transatlantic relations

Transatlantic relations: Where to from here?

Crises can help put things in perspective. They often highlight weaknesses and problem areas with alarming clarity. The Transatlantic relationship is no different. A key feature of the post-war world, it has remained relatively unchanged for over half a century. Yet the Trump presidency has created divisions that few imagined possible a decade ago. The pandemic has further widened and spot-lighted the cracks in this fundamental alliance. I recently attended an event hosted by the  Brookings Institute. A variety of experts from both sides of the pond were invited to speak on how and where Transatlantic relations may be rebuilt.  

As with all struggling relationships, both parties have erred. Trump’s devil-may-care approach sits poorly with a union that is built on the need for constant compromise between 27 member states. However, America’s concerns regarding defense spending, the digital economy and most of all China, are real issues on which cooperation would benefit both sides. More than one expert at this event agreed that a win for Joe Biden in the upcoming US presidential elections would clearly impact Transatlantic relations. However, Fiona Hill, senior fellow at Brookings, points out that no matter who is sitting in the White House come January next year, it will be impossible to put the clock back to the old Cold War framework that defined Transatlantic relations for over half a century. ‘We are in a whole new era, that is different even from the 1990s or even the 2010s’ she says.  

What happened?

The issue of defense spending has been a sore point for decades. The US accounts for nearly 70% of total NATO defense spending. In terms of GDP, the US spent approximately 3.4% on defense while the average for European NATO countries was 1.55%. Germany, France and Italy all spend less than 2% of their GDP on defense spending. Last week, Germany received formal notification from the US that it would withdraw 9500 American troops stationed there. The news was greeted with mixed responses. Trump pointed out that there would still be 35 000 American troops stationed in Germany, the highest number in Europe. But it is the manner in which the decision was reached and relayed to German officials that highlights once more, the damage caused by a consistent lack of diplomacy from the current US administration.

Ivan Krastev, founding member of the European Council  on Foreign Relations and chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, notes sagely that Transatlantic relations are complex. Some European leaders, like Hungary’s Victor Orban are betting on Trump’s re-election. While for a country like Germany, the election of Democrat, Joe Biden, could put them in an awkward position with regards to China.

Germany is China’s biggest trading partner in Europe and has been reluctant to criticize the superpower for human rights violations. This includes issues like the Uighur Muslim detention camps and the ongoing pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. Amanda Sloat, Robert Bosch senior fellow at Brookings, points out that China is going to remain a difficult issue for Transatlantic relations, irrespective of who is in the White House. The Democrat’s are not expected to significantly alter the US position on China, although they might change their rhetoric.

Greater commitment to the multilateral order is important for Europe.

From the European side, Célia Belin, visiting fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings and previously an advisor on US affairs in the French foreign ministry, highlights the need for a coordinated global approach to the pandemic, particularly in the development and distribution of a vaccine. This raises the issue of American funding of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and other multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The latter has recently come under some pressure from the US. Belin argues that for Europe, continued US support for these long-standing, if imperfect institutions, is fundamental. A commitment to uphold the world order that Europe and the US set up at the end of World War II, one that outlasts a single administration, is missing from the Trump administration.

These concerns are real. Fiona Hill notes that US withdrawal from such international institutions often results in their decline. No other power has shown the same willingness to step in and fill the gap. Nevertheless, Molly Montgomery, non-resident fellow at Brookings Institution, points out that this European Commission shows more geopolitical ambition than previous ones have done. This can be seen most clearly in its stance on regulation of the digital economy. Tax issues in particular pose a problem for Transatlantic relations as the EU prepares to take on the likes of Facebook and Amazon. Montgomery warns of ‘a real fight between US tech giants and the EU’ in the future.

‘Stop China from eating free nations from the inside’ – Victoria Nuland

Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the US Department of State, Victoria Nuland, suggests that the US and the EU work together to protect a digital economy that supports free nations. She also highlights the need for cooperation, to stop China from ‘eating free nations from the inside’. Here she references aggressive Chinese take overs that are then used to leverage political influence. Montgomery agrees that Transatlantic relations are at their best when the focus is on common values and a shared goal. Both agree that the shared goal should be China. Montgomery suggests that a common approach to this overarching issue could provide an umbrella that will incentivize the US and the EU to find solutions on a range of other thorny issues including tax, the digital economy and even the environment.

‘Europeans have been on an extended vacation from geopolitics’ – Mark Leonard

Celia Belin also agrees that climate change, trade, health security and China all provide areas of cooperation for these two global powers. Mark Leonard, Co-founder and Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, argues that Europe has been ‘on an extended vacation from geopolitics for many years.’ This has made them bad partners for the US, during the good times. Now in the bad times, Europe has been forced to take more responsibility for its own affairs. This might, in turn, make the United States a more willing partner. A joint recognition that the world is a much less benign place for liberal values should and could help improve Transatlantic relations going forward.

Iran

Iran: Is the worst yet to come?

Recent elections and the shock arrival of the coronavirus in Iran have brought the country once more into the spotlight. I spoke with Iranian scholars and experts at De Balie recently who were equally divided on what the future holds for this ancient and beleaguered Middle Eastern power.

In recent years, Iran has made headlines with international sanctions regarding its development of a nuclear capability. In November last year widespread protests fuelled by exponential hikes in fuel prices were followed by the assassination of top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani by US forces in Iraq. A retaliatory attack by Iranian forces resulted in the downing of a passenger plane  in which over 100 Iranians were killed. More protests followed. It is estimated that  over 1500 Iranians have been killed by government clamp downs since November. With record low turnout at last week’s elections and a rising coronavirus death rate, Iran’s Islamic Republic is coming under increasing pressure.     

Described by many as ‘the least competitive election in years’ in Iran, over 7000 of  the 15 000 candidates who applied to run in the 2020 elections were disqualified by the Guardian Council. This is a 12-person board of experts in constitutional and Islamic law largely appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A survey of 140 000 people carried out earlier this month by Iranian state television indicated that 83% of participants would boycott the election. 

‘Iran is surrounded by evil disasters’ – Monsoureh Shojall

There is a deep sense of despair among Iranians. Long-time women’s rights activist, Monsoureh Shojall explains, ‘Iran is surrounded by evil disasters’. Certainly much has changed since the 2016 national elections. They promised hope of reform from within the Islamic government and a move toward a more open, prosperous economy. The 2015 Iranian nuclear deal had just been signed and the resulting lifting of sanctions paved the way for growth predictions of up to 6%. Voter turnout was reported to be 62%.

However the US has since pulled out of the nuclear deal (2018) and re-implemented a raft of sanctions against Iran. This, combined with high levels of corruption and mismanagement within the country, has resulted in soaring levels of unemployment and inflation. The IMF estimated a 9.5% contraction of Iran’s economy in 2019. Under these circumstances it is perhaps understandable that Shojall SAYS describes ‘negativity is a national trauma’ in Iran. However opinions on the country’s future are divided.

‘Iranian society is on a quest for democracy’ – Shervin Nekuee.

Some see the following months as the breaking point for Iran’s Islamic regime. It has struggled for over 40 years to maintain control. But for Iranian sociologist and writer, Shervin Nekuee, ‘Iranian society is on a quest for democracy’. He describes the current time as ‘a dark moment on an inspiring quest’. Iranian academic and research fellow, Damon Golriz, is even more hopeful of change. He argues that since December 2017 the country has ‘changed radically’. An era of dichotomy or bi-polar division has begun he explains, which involves 80% of Iranians under 40 demanding a complete change. ‘They want something totally new, a different life.’

Shervin Nekuee takes a long-term historical perspective in order to explain the current situation. His narrative begins in 1953, the year of the coup d’état in which the CIA allegedly took a hand via Operation Ajax. In the climate of the Cold War, the rise of the Communist Party in Iran was viewed with suspicion by the United States.  Fast forward to 1977 when Jimmy Carter describes Iran as ‘America’s island of stability’ in the Middle East. Only to find that two years later, the Islamic Revolution successfully dispelled any such notions. The American hostage crisis in the same year,  lasting for an incredible  444 days, compounds the growing tensions between the US and Iran. So too, does the Iran / Iraq war in which America supports Saddam Hussein. Trump’s recent withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal and the assassination of a member of the Iranian government is further evidence of failing Iran US relations. 

‘Trump is more popular in Iran than in Europe’ – Damon Golriz

But there are others who interpret events differently. Damon Golriz argues that the removal of Soleimani has ‘opened the doors for negotiation between Iran and the US as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia’. Generally acknowledged as the second most powerful man in Iran after the Ayatollah Khamenei and labelled a terrorist by the US, Golriz argues that Soleimani stood in the way of any serious structural reforms in Iran. Research Fellow in International Peace, Justice and Security group in the Hague, Golriz told me he has twitter accounts in Persian and in English. He sees that in Iran, Trump is far more popular than in Europe. For the simple reason that ‘they understand politics while  the Europeans focus on his morality’. 

The future of course is difficult to foresee. As our Iranian host, Bahram Sadeghi, tells us with typical irony, ‘My father always said, “Bahram, the worst is yet to come”’. In the case of Iran, this may, sadly be true. But Damon Golriz is positive about the strong and growing desire for change among the younger generation in Iran. He is also more positive about the shift in power dynamics that have occurred in the Middle East recently. Even skeptics like University of Amsterdam Senior lecturer, Paul Aarts, agree that with a Republican government likely to remain in place in the US,  the Islamic regime may be forced to agree to a deal that even moderates will accept. This is simply because Trump has shown he is willing to put his money where his mouth is, for better and for worse. 

fake news

Lies, damn lies and fake news.

As the coronavirus spreads, so information and disinformation about its causes, casualties and prognosis have spread with it. One epidemiologist has suggested fake news about the virus is just as contagious as the virus itself. Although false or misinformation has been with us for centuries, it was only in the last decade that the term ‘fake news’ was coined.  I recently heard from journalist and founding editor of BuzzFeed Canada, Craig Silverman, who was one of the first to use and study the phenomenon. On a visit to Amsterdam, he discussed the role of disinformation in this age of social media and how it affects our daily lives.  

Do we live in a post-truth world? This question is frequently raised. Yet, as writer, Steven Poole points out, there never has been ‘a golden age of transparency’. Fake news and scientific misinformation were serious problems for  Renaissance thinkers, along with our tendency toward confirmation bias. This may well be true but Craig Silverman’s account of the growth of the phenomenon on social media, highlight the importance of context.  Silverman begins his story in the small Macedonian town of Veles in 2014. With the closure of a factory, the town’s largest employer, many local residents found themselves out of work. However, a group of  young, tech savvy locals began to cash in on the money that could be made from creating fake websites that ran fake news. In this case, they created over a hundred pro-Trump websites in the run-up to the 2016 US elections.

A digital gold rush.

Designed to engage Trump supporters and ultimately generate revenue via Facebook and Google AdSense, Silverman describes the phenomenon as ‘a digital gold rush’.  His 2016 article ‘How teens in the Balkans are duping Trump supporters with fake news’, was one of the first instances in which the term, ‘fake news’ was used. His investigation of the phenomenon highlighted the economic incentives associated with the production of fake news. Consumers in the US are worth about four times as much as a user outside the country according to Facebook’s earnings reports. The young Macedonians who ran these sites told Silverman that they didn’t care about Trump but were simply interested in click rates which ultimately lead to cash.

This was an early example of what Silverman terms ‘the business model around manipulation’. Similar trends continue today. For example; the global trade in Amazon 4 and 5 star reviews. Or the renting out of one’s Facebook account for around 15$ a month to run advertisements. In 2014 he founded Emergent.Info, a web-based tool that tracks social share patterns over time and is thus able to verify or debunk rumors and conspiracies online. Silverman tells us that he found a certain type of website never seen before. They initially looked normal but were in fact 100% false.

He shows us the example of one such website, called National Report. Sites such as these not only have fake content but also fake journalists, fake reader comments and even false ‘corrections’ from those apparently involved in the incidents reported. ‘These sites were getting hundreds of thousands of hits’ he tells us. He mentions another example from Canada where two youths created a website that consistently earned thousands of dollars a month by making up fake stories about Canadian Prime minister, Justin Trudeau.

‘Authoritarian regimes have weaponized fake news’ – Craig Silverman

Silverman goes on to explain how US President, Donald Trump, then ‘took ownership of the term’, using it to deflect criticism and questions from the press. He also mentions the renting out of individual’s accounts in the Ukraine by Putin’s Russian government, in order to manipulate the Ukrainian elections. Indeed the journalist suggests that fake news has been ‘weaponised’ by authoritarian regimes who have used it not only to criminalize dissent but also to protect and promote their own power base.

A recent article in the Conversation explores how the Chinese authorities are using social media to ‘manage  information’ about the coronavirus and its spread. The ’50-cent army’ and volunteer ‘truth ambassadors’ have been mobilised in their rumour-busting efforts. Tencent has taken responsibility for providing ‘transparent’ communication on the virus. The government has told people to only post and forward information from official channels and warned of severe consequences for anyone found guilty of disseminating “rumours”. These include permanently blocking WeChat groups, blocking social media accounts, and possible jail terms.

Error has always been a part of journalism, indeed of all things human. But, as Silverman explains, traditionally, the press has remedied this by acknowledging errors made. Such an approach ensured accuracy and generated that all important ingredient: trust. The Canadian journalist spent ten years running a website called, Regret the Error which focused on mistakes made by journalists. During this time he noticed the seismic shift that occurred with the advent of social media. ’This was a ten year journey that really began to change when social media became such a big force’, he explains. Errors could no longer be corrected by news producers nor could the veracity of facts be checked before they were made available for public consumption. ‘All sorts of erroneous stuff is already out there and getting lots of attention on social media’. How then does one sort the real from the fake, the trusted from the untrusted?

What does healthy skepticism look like?

Clearly the virtual world has created opportunities hitherto unknown for both good and ill. The incredible reach of social media means that almost everyone can now participate.  The question is how best to manage this massive shift without sacrificing freedom or trust. Silverman argues that transparency and open discussion are essential. The Canadian journalist invites everyone to think about what ‘healthy skepticism looks like’.  He predicts a rise in what he terms ‘borderline misinformation’ in the future. But he still believes the internet can be a force for good in spite of its growing complexity. ‘Don’t be afraid of complexity!’ he urges. In a world of information disorder we don’t, it seems, have much choice.

Did Trump and Johnson rely on an outdated voting system to come to power?

More than 50% of UK voters actually voted for a pro-Remain party in last month’s general election. So how was Johnson’s pro-Brexit party able to come away with such an apparently resounding victory? Trump’s victory in the 2016 US elections was  equally counter-intuitive if you look at the numbers. Hilary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes – 48% to 46% but Donald Trump is president. The answer lies in the so-called winner-takes-all or First Past the Post voting systems used in both the US and the UK. Increasingly recognised as divisive, out-dated and often undemocratic, this system continues to hold sway, with serious consequences.  

In the 2020 US presidential elections, it is predicted that campaigning will be concentrated in just four states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida. Former campaign manager for Barack Obama, Jim Messina, describes it as ‘the smallest map in modern political history’.  It is typical that no more than 12 states are the focus of campaign events in recent US elections. Candidates focus their time, energy and money both before and after voting day on these so-called swing states. This is largely because of the winner-takes-all voting system in operation in 48 US states. In practice, this voting system means that that even if a candidate wins with a very small majority, all electoral votes go to the winner. For example in 2012, Obama won 1.5 million votes in Minnesota while Romney won 1.3 million. However the winner-takes-all approach meant that all ten of Minnesota’s electoral votes for president were cast by Democrats.   

Voting is a postcode lottery  

Voting systems such as these encourage candidates to ignore states in which they are either well ahead or far behind. The chances of them changing the status quo are small and the pickings are much better in the swing states. The result; in the 2016 election, 94% of general election campaign events took place in the twelve battle ground states.

A similar situation exists in the UK where each constituency has a winner who will represent that constituency in parliament, irrespective of how many actual voters live in this constituency. Hence there are a lot of wasted votes. Thus, despite receiving just 1.2% more of the popular vote, the Conservative party managed a huge swing of 48 seats out of 650, compared to the last election. As a voter, where you live determines what, if any, power your individual vote will have. It also means that ruling parties like the Conservatives or Labour in Britain can get an absolute majority in parliament with approximately 35% of the votes. Local MPs are generally required to tow the party line creating a gap between voters and their representatives in parliament.

What are the alternatives?

There are a number of other options but Proportional Representation (PR) is widely used in many European countries. A version thereof, Alternative Voting (AV) or proportional instant run-off voting, was proposed in the UK, in a 2011 referendum. The AV system ensures that the winning candidate in a constituency has to gain 50% of the votes. Voters put candidates in order of preference. If a candidate receives 50% of first preferences they are elected. If no one has 50% then the bottom candidate is eliminated and their second preference votes are allocated to the other candidates.

Surprisingly perhaps, there was an overwhelming majority against the idea of changing the current voting system. Only 32.1% of Britons voted in favour of it. Critics maintain that this system leads to the election of a least disliked candidate rather than a real favourite. However, defensive voting strategies, often employed in winner-takes-all systems, lead to similar results. Voters vote simply to block the candidate they dislike most.

Going Dutch

When voting in the Netherlands, one is faced with a rather large, initially complicated looking, ballot paper. Candidates from all parties, all over the country, are listed in rank order. Voters thus choose from a single national list of candidates rather than selecting representatives for their local district. You pick a party and then choose an MP from that party – in this way one can vote for a local or a national candidate. Any candidate who receives a certain percentage of the vote wins a seat in the Dutch parliament.

Proportional Representation (PR) results in a wider range of parties in parliament, including smaller ones. Thus coalition governments are common. In the Netherlands it is not uncommon to have as many as four parties forming a coalition government. Supporters of the First Past the Post voting system argue that this leads to unstable governments that lack strong leadership. However, in the four UK national elections since 2010, half have produced hung parliaments where no single party had a majority.

What if?

An academic from Strathclyde University, Heinz Brandenburg, experimented with the recent UK election results using the Dutch PR system. Although some things could not be factored in because of obvious differences between the two countries, he found that with the Dutch voting system, the Conservative party would not have won an outright majority. Smaller parties like the Lib Dems, the Greens and the Brexit party would have done better. As one commentator put it, ’Britain has a multi-party politics trapped in the decrepit body of first past the post.’ A recent report by a British thinktank, the Constitution society, concluded that First Past the Post encourages extreme politics. Increasing polarization of political views in both  the US and the UK seem to support this claim.

Launched at the United Nations in 1998, the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network is the world’s largest online repository of electoral knowledge. It shows that the global movement towards democratic governance in the 1980s and 1990s has resulted in a growing awareness of the importance of voting systems as one of the most influential political institutions. They are charged with fostering stable and efficient government, coherent coalitions and strong parties, among others. But perhaps it is the general principles of design that need revisiting in these turbulent times. Principles of fair representation, transparency and inclusiveness.

The Calculus of Consent

Over fifty years ago, two American academics, James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, wrote a seminal book on democratic theory, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Fusing economic methods and political theory, this groundbreaking work argues that the essential function of democratic institutions is to induce mutual gains by resolving conflicts through exchange. Buchanan calls this ‘politics as exchange’.

It offers a solution to the problem of democratic justification in political theory. It also shows that dissent and the requisite negotiation that leads to what economists would call ‘exchange’, is a healthy thing. Thus leading to more optimal decisions in so far as satisfaction levels of greater numbers of individuals are higher. Calculus of Consent provides convincing theoretical and practical justification for voting systems like Proportional Representation, that take into account the increased number and plurality of views in modern day states. No voting system is perfect but the real question is whether it is an improvement on the current one. Recent rises in populism and polarization in both the US and the UK suggest that it may well be.