The Russia - Georgia War: 10 Years On by المجلة

A Brief History of Iranian Fake News

A Weekly Political News Magazine

Sanctions on Russia Are Working

America Mourns Arizona Senator John McCain

Issue 1711 - August 31/08/2018

The Russia - Georgia War: 10 Years On Has the West Learned Anything From It?

www.majalla.com

A Weekly Political News Magazine

Issue 1711 - August 31/08/2018

A Post-American Africa

Michael Jackson’s Brand is Stronger Than Ever 42

Motherhood Provides ‘More Fire’ for Serena Williams Editor-in-Chief

HH Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd

Editorial secretary

10th Floor Building 7 Chiswick Business Park 566 Chiswick High Road London W4 5YG

Ghassan Charbel A Weekly Political News Magazine

www.majalla.com/eng

Tuning In: How Music 46 May Affect Your Heart 40

Mostafa El-Dessouki

31/08/18

Tel : +44 207 831 8181 - Fax: +44 207 831 2310

napshot

31/08/18

Thousands of couples attend a mass wedding held by the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, aka Unification Church on August 2018 ,27 in Gapyeong-gun, South Korea. Some 4,000 â&#x20AC;šMooniesâ&#x20AC;ş, believers of Unification Church, which was named after the founder Moon Sun Myung, attend the mass wedding which began in the early 1960s. (Getty)

31/08/18

napshot

31/08/18

A fisherman hoping to get some catfish on the Citarum river on August 2018 ,27 outside Bandung, Java, Indonesia. Despite its being named the worlds most polluted river by the World Bank, around 28 million people in Indonesia depend on the Citarum River for irrigation, electricity, as well as nearly 80 percent of the capital cityâ&#x20AC;şs water supply. Based on reports, more than 20,000 tons of waste and 340,000 tons of wastewater are disposed of directly into the waterways of the third-biggest river in Java everyday from thousands of textile factories, killing nearly 60 percent of the rivers fish species and causing health problems for people living along the polluted river. (Getty)

31/08/18

over story

The Russia - Georgia War: 10 Y Has the West Learned Anything From It?

by Maia Otarashvili* Ten years ago, in August 2008, Russian troops invaded Georgia. At the time, the event was more of a Georgian tragedy than a major international incident. Its significance was overshadowed by the excitement over the Olympic Games that were taking place in Beijing and was further diminished by the world’s general lack of knowledge about Georgia’s existence. But in the context of the wide array of Moscow’s aggressive moves that followed, the Georgian war turned out to be the season-opener of Russia’s 21st century wars.

THE CAUSES OF THE WAR As Ronald Asmus documented in his 2010 book about the “little war that shook the world,” tensions between Georgia and Russia had been building up, as Georgia had continuously expressed its desire to “go West.” Georgia had embarked on a road of rapid

democratization and modernization since the peaceful Rose Revolution of 2003 overthrew the corrupt and dysfunctional Shevardnadze government. With the support of Western leaders and organizations, the new Georgian government had begun making deliberate efforts to leave its post-Soviet legacies behind. Georgia was not alone in ratcheting up tensions with Russia. The West itself had done a few things to unnerve Moscow. First, it had recognized Kosovo’s independence, something Russia vehemently opposed. Mere months later, at the April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Georgia and Ukraine were told that one day they would become members of the Atlantic Alliance. NATO had made this promise more as a diplomatic move than anything else, as it had been “leading on” Georgia and Ukraine for years, in hopes of fostering close relations with these countries, and encouraging positive reforms all around. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia had exercised its leverage over Georgia by stationing “peacekeeping” military forces in Georgia’s two separatist conflict zones in Abkhazia

31/08/18

The invasion of Georgia seemed like the best way for Moscow to send a message to the West—former USSR countries had to be kept within Russia’s “sphere of influence” and Europe and the U.S. had no rights there

Years On

clear set of objectives for the invasion, and had spent two and a half years preparing for it. Russia’s objectives “included effectively terminating Georgian sovereignty in South Ossetia and Abkhazia by solidifying control of the pro-Moscow separatist regimes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, thus denying Tbilisi control over these territories in perpetuity; … sending a strong signal to other post-Soviet states, first and foremost Ukraine, that the pursuit of NATO membership may result in dismemberment and a military invasion.” Another major goal was to destabilize the existing pro-Western government and weaken or overthrow President Mikheil Saakashvili who was highly critical of Moscow, particularly of then-President Dmitry Medvedev and then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Moreover, gaining control of the south Caucasus energy corridor by installing a pro-Russian government would have been one of the ultimate benefits of the war for Russia as it would yield political as well as financial gains for the aspirant hegemon. Overall, the invasion of Georgia seemed like the best way for Moscow to send a message to the West—former USSR countries had to be kept within Russia’s “sphere of influence” and Europe and the U.S. had no rights there. A Russian attack helicopter hovers over a convoy of Georgian police and international journalists on August 2008 ,14 in the outskirts of Gori, Georgia. (Getty)

and South Ossetia. With Georgia’s territorial integrity fractured, due to these “frozen” conflicts and Russia’s significant role in perpetuating them, NATO membership could only be a distant hope. But still, the promise of Georgia’s NATO membership “someday” was enough for Russia to presume that the liberal democratic West was creeping up to its backyard and would soon envelope Georgia and Ukraine. During Russia’s weaker years, before Putin managed to consolidate power and lead Russia out of political and economic distress, NATO expanded significantly, absorbing ten post-Communist countries including the Baltic States and Poland. This major expansion was already unacceptable to Russia, whose leaders have historically seen the world from the great power politics perspective, and have believed that Russia is entitled to a certain “sphere of influence”, which has always included the former USSR states. As Ariel Cohen and Robert Hamilton documented in their 2011 monograph on the Russia-Georgia war, the Kremlin had a very

31/08/18

THE FIVE-DAY WAR On August 2008 ,7, Russian troops illegally crossed the RussoGeorgian border and entered the South Ossetia conflict zone. Next, they accused Georgia of “aggression against South Ossetia,” and launched a large-scale invasion of Georgia on August 8. The Russia military organized land and air strikes against the Georgian military forces in South Ossetia as well as on undisputed Georgian territory, most notably bombing the city of Gori, just a few miles away from the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. Russian and Abkhazian military forces also opened a second front by attacking the Kodori Gorge in Western Georgia, at the de facto border of Georgia’s second breakaway territory, Abkhazia. Russian naval forces also became involved in the invasion, blockading part of the Georgian coast on the Black Sea, close to the Abkhaz territory. The invasion also included a cyber warfare component. The cyber-attack was launched during the physical invasion.

over story

According to Cohen and Hamilton, “The war against Georgia marks the first time in its history that Russia has used cyber war and information operations in support of its conventional operations. The Russian cyber campaign attacked a total of 38 Georgian and Western websites upon the outbreak of the war, including those of the Georgian President, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the National Bank, the Parliament, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. and United Kingdom (UK) embassies in Georgia.” This effort was meant to create chaos and uncertainty, and delay effective communication between the government and the citizens of Georgia, as well as between the Georgians and the outside world. Moreover, an aggressive disinformation campaign was launched against Georgia during and after the war, with Russian actors rewriting the narrative, and creating multiple, conflicting stories about the war. One of the most common false narratives is that Georgia attacked South Ossetia, and Russia, due to its peacekeeping mandate, had no choice but to intervene. A recent report, funded by the U.S. State Department, meticulously detailed the events that took place leading up to, and during, the war, further illustrating the fact that unlike the popular Russian narrative, the war was not a Russian intervention in a Georgian civil war instigated by the Georgian government. Five days into the war, the U.S. and European allies brokered a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Georgia. The war left Georgia more fractured than ever, with Russia seizing de facto control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The war also displaced over 20,000 people and left more than 200 casualties. Russia’s standing in the international community did not suffer much after the war, despite general expressions of outrage from various Western leaders, including then-President George W. Bush’s public condemnation of Russia’s behavior. No sanctions were placed on Moscow by the West. At the time, the event was

Had President Bush sanctioned Russia in 2008 for its invasion of Georgia, perhaps Putin would not have felt emboldened to invade Ukraine or attack American democracy like he has done

seen as a one-off incident, but recent actions by Russia shows that the invasion of Georgia was only the beginning.

WESTERN IGNORANCE OR “THE TRAGEDY OF GREAT POWER POLITICS”? Now, the war is commonly seen as evidence of Western fecklessness and naiveté when it comes to adequately dealing with Russia. However, despite this narrative, Georgia was simply a victim of great power politics, not of Western ignorance. Georgia’s safety and territorial integrity were not a top priority on a long list of Western strategic interests at the time. The outgoing U.S. president was overcommitted to multiple unwinnable wars; the European Union was entering one of its worst economic and

31/08/18

identity crises, and it was worried about its energy security, largely guaranteed by Russia. NATO had no interest in entering a military conflict over a non-member state. During the invasion, Georgia had to fend for itself, relying only on diplomatic and humanitarian assistance from the West. Fortunately, the support Georgia received at the time was sufficient for brokering a ceasefire. But in the aftermath of the war, Georgia was again left on its own to deal with its ever-aggressive neighbor in the north. In the meantime, the West engaged in a brand new Obama-led “reset” policy with Russia in hopes of improved relations with the rising superpower. But no reset could curb the rising Russian aggression which within the decade reached Ukraine, Syria, Europe, and the United States. Unlike Crimea and Donbas, however, Georgia turned out to be lucky—the ceasefire agreement was brokered in time to keep most of the country intact, and the capital safe. In retrospect, the fact that Russia invaded Georgia is less shocking than the fact that the extent of the war was quite limited compared to the rest of Russia’s modern wars. This does not diminish the significance of the tragedy, but it does highlight the successful maneuvering of Europe and the U.S. at the time.

Relatives of Georgia›s servicemen killed during the 2008 brief war with Russia over control of South Ossetia mourn during a ceremony on the 10th anniversary of the conflict at the memorial cemetery in Tbilisi on August ,8 2018. (Getty)

Every year, on the anniversary of the war, a long list of journalists, analysts, and former policymakers publish op-eds criticizing the Western naiveté, and “our” collective failure to see Russia as an aspirant global aggressor. This year has been no exception, and the bitterness and passion of most commentators is not without reason. For example, in his Forbes article, a well-known Eurasia reporter, Malik Kaylan declared, “We are paying for the Russian invasion of Georgia ten years ago.” In this article Kaylan argues that the Western media got caught up in the controversy over who started the war. The media chose to blame Saakashvili’s erratic behavior, instead of seeing the truth that Russia had been trying to “play democracy against itself” in Georgia for years. On the political side, too, there is plenty of blame to go around. “The US failed Georgia when Russia invaded,” wrote a former UN ambassador in his Letter to the Editor in the Washington Post. The word “failure” is used very frequently in these kinds of writings. Misha Saakashvili, Georgia’s president at the time also wrote his own op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, recounting the tragic event, adding that “many of our partners in the West failed to realize that the Georgian conflict was not ultimately about Georgia. The generally lackluster international response to the invasion and occupation emboldened Russian adventurism in the country’s ‘near abroad.’” In defense of the U.S. side, then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice wrote an illuminating Washington Post op-ed, explaining that the U.S. did indeed “do something” about the invasion, but it was really the Europeans who failed to support Georgia. “When the Russians launched their invasion, the United States focused first and foremost on protecting the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, and the duly elected Georgian government. In that regard, U.S. military transport returned Georgian armed forces from Iraq so that they could defend their homeland. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the

31/08/18

It is fair to say that Georgia was not a priority at the time, and great power politics superseded the West’s commitment to the post-WWII world order Joint Chiefs of Staff, told his Russian counterpart that we were doing so and not to interfere. … We launched a ‘humanitarian convoy,’ escorted by U.S. warships. This was a signal to the Russians.” In reality, the West’s lackluster reaction was less of a failure to support Georgia and more of an opting out from fully supporting it. As Saakashvili wrote, “Along with Lech Kaczyński, the late president of Poland, I warned that Ukraine would be the next Putin target. Few took this warning seriously in 2008. Six years later, our prediction came true.” If the Polish president knew Russia’s intentions, so did the rest of the European leaders. If Condoleeza Rice, a seasoned Sovietologist by training, was in the proverbial trenches of the Russia-Georgia conflict, then President George W Bush also knew about Russia’s plans in Georgia, in Ukraine, and in Russia’s “near abroad.” It is naïve to say that the Western leaders were naïve. It is fair to say that Georgia was not a priority at the time, and great power politics superseded the West’s commitment to the post-WWII world order. They chose short-term peace and appeasement of a despot over long-term confrontation with Russia. Had President Bush sanctioned Russia in 2008 for its invasion of Georgia, U.S.-Russia relations would have deteriorated significantly for the next decade at least, but perhaps Putin would not have felt emboldened to invade Ukraine or attack American democracy like he has done. Similarly, to say that NATO leaders were naïve and didn’t anticipate Russian aggression in Georgia is inaccurate; they just chose to keep NATO out of it. Unfortunately the problem with appeasing a revisionist despot like Vladimir Putin by allowing him to create and recreate “spheres of influence,” as some Western leaders in the past have chosen to accept, is that there is no real end to that cycle. Appeasing leads of emboldening. The sphere of influence can be shifted around just as quickly as it’s been put in place, and one day it can subsume the appeaser himself; the U.S. and EU allies have had to learn this lesson the hard way. * Maia Otarashvili is a Research Fellow and Deputy Director of the Eurasia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI). She is co-editor of FPRI’s 2017 volume Does Democracy Matter? The United States and Global Democracy Support. Her research interests include the geopolitics of the Black Sea-Caucasus region, the post-Communist CEEE countries, EU’s eastern enlargement policies, and Russian foreign policy

olitics

America Mourns Arizona Senator John McCain War Hero, Political Maverick, and Champion of the High Ground, Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s favorite Senator is Laid to Rest 12

31/08/18

“Like most people, I have regrets. But I would not trade a day of my life, in good or bad times, for the best day of anyone else’s.” McCain the release of his comrades. Returning home on crutches, he underwent extensive physical and psychological care, and emerged with new aspirations to serve his country in elected office. He served two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and six more in the U.S. Senate. In 2008, in his second of two Presidential bids, he squared off with Democratic Senator Barack Obama. During a “town hall” meeting toward the end of the election, when it was clear to most that McCain would lose the election, he showed trademark magnanimity in taking the high ground in response to a racist comment about his rival. A woman told McCain that she did not trust Obama because “he’s an Arab.” McCain replied, “No ma’am. He’s a decent family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.”

Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) speaks at a Town Hall Meeting while on the campaign trail in the Toyota Arena August 2008 ,12 in York, Pennsylvania. (Getty)

Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime friend and colleague of McCain’s, remembered him in a tearful speech on the Senate floor Tuesday: “He had wanted to be President, he was prepared to by Joseph Braude* be President, but it was not his to have. And I remember above all else the speech he gave that Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, a night. John taught us how to lose. When you Vietnam war hero and two-time Presidential go throughout the world, people remember his candidate, died on August 25 at age 81 after a concession speech as much as for anything else. battle with a malignant brain tumor. There are so many countries where you can’t afford to lose because they’ll kill you. And John Born into a family of soldiers, McCain endured said, that night, President Obama is now my five-and-a-half years in captivity after being shot President. So he healed the nation at a time when down over Hanoi. As the son of a Navy Admiral he was hurt.” then serving as Commander of the United States Pacific Command, McCain served a vital public Retired Colonel John Fer, who shared a cell relations purpose for his Vietnamese captors. He block with McCain at the “Hanoi Hilton,” told braved physical and psychological abuse. He a journalist this week that he left an indelible refused an offer to be released early, pending impression on all his peers. “I miss John because

31/08/18

olitics

he never forgot us,” he said. “John never forgot the other POWs, never did. He›s a good man. I can›t talk about him in the past. He›s still with me. He always will be. I think those of us that got to know him and shared jokes and jibes. I think we all feel that same way. He can›t get rid of us.” In a letter earlier this month, released posthumously, McCain said, “Like most people, I have regrets. But I would not trade a day of my life, in good or bad times, for the best day of

anyone else’s.” McCain was to be laid to rest at the U.S. Naval Academy after a week of memorial services. *Middle East specialist Joseph Braude is the author of Broadcasting Change: Arabic Media as a Catalyst for Liberalism (Rowman & Littlefield). He is Advisor to the Al-Mesbar Center for Research and Studies and tweets @ josephbraude.

31/08/18

At a pre-dinner reception, US President Richard Nixon (1994 - 1913) shakes hands greets former North Vietnamese prisoner of war John McCain, Washington DC, May 1973 ,24. (Getty)

John McCain campaigns in front of a Dartmouth College frat house, January ,31 2000 in Hanover, New Hampshire. (Getty)

31/08/18

olitics

A Brief History of Iranian Fake News How Disinformation Campaigns Shaped the Islamic Republic by Ariane M. Tabatabai Alarmed by Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, U.S. media, strategists, and intelligence agencies await the upcoming midterm elections in November with consternation,

warning of the danger of renewed meddling from Moscow. Yet new reports suggest that the Kremlin may have company in its efforts to shape the U.S. domestic information landscape: Iran. In the past few days, Facebook and Twitter

31/08/18

Islamic Republic’s disinformation tactics are as old as the regime itself although Iranian disinformation efforts abroad have been fairly limited and there is no evidence that the recently deleted accounts were specifically designed to affect the outcome of the November midterms, Tehran is no stranger to information warfare. Like few other authoritarian regimes, the Islamic Republic has long understood that information is hard political currency.

were among several platforms that announced the deletion of hundreds of suspicious social media accounts, which the companies said were linked to a systematic Iranian disinformation campaign abroad. According to FireEye, the cybersecurity firm that first raised the alarm, the groups associated with the campaign often presented themselves as independent news outlets but were in fact linked to Iranian state media. Their content was designed to push issues and narratives in line with Iranian foreign policy, promoting “anti-Saudi, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian themes, as well as support for specific U.S. policies favorable to Iran, such as the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal.” The revelations echo recent comments by National Security Adviser John Bolton, who called Iranian meddling a “national security concern.” But they should not come as a surprise to Washington:

31/08/18

In fact, the Islamic Republic’s disinformation tactics are as old as the regime itself. In the 1970s, Iranian revolutionaries fighting to topple the U.S.-backed monarch Mohammad Reza Pahlavi—known as the Shah—lacked today’s online technology but worked hard to use all available channels to amplify the voice of their leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. An exiled dissident cleric, Khomeini asserted himself as captain of the revolution and became the new theocratic regime’s first supreme leader after the Shah’s ouster in 1979. Khomeini’s close advisers, many of them Western-educated, helped him curate a message that would reach and appeal to several audiences at once: Iranians at home and abroad, the Middle East and the broader Muslim world, and the West. To Western audiences, Khomeini’s advisers presented a sympathetic freedom fighter striving to bring prosperity and freedom to his country. This often entailed omitting or modifying the cleric’s actual words to make his overall message more appealing to a Western audience. The strategy worked, in part because Western journalists covering the revolution and Khomeini’s rise often relied on the information and translations fed to them by his men, broadcasting their message to the world on radio, TV, and in newspapers. At home, Khomeini’s followers set the stage for his rise with a subversive political campaign mixing propaganda with disinformation. They distributed pamphlets and cassette tapes featuring his speeches. The tapes were

olitics

cheap, duplicable, and easy to conceal from the shah’s intelligence agency, the SAVAK. Thus, Khomeini’s voice and message gained influence on the streets of Iran even as he remained in exile in Paris. Ironically, the would-be revolutionaries were at times helped in their efforts by theshah himself, who initially failed to understand their ambitions and even amplified some Islamist voices in an attempt to counter what he initially considered the greater threat to his reign—communism. The revolutionaries also understood the utility of fake news. They exaggerated the numbers of casualties during anti-regime protests and falsely blamed the shah for incidents like the 1978 Cinema Rex fire, which led to the death of at least 377 people in Abadan. The revolutionaries even went as far as suggesting that a 1978 earthquake in the city of Tabas wasn’t a simple seismic event but the result of Western countries dumping nuclear waste in a nearby desert or of U.S. underground nuclear tests. The Islamic Republic’s own official documents and statements would later contradict the revolutionaries’ narrative on several of these events. Following the fall of the shah, the new regime institutionalized this revolutionary propaganda machine. A new state-run media apparatus helped

Although the regime has banned many social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, key officials and organizations within Iran use them to disseminate content in various languages to support Iranian policy agendas at home and abroad

control the narrative at home and disseminated favorable content abroad. In the decades that followed, virtually all of the regime’s main institutions began to build their own media outlets, many of them broadcasting in several languages. Today, English-language content serves to promote the regime’s narrative on various issues in the West, while programming in Arabic is designed to galvanize sympathetic Arab populations in the region. Several organizations have emerged as information brokers. There is the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, which replaced the SAVAK after the revolution and has played a key role in framing and implementing the regime’s messaging campaigns. The

31/08/18

A female student demonstrates against censorship at Tehran university, after reformist newspapers were closed down. She holds a copy of the newspaper 'Kayhan', known for its extremist proregime ideas, upside down in May, 2000. (Getty)

As Americans prepare to return to the voting booths this fall, Washington would be well advised to look into Iran’s disinformation capabilities and intentions before it’s too late Although the regime has banned many social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, key officials and organizations within Iran use them to disseminate content in various languages to support Iranian policy agendas at home and abroad. They are supported in their efforts by a network of accounts directly or indirectly linked to the regime, which operate on a range of platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, as well as messaging apps such as Telegram and WhatsApp.

paramilitary Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps has its own intelligence unit and operates or indirectly controls several media outlets, including Fars News and the newer, more hard-line Tasnim News Agency. The Guards use these outlets and social media to criticize policies they deem contrary to the revolution, undermine domestic opposition, and publicize their activities abroad, for example by spreading imagery of Iranian military commanders in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile, state-run media, such as the English-language channel Press TV, allow Tehran to appeal to sympathetic viewers in the West. Press TV and other state-run outlets often feature European or U.S. commentators voicing support for Tehran’s narratives and policies.

31/08/18

Interestingly, while the anti-Saudi and anti-Israeli views promoted by these accounts are hawkish positions in Iranian domestic politics, they tend to be associated with left-wing views in the United States, making Iranian efforts to shape the U.S. information landscape different from those undertaken by the Russian campaign in 2016, which often, though not exclusively, targeted more right-leaning voters. The exact impact of the newly shut down accounts remains unclear, and Iran’s capabilities are much more limited than Russia’s, as it possesses neither the budget nor the technology and knowhow of Russian intelligence. But with U.S. sanctions designed to cut down Iranian oil exports to zero by November looming large, Tehran may not sit on its hands. As Americans prepare to return to the voting booths this fall, Washington would be well advised to look into Iran’s disinformation capabilities and intentions before it’s too late. This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

olitics

A Post-American Africa The U.S. Is Falling Behind by Reuben Brigety Africa is transforming rapidly, and the United States’ approach to Africa is not keeping pace. While other countries are jumping at opportunities to invest in growing African economies, the United States is struggling to keep up. China’s commitments to the continent are stronger than ever, as evidenced by the upcoming Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, during which China and African countries will strengthen cooperation on the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, sign a number of bilateral agreements, and sign a communiqué calling for “a stronger community with a shared future between China and Africa.” U.S. President Donald Trump, meanwhile, delayed two years before finally appointing an assistant secretary for African Affairs last month, and his administration has committed a series of diplomatic blunders

in its relations with the continent, such as snubbing the chair of the African Union Commission in a botched visit to Washington and punishing Rwanda for imposing tariffs on secondhand clothes from the United States. On a deeper level, the United States has failed to outline any kind of serious, long-term agenda for engagement with Africa, leaving the continent’s leaders wondering about the future of U.S.-African partnership. On August 20, First Lady Melania Trump announced that she would make a solo trip to Africa in October. (The goals and itinerary of the trip have not yet been announced.) Her visit is long overdue. For decades, U.S. presidential administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, have partnered with African governments and regional institutions to save African lives, improve African economies, and stop African wars. They did

31/08/18

The United States is now in danger of losing its status Africa’s “partner of choice,” supplanted by China and others Continent.” But more recently, that view has begun to change. Already by December 2011, The Economist had changed its assessment, with a cover proclaiming “Africa Rising.” Economic growth has begun to transform Africa’s image from one of a continent rife with conflict and disease, perpetually in need of outside assistance, to one filled with opportunities for business and profits. Changes in Africa’s economic fortunes have led many countries to pursue opportunities there—potentially displacing options for U.S. companies. The most aggressive of these has been China. By 2016, China had become Africa’s largest trading partner, foreign job creator, and source of foreign direct investment. In late July of this year, in the first foreign trip of his second term, Chinese President Xi Jinping completed a multi-country tour of Mauritius, Rwanda, Senegal, and South Africa.

African Heads of State pose for a group photo ahead of the start of the 28th African Union summit in Addis Ababa on January 2017 ,30. (Getty)

so based on the premise that helping Africa prosper also served the interests of the United States. Past administrations enjoyed the privileged position of being a “partner of choice” to Africa. For example, when Rwandan troops needed to be airlifted to the Central African Republic in 2014 to support an African Union peacekeeping force, they called on the U.S. Air Force for support. When the AIDS pandemic threatened to wipe out an entire generation of young Africans, the United States responded with the transformational President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (or PEPFAR). And thousands of young Africans studied in American universities in the 1960s and 1970s, and rose to prominent roles in government and business in their home countries years later. But the United States is now in danger of losing its status Africa’s “partner of choice,” supplanted by China and others. If the United States is to regain its standing with African countries, both the U.S. government and the U.S. private sector must make serious efforts to improve their understanding of Africa: how it is changing, how other actors are responding to those changes, and what the implications are for their own approaches to the continent.

AFRICA RISING Africa has long been a blind spot for Westerners. In May 2000, a cover story in The Economist labeled it “The Hopeless

31/08/18

Chinese investment has alerted other countries to the financial possibilities of the continent. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also completed a multi-country tour of Africa in late July, visiting Rwanda, South Africa, and Uganda. Bilateral trade between India and African countries mushroomed from 5.3$ billion in 2001 to over 70$ billion in 2013—more than India’s bilateral trade with the United States that year. Bilateral trade between Turkey and African countries grew sixfold between 2003 and 2017, topping 17$ billion that year. In all three of these cases—China, India, and Turkey—governments made deliberate policy decisions that have resulted in a rapid growth in their economic engagement with African countries. The maturing of African regional and continental institutions, especially the African Union (AU), has also encouraged more engagement from outside actors. The AU is emerging as a critical and credible political institution. Its host city—Addis Ababa, Ethiopia—has become the third-largest diplomatic capital in the world. The breadth of the AU’s activities on behalf of its member states, from deploying peace support operations to fighting pandemic diseases, has made it a valuable diplomatic partner for governments and multilateral organizations around the world. Finally, the increasing salience of counterterrorism has broadened and diversified the types of security partnerships at play in Africa. For example, Luxembourg, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, and the United Arab Emirates were all among the financial contributors to the G5 Sahel initiative in 2017 which

olitics

aimed to counter terrorist and criminal networks operating in the remote regions of Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger. China, which has traditionally been reluctant to engage militarily outside of its immediate neighborhood, now has over 2,400 peacekeepers serving in six UN peacekeeping operations in Africa, in recognition of the fact that its business ventures can only thrive in an environment of physical security. The tiny nation of Djibouti, which is smaller in both landmass and population than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is now home to the largest number of foreign military bases anywhere in the world (it hosts forces from China, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States, with Saudi Arabia soon to follow suit). These bases allow their occupants to support maritime operations in the key shipping lanes of the Red Sea. As these international partnerships proliferate, there is a general feeling among African political elites that the United States lacks a coherent policy toward Africa, and that it is ceding its position as a preferred partner to other countries and organizations, especially China and the EU. Trump’s failure to appoint an assistant secretary of state for African Affairs until nearly two years into his presidency sent a very negative signal about the United States’ prioritization of Africa. African officials and other partners privately lamented the long absence of a principal interlocutor in the U.S. government who can systematically advance U.S. policy toward Africa, in Washington or in the field. The appointment of Ambassador Tibor Nagy as the new assistant secretary of state for African Affairs in July 2018 was a welcome development, but he has significant ground to make up in strengthening ties to the continent, and he will need the help of the president and the administration to do so. The Trump administration greatly undermined its own authority during former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s disastrous visit to Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Nigeria in March 2018.

The gains that other partners, such as China and the EU, are making will eventually constrain the options available to the United States for shaping developments on the continent in a way that support its own interests as well as the priorities of African countries

Trump unceremoniously fired Tillerson while the trip was still under way, which many Africans perceived as further evidence that the administration does not take Africa seriously. Trump’s vile reference to African states as “sh*thole countries” in January 2018 continues to rankle, despite the letter he sent to the AU’s Assembly of Heads of State and Government as they gathered in Addis Ababa just days after the insult, highlighting U.S.-Africa cooperation. To be fair, the White House has made some efforts to reverse the perception of its indifference toward Africa. But even these efforts have often come with further blunders. In September 2017, Trump hosted a working lunch for nine African heads of state and government on the margins of the annual UN General Assembly meeting. After mistakenly welcoming the President of “Nambia” (instead of Namibia), Trump went on to awkwardly acknowledge the increasing economic prospects of the continent by saying, “Africa has tremendous business potential. I have so many friends going to your countries, trying to get rich. I congratulate you.” In April 2018, he hosted President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria for an Oval Office visit and Rose Garden press conference during the Nigerian leader’s brief visit to Washington. And on August 27, Trump will host Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta for an Oval Office visit—an honor he did not extend to Abiy Ahmed, the young and charismatic new prime minister of

31/08/18

Construction site for new building with chinese cooperation, addis abeba region, addis ababa, Ethiopia on March 2016 ,7. (Getty)

The White House has made some efforts to reverse the perception of its indifference toward Africa but even these efforts have often come with further blunders themselves.” Conversely, one of the expected outcomes of the FOCAC meeting in Beijing in September is synching China’s Belt and Road Initiative with the goals of Agenda 2063 and the UN’s Sustainable Development goals. Given the size of its economy, its diplomatic importance, and its security capabilities, the United States is capable of remaining an important partner in Africa if it changes its course. But the proliferation of other partners with their own interests, combined with African leaders’ increasing assertion of their own needs in partnerships, is shifting the landscape of engagement with nonAfrican countries and organizations. Specifically, it is giving Africans options for partnership that they did not previously have.

Ethiopia, during Ahmed’s July visit with the Ethiopian diaspora in the United States. Instead, the prime minister had to settle for a brief chat with Vice President Mike Pence, a slight that did not go unnoticed by Ethiopians.

TIME TO COURSE CORRECT The challenges to U.S. foreign policy in Africa run deeper than problems of diplomatic etiquette and understaffing. For one, the United States has not been responsive to the priorities that African countries have identified for themselves. The AU’s Agenda 2063, the continent’s plan for its development through the middle of the twenty-first century, calls for infrastructure development, security architecture, and advancement in health and education with flagship programs like a high-speed rail network connecting every African capital and the creation of a fully integrated African Continental Free Trade Area. More important, it is a document with high political salience that African officials routinely reference in policy discussions at the continental, regional, and national levels. But the United States has not meaningfully adjusted its development assistance, political engagement, or diplomatic strategy to take into account the importance of Agenda 2063 to African leaders and its relevance to Africa’s partnerships. As one senior African Union official privately told me, “The [Americans] are not in Africa for us. They are here for

31/08/18

Accordingly, the government of the United States should consider taking the following steps to reposition its official engagement in Africa. First, the State Department should hold a structured dialogue with the AU on Agenda 2063. Next, Trump should send Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Tibor Nagy to the continent before the end of 2018 to strengthen regional and bilateral relationships. The National Intelligence Council should conduct a formal USG assessment of foreign bilateral and multilateral partnerships in Africa to understand their impact on U.S. interests. And Trump should fully embrace the April 2018 recommendations of the Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa to develop a comprehensive economic strategy for private sector engagement in Africa. The United States is rapidly losing political influence in Africa, both bilaterally and multilaterally. Africa is not standing still while the United States government contemplates how it should engage and recovers from its blunders. The gains that other partners, such as China and the EU, are making will eventually constrain the options available to the United States for shaping developments on the continent in a way that support its own interests as well as the priorities of African countries. The United States must act swiftly and strategically to adjust its approach to a changing continent, or else it will get left behind. This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

olitics

Sanctions on Russia Are Working Why It's Important to Keep Up the Pressure By Nigel Gould-Davies On August 8, the Trump administration announced new sanctions on Russia in response to its use of the nerve agent Novichok to poison Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military intelligence officer, and his daughter, Yulia, in the United Kingdom in March. The penalties are set to go into effect in the coming days. Congress will soon consider further sweeping measures against Russia in retaliation for the chemical attack. But critics are

growing more vocal. They argue that sanctions are ineffective, counterproductive, and overused. What is the record of Russian sanctions, and what are their prospects?

A HISTORY OF SUCCESS The critics are wrong. Russian sanctions have proved more effective, more quickly, than their advocates expected. Even if the administration and Congress do not take any further measures,

31/08/18

Sanctions on Russia are working better and faster than predicted against a difficult target. They harness the West’s biggest strength economy. Now it began to exclude it. This was also a landmark in sanctions history. No economy as big as Russia’s has been subject to major sanctions in recent times. Only the restrictions imposed by the League of Nations on Italy, and by the United States on Japan, before World War II bear comparison. But unlike Italy and Japan back then, Russia is a key supplier of oil and gas to the rest of the world. An embargo on its major exports—a traditional sanctions tool—is all but unthinkable. Designing effective sanctions against such a hard target was a new challenge. How have the sanctions fared? Russia has not returned Crimea or withdrawn from Ukraine. Nor has its economy collapsed. But sanctions were never intended to achieve those things. Rather, they were designed for three goals: first, to deter Russia from escalating military aggression; second, to reaffirm international norms and condemn their violation; and third, to encourage Russia to reach a political settlement—specifically, to fully implement the Minsk agreements, which oblige it to observe a cease-fire, withdraw military equipment, and allow Ukraine to restore control over its borders—by increasing the costs of not doing so. Judged against those goals, sanctions have largely worked. There is strong evidence that at moments of intense fighting in –2014 15, the prospect of significant further sanctions curbed Russian escalation on the ground and, together with Ukrainian resilience, forced Russia to scale back its ambitions.

Russian President Vladimir Putin gestures during his meeting with Governor of Kemerovo oblast Sergey Tsivilyov (not pictured) in Kemerovo, Russia, August 2018 ,27. (Getty)

the current sanctions will bite more severely over time. And the newest, most potent sanctions could prompt significant change within Russia. Recall how we got here. The United States and the European Union first imposed sanctions on Russia in response to the 2014 occupation and annexation of Crimea. This was a turning point in the relationship. Until then, the West had sought to integrate post-Soviet Russia into the global

31/08/18

Sanctions have also powerfully reaffirmed the principles of international order that Russia violated. Since sanctions create costs for the countries imposing them, they convey resolve better than verbal condemnation. The cohesion and purpose they instilled helped marshal an effective response to the Skripal poisoning. The unprecedented expulsion of 150 Russian intelligence officers from the United States and several Western allies was a diplomatic triumph that built on earlier coordination over sanctions. Sanctions have failed only in their most ambitious goal, to nudge Russia toward fulfillment of the Minsk agreements. Russia’s routine violations of the agreements and its other actions, such as its recognition of identity documents issued by the Donetsk and

olitics

Luhansk People’s Republics within Ukraine, make reaching this goal less likely than ever. Russia is prepared to incur large costs to maintain its influence in Ukraine. Even so, Russian sanctions have worked much better than might have been expected. Indeed, it is rare for any foreign policy instrument to achieve all its goals. The most comprehensive study of sanctions, which draws on over 100 cases, finds they are most effective when imposed on democracies, on countries that can be isolated, and between states that previously enjoyed a close relationship. None of these correlates of success is present in the Russian case. Yet sanctions have been remarkably successful and have brought results over a shorter period than the years or even decades that sanctions usually require. Nor have sanctions proved counterproductive. Some have argued that sanctions play into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hands by stoking a “rally ’round the flag” mood in Russia. But the post2014- spike in Putin’s personal ratings was the result of the annexation of Crimea, not a reaction to sanctions. Since Putin’s reelection in March, his ratings have fallen sharply to their pre-Crimea levels, even as sanctions have become more stringent. Others claim that by pressuring oligarchs to return assets to Russia, sanctions help Putin achieve his long-sought goal of “de-offshorization.” But there is no sign that Russian oligarchs are repatriating large amounts of capital. Capital outflows from Russia are actually rising.

FULL STEAM AHEAD The most significant effects of sanctions lie ahead. By design, their impact will intensify. In particular, measures that deprive the energy sector of foreign technology and finance will bite more deeply the longer they are applied. Russia’s concerns are growing. In July, the government drew up its first comprehensive plan to combat sanctions. On August 3, Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Russian Security Council, noted that sanctions were creating “serious problems” in the energy sector. Not only economic liberals but siloviki,the security service officials who dominate key issues, are alarmed.

Sanctions have powerfully reaffirmed the principles of international order that Russia violated

The newest sanctions are the most potent. In April, the U.S. Treasury released a list of Russians it was cutting off from much of the global financial system. This has created unease among Russia’s oligarchs, who wonder which of them will be next. Complementing this, the United Kingdom is now scrutinizing oligarchs and their wealth more stringently and raising transparency standards in its Overseas Territories, popular havens for anonymous Russian wealth. These new sanctions and standards are set to disrupt the Russian elite’s ability to make money in Russia and send it abroad for safekeeping. By protecting oligarchs from a rapacious state, the West’s financial and legal systems make it easier for Russia’s economic elite to reconcile itself to the way power works in Russia. In this way, the West has helped stabilize Putin’s rule. If a critical mass of oligarchs feels its core interests are harmed by Western responses to the Kremlin’s behavior, it may begin to view Putin in a different light. The interests of political power and wealth in Russia will become less aligned than at any time since Putin asserted dominance over oligarchs in his first term, from 2000 to 2004. This will not lead to change today or tomorrow.

31/08/18

Pedestrians walk through Red Square on March 2017 ,4 in Moscow, Russia. (Getty)

Russia has struggled to find new ways to evade sanctions. If anything, its efforts to adapt have created new problems that they deterred Russian forces from taking the strategic city of Mariupol in September 2014 and from pressing their advantage after their victory in Debaltseve five months later. Had the initial sanctions been more severe, and Western governments signaled their intent to escalate more clearly, the deterrent effects would likely have proved stronger. If anything, sanctions have been used too little, not too much. Second, Russia has struggled to find new ways to evade sanctions. If anything, its efforts to adapt have created new problems. Retaliatory import bans have failed to weaken Western political resolve and merely benefited Russia’s domestic producers at the expense of Russian consumers by driving up food prices. Government rescues of sanctions-hit companies have expanded the state’s importance (it now owns around 50 percent of the economy), exacerbating existing problems of inefficiency and corruption. And although Russia has hastened its search for new partners, it has found itself with fewer options and a weak hand. China, in particular, is now in a stronger position to shape the Sino-Russian relationship to serve its interests.

But as the “2024 question” looms—will Putin leave office as the constitution mandates, and if so, who will succeed him?— tensions between power and money could create an important new force for change, not only on Russia’s actions but also on its governance. Finally, some critics worry that sanctions are overused. If the West turns to sanctions too often, they fear, countries will figure out how to evade them. This is a legitimate concern in other cases, but not here, for three reasons. First, the sanctions have escalated for good reason, as Russia’s behavior has only deteriorated from annexing Crimea to intervening in the Donbas, downing Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, interfering in Western elections, and using Novichok to carry out a political assassination abroad. Failing to match new outrages with new sanctions would undermine perceptions of Western resolve. Readiness to expand sanctions is also what makes them effective deterrents. It was the prospect of more costly measures, such as sanctions on Russian government debt or exclusion from international payment systems, that helped curb Russian ambitions in Ukraine. There is evidence, for example,

31/08/18

Finally, critics of sanctions must explain how the United States and its allies can better achieve their security goals. No instrument is perfect. But sanctions are smart, low-cost, and nonlethal and play to the West’s natural strengths. In the past decade, Russia has carried out impressive military reform and waged effective information warfare. Its resurgent power has surprised and disconcerted the West. But Russia remains, as it has always been, economically weaker than its rivals. The West’s biggest advantage lies in economic power. Sanctions exploit that fact. Not all sanctions are good sanctions. Like any tool, they must be carefully designed to achieve defined goals while preserving unity among allies and limiting unintended consequences. To this end, restoring the U.S. State Department’s Coordinator of Sanctions Policy Office,which was abolished in 2017, would be a sensible move. Sanctions on Russia are working better and faster than predicted against a difficult target. They harness the West’s biggest strength. The longer they are applied, the more effective they will be. And as a new era of geoeconomiccompetition dawns, they offer valuable experience for future contests. Judge them properly, use them wisely, but don’t abandon them. This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

olitics

The Truth About the Liberal Order Why It Didn›t Make the Modern World

by Graham Allison Few ideas have gained more widespread currency within the U.S. foreign policy community in the last few years than that of the liberal international order. In my recent essay, “The Myth of the Liberal Order,” I identified three core claims made by advocates of the order about its significance: “First, that the liberal order has been the principal cause of the so-called long peace among great powers for the past seven decades. Second, that

constructing this order has been the main driver of U.S. engagement in the world over that period. And third, that U.S. President Donald Trump is the primary threat to the liberal order—and thus to world peace.” Each claim contains grains of truth, I argued, but each is more wrong than right. Since the article was published, several scholars have pushed back. Rebecca Friedman Lissner and Mira RappHooper argue that the “liberal order is more than a myth.”

31/08/18

The decline of U.S. global power, the meteoric rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and, most of all, the long-term failures of American democracy are each more significant than Trump years took place during the Cold War. The absence of major power conflict, as I wrote, “was not the result of a liberal order but the byproduct of the dangerous balance of power between the Soviet Union and the United States.” On this point, I quoted the historian John Lewis Gaddis in his definitive article on the long peace: “Without anyone’s having designed it,” he wrote, “and without any attempt whatever to consider the requirements of justice, the nations of the postwar era lucked into a system of international relations that, because it has been based upon realities of power, has served the cause of order—if not justice—better than one might have expected.” Neither Lissner and Rapp-Hooper nor Mazarr attempts to defend the proposition that the liberal order led to the long peace. Mazarr comes closest to engaging with this argument directly when he says that he is “not aware of anyone who holds such an extreme view of the order’s importance.” But in my article, I quote the international relations scholar Joseph Nye making precisely this claim when he refers to “the demonstrable success of the order in helping secure and stabilize the world over the past seven decades.” Indeed, in recent years, many authors have asserted versions of this point in Foreign Affairs. Consider G. John Ikenberry’s suggestion, made last year, that “the defenders of the order should start by reclaiming the master narrative of the last 70 years. . . . The world has been spared great-power war.” US Navy personnel raise their flag aboard the USS John S. McCain in the South China Sea near waters claimed by Beijing on June ,28 2014. (Getty)

And Michael J. Mazarr suggests that I have misread the order’s history and purpose. Their responses are serious and thoughtful, but they do little to undermine my argument.

THE LONG PEACE The most inconvenient fact for those who argue that the liberal order has played a major role in the long peace since World War II is that more than 40 of the 70 peaceful

31/08/18

Last month, 43 distinguished international relations scholars bought space in TheNew York Timesto publish a manifesto titled “Why We Should Preserve International Institutions and Order.” The strongest claim they make there is that “the international order formed after World War II . . . contribut[ed] to . . . the longest period in modern history without war between major powers.” “Contributed to” raises the question: By how much? Determining the relative importance of the factors that prevented great power wars over the last 70 years is

olitics

not just an academic exercise. If the long peace was no accident, something on which Lissner, Rapp-Hooper, Mazarr, and I all agree, then figuring out which factors mattered most is crucial to keeping it going. Mazarr claims that the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other institutions were “a complement to other factors underwriting peace and prosperity.” For each, we should ask: Was it necessary? Had it not existed, that is, would the great powers have gone to war? Then we should ask: Was it sufficient to ensure peace? The only element of the postwar order that was, by itself, sufficient to maintain the peace was the combination of U.S. military and economic power with the determination of American leaders to use that power to contain and ultimately defeat the Soviet Union. I agree that in establishing the UN, creating the Bretton Woods institutions, reconstructing Germany and Japan as democracies, and promoting human rights, the United States was doing good and that undermining these aspects of global order harms U.S. national interests. But neither response makes a convincing case that any one of these was either sufficient or necessary for the long peace. It’s also worth noting that many illiberal alliances and alignments, from the Western alliance with the Soviet Union during World War II to the United States’ alignment with Communist China against the Soviet Union from the 1970s, also contributed to victory in both World War II and the Cold War.

THE SOVIET THREAT The second claim, that the need to build the liberal order drove the United States to abandon its traditional isolationism, is also well expressed by Nye. In his words, “The demonstrable success of the order . . . has led to a strong consensus that defending, deepening, and extending this system has been and continues to be the central task of U.S. foreign policy.”

The United States has never promoted liberalism abroad when it believed that doing so would pose a significant threat to its vital interests at home

I argue that, on the contrary, the central driver of U.S. engagement in the world during these decades was neither the desire to advance liberalism abroad nor the need to build a liberal international order. It was leaders’ determination to do whatever they deemed necessary to preserve liberal democracy in just one country—the United States—from what they saw as the existential threat of Soviet communism. Mazarr cites the historian Mark Mazower’s Governing the World to support his position that Washington’s original aim went beyond containment. But as Mazower himself rightly notes, “The model for [NATO] was the 1947 Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance that had opened by talking about the UN and the need to avoid war among the signatories but was really a military alliance against a threat from outside the hemisphere.” I agree with both responses that the liberal order forms part of the explanation for U.S. engagement abroad. As I argued, the United States has never aimed to preserve liberal democracy only at home. Its defining creed proclaims that God endowed all human beings with rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” When reconstructing its defeated adversaries after World War II and shoring up its allies in Western Europe, the United States sought to build liberal democracies with which it

31/08/18

The most inconvenient fact for those who argue that the liberal order has played a major role in the long peace since World War II is that more than 40 of the 70 peaceful years took place during the Cold War unraveling,” and, “Global influence is shifting eastward, pushing the United States and Europe into second place.”

The United Nations Security Council meets on August ,19 2015 in New York City (Getty)

would share values as well as interests. But those efforts were, I suggest, building blocks in an order designed first and foremost to defeat the Soviet Union. Had there been no Soviet threat, there would have been no Marshall Plan and no NATO. As I wrote, “The United States has never promoted liberalism abroad when it believed that doing so would pose a significant threat to its vital interests at home.”

BEYOND TRUMP When it comes to the third claim made by many proponents of the liberal order, that Trump marks the primary threat to global order, my respondents take a pass. We agree that Trump’s misunderstanding of the strength that comes from unity with allies and his withdrawal of the United States from initiatives championed by prior administrations aimed at promoting fair trade and constraining greenhouse gas emissions are undermining the international order. But I argue that the decline of U.S. global power, the meteoric rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and, most of all, the long-term failures of American democracy are each more significant than Trump. Lissner and Rapp-Hooper seem to agree. As they aptly put it, “Trump may be more avatar than architect of the United States’ domestic

31/08/18

In the final chapter of my recent book on the China challenge, Destined for War,I ask, “What poses the single largest threat to America’s standing in the world?” “The answer,” I conclude, “is found in failures of the American political system.” The defining challenge for Americans today is nothing less than to reconstruct a working democracy within their borders. Unfortunately, too many Americans, especially in the foreign policy community, have lost the Founding Fathers’ keen sense of just how radical, audacious, and hazardous the U.S. experiment in self-government is. When Benjamin Franklin quipped that Americans had gotten “a Republic, if you can keep it,” and when Abraham Lincoln asked “whether that nation, or any nation so conceived . . . can long endure,” neither thought he was raising a rhetorical question. As Americans try to make liberalism work at home, U.S. foreign policy should not cling to the status quo or attempt to return to an imagined past when the United States molded the world in its own image. As I wrote, Americans need “a surge of strategic imagination as far beyond the current conventional wisdom as the Cold War strategy that emerged over the four years after Kennan’s Long Telegram was from the Washington consensus in 1946.” That is easy to say but hard to do. Americans might start by revisiting President John F. Kennedy’s call for a world order “safe for diversity”—liberal and illiberal alike—as they focus on the home front. Once again, Americans need to demonstrate the enduring truth of the idea on which their country was founded: that liberal democracy can deliver more of what citizens want than any other form of government known to mankind. This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

ociety

How Iran Became the Nose Job Capital of the World A Psychological Disorder or a Desire for Change? by Hanan Azizi When you walk the streets of Tehran, you find many people with facial features that have been altered by cosmetic surgery. For example, the image of young women and men, with a bandage wrapped across their nose has become normal. Cosmetic clinics are widely spread throughout the country, especially Tehran, and they are specialized in all types of cosmetic procedures, such as rhinoplasty, eyebrow lift, facelift, Botox, and filler treatments. The International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS) published a report in 2013 ranking Iran as number 1 in the Middle East and 10th worldwide in the number of cosmetic operations carried out, but the latest statistics show that Iran has made progress and has now become the eighth in the world. Cosmetic surgeries in Iran make up 1 perfect of the surgeries performed around the world while the country's population is about one percent of the world's total population. According to statistics, the number of rhinoplasty procedures performed in Iran is seven times higher than that in the United States.

WHAT DO OFFICIAL STATISTICS SAY IN IRAN? "According to our statistics, the number of rhinoplasty operations carried out in Iran has amounted to 150 thousand per year, which indicates that Iran has become among the top 10 countries that perform plastic surgeries and is currently ranked third," IRNA quoted Head of Association of Rhinoplasty Dr. Shahryar Luqmani as saying at a conference in November 2016. ISAPS said in its report that the number of cosmetic operations amounted to about 175 thousand in the country, but it is believed that the true figures is much higher. Asked why there were no official statistics on cosmetic surgeries, the Head of Iranian Association of Cosmetic and Plastic Surgeons Abdulhassan Imami told ANA news agency of Islamic Azad University of Iran in 2015: "This is due to the fact that no official institution collects accurate data and statistics from institutions and cosmetic clinics. The other reason is that doctors do not provide statistics on the number of people who visit them and undergo these operations for economic, social

31/08/18

and medical reasons.” “But it seems clear that there is an increase in the plastic surgeries carried out in the country,” he stressed. “The Ministry of Health must bear the responsibility and take statistical data from clinics and specialized centers that operate cosmetic surgeries because sometimes doctors who perform these surgeries don’t have a license, and sometimes operations are carried out by doctors who are not qualified to perform them,” Imami noted. "Rhinoplasty is the most common procedure and most nose jobs are performed in Tehran,” he added.

HAS PLASTIC SURGERY BECOME AN OBSESSION IN IRAN? Many studies have been conducted on the reasons behind this phenomenon, or obsession, to undergo plastic surgery in the Iranian society. According to a joint study conducted by Mehdi Etemad Far (Assistant Professor in Sociology at Tehran

31/08/18

Shahryar Luqmani: The number of rhinoplasty operations carried out in Iran has amounted to 150 thousand annually, and Iran is among the top 10 countries that perform plastic surgery University) and Meliha Amani (chief expert on feminist studies at Tehran’s University of Teacher Training), there are individual and societal reasons that have led people to largely undergo plastic surgeries in Iran. The study included 30 women between the ages of 20 and 34 who had undergone cosmetic surgery in Tehran. Reasons for resorting to cosmetic surgery have varied from one woman to another. Some undergo these surgeries to gain self-esteem or because they are dissatisfied with their outer appearance, have the desire to appear more beautiful, want to feel better, are very sensitive due to their physical appearance, or want to

ociety

avoid family criticism. Others may also undergo such operations to compete with relatives or friends, to gain their husbandsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; support because they have been compared to other women, or because they have been encouraged by their peers at University. Some women expressed that their decision came from a desire for male attention or to boost marriage or employment prospects. The reason could also be to keep up with what is new in the world of fashion, wanting to be accepted by society and looking like the models on TV adverts. In her recent study on the subject, Afsanah Qasimi, a researcher at Al-Zahra University in Tehran, points to the importance of individual factors that lead a large number of Iranian women to resort to cosmetic surgeries. She pointed out that the results of the study showed that lack of self-confidence and an attempt to build a unique identity to replace one that has been subjected to violation, discrimination and criticism in the patriarchal society, and present herself in a way that fits societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ideals contributes significantly to the spread of this phenomenon in the Iranian society. Some studies on cosmetic surgery suggest that, besides individual and social factors, there may be another reason why some individuals undergo cosmetic surgeries. A limited group of people who visit aesthetic clinics (ranging from 10 to 15 percent) may have a Body Dysmorphic Disorder - a disorder where a person is overly concerned because of a defect in his or her body shape or features. The cause of the disease is not known, but it is believed that individuals with a lack of self-esteem and who have been insulted, humiliated, ridiculed or exploited in their childhood or adolescence may be at greater risk.

COSMETIC PROCEDURES AND THE DESIRE FOR CHANGE BBC's Persian website published a report by Amin

Bazaraki on the importance of social and political causes behind the rise in the number of cosmetic surgeries in Iran. The writer considers that after the Islamic Revolution, the hand has become a symbol and the most important member of the society, including raised hands and fists, which echo anti-US slogans. While the nose has become the most prominent organ of the body in the Iranian society since the second decade of the revolution as newspapers and Persianspeaking media abroad have become filled with images comparing noses before and after cosmetic surgery, transforming plastic surgeries into a lucrative profession for thousands of doctors. However, people who underwent plastic surgery attributed their decision to defects or health problems such as nasal polyps, a sign that they are uncomfortable with the how the community would view them since

34 31/08/18

The reasons behind the rise in the number of cosmetic surgeries undergone in Iran don’t seem to be just aesthetic. and celebrities in a manner consistent with western standards, and it was required to subject everyone to this government view under the two regimes. In conjunction with the new policy, a re-formation of the beauty concept has taken place and new concepts such as “chastity” and “Islamic hijab” prevailed among the population.

NEW CONCEPTS OF BEAUTY The new aesthetic concepts produced by the new regime were generally welcomed during the first two decades of the Islamic revolution, the writer further noted. plastic surgery was seen in the official media and official and non-official studies as a degrading phenomenon and that individuals who carry out such operations suffer from lack of self-esteem and do not feel happy and satisfied with their physical appearance. The writer also points out that the human body is a social element that is influenced by the social, cultural and educational policies of governments and rebuilds itself. In this context, the performance of the body can be viewed by two different lenses in the public sector, before the revolution and after the revolution, to help identify them and understand the reasons that led to the rise in the number of people undergoing cosmetic surgeries. After the revolution, the regime of the Islamic Republic adopted a national social policy that was completely different from the Shah's policy in regards to women's bodies. The woman’s body was presented in the former era through advertisements, TV, movies, female singers

31/08/18

He said that when Hashemi Rafsanjani became the president in the period between 1989 and1997, the new middle class which emerged at the time, began to produce new aesthetic concepts that completely contradicted official policies. Rafsanjani's presidency period saw Iran opening up to the world on the economic and political levels. The Iranian people started looking for new ways of life through their influence by the West, western fashion magazines, non-Iranian films, videos and clips of Iranian singers living abroad, and they have been introduced to the Iranian markets since then. This openness and the entry of foreign goods into the country changed individual values. In fact, people have begun to think that they can live in a way that is different from the life that imposed on them. The nose has become particularly important for veiled

ociety

women as a body part that could be shown to the public, and hence women began to express their desire for change by changing the shape of their nose. The rival discourse began to compete with the official discourse on beauty and it created aesthetic standards quite different from the official view. Women, or rather an eye-catching segment of women, began to adopt the aesthetic standards adopted by western women and the radical fundamentalist discourse on beauty was mocked and presented as a revolutionary discourse in a sarcastic tone. The author points out that these aesthetic standards have become a link between the middle class and rich in Iranian cities and the world. The appearance of the nose with a bandage across it became an important indicator of the economic circumstances of an individuals. Thus, the level of the international community’s has risen along with the resentment of the current situation in Iran, represented by protests calling for the implementation of political and economic demands. At the same time, a significant segment of the population have expressed a desire to change their appearance, buy new furniture, wear new clothes or undergo plastic surgery. This wave began to form after the Iran-Iraq war in the 1990s. These circumstances indicate the inability of individuals to change political and social conditions despite their desire for change. Finally, he concludes that cosmetic surgery substitutes the feeling of despair and failure to change and point to

The number of people who have a keen desire to free themselves from the standards and restrictions imposed on them four decades ago is significant.

a widespread political problem in Iran.

CAMPAIGN TO DEFEND THE ENDANGERED GENERATION OF NOSES A campaign titled "A Picture of My Natural Nose” appeared in 2015. As rhinoplasty surgeries have been increasing in Iran, organizers of the campaign called on the women who visit their official Facebook page and have not performed a rhinoplasty, to send a picture of their nose in its natural form to be published. Maryam, one of the founders and administrators of “Iranian Women Up Close,” told Iran Wire that “little by little, there has been a decline in the variety of tastes and preferences. It has been said that the culture industry makes decisions about the appearance of the masses. Beauty has been reduced to certain clichés for all, even on an international scale.” It’s not surprising that Tehran has come to be known as

31/08/18

the “nose job” capital of the world, Maryam added. She questioned why this eagerness for cosmetic surgery and for changing one’s appearance exists in Iran and how much of it comes from within and not from the pressures of the environment. “That’s why we decided to put the question to our readers—to encourage them to participate in the discourse,” she said. When asked about the level of reception of this idea, Maryam stressed that they did not expect such large numbers of people to like and follow the page. “We received many photographs each day, with intense discussions about the photos taking place in the comments below, both for and against.” “Of course, our goal was not to issue a verdict against cosmetic surgery or to draw a line between those who have done it and those who have not,” Maryam explained, adding that it aims at providing the appropriate ground for discussion and dialogue. “We believe that people should be able to decide freely and knowingly. Through private messages or public postings, many Facebook friends have complained about jokes and ridicule about their noses—these comments have sent them to the operating room, contradicting their own desires.” “Up to now about 300 people have shared their pictures, but hundreds more have contacted us to express their support,” she noted. This phenomenon is growing and developing in Iranian society between the two contradictory aspects of cosmetic surgeries. The reasons behind the rise in the number of cosmetic surgeries undergone in Iran don’t seem to be just aesthetic. There are political reasons and the desire of individuals for change by changing their physical appearance. It seems that this phenomenon will continue to grow with time unless the reasons for its emergence in a country, governed by an Islamic regime, are addressed. But there is a significant proportion of the people who have a keen desire to free themselves from standards and restrictions that have been imposed on them for four decades ago.

31/08/18

Omar al-Bashir – Three Decades in the Presidency of Sudan Majalla - London

Bashir reinstated the post of prime minister which he abolished following the bloodless coup of 1989. Bashir appointed key aide Bakri Hassan Saleh to the post, the last member of the group of officers who took part in the revolution to remain at the President’s side. The naming of a prime minister and delegation of some of the president's powers fell in line with reforms proposed by a year-long national dialogue held between Bashir's government and some opposition groups.

won reelection in the April 16–13 polls, with the official results showing that he received about 94 percent of the vote.

In 1989, frustrated with the country’s leadership, Bashir lead a successful coup against Sadiq al-Mahdi, a religious and political figure in Sudan who was Prime Minister on two occasions. Following the revolution, on 30 June 1989, Bashir became the Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council for National Salvation which ruled the country.

In January 2010 Bashir retired from his post as commander of the armed forces, a position that he had held since the 1989 coup. He did so to comply with legal requirements regarding candidate eligibility so that he would be able to accept the nomination of the National Congress Party (NCP; successor party of the NIF) and stand in the upcoming (April 2010) presidential election, part of the country’s first multiparty elections in more than 20 years. Bashir was reelected in April with about 68 percent of the vote.

Even though his long political career has been marked by war and conflicts, it cannot be denied that Sudan, known for being rich in agriculture, culture, and natural resources, has made some economic progress during his administration and has established strong trade ties with countries such as China and Russia.

In October 1993, the Revolutionary Council was disbanded, and Bashir was appointed president of Sudan; he retained military rule, however. He was confirmed as president by an election held in 1996. Following a vote by Sudanese lawmakers,

As the 2015 elections approached, Bashir once again was the NCP’s presidential candidate. In spite of a boycott of the elections by much of the opposition, there were still more than a dozen presidential candidates. Bashir, however, easily

Sudanese President Omar Hassan alBashir was born into a peasant family that later moved to Khartoum, where he received his secondary education; he then joined the army. He studied at a military college in Cairo and fought in 1973 with the Egyptian army against Israel. Returning to Sudan, he achieved rapid promotion, and in the mid1980-s he took the leading role in the Sudanese army’s campaign against the rebels of the southern Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA).

31/08/18

Bashir, the oldest sitting Arab president, has been indicted by the ICC for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in relation to the conflict in Darfur however the Sudanese government, which was not a party to the treaty creating the ICC, denied the charges and proclaimed Bashir’s innocence.

Omar al-Bashir has two wives. His first wife is his cousin, Fatima Khalid while his second wife is a woman named Widad Babiker Omer. Omer was once married to Ibrahim Shamsaddin, a member of the Revolutionary Command Council for National Salvation, with whom she has several children. Omar al-Bashir does not have any children of his own with either of his wives.

31/08/18

ealth

Tuning In: How Music May Affect Your Heart

Listening to Music May Boost Exercise Ability, Ease Stress and Anxiety, and Enhance Recovery from Strokes Harvard Health Whether you prefer Stravinsky’s symphonies or the Beatles’ ballads, you probably listen mostly because you simply like how they sound. You might not realize that music engages not only your auditory system but many other parts of your brain as well, including areas responsible for movement, language, attention, memory, and emotion. “There is no other stimulus on earth that simultaneously engages our brains as widely as music does,” says Brian Harris, certified neurologic music therapist at Harvard-affiliated Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital. This global activation happens whether you listen to music, play an instrument, or sing — even informally in the car or the shower, he says. And it helps to explain how and why music therapy works.

SINGING - AND STRIDING- STROKE SURVIVORS Music therapy can help stroke survivors recover their ability to speak and move. The reason lies in music’s widespread effects on the brain, which cultivate a process known as entrainment. Entrainment refers to the simultaneous activation of neurons from different parts of the brain. “For example, when you hear a steady rhythm, it activates your auditory system but also automatically engages your motor system,” explains music therapist Brian Harris of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital.

After certain types of strokes, people can’t move the muscles in their tongue or lips (dysarthria) and therefore aren’t able to speak clearly. But asking them to “sing” a familiar song using simple syllables (such as “la” or “fa”) instead of words helps entrain their motor or muscle-activating nerves, which helps them recover their speech. The technique works for all types of movement. “When people entrain, it makes the neurological process more efficient because everything fires at the same time,” says Harris. When stroke survivors practice walking to music, it helps steady their gait and improves the speed, symmetry, and length of each stride.

HEARTFELT HARMONIES? Music can also alter your brain chemistry, and these changes may produce cardiovascular benefits, as evidenced by a number of different studies. For example, studies have found that listening to music may • enable people to exercise longer during cardiac stress testing done on a treadmill or stationary bike • improve blood vessel function by relaxing arteries • help heart rate and blood pressure levels to return to baseline more quickly after physical exertion • ease anxiety in heart attack survivors • help people recovering from heart surgery to feel less pain and anxiety (and possibly sleep better). NOTABLE EFFECTS Like other pleasurable sensations, listening to or creating music

17/08/18

triggers the release of dopamine, a brain chemical that makes people feel engaged and motivated. As Harris points out, “An exercise class without music is unimaginable.” Sound processing begins in the brainstem, which also controls the rate of your heartbeat and respiration. This connection could explain why relaxing music may lower heart rate, breathing rate, and blood pressure — and also seems to ease pain, stress, and anxiety.

WHAT RESONATES FOR YOU?

Music therapy can help stroke survivors recover their ability to speak and move. The reason lies in music’s widespread effects on the brain, which cultivate a process known as entrainment

But preference matters: research suggests that patient-selected music shows more beneficial effects than music chosen by someone else, which makes sense. According to the American Music Therapy Association, music “provokes responses due to the familiarity, predictability, and feelings of security associated with it.”

they listened to rock, and vice versa. Someone who loves opera might find a soaring aria immensely calming. “But quite frankly, if you don’t care for opera, it could have the opposite effect!” says Harris.

In the cardiac stress test study (done at a Texas university), most of the participants were Hispanic, so the researchers chose uptempo, Latin-inspired music. In the artery relaxation study, which tested both classical and rock music, improvements were greater when classical aficionados listened to classical music than when

There’s no downside to using music either to relax or to invigorate your exercise if you keep the decibel level in a safe range. You might even consider using your heart health as an excuse to splurge on a new sound system.

17/08/18

ulture

Michael Jackson’s Brand is Stronger Than Ever But What About his Image? by Gerrick D. Kennedy

artistry and fame.

Only Michael Jackson’s eyes can be seen on the large LED screen resting on the floor.

“[Jackson] is such an extraordinary figure, such an important figure,” said Nicholas Cullian, director of the National Portrait Gallery and curator of “On the Wall.” “There’s this complexity to him and what he embodies … and we wanted to do a show that added something different to the conversation around him.”

Although it is easy to discern the visage as that of the late superstar, it would take the most ardent follower to recognize the footage from the 1993 broadcast he made denying accusations of sexual molestation and forever sealing his fate as a social pariah. The video work from New York artist Jordan Wolfson was one of a number of provocative pieces in “Michael Jackson: On the Wall,” a recently opened exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery in London. “On the Wall” — it runs through October — examines Jackson’s influence via 48 artists exploring his identity,

The London exhibit is a collaboration with the Jackson estate, which is in the midst of celebrating Jackson’s birthday this week with multiple projects, including limited edition apparel and a Las Vegas party. For the estate, it’s as much about honoring what would have been his 60th birthday on Wednesday as it is about reframing the narrative around one of pop music’s most acclaimed, yet tragic, figures as we approach the 10th

31/08/18

anniversary of his passing. Jackson’s estate is especially keen on refocusing the sordid narrative that the pop star couldn’t escape in life by finding new ways to highlight his artistry. “We’ve done a lot of bid idea projects and things aimed to attract new fans,” said John Branca, co-executor of Jackson’s estate. “Michael was so multifaceted and in trying to manage the brand we want to do things that capture each facet of who he was. But we start by thinking: What would Michael do?” When Jackson died in 2009 amid rehearsals for an onslaught of comeback shows, the estate had to grapple with the halfbillion-dollar debt he left behind before it could focus on maintaining and protecting his legacy and rehabbing a public image that was all but decimated by allegations of crimes against children and wildly eccentric behavior. More than 2$ billion has been earned since Jackson’s death (he’s topped Forbes list of highest-paid dead celebrities for five years running) from a portfolio that includes successful projects such as the “This Is It” concert film and soundtrack, posthumous albums, a video game, Cirque du Soleil shows, a stake in the EMI music-publishing catalog and royalties from the singer’s master recordings and publishing rights.

Michael Jackson performs in concert circa 1986. (Getty)

“In the beginning, we were paying off the debt. We loved the idea of ‘This Is It’ because it would show the real Michael — not the tabloid, parade artist — but we also had to pay the bills,” Branca said in a lounge at his Beverly Park home that’s adorned with a museum-worthy collection of Jackson paraphernalia. (There’s a blank space on one wall where Jackson’s famous dinner jacket once hung. It’s on display in London.) “Now that we’ve paid off the debt,” Branca continued, “our biggest challenge is trying to make the right decisions.” The estate has certainly drawn the ire of Jackson’s fervent fan base and even his family over decisions that displease them or that they feel devalue the late superstar’s brand, like 2010’s controversial “Michael,” a collection of unreleased material cobbled from tracks Jackson crafted in his final years that many believe contain tracks sang by an impersonator.

The week before his birthday, the Recording Industry Assn. of America announced that 21 of Jackson’s songs and three of his albums had earned new gold and platinum certifications and promotional material don’t constitute commercial speech and must be protected under the 1st Amendment. The fan’s case against producers is ongoing. When a musician passes, the unreleased work he or she crafted before dying becomes of paramount interest. And if the artist was as meticulous about craft as Jackson or Prince or David Bowie was, the challenge more often becomes an ethical one of how to release profitable posthumous projects while honoring how the musician might have wanted the music to be heard (or hidden). Although “Michael” and compilations such as “Immortal” and last year’s Halloween-themed “Scream” were coolly received, 2014’s “Xscape” re-energized excitement over Jackson’s vault. “Xcsape” — which saw producers like Timbaland and Rodney Jerkins craft new tracks built around decades-old, unreleased Jackson vocals — yielded “Love Never Felt So Good,” Jackson’s first platinum hit in two decades. Then earlier this year Drake used an unreleased Jackson vocal on his latest album, “Scorpion.” The track came from a 1983 session Jackson did with collaborator Paul Anka, who floated the track to a number of artists, including Tyga, before Drake heard the vocal, which was just a demo of the singer doing a quick take. “Drake was so passionate about it,” Branca said. “It was like how could we not do this one? It fit so well.”

The album infuriates fans to this day. A lawsuit brought by a fan in 2014 against Jackson’s label, Sony Music, among others made headlines recently after multiple sites picked up tweets reporting that Sony conceded during a court hearing that a trio of songs produced were forgeries, as long suspected.

Although the record is a top 10 hit, Sony and the estate aren’t clamoring to milk Jackson’s unheard vocals. A collaboration similar to the Drake feature is unlikely to happen again, they say, and there are no immediate plans for a posthumous album.

A California appeals court cleared Sony and Jackson’s estate from the suit on Tuesday, the judges concluding that because neither the estate nor the label knew for certain whether the pop star’s vocals were authentic, statements on the album’s cover

However, that’s not to say fans won’t be hearing any “new” music from Jackson soon, as the other co-executor of the estate, John McClain, is reworking a batch of tracks alongside a highprofile producer the estate wants to keep secret for a one-off release.

31/08/18

ulture

“We’re constantly scouring the catalog for ideas, but there are no plans at the moment to put any more full-fledged albums out,” said Sony Music Chief Executive Rob Stringer. “We are looking at one-off songs, and in this streaming world that works because it’s a track-based world. There are a few gems out there that we may unearth individually over the next months and years, but we’re also very, very careful to make sure the fan base doesn’t feel like they’ve been asked yet again to buy material they have.” Jackson’s digital catalog has continued to perform well since his death and shows no signs of fatigue. The week before his birthday, the Recording Industry Assn. of America announced that 21 of Jackson’s songs and three of his albums had earned new gold and platinum certifications. It’s that robust presence on music streaming services that inspired last year’s “Scream.” Themed around Jackson’s love of the frightful and fantastical, “Scream” packaged the singer’s most haunting music for a compilation that along with the 3D conversion of his seminal “Thriller” long-form music video and an animated CBS special aimed to position Jackson as a Halloween perennial. The compilation’s performance as a curated playlist on music services informed the label’s decision to favor leveraging Jackson’s back catalog digitally over finding shrewd ways to package music for physical releases. “We are very careful about repacking and extremely cognizant of the fan base that has everything,” Stringer said. “What’s interesting with Michael is that not all artists have managed to bridge the gaps from the physical world to the iTunes world to the streaming world, but with Michael that’s not the case. His streaming numbers are incredible. “The technology at the moment enables us to do something different and highlight different songs and create concepts that will lead people to a greater understanding of the wider catalog of Michael’s work.”

When Jackson died the estate had to grapple with the half-billion-dollar debt he left behind before it could focus on maintaining and protecting his legacy and rehabbing a public image

REVISITING JACKSON’S LEGACY Much of the Jackson retrospective on display in London is about confronting the ideas that made him one of the most polarizing figures in the history of popular culture. Work from Andy Warhol, Mark Ryden, David LaChapelle, Kehinde Wiley and KAWS is spread across 14 rooms, exploring Jackson’s complexities and contradictions — his transforming physical appearance, his artistry, his relationship with blackness, his many scandals, media treatment and his paranoia-fueled undoing. In one room a dozen or so German fans are on video display across a wall of screens singing the “Thriller” album in its entirety, a chorus of disparate voices offering their own version of Jackson’s staccato-like vocal riffs. In other rooms Wiley depicts him as a majestic king atop an ivory horse; Hank Willis Thomas appropriates an ’80s-era rendering of what a naturally aged Jackson would look like in 2000; and LaChapelle shows the singer as a porcelainskinned saint.

31/08/18

Michael Jackson performs at the Super Bowl XXVII Halftime show at the Rose Bowl on January 1993 ,31 in Pasadena, California. (Getty)

Michael Jackson prepares to enter the Santa Barbara County Superior Court to hear the verdict read in his child molestation case June 2005 ,13 in Santa Maria, California. (Getty)

Grammy-winning producer Mark Ronson produced a megamix of Jackson classics called “Diamonds Are Invincible” that the estate is releasing this week for Jackson’s birthday; Giuseppe Zanotti will unveil a limited edition sneaker; Boss is dropping a special capsule line; Master & Dynamic has custom headphones; and Wednesday’s lavish birthday party in Las Vegas, dubbed the “Diamond Celebration,” will mark Jackson’s 60th. Cullian got the idea to mount an exhibition over a decade ago, in hopes of encouraging people to reexamine Jackson through a far more sympathetic lens than the entertainer experienced for much of his life. “Michael means many different things to many different people,” Cullian said. “There are feelings that are very positive and full of admiration. And, of course, there’s also a more tragic side. I think now that we’ve got some historical distance, coming up on the 10th year of his death, we can view him with more detachment and have a much more nuanced, informed and respectful discussion about what he symbolized, what he achieved, what he made possible. “In a way, the show’s not really about Michael Jackson,” Cullian continued, “but about the way that all of us think and feel about these figures and the way we lionize them; the way we demonize them.” “Thriller” has been digitally remastered into IMAX 3D for the first time and is set for a limited engagement in September, and the animated Halloween special will air again on CBS this fall in a bid to establish it as a holiday tradition in the vein of Charlie Brown.

31/08/18

A number of unannounced deals that will “shock the world,” according to Branca, are in the works, including a commercial endeavor, but nothing is as ambitious as the upcoming stage musical the estate recently announced. The as yet untitled show is expected to arrive on Broadway in 2020 with a book by Pulitzer Prize-winner Lynn Nottage (“Ruined,” “Sweat”) and directed and choreographed by Tony Award-winner Christopher Wheeldon. “We’re aiming much, much higher than your standard jukebox musical,” Branca said. “It’s inspired by the life of Michael, but it’ll be more impressionistic.” Back in London, a barrage of languages could be heard as people crammed into one room to take in one particular piece. It wasn’t some abstract rendering of Jackson or a mixed media piece that transfixed everyone. Instead, it was an installation that had footage from Jackson’s 1992 world tour on an endless loop. It was the one place where Jackson could be seen performing in all of his glory — and no one turned away. This article was originally published in the Los Angeles Times.

port

Motherhood Provides ‘More Fire’ for Serena Williams Tennis Star Pursues Record-Tying Title by Helene Elliott Serena Williams is cradling her baby, humming a lullaby, letting little Alexis Olympia Ohanian tug on a strand of her long hair. When nap time arrives Williams tucks in the child and reluctantly leaves for a practice session.

Monday at Arthur Ashe Stadium. “It’s very difficult to describe. I thought after having a child I would be more relaxed. I think I’ve said this before, but I’m not. I work just as hard, if not harder, actually. I just feel like I take it just as serious if not more. That’s been really surprising for me.”

“Don’t call it a comeback,” she says quietly enough to not disturb the baby. “I’ve been here for years, rocking my peers, putting suckers in fear.” After she changes into workout gear and approaches the tennis court her tenderness vanishes and she pounds the ball ferociously.

Williams laughed off the fuss stirred by the French tennis federation’s ban on a return of the form-fitting catsuit she wore at this year’s French Open. She wasn’t planning to pull it out again because she’s using compression tights and other ways to ward off blood clots.

“I’m gonna knock you out,” she says. “Mama said knock you out.”

“When it comes to fashion, you don’t want to be a repeat offender,” she said during a news conference.

All of this takes place in a -60second advertisement from Chase and offers a peek at what life is now like for Williams, who missed last year’s U.S. Open while awaiting her daughter’s birth last Sept. 1. Williams is blissful about becoming a mother, but don’t make the mistake of thinking she has become soft. She survived an emergency cesarean section, blood clots, and complications that kept her bedridden for six weeks and still reached the Wimbledon final. Her body hasn’t completely bounced back but she is one of the favorites to win at Flushing Meadow this year.

Williams, who will be 37 next month, returned to tournament play at Indian Wells in March and reached the third round before she lost to her older sister Venus, a matchup that could happen again here in the third round. Serena, given an upgraded seeding of 17 instead of her world rank of No. 26, could later face world No. 1 Simona Halep, who will inaugurate the renovated and retractableroofed Louis Armstrong on Monday when she plays Kaia Kanepi of Estonia. But Williams said he hasn’t looked past her first-round match.

“If anything, I have more fire in my belly,” said Williams, who will begin pursuit of a record-tying 24th Grand Slam singles title when she faces Magda Linette of Poland on

“I don’t know my draw,” she said, “but if I want to be the best, I’m going to have to start beating these people, anyway.”

31/08/18

Serena Williams during her semifinal round victory at the 2018 Wimbledon Championships at the AELTC in London on July 2018 ,12. (TNS)

31/08/18

port

Several women will pose potential obstacles for Williams as the tournament celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Open Era, which allowed professionals to compete alongside amateurs in Grand Slam events. Halep and No. 2 seed Caroline Wozniacki became first-time Slam winners this year, Wozniacki at the Australian Open and Halep at the French Open. No. 4 Angelique Kerber, the 2016 U.S. Open winner, defeated Williams in the Wimbledon final to highlight a strong year. “Being here, with the energy, with the great memories that I had the last years, it feels again that I’m ready to go,” Kerber said. No. 3 Sloane Stephens is dealing with the new challenge of defending a Slam title, which she acknowledged has brought “a lot of stress, a lot of pressure.” That’s evident in her results, which include first-round losses at the Australian Open and Wimbledon but a runnerup finish at the French Open. Also in the mix are -20year-old Aryna Sabalenka of Belarus, who won the Connecticut Open after reaching the Cincinnati semifinals, and Kiki Bertens of the Netherlands, who defeated Halep for the Cincinnati title. “You can see the level is very tough and everyone is playing at maybe the highest level,” said Halep, who lost in the first round here last year. On the men’s side, No. 1 Rafael Nadal, No. 2 Roger Federer and resurgent Novak Djokovic have maintained their dominance — each has won a Slam this year — but the next generation might finally be ready to interrupt their reign.

“It’s very difficult to describe. I thought after having a child I would be more relaxed. I think I’ve said this before, but I’m not. I work just as hard, if not harder, actually.” Serena Williams and No. 15 Stefanos Tsitsipas, a -20year-old rising star from Greece, are “knocking on that door,” according to Federer, though they haven’t barged through. Defying the youngsters’ advance is -32year-old Kevin Anderson of South Africa, a finalist in two of the last four Slams, including a loss to Nadal here last September. No. 3 Juan Martin del Potro, the 2009 U.S. Open winner, remains a contender after recovering from a series of debilitating wrist injuries. The -29year-old from Argentina defeated Federer in the Indian Wells final in March. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic have rebounded from medical issues but Andy Murray has struggled long enough to have dropped below them. Murray, who won the first of his three career Slams at Flushing Meadow in 2012, had hip surgery early this year and isn’t seeded here. “For last 10 years or so I’ve been coming and preparing to try and win the event whereas I don’t feel that’s realistic for me this year,” he said. “It’s a slightly different mentality coming in than what I have had the last 11 ,10 years of my life, so it feels a bit odd.”

No. 4 Alexander Zverev of Germany, who’s 21 and just added Ivan Lendl to his coaching team,

Nadal, 32, is 3-40 this season with five titles. He has a good chance to make that six in New York. “I always had a great connection with the crowd here,” he said. “The crowd bring me to another level of energy.”

Williams is blissful about becoming a mother, but don’t make the mistake of thinking she has become soft

Kind of like the frenetic energy of a -1yearold. Williams said she won’t throw a party for Olympia because they are Jehovah’s Witnesses and they don’t celebrate birthdays. No matter. Williams might have a title to celebrate instead. This article was originally published in the Los Angeles Times

31/08/18

Serena Williams with her daughter Olympia on the cover of Vogue magazine (Vogue)

31/08/18

ook Reviews

Brand New Left, Same Old Problems What Populism Can and Can't Achieve 50

31/08/18

During the current wave of globalization, left-wing groups have failed to build new coalitions to ensure that the gains are broadly shared but in 2014, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center, only 20 percent of Americans thought that trade created new jobs, and just 17 percent believed that it raised wages. A populist anti-trade backlash is in full swing. As globalization’s defenders retreat from the field, a different vision has emerged of how to achieve prosperity. On both the left and the right, economic nationalism has returned. Both camps hark back to a supposed U.S. golden age, when well-guarded borders kept out foreign goods, services, money, and people that would otherwise have disrupted national well-being. For U.S. President Donald Trump and his advisers, the slogan “Make America Great Again” captures the sentiment, even if the precise moment in history to which they want to return is left unspecified. For thinkers on the left, the golden age started with the New Deal reforms of the 1930s and lasted until the 1960s. Over this period, the economy and society of the United States were structured by the policies and institutions of the New Deal.

Protesters affiliated with Occupy Wall Street march down Broadway in Manhattan towards Wall Street on May ,1 2012 in New York City. (Getty)

by Suzanne Berger Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism?. Robert Kuttner. W. W. Norton & Company, 384 .2018pp. Globalization’s friends are fast defecting. Some economists who once extolled the virtues of free trade and the free flow of capital now point out that globalization has brought smaller gains than were once claimed, while destroying working-class jobs and communities. The American public’s views of foreign trade have grown more positive as the U.S. economy has recovered from the Great Recession,

31/08/18

Robert Kuttner’s Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism? is the latest in a stream of works that see the New Deal as proof that government can tame the kind of unregulated capitalism that today has led to vast inequality in wealth and income, a collapse of social mobility, and a climate of insecurity. The history of the Roosevelt administration’s response to the Great Depression, in Kuttner’s account, shows that societies can strike a better balance between capitalism, equality, and democracy. Kuttner’s criticism of modern inequality hits its mark, but the solutions he proposes rely on an incomplete account of the history of the New Deal, which was built on a coalition of disparate interests. When that alliance broke down, the economic compact forged by the New Deal died with it. Today’s progressives

ook Reviews

will have to build new coalitions to ensure that globalization and social advances once again go hand in hand. HOW THE NEW DEAL HAPPENED In his account of the New Deal, Kuttner focuses particularly on the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which separated commercial banking from investment banking and sharply reduced the economic risks that arise from unregulated financial markets. He also emphasizes the importance of federal support for labor through legislation on collective bargaining and job creation. He argues that these policies were abandoned in the 1970s because of the growing political influence of economic elites—not because the policies themselves were unworkable. At the time, the U.S. economy was plagued by stagflation, that is, high levels of inflation combined with slow economic growth. But Kuttner claims that dealing with it need not have spelled the end of egalitarian capitalism. He writes, The shift back to radical laissez-faire— neoliberalism—was not required by the economic circumstances. Neither was the full deregulation of finance, nor the enforcement of austerity, nor the use of trade rules to further undermine domestic managed capitalism, nor the indulgence of globalized and systematic tax evasion. Since the demise of the New Deal was not inevitable, Kuttner argues, the United States should bring it back. The same policies that combined growth with equality back then are desirable today, he suggests,

The left needs to rediscover the art of coalition building that once allowed it to combine globalization with social progress

albeit with some updating. Kuttner’s powerful indictment of today’s inequality and the dangers it poses to democracy is on target, but his proposed solutions rely on too simple an account of the politics that made the New Deal possible. He sees politics as a contest between “the people” and a unitary “elite,” a characterization common to populists on the left and the right. To account for the success of the New Deal, he points to “inspired leadership backed by the power of mass movements.” He recognizes that contingent events turned out in the New Deal’s favor, but what mattered most, he writes, was the mobilization of labor, which empowered the state to regulate finance and to push back against the interests of capital. Yet the coalitions that underpinned the New Deal

31/08/18

Romney supporter listens to a speaker as he wears a 'Make America Great Again' hat at the Mitt Romney election party on June 2018 ,26 in Orem, Utah. (Getty)

would maintain and reinforce segregation. Yet the coalition that supported New Deal reforms fell apart once southern Democrats came to believe that the The New Deal was built on compromise. Although New Deal had yielded too much power to organized Kuttner does not pay much attention to these bargains, labor and had done too much to promote federal they were critical in getting New Deal legislation power. Ultimately, it was a backlash against the civil through Congress. Analyzing the coalitions behind rights movement and civil rights legislation, not them is essential for understanding both how the globalization or neoliberalism, that dealt the final New Deal was possible and how it fell apart. As the blows to New Deal politics. political scientist Ira Katznelson argues in his 2013 study of the politics of the New Deal, Fear Itself, Most democratic compromises are not as morally the key legislation could never have passed without troubling as the one between southern Democrats the votes of segregationist southern Democrats, and northern and western Democrats in the 1930s. who controlled crucial committees in Congress. To But Kuttner misses the diversity of interests that win those votes, northern and western Democrats have to be accommodated within any democratic had to accept the Southâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s white supremacist racial strategy for political and economic reform. His view system: they agreed that new federal programs of political reform as a struggle between â&#x20AC;&#x153;the peopleâ&#x20AC;? reforms were far more complicated and morally fraught than Kuttner acknowledges.

31/08/18

ook Reviews

and “the elite” has much in common with the views of right-wing populists. Kuttner is at great pains to distinguish his “progressive” populism from what he calls “neofascist” or “reactionary” populism, and his understanding of Americans and their interests and ideals differs in some radical ways from the former Trump strategist Steve Bannon’s conception of “true” Americans as exclusively Judeo-Christian whites. But by giving the compromises behind the New Deal such minimal treatment, Kuttner downplays the extent to which the politics behind the New Deal required coalitions of partners with different, even contradictory, interests.

UNLIKELY ALLIANCES The kind of alliance between progressive reformers and white supremacists that made the New Deal possible is no longer an acceptable one. But tackling inequality, lack of opportunity, and the risks posed by unrestrained financial markets will once again require those on the left to make uncomfortable partnerships. Leaders will have to form coalitions that bring together both those who benefit from globalization and technological change and those who have lost out and now demand greater equality within the United States. The first period of sustained globalization, from 1871 to 1914, offers several strong precedents for such coalitions. In the United Kingdom, free trade enjoyed strong support both from businesses and from working-class associations, who saw it as lowering the cost of food in workers’ budgets. In

A rejection of multiculturalism and skepticism toward Islam are not limited to the right-wing fringe: they have begun to reshape policy in the center, as well

Belgium, socialists and trade unionists agreed to support lower tariffs in exchange for business commitments on social policy and limits on imports from low-wage countries. And in the United States, as the political scientist Adam Dean has shown in his 2016 book, From Conflict to Coalition, when employers accepted wage agreements that shared a proportion of the company’s profits with workers, the unions allied with the employers on trade. Kuttner rejects the idea that such deals could open up a path to reform. His vision is a different one: to restore public power and constrain capitalism with a strategy of “progressive populism,” which he defines as a “public that is in a high state of democratic mobilization.” He discounts even those compromises that might be made between progressives and moderate Democrats who try to appeal to crossover Republicans: “Procorporate Democrats can and do get elected with such views—but why bother?” To Kuttner, the ultimate sin of globalization is that it undermines democracy by limiting national regulation of the economy. But like both leftwing economic nationalists and their right-wing counterparts, he fails to articulate a vision of an international economic order that would serve U.S. interests and win the support it would need from other countries in order to succeed. Left-wing economic nationalists such as Kuttner often point to the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement on trade, monetary relations, and capital mobility as a model for a reimagined international economic system. Under the Bretton Woods system, national governments retained control over the movement of capital across their borders. The agreement provided for both a reserve currency, the U.S. dollar, to which other currencies within the system were pegged, and an international mechanism to extend loans to countries running deficits in their balances of payments. As a result, the system allowed

31/08/18

governments that were rebuilding their economies after World War II to support domestic industries without worrying that the spending would cause the kinds of debt crises that had plagued the world under the gold standard, which linked each currency’s value to that of gold. Democratic accountability is effective only within national borders, so populists prize the latitude that the Bretton Woods system gave governments to regulate the flow of goods and capital. They argue that the neoliberal “Washington consensus” of the 1980s and 1990s, which replaced the Bretton Woods system and which supported the unrestricted movement of capital and far freer trade, has degraded democratic governance. Yet many populists miss that the Bretton Woods system worked as well as it did and for as long as it did thanks only to the United States’ exceptional dominance of the global economy. As other industrial powers recovered from World War II, the United States’ oversize economic influence was bound to diminish. During the Cold War, moreover, U.S. policies contributed to the rise of the United States’ future trade rivals. Preventing the spread of communism meant stimulating economic recovery in the countries of Western Europe and East Asia. If Washington allowed these countries to export to the United States without fully opening their own borders to U.S. goods, services, and capital, it reflected a determination to prevent the growth of pro-communist forces there, rather than a naive devotion to free trade. Political economists still debate whether it was these market-based policies that accounted for the transformations of Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan into advanced economies or whether state backing for industry was more important. But it’s difficult to deny that exporting goods to rich countries has so far proved the only strategy for transforming some of the poorest countries on earth into some of the richest. The case for globalization rests not only on its economic benefits, which may have been overstated, but also on its political upside, which has been largely overlooked. Economic nationalism means a politics focused on borders. As the current escalating trade war between the United States and both China

31/08/18

Many populists miss that the Bretton Woods system worked as well as it did and for as long as it did thanks only to the United States’ exceptional dominance of the global economy and the EU shows, trade hostilities risk spilling over into many other areas, such as military cooperation and scientific collaboration. The political benefits of relatively open borders were key to the support that socialist and tradeunion movements provided for the first wave of globalization. Back then, those on the left saw that their conservative and nationalist foes on domestic issues were also profiting from economic protectionism. They recognized that protectionism tends to suppress competition at home without providing any new ways for the public or government to hold big businesses accountable. The concerns that today’s populists express about a race to the bottom in an open global economy are valid, but history shows that all the gains need not go to the very top. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, countries across the advanced industrial world expanded social welfare programs and citizens’ rights. Pressure from left-wing parties and unions forced governments to link, however partially, the lowering of border controls to social and economic advances for broad swaths of society. Yet during the current wave of globalization, leftwing groups have failed to build new coalitions to ensure that the gains are broadly shared. The left needs to rediscover the art of coalition building that once allowed it to combine globalization with social progress. * SUZANNE BERGER is Raphael Dorman-Helen Starbuck Professor of Political Science at MIT. This article was originally published in the September/ October 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine and on ForeignAffairs.com.