scholarly journals Spies and the Virus: The COVID-19 Pandemic and Intelligence Communication in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Maria Lankford ◽  
Derrick Storzieri ◽  
Joseph Fitsanakis

This paper introduces a crucial parameter to the novel coronavirus response in the United States, by shedding light on the early-warning role of intelligence agencies. It argues that the intelligence components of the federal government's Biological Defense Program offered actionable forewarning about an impending pandemic in the years leading to the COVID-19 outbreak. Yet, almost from the opening stages of the pandemic, senior US government officials, including President Donald Trump, have repeatedly claimed that the virus “came out of nowhere” and that “nobody saw it coming.” We show that these assertions contradict more than 15 years of pandemic preparedness warnings by intelligence professionals, and disregard the existence of intelligence-led federal pandemic response strategies of every US administration in our time. However, rather than simply placing blame on the White House for discounting these warnings, we advance a conceptual analysis of what many in the US Intelligence Community view as a critical breakdown in strategic communication between intelligence professionals and key government decision-makers. This study agrees with those who suggest that the White House disregarded its own pandemic experts. However, it also posits that the means of strategic communication employed by intelligence experts to alert the White House to the threat were unproductive. These alerts were communicated largely through the President's Daily Brief, an archaic, and ineffectual method of communication that is not designed to facilitate the kind of laser-focused, unequivocal exchange of information needed when potentially catastrophic threats confront the world. This study suggests that the Intelligence Community must implement more direct, immediate and conclusive methods of communicating intelligence to decision-makers, and should seriously consider creating a new line of products that addresses existential challenges to national security. Lastly, we contend it is time to re-evaluate existing rules that prevent intelligence analysts from offering advice on policy. Although we agree that intelligence professionals should refrain from providing policy advice on routine matters, we question the value of preventing these highly knowledgeable experts from communicating strategic policy advice to decision-makers when it comes to threats of a catastrophic nature, which may prove potentially existential for the US, its allies, and the world.

Author(s):  
Goncharenko A.V.

The article researches the position of the United States on the issue of naval arms restriction in the early 20-ies of the XX century. There are outlined causes, the course and the consequences of the intensification of Washington’s naval activity during the investigated period. It is explored the process of formation and implementation of the US initiatives to limit naval weapons before and during the Washington Peace Conference of 1921–1922. The role of the USA in the settlement of foreign policy contradictions between the leading countries of the world in the early 20-ies of the XX century is analyzed. In the early 20’s of the XX century there have been some changes in the international relations system and the role of the USA in it. Despite the isolation stance taken by Washington, the White House continues its policy of «open doors» and «equal opportunities», promoting the elimination of unequal agreements between foreign countries with China, and attempts to influence the position of European countries and Japan in the naval contest issues and limitation of naval weapons. Taking full advantages, which were giving the United States’ the richest country and world creditor status, the US Department of State has stepped up its US impact in the Asia-Pacific region. The new Republican administration succeeded in offsetting the failures of the Paris Decisions of 1919–1920 and began to СУМСЬКА СТАРОВИНА 2019 №LIV 75 construct a new model of international relations in which the United States would occupy a leading position. The success of US diplomacy at the Washington Peace Conference of 1921– 1922 contributed to this. However, the conflict between the former allies within the Entente was only smoothed out and not settled. The latter has led to increasing US capital expansion into Europe due to the significant economic growth in the country. Despite the fact that the Republicans’ achievements in US foreign policy on local issues have been much more specific than trying to solve the problem of a new system of international relations globally, these achievements have been rather relative. Leading countries in the world were still making concessions to the White House on separate issues, but in principle they were not ready to accept the scheme of relations offered by the States. That is why American foreign policy achievements have been impermanent. Key words: the


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Biba

Abstract As the Sino-American Great Power competition continues to intensify, newly-elected US President Joe Biden's administration now seeks to enlist the support of its allies and partners around the world. As Europe's largest economy and a, if not the, leading voice within the European Union, Germany represents an important puzzle-piece for Biden. But Germany, at least under outgoing chancellor Angela Merkel, has been reluctant to take sides. It is against this backdrop that this article looks into Germany's past and present trilateral relationships with the US and China through the theoretical lens of the so-called strategic triangle approach. Applying this approach, the article seeks to trace and explain German behaviour, as well as to elucidate the opportunities and pitfalls that have come with it. The article demonstrates that Germany's recently gained position as a ‘pivot’ (two positive bilateral relationships) between the US and Chinese ‘wings’ (positive bilateral relations with Germany and negative bilateral relations with each other) is desirable from the perspective of the strategic triangle. At the same time, being pivot is also challenging and hard to maintain. Alternative options, such as entering a US–German ‘marriage’ directed against China, are also problematic. The article therefore concludes that Germany has tough decisions to take going forward.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 92-106
Author(s):  
Vitaly KOZYREV

The recent deterioration of US–China and US–Russia relations has stumbled the formation of a better world order in the 21st century. Washington’s concerns of the “great power realignment”, as well as its Manichean battle against China’s and Russia’s “illiberal regimes” have resulted in the activated alliance-building efforts between Beijing and Moscow, prompting the Biden administration to consider some wedging strategies. Despite their coordinated preparation to deter the US power, the Chinese and Russian leaderships seek to avert a conflict with Washington by diplomatic means, and the characteristic of their partnership is still leaving a “window of opportunity” for the United States to lever against the establishment of a formal Sino–Russian alliance.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israa Daas ◽  

Abstract The Palestine-Israel conflict is probably one of the most pressing problems in the Middle East. Moreover, the United States has been involved in this conflict since the 1970s. Therefore, the present research aims to learn more about the American perception of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It was conducted using a survey that addressed Americans from different backgrounds, focusing on four variables: the American government’s position, solutions, the Israeli settlements, and Jerusalem. The research suggests a correlation between political party and the American perception of the conflict. It appears that Republicans seem to be against the withdrawal of the Israeli settlements, and they believe that the US government is not biased toward Israel. Nevertheless, Democrats tend to believe that the US government is biased in favor of Israel, and they support withdrawing the Israeli settlements. Moreover, there might be another correlation between the American perception and the source of information they use to learn about the conflict. Most of the surveyed Americans, whatever their resource of information that they use to learn about the conflict is, tend to believe that the US is biased in favor of Israel. It is crucial to know about the American perception when approaching to a solution to the conflict as the US is a mediator in this conflict, and a powerful country in the world. Especially because it has a permanent membership in the UN council. KEYWORDS: American Perception, Palestine-Israel Conflict, Jerusalem, Israeli settlements


2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-419
Author(s):  
Krishnakumar S.

With Donald Trump as President of United States, multilateralism in the world economy is facing an unprecedented challenge. The international economic institutions that have evolved since the fifties are increasingly under the risk of being undermined. With the growing assertion of the emerging and developing economies in the international fora, United States is increasingly sceptical of its ability to maneuvre such institutions to suit its own purpose. This is particularly true with respect to WTO, based on “one country one vote” system. The tariff rate hikes initiated by the leader country in the recent past pose a serious challenge to the multilateral trading system. The paper tries to undertake a critical overview of the US pre-occupation of targeting economies on the basis of the bilateral merchandise trade surpluses of countries, through the trade legislations like Omnibus Act and Trade Facilitation Act. These legislations not only ignore the growing share of the United States in the growing invisibles trade in the world economy, but also read too much into the bilateral trade surpluses of economies with United States and the intervention done by them in the foreign exchange market.


2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 379-392
Author(s):  
Thomas W. Cawkwell

Britain’s war in Afghanistan – specifically its latter stages, where the UK’s role and casualties sustained in the conflict rose dramatically – coincided with the institutional emergence of Ministry of Defence-led ‘Strategic Communication’. This article examines the circumstances through which domestic strategic communication developed within the UK state and the manner in which the ‘narratives’ supporting Britain’s role in Afghanistan were altered, streamlined and ‘securitised’. I argue that securitising the Afghanistan narrative was undertaken with the intention of misdirecting an increasingly sceptical UK public from the failure of certain aspects of UK counter-insurgency strategy – specifically its counter-narcotics and stabilisation efforts – by focusing on counter-terrorism, and of avoiding difficult questions about the UK’s transnational foreign and defence policy outlook vis-à-vis the United States by asserting that Afghanistan was primarily a ‘national security’ issue. I conclude this article by arguing that the UK’s domestic strategic communication approach of emphasising ‘national security interests’ may have created the conditions for institutionalised confusion by reinforcing a narrow, self-interested narrative of Britain’s role in the world that runs counter to its ongoing, ‘transnationalised’ commitments to collective security through the United States and NATO.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-156
Author(s):  
Mediel Hove

This article evaluates the emergence of the new Cold War using the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts, among others. Incompatible interests between the United States (US) and Russia, short of open conflict, increased after the collapse of the former Soviet Union. This article argues that the struggle for dominance between the two superpowers, both in speeches and deed, to a greater degree resembles what the world once witnessed before the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991. It asserts that despite the US’ unfettered power, after the fall of the Soviet Union, it is now being checked by Russia in a Cold War fashion.


Author(s):  
N. Gegelashvili ◽  
◽  
I. Modnikova ◽  

The article analyzes the US policy towards Ukraine dating back from the time before the reunification of Crimea with Russia and up to Donald Trump coming to power. The spectrum of Washington’s interests towards this country being of particular strategic interest to the United States are disclosed. It should be noted that since the disintegration of the Soviet Union Washington’s interest in this country on the whole has not been very much different from its stand on all post-Soviet states whose significance was defined by the U,S depending on their location on the world map as well as on the value of their natural resources. However, after the reunification of Crimea with Russia Washington’s stand on this country underwent significant changes, causing a radical transformation of the U,S attitude in their Ukrainian policy. During the presidency of Barack Obama the American policy towards Ukraine was carried out rather sluggishly being basically declarative in its nature. When President D. Trump took his office Washington’s policy towards Ukraine became increasingly more offensive and was characterized by a rather proactive stance not only because Ukraine became the principal arena of confrontation between the United States and the Russian Federation, but also because it became a part of the US domestic political context. Therefore, an outcome of the “battle” for Ukraine is currently very important for the United States in order to prove to the world its role of the main helmsman in the context of a diminishing US capability of maintaining their global superiority.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 551-580
Author(s):  
Marcos Cordeiro Pires ◽  
Thaís Caroline Lacerda Mattos

Este artigo busca refletir sobre o contexto de uma eventual disputa hegemônica entre Estados Unidos e China. Entretanto, ao invés de traçar um cenário prospectivo, busca-se levantar elementos históricos da formação de ambas as sociedades com vistas a delinear as bases das atuais estratégias internacionais de cada país. Importante característica comum entre ambas é que tanto Estados Unidos e China se veem como excepcionais, resultado de virtudes e de condições históricas específicas que moldaram de cada sociedade. Tal percepção de excepcionalidade está entre os princípios norteadores da inserção externa de Estados Unidos e China, além justificar e solidificar a construção das bases ideológicas que definem a concepção de hegemonia de cada país. Na perspectiva dos Estados Unidos, prevalece a noção de um “Destino Manifesto” – Manifest Destiny, uma visão missionária e religiosa sobre seu papel na ordem mundial. No caso da China, uma civilização milenar autocentrada e pacífica, construída sob o princípio imperial de “Tudo sob o Céu” – Tianxia ??, na qual o imperador chinês exercia o seu mandato celestial por meio da virtude e da benevolência sobre o povo Han e os povos vassalos de todo o mundo. Assim, o objetivo deste artigo é o de analisar a construção da excepcionalidade em ambas as sociedades e relacionar tais características com suas políticas atuais.     ABSTRACT: This article seeks to reflect on the context of a possible hegemonic dispute between the United States and China. However, instead of outlining a prospective scenario, it seeks to raise historical elements of the formation of both societies in order to outline the bases of the current international strategies of each country. An important characteristic that United States and China have in common is that both see themselves as exceptional, as result of their own virtues and the specific historical conditions they have shaped from each society. This perception of exceptionality is among the guiding principles of the US and China's external performance and justifies the ideological foundations that define each country's conception of hegemony. From United States perspective´s the notion of "Manifest Destiny” brings with it a missionary and religious vision about its role in the world. In China's case, a self-centered and peaceful ancient civilization, built under the imperial principle of "All Under Heaven" - Tianxia ??, in which the Chinese Emperor exercised his heavenly mandate through virtue and benevolence over the Han people and the vassal peoples of the whole world. Thus, the objective of this article is to analyze the perception of exceptionality in both societies and to relate such characteristics to their current policies. Keywords: United States. China. Hegemony. Exceptionality. Manifest Destiny. All Under Heaven.     Recebido em: Agosto/2018. Aprovado em: Novembro/2018.


2021 ◽  
Vol VI (III) ◽  
pp. 59-71
Author(s):  
Muhammad Nadeem Mirza ◽  
Lubna Abid Ali ◽  
Irfan Hasnain Qaisrani

This study intends to explore the rise of Donald Trump to the White House. Why was Donald Trump considered a populist leader, and how did his populist rhetoric and actions impact the contours of American domestic and foreign policies? The study adopted qualitative exploratory and explanatory research techniques. Specific methods utilised to conduct the study remained political personality profiling. It finds that the populist leaders construct the binaries in the society by dividing the nation into two groups: �us� the people, against �them� the corrupt elite or other groups presented as a threat to the lives and livelihood of the nation. Though populism as a unique brand of politics remained active through most of the US history, yet these were only two occasions that populists were successful in winning the American presidential elections � Andrew Jackson in 1828 and Donald Trump in 2016. Structural and historical reasons became the biggest cause behind the election of Donald Trump, who successfully brought a revolution in American domestic and foreign policies. And if structural issues in the United States are not addressed, there is a clear chance that Trump � who is not withering away � will come back to contest and challenge any competitors in the 2024 presidential elections.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document