IQ^2 Debate Live Stream

I've been asked to host a live stream of an exciting debate from Intelligence Squared, featuring Frank Ledwidge and Rajan Menon debating against Kori Schake and Bernard Kouchner on the topic of humanitarian intervention, and I obviously said yes, given the fascinating nature of the topic and the high caliber of the experts. Afterwards, I'll post a recap and my own take on the issue.

Nikki Haley: The Happy Surprise

Nikki Haley: The Happy Surprise

by Whitney Ahn

         Nikki Haley should have been one of the most ineffective and incompetent members of President Trump's generally ineffective and incompetent cabinet. Alongside Ben Carson, her appointment was criticized as unusual and ill-fitting her resume. She had always been nationally agreed upon as someone with bipartisan leadership skills and solid conservative but not extremist credentials, but never has she ever been considered a leader in foreign policy. And yet, she has evolved into the strongest and most effective member of Trump's entire administration, let alone his cabinet. In fact, former chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs and current Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) said that her committee opts to send letters on foreign policy matters to Amb. Haley as opposed to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

         Firstly, let it be said that Donald Trump has a history of equating the value of women to their attractiveness, and Ambassador Haley is certainly a beautiful woman. Through a bat of her eyelashes, Amb. Haley has an ability that is afforded to no other member of Trump's mostly male cabinet: the ability to seem unthreatening. Through this, she is able to make more forceful statements that contradict the president's words and thoughts without putting herself in the line of fire. She also seems to be able to use her Southern charm to help form relationships with fellow ambassadors in the United Nations.

         She also is one of the few members of the Trump administration with a fully functional and completed staff. This allows her to set meetings, know her goals for these meetings, and use her time effectively. Her chief of staff, Steven Grove (formerly of the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation) is her most important advisor, and the much more seasoned Sen. Lindsey Graham reportedly also helps to advisor her. No other major sector of the executive branch has filled the positions necessary for those at the top to do their jobs as well as they should, with the possible exception of Mattis' Department of Defense.

        Nikki Haley continues to come out in front of both the President and Secretary of State on matters of foreign policy, establishing herself as, shockingly, the most important voice in American diplomacy today. She has taken it upon herself to speak out about the Chechen genocide of gay and bisexual men, the Syrian government's horrific actions against its own people, and the annexation of Crimea. Here's hoping she gets to keep her job long enough to stave off a major nuclear war.

The Nuclear Status of Russia and the United States

From Norwich University:

Why a 9/11-Style Commission for Trump-Russia Ties is a Bad Idea

Why a 9/11-Style Commission for Trump-Russia Ties is a Bad Idea

by Whitney Ahn

      The connection between the President, the Trump Campaign, and Russia is a complex, tangled web that most agree should be investigated so that the American people can gain clarity of the web. The investigation is so unanimously supported among the political leadership of both Democrats and Republicans alike, save the presidential subject of the investigation, that the main point of contention is not the subject matter of the investigation but the investigators themselves.
       Can the Senate and House Intelligence Committees be trusted to produce a convincing report that gives the American people and our leaders a full picture of what happened regarding the 2016 election and related events? Some say yes; some say no; some say the Senate, yes, but the House, no.
      Those that say no generally call for an independent commission, similar that created for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. The idea of ensuring independence from partisanship in an investigation so political nature is both positive and necessary. However, upon researching further, one may find that this is not the best route forward.
    Firstly, there is the problem of funding. The White House and Congress must together agree upon an appropriations bill to fund the theoretical commission. Even if the White House would agree to fund this commission, it seems unlikely that they would approve a large enough sum to fund a through and quality investigation.
     This appropriations bill would also require both sides agree to details like the scope of the investigation, as well as whether or not to put a deadline on it. Giving the White House that much power over what would likely be the most trusted investigation into its own self seems to be troubling at the very least.
     Then there is the issue of membership. The 9/11 commission had 10 members, 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats, appointed by the House, the Senate, and the White House. To suggest that the Democrat leadership would not place their most zealous members, such as Rep. Maxine Waters or Rep. Pramila Jayapal, on the committee is as ridiculous a notion as the suggestion that Republican leadership would not place their own most zealous members, such as former Gov. Mike Huckabee or Rep. Jack Kingston. The parties may do so for no other reason than they suspect that the other side will do the same.
    While an independent and Congressionally-authorized special committee or commission would most certainly be ideal for the sake of the validity and trustworthiness of the investigation's ultimate results, whatever they may be, it is very important that the 9/11 style of commission not be copied, and that partisanship plays no role in the investigation.

Europe Resurgent

Europe Resurgent

by Advait Arun, 08 May 2017

Advait Arun is a political commentator and writer at Frumious and Foreign Friday, a school board representative-elect in Gunn School District, and the National Co-ordinator at Uproot.

This piece is about Macron. But this piece is also about the world. Emmanuel Macron, the youngest French head of state since Napoleon, has never held elected office before, yet he swept away Le Pen in a decisive victory. Granted, most of his support came from those who refused to support Le Pen, but there is no denying that Macron has a suave, cosmopolitan personality that gave him the momentum he needed to succeed.

Say what you will about his policies — his economic ideas are contentious not just at home but abroad. But they all hinge on one main factor: the European Union. Macron is a committed internationalist, paying homage to the European tradition of his predecessors. At his victory celebration, Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” (the EU’s anthem) was played instead of the Marseillaise, the French national anthem.

It may seem that Macron is just another globalist who doesn’t care for the downtrodden of France. That is yet to be proven. But, from his initial ideas and his worldview, I personally see something completely different, with far-reaching consequences.

For the past 70 years, defined by the bipolar (US and USSR) world order, Europe has largely taken a backseat in world affairs. They remain important in Eastern Europe and in some conflicts in the Middle East, through NATO and the powerful economic bloc they make up (the EU), but they largely hold no significant stake in areas of the world they used to control.

Where did Great Britain, France, and Germany go? They shaped the world in which the USA, Russia, and China fight over, and yet they seem mired in continental affairs.

That’s where Macron has the potential to change the game. But first we must make some decidedly far-fetched assumptions. Let’s assume that his party En Marche claims a plurality in the French Parliament, giving Macron the ability to enact his reforms. Next, let’s say his reforms don’t cause crippling controversy, and instead produce positive results. Give it a year, and maybe the French economy will be on the rise again.

If that happens, France can challenge the German policy of financial austerity in the EU, and it can use its new economic leverage to turn the EU from a German economic tool into something that really does work for the good of all Europe. The European Union will attain much more economic power, being backed by two powerhouses instead of one. (This doesn’t bode well for Britain, but we’ll get back to that later.)

America, Russia, and China might be the most powerful nations on Earth currently, but assuming Macron, through his vitality and political prowess, succeeds, he could redefine the world in which we know. Instead of seeing a right-wing populist wave sweep Europe, we could instead see France and Germany leading Europe back into the international arena.

With a stronger European Union, economically, Macron and Merkel can pursue better immigration policies, better collective security, and a redefined international role. Starting in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, we could see France and Germany commit protection to the former and diplomacy/peacekeeping to the latter, largely usurping the waning American commitments in those regions.

The idea speaks for itself. But what of Great Britain, whose Crown once shone over more than a third of the world’s surface? Currently, they are mired in what might be the “worst trade deal in the history of trade deals” — and it’s not Brexit. Rather, it’s the negotiation to get out of Brexit, that threatens to split Great Britain back into separate nations.

Economically, Great Britain will recover. Economies always bounce back.

Foreign policy-wise, however, they must realize that they were never British, they were always European — Continental affairs occupy them more than they would like to admit. For centuries, they were the arbiter of the balance of power on the continent, and eventually the world.

America’s ambivalence about its role in the world, in juxtaposition with what might go down as one of the biggest Conservative takeovers of the British government in a century, gives Britain the chance to redefine its relations with Europe and the entire world.

Theresa May may not be part of the EU anymore, but you can bet that, along with Macron and Merkel, she will be anxious to project British power back onto an uneasy world.

Macron has not succeeded with his agenda yet. And, of course, Merkel (or someone of the same ideological bent as her) must succeed in German federal elections in September. But if they do, the world could see a radical shift in the geopolitical landscape, as the European powers return to preeminence against a revanchist Russia, a restive Middle East, and a looming China.

I reference America as a “waning” power a few times above, but this is only because there has been no consistent policy put forth by the Trump administration as to responding to the threats that we face. America is ambivalent and, by virtue of inaction, is receding from it’s preeminent global role. Of course, this shift is not permanent, and America, if we chose, could easily reclaim that mantle. But, until then, the playing field is wide open for the European states to get back in the game and make their mark.

Best of luck, Emmanuel Macron. The fate of Europe depends on you. 

Trump-Russia Ties Infographic

Names to Know: Most to Least Concerning Trump Advisors

Names to Know:

Most to Least Concerning Trump Advisors

by Whitney Ahn

Steve Bannon: Senior Counselor, Chief Strategist

        He was the editor of Breitbart, which ran articles and pieces that were racist, sexist, homophobic, and everything else. Regardless of your opinion on "PC culture", Breitbart is and was the basis of the case in its favor.

Stephen A. Miller: Senior Advisor

         He is extremist at best, and an insane and sociopathic Russophile at worst. His influence over the President is strong, as shown throughout the Trump campaign, which is what makes him so dangerous.

Reince Priebus: Chief of Staff

         Priebus is not crazy, but is so inexperienced that his occupation of this important position becomes to entire administration's detriment.

Kellyanne Conway: Counselor

         She's really more of a PR expert than a policy advisor, and has shown signs of multipolarity with regards to her general sanity. Her loyalty to President Trump is undying, but several outlets

K.T. McFarland: Deputy National Security Advisor

         She opened the Deputies Committee by limiting everyone to two minutes, because she's "from TV". Beyond that, McFarland is surprisingly qualified, despite having not served since the Reagan administration.

Jared Kushner: Senior Advisor

         He is (probably) not crazy. However, his presence brings up concerns of nepotism and his occupation of an official rule is potentially a breaking of laws that were designed to prevent this sort of thing from happening, though communications officials in the White House have made the argument that fits into a legal loophole.

Ivanka Trump

         She is (probably) not crazy. However, her presence, like Kushner's, brings up concerns of nepotism. The difference between her and her husband is that she does not hold any official position.

Dina Powell: Senior Counselor for Economic Initiatives

         She has yet to show any signs of being completely crazy, and has the ear of Ivanka Trump, who is also (probably) not crazy.

H.R. McMaster: National Security Advisor

         He's definitely not crazy. So there's that.