Sanctions are usually the first option in coercive diplomacy considering that the use of force is so morally tainted. But how effective they are is highly contested. There are costs and benefits to their use and one of the most notable cost is the “rally around the flag effect.”
Timothy Frye looks at this very aspect of Russian sanctions and writes,
I studied this issue in a recent working paper and found little evidence that economic sanctions influenced levels of support for the Russian leadership.6 To reach this conclusion, I conducted a nationally representative survey of 2,000 respondents in Russia in November 2016 just following the US presidential election, in which I randomly assigned respondents to receive questions with different prompts.7 In the baseline condition, respondents were asked, “To what extent do you support the Russian leadership (rukovodstvo) on a 5-point scale where 1 equals very negative and 5 equals very positive?” In the baseline condition where respondents received no additional information, the average level of support for the Russian government was 3.52.
Prior to receiving this question, one group of respondents was reminded that “since 2014 the United States has levied sanctions against Russia,” and another group of respondents were told that “since 2014 the European Union has levied economic sanctions against Russia.” If the “rally around the flag” argument was correct, we would expect support for the Russian government in these two groups to be higher on average than in the baseline group. Instead, in these groups the level of support for the Russian government was 3.40 and 3.46, respectively—lower than the support in the control group. Reminding respondents that the United States and the European Union had levied economic sanctions against Russia produced no discernible effect on the respondents’ support for the Russian government.
Short read and you can access the rest here.
Xi’s narrative of rejuvenation has resonated deeply among today’s Chinese. It places the country not only at the center of the international system but also above it, casting the nation as one that inspires emulation by the force of its advanced culture and economic achievements. It also evokes historical memories of a time when China received tribute from the rest of the world, was a source of world-class innovation, and was a fearless seafaring power. And it implies that in the past, China did not need to use force: its virtue alone engendered deference from others.
The subtile of the article is How China’s Imagined Past Shapes its Present and the author is Elizabeth Economy. You can read the rest here.
According to Graham Allison, he wants
How will Xi “make China great again”? After studying the man, listening to his words, and speaking to those who understand him best, I believe for Xi this means:
- Returning China to the predominance it enjoyed in Asia before the West intruded;
- Reestablishing control over the territories the Communist Party considers to be “greater China,” including not just Xinjiang and Tibet on the mainland, but Hong Kong and Taiwan;
- Recovering its historic sphere of influence along its borders and in the adjacent seas so that others give it the deference great nations have always demanded;
- Commanding the respect of other great powers in the councils of the world.
and then notes
At the core of these national goals is a civilizational creed that sees China as the center of the universe. In the Chinese language, the word for China, zhong guo (中国), means “Middle Kingdom.” “Middle” refers not to the space between other, rival kingdoms, but to all that lies between heaven and earth. As Lee summarized the worldview shared by hundreds of Chinese officials who sought his advice, they “recall a world in which China was dominant and other states related to them as supplicants to a superior, as vassals that came to Beijing bearing tribute.” In this narrative, the rise of the West in recent centuries is a historical anomaly, reflecting China’s technological and military weakness when it faced dominant imperial powers during a “century of humiliation” from roughly 1839 to 1949. Xi Jinping has promised his fellow citizens: no more.
This is from a May 2017 and you can read the rest here.
This is at Quartz.
Options discussed include
- European Army
- Increase spending and pool resources
- “Get good at what’s actually possible without the US”
- Convince the US it needs Europe
- “Don’t do anything drastic”
The issue with NATO isn’t that the allies are free riding. Don’t get me wrong, NATO is “welfare for the rich” and its utterly stupid that Americans are arguably paying more for European security than Europeans do, but to me the issue is that the alliance has been extended into areas into territories that produce the security dilemma from a Russian perspective.
Taking political stock of the past 18 months, It is becoming clear that 1) the original NATO is becoming more essential than we realized and 2) it needs the United States to lead. There is too much latent populism and nationalism on the continent to let Germany rise without some sort of outside check to manage it. And frankly, NATO can’t survive without the United States. You have clear evidence of shrieking now. If the United States were to transfer power to NATO and the alliance was actually somehow needed, why would we assume buckpassing wouldn’t emerge as the dominant response?
Many have discussed Russia’s pursuit of a new identify following its disastrous experiment with communism. Would Russia have a purpose on the world stage, or would it merely be an ad-hoc pragmatic power, largely selling the world natural resources on its way towards a full blown kleptocracy?
It turns out Russia does have a purpose and it is the restoration of social conservatism.
Putin is the movements leader.
This effort is obviously strategic. Consider the following from Alina Polyakova’s brilliant piece, Putinism and the European Far Right.
“Europe’s far-right parties and the Putin doctrine frame their respective nations and people as being in the middle of a culture war between Western liberal plurality and traditional Christian values. In 2013, the Center for Strategic Communications—a Russian based think-tank— published a report entitled “Putin: The New World Leader of Conservatism.” Putin, according to this report, stands for traditional values in a world fraught with instability: law and order, family, and the Christian heritage. The FN’s Marine Le Pen has praised Putin for standing up for Christian civilization and traditional values, hailing him as a “natural ally to Europe.”
You can read the report in its entirety here.
Subtitle is “The phenomenon is a wholesale suspicion of the principle of representation itself.”
Here is the most informative line,
Populisms represent what we could call the “democracy of suspicion” whereby the apparatuses of representation (the parliamentary system, the parliamentary “class,” the elite, their pet experts and so on) are subject to hostility, precisely for not being representative enough or, more significantly, for being mere “representatives” in the first place.
Excellent read and a refreshing break from the populism = racism work you see so often.
All populism, regardless of time or geographical context, is a confidence in the “people” and a skepticism in experts. This sentiment is always there yet it needs some sort of social or economic issue to get it up off the ground. In Latin America it has been economic. In America it has been demographics. In Europe, both.
You can read the entire thing here.
PS, this article won the Hennessy prize for essay writing on British politics. It’s author is Thomas Osborne.
AEI’s Dalibor Rohac has a great column on how liberals (who if you haven’t noticed are losing the war of ideas as of lately) can reclaim the narrative of globalism.
He encourages liberals to
…show the national interest is not advanced by empty promises of manufacturing jobs, immigration bans and ethnic homogeneity. Instead, it is best served by economic openness, international engagement by liberal democracies and reasonably liberal immigration policies.
He further states
What liberal leaders must offer is a different narrative about national identity and national greatness, one we might call “internationalist nationalism.” A genuine commitment to prosperity and success of one’s own country, they must argue, goes hand in hand with the embrace of openness, economic dynamism and globalization.
Such a perspective has been absent from the larger debate as those who advocate open markets, relatively open borders, and the institutionalization of international politics have usually assumed that the net benefits speak for themselves. Yet the lure of tribalism is most seductive when one’s identity is least certain, such as in the wake of the creative destruction of globalization.
The rest of the article can be found here.