There is growing recognition in the West that multilateral institutions need to change to deal with worsening crises, as well as to respond to the legitimate demands of marginalized countries to be included in international decision-making. But there remains a lack of consensus on what a transformation of the global order entails.
U.S. President Joe Biden is confident that the U.S. can do it all: support both Ukraine and Israel at war, contain China, thwart Iran, regulate and secure the U.S. border, and address a host of other security crises now facing the world. But politics at home may make the current situation too much for Biden to handle.
One of the reasons for the ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy as House speaker by so-called MAGA Republicans was their opposition to sending more funding and military assistance to Ukraine amid Russia’s war there. The question this raises is: Why? Why is Ukraine aid such a common cudgel for the MAGA wing of the GOP?
Flaws in last year’s groundbreaking Inflation Reduction Act, designed to speed the U.S. energy transition, could end up slowing the adoption of electric vehicles. The IRA’s tax incentives for EVs exclude major potential suppliers of critical minerals, including Argentina, where the lithium sector is growing explosively.
Attempts to decouple science and technology cooperation between the U.S. and China have intensified over the past five years, occurring across education, government and industry. But even as competition intensifies, the U.S. should think strategically about cooperation with China and not react impulsively to limit contact.
Six months in, Sudan’s internal conflict has become a devastating humanitarian crisis, with tens of millions of people needing assistance. Worse still, neither side in the war is anywhere near ending the fighting. If concerted action is not taken soon to end the conflict, it could result in the collapse of Sudan.
The musical “Here Lies Love,” which opened on Broadway this past summer and tells the story of former Philippine first lady Imelda Marcos, faces the same dilemma as its obvious forerunner and reference, “Evita,” when it comes to engaging with the histories and politics of countries in the Global South.
The belief that the U.S. and France have radically different approaches to secularism and the separation of church and state is now widespread, deeply entrenched—and wrong. In fact, the source of this dispute emerged relatively recently, and it represented a significant shift in the emphasis of French laïcité: the headscarf law of 2004.
The threat of a U.S. government shutdown because of legislative gridlock in Washington no longer has the power to shock U.S. allies and adversaries. But the likelihood of further political paralysis in Washington has forced many governments to ponder what a potential future without the U.S. as a coherent global actor might look like.
Critics of the proposed U.S. role in a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal have focused on Riyadh’s human rights record. But the real problem with the deal is that it would do little to advance U.S. interests. The stated goal of normalization is admirable. But it’s simply not worth the price the U.S. appears willing to pay.