Thread by @ambassadorbrief

Weekly Geopolitical Brief

Three stories:

Baghdadi raid: @attackerman argued that ISIS leader Baghdadi is dead, but “the war on Terror will create another…There will be another Baghdadi, and another ISIS, as long as the Forever War keeps going”.

He continued, “the expansive war the U.S. launched does not fight against a static enemy. It generates enemies... Its history shows it yielding further generations of jihadists as long as there are American forces hunting, surveilling, and killing Muslims worldwide”.

And, “as proficient as U.S. special operators have become at manhunting these past 18 years, and as central as manhunting has been during that time, there is no campaign plan, not even a theory, by which the killings of jihadist leaders knit up into a lasting victory”.

“At each turn of the war’s ratchet, the jihadists have only come back in more violent form and greater mass, the exact opposite of what any war is supposed to achieve”. Thus, “Baghdadi’s death gains the U.S. as much as the broader war on terrorism does: ultimately nothing.”

Global Protests: @FareedZakaria argued that “from Chile to Lebanon, Iraq to India, we are seeing strikes, marches & riots…At first glance….each of these movements seem quite distinct. But they are all occurring against a worrisome backdrop — a collapse of economic growth”.

He continued, “when growth collapses, anxieties rise, especially among the middle class who feel squeezed, get enraged by corruption and inequality, and have the capacity to voice their anger. [E.g] Chile, where a subway fare hike has led to the worst street violence in decades”.

There are many causes of this anaemic growth, but populism and nationalism are partly to blame: “over the past few years, we have seen the rise of populism & nationalism around the world — and with it have come short-sighted policies that are stunting long-term growth”.

Hong Kong: Per the FT, the CCP is “drawing up a plan to replace Carrie Lam…with an ‘interim’ chief executive”. If they proceed, “Ms Lam’s successor would be installed by March and cover the remainder of her term, which ends in 2022”.

.@benjaminbland argued that “much can change between now and [March] but this suggests Beijing thinks [the] protests are losing steam (otherwise it’s best to keep her absorbing all the toxicity in Hong Kong)”.

.@BeijingPalmer argued that “even if Lam is removed…there are still huge rifts to be healed. Mistrust between the police & the public, and between HKers & the mainland, is at a record high”. The compromises necessary to rebuild HK society may be “politically impossible”.

Three thought-provoking articles:

.@DrDaronAcemoglu & James Robinson argued that populism could save US democracy. There’s an analogy between the current moment & the 1890s – also an era of “rapid technological change, economic growth, and globalization that benefits only some”.

Then, “the scheming elites were the railway, steel, petroleum, and finance tycoons—the robber barons…who had enriched themselves partly thanks to their political connections”. And many feared that the backlash against them would “upend U.S. democracy and liberty”.

But, in the end, “populism was helpful—perhaps even necessary” for creating the broad-based coalition which underpinned the progressive movement – and managed to “articulate demands not just for dismantling existing institutions but also for building new ones”

.@McFaul argued that “for decades…scholars have debated which matters more in international affairs: structural forces, such as the relative power between states, or the ideas and decisions of individual leaders”. But Trump “may put the debate to rest”.

He continued, “After a slow start, Trump has affected almost every facet of U.S. foreign policy. And the story to date is not an inspiring one. Trump has personalized, privatized, and deinstitutionalized foreign policy to the detriment of the national interest”.

“In the process, the American public has suffered, U.S. allies have lost, and U.S. adversaries have gained—none more so than Russian President Vladimir Putin… The President’s Privatized Foreign Policy Is a Boon for Russia”.

.@jamescrabtree argued that Xi’s oppression in Xinjiang, and Modi’s power grab in Kashmir are best understood as part of the same broad trend: the trampling of minority rights in the quest to build “unified states with strong, cohesive national identities”.

He continued, “this is not the primary justification either Modi or Xi gives, of course. India's leader says he wants to bring economic development to Kashmir. To the extent it admits what is happening Xinjiang at all, China talks about the risk of Islamic terrorism”.

But both programs are part of a “broader and predictable process of nationalism”. And they “reveal the importance Indian and Chinese leaders now place on developing a more powerful state structure and unified identity as part of their emergence as global powers”.

Three events to watch in the near-future:

Brexit: Per Donald Tusk, “The EU27 has agreed that it will accept the UK’s request for a Brexit flextension until 31 January 2020”. The UK will be able to leave earlier if a deal is ratified.

And per the Guardian “today, Johnson [will stage] a third vote on an early election – which, again, he is expected to win, but not by the two-thirds majority required…for it to actually happen”. However, Johnson is also considering legislative work arounds for an early poll.

Mexican drug war: @shannonkoneil argued that AMLO’s policy of “hugs not bullets” is failing Mexico…Murders and kidnappings are at record levels and spreading through Mexico’s once-safer [areas]. Talk of Mexico becoming a failed state is again on the rise”.

Worse, “things won’t improve anytime soon. AMLO’s social approach to preventing violence will take years to translate into real change on the ground, if it ever works”. A better approach is for the US & Mexico to work together, and “focus on what will save lives”.

This means “doubling down” on the principles of the Merida Initiative: strategically going after the bad guys; focusing border resources less on fleeing families than on curbing the flows of drugs, guns, & money; strengthening the rule of law; & helping stricken communities.

Recession risk easing? @brunello_rosa argued that “in this precarious global economic environment, some of the tail risks that could have tipped this global slowdown into a global recession seem to have been diminishing in the last few weeks”.

@brunello_rosa He continued: (i) the US & China have a phase one trade deal (ii) a hard Brexit looks less likely (iii) Saudi Arabia & Iran seem unlikely to escalate into an open military confrontation; & (iv) Argentina’s populists are aware of the need to constructively engage with the IMF.

But, even “if these four fronts become less dangerous, new ones might open up. For example, by November 17th the US administration will have to decide whether or not to start imposing tariffs on the European auto sector”.

Thanks as always to everyone who has been liking, retweeting, and spreading the word. We are continually humbled by the following we are gathering amongst the world’s leading diplomats, journalists, and thinkers.

Have a great week!

The Ambassador’s Brief Editors