What are the Challenges to Iran's Escalations?

Boris Johnson Becomes Number 10 ’s Latest Resident

A Weekly Political News Magazine

If Iran Thought Military Escalation in the Gulf Would Trigger Negotiations with the West, it Thought Wrong

Issue 1758- july - 26/07/2019

A Weekly Political News Magazine

2

Issue 1758- july - 26/07/2019

Saudi-Directed Fantasy Film to Premier at Venice Film Festival www.majalla.com

What Are the Challenges to Iran’s Escalations? www.majalla.com

Editorial With the exception of the Iran-Iraq War, the Islamic Republic of Iran has largely avoided direct military confrontations with its adversaries. Instead, Iran has and still opts for relying on proxies to carry out attacks.

These proxies have ranged from militant groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, or state governments such as the Assad regime in Syria. This week’s cover story by Hanin Ghaddar focuses on the rising tensions between Iran and the West, and the possible scenarios in which it will use proxies to carry out attacks against western interests in the region. The writer states that Hezbollah’s financial difficulties will make it unlikely to carry out an attack on any western ally; furthermore it cannot afford a war against Israel as it did back in 2006 since it cannot guarantee reconstruction funds from Arab states.

Hezbollah has also suffered other devastating blows as recent Israeli strikes have demolished its facilities.

Additionally, Iran cannot initiate its proxies in Iraq since the US has more troops there than it does in either Syria or Lebanon. The writer then concludes by saying that if Iran or its proxies are to start a war under their current circumstances, then they would not have the upper hand.

Joseph Braude writes on Iran’s recent capture of a British tanker off the Strait of Hormuz. The response to the action has differed within Western states and Iran. The British Foreign Office, the EU, and President Trump have all warned Iran against its latest escalation and all three parties stated that maintaining freedom of navigation was a non-negotiable priority. Meanwhile, some figures within Iran, such as former hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have called for renewed talks with the West.

Ali El Shamy writes on Boris Johnson’s recent Tory leadership victory, which saw him become the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The writer focuses on his campaign promises, his cabinet appointments and the opponents he is facing both within his own party and outside his party. The writer then talks about the challenges he will face when trying to negotiate a new deal with the EU, especially since negotiation figureheads such as Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier have already stated that they will only accept Theresa May’s deal.

2

26/07/19

A Weekly Political News Magazine

www.majalla.com/eng

Editor-in-Chief

Ghassan Charbel Editorial secretary Mostafa El-Dessouki HH Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd 10th Floor Building 7 Chiswick Business Park 566 Chiswick High Road London W4 5YG Tel : +44 207 831 8181 Fax: +44 207 831 2310

‫الوكيل اإلعالني‬ ،www.alkhaleejiah.com :‫موقع إلكتروني‬ hq@alkhaleejiah.com :‫بريد إلكتروني‬ + 9714 3 914440 :‫ دبي‬،920 000 417 : ‫من داخل اململكة‬ +44 207 404 6950 :‫ لندن‬+00764 537 331 :‫باريس‬ +966 11 441 1444 : ‫ومن مختلف الدول‬

- ‫ طريق مكة‬- ‫ حي املؤتمرات‬- ‫مرخص لها الرياض‬ ‫تقاطع التخصصى‬ +44 207 831 8181 :‫ لندن‬- 4419933 ‫ هاتف‬:‫الرياض‬

A Weekly Political News Magazine

32 Greece’s New Groove

Issue 1758- july - 26/07/2019

24 How to Win Against Beijing

the Strait of Hormuz Is Still the 16 Why World’s Most Important Chokepoint

and Noteworthy Russian Media 40 New Coverage of US-Iran Tensions

Malicious Apps Infect 25 Million Android

36 Devices with “Agent Smith” Malware

31

Who is Britain’s New ‘First Girlfriend’ ?

3

26/07/19

50 A World Safe for Capital

S

napshot

Tenggerese gather at crater of Mount Bromo during the Yadnya Kasada Festival on July 2019 ,18 in Probolinggo, East Java, Indonesia. Tenggerese people are a Javanese ethnic group in Eastern Java who claimed to be the descendants of the Majapahit princes.

Their population of roughly 500,000 is centered in the Bromo Tengger Semeru National Park in eastern Java. The most popular ceremony is the Kasada festival, which makes it the most visited tourist attraction in Indonesia. The festival is the main festival of the Tenggerese people and lasts about a month. (Getty)

4

26/07/19

5

26/07/19

S

napshot

One-horned rhinoceros take shelter on a higher-land in the flood affected area of Kaziranga National Park in the northeastern Indian state of Assam on July ,18 2019. (Getty)

6

26/07/19

7

26/07/19

W

eekly news in the strategic waterway. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt outlined the plans to parliament after a meeting of COBR, the government’s emergency committee, which discussed London’s response to Friday’s capture of the Stena Impero tanker by Iranian commandos at sea. “Under international law, Iran had no right to obstruct the ship’s passage - let alone board her. It was therefore an act of state piracy,” Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told parliament.

The British announcement signals a potential shift from Washington’s major European allies who so far have been cool to U.S. requests that they beef up their military presence in the Gulf, for fear of feeding the confrontation there.

Tunisia's Essebsi, Leading Figure in Shift to Democracy, Dies

Tunisia’s -92year-old president, Beji Caid Essebsi, who helped guide the north African country’s transition to democracy after a 2011 revolution, has died, the presidency said on Thursday. A leading figure in the country’s fortunes since 2011, Essebsi was hospitalized late last month and spent a week in hospital after suffering what authorities described as a severe health crisis. “On Thursday morning, the President of the Republic died at the military hospital in Tunis ... The burial ceremony will be announced later,” the presidency said

in statemen. Essebsi has been a prominent politician in Tunisia since the overthrow of veteran autocrat Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali in 2011, which was followed by uprisings against authoritarian leaders across the Middle East, including in nearby Libya and Egypt.

Turkey, U.S. to Continue Discussing Planned Syria Safe Zone Despite Tensions

Britain Calls for European Naval Mission to Counter Iran's 'Piracy'

Britain called on Monday for a Europeanled naval mission to ensure safe shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, days after Iran seized a British-flagged tanker in what London described as an act of “state piracy” Turkish and U.S. officials will continue to discuss a planned safe zone in northern Syria, Turkish military officials said on Thursday after Ankara warned that it would launch a crossborder operation if a deal was not reached.

Following a U.S. decision to withdraw from northern Syria, the two NATO allies agreed to create a sanctuary in the region that would be cleared of the Kurdish YPG militia, which Ankara sees as a terrorist organisation. Turkey has been infuriated by U.S. support for the YPG - the main U.S. ally on the ground during the United States’ fight against Islamic State militants - and has demanded that Washington sever ties. After U.S. special envoy for Syria James Jeffrey held talks with Turkish officials,

8

26/07/19

Turkey said on Wednesday it had run “out of patience” with Washington and warned that it would carry out a military operation in the region if an agreement on the safe zone was not reached.

Boris Johnson Becomes UK Prime Minister

Boris Johnson was elected new Conservative leader in a ballot of party members on Tuesday and took over from Theresa May as the UK prime minister on Wednesday. He beat Jeremy Hunt comfortably, winning 92,153 votes to his rival's 46,656. Speaking at the Queen Elizabeth II centre in London, he said: "We are going to energise the country. "We are going to get Brexit done on 31 October and take advantage of all the opportunities it will bring with a new spirit of can do. Just hours after arriving in Downing Street, the new Conservative Prime Minister began work with one of the biggest culls of senior government jobs in recent British history, changing all of the main ministers. Most of his appointees were Brexit supporters

Climate Records Tumble as Europe Swelters in Heatwave

Soaring temperatures broke records in France, Britain and the Netherlands on Thursday as a heatwave gripped Europe for the second time in a month, in what scientists said were becoming more frequent events as the planet heats up. As a cauldron of hot air from the Sahara desert moved across the continent, drawn northwards by high pressure, Paris recorded its highest temperature since records began and Britain reported its hottest weather for the month of July. The unusual conditions brought a reduction in French and German nuclear power output, disrupted rail travel in parts of Britain and sent some Europeans, not habitual users of air conditioning in their homes, out to the shops in search of fans.

Kim Jong Un, and U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to revive denuclearisation talks last month. South Korea, which supports efforts by North Korea and the United States to end years of hostility, urged the North to stop acts that are unhelpful to easing tension, saying the tests posed a military threat on the Korean peninsula. The South’s National Security Council said it believed the missiles were a new type of ballistic missile but it would make a final assessment with the United States. North Korea launched the missiles from the east coast city of Wonsan with one flying about 430 km (267 miles) and the other 690 km (428 miles) over the sea. They both reached an altitude of 50 km (30 miles), an official at South Korea’s Defence Ministry said.

Nuclear Talks in Doubt as North Korea Tests Ballistic Missiles

North Korea test-fired two new short-range ballistic missiles on Thursday, South Korean officials said, its first missile test since its leader,

Euphoria in Puerto Rico as Mass Protests Force Governor to Resign

People danced on the streets of San Juan’s old city on Wednesday after Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló announced he would quit over offensive chat messages that sparked massive protests on the Caribbean island. After 12 days of sometimes violent demonstrations, the first-term governor said he would step down on Aug. 2, having failed to soothe critics’ concerns by vowing not to seek re-election and giving up the leadership of his political party. “I feel that to continue in this position would make it difficult for the success that I have achieved to endure,” Rosselló said, listing accomplishments in office that ranged from creating new industries to promoting equal pay for women.

9

26/07/19

C

over story

What Are the Challenges to Iran’s Escalations?

No Matter Who Starts a War, it Wouldn’t Be in Iran’s Advantage, or its Proxies’

by Hanin Ghaddar Tensions with Iran are escalating. The Iranians have staged a number of sabotage attacks on oil tankers earlier this month, and have seized a British vessel.

Their proxies – the Houthis - have conducted drone attacks on at least 10 targets including a major Saudi oil pipeline. Although Tehran is being very careful and seems to be calculating every move so as not to cause a full-fledged war, escalation seems

10

26/07/19

All that, and Hezbollah hasn’t responded to the US pressure and the Israeli attacks. But that might not stay the case, in case Iran decided to respond from Lebanon or from Syria. breath. Earlier this month, the US Treasury issued a new list of names designating three members of Hezbollah under Executive Order 13224, which targets terrorists and those providing support to terrorists or acts of terrorism: Hezbollah’s security chief Wafiq Safa, the head of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc MP Muhammad Hasan Ra’d, and Beirut MP Amin Sherri.

A picture taken on July 2019 ,21, shows Iranian Revolutionary Guards patrolling around the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero as it's anchored off the Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas. (Getty)

to be the most probable path and Iran might choose aggressive responses rather than negotiations.

Iran, via the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Hezbollah, has the capacity to stage terrorist attacks worldwide. There are a number of scenarios of where and how Iran’s reactions could take place. Each scenario has its own advantages and challenges, and Tehran, despite its calculations, could be tempted to take the risks, depending on its proxies and the countries where they’re present.

THE HEZBOLLAH FRONT Iran’s best military arm, Hezbollah, is receiving one blow after another. In addition to the Israeli strikes that have demolished most of its facilities in Syria, US sanctions are not leaving Hezbollah a space to

11

26/07/19

The Trump administration has chosen these three specifically because they symbolize Hezbollah’s control over the Lebanese state and its institutions.

The sanctioning Muhammad Hasan Ra’d was received as a message to the Lebanese Parliament and the Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri. Berri is the leader of Amal, Hezbollah’s main Shiite ally, and uses his position to promote their agenda.

This specific sanction also warns the Lebanese parliament that its members can and will be targeted with sanctions. MP Amin Sherri has been accused of threatening Lebanese banks for carrying out the measures imposed by the Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act, passed by the US Congress in 2018. Sanctioning Sherri sends a message to Lebanese government officials and the banking sector that such figures will no longer be tolerated.

Wafiq Safa, Hezbollah’s highest public security chief as head of the Liaison and Coordination Unit, is the most interesting and significant move. As a liaison among political parties, and Hezbollah’s main man within the security institutions – especially the Lebanese Army - Safa will no longer be able to publicly visit any of the Lebanese heads of security, especially the LAF which is on the receiving end of financial aid and training from the US government.

In Syria, Hezbollah has lost many of its senior

C

over story

commanders and elite fighters, mostly during Israeli strikes. Their military facilities, mainly those producing accurate missiles, have been demolished by these strikes for the most part. On the financial front, Hezbollah is suffering from a serious financial crisis because of the US sanctions on Iran, which is incapable of sending cash to its Lebanese proxy as it used to.

All that, and Hezbollah hasn’t responded to the US pressure and the Israeli attacks. But that might not stay the case, in case Iran decided to respond from Lebanon or from Syria. Recent reports suggest that Hezbollah are deploying forces on both Lebanon’s and Syria’s border with Israel. According to these reports, while the majority of deployment has taken place on the Lebanese side of the border, Hezbollah has also bolstered its forces on the Syrian Golan Heights, bordering Israel. A Hezbollah commander told The Daily Beast that the group is feeling the bite of the sanctions the US has imposed on Iran, which has cut into Hezbollah’s budget. Hezbollah is “ready to initiate hostilities – if and when Tehran deems that necessary. The sanctions now have us preparing for dealing with the Israeli front. … We will fire the first shot this time,” he said.

However, “firing the first shot” requires readiness for a devastating response that Hezbollah does not enjoy. If Iran decided to use Hezbollah – in Lebanon or in Syria – to respond to pressure, this might result in a total loss on the side of Hezbollah, which has

During the last three months, several attacks have occurred against US interests, including the US Embassy and ExxonMobil, sparking concern of a potential confrontation between the US and Iran on Iraqi soil.

already lost its main military commanders in Syria.

In addition, Hezbollah cannot afford to go into a war because they simply cannot fund it. Their financial crisis makes it difficult to finance the logistics and hiring for a war of that magnitude. Last but not least, Hezbollah cannot enter such war unless the reconstruction is guaranteed, like in the July 2006 war with Israel. However, this time around, the countries that rushed to help Lebanon with the reconstruction back in 2006 – mainly the Gulf States – might not be as enthusiastic this time around. Not only is Lebanon no longer a priority, the line that separates the Lebanese state from Hezbollah has become very blurry and sending money to Lebanon means sending money to Hezbollah.

For all these reasons, Iran will probably not use the Lebanon/Syria option due to the many losses that Hezbollah will suffer.

12

19/07/19

President Donald Trump talks to journalists as he departs the White House for a campaign rally in Pennsylvania May 2019 ,20 in Washington, DC. (Getty)

A war initiated by Iran in Iraq would significantly weaken its already delicate presence. Iran will certainly think twice before escalating in Iraq as well.

Akoub and Waad Qado (Abu Jaffar al-Shabaki) The United States had already sanctioned the Nujaba Movement and its leader, Akram al-Ka’abi, in March. Also, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned during his recent visits to Iraq that the United States would target some PMU factions that are backed by Iran if any attack takes place against US interests in Iraq.

During the last three months, several attacks have occurred against US interests, including the US Embassy and ExxonMobil, sparking concern of a potential confrontation between the US and Iran on Iraqi soil.

The possibility of such confrontation has always been an option, but with the current rising tension, it has become a serious possibility. And if Iran was not able to respond from Lebanon or Syria for the reasons mentioned above, could Iraq be a plan B?

IS IRAQ AN OPTION? Earlier this month, an unmanned drone bombed a base used by pro-Tehran paramilitary units in central Iraq. The US immediately denied involvement in the attack. While speculation of an Israeli involvement rose, reports suggested that the attack killed Hezbollah and IRGC members.

The attack happened amid rising tensions between Iran and the US, both of which have troops in Iraq.

On July 18, The Treasury Department sanctioned four Iraqis who are close to Iran. Those include two former provincial governors and two militia leaders, all known as figures close to Iran. The four individuals are Ahmed Abdullah al-Jabouri, known also as "Abu Mazen," Rayan al-Kildani, Nawfal al-

13

26/07/19

Probably not, as the Iranian interests in Iraq are more fragile than they seem. Internally, Iran does not have full control over state institutions as it does in Lebanon. More significantly, the Shia community and leadership are also divided over Iran’s presence and power in Iraq. But in contrast to Lebanon and Syria, the US has significant troops in Iraq and more can be sent. A war initiated by Iran in Iraq would significantly weaken its already delicate presence.

Iran will certainly think twice before escalating in Iraq as well.

Although it is challenging for Iran to respond to pressure from Lebanon, Syria or Iraq, that does mean that mistakes and miscalculations will not lead to a full-blown war. But in any case, no matter who starts a war, it wouldn’t be in Iran’s advantage, or its proxies’.

P

olitics

If Iran Thought Military Escalation in the Gulf Would Trigger Negotiations with the West, it Thought Wrong Western Leaders Have Hardened their Rhetorical Posture Toward Iran 14

26/07/19

by Joseph Braude Last week the Iranian navy launched a surprise attack on British shipping, seizing an oil tanker near the Strait of Hormuz. As if sensing overreach, figures from across Iran’s political spectrum almost immediately began calling for dialogue and de-escalation.

Meanwhile, Western leaders hardened their rhetorical posture toward Iran, apparently angered by its maritime belligerency and emboldened by Iran’s perilous economic fortunes.

IRAN LAUNCHES “RECIPROCAL” ATTACK IN THE GULF On July 19, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ naval forces seized a British oil tanker near the Strait of Hormuz, shouting over loudspeakers, “If you obey, you will be safe.”

Shortly afterward, Iranian media released images of the captured crew in what appeared to many observers to be a calculated act of retribution, following the UK’s seizure of an Iranian tanker off the Strait of Gibraltar carrying oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions. Indeed, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, the spokesman for Iran’s Guardian Council, described the move in the semi-official Fars news agency as a legitimate “reciprocal action.”

WESTERN RESPONSE

Pictures from the semi-official Tasnim news agency show the Stena Impero being seized and detained between July 19 and July 2019 ,21 near strait of Hormuz, Iran. (Getty)

UK denunciation was swift and harsh. British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt branded the seizure an “act of state piracy,” adding that "when it comes to freedom of navigation, there can be no compromise." He also announced that the UK would seek to assemble a European-led maritime protection mission in the Gulf, warning that “if Iran continues on this dangerous path, they must accept the price will be a larger Western military presence in the waters along their coastline.”

For its part, the foreign affairs office of the European Union issued a statement voicing the bloc's "deep concern" at the tanker seizure and demanding “the immediate release of the remaining ship and its crew, and … restraint to avoid further tensions," and echoing Hunt’s earlier statement that "freedom of navigation must be respected at all times.”

President Trump added to the chorus, telling reporters during a meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan that “it’s getting harder for me to want to make a deal with Iran… they disrespected the United States.

They shouldn’t have done that. That was a big mistake.”

After highlighting the U.S. military’s recent downing of an Iranian drone, the President pointedly remarked that

15

26/07/19

Before the diplomatic reactions from the attack on British shipping had run their course, a rising tide of voices within Iran began calling for a reopening of talks with the U.S. Iran “is in turmoil. They’re having demonstrations all over Iran. Their inflation rate is 75 percent. They have a lot of problems.”

WASHINGTON DISMISSES TEHRAN’S SIGNALS OF A DIPLOMATIC OVERTURE Before the diplomatic reactions from the attack on British shipping had run their course, a rising tide of voices within Iran began calling for a reopening of talks with the U.S. At least four prominent conservatives advocated direct negotiations to end the impasse.

Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the New York Times in a lengthy interview that Iran should attempt dialogue with the U.S. administration because “Mr. Trump is a man of action,” and “he is a businessman and therefore he is capable of calculating cost-benefits and making a decision. We say to him, let’s calculate the long-term cost-benefit of our two nations and not be shortsighted.”

In short order, General Hossein Alaei, a former commander of the Revolutionary Guards joint forces and founder of its navy; Mojtaba Zonnour, the head of Parliament’s national security committee; and Mohammad Reza Bahonar, a prominent conservative leader, echoed Ahmadinejad’s call for negotiations.

Yet American officials wasted little time in dismissing their overtures. Three days after the IRGC attack in the Gulf, U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry brushed aside Tehran’s ostensible leverage: "The Iranians will have a more difficult time in influencing the market than they would have ten years ago … New suppliers should help keep a steady supply of fuel — whether it's crude, natural gas, or other secondary products. I think you will see less displacement of the market when there is an event like we see happening.”

P

olitics

Why the Strait of Hormuz Is Still the World’s Most Important Chokepoint And Why the United States Should Guarantee Its Security 16

26/07/19

by Allen James Fromherz

Satellite image of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic maritime choke point with Iran situated at the top with Qeshm Island and the United Arab Emirates to the South.

Imaged 24 May 2017.

(Getty)

The Strait of Hormuz links the majority of the world’s people who live along the shores of Asia and East Africa to the heart of the Middle East. Long before the discovery of oil, it was the world’s carotid artery. Cut off the blood supply almost anywhere else and the world would adapt. Here, however, an interruption could be fatal: 90 percent of oil exported from the Gulf, about 20 percent of the world’s supply, passes through Hormuz.

Shipping through the strait, which is a mere 21 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point, is concentrated and hazardous. In Musandam, the Omani exclave on the strait’s southern side, you can hear Persian radio from Iran as often as Arabic. Along the rocky shorelines, islets and peninsulas thrust precipitously into the sky.

Heat, humidity, and a scorching wind make the climate inhospitable; many mountain ranges and valleys near Hormuz remain sparsely inhabited.

Although Persia tried to claim it, no one group has ever actually controlled the entire Strait of Hormuz.

On Musandam, Shihuh mountain groups and Dhahoori fishermen have historically maintained some autonomy from Muscat. On the northern, Persian side, Iran is as vulnerable to disruption as are many of the ships that pass through the strait. Iran based its oil terminal on Larak Island, in the strait, after Iraq attacked its previous installation on Kharg Island further inside the Gulf. Larak, Hormuz, Qeshm Island, and the Arabian Gulf coast of Iran are inhabited by a mixture of Persians and Sunni Arabic speakers, who migrated there from the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of international maritime boundaries and who differ from the majority population in Iran. There has long trouble for Iran brewing in the hills. The Baluchis inhabit mountains nearby and the Makran Jundallah (Soldiers of God), a Sunni Baluchi separatist movement, have mounted deadly attacks against Iran, including killing 15 members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in a 2009 bombing. The diversity on land is eclipsed only by the sheer number and variety of ships passing through the strait. Without a single controlling power, it is in the interest of the United States, as the foremost naval power in the world, to serve as the ultimate guarantor of trade through Hormuz.

Historically, that has meant preventing the pendulum from swinging too far in one direction or the other. In 1987, the United States intervened in the Iran-Iraq War to prevent attacks against Kuwaiti ships. In 1988, the United States sank Iranian warships and patrol boats during the so-called tanker war. Just a few years later, the United States began the first Gulf War to stop Iraq from seizing Kuwait. Iran has learned from that history, realizing that the most effective strategy, in its attempt to gain a better negotiating posture and to end crippling

17

26/07/19

Cut off the blood supply almost anywhere else and the world would adapt. Here, however, an interruption could be fatal: 90 percent of oil exported from the Gulf, about 20 percent of the world’s supply, passes through Hormuz. sanctions, is not outright conflict but subterfuge. It has begun sending small, lightweight vessels to harass and attack huge tankers and container ships.

The stakes in the strait today are much higher than they were in the 1980s and 1990s, as a confrontation over shipping could lead to a full-blown war between Iran and the United States, one that could even turn nuclear.

Instead of assuring the region’s security, however, the United States has pursued short-term benefits, selling arms to Gulf partners and taking sides in largely fruitless inter-Gulf squabbles, driving partners such as Qatar toward Iran and allowing the Saudis to take too many risks, such as by intervening in the Yemeni civil war.

One reason for this destabilizing opportunism may be the faulty assumption by U.S. policymakers that the Carter Doctrine, under which the United States vowed to use military force to protect its interests in the Gulf, no longer applies. As the United States consumes less oil from the Middle East, the argument goes, its need to ensure the security of the region also decreases. That, however, misunderstands both history and geopolitics.

The United States depends on Gulf security for more than oil. First, and most crucially, the rising possibility of nuclear conflict, as Iran has rapidly started enriching uranium after the United States pulled out of the nuclear deal, has changed the security dynamic in the region.

The security of the strait now matters not simply because of trade; a conflict in Hormuz could spark a firestorm that could quickly spread beyond the Gulf. Second, the amount of trade that passes through Hormuz has grown rapidly with the rise of the wealthy oil states along the Gulf. Finally, the United States has invested heavily in naval bases, in Bahrain, Qatar, and elsewhere, that are accessible by sea only through Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz will remain the world’s most valuable and vulnerable trade and maritime chokepoints, no matter how much oil prices might decline.

The persistence of U.S. commitment to the region is difficult for many Americans to accept. Given how many lives and how much money the United States has sacrificed in the Middle East, many Americans on the

P

olitics

right and the left want to abandon the region altogether.

But no matter how much petroleum American and Canadian producers extract, the United States will still be on the hook for Gulf security. The global system of trade on which U.S. prosperity depends simply cannot function without the safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz and the prevention of any further nuclear escalation in the region.

The Carter Doctrine is, therefore, still necessary but it is not perfect. Although the United States has the most powerful military in the region, it often does not take into account the complex human geography of the strait. Unlike the United Kingdom, which secured Gulf trade routes from 1820 to 1970, the United States does not have deep relationships with non-state actors. This applies to both sides of the strait. To the south, Oman, the Switzerland of the Gulf, has served as a crucial intermediary between the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the incumbent sultan, Qaboos bin Said, is 78 and has no clear successor. The British kept a telegraph station on Musandam and the peninsula is still probably a listening post for Oman, which likely shares it with allies including the United States. Washington would be wise to better understand the complex political and social dynamics of the Musandam Peninsula in the unlikely event that there is not a smooth transition after the death of Sultan Qaboos. It is unlikely, but possible, that many factions and groups within Oman and Musandam could start to assert some sort of autonomy if the transition leads to turbulence.

Washington can prepare for the post-Qaboos era by fostering and supporting other potential negotiating partners, such as Kuwait, and by further agreeing to support Qaboos’ successor if he or she agrees to continue the Sultan’s current policies toward the Strait. Qaboos’ stabilizing and wise leadership will

The United States has little interest in repeating the role of the British Empire or the protectorate it created with the Gulf states beginning in 1853 and ending in the 1970s.

not be easily replaced. Washington should not take it for granted.

When it comes to the northern, Iranian side of the Strait, the United States should develop a more nuanced understanding of the many factions and fractures that divide Iran. Crude U.S. policies toward the Iranian people might drive those who oppose the regime toward Tehran. There are many instances of foreign threats, such as the Iran-Iraq War, that helped solidify the rule of the Ayatollah, when diverse Iranians united against an outside aggressor. Attacking Iran along the Gulf coast or at the Larak Island military base and oil terminal where many Omanis emigrated in the past and where a mix of Arab and Persian Iranians live and work, might, turn potential dissidents on the coasts into supporters of Tehran.

The United States has little interest in repeating the role of the British Empire or the protectorate it created with the Gulf states beginning in 1853 and ending in the 1970s. But it has every interest in continuing, with its partners, the role of umpire. The United States’ tense history with Iran means that not everyone in the region will see Washington as an impartial arbiter.

But no other power can keep the Strait of Hormuz clear of interference and no other power has the ability to stop the game from getting too far out of bounds on either side. Without an umpire, games can

18

26/07/19

Sultan of Oman Qaboos bin Said al-Said sits during a meeting with the US secretary of state at the Beit Al Baraka Royal Palace in Muscat on January 2019 ,14.

(Getty)

Unlike the United Kingdom, which secured Gulf trade routes from 1820 to 1970, the United States does not have deep relationships with non-state actors.

This applies to both sides of the strait. quickly turn into wars that no one wants. Most of the players in the Gulf, from Qatar to Saudi Arabia to Iran, share a desire to keep the game from getting out of control. Despite crushing sanctions, Iran knows that it would not benefit from a war. That’s why Tehran has often vehemently denied responsibility for the recent attacks on Western shipping in the strait. Yet to avoid escalation at the last minute, as President Donald Trump did when he rightly called off an attack on Iran in reaction to the downing of a U.S. unmanned drone, is not enough. Hormuz needs a steady guarantor of security, even an imperfect one.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

Cargo ships sail in the Gulf off the Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas, which is the main base of the Islamic republic's navy and has a strategic position on the Strait of Hormuz, on April ,29 2019. (Getty)

19

26/07/19

P

olitics

U.S. Elections Are Still Not Safe From Attack Congress Can Change That If It Acts Fast

by Lawrence Norden, Daniel I. Weiner Russia’s attack on American elections in 2016, described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s recent report as “sweeping and systematic,” came as a shock to many. It shouldn’t have.

Experts had been warning of the danger of foreign meddling in U.S. elections for years. Already by 2016, the wholesale adoption of computerized voting had weakened safeguards against interference and left the United States vulnerable to an

attack. So, too, the shift to digital media and communications had opened new gaps in security and the law that could be used for manipulation and blackmail.

Russia—and perhaps other powers like China and Iran—will likely try to exploit these vulnerabilities once again in 2020. The United States was caught flatfooted the last time. Now, nearly three years after the Russian efforts first came to light, the United States has made relatively little progress toward hardening its electoral system against interference. Each day it waits to do so

20

26/07/19

raises the likelihood of another election tainted by significant foreign meddling.

Fortunately, there are still measures that Congress, the Federal Election Commission, and other policymakers can take to substantially blunt a future attack. With just over six months remaining until the New Hampshire primary and the start of 2020 voting, lawmakers and executive branch agencies should make election security a priority by upgrading equipment, guarding against hacking, and combatting foreign influence operations.

Nearly three years after the Russian efforts first came to light, the United States has made relatively little progress toward hardening its electoral system against interference.

SECURE THE EQUIPMENT

Voters cast their ballots at a Masonic Lodge on June 2018 ,5 in Los Angeles, California.

(Getty)

A recent Department of Homeland Security report confirms that in 2016, Russia most likely conducted “research and reconnaissance” against election networks in all 50 states. They breached and extracted data from one state registration database, used spear-phishing attacks to gain access to and infect computers at a voting technology company, and successfully breached election networks in at least two Florida counties. The very infrastructure that allows Americans to vote was under attack.

The federal government has made some progress toward safeguarding these systems in the years since. State and local election offices now have greater access to cybersecurity advisers and risk assessments, and the states, the federal government, and the companies that provide equipment used at the polls share more information than they once did. Congress in 2018 provided the states with 380$ million to spend on election security.

And yet, with a vast, decentralized election infrastructure— composed of more than 8,000 separate local election jurisdictions—the United States still has a long way to go if it means to secure its polls. The machinery by which the country records and counts votes varies by county and even town, ranging from the manual counting of hand-marked paper ballots to the digital recording of votes on touch-screen computers. Voting equipment in many precincts urgently needs to be upgraded if it is to be protected from outside interference.

Experts agree that antiquated, paperless voting machines, for instance, are dangerously insecure. And yet counties and towns in 11 states, including battleground states like Georgia and Pennsylvania, continue to use such machines. If someone tampers with a paperless voting machine, no independent paper record will exist by which to check the software results and correct for the manipulation. Congress should take steps to ensure that these systems are replaced before the 2020 election. But paper backups help only when counties and states review them. At the moment, only 22 of the 39 states that have paper records of every vote require post-election audits to ensure the accuracy of electronic totals. It is long past time for Congress to require such audits throughout the country.

Similarly, the risk assessments that electoral jurisdictions now employ can only be effective if the risks they identify are correctable. But the jurisdictions often lack the funds to address their security risks. In many cases, election officials know they should be upgrading their equipment to make it more secure but

21

26/07/19

they simply can’t do it. To take just one example, local election officials in 31 states recently reported that they needed to replace their voting equipment before the 2020 election, but nearly twothirds of them said they did not have the money to do so, even after the distribution of the 380$ million from Congress last year.

House Democrats recently passed an appropriations bill that would provide state and local election jurisdictions with an additional 600$ million. House Republicans have proposed a smaller 380$ million. Neither amount would fully secure U.S. election infrastructure, but either could underwrite welcome improvements. Ultimately, Congress must accept that election security is a national security issue, and just as Congress has the responsibility to protect the country’s ports from foreign assault, so too does it have an obligation to provide states with the funds needed to secure elections.

GUARD AGAINST BLACKMAIL Not all election interference involves direct manipulation at the polls. Russia’s most successful gambit in 2016 was probably the hacking and release of embarrassing emails from Democratic Party servers and private accounts. Thanks to extensive U.S. media coverage, the effort paid off handsomely. The special counsel concluded that President Trump’s campaign knew about, encouraged, and willingly benefited from this strategy but did not actively participate in it.

Russia has a long history of using damaging information (kompromat) to embarrass or blackmail prominent officials in other countries. The digital age has made such tactics easier to pull off and their fruits easier to disseminate. Though hacking into another person’s e-mail account and stealing their information is illegal in the United States, such laws hardly matter to a rival government. The only way to effectively guard against digital blackmail is to invest in protecting politically sensitive targets.

In an ideal world, the government would finance these enhanced protections, but even if Congress does not want to spend additional money there are other legal changes that would help.

Campaigns are short-term operations, and as such they are unlikely to invest their own funds in cybersecurity. But some finely tuned changes to campaign finance rules would allow them to accept outside resources for this purpose. The Federal Election Commission has already taken several steps in this direction. In

P

olitics

May it ruled that a nonprofit established by the Belfer Center at Harvard’s Kennedy School could provide cybersecurity assistance to campaigns on a nonpartisan basis without triggering campaign contribution limits. It recently issued another opinion allowing a for-profit company to provide discounted assistance as part of its business model. While these piecemeal efforts are helpful, a more comprehensive solution probably needs to come from Congress. As a first step, Congress could exempt the cost of cybersecurity enhancements from limits on how much wellheeled national party organizations, such as the DNC and RNC, can give to affiliated candidates.

Once compromising material is stolen, few means exist to contain its influence. The First Amendment likely prevents the government from restricting the media’s use of stolen information.

But the government could encourage the U.S. news media to alert audiences to attempted election manipulation and to choose not to report on stolen information. The French government credits such efforts with helping blunt Russia’s attempt to meddle in its 2017 presidential election through an election-eve dump of hacked information from Emmanuel Macron’s presidential campaign, interspersed with fake documents.

When it comes to campaign behavior, however, Congress can and should draw some bright legal lines, and it should do so sooner than later. The Mueller report includes examples of Trump campaign officials encouraging the release of hacked information and entertaining offers for dirt on political opponents.

While some of this conduct could have violated existing laws, Congress should clarify the law to eliminate any doubt that a campaign or party’s solicitation or receipt of any benefit from a foreign government is prohibited. Congress should also require campaigns to report credible offers of free assistance or collaboration from foreign governments and political parties and all payments to foreign vendors.

CLOSE GAPS IN THE LAW In 2016, Russia unleashed a campaign of disinformation and propaganda that helped inflame the American electorate. The

And yet, with a vast, decentralized election infrastructure—composed of more than 8,000 separate local election jurisdictions— the United States still has a long way to go if it means to secure its polls.

campaign focused on amplifying social discord; lowering turnout, especially in minority communities; and helping Donald Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton. Russian operatives used paid posts on social media platforms to reach algorithmically selected audiences while remaining invisible to the wider public. Some of the paid posts referenced candidates or campaign slogans, but most addressed divisive political issues or spread conspiracy theories in order to stir up social tensions and discourage voting.

While the posts themselves were paid, they were designed to be shared for free.

Russia used a large number of sham social media accounts, Facebook pages, and websites to address the same topics as those in the paid posts. These unpaid communications were also designed for widespread sharing. Many came from real people using assumed identities online, but some were generated by bots masquerading as live humans. Russian statebacked media organizations like RT and Sputnik developed and helped to further spread the content that appeared in both paid and unpaid communications. Russia was also behind some more traditional campaign advertising: according to investigative reporters for The Guardian, people with ties to the Russian government made substantial donations to at least one U.S. nonprofit, the National Rifle Association, which spent more than 30$ million on campaign ads in support of

22

26/07/19

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse questions former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Elections and former Trump advisor Ret. General Michael Flynn in Washington, United States on May 2017 ,8.

(Getty)

U.S. lawmakers and executive branch agencies should make election security a priority by upgrading equipment, guarding against hacking, and combating foreign influence operations.

Donald Trump.

All of these activities were possible because of gaps in U.S. law. So-called dark money groups like the NRA are not required to disclose any of their donors, making them easy conduits for foreign cash. Internet campaign ads can also fall into a regulatory gray area: transparency rules and the ban on ads from foreign nationals apply only to communications containing specific words that “expressly advocate” for or against candidates.

As such these rules are easy to evade. Issue advocacy that doesn’t reference any candidate is entirely unregulated. And while agents of other governments operating within the United States—including state-backed media entities like Russia’s RT and Sputnik, which have significant penetration in U.S. markets—can be subject to the requirements of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), the Act contains numerous exceptions and is underenforced.

Congress can close many of these gaps. The bipartisan Honest Ads Act updates rules governing transparency in campaign advertising to include Internet campaign ads beyond those containing express advocacy. It also requires major platforms to create public online databases of their political ad sales, which would include digital copies of the ads themselves and information about the audience the ad targeted, the number of views, the ad’s cost, and its purchaser. Passing the DISCLOSE Act, which has

23

26/07/19

been introduced in every Congress since 2010, would eliminate the problem of dark money altogether by requiring nonprofits, such as the NRA, to reveal their donors when they engage in substantial campaign spending. Another bill currently before Congress, called the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, would make it a crime to disseminate false information online for the purposes of preventing eligible voters from voting or registering to vote, as Russian operatives did to minority communities in 2019. Congress should pass that bill.

Finally, Congress must also wrestle with the question of what additional mandates could be used to uncover unpaid deceptive foreign online activity, including the use of bots and deepfakes (highly realistic fake video and audio content), without infringing on civil liberties.

Effectively securing the next election will require not just passing new laws but also enforcing the laws that currently exist. The Federal Election Commission often fails to do so, in part because of frequent deadlocks among its six members. Congress should reduce the number of commissioners from six to five and give the commission’s professional staff the ability to independently investigate violations of the law. Similarly, Congress can address FARA enforcement by establishing a FARA enforcement unit within the Department of Justice, and by allowing the statute to be enforced civilly as well as criminally, which would lower the government’s burden of proof to establish and remedy violations.

Congress should require FARA registrants—including media entities like RT and Sputnik—to disclose their status as foreign agents in public communications, including television and radio broadcasts and paid advertisements.

As FBI Director Christopher Wray said earlier this year, “our adversaries are going to keep adapting and upping the game.” The United States must do the same. The tradeoffs will be difficult: countering foreign interference, like fighting terrorism, requires policymakers to wrestle with the basic question of how to defend the United States without unduly compromising its core values.

Safeguarding American sovereignty must be balanced against fundamental principles like the free flow of information and the decentralization of power. That calculus is not always easy. But it must be made. The longer political leaders wait, the likelier that citizens will live to regret their failure.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

P

olitics

How to Win Against Beijing Getting Tough on Trade Is Just the First Step

by Nikki Haley* The most important international development of the last two decades has been the rise of China as a great economic and military power. As China transformed, many Western scholars and policymakers predicted that economic reform and integration into the world economy would force the country to liberalize politically and become a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system. The idea, sometimes called “convergence theory,” was that as China grew wealthier, it would become more like the United States.

The theory was comforting, but it did not pan out. China grew economically without democratizing. Instead its government became more ideological and repressive, with military ambitions that are not just regional and defensive but global and designed to intimidate. And as the distinction between civilian and military technology gradually eroded across the globe, Chinese President Xi Jinping made it official policy for Chinese companies to put all technology at the disposal of China’s military. As the Princeton University scholar Aaron Friedberg has written, “What Xi Jinping and his colleagues have in mind is not a transitional phase of authoritarian rule

24

26/07/19

to be followed by eventual liberalization, but an efficient, technologically empowered, and permanent one-party dictatorship.”

Let’s face it: Xi has killed the notion of convergence.

China is enormously important to the United States—for reasons both positive and negative. American companies highly prize its huge market, which is a crucial engine of growth for the world economy. But we cannot allow our strong interest in good economic relations with China to blind us to Beijing’s hostile political intentions. The Chinese government defines itself as a foe of Western liberal democracy and the upholder of its own brand of communist nationalism. Its strategic ambitions are unfriendly, far-reaching, and deeply rooted in an authoritarian worldview.

Americans look with deep regret on the choices Chinese leaders have made. For decades, the United States strove to cultivate friendship. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan both worked to forge cooperative ties through the transfer of high technology to support modernization and economic growth. The United States helped China enter the World Trade Organization on lenient terms. We gave it access to our markets even though China did not reciprocate. China’s increasingly hostile policies cannot be explained as a reaction to unfriendliness from our side.

A PRINCIPLED FOREIGN POLICY

Chinese President Xi Jinping (R) shakes hands with US President Donald Trump before a bilateral meeting during the G20 Summit on June 2019 ,29 in Osaka, Japan. (Getty)

Since the end of World War II, the United States has been the world’s greatest power by almost any measure: economic output, scientific discovery, military strength, and cultural influence.

Since the start of the Cold War, and especially since the Soviet Union’s disintegration in 1991, the United States has commanded a degree of power and influence unmatched even by the Roman or British Empire. But the United States is not an empire. Ours is a democratic country that takes pride in respecting the rights of other countries and peoples. In foreign policy, we don’t always live up to our principles, nor do we always make the wisest decisions. But we don’t just do whatever we can get away with, either.

One principle that guides U.S. foreign policy is that countries should respect what belongs to other countries. After World War II, the United States provided aid to rebuild Germany and Japan.

We didn’t steal the resources of either country. More recently, when we led the coalition that overthrew Saddam Hussein, we spent great sums to help rebuild Iraq. We didn’t steal a drop of its oil.

At home, Americans live under the rule of law. Our laws are not just tools of the powerful but constraints on power. This understanding of the law shapes the way Americans think and act and the way we operate in world affairs. We respect private contracts—and we expect others to do the same. We respect property rights, including for intellectual property. We believe in moving forward technologically by inventing and innovating, not by stealing other people’s ideas and reverse engineering them.

The United States has helped to build and protect an

25

26/07/19

Beijing observed the success of market economies and applied their lessons, with stunning results: in 1980, China’s gross domestic product was 200$ billion. Last year it was 70 times that - more than 14$ trillion. As a result of this amazing boom, other developing countries began to see China as a model. international system in harmony with such principles. By helping to maintain international peace and stability, enabling free navigation by sea and air around the world, and creating global communications and computer networks, the United States has led the world economy to spectacular growth since World War II. If the United States did not play this leadership role, life would be far worse for Americans and for countless others. Our lives would be more constricted and less safe. Our liberties would be under pressure. China wishes to usurp our country’s leadership role, certainly in Asia and evidently in the rest of the world as well.

WHAT’S BEST FOR THE PARTY IS BEST FOR CHINA Only a few decades ago, China was a poor, undeveloped country.

Then, in the late 1970s, it began to reform its economy. Beijing observed the success of market economies and applied their lessons, with stunning results: in 1980, China’s gross domestic product was 200$ billion. Last year it was 70 times that— more than 14$ trillion. As a result of this amazing boom, other developing countries began to see China as a model. Admirers lauded its combination of selective free-market practices and centralized guidance from a government that was decisive and farsighted. Often, these admirers overlooked the intensity of China’s authoritarianism. Of course, it’s easier for dictators than for leaders of democratic countries to act decisively and to take a long view.

As impressive as its growth has been, however, China now faces serious difficulties. It has spawned environmental disasters and created immense social dislocations that could eventually fuel political unrest. Huge numbers of people have moved from the countryside into dangerously polluted cities, but the government hasn’t permitted them to get housing or education. China’s economy has also slowed. In 2018, the official growth rate was

P

olitics

the lowest in nearly 30 years, and the official rate very likely overstates the actual growth rate.

China’s authoritarian leaders fear that free Chinese people would oust them from power, as free people have done throughout the world. One way Chinese leaders manage the threat to their rule is by provoking crises abroad and appealing to their people’s nationalism. The result is a vicious cycle of repression and potential instability that makes the world a more dangerous place. Another way China’s leaders manage the threat to their rule is by creating an Orwellian surveillance state: Xi has concentrated unprecedented power in his own hands, using facial recognition and big-data technologies to monitor huge masses of people. For the same reason, his government now strives for world leadership in 5G networking and artificial intelligence.

China’s leaders primarily seek not the betterment of their people but the preservation of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule.

For them, politics outweighs all other considerations. Many Americans have a hard time grasping this reality because it’s not how we think about our own country. Our Declaration of Independence says that the government’s highest aim is to secure the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Politics in the United States serves, and is subordinate to, freedom, including economic freedom. In China, it’s the other way around. Economics serves politics, and the political goal is to strengthen the government’s power at home and abroad.

NO MORE BUSINESS AS USUAL In past decades, CCP strategists debated the merits of various paths to national greatness. Some championed bide-your-time

China poses intellectual, technological, political, diplomatic, and military challenges to the United States.

The necessary response is similarly multifaceted, requiring action in fields as disparate as intelligence, law enforcement, private business, and higher education.

policies that encouraged private-sector growth and emphasized integrating China into the world economy. Their ultimate goal was to increase the power of the party and the military, but to do so in a manner that would make China’s rise seem unthreatening to the rest of the world. Other strategists advocated a more assertive, nationalistic, and militaristic approach.

Under Xi’s leadership, the latter approach has clearly prevailed.

His government has seized islands in the South China Sea and built military facilities on them, in violation of promises to former U.S. President Barack Obama (among others) not to militarize.

It has punished Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia over maritime disputes, cutting their underwater acoustic cables and attacking their fishing fleets. It has violated Taiwan’s airspace and kidnapped dissidents and critics in Thailand, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Those kidnapped include citizens of Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Chinese officials say they have no interest in the politics of foreign countries, but their habit of bribing foreign officials has ignited corruption scandals in Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Angola, and elsewhere. China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Xi’s signature initiative to extend loans and build infrastructure around the world, relies heavily on corrupt financing arrangements that burden foreign governments with debt they cannot afford to repay. In addition, China subverts academic freedom in universities in the United States and elsewhere through its governmentfunded Confucius Institutes. These organizations spread propaganda and sometimes manage to squelch discussion of topics embarrassing to China, such as the conquest of Tibet and the camps in Xinjiang Province, where Beijing claims to be “reeducating” an estimated one million Chinese Muslims, known as Uighurs.

The Chinese government also systematically directs Chinese companies to steal intellectual property from U.S. and other

26

26/07/19

Nikki Haley, former Ambassador of the United States to the United Nations seen speaking during the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference in Washington, DC. (Getty)

foreign companies, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

In addition, it requires private Chinese companies to share with the military any technologies they acquire through innovation, purchase, or theft. The new civil-military fusion policy announced by Xi in 2015 effectively requires all privately owned Chinese companies to work for the military. That means business with Chinese companies is no longer just business. Those doing business in China in high-tech fields are advancing Beijing’s military interests, regardless of their intentions.

A NEW STRATEGY FOR A NEW STRUGGLE

Workers load a tanker with liquefied natural gas (LNG) at the Rudong LNG terminal of China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) on June ,26 2019 in Nantong, Jiangsu Province of China. (Getty)

Since the United States emerged as the world’s leading power, we have never had to contend with a potential military challenger that was also our most important trading partner. In the Cold War, we confronted a Soviet Union whose economy was a fraction of the size of China’s today. History offers no close analogies, but that doesn’t mean it offers no lessons.

During the Cold War, our government crafted new policies and programs to check Soviet military technological progress and weaken the Soviet economy. These included export control and trade promotion programs that served national security purposes.

We created the U.S. Information Agency, which countered Soviet propaganda, and the Strategic Defense Initiative, which aimed to neutralize the Soviet Union’s long-range nuclear-armed missiles.

We also established programs to encourage higher education in relevant areas—for example, the Russian language and nuclear weapons technology.

To counter Chinese threats to U.S. vital interests, it is necessary for us to think creatively and courageously— and without any illusions about our adversary’s intentions.

To begin with, we should revise our regulations on trade

and investment, especially in the high-tech sector, so that China can no longer exploit our openness. In general, I dislike government interference in private business. But our national security takes precedence over free-market policies. Adam Smith made this point in The Wealth of Nations, arguing that Great Britain’s interest in preserving naval supremacy was more important than free trade in the maritime sector: “Defense,” he wrote, “is of much more importance than opulence.” With China committed to taking military advantage of all private commercial activity, we must alter the lens through which we examine U.S. regulation of foreign trade, international supply chains, inward investments, intellectual property protection, and incentives for critical defense technologies. The necessary regulation will be expensive and onerous, but it is the price we must pay to secure our country.

Even as we adjust our economic policies, we will also need to improve our diplomacy. The radical nature of China’s national security strategy has become clear only in the last few years.

As we rethink our own national security strategy in response, we have an interest in encouraging our allies to rethink theirs.

Congress should ensure that U.S. officials have the authority and resources they need to promote understanding of China’s strategy and to rally multilateral efforts to compete with it—to counter Chinese influence, to defend against military threats, and to preserve the principles on which the prosperitypromoting post–World War II international system was constructed.

To handle threats posed by China—as well as by Russia, North Korea, Iran, and jihadist terrorist networks, among others— we must strengthen our military. We need greater naval capability, more long-range air strike forces, and improved information technology and cyber-capabilities. We must also modernize our long-neglected nuclear infrastructure. The U.S. defense budget is huge, but not enough is allocated for capital investment. With limited resources, there will always be tradeoffs. But we must always be able to respond, in strong and measured fashion, to our most militarily sophisticated adversary.

China poses intellectual, technological, political, diplomatic, and military challenges to the United States. The necessary response is similarly multifaceted, requiring action in fields as disparate as intelligence, law enforcement, private business, and higher education. In recent years, many problems have been described as requiring “whole of government” responses. China requires a response that is not just “whole of government” but “whole of nation.” Fortunately, there is support across the political spectrum for countering China’s new aggressive policies. We must act now, before it’s too late. The stakes are high. They could be life or death.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com. *Nikki Halley was U.S. Representative to the United Nations from 2017 through 2018.

27

26/07/19

P

olitics

Boris Johnson Becomes Number 10’s Latest Resident

New UK Leader Faces Challenges at Home and Abroad

by Ali El Shamy The moment that many have either eagerly waited for, or greatly dreaded has finally come. Boris Johnson has become the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, having won the Conservative leadership race with 66.4 percent of the vote. While as of the writing of this piece, Johnson has yet to make numerous substantial policy announcements, his campaign focused on

one main promise: the UK will be out of the European Union

by October 31 of this year, no ifs, buts or maybes. Johnson has stated that he seeks a new deal with the EU, and is not pursuing a no-deal Brexit. However, if the EU is not willing to negotiate a new deal, the new Prime Minister has said that he would push for a no-deal to keep with his October 31 deadline, something that has not boded well with both Europe and his parliamentary colleagues.

28

26/07/19

“DUDE, WE’RE GOING TO ENERGIZE THE COUNTRY”

Newly elected leader of the Conservative party Boris Johnson gestures at Conservative party HQ in Westminster on July 2019 ,23 in London, England. (Getty)

During his victory speech at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, Johnson gave a typical BoJo performance as he could hardly contain his excitement over the fact that he finally achieved his leadership ambitions; one documentary has indicated that he has always had this drive since childhood when he allegedly dreamed of becoming “world king”. While he hasn’t quite achieved that goal, he has just become the leader of one of the most powerful and influential countries on the world stage.

The speech indicated his broad goals for the country, and reiterated his campaign slogan of Deliver (Brexit), Unite (the country) and Defeat (Jeremy Corbyn), he later added an E to the end of the slogan just so he wouldn’t have to celebrate an acronym that spells “DUD”: “They forgot the final “E” my friends, “E” for Energize, I say to all the doubters: Dude, we are going to energize the country, we are going to get Brexit done by October 31”.

He also echoed Trump’s notions that he can transform the country back to its past glory days, albeit in a much more eloquent manner as said that the nation was a “slumbering giant” that would rise up from the negativity “with better education, better infrastructure, more police, fantastic full-fiber broadband sprouting in every household. “ While it is not customary for newly elected Prime Ministers to make concrete promises during their victory speeches (Margaret Thatcher famously quoted St Francis's prayer during her first interview outside 10 Downing Street), his speech has already achieved something intangible but valuable nonetheless: he is not Theresa May. The leaving Prime Minister, as many would recall, wasn’t the best speech giver. While she was well-spoken, she often displayed nervousness and her speech pattern had an uncertain cadence that often played into the hands of her political opponents, particularly Jeremy Corbyn during the Prime Minister’s Questions. She also didn’t carry herself as the strong leader that would lead the country out of the European bloc, remember she subtly tried to rebrand herself as the new Margaret Thatcher when she changed her fashion style to match that of the first female prime minister. By contrast, during his speech Johnson showed an aura of self-confidence and assertiveness that he was the right person for the job and that he would be the leader that would give Britain its “independence” and “sovereignty” back: “I read in my Financial Times this morning that there is no incoming leader, no incoming leader has ever faced such a daunting set of circumstances, it said. Well, I look at you this morning and I ask myself, do you look daunted? Do you feel daunted? I don’t think you look remotely daunted to me. And I think that we know that we can do it and that the people of this country are trusting in us to do it. And we know that we will do it.”

It should be noted that Johnson has indicated some of his policies during the campaign trail. Notably, he addressed the issue of

29

26/07/19

Johnson’s victory speech indicated his broad goals for the country, and reiterated his campaign slogan of Deliver (Brexit), Unite (the country) and Defeat (Jeremy Corbyn) rising crime rates when he said that he aims to reverse cuts to police numbers that started since David Cameron took office back in 2010 and continued into May’s premiership. Johnson said that he aims to add 20,000 police officers to the streets of Britain by 2022. The BBC also reported that he wanted to try to alleviate the housing crisis, which has been a barrier preventing many young people from obtaining affordable homes. To do this, he said he build more affordable homes (he didn’t give further details how), would introduce fairer rent as well as bans and fines for rogue landlords. Johnson is also in favor of the previous government’s goal of reaching ‘net zero’ carbon emissions by 2050 and has pointed to his record as Mayor of London as an indication of his commitment to the environment as he introduced a number of initiatives to the capital, namely introducing electric buses, planting more trees and building new parks.

ENEMIES WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE PARTY Shortly before and after the announcement of Johnson’s premiership, a number of ministers have resigned from their positions or have announced their intention to resign. Anne Milton resigned as education minister minutes before the announcement and Sir Alan Duncan quit as Minister of State for Europe and the Americas. Senior ministers such as David Gauke (Justice Secretary), Rory Stewart (International Development Secretary) and Phillip Hammond (Chancellor of the Exchequer ), have all publicly stated that they would leave their posts in the event of Johnson becoming the new Prime Minister and three have honored there word shortly after Theresa May’s final PMQs. The ministers cited Johnson’s willingness to take the country out of the bloc with or without a deal, as the reason behind their decision. Funnily enough, his opponent in the leadership race, Jeremy Hunt, has said during the last hustings that he is willing to serve in Johnson’s cabinet. Shortly before resigning, Hunt announced that Johnson had offered him an alternative role which he turned down. While he did not specify the post he had been offered, some reports indicate that Johnson wanted to appoint him defense secretary, which would have been a downgrade from his role as foreign secretary.

Naturally, the leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn has stated that he will not be giving the new Prime Minister an easy time,

P

olitics

indicating that he is intending to table a vote of no confidence against the government, which if Johnson lost would trigger a general election. Corbyn has not said when Labor would table the motion: “We’ll decide when that will be, it’ll be an interesting surprise for all of you.” He told the BBC. Corbyn also tweeted: “Johnson's no deal Brexit would mean job cuts, higher prices in the shops, and risk our NHS being sold off to US corporations in a sweetheart deal with Donald Trump. The people of our country should decide who becomes the Prime Minister in a general election."

JOHNSON’S DIVERSE CABINET Naturally, Johnson has appointed Brexiters and loyal colleagues in his cabinet, for instance, he has appointed David Frost as his EU advisor, Frost previously worked as a special advisor to Johnson when he was the Foreign Secretary. He also appointed Mark Spencer as Chief Whip and Dominic Cummings as Senior Advisor, Cummings, of course, is best known as the Campaign Director of Vote Leave.

As for the top ministerial posts, Priti Patel was chosen to become the new Home Secretary, Patel is an outspoken Eurosceptic and campaigned for Vote Leave in the run-up to the 2016 referendum, she has also supported Johnson during the Tory leadership competition. Sajid Javid has been appointed as the new Chancellor of Exchequer, this is a somewhat strange appointment since Javid backed Remain during the referendum (though he now says that he regrets doing so and is currently a Eurosceptic) and was part of May’s cabinet, the appointment, nonetheless, fulfills Johnson’s promise that he will include more women and ethnic minorities in his cabinet. Furthermore, his experience in the banking sector does make him a qualified person for the role. Dominic Raab, former Brexit secretary who quit May’s cabinet in protest of her deal, replaces Hunt as the new foreign secretary and he has also been given the honorary role as First Secretary of State, essentially making him the de-facto deputy Prime Minister. Stephen Barclay, who replaced Raab as Brexit secretary in November 2018 will keep his ministerial post.

Johnson seems to have forgiven Michael Gove for betraying him back during the 2016 Tory leadership race (when he resigned as his campaign manager to run as leader himself), as he has appointed him as the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP for North East Somerset, was given his first ministerial position having been selected to be the new Leader of the House of Commons; Mogg has been an ardent Brexiter who has chaired the Euroskeptic Tory group known as the European Research Group (ERG) and has also been a long supporter of Boris Johnson.

It should be noted that the cabinet isn’t composed of mainly Brexiters as only 12 out of 31 members are Leavers. Ben Wallace is the new defense secretary and is the highest-ranking remain supporter in the cabinet and has previously stated that a no-deal Brexit would be a risk to public safety, he is, however, an old ally to Johnson. Remainer and former leadership candidate, Matt Hancock has been spared from Johnson’s reshuffling as he will keep his job as health secretary. While Johnson has appointed Brexiters as his top ministers, the fact that Remainers or previous Remain supporters are present in his cabinet might make it difficult for him to produce the deal he and ardent Brexiters want. If he truly is “Britain Trump”, then cabinet clashes might persuade him to choose new replacements.

European Chief Negotiator for the United Kingdom Exiting the European Union Michel Barnier arrives ahead of a European Council meeting on Brexit at The Europa Building, the European Council on April 2019 ,10 in Brussels, Belgium.

(Getty)

Britain's Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab leaves after a Cabinet meeting at 10 Downing Street in London, Thursday, July 2019 ,25.

In an interview with BBC Panorama, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, said that May’s deal is "only way to leave the EU in an orderly manner" 30

26/07/19

Who is Britain’s New ‘First Girlfriend’?

Majalla - London Carrie Symonds, who has been dating Johnson for over a year and is 25 years his junior, is a former Director of Communications for the Conservative Party, works in PR and is the daughter of Matthew Symonds, co-founder of The Independent newspaper, and one of the newspaper’s lawyers Josephine Mcaffe.

Symonds had a privileged upbringing in southwest London where she enrolled in private school Godolphin and Latymer School in Hammersmith before studying history of art and theatre studies at the University of Warwick, where she graduated with first-class honours.

The PR guru went on to work as a press officer for the Conservative Campaign Headquarters, supporting Tory names including Amber Rudd and Michael Gove. The -31year-old was a special adviser for Sajid Javid at the Department of Communities and Local Government and special adviser for John Whittingdale at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. She was promoted to Director of Communications for the Conservative Party at 29 and worked with Boris during his time as Mayor of London. PR Week magazine listed her as the UK’s second most powerful public relations professional.

She is passionate about fighting plastic pollution and is patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, which seeks to help advance farm animal welfare. During her time with the Conservative Party, Symonds worked to promote the party›s policies including the ivory ban, CCTV in slaughterhouses, increasing sentences for animal cruelty, banning of micro beads and animal sentience.

Symonds quit working for the Conservative Campaign Party when her affair with Boris, who at the time was married to the mother of his four children Marina Wheeler, came to light last year and

moved to Bloomberg to do the PR for their Vibrant Oceans programme. Johnson is still technically married to his estranged wife, barrister Marina Wheeler, whom he was with for 25 years, as their divorce proceedings are not finalised.

Symonds has since maintained a low-profile but she did however make an appearance outside No.10 Downing Street on Wednesday when Boris gave his first speech as Prime Minister. However did not join him to walk through the door as spouses usually do, making Boris the first Prime Minister to enter the No.10 for nearly half a century unaccompanied by a spouse.

Johnson and Symonds have lived together previously in Symonds’ Brunswick Park Flat. In June, police were called to their shared home after reports of a ‘screaming row’ between the couple. Neighbours

TENSIONS WITH THE EU Outgoing European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, has said that there will be no further negotiations between the EU and the UK. However, Ursula von der Leyen, the newly elected Commission President, that the EU should give the UK an extension beyond October 31, provided that the latter has good reasons making the request. She is also not in favor of a no-deal scenario as she thinks it would have negative implications for both sides, it would also have terrible consequences for Ireland.

The problem for Johnson is that if he aims to commit to the October 31 deadline, then he will have to deal with Juncker and Donald Tusk, European Council president, both of whom

31

26/07/19

reportedly heard ‘plates-smashing’ and Symonds is said to have yelled at him ‘get off me, get out’.

The couple quickly quashed rumours of a break up and friends close to Boris have described Carrie as being a steadying influence on the Prime Minister and is said to be the brains behind his visual rebrand in recent months. Carrie, who lives in Camberwell, is not expected to move into No.10 right away, but when she eventually does, she will become the first live-in girlfriend at the London residence, as all previous Prime Ministers have only been joined by their wives and husbands.

Last year, she waived her right to anonymity as a victim of rapist John Worboys, and she faught to keep the sex attacker in jail. Ms Symonds was just 19 when she was given a lift home by serial rapist Worboys in London in 2007.

will be staying in their posts until December 1. Both men have previously said that they will not reopen negotiations with the UK and that May’s deal is the final one that the EU will agree to.

In an interview with BBC Panorama, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, said that May’s deal is "only way to leave the EU in an orderly manner". He also took a jab at Johnson when he said that during negotiations, May has never threatened to leave the bloc without a deal, further stating that if the UK did so, then it would “have to face the consequences”.

While Johnson has already achieved his dream of becoming Prime Minister, he will still face leviathans both at home and abroad, needless to say becoming the leader was the easy part and the real work will only just begin.

P

olitics

Greece’s New Groove Why Athens Is No Longer Europe’s Black Sheep

by Artemis Seaford, Benjamin Haddad The past decade has been rough for Greece. After the global financial crisis of 9–2008, the country lost a quarter of its GDP and became the bête noire of Europe for nearly catalyzing the implosion of the

eurozone. Roughly four years ago, however, Greece began a quiet recovery. Under Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and his Syriza party, the economy inched back to positive growth, populist movements lost their momentum, and Greece’s relations with its allies and many of its neighbors improved. But

32

26/07/19

Tsipras’s successes, particularly in foreign policy, didn’t translate into popularity. So on July 8, Greeks woke up to news that opposition leader Kyriakos Mitsotakis and his center-right New Democracy party had defeated Tsipras in a landslide.

Yet far from a setback for the country, Mitsotakis’ victory gives Greeks more reason to be optimistic about the future. Although Tsipras helped catalyze Greece’s recovery, Mitsotakis’s sweeping electoral mandate and impressive technocratic cabinet suggest that he is in a better position than his predecessor to build on the country’s positive momentum. Much remains to be done to reform the economy and bring back foreign investors, but Greece’s new leadership is poised to turn the page on a decade that most Greeks would prefer to forget.

GETTING BETTER ALL THE TIME Greece’s economic crisis reached its nadir in 2015.

That year, the poverty rate among pensioners surged to 45 percent (and the government nearly ran out of money to pay them) while youth unemployment reached 50 percent. Tsipras, then freshly elected, threatened to reject the austerity measures that, since 2010, heavily indebted Greek governments had accepted in exchange for emergency funding from the International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank. But he ultimately relented, accepting his creditors’ conditions in the summer of 2015 and paving the way for Greece to get back on its feet.

Greece's newly elected Prime Minister and leader of conservative New Democracy party Kyriakos Mitsotakis, speaks to the press outside the party's headquarters after the official results of the elections, in Athens on July 2019 ,7. (Getty)

Today, the cuts to government wages and other public spending have finally started to pay off. Greece is beginning to tackle its enormous public debt—its primary surplus, the difference between government income and spending, now hovers around three percent, up from negative nine percent in 2013. The Greek economy is expected to grow by two percent this year, one of the highest rates in Europe. And unemployment, which reached 25 percent in 2015, has fallen to 18 percent.

Investors have taken note. Major construction projects are now underway in the Athenian Riviera, the city’s hitherto neglected waterfront. In downtown Athens, Chinese visitors are snatching up cheap real estate under a special visa program that provides residence permits to foreign investors. In northern Greece, energy and infrastructure projects, including the construction of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline, a -4.5billion-euro gas pipeline from Central Asia to western Europe, are creating jobs while enhancing Greece’s regional standing. Yields on ten-year government bonds are at

33

26/07/19

The Greek economy is expected to grow by two percent this year, one of the highest rates in Europe. And unemployment, which reached 25 percent in 2015, has fallen to 18 percent. record lows, indicating a return of market trust to the country, and the Athens Stock Exchange general index is up roughly 40 percent since the beginning of the year.

Tsipras deserves credit for planting the seeds of this economic recovery. The departing prime minister’s most important legacy, however, lies in foreign policy. Last year, Tsipras presided over the settlement of Greece’s -27year naming dispute with its northern neighbor, which, as part of a deal with Athens, agreed to change its name from Macedonia to North Macedonia. The Prespa agreement, as the deal is known, paved the way for North Macedonia’s ascension to NATO. In so doing, it helped stabilize the Balkans and led Tsipras and his North Macedonian counterpart to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. It also positioned Greece as a trusted interlocutor for the United States in the Balkans and the eastern Mediterranean.

But Tsipras’ diplomatic success came at a cost.

“Macedonia” denotes both a modern region in northern Greece and the ancient homeland of Alexander the Great, a Greek national hero. Many Greek voters, including those on the conservative right and the extreme left, not only feel a sense of historical ownership over the name but fear future territorial encroachment by North Macedonia. These voters felt betrayed by the Prespa agreement, which they saw as a sign of weakness on the part of Tsipras. This sense of betrayal, combined with general frustration over the slow pace of economic recovery and the traumatic memory of Tsipras’ mishandling of creditor negotiations in the first six months of 2015, helped lose Syriza the election.

Mitsotakis, a U.S.-educated reformer, has already unveiled an ambitious program to digitize the government, attract foreign investment, and reform

P

olitics

labor relations and education, among other priorities.

In contrast to the previous government, his cabinet includes many technocrats with significant experience in the private sector and abroad. And unlike Syriza, which had to partner with a small right-wing party in order to form a government, New Democracy commands an absolute majority, giving it more freedom to pursue reforms. New Democracy also helped edge out the extreme right-wing group Golden Dawn, which failed to obtain parliamentary representation.

MITSOTAKIS' TASK It is now up to Mitsotakis to capitalize on these positive trends. His top priorities are to loosen up the country’s rigid bureaucracy and boost its economy.

Greece remains one of the worst countries in Europe to do business, and its forbidding levels of taxation keep both investment and talent away. The first litmus test for the new government will be whether it is able to take on special interests, including entrenched oligarchs and unions, in order to liberalize the labor market, increase foreign investment, and fight corruption. Mitsotakis will also need to improve public infrastructure and reform Greece’s justice and educational systems.

Internationally, Mitsotakis needs to build on the Prespa agreement to further boost Greece’s global standing. Northern Greek businessmen are itching for better market access in the Balkans, and Athens has an opportunity to consolidate its reputation as force for stability in southern Europe. U.S.diplomats, for

Mitsotakis’ election is not only a positive sign for Greeks. It is cause for optimism about the EU as a whole, suggesting that sensible center-right forces can beat back populists of both the right and the left

instance, are increasingly turning to Greece as an alternative to Turkey to ensure peace and stability in the eastern Mediterranean. The U.S. Senate is now considering a bill, the Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act, that would enhance U.S. support for the trilateral partnership of Greece, Cyprus, and Israel around defense and energy cooperation. Having graduated from its EU bailout program in 2018, Greece now has a chance to prove that it can solve, rather than just cause, problems on the international stage.

To do so, Mitsotakis will have to keep the nationalist elements of his party in check. In recent years, New Democracy has moved right in order to protect itself from far-right parties such as Golden Dawn and the pro-Russian Greek Solution.

New Democracy has traditionally been skeptical of diversity, migration, and LGBT rights, and its

34

26/07/19

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras (R) and Macedonian Prime Minister Zoran Zaev raise their hands during a signing ceremony between officials from Greece and Macedonia at Prespes Lake on June ,17 2018. (Getty)

U.S. diplomats, for instance, are increasingly turning to Greece as an alternative to Turkey to ensure peace and stability in the eastern Mediterranean.

In fact, Greece should be showcased as an EU success story. With Brussels potentially headed for a showdown with Rome over the Italian budget this fall, Greece could offer a positive counterpoint: an EU member state that is improving its position on the continent by cooperating with Brussels on the eurozone and migration crises and, while doing so, has triumphed over populist and extremist political forces. Now, Brussels should lean on Athens to play a positive role in the western Balkans, where EU leaders have warned of growing Chinese and Russian influence. Oil and gas exploration off the shores of Greece could also provide opportunities to improve Europe’s energy independence.

fringe factions toy with nationalism, xenophobia, and racism. In the past, Mitsotakis has struggled to contain these fringe elements, but he is now showing signs of success. In a rebuke to the nationalist wing of his party, he has pledged to follow the Prespa agreement when in office, and he managed to keep extremist candidates off the New Democracy ballot in the May elections to the European Parliament.

TURNING OVER A NEW LEAF Europe should also do its part to help Greece’s recovery. Berlin and Brussels should follow Washington’s lead and recognize that Athens is no longer a problem child. Ironically, for all the talk about the crisis in transatlantic relations, the Trump administration has engaged Greece more effectively than have the Europeans.

35

26/07/19

All of these issues should be front and center at the next meeting between EU and Greek leaders.

A change in leadership—both in Greece and at the European level—provides an opportunity for a fresh start. Ursula von der Leyen, Jean-Claude Juncker’s incoming replacement as president of the European Commission, should attempt to build positive ties with Mitsotakis. One way to start would be to make Athens one of her first stops upon assuming office.

Mitsotakis’ election is not only a positive sign for Greeks. It is cause for optimism about the EU as a whole, suggesting that sensible center-right forces can beat back populists of both the right and the left. Yet as encouraging as the election was, Greece cannot rebuild itself on its own.

The country’s partners in Europe and across the West have, for the past decade, viewed Greece as a basket case. It is time for them to recognize the country’s progress and begin to create a new relationship.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

T

echnology

Malicious Apps Infect 25 Million Android Devices with “Agent Smith” Malware

How Chinese Developers are Exploiting Android’s Security Problems 36

26/07/19

The malware was able to copy popular apps on the phone, including WhatsApp and the web browser Opera, inject its own malicious code and replace the original app with the weaponized version, using a vulnerability in the way Google apps are updated.

The malware was able to copy popular apps on the phone, including WhatsApp and the web browser Opera, inject its own malicious code and replace the original app with the weaponized version, using a vulnerability in the way Google apps are updated. The hijacked apps would still work just fine, which hid the malware from users.

Armed with all the permissions users had granted to the real apps, “Agent Smith” was able to hijack other apps on the phone to display unwanted ads to users. That might not seem like a significant problem, but the same security flaws could be used to hijack banking, shopping and other sensitive apps, according to Aviran Hazum, head of Check Point’s analysis and response team for mobile devices.

Malicious apps from a campaign called "Agent Smith" have been downloaded to 25 million Android devices, according to new research by cybersecurity firm Check Point. (Dreamstime/ TNS)

by Cat Ferguson Malicious apps from a campaign called “Agent Smith” have been downloaded to 25 million Android devices, according to new research by cyber-security firm Check Point.

“Hypothetically, nothing is stopping them from targeting bank apps, changing the functionality to send your bank credentials” to a third party, Hazum said. “The user wouldn’t be able to see any difference, but the attacker could connect to your bank account remotely.”

The group also had 11 apps in the official Google Play store with a ‘dormant’ version of “Agent Smith,” which could have been triggered into action by a banner ad containing the keyword “infect.” The apps, which have been removed from the Google Play store, had been downloaded over 10 million times.

The apps, most of them games, were distributed through third-party app stores by a Chinese group with a legitimate business helping Chinese developers promote their apps on outside platforms. Check Point is not identifying the company, because they are working with local law enforcement. About 300,000 devices were It’s important for users to understand that ads infected in the U.S.

37

26/07/19

T

echnology

aren’t always just ads, according to Dustin Childs, the communications manager for cybersecurity company Trend Micro’s Zero Day Initiative, a so-called ‘bug bounty’ program that pays rewards to hackers and researchers who tip them off about software security flaws.

“We’ve seen malicious ads that can install apps when you browse to a webpage from your Android device. They could be installing ransomware, they could be copying your contacts,” he said, referring to prior research. “Ad blockers aren’t just to block ads.”

Childs recommends Android users use ad blocker software, always update their devices when prompted, and only download apps from the Google Play Store.

“The app developer can do nothing to prevent this,” said Hazum. “The fix has to come from the operating system.”

Google already fixed at least one of the Android exploits used by ‘Agent Smith,’ nicknamed Janus, in 2017 – but the fix hasn’t made its way onto every Android phone. It’s a potent reminder that millions of phones around the world are being used without the latest security measures.

“The sheer numbers infected by this campaign shows how many devices are not updated,”

Google already fixed at least one of the Android exploits used by ‘Agent Smith,’ nicknamed Janus, in 2017 – but the fix hasn’t made its way onto every Android phone. It’s a potent reminder that millions of phones around the world are being used without the latest security measures.

Hazum said. “It takes quite a lot of time for an update to reach every phone.”

A big part of the problem is how fragmented the Android ecosystem is, especially compared to the iPhone ecosystem, Childs said.

“Google is very good about releasing fixes for the vulnerabilities they know about, but getting it to all the devices is a very difficult problem.”

Whenever Google issues a new security fix, or “patch,” every device maker – such as Samsung or LG – has make sure all their own apps still work with the new system, which can take time.

Manufacturers usually stop offering security updates to phone models after a few years, or even a few months, a significant problem given how long people tend to keep smartphones.

38

26/07/19

In this photo illustration a Google logo seen displayed on a smartphone.

(Getty)

If manufacturers push out an update for the device, all the carriers – such as Verizon and AT&T – then have to authorize the update.

The final step, of course, is getting people to actually update their phones.

“People see they have an update and know it will take their phone 30 minutes to download it, apply it, and restart the device,” Hazum said. “A lot of people ignore it.”

Whether or not users have updated security on their phones, one of the biggest risks to Android devices comes from third-party app stores, which aren’t well-vetted, said Daniel Thomas, a research associate and lecturer at University of Cambridge.

Thomas was part of a research team that found

39

26/07/19

%87 of Android devices in 2015 were using out-of-date versions of the operating system.

The team’s Android Vulnerabilities program distributes data about historical and current risks for the devices.

But iPhone users shouldn’t get comfortable. Even though the Apple ecosystem is more controlled than Android, hackers have found plenty of ways to exploit devices using iOS – not to mention Apple is set to stop offering security updates to many iPhone models that are still widely used.

“In any large body of code, there will always be vulnerabilities we haven’t found yet,” Thomas said.

Originally published in The Mercury News.

R

eport

New and Noteworthy Russian Media Coverage of US-Iran Tensions

by Lyubov Podgornaya

“Washington Has Created a Stalemate”. Will Iran Build a Nuclear Bomb?

This article was published on July 2019 ,09 in Argumenty i Fakty, a government-owned Russian newspaper.

On July 7, Iran declared that it would produce enriched uranium beyond the limits set in the “nuclear deal” (a joint comprehensive plan of action approved in 2015 by six countries participating in the negotiations on Iran's nuclear problem: Russia, USA, China, Great Britain, France and Germany). This was announced at a special press conference by the official representative of the government, Ali Rabiyi. Prior to this decision, the Iranians could not exceed the threshold of %3.67. Now they will enrich uranium "to the required level.”

Earlier Teheran declared that it would not comply with the article of the agreement prescribing the maximum volume of enriched uranium. Iran began withdrawing from the terms of the nuclear deal after the US declared its withdrawal from the agreement back in May 2018. Europe is interested in preserving the status quo. In particular,

the French President Emmanuel Macron had a phone conversation with the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. They agreed to “explore the possibilities of resuming the dialogue”.

40

26/07/19

However, at the same time, France threatened Tehran with renewed sanctions if it completely withdrew from the deal. The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed that the

US would impose new sanctions on Iran.

These events took place against a backdrop of attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf. The US accuses Iran of being behind these attacks and the Americans are building up a military force in the region. Will there be a new war in the Middle East? We met with an expert from the Russian council for International Affairs Nikita Smagin.

to escalate. Pompeo has already announced the possibility of new sanctions. Iranian’s volleyball team has been detained in the US – it could also be a method of response. They may send more troops to the region to increase military pressure. Especially now that they have a reason: the attacks on oil tankers.

But the main thing that American diplomats are going to do now is convince their European colleagues Iran has already withdrawn from two that Iran is breaching the terms of the articles of the nuclear deal. How close nuclear deal. By all means they are does this bring Iran to the creation of trying to turn public opinion against Iran and blame Iran for breaching the nuclear weapons? agreement although in reality Iran Nikita Smagin: On July 8, Iran waited a year after USA’s withdrawal declared its intention to increase its from the nuclear deal. uranium enrichment up to %4.5. This is In past months the situation in Gulf has not enough for the creation of nuclear escalated. The US accused Tehran if weapons. Iran has to undertake many attacking the oil tankers and Iran shot more steps in order to be able to create down a US drone. Could this be the start of a war? nuclear weapons in theory.

No one wants this war, it does not Europe has supported the nuclear deal. benefit anyone. It will be destructive for Now we hear threats from France Iran. For Trump it could hit his rating to renew sanctions. Is Iran afraid of in the upcoming elections hard as he European sanctions in addition to the had promised to withdraw US troops from the Middle East. The main result American ones? we can observe is that the nuclear deal European sanctions are already in is falling apart. This means that Iran place. Global companies fear American may renew its nuclear program and pressure and do not deal with Iran. progress in creating nuclear weapons, People are not investing and in Iran i.e., there will be a threat of a nuclear and oil exports decreased 1980s levels non-proliferation regime. (which was the historical minimum). President Trump wants Iran to stop Iran’s economy is deteriorating. Prices spreading its influence in Middle East; are rising and the inflation is high. Iran he wants Iran to leave Syria, Yemen realises that if it doesn’t take action, and Iraq. Criticism of the nuclear deal the situation will only get worse. was a pretext for Trump to renew The nuclear deal virtually provides sanctions. The White House is ready Iran with nothing except for political to start negotiations only after Iranians authority. So in effect Iran has nothing make concessions in the region. It is clear that such a scenario is not to lose. acceptable for Teheran.

What could the US respond if Iran Can anyone influence America’s continues to withdraw from the deal? position?

The situation will most likely continue The whole situation showed that the

41

26/07/19

position of the White House was the key to maintaining the deal. Without the US, this agreement cannot exist.

Despite all the promises by the Europeans, they were unable to protect Iran from Washington’s renewed sanctions.

Will There Be a New Big War in the Middle East?

This article was published on May 2019 ,15 in Argumenty i Fakty, a government-owned Russian newspaper.

The Pentagon may send 120 thousands soldiers to Middle East if Iran accelerates its nuclear program or attacks American military personnel.

The relevant initiative is included in the new plan to contain Iran, developed by acting US Minister for Defense Patrick Shanahan , reported The New York Times. President Donald Trump denied this news and called it “fake”.

However, a week earlier, National Security Advisor John Bolton officially announced an increase in American troops in the region.

On May 12, four oil tankers caught on fire in Fujairah (UAE). There were several powerful explosions in the port.

Luckily there were no casualties but the ships were heavily damaged. The same day the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of UAE reported announced that this was a sabotage attack.

In the US, the attacks were immediately linked destabilising forces “sympathising with or working for Iran”. Iran denied its connection with the attacks. The Iranian foreign ministry called the attacks an act of vandalism and warned that these acts can be used to undermine peace and security in the region.

Saudi TV channel AlArabiya, which is

R

eport House to make Iran feel nervous.”

Donald Trump is not going into the war with Iran because it is too expensive and the results are unpredictable, the expert said. “The memory of the Iraq war is still fresh in the US, which came at a high cost but brought new problems. Iran is a bigger country than Iraq and the Iranian army is stronger.

Military action is also more difficult because there are many mountains in Iran while and Iraq is a desert plain.”

However, if the US builds its presence in the region some provocations are possible which may result in a confrontation between American and Iranian troops. Oil tanker attacks could possibly be an example of such provocations, the expert believes.

“It is hard to tell now what exactly happened and who was behind the attacks. There are many forces in the region that would be interested in a conflict between the US and Iran.

In Iran there are forces such as the Revolutionary Guard Corps that are against the nuclear deal with the USA and would support the heightening of tensions.”

taking an anti-Iranian position, published comments by several Iranian journalists associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. They called the attacks “a retaliation” and wrote that they were organised by “sons of resistance”.

Who benefits from this situation?

Despite the fact the US is trying to strengthen its military presence in Middle East, in the current situation Donald Trump clearly does not want to

attack Iran, says Nikita Smagin, expert from the Council for International Affairs of Russian Federation. “Trump is not going to start a war. However, he is trying to increase the pressure on Iran by demonstrating the military strength of America. Nevertheless, the news that he will send 000 120 military personnel to the region is most likely fake. This would be very costly to maintain and Trump campaigned to reduce the US military presence in the Middle East. It is Lilley that this information was put out by the White

42

26/07/19

The government of Iran does not benefit from tension in the region. ”Tehran wants to wait until the end of the Trump’s term as they believe that any negotiations with him are meaningless”. The current US leader demands that Iran surrenders completely on all issues, but promises nothing in return. If Trump gets elected for the new term it may cause serious advances in Iran’s foreign policy, including a complete withdrawal by Iran from the nuclear deal,” the expert says.

Who is Behind the Attacks on the Oil Tankers?

This article was published on June 2019 ,14 in Argumenty i Fakty, a government-owned Russian newspaper.

There were four attacks on merchant ships in the Gulf of Oman over a period of a month. It is unknown who is behind the attacks in the region through which %40 of the world’s oil is transported.

The US blamed Iran for those attacks but there was no evidence presented.

The special report by the United Nations stated that divers could have delivered explosives:“This proves that attacks were part of a sophisticated and well coordinated operation”. The United Nations believe that attacks were planned by some state actors but the report does not name any one particular country. The price of oil increased immediately after the attacks – the price of Brent Crude increased by %4.5 up to 62$ per barrel.

Why does the US blame Iran for attacks?

Immediately after the attacks the deputy head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sergey Ryabkov warned the global community against hasty conclusions and attempts to impose responsibility “on those who are not pleased with a number of states.” “Er have recently witnessed an intensifying campaign of political, physiological and military pressure on Iran. We would bot like the recent tragic events to be speculatively used to further exasperate the situation in an anti-Iranian context,” said the Russian diplomat.

The warnings from the Russian MinForeign Ministry had some grounds. Straight after the attacks, the US Secretary of the State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran. Let us remind you that

relations between Washington and Tehran became tense after the White House pulled out of the “nuclear deal”.

Now the US has renewed sanctions against Iran including sanctions on Iranian oil. Iran strongly rejected the accusations. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif connected the attacks with the negotiation of the Supreme Leader of Iran Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei with Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe. Iranians announced that they are ready to cooperate to ensure the safety of maritime trade routes.

On June 14, a video was published in the United States, allegedly proving Iran’s involvement in the attack.

It shows several people, who the Pentagon call the Iranian military, removing the unused mine from the tanker Kokuka Koreyzhes. It is unclear why this video proves the involvement

43

26/07/19

of Tehran in the incident.

“The situation is very similar to chemical attacks in Syria”.

“The position of the US under Trump is consistently anti-Iranian,” says Nikita Smagin, an expert from the Russian Council for International Affairs. “It is not surprising that the US tries to use every reason to escalate the pressure on Tehran. The situation is similar to the chemical weapons situation in Syria - when something happened there, Western countries, first of all - the United States, would say in advance that Assad was to blame, although it was obvious that they could not know for sure. This is an opportunity to blame Iran for everything, to show that it is an inadequate country that is a threat to security in the region.”

A Weekly Political News Magazine

2

Issue 1758- july - 26/07/2019

Saudi-Directed Fantasy Film to Premier at Venice Film Festival www.majalla.com

H

ealth

Getting in on the Kettlebell Craze

Add More Oomph to Your Workout Harvard Health Move over, dumbbells; kettlebells are cool again.

The little weights with handles have been used by athletes around the world for centuries and gained popularity as the staples of 19th-century strongmen.

Today, kettlebells have made it to the mainstream as the featured tools in exercise classes and gyms, with home versions of kettlebells available on the shelves of every big-box store.

What’s the attraction? “Kettlebells work multiple muscle groups at one time, so you get a lot of bang for your buck with each exercise,” says Nancy Capparelli, a senior physical therapist at Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

HOW THEY HELP Kettlebells are heavy: the smallest is about 8 pounds,

46

26/0719

but available weights go up to 105 pounds at the competition level, Capparelli says. And they have many benefits. Holding a lot of weight by a handle engages your arm, leg, shoulder, back, and abdominal muscles. The pull on your muscles helps to strengthen them. The pull on your bones helps stimulate new bone cell growth.

Using kettlebells can improve your posture. “With the weight in front of you, your back muscles have to straighten up more to counteract the force of the kettlebell pulling you forward,” Capparelli explains.

Swinging a kettlebell also challenges your balance and helps to improve it.

“Kettlebells work multiple muscle groups at one time, so you get a lot of bang for your buck with each exercise,” you pick one up and can’t control it or feel like you’re losing your balance, or if you experience pain in your shoulder, low back, or leg.

KETTLEBELL RISKS

Move of the month: kettlebell swing

Along with benefits, kettlebells have numerous risks.

One is obvious: dropping the weight on your foot.

But lifting too much too soon or lifting a kettlebell the wrong way can lead to muscle strains, rotator cuff tears, and falls.

Movement: Hold a kettlebell with both hands, arms extended down in front of you so the kettlebell hangs between your legs. Lean forward, shift your weight onto your heels, and swing the kettlebell back between your legs. Then stand up as you swing the kettlebell forward to chest height. Repeat 10 times.

If you have the bone-thinning disease osteoporosis or its precursor state osteopenia, lifting a heavy kettlebell may increase your risk for fractures, caution some experts. If you’re at high risk for falling, as is the case for many older adults, using a kettlebell can add to your fall risk.

SHOULD YOU TRY IT? Capparelli says using kettlebells should be safe for healthy older adults, with some stipulations: • Get your doctor’s okay first.

• Use the appropriate weight. “It depends on the person. Someone who’s five feet tall and 90 pounds will typically use a lighter kettlebell than someone who’s six feet tall and 200 pounds,” Capparelli says.

• Learn the proper form from a trainer or physical therapist, or take a kettlebell class, before trying the exercises on your own. “You need to know exactly what to do with the kettlebell and which exercises are appropriate. Otherwise you’ll increase your risk for injury, even with a lighter kettlebell,” Capparelli warns.

It helps to use a kettlebell with a handle wide enough to grip with two hands. Another tip: wear weight-lifting gloves, since the kettlebell handle can get slippery.

But you may want to stay away from kettlebells if

47

26/0719

STATRTER EXERCISES If you’re cleared for kettlebell use, you’ll be guided through simple but challenging exercises, such as these: The farmer’s walk. Pick up one kettlebell on each side, pinch your shoulders down and back, and walk a distance of 20 feet (across a gym) four times.

The suitcase carry . Pick up a kettlebell with one hand (like you’re carrying a suitcase) and walk a distance of 20 feet (across a gym) four times. Don’t lean to the side. Repeat the exercise while carrying the kettlebell on the other side.

The goblet carry . “Pick up the kettlebell with two hands and hold it in front of you as if you’re taking a sip from it,” Capparelli says. “Then walk 20 feet back and forth a few times. That works your arm muscles, shoulders, biceps, and upper back muscles.”

The kettlebell swing . Hold the kettlebell with two hands and swing it back and forth between your legs (see “Move of the month”).

You’ll find kettlebell classes at your local gym or YMCA and kettlebell videos tailored to older adults.

For more information, see the Kettlebell Workout in the Harvard Special Health Report Strength and Power Training for All Ages.

Po

rt

ra

it

Ursula von der Leyen: Merkel Loyalist, Mother of Seven and European Commission Head Majalla - London Born in 1958, Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen spent the first 13 years of her life in Brussels, where her father Ernest Alberchy was one of the first European civil servants from the establishment of the European Commission in 1958. She was raised in Christian household that adhered to the traditional model of the West German nuclear family and her father’s career enabled von der Leyen to have an international bringing. In 1986, she married physician Heiko von der Leyen, a member of the von der Leyen family that made a fortune as silk merchants who she met at a university choir in Göttingen. The mum-ofseven children studied medicine and trained as a gynaecologist before entering politics.

Von der Leyen joined the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in 1990, the same day her father stepped down from his job as state premier, and in 1996 she became involved in the politics of Lower Saxony – the federal state her father had governed (90-1976). She held a series of local and state offices prior to her election in 2004 as a member of the CDU’s leadership committee.

After the CDU won the federal elections in 2005, von der Leyen was appointed in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s first cabinet and became a close ally of Merkel. She is

the only minister to have served in all of her governments continuously and many had believed that Merkel was preparing von der Leyen to become her successor.

Before becoming the first woman to take over the defence portfolio in 2013, she was labour and social affairs minister, and before that, families minister. In those roles she supported quotas for women on company boards and beefed up parental leave for fathers. She stood by Merkel during the refugee crisis.

As defense minister - a job which is viewed as a graveyard for ambitious politicians because of the German public’s wariness of foreign deployment and resistance to military spending - von der Leyen faced many challenges. She is seen as a staunch integrationist, backing closer military cooperation in the EU and highlighting earlier this year the "potential Europe has to unify and to promote peace”. She has also argued for Germany to boost its military involvement in NATO. In recent years, a litany of stories have exposed inadequacies in Germany's armed forces, from inoperable submarines and aircraft to shortages of personnel. Von der Leyen was last year questioned as part of an investigation into spending irregularities.

Her department was accused of awards questionable private contracts to consultants that were said to be worth millions of euros.

48

19/07/19

On July 2019 ,16, von der Leyen was elected as the European Commission’s first female president by a narrow margin of just nine votes. After being elected she called for a “united and strong Europe that is ready to fight for the future”. In her bid to win over MEPs she made some big pledges. She said that the EU should beef up its role in tackling poverty and social issues, and said that she wanted the parliament to be able to draft its own laws – something only the Commission can currently do. She has promised to boost the number of staff on the EU’s borders by 10,000 by 2024. The new commissioner has also said she wants Europe to be the first "climate-neutral continent" in the world, proposing a new "green deal" to make the EU carbon neutral by 2050. Von der Leyen also spoken on gender equality, and said that she would propose to add violence against women to the list of EU crimes. Her stance on Brexit is expected to be more of the same, although she has said she’s open to an extension to the Brexit deadline – but the decision won’t be hers as she will be assuming her position on November 1, one day after the UK is due to withdraw from the EU. But her most important job will be in the transition period that follow’s the UK’s departure in which she will play a key role in negotiating the EU’s future relationship with the UK, including a new trade deal.

B

ook Reviews

A World Safe for Capital How Neoliberalism Shaped the International System

by Stephen Wertheim Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism.

Quinn Slobodian. Harvard University Press, 400 .2018pp. The historian Quinn Slobodian has written a book that is likely to upset enthusiasts of the “liberal world order.” In Globalists, he tells the story of how a small set of intellectuals in central Europe laid the foundations of institutions such as the European Union and the World Trade Organization (WTO), commonly held up today as bulwarks of liberal democracy. Slobodian reveals that these thinkers, who called themselves “neoliberals,” sought to do more than counter fascism and communism, as the conventional

wisdom holds. They also wanted to suppress the power of democratic publics. Ordinary people, organized as citizens and workers, posed a grave threat to the neoliberals’ supreme goal: a global economy integrated by the flow of capital.

The main characters in this tale are the intellectuals who orbited the famous economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises in the years after World War I. Slobodian dubs this group “the Geneva School” because, between the world wars, they gathered in the Swiss city in order to formulate their project.

Hayek and Mises, who both hailed from Austria-Hungary, are more commonly known as the foremost exponents of “Austrian economics,” a school of thought that prizes the freedom of

50

26/07/19

John Maynard Keynes addressing the Bretton Woods conference on Post War reconstruction and economic order 1944.

(Getty)

markets from state intervention. Slobodian shows how the two thinkers led a network of politically influential economists in Vienna but also places them in the context of a continent-wide and, eventually, transatlantic movement, incubated in Geneva’s League of Nations. As the Depression struck, the league became the place where experts decided that “the world problem,” as a group of experts convened by the league put it in 1931, “should be studied on a world basis.” Hayek, Mises, and their acolytes constructed models and assembled statistics to represent the new entity called “the world economy.” By 1938, some members of the cohort began to describe themselves as neoliberals, seeing their mission as adapting liberalism so that it could survive the inhospitable environs of the twentieth century.

The Geneva neoliberals, Slobodian shows, were seized with a persistent problem: how to insulate property rights from mass democracy. This problem was evident from the moment Europe descended into war in 1914, and it only intensified as empires collapsed and nation-states proliferated. Each new nation-state meant a new claim of popular sovereignty, empowering the many to expropriate the property of the few. And each new nation-state erected a new set of borders, impeding the movement of capital, goods, and labor. Where political nationalism began, it seemed, economic nationalism was never far behind. “‘The mines for the miners’ and ‘Papua for the Papuans’ are analytically similar slogans,” the British economist Lionel Robbins observed, unhappily, in 1937. With the forces of history arrayed against them, the Geneva neoliberals devised a solution. It was not enough to let markets work their magic, since democratic publics had begun to sour on laissez-faire capitalism. So in addition to unfettering markets, the neoliberals sought to design institutions that would shelter property from the grasping hands of the mobilized masses and newly formed states. “Laissez-faire— yes,” the German neoliberal economist Wilhelm Röpke wrote in 1942, “but within a framework laid down by a permanent and clear-sighted market police.”

How, though, to create a police force that would protect and serve international capital rather than national economies?

Here Slobodian makes a groundbreaking contribution. Unlike standard accounts, which cast neoliberals as champions of markets against governments and states, Slobodian argues that neoliberals embraced governance—chiefly at the global level.

By going above national borders, they neutralized politics within those borders, so that democratic governments could not obstruct the security and mobility of property. Gradually, despite encountering resistance at every turn, they helped build a world order guided by the principle of “capital first.” For Slobodian, their success casts a disturbing light on many of the international rules and institutions that make up today’s global order—but also shows how different people, with a different program, could change them.

POWERS TO SAY NO Although the thinkers influenced by Hayek and Mises are the

51

26/07/19

Unlike standard accounts, which cast neoliberals as champions of markets against governments and states, Slobodian argues that neoliberals embraced governance - chiefly at the global level. main characters in Slobodian’s story, two more familiar figures lurk in the background: Vladimir Lenin and Woodrow Wilson.

The Bolshevik revolutionary and the American president represented, in the eyes of the Geneva School neoliberals, the two main threats to capital: labor militancy (Lenin) and the principle of national self-determination, at least for white people (Wilson). In World War I, those two forces brought down the Habsburg empire of Hayek’s and Mises’ youth, a catastrophe that unmade their world. Habsburg rule had created an economic unity out of multiple nationalities and nested sovereignties. For Mises, born to Jewish parents in present-day Lviv, Ukraine, the empire’s cosmopolitan harmony was bound up with the way it integrated the economies of its constituent communities. Now the war unleashed egoisms of all kinds. As Mises complained in 1927, “Even countries with only a few million inhabitants, like Hungary and Czechoslovakia, are attempting, by means of a high tariff policy and prohibitions on imports, to make themselves independent of the rest of the world.”

During the 1920s, the neoliberals made their mark by carrying out cutting-edge research into business cycles. Working for associations such as the Vienna Chamber of Commerce, they focused on how economies function, seeking to make economic activity visible through indexes and charts. Gottfried Haberler, a Mises protégé, convened study groups at the League of Nations that attempted to demonstrate how business cycles in one country depended on those in every other. But as the Great Depression pushed more economists to follow the lead of John Maynard Keynes and develop models of the national economy (all the better to plan it), the Geneva School economists had a change of heart. They began to argue that economic activity was not so quantifiable and perceptible after all but actually “sublime and ineffable,” Slobodian writes. Retreating from statistics and graphs, the neoliberals took up a different task: to establish frameworks under which capital, goods, and services (people came a distant fourth) could traverse the globe, with property owners assured of maintaining their rights.

In order to combat national economic planning, they turned to global institutional design. By the eve of World War II, the

B

ook Reviews

neoliberals had set out to re-create something like the Habsburg model and project it onto as vast an area as possible. It was this reactionary impulse—to undo the disintegration of imperial orders—that distinguished the neoliberals from classical liberals, such as John Stuart Mill, who imagined that the world would march toward a future of ever-closer integration. Classical liberals put their faith in historical progress; neoliberals, ironically, hoped to recover a past idyll. But they were innovative all the same. Perhaps they could even improve on the Habsburg legacy. Whereas the empire had demanded the allegiance of its subjects, flying flags that could be saluted but also torn down, Hayek theorized a system of rules without politics. What remained invisible would not inspire loyalty, yet neither would it provoke resistance.

Events, however, failed to cooperate. World War II delivered victories for communism in Eastern Europe and social democracy in the West, set off a wave of decolonization in Asia, and produced the Bretton Woods system of capital controls. Out of desperation, the neoliberals thought big. They dreamed up schemes for strong supranational federations imbued with what Hayek called “powers to say no” to states tempted to impede the circulation of money and downgrade the influence of foreign investors and bondholders.

To be sure, the neoliberals hardly favored a world government; that would merely magnify the problems they saw at the state level. Rather, they sought a patchwork of rules-based institutions that would constrict nation-states without being accountable to any public. In the neoliberal vision, Slobodian writes, ordinary people would experience the economy as they did the weather, as a sphere “outside of direct human control.”

By the late 1940s, this approach had yielded some gains.

Globalists is intellectual history at its best. By reconstructing how neoliberals themselves conceived of their project over time, Slobodian convincingly rebuts the prevailing view, taken by exponents and critics alike, that neoliberalism merely seeks to free markets from the shackles of the state.

The neoliberals, led by the Polish American economist Michael Angelo Heilperin, rallied international business representatives to block the International Trade Organization proposed by the new UN Economic and Social Council.

The organization’s charter, the economist warned the businesspeople, was a “dangerous document”: it enshrined the national protection of infant industries through tariffs, and it operated on a one-nation, one-vote principle, unlike the hierarchical International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Heilperin advised Lee Bristol, the president of the pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers, to lobby Congress to kill the charter, and by 1950, the International Trade Organization was dead.

In its place, the neoliberals cheered on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which 23 countries signed in Geneva in 1947.

The GATT required states to reduce tariffs and other barriers to trade and locked in those reductions through its “most favored nation” principle, which limits the extent to which countries can treat their trading partners differently. The neoliberals didn’t have much direct influence on the GATT, Slobodian concedes.

But they saw in it a basis for the future.

52

26/07/19

The 16th Plenary Assembly of the founding conference of the United Nations at the Opera House of San Francisco, 1945.

(Getty)

THE NEOLIBERAL TRIUMPH In the 1950s, the neoliberals began to win big, starting in their home continent. In the United States, President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal had sought to protect four freedoms: the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom to worship in one’s own way, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear. The European Union, which began to take shape in the late 1940s and 1950s, sought to secure four rather different freedoms: the freedom of capital, goods, services, and labor.

These freedoms would be achieved by setting economic rulemaking above the authority of formally sovereign member states.

At first, the Geneva neoliberals were divided over the Treaty of Rome, which established Europe’s common market in 1957.

Slobodian shows how older neoliberals initially resisted “bloc Europe” because it hoisted protective barriers against most of the outside world. Haberler issued a report under the auspices of the GATT that blasted European integration for discriminating against others, and he won support from 15 states in the global South.

But younger, more pragmatic neoliberals thought differently.

53

26/07/19

From inside the West German economics ministry, ErnstJoachim Mestmäcker worked to make sure the European common market would eliminate the power of nation-states to impinge on trade. In the incipient European Union, he saw a model of multi-layered governance and a concrete step toward the reign of capital across the globe. Neoliberals such as Mestmäcker valued the EU precisely for what critics would later dub its “democratic deficit.” Anonymous technocrats would implement rules from above; below, states would keep order and pursue agendas that would not reduce the EU's prerogatives.

In the 1960s, Mestmäcker, citing Hayek, supported the European Court of Justice as it established the supremacy of European over national law. The neoliberals had made an ironic discovery: the best way to integrate global capital was to keep political integration perpetually partial. In this way, nation-states would lack the authority to deviate from the preordained rules, and international political organizations would lack the will to do so.

A highlight of Globalists is the attention it lavishes on neoliberals’ encounter with the developing world. Slobodian gives the North-South axis priority over the East-West divisions of the Cold War—as some neoliberals did themselves. One of the reasons the EU initially troubled older neoliberals was that it let some of postcolonial Africa into its magic circle, bestowing on former European colonies access to the common market and a development fund. Haberler, among others, preferred to consign the entire global South to what he saw as its proper role in the global division of labor: producing basic commodities. In 1979, Haberler, by then the first resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, professed to be alarmed less by communism and Western protectionism than by demands from leaders in the Third World. A group of 77 states, rallying at the UN, was calling for the creation of a “new international economic order.” Having achieved independence from their former colonial masters, these states were now embracing everything that the neoliberals opposed: rapid industrialization, national sovereignty over natural resources, regulation of multinational corporations, and redistributive justice on a global scale. The Group of 77 failed to achieve its vision, due to conflicts among its members and creative diplomacy by wealthy countries. But its specter spurred the neoliberals to regroup and press for a new international economic order along the lines they preferred.

In the 1980s, neoliberals devised new ways to contain economic nationalism. Disciples of Hayek, such as Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Frieder Roessler, and Jan Tumlir, sought to expand and institutionalize the GATT into a kind of European Union for the world. In the legalistic EU, crowned by the European Court of Justice, they saw a model for how to force countries to respect and carry out decisions made by a supranational entity that lacked an army. They scored a victory in 1995 with the establishment of the WTO, whose Dispute Settlement Body and Appellate Body adjudicate not only the “at the border” issues once covered by the GATT but also services, intellectual property, and a range of standards that intrude “beyond the border.” Although Slobodian says little about the negotiations that directly produced the WTO, he shows the deep debt paid to

B

ook Reviews

Hayek by influential theorists such as Petersmann, a pioneer of the field of international economic law.

In Slobodian’s telling, neoliberalism finally triumphed in the 1980s and 1990s with the creation of the WTO, as well as the proliferation of agreements that protected the rights of foreign investors and the tightening of “structural adjustment” criteria for International Monetary Fund and World Bank assistance to developing countries. On these issues, Slobodian’s Geneva School of early neoliberals converged with Anglo-American groups and figures to whom the term “neoliberal” is more conventionally applied: the Chicago School of the economist Milton Friedman, the Virginia School of the economist James Buchanan, and the thinkers and policymakers behind the political revolutions of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

By the turn of the century, as Slobodian writes, the rules and institutions pushed for by the neoliberals meant that countries in the global South, although formally independent, would find it nearly impossible to overcome their “subjection to the forces of the world market.” The point applies to rich countries as well.

Despite his sweeping story, Slobodian avoids the reductive approach of some leftist critiques that depict neoliberal ascendance as a shadowy menace pervading every nook and cranny of human society. In fact, he highlights how neoliberalism’s victories have consistently generated backlashes.

The WTO appeared to realize the neoliberals’ quest to protect global capitalism against pressures from below. Yet in 1999, just four years after the organization came into being, its annual meeting was shut down by massive protests in Seattle—the very kind of democratic resistance that the neoliberal project was supposed to discourage. The act of creating a formal body such as the WTO had rendered all too obvious just how little power publics exercised in crucial economic decision-making. The

To be sure, the neoliberals hardly favored a world government; that would merely magnify the problems they saw at the state level. Rather, they sought a patchwork of rulesbased institutions that would constrict nation-states without being accountable to any public.

WTO ignored Hayek’s warning that the global economy should always remain invisible and anonymous, so as not to draw the gaze of the masses.

A WAY OUT? Globalists is intellectual history at its best. By reconstructing how neoliberals themselves conceived of their project over time, Slobodian convincingly rebuts the prevailing view, taken by exponents and critics alike, that neoliberalism merely seeks to free markets from the shackles of the state. In reality, neoliberals clearly wish to harness state power in circumscribed ways. Slobodian reveals, for example, that Mises welcomed the Austrian state’s deadly repression of a general strike in 1927. “Friday’s putsch has cleansed the atmosphere like a thunderstorm,” Mises wrote to a friend. Five decades later, Hayek paid a visit to the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and expressed his preference for “a liberal dictator to a democratic government lacking liberalism”; neoliberal Chilean economists who had been trained at the University of Chicago also helped the Pinochet regime use the tools of authoritarian power to enact market reforms. Slobodian puts these episodes in context. He establishes that, all along, neoliberals have targeted the collective power of citizens more profoundly than they have targeted the coercive apparatus of states. Their goal, Slobodian concludes, has been “not to liberate markets but to encase them”: to shelter global capitalism from a hostile world.

A weakness of Slobodian’s book follows from its strength.

Hewing closely to the ideas of his protagonists, Slobodian struggles to demonstrate exactly how they influenced particular international rules and institutions. Readers may wonder just how

54

26/07/19

August 1949 ,9. The British delegation including Ernest BEVIN (center)of the Labor party, Britain's foreign affairs minister, at Strasbourg's City Hall during the first session of the consultative assembly of the Council of Europe. (Getty)

strong a connection exists between the intellectuals he profiles and the developments he credits them with shaping. Moreover, because he focuses on one source of inspiration for international bodies, some may read into Globalists an attack on global governance as a whole. In The American Historical Review, for example, the historian Jennifer Burns complained that Slobodian tars the entire international order as a neoliberal plot. “By not weaving in the voices of contrasting intellectuals or narrating the founding moments of the most important supranational institutions,” she writes, “Slobodian conveys a misleading picture of why so many policymakers and

elites embraced global institutions in the twentieth century.” This is a weighty charge, especially coming at a time when existing institutions are under assault by nationalists from the left and the right. Does Slobodian support their cause by impugning the very project of global governance as a handmaiden of capital?

Not quite. In fact, Slobodian’s story reveals the limits of the neoliberals’ power as much as their strength. As he shows, the

55

26/07/19

neoliberals were on the defensive for most of the twentieth century. It was their adversaries who controlled the most powerful countries and set up the UN, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank to secure social welfare around the world. The neoliberals constantly battled against, around, and within these institutions. Only after the 1970s did the neoliberals ascend and remake the global order—and only partially, never completely. For opponents of neoliberalism today, the lesson to draw is hardly to exalt the nation above the globe. It’s just the opposite: to take the fight to the international level and either win power in existing institutions or establish new ones. The neoliberals did so at the end of the twentieth century, and social democrats and socialists could do the same in the twenty-first.

At the same time, Slobodian’s account makes clear the difficulty of bringing popular power to bear at the international level. The neoliberals triumphed for a reason: by the 1970s, global governance had become an elite preserve, where well-placed intellectuals could mount a takeover. Although Slobodian doesn’t say so, whatever potential existed for mass mobilization on the international level was probably snuffed out when the leaders who designed the international institutions confined participation in them to the executives of national governments rather than representatives chosen by parliaments or elected directly by publics. The latter possibilities were entertained during and shortly after World War I, when a number of citizens’ groups advocated European or worldwide bodies that would be subject to democratic control. But the architects of the League of Nations and the UN chose to empower heads of governments, such as themselves.

Requiring national leaders to represent their entire publics to the world, international institutions offered little opportunity for publics to take responsibility for international affairs and form allegiances across national borders. There was never a chance that mobilized publics would ever get a hearing in the halls of the United Nations, much less the WTO. In this sense, the neoliberal globalists owe an ironic debt to their nationalist rivals for containing mass democracy.

Many advocates of international cooperation today make a grave mistake when they lump all norms, laws, and institutions together into a single “liberal world order” that must be defended, all or nothing. Their populist and nationalist opponents make the same error in seeking to tear down “globalism.” What Slobodian’s history shows is that the contemporary order emerged from contestation and struggle, that it has changed profoundly over time, and that at the very least its origins are more complex than those usually presented by its defenders and its detractors. The meaningful question has never been whether to have world order or not; it is what the terms will be and who will set them. In 2019, that question remains open ended, much as it was in 1919. The only certainty is that those who retreat within the nation do so at their peril.

This article was originally published in the May/June 2019 issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine and on ForeignAffairs.com.

C

ulture

Saudi-Directed Fantasy Film to Premier at Venice Film Festival The Story is an “Artistic Comment” on Patriarchal Societies Set in a Mythical Arabian Past

by Zara Shaker

Film Festival.

Scales is set in a mythical Arabian past and tells the In a milestone for Arab cinema, a UAE-made, story of Hayat, a 13 year old girl mermaid living in a Saudi-directed magical realist film is set to have poor fishing village that believes in sacrificing their its world-wide premier at the Venice Film Festival daughters to mysterious sea-dwelling creatures in next month as part of the Venice Critics’ Week nearby waters. When her time comes, she shuns competition, paving the way for Arab representation and fights back against tradition but is labelled as a curse by everyone around her. The Image Nation in mainstream cinema.

The film named Scales or Sayidat Al Bahr was Abu Dhabi-produced film was shot entirely in written and directed by Shahad Ameen who is best Oman and stars Basima Hajjar, Ashraf Barhom, known for her short film Eye & Mermaid which Yagoub Alfarhan and Fatima Al Taei in lead roles. premiered at the Dubai Film Festival in 2013 and The film explores the contradictions between was nominated for Best Short Film at the Stockholm belonging and freedom, and between tradition and revolution, while attempting to reconcile those conflicts. Ameen described the story which focuses on the ever evolving role of women in society as an “artistic comment” on patriarchal societies.

“Scales’ tells a visceral story about growing up as a woman in a patriarchal society, offering an allegorical take on a universal theme that will resonate with audiences around the world,” she said in a released statement. “Relying on simple yet powerful storytelling, it is a very visual experience with minimal dialogue – maintaining a timeless, meditative aspect even in its action scenes. I want to immerse viewers in Hayat’s journey from her own point of view, letting them share in her experience

Scales is set in a mythical Arabian past and tells the story of Hayat, a 13 year old girl mermaid living in a poor fishing village that believes in sacrificing their daughters to mysterious sea-dwelling creatures in nearby waters.

56

26/07/19

Ameen described the story which focuses on the ever evolving role of women in society as an “artistic comment” on patriarchal societies.

as she finds her true self.”

Ameen was born and raised in Jeddah. She obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Video Production and Film Studies from the University of West London, and also holds a degree in Screenwriting. Her films include Our Own Musical and Leila’s Window (2011), which was screened at the Gulf Film Festival and was named Best Film at the Saudi Film Festival.

Ben Ross, chief content officer at Image Nation said in a statement, “This nuanced, artistic project embraces film’s power to address important

Scales, which will premiere at Venice Film Festival. (Courtesy Image Nation Abu Dhabi)

57

26/07/19

subjects like freedom and belonging,” “Scales is part of Image Nation’s efforts to expand our slate to encompass more intriguing, specialty films alongside our more commercial projects. We foresee that Scales will be well-received on the festival circuit. This is a film that brings profound insights into contemporary culture. We hope that it will bring further recognition of the region’s growing maturity and sophistication.”

The Lebanese feature All This Victory is also set to screen and compete at the 76th edition of the Venice International Film Festival. Directed by Ahmad Ghosein, the drama is set in 2006 during the war between Hezbollah and Israel. A coproduction between Lebanon, France and Germany, the film tells the story of Marwan, a son that goes in search of his father who refused to leave his village during the war. In 2018, the film won the Eastern Promises Works in Progress Award at the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival.

The Venice Film Festival is the world’s oldest and one of the most prestigious film festivals, having made its debut in 1932. The festival is widely seen as a testing ground for Oscar-contenders, with the final lineup including premieres from prestigious filmmakers. This year's Venice International Film Festival opens on Aug. 28 and runs until Sept.

7. Among other prizes, all Venice Critics’ Week films will compete alongside titles in the official selection for the festival’s Lion of the Future award worth 100$k. The winners of that prize are decided by the public rather than a jury.