In this episode, Marco Volpe talks about China's current and future role in the Arctic region, China's polar strategy including Antarctica, and academic bridge building between the Arctic and the Third Pole. Marco Volpe is a visiting researcher at the Arctic Centre in Rovaniemi.
In this session, Mr. Volpe lays out the scientific, economic, and geopolitical spheres of China's engagement in the Arctic region. He highlights China's long-term planning capabilities and looks at China's overall polar strategy, including Antarctica, through the lens of investments in polar climate science. Mr. Volpe also discusses the efforts of building bridges between Arctic and Third Pole (Himalaya) research, focusing on indigenous peoples and indigenous knowledge.
Interviewers: Irene Senfter and Max Giordano - Arctic Team
In this timely and thought-provoking discussion, Cristina Ramirez and Gesine Weber, PhD Candidates at King's College London, break down the 2024 US elections and their wide-reaching implications. From domestic shifts to global challenges, their insights are not to be missed.
In doing so, our special guests, moderated by our researcher and Webinar Series leader, Carlotta Rinaudo, will attempt to analyse the situation by answering the following questions:
Agenda:
00:00 -02:45 Opening remarks and Presentation by Carlotta Rinaudo (Lead of the ITSS Webinar Series)
02:48 What does Trump's return to power reveal about American society and identity? Have we misunderstood his appeal to American voters?
12:00 Is this the era of a new establishment? and if so, what might be its implications for policymaking?
15:18 Are democratic values eroding, and what could his transactional foreign policy mean for the world? Can we expect a rapid peace deal in the Russia-Ukraine war? How could a new Trump administration reshape relations with the EU, China, or impact the war in Gaza?
In this episode, our experts from the Asia & China desk, organize an incredibly insightful webinar, featuring Hyun-seung Lee, a former DPRK businessman and chair of the Kim Il Sung Socialist Youth League branch in Dalian, China. Mr. Lee currently serves as a director for One Korea Network and a fellow of North Korean studies at the Global Peace Foundation. He has also completed an internship with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Forced to defect in late 2014 due to a series of purges by Kim Jong Un, Lee offers an insider's perspective on North Korean society, the relationship between North Korea and China, and the impact of US policy on the regime.
Interviewers: Sandra Watson Parcels, Suha Choi, Ho Ting (Bosco) Hung, Skylor Pok Yuen Ko, Carlotta Rinaudo - Asia & China Team
Founded in 2017 by Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey, ANDURIL INDUSTRIES is a California-based defense sector company1. As stated by Luckey and reflected in their mission, ANDURIL’s products aim to enhance the ability of the United States and its allies to counter both symmetrical and asymmetrical threats, thanks to the company’s cutting-edge technology and innovative production capabilities23. These capabilities stem from the very way the company was founded. Differently from other major companies in the sector, such as Northrop Grumman and RTX, ANDURIL is not dependent on external funders and avoids long-term contracts with the U.S. government45. This approach creates a system where the company’s success relies on its ability to develop cost-efficient, cutting-edge products6. ANDURIL secures the necessary funds through private venture capital investments, providing it with more autonomy compared to companies reliant on external funders7.
The company isn’t incentivised by project delays or increased costs, which is why having an ecosystem outside the traditional defence industry giants could position it to address some of the challenges faced by the U.S. and its allies89. By conducting R&D (research and development) internally and avoiding the typical long-term contracts that often overrun schedules and budgets, ANDURIL remains highly flexible and competitive1011.
The company has pursued a vertical acquisition strategy to diversify its capabilities. This approach to vertical integration allows ANDURIL to directly adapt its core product, “LATTICE OS,” to various systems1213. By automating processes such as quality checks, ANDURIL can scale production, achieving a competitive position in the industry14. A prime example of this vertical integration is the acquisition of Area-I, a Georgia-based company specialising in small unmanned aerial systems (UAS). This acquisition not only diversifies ANDURIL’s portfolio of autonomous systems but also provides a strategic advantage by integrating AI and their software directly into drones.15 As mentioned earlier, ANDURIL’s core product is “LATTICE AI,” a software that coordinates the ecosystem the company has created, providing users with complete battlefield awareness and intelligence-gathering capabilities16.
The strategic choice of being independent for R&D and for long-lasting contracts is also reflected in how their supply chain is structured. Thanks to the control and efficiency guaranteed by the vertical integration model, ANDURIL has gained an important edge in the industry, giving them the unique ability in the sector to adapt “faster” to what are the immediate demands coming from the battlefield. The in-house production and agile nature of the company enable quick scaling up production of both small drones and more complex sensor systems17. What gives ANDURIL this ability to quickly scale production is the modular design, giving them the ability to quickly repair, substitute, and update their systems, giving the important possibility of resisting warfare “ATTRITION” to the U.S. arsenal18. This means that the weapons or systems that are being used are sufficiently autonomous and relatively cheap, and so the problem that could present with the loss of said system would not impact so much on a country’s arsenal19. The supply chain is built in such a way that the most important components on which the production relies are directly produced in the U.S. or in-house, minimizing third-party dependencies in case of an all-out war20.
So, what emerges from this analysis is that ANDURIL is a uniquely structured company in the defense sector. Its approach to funding, marketing strategies and, more importantly, its engineering capabilities give it an edge in the agility to which the company adapts to emerging scenarios21.
How do Cruise missiles and loitering munitions/UAVs play into Americantheater level strategy?
One of the most recent additions to ANDURIL’s portfolio is the BARRACUDA AAV (autonomous air vehicle) (6). Before exploring how such a system could really change the current power competition happening over the South China Sea, it’s important to understand the role of cruise missiles and loitering munitions/UAVs. For decades, the U.S. has maintained uncontested air dominance wherever it has operated, giving it the possibility to deploy ground forces where needed. This has changed in the last decade; the new power competition that has emerged in the South Pacific is threatening the U.S.’s ability to maintain such a role. With the constant threats to Taiwan’s sovereignty, the United States is concerned about how, in an all-out conflict to protect the island, air superiority could be guaranteed22.
In this sense, the ability to counter China’s A2/AD strategy (Anti-Access/Area Denial)—which includes advanced missile defense systems, anti-ship ballistic missiles, and long-range radar systems capable of detecting and neutralising U.S. forces in the area—is crucial23. In this scenario, the role played by cruise missiles such as the “Tomahawk” or the JASSM is pivotal, as they could target the intricate defense systems of China’s A2/AD network24. Another important feature of these cruise missiles is their ability to perform low-altitude missions; being hard to detect, U.S. forces could potentially overwhelm defenses, penetrate hypothetical defensive shield, and enable amphibious landings or aerial assaults.
In contrast, loitering munitions offer the ability to conduct surveillance and real-time targeting acquisitions while loitering in the air. The strategic advantage of these weapon systems lies in their relative affordability and ease of replacement compared to larger, more expensive cruise missiles. In a potential conflict, it is key not only to have superior hardware, such as the F-35s or cruise missiles, but also to deploy systems that can provide targeting and surveillance in large numbers and at a low cost25. These factors explain ANDURIL’s recent efforts to develop the BARRACUDA AAV. This weapon system, supported by the production, acquisition, and supply chain strategies outlined above, is designed to be cost-effective and easily replaceable26.
The features of the BARRACUDA, in its three possible iterations, combine elements of both a standard cruise missile and a loitering munition. The advanced LATTICE AI, integrated with the BARRACUDA, enables the system to operate autonomously, reducing the human workload and enhancing operational speed. Advanced sensors, machine vision, and AI-guided targeting allow the BARRACUDA to alter its target mid-course and remain airborne for extended periods27.
There are several variants of the BARRACUDA. The first iteration, the BARRACUDA 100, is the smallest and lightest version, with an estimated payload of around 35 lbs and an 85-mile range when air-launched. This version is deployable from AH-Z1 helicopters, AH-64, and C-130 variants. The second version, the BARRACUDA 250, has an estimated payload of 85 lbs and a much longer range of 200 miles when air-launched. This iteration can be deployed from a variety of platforms, such as the F-35 (for internal carriage in bombers) or the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 (for external carriage)28.
Barracuda’s technical role and how it stands out from existing systems
We rapidly talked in the last paragraph about the BARRACUDA-M family, but how does it really compare to the current family of cruise missiles? In the U.S. arsenal now, there are two types of similar systems, which are the TOMAHAWK and the JASSM. Both the JASSM and the TOMAHAWK feature a larger payload and a longer range (both with a payload of 1,000 lbs and a range of 200 miles vs 1,000-1,500 miles). The JASSM is primarily designed for air-launch from bombers and tactical aircraft, specialised in striking high-value targets from a stand-off distance. In contrast, the Tomahawk is a naval cruise missile, primarily launched from ships and submarines, and designed for precision strikes against land targets. Often used in maritime operations, it can engage various targets, including enemy ships and infrastructure.
After this summary of the current U.S. arsenal, it’s time to analyse where the actual competitive edge of the BARRACUDA family lies. With an estimated cost per unit of approximately $1.4 million for the JASSM (the newer JASSM-ER can cost around $2 million per unit) and from $1.5 to $2 million per unit for the Tomahawk, these systems are more expensive than the BARRACUDA in its larger iteration, the -500, which is estimated to be about 30% cheaper29. Another issue with the current U.S. stockpile of both the Tomahawk and JASSM systems is that, during various “war games” simulating an all-out conflict with China, this stockpile could be exhausted in just over a week of sustained combat operations. Given that the current production timeline for some munitions is around 20 months, concerns are raised about the U.S.’s ability to withstand a protracted conflict. This is one of the main reasons why the BARRACUDA-M family, if its premises hold true, could be a real game-changer, acting as a force multiplier and providing much-needed attrition capabilities in the potential conflict30.
Photo by Michael Wambangco: https://www.pexels.com/photo/us-navy-airplane-in-sky-20186687/
Export capability
The U.S. are not the only countries in the NATO alliance to have this kind of cruise missiles. In fact, France, Germany, Spain, and the UK have developed such systems. The UK and France use the “Storm Shadow/SCALP EG,” while Germany and Spain deploy the “Taurus KEPD 350”. The current stockpiles of these systems, along with production timelines and cost per unit, suggest that the advent of the BARRACUDA could be an interesting addition to these countries’ arsenals, providing a valid, cheaper alternative to more expensive and harder-to-produce systems31.
Conclusion
Anduril’s innovative contributions to the defense industry have the potential to significantly reshape global power dynamics in the years to come. With emerging threats like UAVs, loitering munitions, and the broader proliferation of drones, NATO countries such as the United States must recognize that preparing solely for symmetrical warfare is no longer sufficient32. Anduril’s approach becomes crucial in this evolving landscape. Its scalable production capabilities, combined with agility in research and development, position it to meet the rapidly changing demands of modern warfare. By integrating its core product, “LATTICE AI,” Anduril provides real-time, all-domain awareness and coordination, offering operators a comprehensive view of the battlefield. This adaptive technology bridges the gap between traditional military frameworks and the newer, faster-moving technological threats, such as autonomous systems and artificial intelligence. Anduril’s strength lies in its ability to complement the slower, more bureaucratic defense apparatus of conventional forces with its ability to react quickly and at a scale. By leveraging automation, modular systems, and software-driven innovation, Anduril ensures that NATO forces, especially the U.S., are better equipped to handle both large-scale conventional conflicts and smaller, asymmetric engagements.
The flexibility of Anduril’s ecosystem, characterized by fast-paced R&D cycles and a domestic supply chain, allows for rapid deployment of crucial assets and weapons systems33. This ability to respond to emerging threats efficiently, through innovations like the Barracuda family of AAVs or scalable drone production, highlights the significance of Anduril’s role in shaping the modern defence industry. As global power competition intensifies, particularly with rivals like China, companies like Anduril will be essential in maintaining military superiority, ensuring that NATO forces are not only prepared for current challenges but also those of the future. The defense industry, traditionally slow to adapt, is now being pushed to evolve by Anduril’s pioneering model, which balances autonomy, scalability, and technological innovation.
This transformation might ultimately drive a shift in how conflicts are approached, moving from rigid, high-cost systems to more agile, lower-cost, and rapidly deployable alternatives. In this context, Anduril’s innovations could serve as a cornerstone of a new era in global defense strategy, one where agility, warfare-attrition capability, and adaptability become the pillars of power projection34.
Aitoro, Jill. “As Tech Startups Catch Dod’s Eye, Big Investors Are Watching.” Defense News, August 19, 2022. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/cultural-clash/2020/01/30/as-tech-startups-catch-dods-eye-big-investors-are-watching/. ↩︎
Tamir Eshel, By, Tamir Eshel, Tamir Eshel, News Desk, and Tamir Eshel - Oct 13. “Anduril’s Lattice AI - Defense Update:” Defense Update: - Military Technology & Defense News, January 6, 2024. https://defense-update.com/20231222_lattice-ai.html#google_vignette. ↩︎
Cancian, Mark F., Matthew Cancian, and Eric Heginbotham. “The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan.” CSIS. Accessed October 27, 2024. https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargaming-chinese-invasion-taiwan ↩︎
Gould, Joe. “US Defense Industry Unprepared for a China Fight, Says Report.” Defense News, January 24, 2023. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2023/01/23/us-defense-industry-unprepared-for-a-china-fight-says-report/. ↩︎
Oberman, Justin P. “Redefining Disruption: A Plan to Upgrade Defense Innovation.” Defense News, August 18, 2022. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/09/09/redefining-disruption-a-plan-to-upgrade-defense-innovation/. ↩︎
Tirpak, John. “Anduril Unveils New Low-Cost ‘Barracuda’ Cruise Missiles.” Air & Space Forces Magazine, September 12, 2024. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/anduril-unveils-new-low-cost-cruise-missiles/. ↩︎
Schogol, Jeff. “The Pentagon Seeks to Stock up on Tomahawks and Other Tactical Missiles in $842 Billion Budget.” Task & Purpose, March 13, 2023. https://taskandpurpose.com/news/pentagon-2024-budget-missiles/. ↩︎
Shelbourne, Mallory. “Raytheon Awarded $217M Tomahawk Missiles Contract for Navy, Marines, Army.” USNI News, May 25, 2022. https://news.usni.org/2022/05/25/raytheon-awarded-217m-tomahawk-missiles-contract-for-navy-marines-army. ↩︎
by Margherita Ceserani, Shahin Modarres, Shir Mor, William Kingston-Cox - Iran Team
The Islamic Republic’s recent choice to directly confront Israel, avoiding its usual reliance on proxy groups, marks a significant shift in its Middle East strategy. Long dependent on groups like Hezbollah and Hamas for regional influence, the weakening of these proxies—amid Israeli retaliation and Iran’s internal crises—has led Tehran to reconsider its approach. This article explores the internal and external factors driving the Islamic Republic’s move toward a more direct confrontation.
Its proxies weakening
The Islamic Republic's decision to attack Israel directly, bypassing its traditional reliance on proxy groups - also called the "Axis of Resistance" - marks a significant shift in its strategic approach. This uncharacteristic behaviour is largely driven by the weakening of its proxies, particularly in the aftermath of the events following October 7th.
For decades, the Islamic Republic has built, supported, and relied on external groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis to exert influence, especially in the Middle East, and keep Israel engaged. However, recent Israeli military retaliation has severely weakened these proxies, diminished their operational capabilities, and reduced their effectiveness in countering Israeli threats and holding power positions in the Middle East and the whole world.
The Islamic Republic maintains a network of allied groups across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip, Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen. The IRGC Quds Force, responsible for operations beyond Iran's borders, coordinates with these groups in line with Iranian directives. This network supports Iran’s strategy to extend its influence throughout the region and beyond. For example, the Houthis have impacted maritime security in the Red Sea, prompting responses from U.S. and U.K. military coalitions in Yemen. Iran also provides funding and weaponry to groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, facilitating their actions against Israel despite Hamas' Sunni background. In Syria, Iran has established a direct influence on the Assad regime and deploys allied militias to strengthen its presence, using the country as a base for potential actions against Israel. By supporting these groups, Iran seeks to counter its adversaries, extend its ideological influence, and maintain leverage in key areas, which affects both regional and global security.
The targeted killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah by Israel, coupled with the assassination of Hamas figure Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, signifies a pivotal moment in the collapse of the "Axis of Resistance." These significant blows not only weaken Iran's most powerful regional proxies but also destabilise Tehran's long-standing influence in the Middle East. Established in the 1980s, Hezbollah evolved under Iranian support into a formidable political and military force; Nasrallah's death highlights how Israel's recent military operations have fractured Iran's strategic foothold, jeopardising its long-term plans. Similarly, Haniyeh's assassination, attributed to Israel despite no official claim of responsibility, directly challenges Iran's authority, especially given that he was in Tehran to coordinate efforts with Iranian leaders. The operation's occurrence within Iran sends a powerful message about Tehran's vulnerability and reflects a broader Israeli strategy to undermine Iran’s network of proxies which consistently threaten Israel’s security and complicates Iran’s ability to project power.
The Islamic Republic's long-term strategic plans have been significantly disrupted, prompting a notable shift toward a direct approach to its conflict with Israel. Historically reliant on proxy forces to advance its agenda, the recent weakening of these groups has forced Iran to reevaluate its strategy. The decision to directly confront Israel reflects not only an immediate tactical shift but also an acknowledgement that its traditional methods may no longer achieve its regional objectives. This transformation is underscored by the diminishing effectiveness of the "Axis of Resistance" and signifies a recalibration of tactics amid a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape. These developments carry profound implications for both Iran's future strategies and broader regional stability and global security.
Domestic dissatisfaction
Tehran’s decision to escalate tensions with Israel can be understood by its multifaceted internal crises, which challenge the regime economically, politically, and socially. The economic decline of the Iranian economy has been worsened for years by international sanctions, global fluctuations and instability in oil prices, and rising inflation, fueling widespread discontent among an already-beleaguered Iranian population. Tehran has been unable to quell the resultant dissatisfaction, particularly following the protests after the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022. Amini’s death fuelled a popular challenge of cleric authority and demands for greater civil liberties.
The society of the Islamic Republic is becoming increasingly secularised, eroding the clerical influence of the regime. Its reliance upon the continued legitimacy of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which is increasingly contested as Iranian society, particularly its younger elements, becomes increasingly disillusioned with religious politicisation, and, in turn, becoming increasingly secularised. Many young Iranians are showing disdain for traditional practices, a consequence of exposure to Western media. This particular challenge for the regime is existential - its entire raison d’etre rests upon religious foundations.
Coupled with the endemic internal challenges and the pressures from its proxies, Tehran’s decision to strike Israel reveals itself as a tool of diversion; an attempt to rally patriotic fervour and unity in return for relative political stability. By framing a new national, external enemy, the Iranian regime can distract and obfuscate from its internal dissent, all whilst performatively asserting itself as a regional power. This approach undertaken by the Iranian government does, of course, risk exacerbating economic downfall as an overreliance on oil revenues could be manipulated to Tehran’s detriment. Whilst the Iranian leadership will no doubt conceive these external manoeuvres to be a part of a ‘survival strategy’, it cannot be overstated how further economic strife will precipitate deepening and widening domestic disillusionment and, ultimately, unrest, prompting new calls for regime change.
Source: photo-generated with the support of artificial intelligence.
Nuclear Advancements
Tehran’s approach to foreign policy in the Middle East is influenced by a combination of geopolitical, ideological, and military considerations, with its nuclear program playing a significant role. Since the United States' withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018, the Islamic Republic has advanced its nuclear developments, positioning these capabilities as a potential deterrent against perceived external threats, particularly from Israel. A notable development occurred in 2023, when the IAEA reported finding uranium particles enriched to 83.7% in a declared facility — a level approaching weapons-grade material.
These advancements have significantly strengthened the Islamic Republic’s strategic position, as the prospect of developing nuclear weapons reduces the likelihood of direct military intervention by its adversaries. With this deterrent in place, though not the sole factor, the Shiite regime feels emboldened to act more assertively, pushing the limits of its regional influence and responding more aggressively to external provocations. For instance, the Israeli strike on the Islamic Republic’s consulate in Damascus in April 2024 has been met with an increased likelihood of retaliation. Tehran’s nuclear capability serves as a protective shield, allowing it to project power and influence more aggressively, while its ideological goals and regional ambitions drive its assertiveness in confronting rivals like Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Despite arguments by some experts that nuclear weapons would undermine its security and diplomatic relations, Iranian officials view nuclear capabilities as a strategic asset that could grant superiority over regional adversaries. Engaging in a nuclear arms race could be economically unsustainable and diplomatically harmful for Tehran, however, nuclear capability is tied not only to military deterrence but also to a pursuit of prestige, both domestically and internationally. This aligns with its broader goal of establishing regional hegemony, while also reflecting its revolutionary ideology rooted in values like independence, anti-imperialism, and resistance to foreign domination since 1979.
Conclusion
The Islamic Republic’s shift to direct action against Israel reflects a new phase in its foreign policy. Weakened proxies and rising domestic discontent are challenging Tehran’s traditional strategies. As nuclear developments bolster its assertiveness, this new approach risks further regional instability and could have global security implications, underscoring a significant turning point in Middle Eastern dynamics.
Mirza, M.N., Abbas, H. and Qaisrani, Irfan Hasnain (2022). The Iranian Nuclear Programme: Dynamics of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), American Unisolationism and European Apprehensions. Journal of European Studies, 38(1), pp.14-32. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4002492.
Maleki, A. (2010). Iran’s nuclear file: recommendations for the future. Daedalus, 139(1), pp.105–116. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40544048 [Accessed 2024].
As the world’s most awaited political battle commences, the ideological schism in American politics appears to be wider than ever. The two major parties remain divergent on almost every issue concerning contemporary American politics. While the Red Ticket packs an emboldened, fiercer (but older) Donald Trump with a very conservative up-and-coming senator from Ohio, J.D. Vance, the Blue Ticket offers the first woman Veep in American history with a dubbed-radical governor from Minnesota, Tim Walz. Both tickets stretch the rope further towards the right and left, and even four years hence, no American unity is in sight.
The Harris-Walz ticket is arguably the most progressive presidential ticket in America’s recent history. While Kamala was a natural choice to succeed President Biden on top of the Democratic ticket, Tim Walz’s naming was a bit of a surprise. While several pundits expected an attempt at ideological ticket balancing, given Harris’s liberal credentials, Tim Walz’s inclusion is presumably an attempt to encash Walz’s midwestern cool-dad image and muster the votes of the pro-choice women and young/first-time voters.
The Harris-Walz Ticket – Democratic Unity or Compromise?
Kamala Harris secured her nomination without contesting the primaries. A public mandate on her work as VP is yet to be duly recorded. The last time she contested for an elected position was the 2020 democratic primaries, where she put up a dismal show, failing to gather even a solitary delegate’s support. All of that together does not help her democratic vita. Amid Republican accusations that Kamala Harris is a handpicked candidate and lacks popular support, Kamala’s choice of a liberal governor with a midwestern appeal to accompany her on the ticket is, at best, a very curious political move. The pairing raises questions about the internal compromises or divisions within the Democratic party and if the pair carries a broad national appeal.
Recently at a press briefing, President Biden remarked that Kamala has been vital in everything his presidency has achieved and worked for and that Kamala is “singing from the same song sheet.” This, again, falters Kamala’s “call for change.” On the other hand, Tim Walz’s perception has been amorphous. The Minnesota governor started as a very bipartisan, moderate congressman but has steadily turned left over the years. The abortion bill that he signed into law removed “all restrictions to abortion,” and the following “shield law” makes it easier for women from other states to get abortions in Minnesota with no legal repercussions. All of this has played out in favor of President Trump and the GOP.
On Policy Front
The Biden White House registered strong numbers in post-Covid job creation and economic growth but has grappled with soaring gas prices and general inflation. Ms. Harris, while inheriting this troubled legacy, is promising to build an “opportunity economy” stilted on promises of mortgage assistance for first-time homebuyers, a tax credit for parents of newborns, and bans on price gouging at the grocery store. Harris has repeatedly said that her presidency will not be a continuation of Biden’s presidency but has remained unconvincing and unclear on what she would do differently. Her stance on abortion access (Tim Walz’s inclusion on the ticket is the biggest stressor) is expected to be fiercer compared to President Biden as she has been the most vocal critic of Roe v. Wade’s reversal. On gun safety laws, Kamala Harris, as president, is almost certain to undertake stricter measures, as she has been steadfast in support of a stricter gun law regime throughout her career.
The issue where she might take a leap ahead of President Biden is her policy on crime; Ms. Harris has lately been non-committal on her personal stances on all three. Kamala Harris, then a senator, had supported the First Step Act of 2018, which provided for a lesser sentence for offenders and early releases, and hailed it as a step in the direction of “righting the wrong” in the criminal justice system. Ms. Harris also supports legalizing marijuana, although she has a disconcerting record of procuring more than 2,000 convictions for marijuana possession when she ran the justice department in the state of California. Ms. Harris will find it difficult to maneuver while being accused by the Republicans of being “soft on crime”. Her unrestrained praise for the “Defund the Police” movement is a veritable question mark on her crime policies. On Climate issues, Kamala Harris, both as a senator and as Vice President was averse to fracking and dependence on fossil fuel. However, close to the elections, she has taken a more moderate stance on fracking by replacing dependence on fossil fuels with dependence on foreign oil. However, once elected to office, Kamala Harris as president is likely to introduce aggressive measures to minimize fracking and reduce the country’s dependence on fossil fuels while opening the doors for a bigger Green New Deal.
Source: by Gage Skidmore - flickr.com
The handling of the southern border was one of the most burning election issues in 2016 as well as in 2020 and has continued to remain one even in 2024. While Ms. Harris has maintained a more humane approach to dealing with immigration, she seems to have toughened her stance on the same with elections approaching close. Her claims of tapering border immigration and a kinder yet terse appeal of “Don’t” (Don’t Come) have seemingly made her stance on border immigration difficult to predict. Amidst the policy uncertainty, Republican accusations against Harris (dubbed the Border Czar) for the mishandling of the southern border, the narrative against Haitian immigrants being pet-eaters, etc., are already proving to be a difficult punch to dodge.
The Future of the Harris-Walz Democratic Party
Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are arguably the most progressive faces of the Democratic Party. While both of them never rallied behind President Biden except for the sake of partisan unity, they have both thrown their weight behind the Harris-Walz ticket and celebrated the Minnesota former teacher’s inclusion as Harris’s running mate. Tim Walz, also known as the champion of progressivism (and given the unkind moniker Tampon Tim by his rivals), has suggested, through his works at the Minnesota gubernatorial office, his appetite for socialistic and progressive policy changes. On most issues of national importance, Walz either matches pace with Harris or is a step ahead. Walz supports gender-affirming care, calls abortion healthcare, and is in favor of creating a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as opposed to Trump’s call for the “biggest deportation operation.” A conclusive public mandate in favor of the Harris-Walz duo is almost certain of changing the Democratic Party’s character and making its entry into an entirely new world of politics. Is this another George McGovern moment for the Democratic Party? We will find out soon.
Dr. Jozef Hrabina talks about Russia's strategic culture and the effect of the war with Ukraine on regional hierarchy in post-Soviet space. Dr. Hrabina is geopolitical risk advisor, scholar, and founder of GeopoLytics.
In this session, Dr. Hrabina explains the background of Russia's strategic culture helping to understand how it was formed during different historical periods. Together we discussed the effect of the Ukrainian war on post-Soviet Eurasia regional hierarchy and European security architecture. We also could not miss the actual topic of the shifting dynamics in frozen conflicts where Russia used to act as a mediator, as well as we explored key interplay between strategic biases with the West in context of nuclear rhetoric and recent remarks to Russia's nuclear doctrine.
Interviewers: Alexandra Tsarvulanova, Denise Gianotti, Will Kingston-Cox
In this series, Anastasiia and ITSS Verona discuss how different ideas, worldviews, and positions of the multistakeholder debate clashed and shaped the UN’s first convention on cybercrime – and how the outcome of this debate will shape the future of the Internet and its users.
Anastasiia Kazakova talks about the UN Convention Against Cybercrime: Actors, Developments, Implications. Anastasiia Kazakova is a Cyber Diplomacy Knowledge Fellow at Diplo Foundation.
Interviewers: Oleg Abdurashitov (Artificial Intelligence, Cyber Security and Space Team) & Mattia Ostini (Human Rights Team)
On August 14, 2024, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Mpox crisis a public health emergency of international concern. This declaration comes as the outbreak spreads broadly across the overall Western and Central African region, with two-thirds of the cases recorded in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This situation exacerbates the already existing challenges within the country’s internal political system and deteriorates the ongoing human rights crisis. The Congolese population faces enormous aggravations due to ongoing armed conflict, high food insecurity, and continuous human rights abuses, particularly in the mining sector. This article will examine how the Mpox outbreak in the DRC highlights broader social challenges in the country, including the impact of the mining industry on the already burdened healthcare system.
What is Mpox?
Mpox is an infectious disease that spreads through close and/or sexual contact, and it poses a significant risk to individuals with weakened immune systems, especially pregnant women and children, whose contractions can be fatal. While the initial outbreak was identified in 2022, Mpox has been reported in the DRC for over a decade. The situation worsened in 2024 with the emergence of a new strain, resulting in over 26,000 cases and 833 deaths to date.
In response to the outbreak, vaccination campaigns commenced in September 2024, but the rollout faced delays, making it challenging to keep up with the rapidly increasing case numbers. This situation raises critical questions on equitable access to healthcare in the country, where over 7 million people are internally displaced and around 25 million face food insecurity. Among the most vulnerable populations are children, especially those who are undernourished and live in refugee camps, where sanitation and access to clean water are limited.
According to the Global Director of Health and Nutrition at Save the Children, the DRC records some of the highest levels of child insecurity globally and in 2023, violence, displacement, and killings reached alarming peaks, as reported by UNICEF. Furthermore, issues such as lack of sanitation, sexual abuse and child labour, significantly affect the contraction rate of Mpox amongst another vulnerable group in the DRC: miners.
Cobalt Mines and Human Rights Issues
Owning approximately 70% of the world's cobalt resources,eastern DRC has become a hotspot for conflict and exploitation. The mining industry has caused significant human rights violations in the country, triggering numerous interventions and peacekeeping efforts. The exploitation of Congolese labour dates back to the Belgian colonial period, and both internal and international actors have profited from it ever since.
The demand for cobalt has intensified with advancements in technology and the production of batteries, yet this surge has not been accompanied by a secure and sustainable approach to extraction. In fact, cobalt is highly toxic to inhale and leads to a number of healthcare complications for artisanal workers. Although mining may appear to be one of the better-paid jobs for locals, it comes with significant social and medical obstacles.
In mining areas, the risk of injuries is high due to the constant collapse of pits, often burying workers alive, including children. Reports indicate that tens of thousands of children are involved in the cobalt industry, which often leads them to abandon their education. Moreover, their prolonged exposure to toxic substances can severely damage internal organs, further aggravating immune responses to infections, which are very common in mining communities. Besides the rare access to sanitation facilities in mines, another issue is related to sexual abuses, which often results in the contraction of sexually transmitted and debilitating diseases.
This situation underscores the vulnerability of individuals with already compromised health, further exacerbating the spread of mpox in Eastern DRC, where most mines are located.
Challenges for Healthcare
Despite ongoing efforts to deliver vaccines, the WHO remains optimistic about eradicating Mpox. However, the situation in mining areas poses significant challenges to this vision. Key obstacles include the remote locations of some communities and a lack of awareness about Mpox among local populations. Many individuals lack basic knowledge about the diseases they may contract and the preventive measures necessary to limit their spread. In fact, with the fourth-largest population in Africa and a substantial number of displaced people, the DRC faces an even more complex health burden. Many diseases affect the population - including malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis - and only a portion of these are transmittable. Apart from Mpox, vaccination efforts against other infectious diseases remain insufficient, with geographical coverage remaining low. According to the WHO, the lack of childhood immunisation in the DRC has reached alarming levels, with nearly 2 million children classified as zero-dose or under-immunised.
In times of emergencies, it is important to not only highlight the challenges in ensuring timely responses but also to examine the underlying causes of these issues. In the DRC, limited access to healthcare is influenced not only by geographical barriers or population density but also by the ongoing conflict. Insecurity, high population mobility, and resource exploitation are contributing factors to the spread of Mpox in the country, and they point to gaps in both governmental efforts and regional cooperation.
Source: Russell Watkins/Department for International Development'.(https://shorturl.at/C142R)
Root Causes and Systemic Failures
The underlying causes of conflict in the DRC contribute to various challenges affecting healthcare stability. For instance, displacement, food insecurity, and economic uncertainty can lead to behaviors such as transactional sex, which may increase the spread of diseases. Additionally, difficulties in establishing accountability among political actors can hinder efforts to strengthen community resilience. The country's high level of militarization has also contributed to local distrust of both internal and external actors, which may extend to healthcare and humanitarian personnel.
Effectively addressing the Mpox crisis requires a multifaceted approach. Beyond implementing measures to control the spread of the disease, integrating conflict resolution strategies into healthcare efforts is essential. To restore a system facing significant challenges and improve human rights protections in the DRC, a comprehensive reevaluation of societal issues is needed.
Although finding definitive solutions is highly complicated, there is a large space for improvement. For instance, involving the local population in the management and participation of health programs is essential. As proposed by Bashwira, Mihigo and Duclos from the Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform (SSHAP), initiatives such as mapping conflicts and assessing organisational patterns could prove beneficial for larger-scale responsiveness.
Conclusions
Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right, and global accountability plays an important role in advocating for those with limited means to voice their needs. Promoting equitable healthcare access, while also addressing the socioeconomic factors that contribute to health disparities, is essential. Implementing community-led programs can help create sustainable solutions to the challenges faced by vulnerable populations. Collaborative efforts between local actors and international NGOs can support the delivery of essential services and resources.
In conclusion, the Mpox emergency is not solely a medical issue but is closely connected to broader societal challenges. Addressing it from a wider perspective can provide not only immediate health interventions but also contribute to reducing the underlying factors that increase population vulnerability. Through comprehensive efforts, there is potential to improve health outcomes for the Congolese people and uphold their fundamental rights.
By Agostino Bono, Rodney Ekow Buah, Isabelle Despicht, Sophie Herzog Sønju - Crime, Extremism and Terrorism Team
Introduction
The name Antifa was first used in Nazi Germany by a coalition of far-left parties which were created to oppose the growing power of Nazism. The term Antifa is a shortened form of antifaschistisch (anti-fascist).Its members were driven and are still driven by beliefs which combat fascist, racist and right-wing ideologies, through any means both legal and illegal.
Antifa, a decentralised movement, follows both anarchist and communist ideologies. This is reflected in the group's symbols, which incorporate the red flag of the 1917 Russian Revolution and the black flag of 19th-century anarchists.
Conservative pundits and politicians, including former President Donald Trump, have repeatedly accused Antifa of participating in left-wing protests against police brutality and racism in the United States, particularly from the mid-2010s and during the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
This article will explore whether Antifa poses a threat to democracy and whether it can be defined as a terrorist group. Much of the relevant literature suggests that Antifa is not a threat to democracy and lacks the characteristics of a terrorist group. The origins of Antifa are rooted in anti-authoritarianism and anti-fascism, which some argue align it more closely with democratic principles. However, others believe that Antifa's violent and occasionally illegal tactics pose a threat to democracy, emphasizing that such methods may undermine free expression, a fundamental aspect of democratic society.
Historical Background
The Antifa movementemerged in Germany and Italy in opposition to the rising Nazi and fascist ideologies. This is exemplified by groups such as the Antifaschistische Aktion in Germany and the Arditi del Popolo in Italy. The anti-fascist ideology gained momentum and spread its influence beyond Germany and Italy. In October 1936, tens of thousands of anti-fascists reacted to a march of British Union fascists on Cable Street and Whitechapel by throwing rocks and homemade bombs.
While anti-fascism decreased worldwide due to the fall of Nazi Germany, it reemerged in the 1970s to counter an increase in Neo-Nazi activity in Europe, Asia and the United States.
Since the 1980s, the United States has witnessed the highest level of anti-fascist protests. For example, the Anti-Racist Action Network, which operated between 1987 and 2013, and the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club are examples of active anti-fascist and anti-racist movements.
In 2016, the election of Donald Trump strengthened the activity of anti-fascist groups. Furthermore, following the death of George Floyd in 2020, there was evidence of increased anti-fascist activism as a reaction to police brutality. However, the FBI later stated that ordinary criminals were responsible for the acts of violence and looting and not groups like Antifa.
Antifa groups are also operating in Europe in countries such as Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Ukraine. In Germany, for example,in October 2016, far-left groups in Dresden led a peaceful protest on the occasion of the anniversary of the German reunification on 3 October, for "turning Unity celebrations into a disaster". Furthermore,Antifa sympathizers took to the streets in Hamburg during the 2017 G20 summit, some say, in reaction to Donald Trump’s accusatory rhetoric.
Tactics & Activities of Antifa
The Antifa movement employs a variety of tactics aimed at countering far-right and authoritarian ideologies. Central to its approach is the belief thatdirect action is necessary to confront these threats. Protest demonstrations are a common method, where participants gather to voice their opposition to fascism and xenophobia. These protests often escalate into clashes with far-right extremists, particularly during significant events like the Charlottesville rally and protests in Portland. Antifa’s militant tactics can includephysical altercations, raising concerns about public safety and the ethical implications of violence in political activism.
In addition to street confrontations, Antifa groups engage in community organising and outreach to raise awareness about far-right extremism. They frequently utilise social media to mobilise supporters, disseminate information, and document the activities of far-right organisations. Authorities in various countries have increased scrutiny of Antifa due to concerns about violence and public safety. The EU's TE-SAT report has highlighted the rise in violent actions linked to left-wing extremism, prompting law enforcement to strengthen their responses.
In this context, some Antifa members in Austria took part in 2022 in training camps designed to equip activists with skills for protest, self-defense, and community organisation. These camps serve as spaces for learning techniques related to civil disobedience and strategic communication, but they also raise concerns about radicalisation and the potential for increased violence. While Antifa’s actions are rooted in a commitment to antifascism, they face ongoing scrutiny regarding their methods. Critics argue that violent tactics can undermine broader anti-fascist goals, complicating the movement's public image and effectiveness. As Antifa continues to navigate these challenges, its capacity to adapt its activities in response to the evolving political landscape will be pivotal in determining its long-term impact.
Source: Gregor Fischer - https://www.flickr.com/photos/gonzo_photo/406787012
Global Presence and Influence
Antifa’s global presence has expanded significantly in recent years. Its influence is remarkably evident in countries like the United States, where it engages in direct action against far-right extremism. As a decentralised movement, Antifa lacks a formal structure, allowing it to spread and operate independently across the world. The movement is viewed as “a reaction to the extreme right by concerned left-wing activists”. As far-right extremist politics gain momentum globally, anti-fascist movements have risen in response. According to the European Parliament, Antifa is not a single organisation, but a “collective name” used by various informal, autonomous groups claiming to be anti-fascist”. This broad, open identity allows anyone opposing fascism to align themselves with the movement.
With the growing influence of the far-right political party Alternative für Deutschland there has been a significant increase in the presence and potential threat of the anti-fascist movement in Germany. Modern militant German Antifa groups have been involved in violent confrontations, notably between 2018 and 2020, attacking and singling out German neo-nazis. The same applies to Sweden, where the far right political party Sverigedemokraterna(SD) has had a surge in popularity, with an increase of around 20% in the polls in the past 20 years. Consequently, Swedish Anti-fascist Aktion (AFA) and Swedish Revolutionary Front have carried out acts of political violence, including an attack on former SD politician Vávra Suk.
In the US, Antifa grew in popularity and presence during Donald Trump’s presidency in 2016-2020. This was partly due to his reported alignment with far-right groups such as the Proud Boys, but also due to the increased engagement regarding far-right politics in general in the US. Trump’s rhetoric, including his refusal to condemn white supremacist groups, shifted political discourse and drew attention to Antifa’s opposition. Antifa protesters frequently countered far-right demonstrations, sometimes engaging in violent confrontations. This led to the movement being labeled by critics as rioters and looters, with Trump at one instance saying “Somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left because this is not a right wing problem.”
Conclusion
Antifa's history, decentralised structure, and focus on anti-fascism have shaped its role as a modern movement. While often associated with far-left ideologies such as anarchism and communism, its primary goal is to resist fascism, racism, and authoritarianism. Although its use of violence and militant tactics has sparked debate, many studies suggest that Antifa is neither a terrorist group nor a direct threat to democracy. Its anti-authoritarian stance is sometimes seen as aligned with democratic values, opposing what it considers oppressive forces. However, critics argue that its violent methods may undermine democracy by limiting free speech and opposing viewpoints.
Looking ahead, Antifa's relevance may depend on the political landscape. As far-right extremism grows in some areas, Antifa could continue to serve as a counterbalance. Its decentralized structure allows for flexibility and adaptability. Nevertheless, reliance on violence could harm its cause in the long term, as public support may decline if it is viewed as more destructive than constructive. Increased scrutiny from authorities is also anticipated if violent incidents continue to be associated with Antifa.
The question of whether Antifa qualifies as an extremist group remains debated. While it employs militant tactics and occasionally breaks the law, its goals are centered on protecting marginalized groups rather than advocating for authoritarian control. This places Antifa in a complex position; despite operating outside mainstream activism, it is not typically regarded as an extremist movement.
