Search

Begin New Search Publication Year within 1 Year

3821. Expanding Engagement among South Korea and the Quad Countries in the Indo-Pacific

Author:
Kristi Govella, Garima Mohan, and Bonnie S. Glaser
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Since its revival in 2017, the quadrilateral dialogue among Australia, India, Japan, and the United States known as the “Quad” has become a stronger, more institutionalized grouping with a broad and growing agenda. As a leading economy, a vibrant democracy, and a key US strategic ally, South Korea stands out as one of the most promising potential partners for the Quad. With a new administration in office in Seoul, the time is ripe for South Korea to expand its engagement with the Quad countries in the Indo-Pacific. Even without formally expanding the membership of the Quad, which is currently not under consideration by its members, there are pragmatic and effective ways for these five countries to pursue their shared interests and values through a flexible set of mechanisms across a wide variety of crucial issues. After a brief review of the debates about the Quad in South Korea, this paper presents a framework for the country to consult, coordinate, and cooperate with Quad members through distinct institutional pathways: bilateral mechanisms, sub-Quad minilateral mechanisms, issue-specific engagement to achieve a specific functional goal, and more formal Quad Plus engagement on a broad strategic level. The paper offers the following recommendations for South Korea and the Quad countries to deepen their engagement in eight areas that correspond with Quad working groups and activities: critical and emerging technologies, infrastructure, health, climate change, education and people-to-people exchange, maritime safety and security, cybersecurity, and outer space.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Quad Alliance, and Defense Cooperation
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, and Indo-Pacific

3822. Toward a New Youth Brain-drain Paradigm in the Western Balkans

Author:
Marjan Icoski
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Youth brain drain is one of the most worrisome problems for the Western Balkan Six countries (WB6)—Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Kosovo, and Serbia. The pace and intensity of youth brain drain, rank the WB6 among the top brain drain leaders in the world, with estimations to lose a quarter to half of its skilled and educated young citizens in the forthcoming decades. A situation that cast serious doubts on the democratic and economic progress of WB6, and their prospective membership into the EU. Youth brain drain is a historically rooted topic in the culture and tradition of the WB6, provoking huge sentiments and heated public debates. Due to its sensitivity, it is prone to politicization and misuse by the political parties that did not manage to find a compromise for its full acknowledgment as a separate policy field. Therefore, to date, the policy approach to youth brain drain is declarative and inconsistent, tackled as part of bigger policy areas such as youth employment, education, and diaspora engagement. Although formally, all WB6 countries have policies and institutional mechanisms in place, youth emigration and the desire to leave are constantly on the rise, underlining their limited scope and impact to keep youth home. This paper analyzes the conceptual shortcomings of the current policy approach. In line with the latest trends and tendencies of youth brain drain, it offers fresh policy options for utilization of the potential of the regional youth diaspora as the new WB6 development doctrine. The paper sees the youth diaspora not only as a source of remittances but also as a source of investments, know-how, skills, and connections as per the examples of several EU member states. The paper further announces the necessary paradigm change grounded in the shift of the public narrative and redesign of return and circulation policies through deepening regional cooperation and establishing a new migration deal with the EU under the framework of the WB6 accession processes.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Migration, Brain Drain, and Youth
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, Balkans, and Central Europe

3823. Designing Ukraine’s Recovery in the Spirit of the Marshall Plan

Author:
Ronja Ganster, Jacob Kirkegaard, Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, and Bruce Stokes
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
The Marshall Plan is a source of inspiration and a fountain of hope for Ukraine’s recovery; evoking it is a marker of ambition. Yet, it cannot be a template for the international aspiration to help rebuild the country. A plan for Ukraine needs to take a 21st century shape. In the late 1940s, there was one hegemon and a set of newly built institutions to aid more than a dozen ailing current and future allies. Today, many countries are needed to help one. This necessitates utilizing and adapting existing aid mechanisms.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Recovery, Post-Conflict, Russia-Ukraine War, and Marshall Plan
Political Geography:
Europe and Ukraine

3824. A Modern Marshall Plan for Ukraine

Author:
Heather Conley
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Can one of the most successful US foreign policy initiatives in the 20th century—the Marshall Plan—be replicated in the 21st century—a modern Marshall Plan for Ukraine? The unequivocal answer to this question is “yes,” but it is essential to draw upon historical and inspirational lessons from the Marshall Plan to ensure the reconstruction and long-term economic recovery of Ukraine succeeds.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Recovery, Post-Conflict, Russia-Ukraine War, Defense Cooperation, and Marshall Plan
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

3825. How Its War on Ukraine Killed Russia’s Hydrogen Ambitions

Author:
Aliaksei Patonia
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Hydrogen looks like the fuel that can facilitate global decarbonization because it can be used in diverse applications—such as heat and power generation, transport, and manufacturing—without any carbon emissions. But, while many countries (including in Europe) view renewables-based, zero-carbon hydrogen as the ultimate goal in transitioning to a hydrogen economy, today most hydrogen is produced from natural gas. Thus, it is unlikely that the hydrogen transition will happen without relying on this fossil fuel. Russia is the country with the world’s largest natural gas deposits, and it has been exploring ways to adjust its energy sector to the needs of the emerging global hydrogen one. In 2021, it announced the goal of capturing up to 20 percent of the world’s hydrogen market by 2030. This came after all the major importers of Russia’s energy products had developed their hydrogen strategies, and its key energy companies started to explore new opportunities. Having signed memoranda of understanding with some of the world’s major energy companies to jointly develop Russia’s hydrogen export potential, they focused on Europe as the key destination. Some of Asia’s hydrogen pioneers and most promising future importers, such as Japan and South Korea, were also included among Russia’s potential partners. These steps could have resulted in long-lasting and fruitful collaborations generating large profits for Russia, but its ambitions have been jeopardized by its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. This has led to Russia losing key political and economic partners in Europe and also in Asia, which—in combination with being the target the toughest sanctions in its history—is likely to cripple its nascent hydrogen sector. Having planned to convert its natural-gas pipelines to transport hydrogen to future buyers in Europe, Russia is unlikely to be able to use this infrastructure for this purpose anymore. The EU will be an unlikely buyer of Russian hydrogen for the foreseeable future. Turning to Japan and South Korea would not be a success either, since they have joined the sanctions regime against Russia and, like the EU, have been officially labeled as unfriendly by Moscow. This will make the transfer of the technologies critical for the production of low- and zero-carbon hydrogen from the world leaders to a technologically backward Russia very problematic. Europe will also feel long-lasting repercussions of Russia’s war in Ukraine in the energy and hydrogen sectors. With no steady supplies of cheap Russian gas or hydrogen, Europe’s decarbonization efforts and building up its hydrogen industry will be inhibited and require a lot more effort and money. Russia will have to seek alternative markets for its energy commodities and it will seek deals with China, the only country whose energy consumption can rival that of Europe. But, as one of the world’s largest producers of electrolysers and of conventionally manufactured hydrogen, China probably will not need to import Russia’s hydrogen to build up its own hydrogen sector. Possessing critical technologies of its own, it will instead increase imports of Russian primary energy sources (such as natural gas) that it can use for producing hydrogen. The influx of huge volumes of cheap Russian feedstock will speed up China’s transformation from a country with a nascent hydrogen sector into a dominant player on the global hydrogen market. If the EU or the United States—the only two actors comparable to China in economic, technological, and geopolitical strength—do not develop similarly strong hydrogen sectors, Beijing could end up dominating the global energy landscape. To avoid the geopolitical consequences of this and for global balance to be maintained, further cooperation between the EU and the United States will be needed to speed up the creation of strong hydrogen sectors for both.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Business, Trade, Hydrogen, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

3826. How the EU Can Defend Media Freedom and Pluralism in Hungary and Poland

Author:
Anna Wójcik
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
In recent years, the European Union has suffered from the erosion of media freedom and pluralism, particularly in Hungary and Poland, where this has been part of a broader decline in democratic standards that has reversed gains made from the transitioning from communism. The main problems include the lack of independence of media regulators; public media being turned into propaganda outlets for the government, characterized by reporting bias and vilifying the opposition; private media capture; the state disproportionately funding government-supporting private media, including through state-controlled companies’ advertising; and creating obstacles for private media independent of government, including through revoking licenses and threatening new taxes. In Poland, the number of strategic lawsuits against public participation against certain media that criticize the government have also greatly increased. The EU has been in the prepared to tackle the issue of breaches of media freedom and pluralism chiefly through a combination of political instruments and new legislation, which may eventually embolden the EU institutions to take legal action. However, it is important to ensure any new legislative initiative will have added value. The EU already has avenues for legal actions to protect media freedom and pluralism in member states.
Topic:
European Union, Media, Freedom of Press, and Pluralism
Political Geography:
Europe, Poland, and Hungary

3827. AI Audit-Washing and Accountability

Author:
Ellen P. Goodman
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
We are still some distance from a worldwide robot takeover, but artificial intelligence (AI)—the training of computer systems with large data sets to make decisions and solve problems—is revolutionizing the way governments and societies function. AI has enormous potential: accelerating innovation, unlocking new value from data, and increasing productivity by freeing us from mundane tasks. AI can draw new inferences from health data to foster breakthroughs in cancer screening or improve climate modeling and early-warning systems for extreme weather or emergency situations. As we seek solutions to today’s vexing problems—climate disruption, social inequality, health crises—AI will be central. Its centrality requires that stakeholders exercise greater governance over AI and hold AI systems accountable for their potential harms, including discriminatory impact, opacity, error, insecurity, privacy violations, and disempowerment. In this context, calls for audits to assess the impact of algorithmic decision-making systems and expose and mitigate related harms are proliferating1 , accompanied by the rise of an algorithmic auditing industry and legal codification. These are welcome developments. Audits can provide a flexible co-regulatory solution, allowing necessary innovation in AI while increasing transparency and accountability. AI is a crucial element of the growing tech competition between authoritarian and democratic states—and ensuring that AI is accountable and trusted is a key part of ensuring democratic advantage. Clear standards for trustworthy AI will help the United States remain a center of innovation and shape technology to democratic values. The “algorithmic audit” nevertheless remains ill-defined and inexact, whether concerning social media platforms or AI systems generally. The risk is significant that inadequate audits will obscure problems with algorithmic systems and create a permission structure around poorly designed or implemented AI. A poorly designed or executed audit is at best meaningless and at worst even excuses harms that the audits claim to mitigate. Inadequate audits or those without clear standards provide false assurance of compliance with norms and laws, “audit-washing” problematic or illegal practices. Like green-washing and ethics-washing before, the audited entity can claim credit without doing the work. To address these risks, this paper identifies the core questions that need answering to make algorithmic audits a reliable AI accountability mechanism. The “who” of audits includes the person or organization conducting the audit, with clearly defined qualifications, conditions for data access, and guardrails for internal audits. The “what” includes the type and scope of audit, including its position within a larger sociotechnical system. The “why” covers audit objectives, whether narrow legal standards or broader ethical goals, essential for audit comparison. Finally, the “how” includes a clear articulation of audit standards, an important baseline for the development of audit certification mechanisms and to guard against audit-washing. Algorithmic audits have the potential to transform the way technology works in the 21st century, much as financial audits transformed the way businesses operated in the 20th century. They will take different forms, either within a sector or across sectors, especially for systems which pose the highest risk. But as algorithmic audits are encoded into law or adopted voluntarily as part of corporate social responsibility, the audit industry must arrive at shared understandings and expectations of audit goals and procedures. This paper provides such an outline so that truly meaningful algorithmic audits can take their deserved place in AI governance frameworks.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Regulation, Accountability, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3828. Designing Sanctions: Lessons from EU Restrictive Measures against Belarus

Author:
Yuliya Miadzvetskaya
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
The effectiveness and impact of sanctions are predetermined by how they are designed. This paper looks at the different elements in the design of European Union sanctions on Belarus in its different stages, their main pitfalls, and their potential effects on the country and its citizens. Several key elements are important for the design of sanctions: the triggering situation, the type of sanctions, the clarity of objectives and targets, the evidence for listings, and the conditions for review. They are crucial for explaining the mismatch between the objectives of EU sanctions and their limited impact. The gravity of the situation that triggers the introduction of sanctions is closely linked to the type of restrictive measures that will be chosen by the EU. Threats to EU and regional security as well as to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of its neighbors result in more complex measures, including sectoral economic sanctions, export restrictions, and flight bans. In the case of Belarus, broader economic measures were enacted in response to growing security threats to the EU and its partners. An analysis of EU sanctions on Belarus, including their cyclical nature, suggests that they have been most effective when their objective is limited and achievable. The release of political prisoners, cosmetic reforms to the Electoral Code, and the partial solution of the migration crisis are the most obvious examples of concessions that were made by the Belarusian authorities following the imposition of sanctions. Overly ambitious sanctions objectives limit the EU’s room for maneuver and bargaining. Bringing to justice those responsible for forced disappearances and human-rights violations or holding new free and fair elections are inacceptable demands for the Belarusian regime because they endanger its survival as it relies on the law-enforcement institutions. The effects of sanctions also depend on whom can be added on sanctions lists. Listing or designation criteria define conditions under which someone can be targeted. Those for Belarus were significantly updated in 2021 and now target those responsible for violations of human rights and election falsification, entities and persons benefitting from the regime, and those responsible for the forced landing of a Ryanair plane, the instrumentalization of the migration crisis, and Belarus’s involvement in Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The broadening of the listing criteria increases the sanctioning power of the EU and paves the way for the extension of sanctions listings. The EU enacts sanctions by providing a statement of reasons that must come under the listing criteria and be substantiated with sufficient evidence for each listing. Based on EU sanctions-related case law, sanctions are designed in a way that takes into consideration the due-process rights of targeted individuals and entities. The EU Council has deployed a degree of legal gymnastics in crafting its sanctions on Belarus to increase their traction, notably by using the broad concepts of “support” for and “benefit” from the regime’s actions. Conditions for the review of sanctions are construed as requirements addressed to the targeted state. The fulfillment of these or some variation in the behavior of the target could trigger the partial suspension or the lifting of restrictive measures. Those conditions in EU sanctions against Belarus are sometimes included in EU legal acts and sometimes in other political statements. Clear-cut conditions for reviewing sanctions would help in improving their effects. The paper concludes with suggestions regarding the EU sanctions policy toward Belarus, notably with respect to national bias and to the need for a proper prior impact assessment, realistic objectives, clear communication, and more leverage for the EU.
Topic:
Sanctions, European Union, Domestic Politics, and Society
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, and Belarus

3829. Six Lessons from a Decade of Asia Strategy Simulations

Author:
Zack Cooper
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
How can the United States and its allies and partners succeed in the Indo-Pacific and better prepare for long-term competition in the region? Since the US rebalance to Asia began, the German Marshall Fund of the United States has brought together rising experts from Asia, Europe, and the United States to examine this question through a series of workshops and simulations conducted via the Young Strategists Forum (YSF). The discussions that have taken place during these sessions suggest six lessons about effective long-term strategies for the Indo-Pacific. First, trying to maintain the status quo is neither realistic nor strategic. Established powers tend to describe their objectives in terms of maintaining the status quo. This aim is not just unrealistic, but often deprives them of the ability to adjust the existing order in potentially beneficial ways. US leaders must present a vision of the future that is defined by looking forward not backward. Second, the United States needs to calibrate its responses to near-term crises with an eye to mobilizing the largest possible balancing coalition in the long run. In the simulations, US teams often miss short-term opportunities that could yield long-term benefits. Thinking strategically sometimes means allowing other countries to recognize that they face a serious threat today and cannot simply rely on the United States to solve problems. Third, overreaching by China presents opportunities for the United States. Over the last decade, China’s growth in power has been accompanied by increased assertiveness, in YSF simulations and in real life. China’s behavior creates opportunities for US and other leaders to create and expand coalitions that can push back against it. Fourth, acknowledging the reality of impending multipolarity in the Indo-Pacific can benefit the United States. US experts, including participants in YSF simulations, often tend to see the competition in the Indo-Pacific as largely bipolar between the United States and China. Regional actors, however, typically regard the Indo-Pacific as increasingly multipolar. By championing the rise of new power centers, the United States can foster a regional order that is broadly supportive of its interests yet less dependent on US guarantees. Fifth, focusing on “swinging” states as well as “swung” states pays dividends for the United States. Over the last five years, the United States has done an impressive job of bringing together those countries that are most willing to push back against China. But the region’s “swinging” states—those that have not yet made a clear alignment decision—deserve more attention. Quick wins with these actors are unlikely, but sustained engagement today can set the stage for realignment tomorrow. Finally, building robust coalitions requires US leadership. Many of the lessons we have learned over the last decade have to do with the importance of recognizing that other countries have greater capacity for independent action than is often acknowledged by US observers. That does not mean that US leadership is unimportant—in fact, YSF simulations suggest that it is critical if other states are to join coalitions to push back against China. The United States often labels its various allies as “lynchpins” or “keystones” in the region, but the fact remains that the most effective regional groupings are still reliant on its coordinating role, especially when it comes to China.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Strategic Planning, Simulation, and Defense Cooperation
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

3830. The Future of the Quad and the Emerging Architecture in the Indo-Pacific

Author:
Garima Mohan and Kristi Govella
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
The Quadrilateral grouping of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States (the Quad) has come a long way from its origins, establishing itself as a crucial pillar of the Indo-Pacific regional architecture and significantly shifting in tone and focus from its early iterations. Since its revival in 2017, the Quad has been elevated to a leader-level dialogue, it has begun issuing joint statements, and it has developed a new working-group structure to facilitate cooperation. It has also significantly broadened and deepened its agenda to include vaccines, climate change, critical and emerging technologies, infrastructure, cyber, and space. These recent changes to the Quad raise several questions about its future trajectory. What are the drivers of engagement, the domestic support, and the bureaucratic capacity in the four countries to continue investing in the Quad? How well does the Quad’s new working-group structure function, and will the working groups be able to deliver tangible results? How has the Quad’s agenda evolved, and will it return to its initial focus on security challenges? Are the Quad countries open to cooperation with additional countries and, if so, what form will this take? This paper analyzes these questions drawing on recent publications, official statements, and interviews with key experts and policymakers in the four countries. In doing so, it offers five key takeaways into the Quad as an evolving part of the Indo-Pacific architecture, as well as a vehicle for achieving the goals of its four member countries.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Quad Alliance, and Defense Cooperation
Political Geography:
Japan, India, Asia, Australia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific