persists between Arctic Canada and other more developed areas of the country, to create sustainable and inclusive regional economies, knowledge- and understanding-guided decision-making, protecting and promoting the health of Northern and Arctic ecosystems as well as self-determination and reconciliation with indigenous and non-indigenous communities. In terms of geopolitics, the government states it will actively promote maintaining rules-based international order in the Arctic to address new challenges and opportunities and ensure that Canadians in the Arctic are well-defended. The government’s Northern Policy Framework also makes note of territorial sovereignty and of maintaining Canada’s sovereignty over the entire Canadian Arctic region—namely, protecting Canada’s claims over the Northwest Passage and its territorial shelf claims currently under review by the UN.

The Liberal government’s Northern Policy Framework differentiates itself from the previous Conservative government’s approach to the Arctic through its focus on reconciliation with indigenous communities and fostering “inclusive economies”. In terms of infrastructure development, the government has made several large-scale investments, including investing $71.1 million for Nunavut transportation projects, expanding hydroelectric projects in the Northwest Territories and committing to providing high-speed Internet connection for remote communities—something seen as an essential component to growing business and improving the quality of life for those living in the Arctic region. In addition to supporting infrastructure development, the Liberal government has also continued to support the resource extraction industry in the Arctic region, a critical source of jobs and economic growth. The Northern Policy Framework outlines commitments to support the mining industry and enforce standards of responsible mining in the region. On the campaign trail, the Liberals have also sought to bolster support for the minerals industry by pledging to create a “Critical Battery Minerals Centre of Excellence” at a cost of $9.6 million and providing $36.8 million dollars for research and development of battery mineral refining and processing.

The Liberal government has also invested or committed to increasing the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and Canadian Ranger’s presence in the Arctic region for security purposes. Existing commitments within the Northern Policy Framework include increasing the presence of the CAF, the Canadian Rangers and the Canadian Coast Guard to improve search and rescue capabilities in the Arctic region and defend Canada’s national interests and those of its citizens in the region. In addition to these commitments, the Liberal Party has also pledged to work with the United States to modernize and expand NORAD, a Cold War-era system of detection and defense to protect North America from aerospace and maritime threats. Recently, the Liberal Party has also committed to the construction of two new Arctic-class icebreakers, one to be built in British Columbia and the other in Quebec, which can be interpreted both as a job-boosting initiative in two of Canada’s most important electoral battlegrounds and as satiating Canada’s lack of heavy icebreaker capabilities (Canada’s only heavy icebreaker, the CCGS Louis-St. Laurent, is 52 years old).

The Northern Policy Framework and the current Liberal Party campaign commitments are largely focused on the socio-economic development of indigenous and remote communities in the Arctic region. Existing commitments include $190 million for food processing units, multi-use buildings and harbors to reduce food insecurity while revamping the “Nutrition North” program championed by the previous Conservative government. The government has also supported greater indigenous involvement in multilateral institutions, such as the Arctic Council, and funding the Sustainable Development Working Group within the Arctic Council framework. In the early stages of the federal election campaign, the Liberal Party has attempted to emphasize its commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples, which extends to its Arctic messaging. In particular, the Liberals have pledged to supply $125.2 million over four years to mitigate the impact of climate change and extreme weather on indigenous communities in the North and support travel costs of Northerners without employer benefits, totaling a cost of $125 million over four years.

Conservative Party of Canada (CPC)

The Conservative Party of Canada’s new leader and a candidate for Prime Minister, Erin O’Toole, has been a vocal and consistent supporter of Arctic issues in parliament for many years. O’Toole’s position on Arctic issues is more focused on security and infrastructure development when compared to the Northern Policy Framework and the Liberal Party’s campaign commitments. This echoes the approach of the former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper who also ritualistically attended Operation Nanook, Canada’s annual Arctic military exercises, stressing the need to defend Canadian sovereignty in the region. The Conservative Party platform included several references to the Arctic region, including an entire section of the document devoted to defending the Canadian Arctic.

The Conservative Party Platform is more detailed than the Northern Policy Framework in terms of specific priorities in the Arctic region for security and critical infrastructure. The platform lists increasing the size and mandate of the Canadian Rangers and Canadian Armed Forces in the Arctic region, refurbishing Royal Canadian Air Force bases in the Arctic for dual citizen and military use, complete the Nanisivik Naval Facility on Baffin Island in Nunavut and establish a new Arctic naval base at Churchill, Manitoba, to ensure year-round access to the Arctic region by the Royal Canadian Navy. The Conservative Party has also signaled its intent to deploy autonomous vehicles for surveillance, detection and deterrence in the sea and air to protect Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic region. The CPC will also expand the RadarSat constellation, a series of low-orbit satellites for telecommunications and defense purposes, having also committed to modernizing and expanding NORAD. The Conservative Party has chosen to focus a large part of its Arctic messaging on threat perceptions from China and Russia. In the Northern Policy Framework, the Liberal government alludes to security challenges emerging in the region but does not single out any individual actor. In the CPC platform, China and Russia are mentioned explicitly as threats to Canadian sovereignty. In its commitment to procuring two armed, heavy icebreakers for the Royal Canadian Navy, the document states the icebreakers will “contribute to our efforts to own our north in the face of increased Russian and Chinese Arctic activity” and suggests establishing a “NATO Centre of Excellence for Arctic Defense” in Canada. Erin O’Toole’s personal statements regarding Arctic sovereignty far outpace statements made by any other party leader as he describes himself as “the most consistent voice on northern issues as an MP”. He also notes that “the biggest study we’ve had in 25 years on northern sovereignty issues was developed by me at the Foreign Affairs Committee,” referring to the report entitled Nation-Building at Home, Vigilance Beyond: Preparing for the Coming Decades in the Arctic and published in March 2019.

The Conservative Party platform also provided ample information regarding infrastructure development in the region. They support the construction of a 230-km all-weather road linking Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, expanding road access near the Northwest Territories diamond mines currently only accessible by ice roads. They also pledged to support the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Line to deliver both renewable energy and broadband Internet to remote communities in the Canadian Arctic. The CPC has also stated its intent to pursue an “Arctic Gateway policy across the Canadian North,” which is intended to link Canada’s North to international markets despite the challenges associated with infrastructure development in the Arctic. It is interesting to note that in the section of the CPC’s platform on Arctic infrastructure development, China and Russia are also mentioned. The document states that “Russia has refurbished and built over 30 Arctic bases, 14 operational airfields, 16 deep-water ports, and over 50 new military icebreakers. The Chinese government has also increased interest in the Arctic.”

The Conservative Party platform is incredibly detailed in its approach to infrastructure development and sovereignty issues in the Arctic but lacks the depth of the Northern Policy Framework or Liberal/NDP campaign commitments in terms of indigenous issues. The CPC commits to supporting the Nutrition North Program, partnering with Indigenous communities on infrastructure development, and supporting reconciliation efforts more broadly. The most unique Conservative Party platform initiative on indigenous issues in the Arctic is the establishment of the “Canadian Indigenous Opportunities Corporation” with an “initial $5 billion in capital” that would support indigenous communities and organizations seeking to purchase equity stakes in major projects. The campaign promise to establish the Canadian Indigenous Opportunities Corporation is qualified by changing the impact assessment process for mining processes so that communities may not cause “unnecessary delays in providing approvals”.

New Democrat Party (NDP)

The New Democrat Party’s approach to the Arctic region is focused primarily on improving the socio-economic standing of the Arctic region and raising the quality of life for Northern communities. The NDP platform commitments pertaining to the Arctic region are also heavily centered around creating inclusive and sustainable local economies in consultation with Indigenous communities. The NDP did not make explicit mention of security issues in the party platform but did collaborate with the Liberal government in creating the Northern Policy Framework which does make note of protecting Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic region and ensuring the security of Canadian citizens in the area.

The New Democrat’s strategy for supporting northern development includes halting out-population flow through improvements to healthcare, the implementation of tax credits, education programs and bridging the infrastructure gap that exists between the Arctic and Canada’s other more developed regions. Specifically, the New Democrats seek to reduce the infrastructure gap through the creation of a Northern Infrastructure Fund designed to fast-track essential projects, such as broadband Internet access and roads in remote communities. The New Democrats also seek to spur development in the Arctic region by reducing the reliance on diesel-powered generators in remote communities and supporting the construction of new green energy capabilities to reduce energy insecurity in collaboration with local and indigenous partners.

The New Democrat platform consistently references improving the quality of life and fostering a more equitable partnership with indigenous communities in the North. The NDP supports reforming the Nutrition North program and reorienting the program from one that provides subsidies to companies providing food to remote communities to a social program “that benefits communities in the North directly”. Besides, the Party’s platform mentions the prospect of “shared governance” within the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee and the adoption of an Inuit Nunangat policy in partnership with the Inuit leadership to promote economic and social self-reliance within indigenous communities. The NDP has also committed to ensuring that federal election ballots will become more inclusive for Northern Indigenous communities, particularly through the addition of indigenous languages on election ballots beyond 2021. If elected, the NDP will also create a National Crisis Strategy to help vulnerable communities reduce the risks associated with climate change and extreme weather events, including long-term funding for disaster mitigation and “climate-resilient infrastructure”. The New Democrat platform and statements made on the campaign trail at this point are notably absent of specific funding targets and commitments when compared to the more exact figures provided by the Liberal Party and Conservative Party.

Domestic and International Impact

Although the Canadian Arctic is unlikely to be a prominent ballot box issue for voters in the 2021 federal election, there are potential ramifications for domestic and international Arctic stakeholders depending on which party (or parties) forms the next government in Ottawa. Domestically, all three parties have committed to reducing the infrastructure gap that exists between the Canadian Arctic and Canada’s more developed regions. The strategy to achieve this goal is also broadly similar between the three largest parties, including improving access to broadband Internet for remote communities, investing in the construction of roads and other critical infrastructure, and improving the resilience of remote communities. All three parties have committed to reducing food insecurity in the Arctic through continued support for the Nutrition North program or through reforming the program as in the case of the NDP. The Liberal Party and the New Democrats have expressed support for improving the quality and access to healthcare in the Arctic region, although the Liberal Party is the only party to provide specific funding commitments to achieve this goal. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have demonstrated a much greater commitment to large-scale infrastructure projects intended to facilitate increased trade and resource extraction in the Arctic region. Both parties have committed significant funds to the development of deep-water ports, roads, and incentives for the resource extraction industry that currently drives Northern economies. The New Democrat platform did not include references to specific infrastructure projects beyond roads, green energy development and broadband Internet access in the Arctic or to the resource extraction industry. The Liberal Party and New Democrats both included direct references to improving collaboration between the federal government and Indigenous communities in the Arctic region. All three parties committed to investing in indigenous communities in the North, although the Conservative Party platform’s promise was qualified by the reform of impact assessment processes for mining and other resource extraction projects.

The 2021 Canadian federal election is unlikely to have a significant impact on international stakeholders. The Conservative Party platform and Erin O’Toole’s personal statements on the Canadian Arctic are the most robust of the three parties. The CPC made explicit mention of threats to Canadian sovereignty in the region, namely Russia and China, and put forward distinct policy proposals and funding targets to augment the Canadian military’s presence in the North. Both the Liberal Party and Conservative Party committed to the construction of two new Arctic-class icebreakers and to modernizing and expanding NORAD in conjunction with U.S. partners. The Conservative’s rhetoric surrounding Russia and China likely indicates that, if elected, the CPC will take a harder stance on both actors than is currently demonstrated by the Liberal government. The Liberal government did outline a commitment to continued dialogue with Arctic actors through multilateral institutions, such as the Arctic Council, and enhancing the Arctic Council’s mandate to some degree, although they did not signal any willingness to expand the Council’s mandate to include security issues.

It is also important to note that taking a harder stance against China is a widely bipartisan issue in Canada that enjoys widespread public support in the wake of diplomatic disputes over Huawei official Meng Wanzhou and two Canadians detained in China.

Irrespective of who forms the next federal government in Ottawa, it is likely that national security reviews of Chinese investments in the Arctic region will continue similar to a deal in 2020 that was blocked by Ottawa due to national security concerns. The New Democrat Party platform did not go into great detail regarding foreign policy priorities, and foreign policy or security issues related to the Arctic region were not mentioned. As Gregor Sharp notes in his paper on the Canadian Arctic following the 2015 federal election, the parties rhetorically present different proposals for the Arctic region but there is a great deal of continuity on the Arctic policy despite changing dynamics in parliament. Sharp attributes this lack of significant change to Canada’s lack of clout on Arctic issues. Although Canada is the second-largest Arctic nation, it lacks the population density, military power, or economic influence of some other Arctic states, such as the U.S. and Russia. Canada must work in concert with Arctic allies and like-minded partners through multilateral institutions, such as the UN and the Arctic Council, to achieve government priorities in the Arctic region. Canada must also continue to maintain dialogue with other Arctic states, such as Russia, to achieve common goals such as continued national control over the Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route or avoid conflict over continental shelf limits in the region.

From our partner RIAC

BA in History, Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, MA Student at the University of Helsinki

Continue Reading


Friction Between United States & Iran: The Tension and Its Impact

Avatar photo



Background Study

The relationship between the United States (US) and Iran has a long and complex history. In the early 20th century, the United States (US) played a key role in the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government and the installation of a pro-Western monarchy under the rule of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. This led to a deep mistrust of the United States by many Iranians. In the 1970s, the Shah’s regime was overthrown in the Iranian Revolution, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The new Islamic Republic of Iran was deeply anti-American and took 52 American hostages in the US embassy in Tehran. The hostage crisis lasted for 444 days and severely damaged US-Iran relations. In the following decades, the US has had a policy of economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation towards Iran, citing its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran has also been known to support groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which are designated as terrorist groups by the US.

In recent years, there have been some attempts at improving relations between the two countries. The Obama Administration negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, which lifted some sanctions in exchange for limits on Iran’s nuclear program. However, the Trump Administration withdrew from the deal in 2018 and re-imposed sanctions on Iran. Currently, the US and Iran are in a situation of high tension, with both sides engaging in a series of hostile actions against each other, such as the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad by a US drone in 2020. The US has continued to put sanctions on Iran and labelled several Iranian organisations as terrorist organisations. In summary, the relationship between the United States and Iran has been characterized by a long history of mistrust, hostility and mutual accusations, with both sides engaging in actions that have escalated the tensions between them.

The Tension:

There are several accusations and actions that have contributed to the high tension conflict between the United States and Iran.

From the perspective of the United States, the main accusations against Iran include:

Supporting terrorism: The US government has long accused Iran of providing financial and military support to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, which the US has designated as terrorist organizations.

Pursuit of nuclear weapons: The US has accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, despite Iran’s claim that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

Human rights abuses: The US has also accused Iran of widespread human rights abuses, including the repression of political dissidents and minorities, and the use of torture and execution.

Threat to regional stability: The US has accused Iran of destabilizing the Middle East through its support for groups like the Houthi rebels in Yemen and the Assad regime in Syria.

From the perspective of Iran, the main accusations against the United States include: –

Interference in Iranian internal affairs: Iran has long accused the United States of attempting to overthrow its government and interfere in its internal affairs.

Supporting Iran’s enemies: Iran has accused the United States of supporting its regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, and of providing military and financial support to groups that seek to overthrow the Iranian government.

Violation of human rights: Iran has also accused the US of violating human rights, pointing to actions such as the use of drone strikes and the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Economic sanctions: Iran has accused the US of imposing economic sanctions on Iran, which it claims have caused significant harm to its economy and people.

In terms of actions that have escalated tensions, from the US side:

  • The killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad by a US drone in 2020.
  • The US has continued to put sanctions on Iran and labelled several Iranian organisations as terrorist organisations.
  • Increasing military presence in the Gulf region.

From the Iranian side:

  • Continuing to develop its nuclear program, in spite of the US sanctions.
  • Seizing of foreign oil tankers and ships.
  • Attacks on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia that were blamed on Iran.
  • Shooting down of a US drone in 2019

It’s worth noting that the situation is complex and multifaceted and both sides have taken actions that have escalated the tensions between them.

Its Impact.

The tension between the United States and Iran has had a significant impact on the international community. It has led to increased instability and uncertainty in the Middle East, with both sides engaging in actions that have the potential to escalate into a larger conflict. This can disrupt the oil supplies and lead to an economic crisis. The tension has also had an impact on the security of other countries in the region, as many of them are allied with the United States or Iran and could be caught in the middle of any potential conflict. This has also affected global oil prices due to the potential disruption of supplies from the Middle East. This has also had an impact on the ongoing negotiations and agreements between other countries and Iran, such as the Nuclear Deal. The US withdrawal from the deal and imposition of sanctions has affected other countries’ ability to do business with Iran and has also affected the ongoing negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Moreover, many countries have had to navigate the delicate balance between maintaining good relations with both the United States and Iran, as both countries are major powers with significant economic and military influence. This has led to some countries, particularly those in the Middle East, to align more closely with one side or the other, potentially damaging their relationships with the other. Secondly, the tension between the US and Iran has also affected the ability of countries to engage in business and trade with Iran, as the US has imposed economic sanctions on Iran. This has led to some countries to scale back their trade and investment with Iran, or to find ways to circumvent the sanctions. Thirdly, the tension has also affected the efforts of countries to mediate and resolve the conflict. Many countries have tried to act as intermediaries to de-escalate the tensions and find a peaceful resolution, but the deep mistrust and hostility between the US and Iran have made this a difficult task. Fourthly, the tension has also affected the security of other countries in the region, as many of them are allied with the United States or Iran, and they could be caught in the middle of any potential conflict.

Overall, the tension between the United States and Iran has had a significant impact on the formulation of foreign policies in the international borders, as many countries have had to navigate the delicate balance between maintaining good relations with both countries, while also addressing the economic stability and security implications of the tension.


The tension between the United States and Iran is a complex and longstanding issue, and there is no easy solution to melting down the tension. However, some steps that could potentially help to alleviate the tension include:

Diplomatic negotiations: Direct talks between the United States and Iran could be an important step in resolving the tension, provided that both sides are willing to come to the table with open minds and a willingness to compromise.

Support from the international community: Other countries could play a role in mediating talks between the United States and Iran and in putting pressure on both sides to de-escalate the tension. The support of other countries in the region would be particularly important.

Lifting of economic sanctions: The lifting of economic sanctions on Iran could help to improve the country’s economy and reduce the impact of the sanctions on the Iranian people, which may reduce some of the hostility towards the United States.

Addressing mutual concerns: The United States and Iran have many concerns about each other’s actions, such as human rights abuses, support for terrorism, and destabilizing activities in the Middle East. Addressing these concerns in a direct and honest way could help to build trust between the two countries.

De-escalation of military activities: Both sides should avoid any action that could escalate the situation into a military conflict.

Evidently, these steps would likely be difficult to achieve, but they could help to reduce the tension between the United States and Iran, and provide some relief to the international community.

Continue Reading


The World is Entering A Period of Transformation: Can the West lose?

Avatar photo



The world is witnessing a complex mix of escalating tensions, in the context of which some see that the US’s grip is beginning to loosen, and its hegemony and influence over the international system has begun to disintegrate. The shifting world order is giving way to a diverse mix of protectionist nationalism, spheres of influence and regional projects of the major powers. It cannot be denied that there is a deeper crisis, linked to liberal internationalism itself, and to get rid of the deeply dysfunctional characteristics of the global economic and social system, policy makers and those in control of the fate of the planet need to rediscover the principles and practices of statecraft, and collective action against the tendency towards chaos and the destruction of human structures. Likewise, the multilateral global institutions of the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund and below need to be reformed to reflect this new global reality.

With one of the permanent members of the Security Council violating international law, and the principle of not changing borders by force, which is the case that the US and its allies have been doing for decades as well, the United Nations with all its structures remains mostly marginalized. Meanwhile, dealing with Ukraine as part of the East-West confrontation would spoil for decades any prospect of bringing Russia and the West in general, and Russia and Europe in particular, into a cooperative international order. And if Ukraine is to live and prosper, it should not be the outpost of either side, east or west, against the other, but should, as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger estimated, act as a bridge between them. Russia must accept that trying to force Ukraine into dependence, and thus move Russia’s borders once again, would condemn Moscow to repeating its history of self-driving cycles of mutual pressure with Europe and the US. The West must also realize that for Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign state. A geopolitical dynamic, in the context of which the Biden administration seems keen to restore the reputation of the US, and restore its image, after four years spent under the rule of former US President Donald Trump. It wants to clearly distinguish between the behavior and values of the US on the one hand, and the behavior and values of its opponents such as China and Russia on the other.

In the process, Washington wants to re-establish itself as the linchpin of a rules-based international order, but the it, torn internally, will become less willing and able to lead the international stage. It will be difficult to restore its image in the Middle East, especially. For a long time, unquestioned the US support for Israel has allowed it to pursue policies that have repeatedly backfired and put its long-term future in even greater doubt. At the forefront of these policies is the settlement project itself, and the absolutely undisguised desire to create a “Greater Israel” that includes the West Bank, confining the Palestinians to an archipelago of enclaves isolated from each other, the familiar clichés related to the two-state solution, and “Israel’s right to defend itself.” It loses its magical incantatory power with the rise to power of the fascist far right. The US, which considers itself a mediator in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, is still offering the Palestinians empty rhetoric about their right to live in freedom and security, while supporting the two-state solution. It’s claim to a morally superior position seems blunt, tinged with hypocrisy in Stephen Walt’s words. And if the US had normal relations with Israel, the latter would receive the attention it deserved, nothing more.

Chomsky, who seems keen to criticize neoliberal democracy, and wants to rid democracy of the power of money and class inequalities, which cause the success of populism. He sees that there are people who are angry, and dissatisfied with the existing institutions, which constitutes, for the demagogues, a fertile ground for inciting people’s anger towards the scapegoats, who are usually from the weak groups, such as European Muslim immigrants or African Americans and others, but at the same time, it leads to a kind of popular reaction that seeks to overcome these crises. There are many uprisings against oppressive regimes, and most of them are due to the impact of neoliberal programs over the last generation. Almost everywhere, in the US and Europe, for example, the rate of concentration of wealth, which has stagnated so great for the majority, has undermined democratic forms, just as elsewhere the structural adjustment programs in Latin America, which has produced decades of backwardness. The negative effects of globalization on the lower and middle social classes, coupled with national resentment against immigration, and a sense of loss of control over sovereignty fueled violent populist reactions against the principles and practices of the liberal order. With the intensification of the crisis due to the Russian-Ukrainian war, as well as the Iranian nuclear file and its faltering paths, Europe appears between a rock and a hard place, although in reality it does not like acts of hatred and imposing sanctions against Moscow, or against Tehran, due to the intertwining of its economic interests, but they must follow the US. As described by Chomsky. Whoever does not comply with it will be expelled from the international financial and economic system. This is not a law of nature, but rather Europe’s decision to remain subservient to the “master tutor” in Washington. The Europe and many other states do not even have a choice, and although some peoples and states have benefited from hyperglobalization, the latter has ultimately caused major economic and political problems within liberal democracies. Here Mearsheimer agrees with Chomsky that it has seriously eroded support for the liberal international order. At the same time, the economic dynamism that came with excessive globalization helped China quickly transform into a superpower, as it rearranged itself in a way close to or superior to other major powers, and this shift in the global balance of power put an end to unipolarity, which it is a precondition for a rules-based liberal world order.

When Mikhail Gorbachev presented his vision for managing the post-Cold War era, he proposed what was then called the Common House of Europe. This was one of the options for a unified Europe and Asia region extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok without any military alliances. Today, the world is witnessing a revival of some of the worst aspects of traditional geopolitics. The wars of the major powers in Europe and the Indo-Pacific region, with the increase in Israel’s extremist and racist policies, and the possibility of Iran causing instability in the Middle East, have combined to produce the most dangerous moment since World War II. As great power competition, imperial ambitions, and conflicts over resources intensify, the stakes are how to manage the collision of old geopolitics and new challenges. It is inconceivable that there is a state that represents the backyard of any other state, and this applies to Europe as much as it applies to US, Asia and every other region in the world.

Continue Reading


Brief Review of Wilson’s Study of Administration



Public Administration is an action part of the government responsible for policy formulation and implementation. It can be defined broadly as a part of government activity and academic discipline. This field emerged from the mother discipline, Political Science. 

The root of public administration emerged from The Study of Administration, an article by Woodrow Wilson that appeared in Political Science Quarterly in 1887 and is credited with establishing the foundation of public administration. This is the beginning of public administration. This first paradigm is known as the Public-Administration Dichotomy with many facets. Political-administrative dichotomy, which serves as the theoretical foundation of public administration, has a profound historical basis but continues to spark heated debates and disputes.

Administration, according to Wilson, falls outside the proper realm of politics. Frank J. Goodnow asserts that although the administration “has to do with carrying out these policies,” politics “has to do with the manifestation of the national will.” Shortly said, Goodnow advanced the Wilsonian theme with more daring and passion and proposed the politics-administration dichotomy.

Wilson’s article is primarily concerned with the United States of America, although its arguments can be applied wherever in the world. He discusses three broad subjects in this essay, all of which relate to public administration as a science that must be examined. To begin, a brief history of the study of public administration is provided. Second, there is the subject matter, or, more precisely, what really is public administration. Finally, he strives to determine the most effective strategies for developing public administration as a science and helpful tool within the framework of the United States of America’s democracy.

The science of administration is the ultimate fruit of the study of politics that began around 2200 years ago. The administration is the executive, functional, and most noticeable side of government and is as old as the government itself. Wilson says, until the twentieth century, no one wrote about administration as a science of governance. Administering a constitution is getting tougher than formulating one. He compares the old and contemporary public administration. Nations like Prussia (Germany) and France, who set an example of first regarding themselves as servants of the people and then creating a constitution with organized government offices, easily incorporated administrative science in their administration. Wilson claims that democracy is more difficult to govern than monarchy. Monarchies ruled by a few men made decisions easy. But in a democracy, the people decide. A monarchy may easily reform, but not a democracy. 

For instance, to amend a constitutional mandate in Bangladesh, It is necessary to have the backing of a majority equal to or greater than two-thirds of the total number of parliament members. Ziaur Rahman, the president of Bangladesh, declared in 1978 that a referendum was necessary in addition to 2/3 of the vote in order to modify certain articles. By contrast, it is difficult and time-consuming to amend the constitution USA. Two-thirds of both chambers of Congress must approve a proposed constitutional amendment before it can be adopted by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Wilson distinguishes administration from politics in his article, despite its ideas being integrally linked to politics. Unlike earlier reformers, Wilson believes that administration should be separate from politics and should not be manipulated. Public Administration is a detailed and systematic way of public law, and every application of general law as an act of administration, in his view. He contends that public opinion holds officials for being accountable, which is a part of the modern philosophy of Democracy.  Compelling technical education and rigorous civil service examinations are required to qualify officials for the responsibility challenges. 

Wilson discusses the development methods of the study. The government must find measures to reduce the enormous administrative burden. A comparative administration distinguishes democratic values from non-democratic ones. For example, in Syria, Bashar Al Assad practised autocracy for a long time which is different from democracy in the USA. A strong political system is essential to run the government. The method’s application While the American administration has a European legacy, Wilson contends that it must establish its own path via comparative research. 

Continue Reading