The debate was heavily focused on US domestic matters—even when questions were on international affairs, both candidates sought to bring the issues back to domestic politics and policies.  

Of most relevance to Australia was the lack of interest in this region. Other than passing references—in heavily political contexts—neither the media nor the candidates raised China in any meaningful way. Notwithstanding the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, China is the most significant issue globally. 

Without China being prioritised by the two candidates or media today, we can only hope that the next administration will be struck by the realities of Beijing as the pacing military and technological threat to our livelihoods and way of life. Australia and partners like Japan, the Quad and NATO, will need to work together to ensure the next administration is focused on competing with and countering China, and does so by viewing China as a strategic rival first and not as an economic partner. 

Given the next president will immediately face a world in conflict, a further debate that is limited to foreign policy and held before the November election would be best for both US voters and America’s partners. 

On China—Bethany Allen, head of program for China investigations and analysis, and Daria Impiombato, analyst 

While the moderators never asked about China, the topic came up unprompted within the first few minutes of the debate with Harris accusing Trump of inviting ‘trade wars’ but then adding the former President ‘sold us out’ to China. In a sense this focus was not surprising because the Trump administration’s tough turn on China was one of the most significant and controversial foreign policy shifts of his term. The Biden-Harris administration has also made competition with Beijing a key platform. 

More surprising was that, other than brief references, the issue of how to manage China strategically and in the context of potential flashpoints such a Taiwan and the South China Sea did not come up at all. 

Harris and Trump went on to spar over tariffs, microchips and the pandemic response, with Harris accusing the Trump administration of allowing the sale of chips to China that served to modernise the People’s Liberation Army. Trump’s retort that the US ‘barely make any chips anymore’ and that it is Taiwan instead that’s selling them to China again demonstrated the economic lens with which he views these issues.  

This is in line with his latest stances on Taiwan, as he has repeatedly stated that the island should pay the US to defend it, and that they have ‘stolen’ the chip manufacturing business from American companies. Harris, instead, opted to focus on the CHIPS Act and her intention to win the competition with China especially on technology and artificial intelligence. 

On Alliances—Eric Lies, analyst 

What stood out, in particular for US allies the world over, was Trump’s refusal to answer the question as to whether he believes Ukraine should win in the war against Russia. Instead, he repeatedly stated that he would end the war as president-elect. A key element of deterrence is convincing potential adversaries that if they choose violence, they will be met with resolve. Responses like Trump’s, which put Ukraine and Russia on a false equivalence, corrode that confidence in US security promises and will likely make allies in the Indo-Pacific nervous, while emboldening China’s revanchist activities. 

In contrast, Harris unequivocally stated her support for allied efforts within Europe, and how she intends to continue those efforts should she be elected. It meant that a clear foreign policy difference came through between the two candidates—a more isolationist, transactional foreign policy on the one hand and an alliance-driven policy on the other.  

On Ukraine and China—Malcolm Davis, senior analyst 

On Ukraine, Harris clearly demonstrated that she understood the potential implications of a Russian victory in Ukraine. Noting that if such an outcome were realised, ‘Putin would have his eye on the rest of Europe’. This is an accurate interpretation of the stakes at play. In contrast, Trump failed to deliver a convincing response, simply saying ‘he’d get on the phone to Putin and Zelensky’. 

The risk is therefore that a second Trump Administration could reduce support for Ukraine and increase the likelihood of delivering Putin a decisive strategic victory. 

On China, both candidates avoided any real discussion of the defence and national security implications of a rising China. Instead, they focused on trade relations. Whichever candidate wins in November, however, there is a chance that they will be confronted with a major crisis with Beijing over Taiwan. This is an issue that is far more important to the United States than tariffs. 

Generally, the debate avoided any real discussion on critical and emerging technologies and the importance of maintaining US leadership. In fact, as the ASPI Critical Technology tracker shows, China now holds a dominance in high-impact research that was once held by the US. Both candidates should have dealt more with this important issue and will need to do so as president. 

On Disinformation and Migration—Mike Copage, head of the Climate and Security Policy Centre 

As the world grapples with the prospect of AI driving mis and dis-information in democracies, the debate highlighted how vulnerable American political discourse has become to the spread of disinformation without it. Pressed by moderators that there’s no evidence to back claims by vice-presidential candidate JD Vance that Haitian illegal immigrants are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, Trump responded that he knew it was true because he heard it from ‘people on television’. While ridiculous at face value, the real and serious consequences of a former President and current candidate repeating clearly false, racist and anti-immigrant claims cannot be ignored. The violence perpetuated following the spread of anti-immigrant misinformation in the United Kingdom demonstrates how far that can lead without responsible leadership. 

On the Media and China—Greg Brown, senior analyst, Washington DC 

Harris had a solid showing defined by poise without policy articulation. Her supporters will feel emboldened by the strategy to distance herself from the present Administration—noting during the debate that she was neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump. 

President Trump had a weaker night—notwithstanding his zingers like ‘wake the President (Biden) up at four o’clock in the afternoon’—and appeared rambling at times. He missed opportunities to attack Harris effectively. 

As usual, the debate moderators (in this case ABC News) and voters were the losers.   

The lone foreign policy issue mentioned with any repetition was migration though with a heavy domestic lens. And neither candidate provided any sense of the drivers of, let alone policy responses to, the weaponization of mass migration. The passing references by both candidates regarding Iran, Ukraine and Russia were pedestrian. 

China, the ​supposed pacing challenge and threat, received little attention. Nor did we have a discussion of the Pentagon’s budget priorities, tariffs as tools of economic warfare, how to revive the US defence industrial base, let alone to US interests across the Pacific. 

On Asia-Pacific—Raji Pillai Rajagopalan, resident senior fellow 

While understandably focused on domestic issues, it was still surprisingly how little interest there was on foreign policy in the presidential debate. Considering the growing chaos the next president will have to deal with, that was unfortunate. 

America’s China and Indo-Pacific policy was not mentioned, nor were any other aspects of foreign and security policy in any detail. We heard only some broad outlines to which we were already familiar, such as a Trump Administration that will be suspicious of its partners because of the worry that America is being exploited, that will be more open to deal-making with adversaries such as Russia, China and North Korea, irrespective of the character of their behaviour and that will potentially raise tariff barriers with wide-ranging economic effects globally. 

On the Democrat side, Vice President Harris reiterated she would strengthen partnerships and stand up to authoritarian leaders, which is a more positive starting point, but all said without much detail. 

From a foreign policy perspective, it was clearly not a substantive debate. Leaving out everything from narrow issues of nuances to nuclear policy to broad issues such as relative commitment to different theatres like Europe, Middle East and Indo-Pacific. 

Source

The post The US presidential debate: ASPI responds appeared first on Policy Print.

Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and former Republican President Donald Trump traded blows in the first presidential debate of the 2024 race — clashing over issues including abortion, economy and foreign wars.

Fox News proposes second presidential debate

US news channel Fox Newssaid it proposed to hold a second presidential debate in October. 

The channel, which largely caters to a conservative viewership, said it had sent letters to the campaigns for both Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican rival Donald Trump, before Tuesday night’s debate. 

This invitation aside, Harris’ campaign has already offered a rematch while Trump did not commit to it. 

“The reason you do a second debate is if you lose, and they lost,” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity in the spin room after the first debate. “But I’ll think about it.”

Source

The post US presidential debate: Harris, Trump clash over key issues appeared first on Policy Print.

The Biden administration on Wednesday urged a federal judge to reject a legal challenge to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point’s consideration of race in admissions, saying that Army diversity was “integral to ensuring national security.”

The U.S. Department of Justice in a brief argued the military academy’s affirmative-action policies remain valid even after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision striking down race-conscious admissions policies long used by colleges to boost enrollment of Black, Hispanic and other minority students.

The conservative majority Supreme Court’s ruling came in response to lawsuits by the same group now suing over West Point’s policies in federal court in White Plains, New York. The group, Students for Fair Admissions, was founded by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum.

Blum’s group in a lawsuit filed in September alleged the academy’s admissions practices discriminated against white applicants and violated the principle of equal protection in the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

But the Justice Department said SFFA had no legal standing to sue over the policies and ignored “critical differences” between civilian universities such as those in the Supreme Court case and military ones like West Point, which use race in a “limited fashion to foster diversity in the Army officer corps.”

It said top U.S. military leaders “have repeatedly concluded that a more diverse officer corps makes a more effective force: more lethal, more likely to attract and retain top talent, and more legitimate in the eyes of the nation and the world.”

Blum did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

The brief was filed ahead of arguments slated for Dec. 21 on SFFA’s request for a preliminary injunction before U.S. District Judge Philip Halpern, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit, along with a similar one Blum’s group filed against the U.S. Naval Academy, seeks to end an exemption tucked inside the Supreme Court ruling that allowed military academies to continue considering race as a factor in admitting cadets.

The Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating race-conscious admissions policies used by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina did not address race in admissions at military academies, which Chief Justice John Roberts said had “potentially distinct interests.”

The Justice Department in Wednesday’s brief said the prestigious West Point was a “vital pipeline to the officer corps” and that its race-conscious admissions practices helped the Army achieve its “mission critical” goal of having officers as diverse as its enlisted military personnel.

Although Black people make up 20.2% of the Army’s active duty enlisted personnel, only 11% are officers, the Justice Department said. Hispanic people constitute 18% of active personnel but only 9% of officers, the department said.

White people by contrast constitute 51.7% of the Army active duty enlisted corps and 68% of its officers, the Justice Department said.

Source : Reuters

The post Biden Administration Defends West Point’s Race-Conscious Admissions Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

Last month, I attended the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management’s Fall Research Conference. This is the ultimate wonk conference — more than 2,000 policy analysts and researchers convening in Atlanta, Georgia to talk about the most recent research on topics of public policy.

I go to this conference because I’m interested in what people are learning about public policy across the country. I’m often interested in learning things that I can bring back to Ohio — new analysis being conducted that is not happening here in the Buckeye State. Ohio isn’t usually on the cutting edge of policy analysis, so this is a good place for me to learn about things I can bring back home.

Imagine how surprised I was when I saw one of the most innovative research projects in the country presented by the Ohio Department of Education.

If you follow Statehouse news, you likely have heard about the efforts to reform education finance in Ohio. Alongside these legislative reforms, which will likely lead to billions of dollars in changes for school funding in Ohio, the state Department of Education (newly changed to the “Department of Education and Workforce”) has been conducting a series of studies on the cost of education in Ohio.

Two of these studies were released late last year. 

In November 2022, the Department of Education released a study by the American Institutes for Research on the cost of adequate special education in the state of Ohio. A month later, the Department released a study by West Ed and APA on the cost of education for English language learners in Ohio.

What I found fascinating about these studies was the approach they took. The studies were focused on a similar question: what will it cost to provide an adequate education for key student subgroups? They then answered these questions by turning to Ohioans.

Each of these studies included both interviews and surveys with professionals across the state to understand the components needed in education and the costs associated with these components. They both also undertook a “professional judgment panel” approach that utilized panels of local experts to understand the resources needed to provide education and the cost of those resources.

The Department of Education and Workforce is now contracting a new study, this time focusing on economic disadvantage, a component of school funding that could have a wider research than the last two studies.

While the Department has not officially endorsed the findings of these reports, they commissioned them in order to make sure that policymakers had access to the best information possible when formulating school funding policy.

Whether the General Assembly incorporates the results of these findings into future education budgeting is yet to be determined. We still live in a democracy, so it is not technocrats who make these decisions, it is elected officials who do. 

That being said, these sorts of studies represent a triumph for evidence-based policymaking and a marrying of the ideals of rational policy analysis and local input. Often Ohio is the last to undertake innovations in policy, but this is a situation where Ohio is leading the way. And as a state, we should be proud of that.

Source : Ohio Capital Journal

The post Ohio Department of Education Leading Quiet Policy Analysis Revolution appeared first on Policy Print.

On World Mental Health Day, October 10^th, the American Heart Association, a global force for healthier lives for all, shares new survey findings that may help employers reduce burnout and improve workforce well-being by up to 40%.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a workplace mental health phenomenon resulting from chronic, unmanaged workplace stress that is characterized by feelings of exhaustion, disengagement and negativity related to one’s job, and reduced professional performance.^[1]

“Chronic exposure to stress can increase your lifetime risk of conditions like heart disease and stroke and is also linked to anxiety disorders and major depression. With burnout rates continuing to rise, we must acknowledge that this is not a passing problem, but a serious and ongoing workforce mental health challenge,” shared Eduardo J. Sanchez, M.D., M.P.H., FAHA, chief medical officer for prevention at the American Heart Association. “This survey gives a reassuring glance at how employers can make a positive impact on the mental health and well-being of their workforce with a few intentional changes.”

Employees are not the only ones paying the price for burnout. Excessive workplace stress can result in up to an estimated $190 billion in health care costs each year and is linked with higher absenteeism and job dissatisfaction.^[2], ^[3] Research shows that employers can help mitigate these costs and support better business outcomes by championing employee well-being. A 2019 study found that the stock prices of organizations that prioritized employee health and safety appreciated by 115% over four years, outperforming the S&P 500 (+69%) and companies with lower reported internal health support (+44%).^[4]

The survey of 5,055 U.S. working adults was conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of the American Heart Association, with the aim of understanding how employees are impacted by nine evidence-based best practices to combat burnout and promote employee mental health. Despite positive measures of workforce well-being, more than three quarters (82%) of respondents reported experiencing burnout at least sometimes, with parents, frontline or essential workers, women, younger workers (Generation Z and millennials) and LGBTQIA+ workers particularly likely to report feeling burned out often or always.

What can employers do to help?

All nine policies analyzed in the survey were found to be associated with increased workplace well-being as reported by employees, and seven were also associated with decreased burnout:

• Assess alignment between skillset and job tasks
• Establish clear roles and responsibilities
• Regularly assess workloads
• Design job roles with employee input
• Establish a training path to develop employee skills
• Assess if employees feel supported to lead a healthy life
• Promote overall employee well-being
• Discourage work-related technology use after hours
• Promote employee support (resource) groups

In companies with none of these policies in place, only 51% of employees reported positive workplace well-being, as compared to 91% of employees in companies with all nine policies in place. Notably, even the implementation of one of these policies made employees more likely to be satisfied with their benefits, have positive feelings about their current role and job responsibilities, and report feeling supported by their manager.

The American Heart Association’s Workforce Well-being Scorecard offers employers a comprehensive assessment of their culture of health and well-being based on leading best practices, including policies to support mental health and combat burnout. Visit heart.org/workforce to view the full survey report and complete the Scorecard.

Survey Methodology

The research was conducted online in the United States by The Harris Poll on behalf of the American Heart Association among 5,055 US adults aged 18+ who are employed full time or part time. The survey was conducted between April 13 and May 10, 2023. Data are weighted separately by race/ethnicity and where necessary by education, age by sex, region, household income, size of household, marital status, work status, and propensity to be online to bring them in line with their actual proportions in the population. The groups were then combined into a proportional total by race/ethnicity.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in our surveys. The sampling precision of Harris online polls is measured by using a Bayesian credible interval. For this study, the sample data is accurate to within + 1.9 percentage points using a 95% confidence level. This credible interval will be wider among subsets of the surveyed population of interest. All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to other multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including, but not limited to coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments.

Source : News Room

The post 9 Policies Companies Should Implement to Reduce Burnout, According to Employees appeared first on Policy Print.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is in the last two years intensively pursuing a diversified foreign policy. This stems in part from disappointment with American reactions to the Houthi drone attacks on Abu Dhabi in February 2022, and to what they see as the debacle of the US retreat from Afghanistan.

However, on a broader level, de-escalation has developed into a foreign policy priority for Abu Dhabi, after a decade of activist, interventionist policy in Yemen, Libya, and Syria. The Emirati leadership wishes to carve out a non-aligned position, based predominantly on trade, energy, and technology. They also see themselves as well positioned to serve as international mediators, with contacts to everyone and shunning no one, and now afford diplomacy, engagement, and deconfliction a much more important role in government policy. In a recent exchange, one Abu-Dhabi-based expert noted to me that their eighteen-month stint in the UN Security Council also “taught them how global powers behave.” Their policy, as Narayanappa Janardhan of the Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy in Abu Dhabi told me, revolves around the “five C’s: capital, commerce, collaboration, connectivity, and climate.” The Emirates, similar to their doppelganger and arch-rival Qatar and ahead of Saudi Arabia, is engrossed in efforts to retain a leading position in the world economy in the post-fossil fuels era, including through significant policy initiatives, investment in environment and sustainability issues, and strategic use of their sovereign wealth funds to invest worldwide in banks and key industries. 

An important aspect enabling nuance and nimbleness in policy is the compact and unitary structure of foreign policy-making, decided and implemented by Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan. Since May 2022, he has officially served as ruler of Abu Dhabi and as the UAE president (roles he filled de facto for eight years previously). Additionally, his brothers serve in key ministries: Abdullah, as foreign minister, and Tahnoon, as national security advisor. The latter was recently appointed deputy ruler of Abu Dhabi, as well as chair of Abu Dhabi’s main sovereign wealth fund, and has long been in control of other sovereign and private investment institutions. Abu Dhabi is dominant in the foreign policy and national security decision-making of the UAE, though there is reportedly dialogue with the leadership of the other Emirates.

On the global level, the UAE, like Saudi Arabia, has been irritated, but unmoved, by US attempts to enlist or coerce them into supporting the nation’s policies on Russia and China. They reject Western narratives regarding these powers and are simultaneously making efforts to insulate these relationships with them from that with the Americans. As a foreign diplomat in Abu Dhabi told me, the Emirati government is signaling at all levels that relations with Russia “are going to be kept normal.”

The UAE, and Dubai in particular, has gained enormously from the crisis between Russia and the West. Russian nationals (who do not need a visa) and Russian money have poured into the country, especially in Dubai. There, hundreds of thousands of Russians are estimated to have arrived in the past year, especially after the imposition of conscription in Russia, with over 50,000 since the beginning of 2023, according to a well-informed source in Dubai. Russians fill the shops, hotels, and restaurants, and have become the main foreign buyers of real estate in Dubai, where 10 percent of the GDP  is now from the real estate sector. Prices and rents have hit historic highs.

Non-oil trade between the the UAE and Russia increased 95 percent in 2022. The UAE  is also reported to have become a key storage and re-export hub for Russian oil, as well as a logistical center for the Russian energy industry, taking advantage of deeply discounted prices for Russian oil to more than triple its oil imports from Russia to a record 60 million barrels in 2022. Senior US delegations have reportedly visited the UAE to discuss the nation’s use in circumventing Western oil sanctions on Russia, financial and corporate structures, as well as trade in sanctioned and dual-use—including US-origin—goods. The US Treasury Department on April 12 announced sanctions against two UAE-based firms for allegedly assisting the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The UAE is also continually improving ties with India, which holds largely the same position regarding Russia. Another driver is the Emirati belief, similar to that of India, in an increasingly economic-centric rather than a security-centric world. The Gulf states’ security interests are centered in the West—China and India are not yet in the business of providing security backing and guarantees—and their economic ones in the East. World trade, as well the natural markets for Gulf energy, are increasingly concentrated in the Indo-Pacific realm, and the Gulf states are a natural link between Asia, especially the subcontinent—with which it has substantial historical and human ties—and the European and Mediterranean markets.

Reorienting in the Region: Neutralizing Toxic Relationships

On the regional level, Emirati foreign policy shifts in the past two years have been massive: it normalized relations with four major competing states in the region—Iran, Turkey, Israel, and Qatar. As Moran Zaga of the University of Haifa and Mitvim, the Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies, told me, “the intensity and scope of the process, in such a short time, indicates a far-reaching strategic attempt to blur traditional fault lines and reshape the ‘axes’ in the region.”

The new emphases in foreign policy led the UAE to accelerate its re-engagement with Iran, which had already begun after disappointment with the American reaction to Iranian-linked attacks on Gulf shipping and Aramco facilities in September 2019. The Emirati ambassador, recalled in 2016, returned to Tehran in August 2022 (Saudi Arabia agreed to return their ambassador this month). The two countries are significant trading partners: the UAE was Iran’s primary link to the global economy under sanctions, and in 2020 was the largest exporter to Iran after China (much of it apparently re-sold Western goods). The two countries plan to increase bilateral trade from $15 billion in 2022 to $30 billion in 2025. Moreover, there are more than 400,000 Iranian expatriates living in the UAE (apart from the many Emiratis, especially in Dubai, of Iranian origin). Dubai has always been more oriented towards engagement with Iran and towards a soft power approach in general, since its heavily globalized service economy is much more exposed to negative externalities stemming from sanctions on Iran, Russia and Qatar. The Emiratis reportedly do not see any contradiction between their improved relations with Israel and with Iran, which are largely driven by a similar logic: reducing tension while opening economic possibilities. Western diplomats I met in the UAE estimate that Abu Dhabi is not interested in instability in Iran, which could adversely affect the Gulf.

Relations between Turkey and the UAE are also progressing rapidly: Many of my interlocutors were amazed at how quickly the relationship has changed. Abu Dhabi leader and the UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan (MBZ) visited Ankara in November 2021, with Erdogan paying a return visit in February 2022. During MBZ’s visit, he announced a $10 billion investment fund in multiple sectors of the Turkish economy, including energy, climate change, and trade. This should help the Turkish economy, but the fact that the money will be for investments and not aid, should also provide UAE with significant influence in the Turkish economy, leading to political sway as well. In January 2022, the two countries announced a $4.7 billion currency swap, boosting Turkey’s foreign exchange holdings and propping up the lira. They signed a free trade agreement on March 3, 2023, hoping to expand bilateral trade from $8 to $25 billion in five years. Some aspects of defense cooperation reportedly never stopped, even during the period of tension between the two countries. Today, this cooperation appears to be burgeoning. Turkey is able to provide weapons without US. restrictions, an important lesson Abu Dhabi learned from the Yemen conflict; there is reportedly talk of the co-production of Turkish weapons in the UAE. In addition, the two countries see eye to eye on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and on American pressure to choose a side. However, this has not led the UAE to weaken its close ties with Greece and Cyprus, forged during the previous decade of trying to contain Turkish influence.

The UAE’s relations with Qatar seem to be rapidly developing. This is despite a slow start following the Saudi-led rapprochement at the al-Ula Summit in January 2021, and despite vestigial public hostility after six years of ceaseless negative messaging. This can be seen in the media prominence given to MBZ’s visit to Doha for the World Cup in December 2022, and Qatari Sheikh Tamim al-Thani’s participation in the Arab “mini-summit” in Abu Dhabi in January 2023. This meeting, convened at short notice by MBZ, included the heads of state of the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, Jordan, and Egypt. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait did not participate, the Saudis reportedly due to Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman’s displeasure with the Emirati initiative. The UAE recently unblocked Qatari news sites. The UAE in March withdrew its bid to host the 2026 World Bank and International Monetary Fund meeting, instead supporting Qatar as a potential host.

The relatively new formal relationship with Israel is engaging the Emirati leadership vigorously in recent months. The rhetoric and proposed policies of Israel’s new right-wing government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, has created challenges to all the conservative Arab states whose relations with Israel had improved in recent years. Symbolic steps are delayed indefinitely: no date has been set for Netanyahu’s much-desired state visit to the Emirates; the date for the next summit of the “Negev Forum,” planned for March in Morocco, has not been set. The UAE (and Bahrain) has condemned Israeli behavior in the West Bank and Jerusalem numerous times in recent weeks.

However, the compelling strategic, economic, and geopolitical logic which caused the UAE and the other Abraham Accords states to formalize relations with Israel have not changed. The Emirati government wants to preserve the long-term relationship but also avoid being perceived as an enabler of the current government. Informed Gulf sources note that the Emirati government sees the Abraham Accords as “a strategic direction” and the current Israeli government as a “road bump.” A signal in this vein seems to have been given when MBZ, who as noted has not yet set a date for Netanyahu to visit the UAE (though the pair spoke by phone on April 4), met on March 27 with former prime minister Naftali Bennet.

Deals with Israel which are seen as serving Abu Dhabi’s strategic geoeconomic goal of linking to the Eastern Mediterranean subregion continue. This is especially true of those related to gas exploration and exploitation in Egypt and Israel, and to renewable energy projects throughout the region. On March 26, the two countries signed into effect their free trade agreement, reached last May; the profile given the signing was low in UAE, and the trade minister did not journey to Israel to sign the deal. Emirati investments in Israel’s energy sector, perceived in Abu Dhabi as a long range interest, continue, as seen in the recent offer by ADNOC (with BP) to buy half of Israel’s New Med gas company, which holds 45 percent of the Leviathan gas field. The Mubadala sovereign wealth fund already owns 11 percent of the smaller Tamar field.

Another bilateral relationship that has significantly developed in the past two years is with Syria. The UAE has been at the forefront of efforts to return the Assad regime to the Arab fold, arguing the need to accept the reality of its survival, and the need for Arab engagement with it to reduce the Iranian influence. Foreign Minister Abdallah bin Zayed visited Damascus in November 2021; Bashar al-Assad made a surprise visit to Dubai and Abu Dhabi in February 2022, ostensibly to visit the Syrian pavilion at the Dubai Expo 2020 on Syria’s national day. This was his first reception by an Arab country since the Syrian civil war began. He arrived, accompanied by his wife, on a second, formal state visit on March 19, 2023. The recent earthquake in Turkey and Syria has enabled interested countries in the region to reach out to both states and improve relations with them, for ostensibly humanitarian reasons. Moran Zaga sees the desire to achieve significant influence and room for maneuver in Syria as another of the major drivers of the UAE’s emollient policy towards Russia.

In the Gulf, tension is growing between the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Several interlocutors noted that the close personal relationship between MBZ and Mohammad bin Salman, seen in the past even as a mentorship, has soured. The two countries have had severe disagreements regarding Yemen, where the Saudis saw themselves as blindsided and abandoned by the Emirati drawdown of forces in 2019 (the Emiratis are still heavily involved in protected geoeconomic interests in the South, through proxies, and Socotra Island). In addition, both are trying to position themselves as key mediators and as economic entrepots in the region, and are pursuing almost identical policies for economic diversification away from oil (a process in the implementation of which the UAE—like Qatar—preceded Saudi Arabia): the Emirati government claims that only 28 percent of GDP today is based on oil and gas.

Saudi Arabia hopes to rapidly draw a skilled expatriate workforce to become a services and transportation center, in addition to becoming a tourist destination; this would be at the expense of the UAE, especially Dubai. The two countries also disagree on OPEC+ production limits, with the UAE pressing to pump more oil; the UAE reportedly has been considering leaving OPEC. One recent indicator of the growing tension is Riyadh’s demand that multinational companies desiring contracts with the Saudi government must move their regional headquarters to Saudi Arabia by 2024, a demand widely perceived as directed against Dubai. Another is Saudi Arabia’s recent decision to create a global airline, Riyadh Air (whose CEO was until October the head of Etihad, Abu Dhabi’s flag carrier), which would compete with Emirates (Dubai) and Qatar Airways. On the political level, the Saudis feel that the Emiratis “have grown too big for their britches,” in the words of FPRI Senior Fellow Brandon Friedman, and are pursuing too independent a policy (including regarding a host of bilateral free trade agreements), without the consultation traditional among the Gulf monarchies.

Conclusion

In recent weeks, much attention has focused on Saudi Arabia’s shifting foreign policy orientation, towards a more multilateral approach, with stress on continued divergences from the United States. These include Xi Jinping’s visit to Riyadh in December 2022, close coordination with Russia on oil production (including the recent cut), and most recently, the Chinese-brokered agreement with Iran on restoring diplomatic relations. However, this (as in many other areas) was preceded by the UAE. 

The UAE boasts a global and regional weight far exceeding that which its size and location might dictate: it is one of the five or six most significant strategic players in the Middle East and North Africa. In creating and maintaining this status, it has used its economic heft, as a significant oil producer but more importantly, as the regional actor most advanced (along with Qatar) in translating its energy endowments into a powerful and diversified globalized economy, based on services, finance, trade and logistics, to serve geostrategic aims. For instance, its sovereign wealth funds are among the largest global investors today, with at least $46 billion in foreign investments in 2022, and Dubai World Ports is one of the world’s five top container terminal operators (with some 10 percent of world capacity). It has used these, in combination with its focused and deft decision-making and implementation apparatus, driven by a long-term strategy, to seize opportunities to become a leader of the conservative camp during the Arab uprisings and beyond.

After a decade of activist, even adventurist policies in the region, Emirati foreign policy shifts in the past two years have been massive. It normalized relations with four of the major, and competing, states in the region: Iran, Israel, Turkey, and Qatar (its relation with the Sisi regime in a fifth, Egypt, has long been good), as well as with Syria. However, the current new directions in Emirati policy could be viewed as a function of the lack of success in its previous, “little Sparta” policy. The UAE’s current “no problems with neighbors” approach is also not ensured complete success.

Source: Eurasia Review

The post Big Changes In United Arab Emirates Foreign Policy – Analysis appeared first on Policy Print.

From expanding gun rights to going after “woke” investors, the Florida Legislature is quickly moving on a list of bills that will give Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis conservative-pleasing policy successes as he prepares to launch a presidential campaign.

The usually slow-moving Legislature ended the week by sending DeSantis bills to shield businesses and insurance companies from lawsuits, allow any Floridian to get a government-paid voucher for private schools and an affordable housing bill that prevents local governments from enacting rent control ordinances.

“We have a lot of the governor’s priorities in a really good spot. We’ll pass them,” House Speaker Paul Renner said Friday as lawmakers went home for the weekend. “We’re moving quickly … Some of what the governor has proposed is monumental and good, and we support it 100%.”

That will give DeSantis more time to boast about successes while avoiding any perception of infighting if his priorities are held hostage until the closing moments of session.

When the 60-day session opened, DeSantis predicted his priorities would pass quickly.

“They are mindful that it’s probably better not to have kind of an eight-car pileup the last week of session where the whole agenda gets through in the last 72 hours,” DeSantis said. “I think you’re going to see more earlier.”

DeSantis signed one of his priority bills during a private ceremony Friday. The new law creates more hurdles for people suing private companies and expands on legislation passed over the past year aimed at reining in skyrocketing property insurance rates.

“Florida has long been known as a ‘judicial hellhole’ due to the legal system’s incentivizing of excessive and frivolous lawsuits,” DeSantis tweeted. “I signed a series of reforms that will protect Floridians and our economy from predatory lawsuits.”

But opponents said it’s a giveaway to insurance companies at the expense of consumers.

“The new law does nothing to protect Floridians and everything to protect the profits of billionaire insurance corporations,” Curry Pajcic, president of the Florida Justice Association.

The Legislature also sent DeSantis a bill Friday to make it illegal for state and local investment funds to consider the environmental, social and governance stances companies support. One of DeSantis’s biggest talking points is fighting back against “woke” corporations.

“It’s a form of Marxism being pushed by unelected officials, progressives that hate our country and some of the largest investment firms in the world,” Republican Rep. Bob Rommel said of the investment strategy he called “corporate activism.”

“We are talking about things that are not real — corporate activism,” Democratic Rep. Michele Rayner-Goolsby scoffed. “I don’t know what corporate activism is.”

The House also sent DeSantis a bill aimed at increasing the availability of affordable housing and boosting assistance programs for families looking for housing. While it largely received bipartisan support, some Democrats opposed it because it will also keep local governments from enacting rent control ordinances at a time when rents are climbing quickly.

Source : News4jax

The post Florida Legislature Moving Quickly on Desantis Priorities appeared first on Policy Print.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping signed an agreement to strengthen their alliance, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) – a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – spoke on the Senate Floor to warn against China’s threat to American democracy, peace and prosperity.

“The Chinese Communist Party led by Xi Jinping, the most powerful leader of the CCP since Chairman Mao, is on a determined, calculated mission to overtake the United States in fields that will shape the 21st century,” said Sen. Moran. “Beijing is intent that, rather than the United States of America influencing world events in a way that favors and bends towards our principles of a free and open world, they bend towards China’s authoritarian model.”

Sen. Moran outlined key areas the U.S. must prioritize and strengthen to protect national security:

• Ensure our military has the resources it needs to deter China and its partners
• Vigilance in protecting the southern border
• Prioritize U.S. manufacturing
• Educate a technically skilled workforce
• Produce critical food, tech,  energy and medicine in the U.S.
• Maintain a strong U.S. economy through trade
• Increase support for allies and partners in the INDO-PACIFIC

Remarks as prepared:

“This month, during this year’s first open hearing for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, national security and military leaders gave a worldwide threat assessment of our country and our way of life.

“They described threats to our homeland, to our key allies, to trading routes, to data privacy, and to our infrastructure, including crucial space assets.

“There was a common theme in the concerns we heard from our military and national security leaders, but also from what I have heard across Kansas and the country.

“The People’s Republic of China is our greatest foreign threat to democracy, peace and prosperity.

“At no time in my life have I been more concerned about the enormity of the challenges facing this country.

“The Chinese Communist Party led by Xi Jinping, the most powerful leader of the CCP since Chairman Mao, is on a determined, calculated mission to overtake the United States in fields that will shape the 21st century. Beijing is intent that, rather than the United States of America influencing world events in a way that favors and bends towards our principles of a free and open world, they bend towards China’s authoritarian model.

“China, and its supporters, would move away from the principles that have advanced global prosperity– and towards the basic principle that underwrites autocratic authority where the weaker are destined to be ruled by the stronger.

“We have seen this play out with China’s political, economic, and direct provision of non-lethal support to Russia as Russia wages an unprovoked war on Ukraine.

“China operates the world’s most advanced techno-surveillance state that consolidates power by monitoring, controlling, and subjugating their people. And they are engaged in an ambitious plan to export this model and the means of accomplishing it beyond their border.

“They want media, big Tech, sports teams, and business to toe the CCP line, to be ignorant of – or at least be silent – on the gross violations of basic human decency that occurred and occur in Xinjiang province, Hong Kong, and elsewhere in their response to COVID.

“The CCP pursues a world, including America, under the thumb of their power. 

“In a speech in April 2020, Xi noted his intentions to increase global supply chain dependencies on China, with an aim of controlling key supply chains and being able to then use those supply chain dependencies to threaten and cut off foreign countries during a crisis.

“As of the latest Worldwide Threat Assessment, China produces 40% of the world’s key vaccines and medicinal ingredients, and by 2025 is on track to control 65% of the important lithium-ion battery market – used in phones and cars – and fabrication of almost 1 in 5 semiconductors in the world.

“They don’t want the twenty-first century to be another American-led century. They want it to be a century that witnesses the replacement of America leadership with leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.

“Two-thirds of global trade flows by ocean through the region around the South Pacific –what the Department of Defense calls the INDO-PACIFIC. The goods that Americans export, and the imports that they depend on require safe and reliable trade.

“For decades the United States Military have kept the oceans and airways safe and secure. By those means Americans have kept the global commons safe to the benefit of our own peace and prosperity.

“When America is militarily strong and our sovereignty secure, we can shape and influence the terms of international commerce. The way we do business is the standard, and that reflects our principles and leaves our fingerprints on the world.

“Maintaining a strong U.S. economy requires trade agreements with partners who adhere to agreed-upon rules ranging from market access to the protection of intellectual property. Our failure to participate in such agreements or update them to meet the realities of the 21st century opens the door to Chinese influence.

“It is to our benefit and that of our trading partners to tie more of the world to the US and its economy and reap the benefits of vibrant international trade.

“A stable Europe in which we coordinate closely with our partners on military and economic challenges is necessary to thwart China’s rising influence.

“America remains a coalescing force in Europe, and our contributions have been essential to supporting Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s aggression.

“With our continued assistance and increasing European leadership and resources Ukraine will be able to push back Russian forces and preserve its sovereignty.

“Our commitment to NATO remains resolute and any threat to its territory will be met decisively.

“Our intelligence community assesses it will take years for Russia to rebuild its conventional military capabilities. NATO allies must use this window to strengthen their defenses and assume more responsibility for their security as we necessarily increase support for allies and partners in the INDO-PACIFIC.

“Yet we cannot ignore the Russian threat that remains. Russia possesses a massive nuclear arsenal and Moscow has significant cyber, antisatellite, and underwater capabilities.

“Strikingly, China views Russia as an essential partner in the struggle against democratic values.

“As I speak now, President Xi is in Moscow meeting with President Putin, strengthening the relationship in pursuit of offering an alternative to American leadership.

“The threats to American freedom, security and prosperity are not all from foreign militaries.

“We also require vigilance at our border, all states are border states when we fail to enforce this nation’s geographic sovereignty. There is no nation without borders. And perhaps there is no greater tragic effect of our current open border policy than the fentanyl and other drugs – sent from China to Mexico – coming across the borders.

“We also must produce and manufacture goods in the United States. The United States cannot be reliant on our adversaries for critical supplies, medicine, food, technology or energy.

“We have to learn from our earlier mistakes discovered during the COVID pandemic. This includes prioritizing American manufacturing, and educating a technically skilled workforce – and that is why we must fully implement the CHIPS and Science Act that was signed into law last year.

“A democratically and economically stronger America will be a more appealing America. It is not enough to enlist and maintain the support of wealthy democracies in our vision of a free and open world. Our diplomats must compete to convince countries that have grown skeptical of American leadership that we have not lost our way. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has written… “we must better communicate the good that we do.” This includes our generosity to countries after natural disasters and our support in fighting global hunger.

“We have many challenges in our nation, but if we can have the eyes to see the thread that runs through many of them, we will recognize that we have a determined adversary in the Chinese Communist Party who has been waging this new Cold War.

“Our domestic disagreements run deep. But the myriad challenges that we face from abroad should help us see that we need to work together to urgently address the threats we face.

“We have a great inheritance. We live in a nation founded on the principles of human equality. We understand basic rights come from God and not government but that the government is instituted by the people to secure and preserve those rights.

“When America is strong and secure, we ensure Americans are free and prosperous.

“I will remain committed to this effort and have a renewed determination to work with any and all of my colleagues to steward this privilege and responsibility we have been given by the people of our states, so that this century remains an American century with liberty and human well-being secured around the globe.”

Source: Moran Senate

The post Sen. Moran Gives Foreign Policy Speech on Fortifying the U.S. from Threats from China appeared first on Policy Print.

“There is a lot of political fervor over TikTok and its connections to the Chinese government, and this is coming out in the form of these perhaps symbolic bans,” said Kurt Opsahl, general counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Those limitations suggested that Auburn was making more of a statement than a new policy.”

Cancel culture of both the left and right meet at the convenient doorstep of the other, China, in the halls of what arguably should be the most protected zone for free speech in the United States: its colleges and universities. Censorship has its requisite foe. With the magician’s sleight of hand, these bans transform bald-faced censorship into a sudden awareness of security risks.

Wow.

Let’s discuss. A legal guidance is necessary to make clear whether government bans on the use of TikTok on government devices and networks apply to higher education. That broader legal question has long been a slippery slope for state institutions. Decades went into the question, for example, on whether Americans With Disabilities Act regulations for the federal and state government required compliance among state colleges and universities. I am not sure that issue ever got fully settled until the Obama administration pushed regulations clearly down the Title path of the legislation to sections II and III, effectively ending the debate.

Psycho-political analysis might help us see how this stampede is taking shape. Real and perceived American concerns about the People’s Republic have coalesced into the only issue upon which our benighted political parties can find common ground. No surprise that the first committee formed in this new Congress centers on this point, House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party. Anti-Communism held the Republican Party together through much of the second half of the 20th century. As we watch the GOP ricochet between its big money elites and its angry grassroots, why not resurrect a tried and true formula to keep the peace? And signal a bipartisan gesture as flourish?

Histrionics are the problem with this composition. Real issues do exist in the calculus between the U.S. and the PRC geopolitically, socially and economically. Overheating about a popular application on the internet distracts from the deeper thinking that needs take shape around how to address military testiness and global competition. Far be it from the Republican Party to be histrionic, however, and I am being as sarcastic as I know how to be in print. From the local congressional race I personally experienced to the masters—Trump, Bannon, Jordan—99 percent of what comes out their mouths is nothing but drama, obscuring and displacing the possibility of more nuanced thought. Democrats, eager to appear “bipartisan,” better watch their step not to compete in seeing who can scream the loudest.

Enter hypocrisy, if not idiocy, of the highest order. Myriad groups, for example the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and individuals (and yes, I count myself among them) have been preaching privacy and security issues from the rooftops for at least a generation of sustained discussion on this front. Now, all of a sudden, we have awareness on the part of Congress, state elected officials including governors and higher education administrators that roosts on blocking the ports to a popular app on the internet? With nothing else to say about precisely what those security and privacy issues are apart from generalizations about how applications scrape and use data? Someone in China has access to what a coed at Auburn University likes to watch on TikTok? With no rules around how that data is gathered technologically (i.e., algorithmic design), managed professionally (Sold to advertisers? Delivered on silver platters to Chairman Xi?), or secured administratively (what are the rules?). We might hear echoes of our own circumstances. These challenges are exactly what we face in the United States in the gap that exists between consumers and tech companies. Mirror, mirror on the wall …

Had I not dedicated the lion’s share of my career life to higher education, I might just sit back and laugh. But I cannot. I actually took my career direction seriously (and wrote a dissertation, let us not forget, on Catholic women’s higher education, which was an enterprise that knew something about devotion) and therefore must speak out. Students, faculty, administrators, alumni, stand up in protest to this ridiculous and dangerous rhinoceros. If ever there was an educational moment for us to learn and teach about privacy and security, TikTok provides a most excellent example. We in higher education should take every opportunity to exploit it. We set a very bad precedent, however, to leap over the unique work we can do to educate and instead jump on the censorship bandwagon. Jump off, Auburn, and any other institution headed down that path. Remember your missions! Freedom of thought and speech are both drivers and values necessary to make those missions work. And don’t you let any politician knock you off that mantle that is yours and ours to cherish.

Source : Inside Highered

The post TikTok and Higher Education appeared first on Policy Print.