foreign policy essay css

There appears to be a technical issue with your browser

This issue is preventing our website from loading properly. Please review the following troubleshooting tips or contact us at [email protected] .

Essay: Is Nicaragua’s Dictatorship Nearing Its End?

Create an FP account to save articles to read later.

ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN

Downloadable PDFs are a benefit of an FP subscription.

Subscribe Now

World Brief
Editors’ Picks
Africa Brief
China Brief
Latin America Brief
South Asia Brief
Situation Report
Flash Points
War in Ukraine
Crisis in the Middle East
U.S. election 2024
U.S. foreign policy
Trade and economics
U.S.-China competition
Artificial intelligence
Asia & the Pacific
Middle East & Africa

The China Challenge

Ones and tooze, foreign policy live.

Summer 2024 Issue

Print Archive

FP Analytics

In-depth Special Reports
Issue Briefs
Power Maps and Interactive Microsites
FP Simulations & PeaceGames
Graphics Database

Catalysts for Change

Webinar: how to create a successful podcast, fp @ unga79, ai for healthy cities, her power @ unga79.

By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.

Your guide to the most important world stories of the day

Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent

The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week

Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy

Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day

One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture

Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors

A curated selection of our very best long reads

Is Nicaragua’s Dictatorship Nearing Its End?

How the once-revolutionary ortega regime may have destined itself to the dustbin of history..

Human Rights

This summer marks the 45th anniversary of the Nicaraguan Revolution, when the guerilla forces of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) overthrew the Somoza dictatorship, the U.S.-backed dynasty that had ruled the country for more than 40 years. On July 19, 1979, after nearly two decades of struggle, armed Sandinistas entered the capital of Managua victorious, their red and black bandanas heralding a new era of socialist transformation.

The jubilation of victory was quickly tempered by the exigencies of war. From 1980 to 1989, a coalition of counterrevolutionary forces known as the Contras—who were financed and trained by the United States during the Reagan administration—waged a ruthless but unsuccessful terror campaign to unseat the revolutionary government. Between 30,000 and 40,0000 people died in the ensuing violence.

FSLN commander Daniel Ortega emerged as the leader of the revolutionary junta, and he was elected president in 1984. Six years later, Ortega was voted out by a coalition of opposition groups. In 2007, he was reelected and has served as president ever since, since the National Assembly modified the Nicaraguan Constitution in 2014 to allow for his indefinite reelection in contests widely recognized as shams.

Today, 17 years into Ortega’s rule, the 1979 revolution’s promise of liberation and equality has become little more than window dressing for another iron-fisted dictatorship. It is not one of the proletariat or of the people, but of another all-powerful family, led by Ortega and his wife, Rosario Murillo, who is often referred to as his “co-president.” But as the two tighten their grip on power, it seems to be slipping through their fingers, and their rule appears increasingly precarious.

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega (right) and his wife, Vice-President Rosario Murillo, flash the V sign during the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Sandinista-led Nicaraguan Revolution, seen in Managua on July 19, 2019. Inti Ocon/AFP via Getty Images

For nearly two decades, “the commander” and “comrade Rosario” have consolidated power through a series of radical legislative and constitutional changes. Murillo has steadily increased her influence since 2008, when she was appointed president of the Councils of Citizen Power , party-state committees that ensured loyalty to the regime and distributed resources at the local level. She assumed Nicaragua’s vice presidency in 2017 after a constitutional reform allowed for her election despite being the president’s wife.

“Ortega’s dictatorship is unique insofar as he is singularly uncharismatic and is uninterested in direct appeals to the Nicaraguan people that other more personalist populist leaders rely on to bolster support,” said Michael Paarlberg, an associate fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies and a professor of political science at Virginia Commonwealth University. Instead, Paarlberg added, Ortega “has had to rely chiefly on repression, both to create fear and to shrink the pool of potential rivals within civil society, religious institutions, and NGOs,” or nongovernmental organizations.

Any inkling of dissent in Nicaragua has been met with ruthless military violence. In 2018, soldiers, police, and paramilitary death squads crushed a civil rebellion, leaving more than 350 people dead, at least 2,000 injured, and thousands more imprisoned, disappeared, or exiled. Ortega and Murillo have since further entrenched their dictatorship, clamping down on the opposition, securing control of the judiciary and legislature, purging the party-state apparatus of perceived traitors, and criminalizing civil society.

The government has outlawed public protest; seized the offices and assets of dozens of news outlets; revoked the legal standing of thousands of nonprofit organizations, universities, and churches—most recently in mid-August, when the regime banned 1,500 nonprofit organizations in a single day—and denounced hundreds of students, journalists, literary figures, and human rights defenders as “foreign agents,” stripping them of their citizenship. Since 2018, more than 300,000 Nicaraguans have sought asylum in neighboring Costa Rica—and U.S. Customs and Border Protection has encountered nearly 440,000 at the southern border of the United States. Many hope to win an asylum claim. Today, 1.5 million Nicaraguans —roughly 22 percent of the country’s population—live outside the borders of their homeland.

A masked member of a riot police force gestures to a photographer during a protest against Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega’s government, seen in Managua on Sept. 16, 2018. Inti Ocon/AFP via Getty Images

Recently, however, the Ortega dictatorship has appeared increasingly precarious as the presidential couple pluck away at the base of their own house of cards. Ortega and Murillo are getting old—they are 78 and 73, respectively—and the prospect of a democratic opening hangs over their hopes for smooth dynastic succession. All signs indicate that the couple is positioning their son Laureano to succeed his mother after she inherits the presidential crown from her husband.

But as Ortega and Murillo grow more isolated and self-destructive—executing mass purges and banning civil society groups—their popularity continues to wane, down to about 15 percent by last Gallup count in 2023. As their inner circle shrinks and their enemies multiply, a seamless succession appears increasingly unlikely.

For many observers, the question is not whether the dictatorship will implode, but when and how.

“There is no question that the dictatorship of Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo is getting weaker and weaker every day,” said Tamara Dávila , a leader of the opposition coalition Blue and White National Unity who is now exiled in the United States. Dávila believes that Ortega’s death or departure from office could create the possibility for a democratic opening despite the regime’s hopes for dynastic succession.

“The question is what that possibility will look like,” she said.

Since February 2023, when the regime released, banished, and denaturalized Dávila and 221 other political prisoners, Nicaragua has drifted out of the international spotlight. But repression and terror continue apace; according to the most current and commonly cited estimate, at least 141 political prisoners languish in Nicaragua’s prisons, according to the United Nations, enduring isolation, torture, and other inhumane conditions.

Dora María Téllez, a celebrated former Sandinista commander, was one of the 222 dissidents imprisoned and then exiled by the Ortega-Murillo regime. She said that the real number of political prisoners in Nicaragua is much higher than 141. “Families are afraid to report people as political prisoners. So there’s probably a little over 250 in total,” she told me in a recent interview. “But it’s a system of revolving doors: They let some out, they bring more in. … It’s a mechanism of repression that the Ortega-Murillo regime uses to keep the whole country intimidated.”

As recently as April, police intensified patrols in Nicaragua’s major cities, detaining five family members of protesters who were killed during the 2018 crackdown. On April 15, the body of opposition activist Carlos Alberto Garcia Suárez was found in a garbage dump in the city of Jinotepe. His corpse was badly burned, but police ruled out foul play, and the coroner ordered an immediate burial without an autopsy.

What is left of the opposition in the country is small and operates in secrecy.

A protester is assisted after being wounded by a rubber bullet during a demonstration to demand the release of political prisoners during clashes between anti-government protesters and riot police in Managua on Sept. 21, 2019. Inti Ocon/AFP via Getty Images

Power in Nicaragua is structured vertically. Members of Ortega and Murillo’s loyal inner circle have some influence over decision-making, but their main role is administrative: All policy decisions lie in the hands of the ruling couple. Dismissals for perceived disloyalty are routine, and purges are increasingly common. Often, they are carried out under the personal direction of Murillo, maneuvering to eliminate perceived threats to her presumed succession.

No one is immune: Friends and close relatives of the couple have been branded traitors and remanded to El Chipote prison or exiled. In 2021, the former Sandinista commander Hugo Torres Jiménez, who risked his life securing Ortega’s release from prison in 1974, was prosecuted by the regime as a traitor. Torres had served as vice president of an opposition party led by ex-Sandinistas and was a vocal critic of Ortega and Murillo, calling the dictatorship “fiercer and more totalitarian than that of the Somozas.” He died in prison two years after his arrest, at age 73.

The presidential couple even went after Ortega’s brother , Gen. Humberto Ortega, a hero of the revolution and the former head of the Nicaraguan Army, accusing him of treason for criticizing the regime’s authoritarian drift and for questioning Murillo’s dynastic succession. On May 19, police surrounded Humberto’s home, placing him under house arrest. Later, after suffering symptoms of a heart attack, he was transferred to a military hospital in Managua.

Some of the leaders of the FSLN government including brothers Daniel and Humberto Ortega (center and second from right, both in glasses), photographed during a military parade in Managua in December 1982. Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

“Just because we’re blood brothers, that doesn’t mean that Daniel and his group aren’t extremely uncomfortable with someone like me,” Humberto said in a recent interview with Infobae . “Some have even thought about eliminating me. I’ve never heard it from Daniel himself, but I’ve heard it from people who are close to him.”

In October 2023, the regime dismissed 10 percent of all judicial branch employees, including the president of the Supreme Court, a devoted Sandinista militant personally disliked by Murillo. Even the judge who had dismissed charges brought against Ortega for sexually assaulting his now-exiled stepdaughter, Zoilamérica Ortega Murillo, was caught up in the mass firing .

High-level officials continue to fall as the dictatorship closes ranks around Murillo. In the past six years, she has assumed an increasing share of power in areas once managed by her husband, such as the judiciary and Foreign Affairs Ministry. She has also maneuvered to eliminate intermediaries between her and the leaders of key institutions, such as the Interior Ministry, the attorney general’s office, and the national police. The resulting loss of power among Sandinistas loyal to Ortega has increased internal struggles within the party.

Last month, Nicaraguan police raided the office and home of Finance Minister Ivan Acosta, who was forced to resign—allegedly for acts of corruption, but more likely because he had fallen out of favor with the presidential couple. Employees in the Finance Ministry now fear a wave of dismissals, similar to those that occurred following Murillo’s purge last year of the Supreme Court, which resulted in the mass firing of some 900 government workers—including magistrates, secretaries, janitors, drivers, and even Ortega’s first-born son , Camilo Ortega Herrera, who led the court’s technical services department.

On Aug. 6, Nicaraguan news outlet Confidencial reported that in late July, Murillo dismissed Ortega’s chief police escort, Commissioner-General Marcos Alberto Acuña Avilés, who had served as a loyal member of the president’s security team since the 1990s.

All this reveals “an internal crisis tied up with the growing power of Rosario Murillo,” said Téllez, the former FSLN commander, who served as Nicaragua’s health minister from 1979 to 1990. “Rosario is not satisfied with appointees who are unconditionally supportive of Daniel Ortega. She wants people who are unconditionally supportive of her.”

Nicaraguan citizens exiled in Costa Rica demonstrate in front of the Nicaraguan Embassy to oppose the latest inauguration of Ortega, seen in San Jose on Jan. 10, 2022. Ezequiel Becerra/AFP via Getty Images

The dismissals, surveillance, harassment, and imprisonment—not only of opposition figures, but also of Sandinista partisans, including high-level members of Ortega and Murillo’s inner circle—are dramatically reconfiguring the makeup of power in Nicaragua. The presidential couple has generated discontent, distrust, and fear at every level of the party-state apparatus.

With institutions in chaos, what little support and perceived legitimacy the regime has remains tied to the increasingly frail and marginalized figure of Ortega, who is a lingering symbol of the revolution. The vast majority of the Nicaraguan population disfavors the dictatorship, and it appears increasingly unlikely that Murillo would be able to fill his shoes without creating a power vacuum that could very well spell the regime’s end.

“Murillo is perhaps the only person in Nicaragua with a less credible claim on authority than Ortega, given her deep unpopularity and having never been popularly elected in a legitimate election,” said Paarlberg, the fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies.

“She would have no choice but to double down on repression,” he continued. “Should she fail to hold power, such as by failing to maintain the loyalty of the Sandinista security apparatus, it would create the conditions for a regime transition.”

Max Granger is a freelance writer and translator. His work has appeared in El País , the Guardian , High Country News , and the Intercept , among others. He is a regular translator for El Faro . X: @_maxgranger

Join the Conversation

Commenting on this and other recent articles is just one benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log In .

Subscribe Subscribe

View Comments

Join the conversation on this and other recent Foreign Policy articles when you subscribe now.

Not your account? Log out

Please follow our comment guidelines , stay on topic, and be civil, courteous, and respectful of others’ beliefs.

Change your username:

I agree to abide by FP’s comment guidelines . (Required)

Confirm your username to get started.

The default username below has been generated using the first name and last initial on your FP subscriber account. Usernames may be updated at any time and must not contain inappropriate or offensive language.

More from Foreign Policy

Preparing for a less arrogant america.

A close reading of two books by authors who advise Kamala Harris reveals a vision for a humbler approach to foreign policy.

In Russia, Ukraine’s Invasion Pops Putin’s Bubbles

After years of propaganda about the existential threat from Ukraine, Russians respond with a collective shrug.

China’s Fragile Social Compact

On a return to Shanghai, our columnist takes note of how rising inequality is leading many Chinese to vote with their feet.

The Ruthless Government of Keir Starmer

Across the board, Britain’s new leader is harder-edged than his Tory predecessors ever were.

Could Civil War Erupt in America?

The grand strategist who has kamala’s ear, trump’s foreign-policy influencers, insider | decoding trump’s foreign policy by ravi agrawal, america is more desperate for a cease-fire than israel and hamas, how the russian establishment really sees the war ending, to end sudan’s war, pressure the uae, israeli forces kill palestinian militant commander in west bank, can amlo overhaul mexico’s democracy in his final month.

FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day, written by Alexandra Sharp . Delivered weekdays.

Other subscription options, academic rates.

Specialty rates for students and faculty.

Lock in your rates for longer.

Unlock powerful intelligence for your team.

The Spinoff

Politics Today at 5.00am

Nz’s independent foreign policy is getting a ‘reset’. what does that actually mean.

The government says that in a changing world where order is increasingly determined by power rather than rules, we need to move away from independence. Here’s what that means in practice, and why there are concerns.

There are a few phrases that have popped up in recent interviews and speeches given by our prime minister and minister of foreign affairs in relation to New Zealand’s foreign policy: the likes of “reset”, “force multiplier” and “traditional partners”. The government is signalling that New Zealand will be moving away from the independent foreign policy approach we’ve had for decades. Instead there have been moves to further align with the US and Australia, particularly in the consideration of joining Aukus .

For a small trading nation like New Zealand, foreign policy is an area where security and trade are delicately balanced. Economic interests are entangled in relationships of power. It’s not nice to think of these things as going hand in hand, but that’s the way it goes. At the moment, New Zealand is walking a tightrope between the US and China, which are jostling for influence and power over the Pacific. On Wednesday, minister of defence Judith Collins described possible implications of this tussle in picture book terms: “ When two elephants fight, little ants can get squashed. ” We are the ant, and both the US and China have power over us not just through their potential military force, but also through their spending power. Our economy relies on trading with them.

A double-handed slap-back against the government’s proposal to reset foreign policy came in a strongly worded letter co-signed by unlikely co-conspirators Helen Clark and Don Brash . They worried that a reset in favour of the US, such as signing on to Aukus, could risk this balance and our relationship with China, our biggest trading partner. Still, Peters and Luxon are charging on with promising a pivot. On August 16, Luxon described independent foreign policy as “nonsense” and made clear that in his eyes, its days were numbered. So what exactly would we be resetting?

Breaking free

For many, our independent foreign policy began when we declared New Zealand’s land, sea and airspace nuclear-free zones in 1987. The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act banned nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships from entering into New Zealand waters and prohibited the acquisition, stationing and testing of nuclear bombs. Though its final form is parliamentary and legalistic, the act sprang from a hugely popular protest movement, stoked along by Greenpeace (who could forget the Rainbow Warrior?).

Public interest in foreign policy had grown through the 1960s and 1970s, inflamed by concern over New Zealand’s involvement in the Vietnam War, the country continuing diplomatic and sporting ties with apartheid South Africa, and opposition to French nuclear testing in the Pacific. People protested publicly and lobbied politicians. It was a moment in time that still swells the patriotic hearts of many New Zealanders, who are proud to be on the right side of history , and to have stood up to big world powers to protect not only ourselves, but our Pacific neighbours too. We’re proud to be plucky.

Person holding banner saing 'Nuclear weapons not welcome' on a little boat in front of a large boat

This bravery came with repercussions. The US suspended us from Anzus, a trilateral security agreement between the US, Australia and New Zealand over the Pacific region. We had entered that agreement in 1951, essentially obliging ourselves to support the US in its wars (Korean War, Vietnam War) in return for its guarantee of protection. Now, we were out, and so we positioned ourselves as a small but independent and principled nation. We like to see ourselves as having disproportionate influence internationally through our staunch independent and principled voice. This has been woven into our national identity.

OK, but what about the Pākehā motherland, Britain?

New Zealand was granted dominion status in 1907, signed the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and became a founding member of the League of Nations in 1920, securing its effective independence. We became increasingly independent in the following years but didn’t fully take control over our foreign policy from the Dominions Office in London until the second world war, when the New Zealand government passed the External Affairs Act in 1943 . This established a separate government department to communicate with other governments, negotiate treaties and agreements, direct our overseas ports and deal with diplomats from other countries. Then in 1947 we became fully independent of Britain with the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act. which gave New Zealand full sovereign status and Commonwealth membership.

Still, into the 1960s, New Zealand was thought of as “ an English farm in the Pacific ”. We were Britain’s biggest supplier of its beloved butter, and it was our most significant trading partner. A match made in heaven until 1957, when the price of butter in Britain collapsed . Then Britain joined what is now the European Union in 1973, restricting our trade access. We decided to move on – between 1965 and 1980, New Zealand diversified its export products and destinations more than any other OECD country . We were no longer tightly bound to Britain by an umbilical cord.

Being independent, with friends

When the UN charter was being negotiated in 1945, New Zealand keenly turned up. Peter Fraser, our prime minister at the time, advocated for the rights of smaller powers to participate as equals, and sponsored the concept of trusteeship (international oversight of the administration of colonies), which has played an important part in decolonisation. He opposed (unsuccessfully) provisions that allowed permanent members of the Security Council to veto resolutions ( the US has recently used these provisions to veto resolutions for ceasefire in Gaza ). New Zealand’s delegation also influenced charter articles on economic, social and human rights. Throughout the 40s and 50s, multilateral diplomacy (relationships with groups of countries) through the UN and related organisations was central to New Zealand foreign policy because we didn’t have many direct relationships with other countries.

The UN is a part of the rules-based order that New Zealand’s international relations rely on. This order is the framework of rules, norms and institutions that has governed relations between states since the end of World War II. It’s underpinned by principles like the peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the promotion of sustainable development and respect for fundamental human rights. The UN is a powerful body in creating and maintaining these principles.

We also signed the Manila Treaty in 1954, along with the US, the UK, Australia, France, Thailand, the Philippines and Pakistan, as a commitment to collective security in southeast Asia. The Pacific Islands Forum (originally the South Pacific Forum), of which New Zealand is a part, was established in 1971.

In the past 80 or so years, we’ve expanded our diplomacy and relationships. Today the New Zealand government has a network of 60 diplomatic posts throughout the world . Our favourite is probably Australia, with whom we’ve had the Closer Economic Relations (CER) agreement since 1983. CER removed most barriers to trans-Tasman trade and substantially integrated New Zealand’s economy with our larger neighbour.

From the late 1990s negotiating free-trade agreements became a priority. A landmark agreement with China was concluded in 2008, and the country has since grown into our largest trading partner. In 2023 our exports to China totalled $20.76 billion (in the same year our exports to the US totalled $14.5 billion ).

While we focus on trade with China, we’re part of Five Eyes, an anglosphere intelligence alliance with Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US. The alliance has grown into a robust global surveillance mechanism that monitors the internet. Its activities are shrouded in secrecy and there are plenty of questions about whether it operates legally.

With all these acronyms, alliances and treaties, one might wonder if perhaps we’re not as independent as we like to think. Some commentators say New Zealand has never existed independently of the anglosphere security architecture , although there have been moments when we’ve taken independent stances. At best, they say, that independence has been aspirational.

Who supported our independent foreign policy?

Everyone! Well, at least Labour and National. Our approach to foreign policy has been largely bipartisan.

Has it come to an end? Why?

The current government is sending messages that the era of independence foreign policy is over. It’s giving warming indications that we’re likely to become a Pillar 2 member of Aukus . This would lock us further in with our “traditional partners” in the anglosphere, and would be a big middle finger to China. They’re certainly trying to get people on board, with Luxon appealing to facets of our national identity by claiming the change will be a “ return to the fine tradition of Kiwi activism on the world stage ” (some would say the opposite is true).

Academic experts in geopolitics and international relations , as well as our Ministry of Foreign Affairs , say that the current global situation, with war and fractured international security, is undermining the rules-based order that New Zealand’s foreign policy relies on. For example, both Russia and Israel are flouting the rules, ignoring the UN and instead exercising hard military power. On Tuesday, the Ministry of Defence released a four-year statement of intent saying that the international system is changing, becoming more challenging and risky. “The use, and threat of use, of military power is increasingly shaping states’ interactions,” it reads. Small countries with tiny military and economic might can only be independent if the system is governed by fair rules rather than power.

This changing landscape is something that Peters cites too. “ Over the past 25 years, we have witnessed a rolling back of democracy, increasingly restrictive market barriers, and an increase in conflict ,” he said in May. Echoing an MFAT report from June 2023, he said the international order was shifting in three ways. Firstly, what was once determined by rules is increasingly contested and relative power between states is assuming a greater role. Secondly, economic relationships are being reassessed in light of increased military competition as the world loses stability. Thirdly, there’s a shift in economic behaviour, where building for resilience and sustainability is becoming more prominent than efficiency.

Understandably, for Peters these are “worrying” trends. This is why he’s had a packed schedule, bringing “more energy, more urgency” to our international relationships. This is not exclusive to Aukus. A scan through Peters’ press releases from the last two months shows he’s strengthened our relationship with the Republic of Korea , boosted cooperation on disaster and climate resilience with the Marshall Islands , launched a plan of action to guide bilateral cooperation with Indonesia , advanced our relationship with South East Asia and participated in a series of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) ministerial meetings .

During his speech in May, where he laid out the destabilised geopolitical landscape, Peters said, “The world has changed, and so must we.”

What are critics’ concerns?

Critique of the foreign policy reset has been aimed mostly at the proposal to join Aukus. It isn’t so much the nuclear aspect of Aukus, but the alignment with the US that has some people worried.

Former rivals Helen Clark and Don Brash collaborated on a statement in July, saying the rest was a “radical” change that would jeopardise New Zealand’s independent foreign policy and its economic security.

They said the orientation of New Zealand as a fully fledged military ally of the US implied that we would be dragged into the US-China competition for power. Rhetoric about China spying on New Zealand was “obsessive” and countless countries, including us, spy on others. Maintaining a good relationship with China was their foremost concern. “China not only poses no military threat to New Zealand, but it is also by a very substantial margin our biggest export market – more than twice as important as an export market for New Zealand as the US is.”

Article Types

Capsule Reviews
Review Essays
Ask the Experts
Reading Lists
Newsletters
Customer Service
Frequently Asked Questions
Subscriber Resources
Group Subscriptions
Gift a Subscription

The Case for a Clean Energy Marshall Plan

How the fight against climate change can renew american leadership, by brian deese.

For decades, global integration—of trade, of politics, of technology—was seen as a natural law. Today, integration has been replaced by fragmentation. The post–Cold War institutions are teetering, industrial strategies are back in vogue, and competition with China is growing. These dynamics are creating geopolitical friction across global supply chains, for vehicles, minerals, computer chips, and more.

Against this backdrop, the clean energy transition remains the most important planetary challenge. It also presents the greatest economic opportunity: it will be the largest capital formation event in human history. And it presents the United States with a chance to lead. Thanks to its still unparalleled power and influence, Washington maintains a unique capacity—and a strategic imperative—to shape world outcomes.

In 2022, the United States recognized these opportunities when it passed the Inflation Reduction Act, the world’s largest-ever investment in clean energy technologies. This transformative industrial strategy was a crucial first step for the United States in positioning its economy for success by accelerating the clean energy transition at home. Now is the time to take this leadership to the global stage, in a way that promotes U.S. interests and supports aligned countries. But the United States need not create a new model for doing so.

Seventy-six years ago, also facing a fractured world order and an emerging superpower competitor, U.S. President Harry Truman and U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall launched an ambitious effort to rebuild European societies and economies. Although often associated with free-market neoliberalism, the 1948 Marshall Plan was hardly laissez-faire. It was, in fact, an industrial strategy that established the United States as a generous partner to European allies while promoting U.S. industries and interests. Generations later, the Marshall Plan is rightly understood as one of the great successes of the postwar era.

Although today’s challenges are undoubtedly different, the United States should draw lessons from that postwar period and launch a new Marshall Plan, this time for the global transition to clean energy. Just as the Marshall Plan assisted those countries most ravaged by World War II, the new Marshall Plan should aim to help countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change: the United States’ partners in the developing world. Developing countries and emerging markets will need access to cheap capital and technology to transition away from fossil fuels quickly enough to halt global warming.

The United States again has the chance to help others while helping itself. Putting its own burgeoning industries front and center in the energy transition will generate further innovation and growth. Clean energy investment in the United States reached about 7.4 percent of private fixed investment in structures and equipment in the first quarter of this year, at $40 billion, up from $16 billion in the first quarter of 2021. Investment in emerging energy technologies—such as hydrogen power and carbon capture and storage—jumped by 1,000 percent from 2022 to 2023. Manufacturing investment in the battery supply chain went up nearly 200 percent over the same period. By creating global markets for its own clean energy industries and innovators, the United States can scale these economic gains and strengthen domestic support for an energy shift that has not always been an easy sell to voters.

The fracturing world order and the ominous climate crisis lead some observers to focus on the potential tensions between those two developments. But they also provide an opening for the United States to deploy its innovation and capital in a generous, pragmatic, and unapologetically pro-American way—by launching a Clean Energy Marshall Plan.

THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY

Gauzy invocations of the Marshall Plan often induce eye rolling, and with good reason. In U.S. policy circles, commentators have called for a new Marshall Plan for everything from ending global poverty to rebuilding Ukraine. The term has become shorthand for a response to any problem that mobilizes public resources to achieve an ambitious end. But this overuse has blurred the substance of what the Marshall Plan really was—and was not.

The Marshall Plan was not, as many assume, born solely out of visionary ideals of international unity after the horrors of World War II. Instead, it reflected the pragmatic constraints of a fracturing, uncertain world order. In the spring of 1947, having returned from China after a failed attempt to head off a communist takeover there, Marshall was left to grapple with the newly emerged Iron Curtain in Europe. The shifting geopolitical reality forced Truman and Marshall to consider how to exert U.S. leadership to shape the world for good—to forge peace, rebuild cities, and promote American values in the face of communism. But they clearly recognized the limits of hard power and understood that economic stability could yield geopolitical stability.

Fundamentally, the Marshall Plan was an industrial strategy that deployed public dollars to advance U.S. manufacturing and industrial capabilities in service of reconstructing Europe. Washington spent $13 billion—equivalent to $200 billion today—over four years, mostly in the form of grants to discount the European purchase of goods and services. Because U.S. companies were at the center of the program, 70 percent of European expenditures of Marshall Plan funds were used to buy products made in the United States. Italy, for example, used Marshall Plan funds to buy American drilling technology, pipes, and other industrial equipment to rebuild its energy sector—including the equipment needed to restart Europe’s first commercial geothermal plant, powered by steam from lava beds in Tuscany. By 1950, that region had more than doubled its geothermal capacity and remained a major contributor to Italy’s total power demand.

The adoption of low-cost clean energy technologies is not self-executing.

The structure of the Marshall Plan allowed it to meet Europe’s pressing needs while winning over a skeptical and war-weary American public. Because there was little appetite for providing foreign aid following World War II, Marshall and Truman centered their plan on Americans’ economic interests. The country’s industrial capabilities had grown considerably during the war, but after the war, the task was to find new markets for them. As the plan’s chief administrator, Paul Hoffman, explained, the goal was to turn Europe into a “consumer of American goods” at a time when postwar U.S. GDP had fallen precipitously and exports were imperiled by a moribund European economy. The Marshall Plan would thus help American companies and save American jobs.

To sell the plan to the public, its architects and supporters launched a public relations campaign, squarely anchoring their case in these core U.S. economic interests. In the ten months after Marshall’s June 1947 speech introducing the plan, it gained traction, securing a 75 percent public approval rating and winning over a majority of the U.S. Congress—in an election year and with a divided government to boot.

Yet even though the Marshall Plan was attuned to U.S. economic interests, its architects recognized that it was important for the United States to be a generous, reliable partner to U.S. allies. The plan helped Europe rise from the rubble, pay off its debts, refill its foreign exchange reserves, recover its industrial production and agricultural output, adopt new technologies, and build goodwill for the United States, all while reducing the appeal of communism. By filling a financing gap that no other power could, the United States cemented its transatlantic partnerships. And by supporting its own economy, it became a capable and reliable global partner.

THE CHEAPER, THE BETTER

Like the original Marshall Plan, a Clean Energy Marshall Plan should meet other countries’ development needs while advancing U.S. interests. In this case, the goal is to speed the adoption of low-cost, zero-carbon solutions, such as the manufacture of batteries, the deployment of nuclear and geothermal energy, and the processing of critical minerals. This approach reflects the basic intuition that, as useful as it can be to make carbon pollution more expensive by putting a price on it, the most credible way to accelerate the adoption of zero-carbon technologies is to make that technology cheap and widely available.

The Inflation Reduction Act embodies this theory: it created long-term public incentives that promote the innovation and deployment of a variety of clean energy technologies. This public investment is already transforming the U.S. energy industry, and it holds even more potential for global energy markets. By driving down the cost of clean energy technologies—particularly innovative technologies such as nuclear power and carbon capture—the IRA could generate up to $120 billion in global savings by 2030. The resulting uptake of clean energy technologies in emerging markets could ultimately yield emission reductions in the rest of the world that would be two to four times as large as those achieved in the United States.

But the adoption of low-cost clean energy technologies is not self-executing. Without U.S. leadership, the world will simply not do enough fast enough to limit the worst effects of global warming. Unfortunately, the United States has yet to offer a full-throated answer to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the $1 trillion infrastructure project Beijing designed to expand its influence across the globe. And now, some leaders in China are calling for Beijing to go even further and develop a Marshall Plan–style approach to drive clean energy adoption in developing countries. Meanwhile, other players are also stepping up where the United States has not. For all the controversy about the United Arab Emirates—a fossil fuel nation—hosting last year’s UN climate conference, it is notable that it was the UAE, and not the United States, that proposed a large funding effort aimed at scaling zero-carbon technology to appropriate levels for emerging markets.

Ceding this space is a failure of American leadership and a missed economic opportunity. Skepticism of the United States, exacerbated by its handling of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, is already high in Southeast Asia and across the developing world, where Washington cannot afford to see alliances fray. And when countries there look to China or the UAE for capital and technology, American innovators and workers lose ground.

Implementing a Clean Energy Marshall Plan won’t be easy, but the process must begin now. As after World War II, the United States can be generous as well as pro-American in its approach. It can promote U.S. interests by scaling its industries to meet global needs while winning greater influence in this new geopolitical landscape. And it can meet developing countries where they are—supplying them with the energy they need to expand their economies and the innovation they need to decarbonize efficiently.

To accomplish these aims, however, Washington needs a clear mandate, adequate resources, and flexible tools. And it will need to enact a strategy that does three things: finances foreign deployment of U.S. clean energy technology, secures more resilient supply chains, and creates a new, more balanced trade regime that encourages the development and implementation of clean energy technology.

HOMEGROWN ADVANTAGES

The United States should begin with a focused investment and commercial diplomacy effort, akin to that of the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan had a straightforward aim: subsidize European demand for U.S. products and services needed to rebuild Europe. Today, the United States should establish a Clean Energy Finance Authority with an updated mission: subsidize foreign demand for clean energy technology and put American innovation and industry at the front of the line.

This new body would enable the United States to participate in foreign deals that promote U.S. innovation and production while reducing emissions. The purpose would be to reduce the premium that emerging-market economies must pay to meet their energy needs in a low-carbon way. To receive U.S. investments, governments and private sectors in these countries would themselves need to invest in clean energy. The promise of reliable U.S. support would prompt reform.

The good news is that most of the technologies necessary, from solar power to battery storage to wind turbines, are already commercially scalable. Other technologies are now scaling up rapidly, thanks to U.S. investment. For example, the United States has used its existing drilling capacity to become the world’s leading producer of advanced geothermal energy. It is well positioned to leverage its homegrown advantages to export geothermal components to geopolitically important markets in Southeast Asia and Africa and beyond, where sources of reliable power are needed. And the more these technologies are deployed, the more costs will come down, as processes become more efficient with scale. With patient capital, the dividends will be manifold: steady, clean power; faster-growing markets; diversified supply chains; and support for hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. Similar opportunities exist for advanced nuclear and hydrogen power and carbon capture.

The United States has yet to offer a full-throated answer to the Belt and Road Initiative.

To be effective, the Clean Energy Finance Authority would need to be big yet nimble. Not only has the United States lagged other countries in offering public capital to lead the energy transition, but its financial support is also unnecessarily inflexible. Officials in foreign capitals joke that the United States shows up with a 100-page list of conditions, whereas China shows up with a blank check. The United States’ current financing authorities are constrained by byzantine rules that block U.S. investment that could advance its national interests.

For example, the U.S. Development Finance Corporation, which invests in projects in lower- and middle-income countries, cannot invest in lithium processing projects in Chile because it is considered a high-income country, yet companies in the low-income Democratic Republic of the Congo often find it impossible to meet the DFC’s stringent labor standards. Meanwhile, Chinese companies invested over $200 million in a Chilean lithium plant in 2023 and gained rights to explore Congolese lithium mines the same year. Of course, U.S. finance must continue to reflect American values, but there is still room for far greater flexibility in the name of national interest and the energy transition.

Promising models for a Clean Energy Finance Authority also exist. Domestically, the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office rapidly expanded its capabilities, approving 11 investment commitments to companies totaling $18 billion in the past two fiscal years (versus just two commitments in the three years before that). Internationally, the DFC expanded its climate lending from less than $500 million to nearly $4 billion over the last three years. And the United States has supported creative financial partnerships with several countries. In Egypt, for example, the United States and Germany committed $250 million to stimulate $10 billion of private capital to accelerate the Egyptian energy transition.

The most effective aspects of these examples should be harnessed together under the Clean Energy Finance Authority, which should have a versatile financial toolkit, including the ability to issue debt and equity. It should be able to deploy this capital in creative arrangements, such as by blending it with foreign capital and lowering risk premiums with insurance and guarantees. It should draw on, not re-create, the Department of Energy’s expertise in assessing the risks and benefits of emerging technologies, such as advanced nuclear energy, hydrogen power, and carbon capture and storage. The Clean Energy Finance Authority could be managed by the U.S. Treasury Department, in light of the latter’s experience in risk underwriting and financial diligence, and given the mandate to coordinate closely across agencies.

With nimble, market-oriented financing capacities, the Clean Energy Finance Authority would be able to accelerate and initiate, not impede, financial transactions. Whereas the Marshall Plan was 90 percent financed with U.S. grants, a Clean Energy Marshall Plan could easily be the inverse, with less than ten percent of its expenditures in the form of grants and the rest of the capital being deployed as equity, debt, export credit, and other forms of financing. And whereas the Chinese Belt and Road model relies on government-dominated financing, an American approach would be market-based and therefore more efficient because it enables competition and encourages large investments of private capital.

The Clean Energy Finance Authority should be capitalized with a significant upfront commitment of money—enough to generate market momentum that tips the balance of clean energy investment toward the private sector; ultimately the private sector, not the public sector, will need to provide the majority of the financing the energy transition needs over the coming decades. If this new authority is set up and deployed properly, U.S. companies and innovators would gain more foreign demand, on favorably negotiated terms, and new market share. Foreign consumers, for their part, would gain access to new channels of cheap clean energy technology. For emerging-market countries and major emitters—such as Brazil, India, and Indonesia—the United States could act with both generosity and its own interests in mind.

THE DANGER OF DEPENDENCE

The United States should also establish a Clean Energy Resilience Authority, whose goal would be to create more resilient supply chains for the clean energy transition. To support burgeoning manufacturing production in developing countries, and to expand that of the United States, the world needs diversified supply chains that are not dominated by individual states and do not have exploitable chokepoints. Today, China controls 60 percent of the world’s rare-earth mining production and approximately 90 percent of its processing and refining capability.

The United States should lead a coalition of partners to build access to processed critical minerals such that the energy transition does not substitute dependence on foreign oil for dependence on Chinese critical minerals. Thankfully, the term “rare-earth minerals” is a misnomer: these elements are abundant and geographically dispersed. Eighty percent of the world’s lithium reserves, 66 percent of its nickel reserves, and 50 percent of its copper reserves are in democracies. Eighty percent of oil reserves, by contrast, are in OPEC countries, nearly all of which are autocracies.

In today’s energy market, the most important tool the United States wields is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a stockpile of oil created 50 years ago as a response to the 1973 oil crisis. In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine , in 2022, the U.S. government used this reserve to ensure adequate supply by selling 180 million barrels of oil. When prices fell, the administration began refilling the reserve, securing a profit for U.S. taxpayers of close to $600 million as of May 2024. This mechanism has reduced the volatility of oil prices while advancing U.S. strategic interests.

As part of the Clean Energy Marshall Plan, Washington must level the playing field through the use of trade tools.

The United States should create a strategic reserve capability for critical minerals, as well. A body similar to the U.S. Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund, a reserve fund used to prevent fluctuations in the value of the U.S. dollar, but for critical minerals would enable the United States to stabilize the market for these resources. The Clean Energy Resilience Authority could offer various forms of financial insurance that would steady prices, protect consumers from price spikes, and generate stable revenue for producers during low-price periods. And it should have the ability to build up physical stockpiles of key minerals, such as graphite and cobalt, whether on U.S. soil or in allied territory.

Support for this type of reserve capability already exists. The bipartisan House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party recommended just such a body. The United States’ allies are also on board: in May, South Korea allocated an additional nearly $200 million to build up domestic lithium reserves. Indeed, the original Marshall Plan also recognized the need to improve access to strategically important materials, funding domestic stockpiles for goods such as industrial equipment and medical supplies.

With the Clean Energy Resilience Authority, the United States would be better able to craft multilateral agreements to diversify critical minerals processing. As part of that effort, it could organize a critical minerals club among leading producers and consumers, wherein members could offer and receive purchase commitments. Such an arrangement would give countries that produce and process minerals reliable access to the United States and other developed markets—assuming they meet high standards for sustainable and ethical mining practices. The outcome would be more minerals processed in a more diverse supply chain, sold into a more stable market.

TRADING PLACES

The Marshall Plan underscored the importance of using trade policy to advance U.S. interests: it required European countries to integrate their economies and to remove trade barriers as a means of expanding U.S. exports, promoting capitalism, and warding off communism. A Clean Energy Marshall Plan should help lead a coalition to elicit a more balanced global trading system.

Right now, China is the central actor in global supply chains for clean energy technologies. Facing a stalling domestic economy, China is pursuing a state-led strategy of investing in domestic manufacturing capacity rather than in greater domestic demand or a stronger social safety net. For some goods, such as electric vehicles, batteries, and solar panels, China explicitly aims to dominate global manufacturing. That strategy is fundamentally unsustainable for the global economy. For one thing, it creates acute supply chain vulnerabilities; because the world relies so heavily on China for processing rare-earth minerals, a natural disaster or geopolitical tensions could threaten the entire global supply. For another thing, the strategy erodes industrial capacity across the world, including in the United States. By flooding global markets with artificially cheap goods without a commensurate increase in imports, China forces the cost of its subsidies onto its trade partners—undercutting employment, innovation, and industrial capacity elsewhere. Indeed, this strategy even harms China’s own industrial sector and fails to address the root causes of its domestic economic challenges.

As part of the Clean Energy Marshall Plan, Washington must level the global playing field through the active yet measured use of trade tools such as tariffs. Doing nothing and being resigned to China’s statist approach is neither economically nor politically sustainable. And using blunt tools to effectuate what amounts to a unilateral retreat is dangerous. Former U.S. President Donald Trump ’s call to essentially end all imports from China within four years is a cynical fantasy playing on populist fears. In 2022, U.S. goods and services trade with China amounted to over $750 billion. It is not practicable to decouple from any major economy, let alone the United States’ third-largest trading partner. Global trade delivers important benefits, whereas unilateral, asymmetric escalation would leave the United States isolated and vulnerable.

The right approach is to harmonize more active trade policies with like-minded countries. Indeed, Brazil, Chile, India, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam, among others, are all investigating or imposing tariffs on Chinese dumping practices. China is now the object of twice as many retaliatory measures as it was four years ago. This growing pushback represents a chance for the United States to address the Chinese-driven global trade imbalance by crafting a global coalition to galvanize a coordinated response while creating more global trade in clean energy goods and services.

To accomplish this, the United States must use expanded, stronger, and smarter trade authorities. For example, Washington should build into its tariffs on imported goods an assessment of how much carbon was used to produce them. Tariffs should be determined by the emission intensity of the trading partner’s entire industry, rather than company by company, to avoid “resource reshuffling,” whereby countries try to dodge penalties by limiting their exports to only products manufactured with clean energy instead of reducing their emissions overall. These tariffs should be aimed at all countries, but given its current production practices, China would be hit the hardest.

This form of tariff regime could be coordinated with what other countries are doing on the same front. The effort should begin with the steel sector. Chinese-made steel is two to five times as carbon-intensive as U.S.-made steel and is being dumped in markets around the world. The United States has been working on an arrangement with the European Union to harmonize tariffs on steel and aluminum. But the EU need not be the United States’ first or only partner in this initiative. There is a global appetite to enact a common external tariff regime on China to respond to its overproduction and carbon-intensive practices. Washington should work to pull this group together through the G-7 and G-20.

There is also a domestic appetite for this approach, in both the U.S. Congress and the private sector. For example, Dow Chemical has advocated the use of carbon policies to favor environmentally responsible industries that make heavily traded goods. Several bipartisan bills now in Congress propose similar policies. The United States could develop an industrial competitiveness program for heavy industries, such as those producing cement, steel, and chemicals, that bolsters domestic industry and makes trade more fair by charging a carbon-based fee on both domestic industries and imports at the border. This program would incentivize domestic innovation and efficiency, and it would advantage environmentally responsible U.S. companies that compete with heavy-carbon-emitting foreign producers. The revenue from the fee could be rebated to the U.S. private sector by rewarding the cleanest domestic producers and investing in research and development.

Investing in the clean energy transition abroad will benefit businesses and workers at home.

A carbon-based tariff, or a carbon border adjustment, should further motivate climate action by exempting countries that are hitting their nationally determined goals under the 2016 Paris climate agreement or those that fall below certain income and emission thresholds. To complement the Clean Energy Finance Authority, the tariff could be lowered in exchange for foreign procurement of clean energy technologies or of clean products made in the United States. For many developing countries, the tariff would act as a powerful accelerant to their energy development plans.

This approach would allow the United States to transition from its current indiscriminate, broad-based tariff regime to a more comprehensive carbon-based system that more accurately targets Chinese overcapacity and trade imbalance concerns. And the United States should leave the door open to cooperating with China in this context, as well.

Policymakers will have to reimagine existing trade rules—and be willing to lead the World Trade Organization and other international institutions in thinking about how trade can accelerate the clean energy transition. The WTO’s objective was never just to promote free trade for free trade’s sake; its founding document includes a vision for sustainable development. The WTO must reform if it is to deliver on that vision, but in the meantime, the United States shouldn’t cling to old trade conventions when more targeted and effective approaches exist.

BANKING ON THE FUTURE

Finally, as the United States upgrades its tools of economic statecraft, it should also increase its expectations of the world’s multilateral development banks, especially the World Bank . Like its predecessor, the Clean Energy Marshall Plan would be temporary, designed to unlock a wave of innovation investment to address a global need. The multilateral development banks are a necessary complement to active U.S. leadership today, just as they were in the postwar era. But the banks need to deploy their capital with the urgency that the energy transition and economic development demand. Although there has been a welcome recent focus on this reform agenda—including by the Biden administration, the G-20, and even the banks themselves—progress has been tepid, and conventional proposals lack ambition and creativity. Incremental change is not enough.

Some avenues already exist to spur the proper level of ambition. For example, donor countries can increase the stakes for the banks by fostering competition among them to make tangible progress on reforms that increase lending for climate-related projects and leverage their investments more effectively. Washington can already provide capital in the form of guarantees to multilateral development banks; this authority could be expanded such that U.S. capital is allocated to these banks based on which ones deserve it most. This “play to get paid” structure would challenge the banks to come forward with legitimate plans to improve their lending practices for clean energy projects. And the guarantee structure offers a great bang for the buck: the World Bank can spend $6 for every $1 of guarantee provided.

The Green Climate Fund, the sole multilateral public financial institution devoted to addressing climate change, could follow this approach, too. Almost 15 years after it was founded, the GCF has disbursed only 20 percent of the funding it has received. To speed up its progress and increase its leverage, the GCF should allocate a portion of its funds to the multilateral development banks, building on its existing practice of lending to these institutions, based on a similar “play to get paid” principle. Instead of submitting individual project applications, the banks would submit proposals for leveraging hybrid capital to scale climate lending in support of the GCF’s mission, including the even split between those projects that prevent climate change and those that respond to its current impacts. In other words, the banks that can best attack the problem would receive flexible GCF capital to scale those efforts. Such a change would be merely one part of a multilateral system that maintains the momentum created by a Clean Energy Marshall Plan.

WIN-WIN-WIN

A Clean Energy Marshall Plan has the makings of a compelling pitch to U.S. domestic audiences: investing in the clean energy transition abroad will benefit businesses and workers at home. Evidence of that effect is already easy to find. The clean investment boom is turning novel technologies into market mainstays: emerging technologies such as hydrogen power and carbon capture now each receive more investment than wind. Billions of dollars are flowing to areas of the United States left behind by previous economic booms, bringing new jobs with them. But to further this momentum, the country needs to turn to foreign markets to boost demand for U.S. products.

The United States should seize the occasion to lead on its own terms. The Clean Energy Marshall Plan would be good for U.S. workers and businesses, unlocking billions of dollars of market opportunities; good for the United States’ developing country partners, by delivering low-cost decarbonization solutions; and good for the world order, by building more resilient supply chains and a more balanced and sustainable trading system.

Such a plan requires political focus and money, but it is not impossible. The United States can spend far less than it did on the Marshall Plan, thanks to the better financial tools available today and falling clean technology costs. And it could recycle the proceeds from a carbon-based border adjustment tariff into the finance and resilience authorities, thus setting up a system that pays for itself.

In this moment of domestic economic strength—stark against the backdrop of heightened competition, a fracturing world, and a raging climate crisis—the United States can do something generous for people across the globe in a way that benefits Americans. It should take that leap, not just because it is the morally right thing to do but also because it is the strategically necessary thing to do.

You are reading a free article.

Subscribe to foreign affairs to get unlimited access..

Paywall-free reading of new articles and over a century of archives
Unlock access to iOS/Android apps to save editions for offline reading
Six issues a year in print and online, plus audio articles
BRIAN DEESE is the Innovation Fellow at MIT. He served as Director of the White House National Economic Council from 2021 to 2023.
More By Brian Deese

Most-Read Articles

The false promise of ukraine’s deep strikes into russia.

Hitting Faraway Targets Will Not Tip the Balance of the War

Stephen Biddle

Why whataboutism works.

In International Politics, It Pays to Point Fingers

Wilfred M. Chow and Dov H. Levin

America has more latitude with israel than it thinks.

Why U.S. Pressure Can Persuade Netanyahu to Change Course in Gaza

Daniel Silverman, Anna Pechenkina, Austin Knuppe, and Yehonatan Abramson

The perils of isolationism.

The World Still Needs America—and America Still Needs the World

Condoleezza Rice

Recommended articles, the populist revolt against climate policy.

How the Culture War Subsumed Efforts to Curb Global Warming

Edoardo Campanella and Robert Z. Lawrence

Green peace.

How the Fight Against Climate Change Can Overcome Geopolitical Discord

Meghan L. O’Sullivan and Jason Bordoff

Stay informed., thank you for signing up. stay tuned for the latest from foreign affairs ..

Harvard’s Institute of Politics Announces Fall 2024 Resident Fellows

Introduction

CAMBRIDGE, MA - The Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School today announced the appointment of six Resident Fellows who will join the IOP for the Fall 2024 semester. The fellows bring diverse experience in politics, elected office, polling, journalism, and economic development to address the challenges facing our country and world today.

"We are thrilled to welcome this Fall's cohort of Resident Fellows to Harvard to engage and collaborate with our students and community, and to get their thoughts and insight in the final few months of this year's historic election. Their diverse experiences will no doubt inspire our students to consider careers in public service and prepare them to provide essential political leadership in the months and years ahead," said IOP Director Setti Warren .

"We are excited to have such a remarkable group of Fellows at the IOP this Fall. They bring varied perspectives on how to best approach some of our country's most consequential challenges, and I am confident our students will gain important insight into the fields of politics, civic engagement, journalism, and more," said Michael Nutter , Chair of the Institute of Politics' Senior Advisory Committee, and former Mayor of Philadelphia.

"We are thrilled to welcome the incredibly accomplished members of the 2024 Fall Fellows Cohort as we begin the fall semester prior to the incredibly important U.S. election. As we close out the 'biggest election year in history,' our world remains in the throes of a major period of democratic backsliding. American voters, including many Harvard students, will once again face the possibility of reactionary backsliding and threats to fundamental rights. Closer to home, we are keenly aware of the threats to free speech on campus. While this semester will bring renewed challenges to and debates concerning those fundamental rights, we are hopeful that study groups will remain a source of vibrant, productive, and gratifying discussions on Harvard's campus. In that spirit, this semester's cohort of Fellows will bring in critical perspectives from the varied worlds of governing, policymaking, polling, reporting, and campaigning to equip students with the tools necessary to create a better tomorrow. We are confident that this cohort of Fellows will help this program to remain a bastion of freedom of speech and civil discourse on Harvard's campus," said Éamon ÓCearúil ‘25 and Summer Tan ‘26 , Co-Chairs of the Fellows and Study Groups Program at the Institute of Politics.

IOP Resident Fellows are fully engaged with the Harvard community. They reside on campus, mentor a cohort of undergraduate students, hold weekly office hours, and lead an eight-week, not-for-credit study group based on their experience and expertise.

Fall 2024 Resident Fellows:

Betsy Ankney: Former Campaign Manager, Nikki Haley for President
John Anzalone: One of the nation's top pollsters and strategists, and founder of Impact Research, a public opinion research and consulting firm
Alejandra Y. Castillo: Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development
Asa Hutchinson: Former Governor of Arkansas and 2024 Presidential Candidate
Brett Rosenberg: Former Director for Strategic Planning, National Security Council and Deputy Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, Department of State
Eugene Scott: Host at Axios Live, and former reporter who has spent two decades covering politics at the local, national and international level, including at the Washington Post and CNN

Brief bios and quotes can be found below. Headshots are available upon request.

Betsy Ankney Ankney is a political strategist with over 15 years of experience on tough campaigns. She has been involved in campaigns and Super PACs at the national and state level and played a role in some of the biggest upsets in Republican politics. She has been an advisor to Ambassador Nikki Haley since 2021, serving as Executive Director for Stand for America PAC and most recently as Campaign Manager for Nikki Haley for President. After starting with zero dollars in the bank and 2% in the polls, the campaign defied the odds, raised $80 million, and Nikki Haley emerged as the strongest challenger to Donald Trump. Ankney served as the Political Director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee for the 2020 cycle. She advised senate campaigns across the country, working directly with candidates and their campaigns on budgets, messaging, and fundraising. Prior to her work at the NRSC, Ankney managed multiple statewide campaigns, including Bruce Rauner for Governor in Illinois and Ron Johnson for Senate in Wisconsin. For her work on Ron Johnson’s race, she was named “Campaign Manager of the Year” by the American Association of Political Consultants for 2016. Ankney got her start in politics at the 2008 Republican National Convention and served in various roles at the Republican National Committee as well as on multiple campaigns and outside efforts. She serves on the boards of The Campaign School at Yale and The American Association of Political Consultants. She is from Toledo, Ohio and attended Vanderbilt University.

"I am honored to be a part of the fantastic program at the Harvard Institute of Politics. As we enter the final stretch of one of the wildest and most unpredictable election cycles in modern history, I look forward to having conversations in real time about our political process, what to look for, and why it matters." – Betsy Ankney

John Anzalone Anzalone is one of the nation’s top pollsters and messaging strategists. He has spent decades working on some of the toughest political campaigns in modern history and helping private-sector clients navigate complex challenges. He has polled for the past four presidential races, most recently serving as chief pollster for President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign. In that role, he helped develop the messaging and strategy that drove paid communications, major policy rollouts, speeches, and convention thematics. He has also polled for the campaigns of President Obama and Hillary Clinton, and has helped elect U.S. senators, governors, and dozens of members of Congress. Anzalone works with governors across the country, including current Governors Gretchen Whitmer (MI) and Roy Cooper (NC). He polls regularly for the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Senate Majority PAC, and AARP. With more than 30 years of experience in message development and strategic execution, he has been called on by key decision-makers, executives, and CEOs to provide counsel in a changing world and marketplace. He has extensive experience using research and data to break down complex subjects into digestible messages that resonate with target audiences. He grew up in St. Joseph, Michigan, and graduated from Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He is married and has four children, two dogs, and lives in Watercolor, Florida.

"After a 40-year career in politics I am so excited to give back by sharing and mentoring politically active and curious students, but also to have an opportunity to learn from them myself. During the next three months we will be living the 2024 elections together in real time. There is nothing more exciting than that regardless of your political identity." – John Anzalone

Alejandra Y. Castillo The Honorable Alejandra Y. Castillo was nominated by President Biden and sworn in as U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development on August 13, 2021, becoming the first women of color to hold this position. Ms. Castillo led the Economic Development Administration (EDA) between August 2021-2024 through an unprecedented moment of growth and opportunity. As the only federal agency focused exclusively on economic development, she guided EDA’s the implementation of over $6.8 billion dollars in federal funding, powering EDA and its mission to make transformational placed-based investments to support inclusive and equitable economic growth across America. Spanning over two decades of public service and non-profit work, she has served in three Presidential administrations --Biden, Obama and Clinton. Her career has also included a drive to shattering glass ceilings and providing inspiration to multiple generations of diverse leaders. Castillo is an active member in various civic and professional organizations, including the Hispanic National Bar Association, the American Constitution Society, as well as the Council on Foreign Relations. Castillo holds a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from the State University of New York at Stony Brook; a M.A. in Public Policy from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin; and a J.D. from American University, Washington College of Law. A native of Queens, NY., the daughter of immigrants from the Dominican Republic.

"I am excited to join this Fall semester IOP Fellowship class and have the opportunity to engage with students and faculty members across the University. The IOP fellowship presents a great forum to discuss and evaluate the future of U.S. industrial strategy and economic growth in light of the historic federal investments in place-based economic development during the last three years. I am honored to join my colleagues in making this an exciting and informative semester for students." – Alejandra Y. Castillo

Asa Hutchinson Governor Asa Hutchinson is a former Republican candidate for President of the United States. He served as the 46th Governor of the State of Arkansas and in his last election, he was re-elected with 65 percent of the vote, having received more votes than any other Republican candidate for governor in the State’s history. As a candidate for President, Hutchinson distinguished himself as an advocate for balancing the federal budget, energy production and enhanced border security. He also was a clear voice for the GOP to move away from the leadership of Donald Trump. Hutchinson’s time as governor is distinguished by his success in securing over $700 million per year in tax cuts, safeguarding the retirement pay of veterans from state income tax, shrinking the size of state government, creating over 100,000 new jobs and leading a national initiative to increase computer science education. The Governor’s career in public service began when President Ronald Reagan appointed him as the youngest U.S. Attorney in the nation for the Western District of Arkansas. In 1996, he won the first of three consecutive terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. During his third term in Congress, President George W. Bush appointed Governor Hutchinson to serve as Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration and later as the nation’s first Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Border Protection. He is a former Chairman of the National Governors. He grew up on a small farm near Gravette. He and his wife, Susan, have four children and seven grandchildren. Governor Hutchinson is currently CEO of Hutchinson Group LLC, a security consulting firm.

"After 8 years as Governor it is time to teach and mentor. I am honored to have the opportunity this fall to share my experiences and perspective but to also learn from the students and my colleagues who will also be resident fellows at the IOP. The timing is historic with our democracy facing a critical choice this fall as to the direction of our country." – Asa Hutchinson

Brett Rosenberg Rosenberg is a foreign policy expert who has served in the White House, Department of State, and Senate. During the Biden Administration, Rosenberg was the inaugural Deputy Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, President Biden’s and the G7’s flagship program designed to meet infrastructure needs in low- and middle-income countries. At the White House, Rosenberg served on the National Security Council as Director for Strategic Planning, working on shaping and realizing approaches to issues spanning from international economics to Western Hemisphere engagement, as well as helping to write the National Security Strategy. Prior to her service in the Biden administration, Rosenberg was Associate Director of Policy for National Security Action, where she remains a senior advisor. Rosenberg began her career in Washington as a legislative aide to then-Senator Kamala Harris, where she advised the senator on a range of domestic and economic policy issues. Rosenberg is a Nonresident Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and her writing has appeared in outlets including Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The New Republic, and McSweeneys. She received her A.B. in History from Harvard College and her PhD (DPhil) in International Relations from the University of Oxford, where she was a Rhodes Scholar.

"What a privilege it is to be part of this incredible community in this incredible moment. I can't wait to learn from the students, faculty, and other fellows as we dive in together to discuss some of the most pressing issues facing the United States and the world." – Brett Rosenberg

Eugene Scott Eugene Scott is a host at Axios Live, where he travels the country interviewing political and policy leaders. He was previously a senior political reporter for Axios covering 2024 swing voters and voting rights. An award-winning journalist, Scott has spent two decades covering politics at the local, national and international levels. He was recently a national political reporter at The Washington Post focused on identity politics and the 2022 midterm election. Following the 2020 presidential election, he hosted “The Next Four Years,” then Amazon’s top original podcast. He also contributed to “FOUR HUNDRED SOULS: A Community History of African America, 1619-2019,” which topped the New York Times’ bestseller list. In addition to writing, Scott has regularly provided political analysis on MSNBC, CBS and NPR. Scott was a Washington Correspondent for CNN Politics during the 2016 election. And he began his newspaper career at the Cape Argus in Cape Town, South Africa not long after beginning his journalism career with BET News’ “Teen Summit.” Scott received his master’s degree from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and his bachelor’s from the University of North Carolina Hussman School of Journalism and Media. He is a D.C. native and continues to live in the Nation’s Capital.

"Learning from and with the professionals that visited the IOP during my time on campus was one of the highlights of my time at the Kennedy School. I am eager to help lead students in understanding the press and this country as we navigate the final weeks of arguably the most consequential election of our time." – Eugene Scott

Additional information can be found here .

About the Institute of Politics Fellows Program The Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School was established in 1966 as a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy. The Institute’s mission is to unite and engage students, particularly undergraduates, with academics, politicians, activists, and policymakers on a non-partisan basis to inspire them to pursue pathways in politics and public service. The Institute blends the academic with practical politics and offers students the opportunity to engage in current events and to acquire skills and perspectives that will assist in their postgraduate pathways.

The Fellows Program has stood as the cornerstone of the IOP, encouraging student interest in public service and increasing the interaction between the academic and political communities. Through the Fellows Program, the Institute aims to provide students with the opportunity to learn from experienced public servants, the space to engage in civil discourse, and the chance to acquire a more holistic and pragmatic view of our political world.

For more information on the fellowship program, including a full list of former fellows, visit: iop.harvard.edu

Press Releases

Supported by

What Voters Outside the Democratic Bubble Thought of Harris’s Speech

They are not leaping onto the Democratic Party bandwagon. But one undecided voter said, “Maybe it’s not as hard to vote for her.”

Share full article

Kamala Harris stands on stage at the convention, waving up to the crowd.

By Richard Fausset Campbell Robertson J. David Goodman Eduardo Medina and Isabelle Taft

On Thursday night, it was up to Kamala Harris to make the closing argument for why Democrats deserved another four years in the White House. In her headlining speech of the Democratic National Convention, which had been as festive, and at times as frivolous, as a giant block party, Ms. Harris spoke of standing up to global tyranny, and of lessons she learned from her single mother. She blasted the former President Donald J. Trump as an “unserious man” and spoke of the “awesome responsibility” that comes with the privilege of being an American.

It all left Democrats on the convention floor feeling euphoric and focused, confident that her speech would spur the Democratic base to turn out in November.

But outside the arena, and outside the bubble of ride-or-die Democratic voters, some voters, particularly Republicans, said they did not even bother to watch the speech. And among some still on the fence — those who could make a difference in a tight contest — Ms. Harris’s words did not make immediate converts. They said they needed more specifics.

Bob and Sharon Reed watched Ms. Harris’s speech on their farm in the hills of central Pennsylvania. Both of them voted for Mr. Trump in past elections and both of them liked some of his policies, if not his personality. They came away from Ms. Harris’s speech feeling a little conflicted.

The problem? They liked it.

“I really wasn’t happy with the Biden administration,” said Ms. Reed, who like her husband is 77 and a retired schoolteacher. “But listening to her tonight, maybe it’s not as hard to vote for her. And, you know, I’m a little scared of what Trump will do when he gets back in power.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

e Book sheir.org

Css solved past papers.

Solved Past Papers of Central Superior Services (CSS) Competitive Examinations.

CSS-2019 General Science & Ability (Mathematics Section) — Q.6(a) | Q.6(b) | Q.6(c) | Q.7(a)

CSS-2016 General Science & Ability (Mathematics Section) — Q.10(a) | Q.10(b) | Q.11(a) | Q.11(b) | Q.12(a) | Q.12(b)

CSS-2017 Essay Paper

Are Modern Wars Not Holy?
More and More Military Engagements by the United Nations: Is the World Moving towards Peace?

CSS-2017 Pakistan Affairs

Pakistan’s national culture reflects unity in diversity. Elaborate.
CPEC is a flagship project of One Belt One Road (OBOR) and a regional game changer. Explain.
Explore the significance of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) for Pakistan.
How general elections in 2002, 2008 and 2013 strengthened democracy in Pakistan.

CSS-2017 Current Affairs

Highlight the role of National Action Plan in stabilization of internal security of Pakistan. Critically analyze its outcomes.
What measures do you suggest to improve the security conditions of Baluchistan in respect to China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, and the role of regional power to sabotage it.
Critically analyze the US-Russia relations in context of ISIS and its impact on the security situation of Middle East.
The impact of burgeoning US-India strategic partnership over the security situation of the region and Indian ocean region.

CSS-2016 Essay Paper

Crisis of Good Governance in Pakistan: Need for Reform and Institution Building
The Creation of New Provinces in Pakistan: Implications for an Integrated Country
World as Global Village: Learning to Live Together

CSS-2016 Pakistan Affairs

Give an account of the life and services of Shah Waliullah. How did he save the Indian Muslims from political annihilation and religious degeneration?
Jinnah in his presidential address to the annual session of All India Muslim League in March 1940 said; “the problem in India is not of inter-communal nature, but manifestly of an international one, and it must be treated as such.” Write a note on the Two Nation Theory and the Lahore Resolution of 1940 in the light of this statement.
Write a note on the post 9/11 foreign policy of Pakistan. What do you foresee for Pakistan in regional and global politics in the near future?
Discuss the Kashmir problem in its entirety; throwing light on its background and prospects of possible solutions to this core issue between India and Pakistan.
Write a note on the Afghan War since 1979 and its impacts on Pakistan. How far the emergence of the non-state actors and non-traditional security threats in Pakistan can be attributed to the decades-long warfare in Afghanistan?

CSS-2016 Current Affairs

Discuss the prospects and challenges to the construction of ‘China Pakistan Economic Corridor’. How will CPEC become a game changer in the region?
Discuss in detail the efficacy of Counter Terrorism Measures adopted by the Government, especially with reference to National Action Plan.
Discuss the possibilities of progress under the recently agreed rubric of comprehensive dialogue between Pakistan and India. In your opinion what are the major constraints at present.
How do you see the recent development in the Middle East, particularly with reference of deteriorating relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran? What role, if any, Pakistan could play in reducing the tensions between the two Muslim countries?
Examine the emerging strategic competition between US and China and its impact on global order.

CSS Précis Writing

Précis CSS 2017
Précis CSS 2016
Précis CSS 2015
Précis CSS 2014
Précis CSS 2013
Précis CSS 2012
Précis CSS 2011
Précis CSS 2010

CSS ENGLISH (Précis and Composition) Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:

CSS Reading Comprehension 2017
CSS Reading Comprehension 2016
CSS Reading Comprehension 2015
CSS Reading Comprehension 2014
CSS Reading Comprehension 2013
CSS Reading Comprehension 2012
CSS Reading Comprehension 2011
CSS Reading Comprehension 2010

CSS ENGLISH (Précis and Composition) Write a comprehensive note (250 – 300 words) on:

Actions speak louder than words
Girls are more intelligent than Boys
Don’t count your chickens before they are hatched
First deserve then desire
Child is the Father of Man
Love is Beautiful but Baleful god

Monthly DAWN Editorials
Monthly Global Point
Foreign Affairs Magazines
The Economist Magazines
Time Magazines
Pakistan & India
Pakistan & USA
Pakistan & China
Essay Books
English Composition Books
Pakistan Affairs
Current Affairs
General Science and Ability
Islamic Studies
Essays Books
English Precis and Compositions Books
Current Affairs Books
Pakistan Affairs Books
General Science and Ability Books
Islamic Studies Books
Download Optional Books
Buy CSS Optional Books
CSS Syllabus
CSS Past Papers

CSS Rules & Regulations
Buy CSS PMS Books Online
Foreign Policy: Kashmir Issue and the Dynamics of International Relations By Sheraz Zaka

Imran Khan has urged Pakistanis to come out of their homes, offices and workplaces every week for half an hour to show solidarity with the Kashmiri people fighting Indian occupation. One expected him to tell the nation about his government’s latest initiatives on the diplomatic and political fronts to mobilise international support for the Kashmiri struggle for the right of self-determination. More importantly, what are the options for Pakistan to deal with the worsening crisis? We cannot move the international community into action by raising the spectre of a possible nuclear conflagration. Undoubtedly there has been unprecedented coverage in the western media of Indian brutalities and human rights violations that exposes Modi’s claim of normality returning to the occupied territory. But that is not sufficient to compel other countries to stand with the Kashmiri people. The international community’s silence over the lockdown of more than eight million people and the suppression of their fundamental democratic rights may be driven by geopolitical and economic considerations, but it also reflects our diplomatic failure. Even Pakistan’s closest allies in the Muslim world are not willing to express any sympathy for the plight of the Kashmiri people, leave aside condemning Modi’s annexation of a disputed territory. It is not surprising that the UAE has honoured the Indian prime minister with its highest national award. Interestingly, Iran is one of the few Muslim countries to have spoken out for the Kashmiri people. Surely India’s growing economic power has helped it expand its influence in the Gulf region, but our own diplomatic shortcomings have also been a factor in us losing our clout in what was once considered Pakistan’s staunchest support base. The only solace for us is a statement issued by the OIC contact group expressing concern over the situation in Kashmir. We must be very careful not to exaggerate the US role in resolving the Kashmir problem. Barring a few official comments expressing concern over recent developments in Kashmir, there has not been any condemnation of the Indian action It was indeed a diplomatic success for Pakistan when the UN Security Council held a meeting on the Kashmir issue for the first time in over 50 years. The statement by the UN Secretary General on Kashmir is also significant. But there is still no sign of international pressure on the Indian government to stop human rights violations in the disputed territory. For that there was a need for a more aggressive diplomatic initiative. It is a right decision by the government to raise the issue at the UN’s Human Rights Committee in Geneva. The committee has previously released two reports on the human rights situation in Kashmir. The censure of the Indian action by the UN committee would certainly be a moral victory for the Kashmiri people, but for that a lot of lobbying and diplomatic work is needed. However, the option of taking the Kashmir issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as indicated by the prime minister, should be reconsidered. Firstly, there is the question about the court’s jurisdiction over the dispute. Secondly, any such move would need the consent of both parties in the conflict. The public announcement by the Pakistani leadership to go to the ICJ without even examining the ramifications of such a move is typical of the government’s impulsiveness on crucial policy decisions. We must be very careful not to exaggerate the US role in resolving the Kashmir problem. Barring a few official comments expressing concern over recent developments in Kashmir, there has not been any condemnation of the Indian action. It is a similar situation with the other Western countries. China is one of the few countries that have come out with a categorical statement criticising the Indian action. With limited options Pakistan needs to up its diplomatic efforts. There is also a need to forge a national consensus on our Kashmir policy. Political instability at home would not help to meet serious diplomatic challenges. While Pakistan’s diplomatic and political support is crucial, it will be the struggle of the Kashmiri people that could ultimately push the international community to act. It is evident that even the use of massive force by India has failed to put down the Kashmiri resistance. It has been three weeks since a lockdown was imposed on the disputed territory. There have been few examples in recent times of such a protracted freedom struggle. Modi’s virulent nationalism has widened the political and social fault lines in India. For Pakistan it is important not to see Kashmir as a territorial dispute, but a struggle for the right of self- determination. The fact is that a coherent policy is needed to tackle this issue and raise it at the international level. The unfortunate truth is that we have not succeeded on the international front to convince the world to take action against Indian barbarity in Kashmir. India has even managed to deflect international criticism despite the fact that its human rights abuses in IHK have been highlighted in the international media. Though this is partly due to Pakistan’s inability to project the Kashmir cause positively in the international arena, it is also due to India’s economic prowess. Sadly, in a world governed by realpolitik, might is right and the cries of the weak are often smothered by the strong. Previous governments have been equally ineffective in projecting the Kashmir cause. But if the prime minister wants to change the status quo, there must be a robust and cohesive policy to counter India’s belligerent attitude in IHK and convince the international community that violence against Kashmiris is unacceptable. Holding rallies in the country will not be enough; our best diplomatic hands need to be mobilised to brief global capitals of the situation in IHK, so that the world – specifically those states who claim to be champions of human rights – can convince India to back off in the held region. The voice of Kashmiris needs to echo around the world, and their fundamental rights must be defended. The writer is a constitutional lawyer, teacher and a human rights activist Source: https://dailytimes.com.pk/456828/foreign-policy-kashmir-issue-and-the-dynamics-of-international-relations/

Please Review

Search book.

CSS International Relations (IR) Paper-I 2022

May 15, 2022
CSS Examination

Here you will find the CSS International Relations (IR) Paper-I 2022. You can view or download this CSS IR Paper-I 2022.

The following questions were asked in International Relations paper-I of CSS 2022:

Q1. Foreign policy scholars argued that transnational actors influence the contours of any country’s foreign policy. Discuss keeping in mind the foreign policy of China.

Q2. It is argued that democratic countries pursue peaceful foreign policies. Support your answer with concrete examples.

Q3. Explain the objectives and determinants of Pakistan’s foreign policy.

Q5. Define power, Explain with examples the concept of hard power, soft power, and smart power in international politics.

Q6. Evaluate the impact of IMF loans on the economy of Pakistan.

Q7. Discuss in detail how globalization has affected the concept of security.

Q8. Discuss in detail the new maritime security challenges for the Indian Ocean region.

Note: View the CSS IR notes and study material here. We are continuously working on it.

Relevant To CSS:

CSS Notes & Study Material of All Subjects

Other CSS 2022 Papers:

➤➤ View All CSS Papers of 2022 here.

Most relevant ▼

CSS Exam 2025: Complete Guide for Beginners for CSS 2025
Expected English Essay Topics for CSS 2024
Date Sheet for CSS 2024 FPSC
CSS Exam 2024: Complete Guide for Beginners for CSS 2024
How to Start CSS Preparation from Zero
How to Pass CSS Examination on the First Attempt
Expected Questions about CSS Pakistan Affairs in 2023
The Ultimate Guide to a Successful Interview
Special CSS Exam 2022
CSS MPT Paper of 2023

Abbreviations
Application
B.A English Essay
BISE Gujranwala
BISE Gujranwala 10th
BISE Lahore
BISE Lahore 10th
BPSC Past Paper
Central Testing Service
Computer MCQs
Constitutional Law
CSS Compulsory
CSS English Essay
CSS English Paper
CSS Optional
CSS Pair of Words
CSS Past Paper List
CSS Past Paper of 2005
CSS Past Paper of 2007
CSS Past Paper of 2008
CSS Past Paper of 2009
CSS Past Paper of 2010
CSS Past Paper of 2011
CSS Past Paper of 2013
CSS Past Paper of 2014
CSS Past Papers
CSS Past Papers 2007
CSS Past Papers 2012
CSS Past Papers 2015
CSS Past Papers 2016
CSS Past Papers 2017
CSS Past Papers 2018
CSS Solved Papers
CSS Syllabus
Current Affairs
Current Affaris MCQs
CV Template
Daily Current Affair
Democratic Party
ECAT Past Papers
Elizabeth Hastings
English Essay
English Essay Paper
English Grammar.
English Synonyms
English Vocabulary
Essay Writing
Everyday Science
Everyday Science Q & A
FPSC Past Papers
FPSC Solved Papers
FPSC Syllabus
Future Strategies
Gazette 2024
General Knowledge
Geography MCQs
Golden Tips
Important Books
Indo Pak History
Information Technology
Islamic Studies
Islamic Studies MCQs
KPKPSC Syllabus
Lecturer Past Papers
Miscellaneous MCQs
Mothers Day
Muslim Scientists
News & Alerts
NTS Past Papers
NTS Solved Papers
NTS Syllabus
Oceans & Seas
Online Earning
Pakistan Affairs
Pakistan Colleges & Universities
Pakistan Dams
Pakistan Foreign Policy
Pakistan History
Pakistan History MCQs
Pakistan Politics
Pakistan Studies
Pakistan Studies MCQs
Pakistan Study
Past Papers
PMS Past Papers
PMS Solved Past Papers
Police Jobs
PPSC General Knowledge
PPSC Past Papers
PPSC Sample Papers
PPSC Solutions
PPSC Solved MCQs
PPSC Solved Papers
PPSC Solved Past Paper
PPSC Syllabus
Preparation
Psychological Test
Question and Answer
Republican Party
Rescue 1122
Sahiwal Board
Sample Papers
Socio-Economic
Solar System
Solved Papers
SPSC Past Papers
Staff Australia
Success Stories
United States Capitol Police
US Presidential Election 2024
USA History
Water Resources
Submit MCQs
GENERAL KNOWLEDGE
EVERYDAY SCIENCE
ISLAMIC STUDY
CURRENT AFFAIRS
SOLVED PAPERS

Challenges to Democracy in Pakistan | For CSS & PMS Aspirants

Rukhsana Khalid
January 8, 2021
Daily Write-Ups , Featured , Opinions
37944 Views

Written by Rukhsana Khalid

Democracy in the land of pure is in jeopardy. Inheriting it as a political ideology but failing to put it in practice, wholeheartedly, has created problems for its essence and the state.

It is generally considered that many attempts have been made to weaken democracy since the inception of Pakistan. Military overstepping, for instance, and the misuse of constitutional powers has derailed it. There are several challenges that democracy face now.

One key challenge to democracy in Pakistan is dynastic politics. After the 1970s, it overshadows the political system of Pakistan. Although it is an essential feature, elections do not by themselves produce democracy. Since they have no say in the process; illiterate voters only go to vote along ethnic lines that promise them for food and shelter. Also, before 2018, there were only two dynastic political parties which form the majority in the parliament, thus have played musical chairs so far.

Beyond dynastic politics, excessive interference of non-civilian institutions in government affairs has weakened democracy. Landlords have occupied power corridors since the inception of Pakistan; however, being least educated, they failed to provide a national level civilian political leadership. It Provides loopholes to powerful institutions to take over the government. Thus, blocking the way of democracy.

Another challenge to democracy is the Islamization of Politics. Islam itself is not a threat to democracy, for it is the people who project their vested interests by giving the public the Lolipop of religion. By doing so, they could gather the support of masses, which help to prolong their rule in power. For it is illiterate, the public falls prey to tactics of politicians that democracy is anti-Islamic. It does not only harm democracy but also hampers the socio-economic growth of the country.

Moreover, the phenomenon of political polarization drags democracy to the brink of failure. It permanently divides society into segments, as they are illiterate, and cannot build a rational opinion, people advocate for their leaders blindly. At upper-level political heads remain busy in leg pulling of each other, leaving no stone unturned to stop the process of healthy debate which is the beauty of democracy, rather than working for the state’s welfare. Giving ideological refuge to their interests, politicians play with sentiments of the public. As a result, it harms national integration and gives rise to populist leaders that mar the smooth working of democracy.

To conclude, throughout the history of Pakistan, although marred by hitches, still, democracy survived. Its longevity can be increased further by taking some appropriate measures. At the societal level, public awareness should be increased to ensure the participation of all in the democratic process. It would also help people build a rational opinion about the performance of its rulers rather than blindly following them. At the upper level, political heads should co-operate with each other to avoid political polarization. It would not only strengthen democracy but also put country on the way of prosperity and stability.

About the writer:

Miss Rukhsana Khalid is one of the bonafide students of Sir Syed Kazim Ali . – one of the distinguished Grammarian in the world. Under his supervision, she is enrolled in course of Online Creative English Writing and learning Basic to Advanced Grammar. Primarily, she is an engineer and loves to write articles and blogs on various topics- Current Affairs, Pakistan Affairs, International Relations, and Beauty. In case of any query, please reach her at [email protected]

Name of the Student: Miss Rukhsana Khalid Qualifications: B.Sc Chemical Engineering Total Articles/Blogs: 2 English Coach: Sir Syed Kazim Ali Course Taken: Creative English Writing & Article Writing

Like other competitive students, If you have a story to tell, guidance to help, knowledge to educate, or a perspective that can help CSS aspirants daily, welcome to CSSPrepForum. It is free to get your opinions, viewpoints, judgements, and thinking published, whether it is a blog, article, essay, application, letter, precis, comprehension, MCQs, or anything that helps competitive youth of Pakistan. CSSPrepForum is a place that let you connect with thousands of competitive readers, and helps your voice heard across the community. Let’s start writing and get your voice heard to those who are looking for you . Email Your Write-ups at [email protected]

At CSSPrepForum, we upload solved papers, essays, and current affairs blogs daily. To read the best with us, let’s connect with us Twitter Facebook Instagram

CSS 2022 Solved Pakistan Affairs Past Papers

The following are the CSS 2022 Pakistan Affairs solved past papers questions. These questions have been evaluated and checked by Pakistan’s top Pakistan Affairs and Current Affairs coaches, who are either lecturers or officers and scored the highest marks in this paper. They include Miss Saba Baloch (CSS-2021), Miss Aimeen Mirza (CSS 2018), Miss Nirmal Hasni (DD NAB), Sir Rameez Ch. (Lecturer & Deputy Director), and Miss Zaineb Azam (the highest scorer – 76). Moreover, these questions have been attempted on the same pattern taught by Sir Syed Kazim Ali to his students who have been scoring the highest marks for years.

CSS 2021 Solved Pakistan Affairs Questions


	Now Outdated Question

More Essays

Meaning Purposive Education
Bureaucracy Doldrums
Is Gender Equality a Myth?
Pros and Cons of Globalization for Pakistan
Islamophobia: Causes and Consequences
Artificial intelligence: Its Merits and Demerits
IMF Bailouts: Roads to Stability or Recipes for Disaster
Can Foreign Aid Help A Country Achieve Economic Stability?
Consequences of American Withdrawal from Afghanistan on South Asia
Money And Success Do Not Change People; They Merely Amplify What Is Already There
Almost Always, The Creative, Dedicated Minority Has Made The World Better

Articles Might Interest You!

Top Categories

Cssprepforum, education company.

cssprepforum.com

Welcome to Cssprepforum, Pakistan’s largest learning management system (LMS) with millions of questions along with their logical explanations educating millions of learners, students, aspirants, teachers, professors, and parents preparing for a successful future.

Founder: Syed Kazim Ali Founded: 2020 Phone: +92-332-6105-842 +92-300-6322-446 Email: [email protected] Students Served: 10 Million Daily Learners: 50,000 Offered Courses: Visit Courses

More Courses

Basic English Grammar and Writing Course

Extensive English Essay & Precis Course for CSS and PMS

CSS English Essay and Precis Crash Course for 2023

Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates direct to your inbox.

CSS Solved Essays
CSS Solved GSA
CSS Solved PA
CSS Solved Islamiat
Current Affairs
All Courses
Writers Club
All Authors
All Members
All Teachers
Become an Author
Who is Sir Syed Kazim Ali?
Privacy Policy

CssPrepForum is Pakistan’s largest and greatest platform for CSS, PMS, FPSC, PPSC, SPSC, KPPSC, AJKPSC, BPSC, GBPSC, NTS, and other One Paper 100 Marks MCQs exams’ students. It has become Pakistan’s most trusted website among CSS, PMS students for their exams’ preparation because of its high-quality preparation material.

@ 2023 Cssprepforum. All RightsReserved.

International Relations P2 – Past Papers Analysis (CSS 2016-2020)

International Relations – Past Papers Analysis (CSS 2016-2020) by Aamir Mahar

[dkpdf-button]

I. I nt’l Relations between two Wars

IV. Int ’ l & Regional Organizations

VIII. Contemporary Issues

Global Power Dynamics and Pakistan’s Foreign Policy

The post is about “Global power dynamics and Pakistan’s foreign policy essay. Foreign policy of Pakistan in the changing regional and global settings. Global power dynamics and Pakistan’s foreign policy.”

CSS MCQs Solved

Global Power Dynamics and Pakistan’s Foreign Policy

Introduction

State design foreign policy to achieve objectives in international arena of politics.
Pakistan’s importance; geostrategic location and sole atomic power in Muslim world.
Adopt balance approach.

You May Also Like: CSS Essay Notes For CSS Preparation

US China cold war (unlike US and USSR tension in past, Pakistan this time has adopted balanced approach between two major power player, US and China. Successfully convinced US over CPEC.)
US Iran tension (In US Iran tension, Pakistan successfully kept its relations with both countries. Did not prioritized one over another. Offer mediation services in tension between US and Iran which is diplomatically a balanced approach.)
Saudi Iran tension (Pakistan saved Muslim Ummah from devastation by playing arbitrator role in Saudi Iran tension.)
Palestine issue (Pakistan backs Palestine cause on every forum and is strongly against Jews’ illegal settlements in Arab peninsula.)
Middle East (support every move that aims at restoring peace and stability in Syria and Iraq)
US Taliban peace talk (play mediator role in US Taliban peace talk and peace process in Afghanistan).

Self-reliance And Pakistan – CSS Essay

Real Development Should Transform People’s Lives – CSS Essay

Reforms In Examination System in Pakistan – CSS Essay

Newly Elected Democratic Government – Hopes and Hurdles

About the author.

Askedon helps aspirants in their preparation for CSS, PMS, PCS and one paper MCQs based tests. We have syllabus wise complete notes of Current Affairs, Pakistan Affairs, Islamiat, Essay, Gender Studies and many other compulsory and optional subjects of CSS, PMS and PCS. The blog is owned and managed primarily by Ataulhaq Yusufzai. For more details please visit About US and Privacy Policy page.

Where is the essay??

foreign policy essay css

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

There appears to be a technical issue with your browser

The China Challenge

Summer 2024 Issue

FP Analytics

Catalysts for Change

Is Nicaragua’s Dictatorship Nearing Its End?

Join the Conversation

Change your username:

Confirm your username to get started.

More from Foreign Policy

In Russia, Ukraine’s Invasion Pops Putin’s Bubbles

China’s Fragile Social Compact

The Ruthless Government of Keir Starmer

Could Civil War Erupt in America?

FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day, written by Alexandra Sharp . Delivered weekdays.

The Spinoff

Politics Today at 5.00am

Breaking free

OK, but what about the Pākehā motherland, Britain?

Being independent, with friends

Who supported our independent foreign policy?

Has it come to an end? Why?

What are critics’ concerns?

More Reading

Article Types

The Case for a Clean Energy Marshall Plan

THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY

THE CHEAPER, THE BETTER

HOMEGROWN ADVANTAGES

THE DANGER OF DEPENDENCE

TRADING PLACES

BANKING ON THE FUTURE

WIN-WIN-WIN

You are reading a free article.

Most-Read Articles

Stephen Biddle

Wilfred M. Chow and Dov H. Levin

Daniel Silverman, Anna Pechenkina, Austin Knuppe, and Yehonatan Abramson

Condoleezza Rice

Edoardo Campanella and Robert Z. Lawrence

Meghan L. O’Sullivan and Jason Bordoff

Harvard’s Institute of Politics Announces Fall 2024 Resident Fellows

Introduction

Press Releases

What Voters Outside the Democratic Bubble Thought of Harris’s Speech

e Book sheir.org

Please Review

CSS International Relations (IR) Paper-I 2022

Most relevant ▼

Top 50 CSS Essay Topics in Pakistan for Exam Success: A Comprehensive List Covering Key Issues for National Development

Post a Comment

Challenges to Democracy in Pakistan | For CSS & PMS Aspirants

About the writer:

CSS 2022 Solved Pakistan Affairs Past Papers

More Essays

Articles Might Interest You!

Recent Posts

Top Categories

More Courses

Basic English Grammar and Writing Course

Extensive English Essay & Precis Course for CSS and PMS

CSS English Essay and Precis Crash Course for 2023

@ 2023 Cssprepforum. All RightsReserved.

International Relations P2 – Past Papers Analysis (CSS 2016-2020)

[dkpdf-button]

Global Power Dynamics and Pakistan’s Foreign Policy

Related Posts

Self-reliance And Pakistan – CSS Essay

Real Development Should Transform People’s Lives – CSS Essay

Reforms In Examination System in Pakistan – CSS Essay

Newly Elected Democratic Government – Hopes and Hurdles

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS