Latest news with #CarnegieEndowment
Washington Post
a day ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
When FEMA's response to extreme weather is the disaster
Sarah Labowitz is a senior fellow in the Sustainability, Climate and Geopolitics Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. At a July 12 news conference about the federal response to the devastating floods in Texas, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem said, 'What you saw from our response in Texas is going to be a lot of how President Trump envisions what FEMA would look like in the future.'
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Business
- Washington Post
The gulf is not the place to build the world's AI infrastructure
Christopher S. Chivvis is director of the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Sam Winter-Levy is a fellow in the Technology and International Affairs Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In May, the Trump administration green-lit one of the most consequential technology investments of the decade: the construction of massive artificial intelligence data centers in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. These facilities, funded by gulf sovereign wealth and built with U.S. technology, are projected to host some of the largest and most powerful computing clusters in the world — critical infrastructure for training and deploying advanced AI models.
Express Tribune
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
India's great-power delusions
Listen to article India, apart from its very carefully curated glitzy and 'shining' image, has been quietly sulking at the loss of its status internationally, consequent to its brief but humiliating skirmish with Pakistan recently, and the dawning of Indian reality on a pro-Indian American establishment. The US has undoubtedly helped New Delhi in its great power aspirations, ostensibly as a bulwark against a rising China. Whether India ever was and ever will to do the US bidding is another story, the fact remains that Chanakya Kotelia (375 BCE-283 BCE), the Brahmin Hindu sage's cunning writings on statecraft, to this day guide Indian policy formulation, Ashley J Tellis, currently fellow at the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs at the Carnegie Endowment, and former Under Secretary of State in the Bush senior's administration, in his recent article in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs, details India's delusions and shortcomings to rise as a great power. This article is an adaptation of his writing with opinions. The premise by George W Bush, the 41st US President (1989-1993), to make India a great power stood on the rationale that with the demise of the USSR in 1989, the US and India, a friend of the Russia, had no reason to be on the opposite sides. However, the US infatuation with India runs deeper, as clearly articulated by Henry Kissinger in his seminal work, The White House Years (1979). Kissinger, while mentioning the US role in the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War (Chapter titled The Tilt), laments that State Department would drag its feet on admonitory communiques to India, while dispatching the same without loss of time to Islamabad. However, despite the romanticism of a great democracy in the land of languages, cultures and mystique, Washington and New Delhi do not see eye-to-eye on a range of issues like climate change, war in Ukraine, data sovereignty, e-commerce rules, trade preferences, global governance, Russia, Iran, etc. And more importantly, Ashley believes, India does not want a world where the US is perpetually the sole power. India, instead, given its non-aligned credentials, seeks a multipolar international system where it can hedge, become a genuine power, and be able to restrain not just China but any country that would aspire to be the sole dominating hegemon, including the US. India believes multipolarity is key to global peace and its own rise. Obsessed with its strategic autonomy, India carefully avoids bloc politics and alliances and has been able to maintain good relations with the West Plus and anti-West countries like Russia and Iran. However, India can become a great power in terms of GDP by the middle of the Century, but not necessarily a superpower. The unpalatable two-front scenario of war with a much stronger China and an agile Pakistan; the baggage of Hindu nationalism, tearing its secular fabric apart; and the country's 'illiberal pivot' would sap its potential and keep undermining its power aspirations. During the Cold War, India's economic indicators were short of its inherent potential. Its GDP grew around 3.5 per cent annually between 1950 and 1980. Its GDP growth averaged at 5.5 per cent during the 1990s. Since then, it has grown at 6.5 per cent annually. It does not equal the Chinese miracle and is not likely to match Beijing's economic growth rate, before middle of the Century. And that likely parity is dependent on the supposition that India grows at 8 per cent over the next 25 years, while China grows at miniscule 2 per cent. Both unlikely, so India would remain below par to a resurgent China. Hence, if New Delhi wants to restrain China, it needs the West Plus, especially the US, as no other Indo-Pacific powers (Japan or Australia) would be strong enough by 2050 to compensate for the US. So, those clamouring for an anti-China alliance with New Delhi would be disappointed with India's economic weakness, its non-aligned proclivities, its aversion to collective defence arrangements, and the limits of its partnership with the US. Indian outlook is guided by its colonial past, where its founding father Jawaharlal Nehru pledged India would never be a 'camp follower' of any great power. In alliance framework, India fears constraints that come with such arrangements. In IR parlance, India demonstrates 'realist' inclinations, believing only in 'interest-based' inter-state interactions, as against ideologically driven relations. In this world, it believes, multipolarity is the natural state and is essential and needed for peace. Indian thinkers like FM Jaishankar believe India should identify and exploit opportunities created by 'contradictions' in the international system to advance its interests. He favours a bipolar order where India can play one pole against the other. It is in this milieu that despite deepening relations with the US, India at times acts to constrain the US power, as discussed. Even on China it aims to maintain a stable relationship that of cooperation wherever possible. It also remains part of non-Western forums like BRICS and SCO. India is drifting away from its foundations of staunch secularism, constitutionalism, and "jus soli" or birthright to citizenship, as in Assam etc. It increasingly and officially subscribes to the poisonous Hindutva ideology, which relegates India's 200 million Muslims and 30 million Christians to second class citizenship status. Continuation of this drift would have serious consequences not only for India but also for the world, where 'Shining India' would cease to be an 'exemplar' of liberal democracy for the global south, for example. An illiberal India would also be less powerful. This combined with 'moderate economic growth, partnership with all but privileged relations with none', India's geostrategic imperatives with China and Pakistan and a hostile neighborhood in SAARC would diminish India's increasing material strength. India cannot influence outcomes in East Asia and Middle East; relies on external balancing against a militarily more capable China; is reluctant to closely partner with Washington; and is growing increasingly illiberal. These factors, at odds with the US aspirations, force America under Trump to drift towards a more transactional relationship with New Delhi, which is interest-based and not ideology-driven. India's inability to balance against Beijing is already forcing a rethink on the US, questioning continued investment on India, further shrinking Delhi's great power ambitions.
Middle East Eye
14-07-2025
- Business
- Middle East Eye
US offers to oversee disputed Armenia-Azerbaijan corridor
The United States has proposed taking over the planned transport corridor between Armenia and Azerbaijan in an effort to advance long-stalled diplomatic negotiations between the two Caucasus nations, the US ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, told journalists during a briefing on Friday. Although Armenia and Azerbaijan reached consensus on a draft peace agreement in March, Baku continues to insist on several additional conditions before formally signing the deal. Azerbaijan demands that Yerevan amend its constitution to remove references to Azerbaijani territory, among other conditions. One of the main sticking points remains the so-called Zangezur Corridor, which would connect Azerbaijan proper to its exclave, Nakhchivan, via Armenian territory. Armenia refuses to use the term "Zangezur Corridor," arguing that it has irredentist connotations on sovereign Armenian territory, known as Syunik. Azerbaijan has insisted that the corridor should not be placed under Armenia's total control, expressing concerns that Yerevan cannot be trusted to guarantee unfettered access. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Likewise, Armenia categorically opposes transferring control of the route to any third party. The 32-km-long corridor has become a significant obstacle to achieving lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. "They are arguing over 32 kilometers of road, but this is no trivial matter. It has dragged on for a decade - 32 kilometers of road," Barrack told journalists during a briefing hosted in New York. "So what happens is that America steps in and says: 'Okay, we'll take it over. Give us the 32 kilometers of road on a hundred-year lease, and you can all share it'." Turkey originally proposed the idea Barrack's comments mark the first official confirmation that the Trump administration offered to manage the corridor through a private US commercial operator, which would serve as a neutral guarantor. A recent report by Carnegie Endowment suggested that the plan is modelled on an earlier European Union proposal, which would put a US logistics firm in charge of managing and monitoring cargo transit along the route, sharing data transparently with all parties. The report noted that the proposal draws on precedents of international oversight in Georgia's breakaway regions, aiming to address Baku's demand for robust, long-term security guarantees while preserving Yerevan's sovereignty over the corridor. Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders to meet in Dubai later in July Read More » Meanwhile, Turkey has quietly urged Baku to sign the peace agreement, reminding Azerbaijani officials of shifting regional dynamics, such as Iran's waning influence. A regional source familiar with the negotiations told Middle East Eye that it was Turkey that originally proposed the idea of a private company, approved by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, managing the corridor. "However, the Armenian side demanded that the company should also work on the Nakhchivan side of the corridor, which was unacceptable for Baku," the source said. The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan dates back to the 1993 Nagorno-Karabakh war, when Armenian forces seized the disputed enclave, recognised as Azerbaijani territory by the United Nations, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. After a bloody six-week war in late 2020, Azerbaijan launched a military operation in September 2023 to retake Nagorno-Karabakh, leading to a ceasefire agreement. Most ethnic Armenians fled, and the breakaway region was officially dissolved on 1 January 2024. Turkey's own normalisation process with Armenia is closely tied to the prospect of a peace deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Turkish officials view Armenia as a vital link in the so-called Middle Corridor, which would directly connect Turkey to Central Asia. Turkish companies are also eager to participate in potential infrastructure projects within Armenia. Despite Baku's objections, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan hosted Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan last month, marking the first official visit to Turkey by an Armenian leader.
JAMnews
07-07-2025
- Business
- JAMnews
"Armenia could lose control over unblocked transport routes,": Opinion from Yerevan
Armenia reacts to Trump's proposal In recent days, the issue of unblocking regional transportation routes has being actively discussed in Armenia. The Carnegie Endowment, citing diplomatic sources, reported that US President Donald Trump's administration proposed that Yerevan and Baku hand over control of these transport links to a private American company. However, the details of the proposal have not been disclosed. Azerbaijan continues to insist on an extraterritorial corridor for direct land access to its Nakhichevan exclave. Armenian authorities maintain that they are ready to unblock transport routes, but stress that this must happen based on the principles of sovereignty, national jurisdiction, reciprocity, and equality. Meanwhile, international media outlets have been reporting on a possible meeting between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in the United Arab Emirates. While no official confirmation has been given, some analysts, citing their sources, have even named possible dates in July. Middle East Eye reports that the UAE is seeking to host the talks 'as part of its efforts to improve relations between the two Caucasus nations.' The Armenian prime minister's spokesperson, Nazeli Baghdasaryan, neither confirmed nor denied the reports. Political analyst Tigran Grigoryan says that if such a meeting takes place, the main focus will be on the unblocking of regional communications. However, he fears that if control over the road is handed to a private American company, Armenia will in fact face the logic of a corridor. And this is considered a red line by all local political analysts. Here's what is known about the US proposal, statements from Armenia's foreign ministry, and expert commentary. 'The guarantor will be American business' According to the Carnegie Endowment publication, the road would be controlled by an American company. The implementation of the agreements reached would be 'guaranteed by American business and American interests.' Olesya Vartanyan, the author of the article, explained in an interview with Radio Azatutyun (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) that the proposal reflects the logic of the Trump administration: 'It implies that if there are initiatives or proposals, they should, among other things, involve American business and American capital. There is an example of this approach not far from us—in Ukraine. They have even signed an agreement regarding rare earth metals.' According to Vartanyan, the proposal was delivered to the parties by Joshua Huck, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, who visited Yerevan and Baku in May. The proposal is still under discussion, and there are 'various options' for how it might proceed. During her conversation with a State Department representative, she was assured that the program would be successful, and that 'President Trump might even receive a Nobel Prize for it.' What exact powers the American company would have, what specific functions it would perform, and whether it would manage the route only on Armenian territory or also on the Azerbaijani side—these questions remain unanswered. Yerevan proposes 'mutually beneficial outcomes for the region' In response to the Carnegie Endowment publication, Armenian foreign ministry spokesperson Ani Badalyan emphasized that Armenia has been and remains interested in unblocking regional transport infrastructure. She recalled the Armenian government's 'Crossroads of Peace' initiative, which has already received positive feedback from many international partners. 'Moreover, Armenia has proposed a number of solutions under this initiative that could be acceptable to all parties involved,' she noted, without disclosing details. Response to Erdogan's statement on Armenia's 'flexible approach' 'Although Armenia initially opposed the Zangezur corridor, it is now demonstrating a more flexible approach toward economic integration,' said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, without providing details. According to Anadolu Agency, Erdogan suggested that the so-called 'Zangezur corridor' would bring new opportunities not only for Azerbaijan, but for the entire region. Commenting on his remarks, Armenian foreign ministry spokesperson Ani Badalyan stressed that Armenia has always been and remains committed to enhancing regional connectivity: 'With this understanding, Armenia presented the 'Crossroads of Peace initiative', along with concrete ideas, solutions, and constructive proposals. In our view, these can deliver mutually beneficial outcomes for regional countries as well as for partners interested in broader transport networks.' However, her main message was that Armenia's stance remains unchanged: 'As before, Armenia's vision for unblocking regional transport infrastructure is firmly based on the principles of sovereignty and national jurisdiction over communications, and does not envision any alternative logic.' Pashinyan counts on Trump Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan extended his congratulations to the US president on Independence Day, emphasizing his appreciation for Trump's efforts to end conflicts and promote global peace: 'I am confident that under your leadership, the United States will make a significant contribution to achieving long-awaited peace, stability, and prosperity in the South Caucasus.' Pashinyan also reaffirmed his government's commitment to a 'peace agenda based on the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the inviolability of internationally recognized borders.' Commentary Political analyst Tigran Grigoryan says that the issue of unblocking regional transport routes has been a priority for Washington, including under the Biden administration: 'Since summer 2024, there has been public information that a proposal is being discussed to oversee transit along this route through a private company acting as a facilitator.' According to him, earlier discussions involved a Swiss company, but Baku rejected that option: 'At this stage, the talks are centered on an American or Armenian-American joint venture overseeing the route. Armenia's participation in the project appears to be an Armenian proposal, primarily aimed at preventing a negative reaction from Iran.' Grigoryan stresses the importance of clarifying the details. He warns that despite all sides formally recognizing Armenia's sovereignty, the country could lose actual control over the route: 'We still have little information. But if Armenia delegates certain powers to this company, it could essentially introduce a 'corridor logic.' Even Pashinyan himself hinted at this during his meeting with the Armenian community in Turkey.' At that meeting, Pashinyan declared that there would be no 'Zangezur Corridor' and that Armenia's 'Crossroads of Peace' project would become a reality. However, he warned fellow Armenians: 'The moment the 'Crossroads of Peace' project is activated, Azerbaijan will say, 'Look, the Zangezur Corridor has been opened.' And we must be prepared for that. But any simplifications [of transit] must be within the framework of our sovereignty on our territory, and theirs on theirs. Such simplifications should be reciprocal.' Grigoryan doubts Iran will tolerate the presence of a US company on the route, and he expects Russia to object as well: 'After its withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia sees the unblocking of regional routes as its last remaining tool to maintain influence over Armenia and Azerbaijan.' He believes Baku has not yet accepted the US proposal. If the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders meet in the UAE, the focus will likely be on unblocking the routes. As for a peace deal, Grigoryan remains skeptical: 'I see no signs that Baku will abandon its preconditions for signing an agreement—such as its demand for constitutional amendments in Armenia. There's little reason to expect any breakthroughs or compromises on this issue.' Journalist Tatul Hakobyan believes it doesn't really matter whether the unblocked roads are called a corridor, a highway, or a passage: 'The main issue is who will control the railroad and highway to be built from Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan and Turkey along the Araks River, through Meghri, on the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia.' He stresses that Armenia has repeatedly publicly stated that losing control over its territory is unacceptable. However, he adds that Armenia has now given preliminary consent to transfer about 45 kilometers of its roads and other infrastructure along the Araks River to the management of an American—or more precisely, an Armenian-American—organization: 'The Washington proposal to hand over management of the Meghri communications to an Armenian-American organization is effectively handing control to the American side. The 'Armenian' part [in the term Armenian-American] was inserted in the proposal in hopes of softening the anger of the Russian side and the currently weakened Iranian side.' According to Tatul Hakobyan, Yerevan is fundamentally not opposed to Washington's proposal, while Baku has yet to make a final decision. Because of this, he also places great importance on the bilateral Pashinyan-Aliyev meeting in the UAE. Follow us – Twitter | Facebook | Instagram Armenia reacts to Trump's proposal
