The Washington Post vom 23.05.2020
"Trump administration discussed conducting first U.S. nuclear test in decades"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-administration-discussed-conducting-first-us-nucle
ar-test-in-decades/2020/05/22/a805c904-9c5b-11ea-b60c-3be060a4f8e1_story.html
Könnten die USA bald den ersten Atomwaffentest seit 1992 durchführen? Die Washington Post berichtet über entsprechende Überlegungen im Weißen Haus. "The Trump administration has discussed whether to conduct the first U.S. nuclear test explosion since 1992 in a move that would have far-reaching consequences for relations with other nuclear powers and reverse a decades-long moratorium on such actions, said a senior administration official and two former officials familiar with the deliberations. The matter came up at a meeting of senior officials representing the top national security agencies May 15, following accusations from administration officials that Russia and China are conducting low-yield nuclear tests — an assertion that has not been substantiated by publicly available evidence and that both countries have denied. A senior administration official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the sensitive nuclear discussions, said that demonstrating to Moscow and Beijing that the United States could 'rapid test' could prove useful from a negotiating standpoint as Washington seeks a trilateral deal to regulate the arsenals of the biggest nuclear powers."
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty vom 22.05.2020
"White House Official: Trump To Seek Extension Of New START Arms Treaty With Russia"
https://www.rferl.org/a/new-start-arms-treaty-russia-trump-united-states/30627011.html
Die USA wollen sich einem Offiziellen der US-Regierung zufolge in Verhandlungen für eine Verlängerung des New-START-Abkommens mit Russland einsetzen. Auch der angekündigte Ausstieg aus dem "Open Skies"-Abkommen könnte Donald Trump zufolge unter bestimmten Bedingungen noch vermieden werden. "Signed by Washington and Moscow in 2010, New START caps the number of warheads and delivery systems in each country's arsenal. It also includes rigorous on-site inspection provisions, which supporters of the treaty have cited as one of the main arguments for extending it. The agreement will expire in February unless the two sides agree to extend it by five more years. Asked by Fox News if the United States would pull out of New START, O’Brien said no. 'We are going to enter into good-faith negotiations with the Russians on nuclear arms control,' he said. But. while Russia has agreed to an extension, the Trump administration has called for a new treaty that would include China. (…) Trump signaled (…) that the United States would consider remaining a signatory to Open Skies under certain conditions."
Carnegie Moscow Center vom 22.05.2020
"U.S. Withdrawal From Open Skies Bolsters Case for New Strategic Regime"
https://carnegie.ru/commentary/81882
Dmitry Trenin ist von der Entscheidung der US-Regierung, sich vom "Open Skies"-Abkommen zu verabschieden, nicht überrascht. Der Vertrag sei Teil eines 50 Jahre alten Rüstungskontrollregimes, das nicht mehr zu reparieren sei. "There are several conclusions that other countries, starting with Russia, should draw from this. One is that the 50-year-old arms control regime that helped keep the Cold War cold is beyond repair and is fast becoming history. Attempts to resuscitate it, noble as they are, will be futile. Even if a miracle happens and the New START is extended, it will be the last U.S.-Russian treaty regulating their most potent weapons. This means that for a long period of time, the global strategic regime will be essentially unregulated. Call it fully liberal. Nuclear deterrence based on the ability to set in motion mutual assured destruction will not be, as it has been so far, the principal element of global strategic stability; it will be the only one. (…) Open Skies will not disappear completely, however. Over thirty countries have pledged to keep adhering to the treaty, including Russia, America’s NATO allies, and Eastern European states. Unlike INF or START, Open Skies has never been a major pillar of arms control, but it has provided a measure of transparency and predictability in a region that is again going through a period of division and estrangement. Keeping the skies over Europe open is a useful thing, but the main task now is to start preparing for a new strategic world."
The Moscow Times vom 22.05.2020
"Explainer: What Is the Open Skies Treaty and Why Is U.S. Quitting?"
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/05/22/explainer-what-is-the-open-skies-treaty-and-why-is-us-quitting-
a70358
Die US-Regierung hat ihren Ausstieg aus dem internationalen Abkommen zum Offenen Himmel ("Open Skies") angekündigt. Christian Spillmann erläutert die Hintergründe dieser Entscheidung, die sowohl Moskau als auch die europäischen Verbündeten der USA "schockiert" habe. "The Open Skies Treaty, which the United States plans to quit, was agreed just after the Cold War to allow signatories to avoid nasty surprises by monitoring rival militaries. It was signed in 1992 and came into force in 2002, allowing 35 countries — including the United States and Russia — to fly unarmed surveillance flights over each other's territory. Moscow and Washington have long accused the other of breaching its terms, and last year President Donald Trump suggested that the United States might leave the treaty altogether. That threat now seems likely to come to fruition, despite the dismay of Washington's European allies, who remain attached to the treaty as part of their continent's security architecture."
BBC vom 19.05.2020
"Coronavirus: Trump gives WHO ultimatum over Covid-19 handling"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52718309
US-Präsident Trump hat der Weltgesundheitsorganisation in einem Brief mit dem Austritt der USA gedroht. "The letter outlines a 30-day deadline for the body to commit to 'substantive improvements' or risk losing millions and US membership altogether. Addressed to WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, it criticises stages of the body's response since December. Earlier on Monday, Mr Trump called the UN's health body a 'puppet of China'. (…) Mr Trump announced the halting of US payments last month. The country is the largest single contributor to the WHO, accounting for just less than 15% of its funding in the past financial year. The World Health Assembly, the annual meeting of member states reviewing the WHO's work, is being held over two days, ending on Tuesday. So far the virtual forum has been dominated by clashes over the organisation's role, as well as pushes for an inquiry into the handling of the pandemic."
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty vom 18.05.2020
"World Should Take 'Declining Power' Russia 'More Seriously,' Says Political Analyst Nye"
https://www.rferl.org/a/world-should-take-declining-power-russia-more-seriously-says-political-analyst-ny
e/30619007.html
Der renommierte Politikwissenschaftler Joseph Nye hat sich in einem Interview mit Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty zum Stand der internationalen Beziehungen geäußert. Russland sollte seiner Ansicht nach trotz der abnehmenden geopolitischen Bedeutung ernster genommen werden. "He coined the term 'smart power' a decade ago to argue for a greater reliance on accurate information and cultural and political arguments to complement military strength to achieve foreign policy goals. Nye told RFE/RL he believed 'American soft power has declined' since 2015, when he famously asked in the title of a book, 'Is The American Century Over'? But he argued that people in Poland or other Central European countries will tell you they could not imagine being in an alliance with Russia. Nye cited continued European support for U.S. engagement and NATO, for instance. But added that Russia cannot be ignored. 'I think Russia has to be taken very seriously,' Nye said. He called Russia a 'declining state' by virtue of its annual loss of around 750,000 people from its workforce in recent years and its failure 'to adapt its economy to a modern-technology economy as opposed to an energy-based economy.' But it is still a vast country with 'talented people' and a nuclear arsenal, he added. 'After all, sometimes it is declining countries which are the most dangerous, because they're the most willing to take risks,' Nye said. 'So Russia should not fall below the radar; it's something we should take much more seriously.'"
The Atlantic vom 18.05.2020
"The Pandemic’s Geopolitical Aftershocks Are Coming"
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/05/coronavirus-pandemic-second-wave-geopolitics-in
stability/611668/
Tom McTague warnt, dass der ersten Welle der Corona-Pandemie eine "geopolitische zweite Welle" folgen könnte. Sicherheitsexperten hätten bereits entsprechende Szenarien entworfen: "Imagine a scenario: Just as Europe and the United States begin to feel as if they have the coronavirus under control, it takes hold in the developing world. Exhausted, indebted, and desperate for their own economies to get back up to speed, richer countries are too slow to help. Panic ensues. Migrants mass in southern Europe, which is still struggling to pull itself out of a coronavirus-induced depression. Somewhere, a state defaults on debt held largely by Western financial institutions. In the chaos, an autocrat eyes an opportunity for a land grab. A United States already unwilling to take the lead leaves China to step into the void. This is just one (invented) scenario of a number that are raising concerns in Western capitals and that were laid out to me in conversations with more than half a dozen leading security experts, academics, and government advisers in recent weeks. Of those I spoke with, few doubted that a second wave was coming. The real concern was where it would land."
The National Interest vom 17.05.2020
"Will the Arctic Become the Next South China Sea?"
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/will-arctic-become-next-south-china-sea-155046
Die Arktis könnte bald zu einem neuen Brennpunkt der geopolitischen Rivalität zwischen den USA und China werden, schreibt Anya Gorodentsev vom Center for the National Interest. China lasse keinen Zweifel an seinem Interesse an der Region und investiere in wissenschaftliche Expeditionen und Infrastrukturprojekte. "China’s Arctic policy explicitly states that it upholds the sovereignty of Arctic states with territorial claims and does not wish to challenge them. Though at the same time, the policy document emphasizes the freedom of navigation in the Arctic seas for continued trade growth and advocates the Arctic Ocean for global usage. Its near-Arctic state identity has drawn criticism from the international community as it has no history of scientific exploration in the region nor a geographic border. And as the U.S.-China relationship becomes increasingly strained, China’s growing interests in the region may be met with hostility by the United States and other Arctic NATO-littoral actors."
Defense One vom 16.05.2020
"The Miner’s Canary: COVID-19 and the Rise of Non-Traditional Security Threats"
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/05/miners-canary-covid-19-and-rise-non-traditional-security-threats
/165446/?oref=d-river
Nach Ansicht von Anca Agachi vom Atlantic Council sollte die Corona-Pandemie als "Vorbote" einer neuen sicherheitspolitischen Landschaft verstanden werden, die von nicht-traditionellen Bedrohungen geprägt sein wird. "These challenges will act as threat multipliers, further exacerbating existing security dilemmas and the complexity of the 2020s. COVID-19 is the template for what lies ahead, that is, unless we take action. The sooner we understand the fundamental transformation ahead of us, the sooner we can adapt our concepts and institutions to guarantee the safety of people, states, and the international community. (…) COVID-19 can be a bleak template of how non-traditional security threats ravage the international system. Without action, we may see in the future a worrying pattern of extensive loss of life, compounded subsequent shocks and even outright conflict. In 2015, regional events like the migration flow to Europe during 2015-2016 from the Middle East and North Africa was arguably a key factor in social polarization and the renaissance of the extreme right in places like Germany, France, Poland and Hungary. Today, the pandemic is leaving in its wake one of the worst economic crises since the Great Depression. Continued levels of low growth combined with high levels of unemployment can be a recipe for rising populism and further political fallout in the new decade."
War on the Rocks vom 15.05.2020
"A Healthy Dose of Realism: Stopping COVID-19 Doesn't Start with the WHO"
https://warontherocks.com/2020/05/a-healthy-dose-of-realism-stopping-covid-19-doesnt-start-with-the-who/
Der Politikwissenschaftler Frank L. Smith III widerspricht dagegen der Ansicht, dass eine erfolgreiche Bekämpfung der Corona-Pandemie nur unter der Führung der Weltgesundheitsorganisation möglich sei. Wichtiger sei eine effektive Kooperation der Großmächte. Als historischen Beleg für seine These verweist er auf die erfolgreiche Ausrottung der Pocken während des Kalten Kriegs. "Conventional wisdom credits the WHO for eradicating smallpox, and yet, contrary to popular belief, WHO leadership opposed this campaign. The eradication of smallpox started and succeeded thanks to the Soviet Union and United States. This political history provides insight into how to combat COVID-19 during the current era of great-power competition. Eradicating smallpox was the greatest public health victory in history. (…) A great-power concert won’t save the world. It will help nation-states — particularly the United States and China — help themselves in the midst of great-power competition. It will also accomplish more than damning the WHO or expecting miracles from international institutions. As with the eradication of smallpox, the WHO and the rest of the world will follow when the great powers choose to lead."
TIME.com vom 14.05.2020
"Why We Need the World Health Organization, Despite Its Flaws"
https://time.com/5836602/world-health-organization-coronavirus/
Ian Bremmer meint, dass der WHO in der amerikanischen Corona-Debatte gegenwärtig zu Unrecht der Schwarze Peter zugeschoben wird. Die Kritik an der Weltgesundheitsorganisation sei zum Teil durchaus berechtigt, ein Rückzug der USA würde allerdings ein politisches Vakuum entstehen lassen, das von China nur allzu gern gefüllt würde. "China, which didn’t stop possibly infected citizens from traveling the world, could use its financial muscle to build a new global health agency, one that could benefit from China’s unique position in the global medical-supply chain to become first responders to health crises. (…) A Chinese version of the WHO would not allow the transparency that the world needs from such an organization. Today’s WHO, like all multinational institutions working in politically sensitive areas, has big flaws. Like any U.N. agency, it can’t function without the goodwill of the governments it must rely upon for access. The WHO can be accused of not calling out China for its first critical response to this virus, but the organization could not study the virus from outside Wuhan. Call Beijing a liar, and the resulting eviction of WHO officials from China could kill millions. Scrapping this organization would leave us racing to build a new one before the next crisis."
Financial Times vom 14.05.2020
"Covid-19 looks like a hinge in history"
https://www.ft.com/content/de643ae8-9527-11ea-899a-f62a20d54625
Die Coronakrise könnte in der Geschichte der internationalen Politik als ähnlich folgenreicher Wendepunkt betrachtet werden wie das Attentat von Sarajevo oder das Münchener Abkommen von 1938, meint der frühere US-Finanzminister Lawrence Summers. Die Pandemie zeige schon jetzt größere globale Wirkung als die beiden anderen Schocks des 21. Jahrhunderts. "The Covid-19 crisis is the third major shock to the global system in the 21st century, following the 2001 terror attacks and the 2008 financial crisis. I suspect it is by far the most significant. Although the earlier events will figure in history textbooks, both 9/11 and the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy will fade over time from popular memory. By contrast, I believe, the coronavirus crisis will still be considered a seminal event generations from now. Students of the future will learn of its direct effects and of the questions it brings into sharp relief much as those of today learn about the 1914 assassination of the Archduke, the 1929 stock market crash, or the 1938 Munich Conference. These events were significant but their ultimate historical importance lies in what followed. This crisis is a massive global event in terms of its impact."
European Council on Foreign Relations vom 13.05.2020
"The meaning of systemic rivalry: Europe and China beyond the pandemic"
https://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/the_meaning_of_systemic_rivalry_europe_and_china_beyond_the_pand
emic
Die strategische Einschätzung Chinas hat sich in Europa aufgrund des chinesischen Auftretens in der Coronakrise spürbar verschoben, stellt Andrew Small in seiner Analyse fest. Aufgrund der aktuellen Krisensituation sei eine unmittelbare Wende der europäischen China-Politik zwar nicht zu erwarten, langfristig werde sich die Haltung der EU gegenüber Peking jedoch ändern. "In recent weeks, Europe’s interactions with China have been bruising but clarifying. Long-held assumptions about Beijing’s behaviour and intentions towards Europe were already creaking under pressure; they have now collapsed altogether. European officials and analysts have become firmer in their hypotheses about issues ranging from the risks of closer Sino-Russian coordination to the Chinese party-state’s willingness to use its power to advance an ideological agenda hostile to European values. (…) In the short term, Europe’s priorities in its relationship with Beijing will remain highly conditioned by the pandemic itself. The need to deal with immediate health needs and to fix the economic situation will hang over bilateral dynamics for much of the rest of the year. China’s earlier recovery from the virus-induced recession will inevitably affect Europe’s calculations too. The cooperative agenda in areas such as climate change remains essential. Yet European leaders should be aware of the risks of exacerbating the same problematic dynamics with China that have been evident throughout the crisis."
East Asia Forum vom 13.05.2020
"Small states show the world how to survive multipolarity"
https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2020/05/13/small-states-show-the-world-how-to-survive-multipolarity/
Wer wissen möchte, wie Staaten sich in der neuen multipolaren Welt zurechtfinden können, sollte einen Blick auf den aktuellen Umgang kleinerer Länder mit China werfen, meint Jason Young vom New Zealand Contemporary China Research Centre. In der neuseeländischen Strategie spielten internationale Organisationen wie die WTO eine zentrale Rolle: "Existing international organisations are the best starting point to manage the rise of non-liberal countries and allow a contest of ideas with fairly applied rules. They are the best hope for finding consensus on common challenges like climate change and for promoting orderly competition. The experience of small states navigating these institutions is instructive for traditionally dominant states and rising powers alike. (…) While there is good reason for existing powers that fear the erosion of their dominance to pursue their interests unilaterally, there is also good reason for rising powers that fear that the international system does not reflect their preferences to do the same. Understanding that long-term interests are best served through international cooperation and agreed principles of engagement is the cornerstone of a civilised world. This will require compromise and a degree of acceptance of difference if not agreement. Small states shouldn’t have to go it alone but may need to join together to lead. New Zealand and Singapore, for example, are already working together to create a plurilateral agreement to maintain open trade and commerce during the COVID-19 pandemic."
Al-Monitor vom 13.05.2020
"Is Russia pulling support from Libyan strongman Hifter?"
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/05/russia-pull-support-hifter-libya-gna-army-aguila-saleh
-issa.html
Im libyschen Bürgerkrieg steht Russland bisher an der Seite von General Khalifa Hifter, der gegen die international anerkannte Regierung in Tripolis kämpft. Kirill Semenov zufolge gibt es allerdings Anzeichen dafür, dass Moskau sich von Hifter abwenden und stattdessen die Übergangsregierung in Tobruk unterstützen könnte. "Hifter had lost some backing after a string of defeats in the battle for Tripoli. External players such as Russia were increasingly predisposed to believe Hifter was unable to solve the matter militarily and only stood in the way of the peace process launched in January at the Berlin Conference. That is why they were increasingly inclined to think they should instead deal with Saleh and Abdullah al-Thani, the head of the interim government in the east, and encourage them to come to the fore in the dialogue with the Government of National Accord while gradually sidelining Hifter. The scenario was evidently unacceptable to the field marshal and apparently led to his declaring himself Libya's ruler. Given that Russia had helped the Tobruk parliament president draft the peace initiatives and banked on them for resolving the conflict, it could not support Hifter’s attempts to usurp power and withdraw from the Skhirat agreement that had led to the Government of National Accord."
