 |
Today’s newsletter is presented by: |
|
January 29, 2025 |
Hello, everyone. Today at WPR, we’re covering Europe’s wishful thinking when it comes to U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to the war in Ukraine and how Laos is trying to reduce its dependence on China. |
But first, here’s our take on today’s top story: |
 |
| Then-U.S. President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Fla., Jan. 7, 2025 (AP photo by Evan Vucci). |
U.S. Foreign Policy: Yesterday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio approved a waiver exempting lifesaving humanitarian assistance from President Donald Trump’s 90-day freeze on nearly all foreign aid, which was issued last week. The move comes a day after the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, put more than 50 senior officials on paid leave, saying they had attempted to circumvent Trump’s executive orders. (Washington Post) |
Our Take: The freeze on U.S. assistance, officially put in place Friday, has created chaos among thousands of organizations and programs globally. The U.S. budgets more than $60 billion annually for foreign aid, of which 40 percent goes to humanitarian assistance. Many organizations that rely on this funding were issued “stop-work” orders, and even with the exemption announced yesterday—on which aid organizations are still seeking clarity—there will be an immediate and direct impact for hundreds of thousands of people globally. |
The aid freeze was among the first manifestations of Trump’s hardline “America First” foreign policy since he returned to the White House, and it represents a clear break in U.S. foreign policy norms. Even as Republican administrations have generally been seen as more skeptical of the utility of foreign aid than Democratic administrations, the U.S. commitment to providing such assistance has remained consistent for decades. Indeed, the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR—the most successful U.S. foreign policy initiative ever, with the possible exception of the Marshall Plan—was launched in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush, a Republican. |
Trump’s freeze, though, goes beyond skepticism of aid as a soft power tool to advance U.S. interests and instead reflects an outright hostility to the idea of providing assistance abroad without strings explicitly attached. To be sure, that is very much in line with Trump’s coercive and transactional approach to foreign policy, which is already on display less than two weeks after he took office. |
At the same time, though, the sheer extent of the freeze, and the general lack of clarity since it was ordered, underscores Trump’s broader strategy of sowing chaos and confusion to keep his opponents—domestically and internationally—off balance. Indeed, the freeze on foreign aid has already been largely overshadowed by Trump’s attempt to freeze trillions of dollars in domestic grants and loans by the federal government, despite the fact that these disbursements had already been mandated by Congress. That move was temporarily blocked by a federal judge yesterday, but not before triggering chaos and a constitutional crisis. |
Ultimately, the result of the confusion created by these orders is institutional paralysis and the limiting of U.S. state capacity, an issue exacerbated by Trump’s efforts to decrease the federal workforce. That paralysis, purposeful as it may be, comes with a cost, not only to the United States’ reputation abroad, but also more immediately for people on the receiving end of U.S. assistance globally. |
 |
With the Russian military advancing in Ukraine and U.S. President Donald Trump having returned to the White House, Europeans are wondering and worrying about what lies in store for them under the new administration in Washington. |
The concern is understandable. If Trump were to abandon Ukraine, Europe would struggle to fill the void. And against the backdrop of Ukrainian losses on the battlefield, there is a real threat that a lot more territory could fall under Russian occupation. There is also the very real risk that Washington will not just reach out to Moscow over the heads of Europeans, but do so to sell out Ukraine, for which Trump never displayed much sympathy. |
These prospects are so scary that many in Europe tend to brush them aside, latching on instead to wishful thinking of a continuation or perhaps even revamping of U.S. support. Yet the more Europeans believe in this idealized scenario, the less likely it is that they will prepare for the more realistic ones ahead, columnist Nathalie Tocci writes. |
| ||||||||||||||||
***** |
Laos has a debt problem. By some estimates, the country’s public debt has swelled to more than $15.9 billion, exceeding its GDP. And ballooning debt is simply the most striking symptom of a wider, prolonged economic malaise afflicting the landlocked Southeast Asian state. |
The underlying source of these economic problems is well documented: The ruling Lao People’s Revolutionary Party took a gamble that large-scale infrastructure projects—built by Chinese firms and financed in large part by loans from Beijing—would transform the country’s economy. |
Instead, the projects have left Laos saddled with debt to China, meaning it will remain firmly in Beijing’s economic grip for at least the medium term. However, two of Laos’ other neighbors both present opportunities to navigate away from dependence on Beijing, Michael Hart writes. |
| ||||||||||||||||
 |
This week’s question: Which bilateral relationship will be the most significant in shaping the global order over the remainder of the decade? |
We’ll select one person from those who answer the question above to receive a free month of full access to WPR. |
No comments:
Post a Comment