The significance of generosity and civil society is a constant across all communities and countries worldwide.

The generous giving behavior of the USA is particularly noticeable. For example, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has spent more than 22 billion dollars on medical research and development projects in recent years.

According to the World Giving Index by the Charities Aid Foundation, which surveyed 1.3 million people in 125 countries, America was one of the most generous countries in the world over the past decade (Pandey, 2022) and currently ranks 5th globally. They don’t only donate; 76% of Americans also help strangers, and 38% engage in volunteer work (Charities Aid Foundation, 2023, p. 7).

The World Giving Index reflects the altruistic commitment of different nations, focusing on three aspects: the willingness to help strangers, monetary donations, and time spent in nonprofit organizations. It is based on data from the World Poll, an ongoing global research project by the Gallup polling firm.

Europe Lags Behind

Not a single European country is in the top 20, and Germany is even listed only at 45th place. The likelihood of Americans engaging in volunteer work is 15% higher than in the Netherlands, 21% higher than in Switzerland, and 32% higher than in Germany (Dreyfus, 2018).

Studies suggest that voluntary engagement not only supports the impact of organizations in the communities they serve. It also connects people with each other and the issues their community faces. It has the power to unite people of different races, ages, religions, and genders for a common cause (Dreyfus, 2018). So, what are we doing wrong in Europe? Are we not generous enough? The question arises whether we should look up to leading countries like the USA and see them as a model for dedicating more time and resources to charitable causes.

To answer this question, it’s important to first examine the reasons for this discrepancy and consider the influence of historical and cultural factors. The importance of volunteering is deeply rooted in American culture, and it even goes back to the founding of the USA. In 1736, Benjamin Franklin founded the first volunteer fire department. In the 1800s, the emerging social reform movement, with issues like poverty, temperance, women’s rights, and the abolition of slavery, mobilized a new generation that had previously not participated in civic life, including women and young people. This led to the founding of the YMCA, the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross, and United Way – institutions that were established to connect volunteer forces with social services with the aim of improving the lives of other people (Dreyfus, 2018).

Moreover, various government initiatives in the 20th century promoted volunteer engagement. Programs like AmeriCorps, established in 1993 under President Bill Clinton, are federal programs that promote domestic volunteer services and offer young adults the opportunity to engage in various areas of the non-profit sector, from education and environmental protection to disaster relief and poverty reduction. These factors together have led to a long tradition of volunteer service in the USA, which continues to this day.

Volunteering in the USA is often seen as a way to contribute to society, solve social problems, and improve the quality of life in communities and, thus, an important part of democracy

Community Service and Service Learning as Educational Goals

This view is already taught in schools with methods like Community Service or Service Learning, which young Americans engage in during their school years. Furco defines Community Service as the “engagement of students in activities that primarily focus on the service being provided as well as the benefits the service activities have on the recipients […].” (Furco, 1996, p. 4). Service Learning combines the service component with school content. Students should take an active influence on society through a variety of activities, from work in soup kitchens to engagement in animal welfare and wildlife projects to support disadvantaged people in surrounding communities or neighborhoods and experience community not just as a theoretical concept but as a lived reality.

The inclusion of Community Service or Service Learning in the curriculum is widespread in the USA. A study by the National Center for Education Statistics found that about a third of public schools in the USA have integrated service learning in some form into their curriculum (Skinner & Chapman, 1999, p. 12).

Thus, students already grow up with the awareness of committing to their community, whether through school projects, church activities, or in the family environment. They learn that their personal commitment hasn’t only a positive impact on their surroundings but is also an integral part of democratic life and civil society. The political education in Germany focuses more on promoting an understanding of democracy and critical thinking and wants to empower students for this. Consequently, active participation doesn’t have the main focus like in the US.

Besides that, the establishment of Service Learning and Community Service in the USA dates back to the 1960s, while this approach only gained popularity in Germany 40 years later and is still not widely spread in schools today (Backhaus-Maul & Jahr, 2021, p. 289). There is still a lack of a sustainable and infrastructural culture of sound collaboration with external partnerships such as communities, museums, or sports clubs (Sliwka, 2004, p. 15).

Volunteering as a Lifeline?

However, the large role of voluntary engagement in the U.S. also has to be seen in relation to political and social structures. In this way, it can be interpreted as a response to a less comprehensive social safety net. The high number of volunteers working in places like soup kitchens or engaging in educational inequalities are often necessary to reach basic social needs that would be unmet due to a lack of state support. Especially in areas like healthcare, social assistance, and public education, there are significant deficits in the U.S. compared to Germany or Europe.

European social systems are more aimed at protecting the poor and providing social security for a broader cross-section of society.

Social programs such as healthcare, unemployment support, and retirement systems are established to cover a wide range of social needs, particularly supporting disadvantaged and needy groups of people. The European “welfare state” is historically shaped because of the extensive, interconnected social policy measures. It reflects European historical experiences with social misery, unrest, protests, political conflicts and wars on one side and reconciliation, cooperation, stability, order, harmony, and peace on the other (Acemoğlu, 2016, p. 3).

Therefore, the comprehensive social security system reduces the need for volunteer services. While in the U.S., non-profit organizations play a central role in providing basic needs such as food donations or homelessness assistance, in Europe, they rather take on a complementary function.

In the U.S., these organizations and initiatives are essential to compensate for deficits in state services.

Voluntary engagement is necessary to offer basic services and support, while here, it functions in support of state services. Using people’s engagement to fill gaps in basic social services leads to an inappropriate shift of responsibility, where citizens are pushed into the role of social service providers. Focusing too strongly on volunteer work could undermine the role of the welfare state, whose task it is to ensure basic services for all citizens.”

Balancing Volunteering: Navigating Between Community Service and Social Responsibility

There is no question that people who volunteer, help others, or do something good for the community will have positive effects on society. Community building, initiative, and personal responsibility are promoted. These aspects could also have positive effects in Europe, especially in areas where state programs have gaps or where a stronger sense of community is desired. Europe can improve on this and create more possibilities for people to volunteer through state programs, as well as teach people in school the meaning and influence of volunteering through various projects. Programs like the “Freiwilliges Soziales Jahr” should receive more support and attention. In many basic areas, such as education, there are always problems where volunteers can provide additional support.

Overall, there is a global increase in voluntary engagement. In Germany, the proportion of people engaged in voluntary work has risen by 10% in the last 20 years (FWS 2019, p. 10). Especially in areas like environmental protection and migration help, the target group for volunteer work is growing, partly due to the refugee wave of 2016 and movements such as “Fridays for Future”.

Furthermore, digitalization offers new forms of volunteer engagement, such as public relations or website design, which can be conveniently done from home.

Therefore, it is expected that the number of volunteer activities in Germany will continue to rise. Nevertheless, we should be cautious not to overemphasize this approach or reshape our entire system around it. At the same time, the U.S. might consider adopting certain aspects of the European social system, integrating them into its own framework. In the end, by learning from each other, we can combine the best elements of both systems.

Bibliography

• Acemoğlu, D. (2016). The Welfare State in Europe. In The search for Europe. BBVA.
• Backhaus-Maul, H., & Roth, C. (2013). Fazit und Perspektiven der Gesamtstudie. In H. Backhaus-Maul & C. Roth, Service Learning an Hochschulen in Deutschland (S. 129–131). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00124-7_4
• Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (2019). Freiwilliges Engagement in Deutschland. Zentrale Ergebnisse des Fünften Deutschen Freiwilligensurveys.
• Charities Aid Foundation. (2023). CAF World Giving Index 2023.
• Dreyfus, S. N. (2018). Volunteerism and US Civil Society. https://doi.org/10.48558/S830-0D33
• Furco, A. (1996). Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education.
• Pandey, E. (2022). America the generous: U.S. leads globe in giving. https://www.axios.com/2022/03/09/america-charitable-giving-stats-ukraine
• Sliwka, A. (2004). Service Learning: Verantwortung lernen in Schule und Gemeinde. 36 pages. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:258
• Skinner, R., & Chapman, C. (1999). Service-Learning and Community Service in K-12 Public Schools.

Revisionism is broadly defined as the willingness to change or end the current system as developed after the end of the Second World war and most importantly the end of the Cold war, with the US setting the rules of the “liberal game” as the most predominant supporter of the current international order built on democracy promotion, open markets and multilateral cooperation in international institutions.

Trump, from his first days at the White House, showed that he had a different vision on US foreign policy. His “America First” approach initiated a new page of US foreign policy which follows more assertive rhetoric while also following a tendency towards isolation rather multilateralism. He has even ascribed Twitter as its main diplomatic tool posting continuously on the administration’s decisions and personally attacking or criticizing his counterparts changing the principles of tranditional democracy. His policies reflect a dissatisfaction about the existing system that, according to Trump, operates hugely to the US’s disadvantage. This inward-looking approach diminished US influence in the international arena while fueling competition with other countries. The American president has used “unorthodox” foreign policy practices such as expressing support for the Saudi leadership after Jamal Khashoggi and ordering an airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad which have drawn backlash from the U.S. Congress and the country´s allies.

The Trump administration showed that it steers the US in a new direction, starting with a reevaluation of economic relations and interdependence with its partners. First on the list was the largest US trade partner, China. In August 2017, Trump issued a memorandum that called for an investigation in China’s intellectual property practices. Later on, Trump imposed various tariffs on Chinese imports as well as on specific products coming from any country such as washing machines and solar panels. This policy also included 5% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum imports from all suppliers. Throughout 2018 and 2019 China and the US engaged in a “tit for tat” of additional tariffs imposed on products imported from one another – constituting a trade war. In January 2020 the two states managed to reach an agreement signing a phase one trade deal.

However, the economy is not the only expression of Trump’s revisionist tendencies. He encouraged the UK to leave the European Union (EU) and proposed a lucrative trade deal under the condition of the UK severing all ties with the EU. Furthermore, Trump’s insistence on the issue of burden-sharing has threatened the cohesion of the long-standing Euro-Atlantic alliance, NATO, as he continues to stress that unless the alliance’s members start spending more on their defence – fulfilling NATO’s benchmark of spending 2% of GDP – the US would go its own way. In addition, the US administration has withdrawn from numerous treaties such as the Paris climate agreement, UN Human Rights Council, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the JCPOA with Iran (also known as the Iran deal) and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty – an approach which, since 2017, seems to question the US’s leadership role.

This impression has been reinforced during the coronavirus pandemic. First reported in China in late December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has erupted to an epidemic in the country. While Trump’s first response showed sympathy and support of the Chinese authorities’ efforts, the US once again reverted to more assertive rhetoric. As the virus started spreading across China’s border, resulting in numerous cases and deaths all over the world, Trump openly and repeatedly blamed China for the virus calling it the “Chinese virus“. Trump´s decisions to fight the pandemic took by surprise and imitated its closest allies. He decided to close the US borders without previous consultation with other countries, including the EU and its neighbours Canada and Mexico. In addition, his decision to restrict the export of critical medical supplies to Canada and Latin America led to a feud with the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Ultimately, Trump even withdrew from the World Health Organization, claiming that the organization intentionally downplayed the threat the virus posed and was heavily influenced by China. The Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus not only lacked a multilateral approach but even resembled “amoral” behaviour seeing that Trump tried to buy off a German company working on the coronavirus vaccine.

From the above-described policies, it is apparent that Trump seeks to revise elements of the international order selectively. To that end, the post-COVID-19 era would see a refueled great power competition that shows similarities to Cold war dynamics in terms of increasing one state’s capabilities and trade restrictions, more assertive rhetoric and the promotion of national interests at the forefront of states’ foreign policy decisions, at the expense of international cooperation and multilateralism. It can be argued that the US runs the risk of not only diminishing its international leadership role – built and sustained over decades – but also causing tensions and an augmented risk of conflict and confrontation.

In light of the recent upheavals in the US due to accumulating racial injustices, socio-economic disadvantages, cultural fault lines within US society and a lack of faith in their democracy, American citizens will have to ask themselves the fundamental question that political scientist Samuel P. Huntington already posed in 2004: “Who are we?”. A crucial question that “[e]very state has to […] answer. That answer, its cultural identity, defines the state’s place in world politics, its friends, and its enemies.”

The clash of civilizations is not only perceived on a global scale, as argued by Huntington in July 1993, but has now turned inwards taking place within the US. Racial divides, the partisan divide and different political ideologies as well as economic inequalities indicate that a United States of America that makes no distinction between “a liberal America and a conservative America [or] a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America”, as envisioned by Obama, no longer reflects contemporary developments.

Contrary to Obama’s understanding, this article is going to argue that the United States are, at best, formally united as current trends increasingly draw the picture of a Divided States of America. Furthermore, this article is going to identify and assess structural racism against black Americans and its products, such as racial profiling, which aims to express cultural domination and solidify predominant power structures. Why? Because we often speak about racism incorrectly, as pointed out by German journalist Alice Hasters. While we tend to focus on societal dimensions of racism, we often underestimate the long-term ramifications of structural, institutional racism which is equally multifaceted and complex.

Structural discrimination in the labor market

Unequal access to education and continuous residential segregation have led to unequal opportunities on the job market and profound income inequalities. A Brookings report (2019) found that, following the financial crisis in 2008, the average annual unemployment rate for black workers reached 16 percent, compared to 12.5 and 8.7 percent for Hispanics and Whites. The black unemployment rate is typically about twice as high as the rate for whites as black workers have a much higher risk of losing their job and according to the Financial Times this number continues to rise. Additionally, the current COVID-19 pandemic, labelled as the “racial wound” of the US by The Guardian, has exposed the vulnerability of black Americans who – with a death toll three times higher than that recorded among the white population – suffer disproportionately from the pandemic. Across the US, African Americans have died at a rate of 50.3 per 100,000 people, compared with 20.7 for whites and 22.9 for Latinos. Subsequently, more than 20,000 African Americans have died from the disease.

This discrepancy can be mainly attributed to higher poverty and essential tasks at the frontline, including jobs in warehouses or public transportation. Mitchell Moss, an urban studies professor, has linked the pandemic-related loss of millions of jobs with Floyd’s death. The Minnesota incident has amplified the already existing “[…] anger and economic pain, and it’s all coming out [now]”, he ascertained. Hence, the current death rates are a further evidence of staggering racial divides and polarization in the US.

Discrimination in the criminal justice system

Bearing in mind economic disparities, the (mis)representation of African-Americans as underprivileged and marginalized people is, unfortunately, often associated with a criminal and gangster-like attitude. This image, therefore, spurs an arbitrary and more resolute procedure by police officers. Floyd who became another victim of police brutality after being accused of using a counterfeited 20-dollar note perfectly exemplifies this.

Consequently, one must acknowledge that even protective authorities, like police departments, are an element of institutional racism in the US. A 2015 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) study concluded that black residents of Minneapolis were “8.7 times more likely than whites to be arrested for a low-level offence”. In addition, African-Americans are also disproportionately affected by police violence. Despite representing only 13 percent of the US population, black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be killed by the police.

Therefore, raising awareness on racial disparities in the criminal justice system is essential to understand the effects racism has on black Americans. As Perry Moriearty, a law professor, reveals: “It often feels like a remote relationship, an us and them relationship”. A statement that is further expounded by political sociologist Barrington Moore. He explains why state authorities are repressing African-Americans: Since the state is claiming the monopoly of the legitimate use of force, those in power want to retain the capability of organizing society and transform that power relation into cultural domination. Serving as a pretext to contain disturbances, repressive measures by predominantly white policemen are intensified against largely peaceful African-Americans.

The call for justice

This puts the ongoing protests in perspective while accentuating the complex relationship between power and violence that political theorist Hannah Arendt examined in her essay On Violence (1970). “Violence”, Arendt writes, “appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course its end is the disappearance of power.”

In the case of Floyd’s murder, he was forcefully held down by four police officers, while one of them arbitrarily kneeled on his neck for almost nine minutes causing his death. “You can watch the slow motion destruction of this guy’s life,” said Christopher Hayes, professor for urban history, adding that the scene “[…] has […] all the trappings of an old time lynching.” Consequently, this has an enormous symbolic power as it serves as an identification point for black Americans who repeatedly are confronted with unjustified criminalization due to the color of their skin. The image of the police officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck does not only expose the vulnerability of Floyd but also reflects still existing power relations in the US due to an imbalanced social construction.

With reference to Arendt the overly excessive use of force has reversed the power relations, as she concludes: “Violence can destroy power; it is utterly incapable of creating it.” Therefore, the incident in Minneapolis can be interpreted as a singular moment in American history in which the “powerlessness of the powerful” is exemplified. Simultaneously, their power is being transferred to ethnic minorities who are using their platform as a beacon of opportunity to promote change. Tired of being judged by the color of their skin, these communities strive for being judged by the content of their character instead, as envisioned by Martin Luther King. They not only demand equal treatment but also meaningful opportunities, resources (education, healthcare, jobs), influence and adequate representation. They want their voices to be heard. By using their freedom of expression, they are becoming the voice of the voiceless. Hence, the current Black Lives Matter movement is causing a “’crisis in the affairs of the ruling order.’”

In consequence, we need to substantially rethink the concept of power and finally acknowledge the complex forms of racism, particularly in companies or state authorities. Joseph Nye, a political scientist, asks the important question: Do Morals Matter? On the one side, the protests show that morals and values such as human rights, dignity, freedom, and equality are as important as never before in a time of peril. In Empty Throne (2018), the political scientists Daalder and Lindsay, one the other side, argue that America’s abdication from global leadership entails a moral decay. This perception is reignited by New York Times-columnist Thomas Friedman’s question regarding America’s absent moral leadership: “Where can we find the leadership needed to calm this situation, deal with its underlying causes and at least get us through the 2020 election?” This dilemma of ethical governance is complemented by the necessity to redefine the national identity mentioned at the beginning. The fragility of US leadership and society is accurately illustrated by Lesley Goldwasser’s analogy: “You Americans kick around your country like it’s a football. But it’s not a football. It’s a Fabergé egg. You can break it.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, as Fulbrighters with US experience, we are deeply concerned about the course of developments in the country. In the face of a perilous health crisis and ahead of crucial Presidential elections taking place this fall, ethnic minorities are still experiencing systematic racism. The country that ironically declares itself as a land of opportunity, where diverse ethnicities live together in peace and strive for liberty, is apparently not treating every citizen equally. The American Dream which proclaims the idea of freedom and prosperity for all will not become a reality as long as societal structures continue to uphold inequalities, as revealed by single incidents like in Minneapolis and New York. The current demand for justice is the inevitable outcome of the insufficient protection of ethnic minorities by the federal government and local authorities. As long as this demand for justice is not met, people will keep on chanting “I can’t breathe!” which will leave the US – a self-proclaimed moral and global leader – divided. German philosopher Hegel believed that “[w]e learn from history that we do not learn from history.” However, the imminent global movement is a step in the right direction which in retrospect could prove to be a turning point in history.

Bibliography

Huntington, Samuel P.: Who are we? The Challenges to America’s National Identity. Simon & Schuster, New York 2004.

Huntington, Samuel P.: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster, New York 1996, p. 125.

Barack Obama’s Remarks to the Democratic National Convention. In: The New York Times, July 27, 2004, https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/27/politics/campaign/barack-obamas-remarks-to-the-democratic-national.html.

Hasters, Alice: Was weiße Menschen nicht über Rassismus hören wollen: aber wissen sollten. Hanser, München 2019, preface.

Nunn, Ryan / Parsons, Jana / Shambaugh, Jay: Race and underemployment in the US labor market. In: The Brookings Institution, August 1, 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/08/01/race-and-underemployment-in-the-u-s-labor-market/.

Politi, James / Platt, Eric: Unemployment rate in US falls unexpectedly to 13.3%. In: Financial Times, June 5, 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/30995608-48b3-48a2-98e6-dd4e89d7bad7.

Pilkington, Ed: Black Americans dying of Covid-19 at three times the rate of white people. In: The Guardian, May 20, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/20/black-americans-death-rate-covid-19-coronavirus.

Chaffin, Joshua / Fontanella-Khan, James: America’s inequalities burst into the open. In: Financial Times, June 1, 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/d69cda08-81fc-4e42-a3c3-3526b74de04f.

ACLU finds severe racial disparities in low-level arrests by Minneapolis police, May 28, 2015. In: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-finds-severe-racial-disparities-low-level-arrests-minneapolis-police.

Haddad, Mohammed: Mapping US police killings of Black Americans. In: AlJazeera, May 31, 2020, https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2020/05/mapping-police-killings-black-americans-200531105741757.html.

Shubber, Kadhim: Public unrest across US reopens long-simmering divisions. In: Financial Times, May 29, 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/3c68d65a-0fa6-445e-8e46-6ea779e3cd38.

Moore, Barrington (1968): Thoughts on Violence and Democracy, The Academy of Political Science, 29 (1), 1-12. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700902 [Accessed 6 October 2019], p. 7-8, p. 11.

Arendt, Hannah: A Special Supplement: Reflections on Violence. In: The New York Review, February 27, 1969, http://www2.kobe-u.ac.jp/~alexroni/IPD%202019%20readings/IPD1%202019%20No.8/A%20Special%20Supplement_%20Reflections%20on%20Violence%20by%20Hannah%20Arendt%20_%20The%20New%20Yor.pdf.

Chaffin, Joshua / Fontanella-Khan, James: America’s inequalities burst into the open. In: Financial Times, June 1, 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/d69cda08-81fc-4e42-a3c3-3526b74de04f.

Arendt, Hannah: Macht und Gewalt. Piper, München 1970, p. 85.

Nye Jr., Joseph S.: Do Morals Matter? Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump. Oxford University Press 2020.

Daalder, Ivo H. / Lindsay, James M.: The Empty Throne: America’s Abdication of Global Leadership. PublicAffairs 2018.

Friedman, Thomas L.: America, We Break It, It’s Gone. In: The New York Times, June 2, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/opinion/trump-george-floyd-america.html.

Turner, F. J.: The United States 1830-1850: The Nation and its Sections. The Norton Library, New York 1965, p. 282-283.

Adams, J. T.: The Epic of America. Garden City Books, Garden City/New York 1931, p. 317-320.

“Bolton threatens ICC with sanctions if Afghanistan war crimes investigated”.

“US envoy defends Nord Stream 2 sanctions as ‘pro-European’”.

Unilateral sanctions against any entity challenging American interests have become a hallmark of U.S. foreign policy over the last decade. The effectiveness or “bite” of these sanctions rests on the dominance of the dollar as the world’s trade finance currency, and so far U.S. unilateral sanctions have been effective at compelling nearly all neutral states to comply, due to the lack of a viable and mature trade finance alternative and threat of secondary sanctions.

This naturally begs the question: Is there an unlimited arsenal of sanctions which will always allow the U.S. to force compliance and advance its interests unabatedly, or what (if anything) would limit the U.S.’s ability to sanction at will and prevent non-compliance?

The answer lies in the models devised in the 1960s by economist Thomas Schelling. For brevity’s sake, let’s focus on Iran sanctions as a prime example. The origin of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran is Schelling’s compellence model, a form of calibrated brinksmanship in which a series of escalating constrictions on the adversary must keep reducing the payoffs for non-compliance with each measure, and the forcing party can’t back down. To implement compellence, U.S. sanctions have been increasing in scope since President Trump pulled the U.S. out of JCPOA in 2018. Starting with Iran’s oil exports, U.S. unilateral sanctions have expanded to include its metals, refining, and shipping industries, its foreign minister and senior leaders, and its Central Bank as a whole, restricting nearly all access to external financing for the Iranian economy. More recently, after the assassination of General Soleimani threatened to turn U.S. and Iran’s proxy war into a direct “hot” war and after Iran’s prior-warned de-escalating retaliatory strikes, the U.S. sanctioned nearly all sectors of Iran’s economy which weren’t included in prior sanctions.

The U.S.’s compellence strategy and sanctions against Iran have been extremely effective and acted as a successful deterrent to trade with Iran thus far. Though the remaining parties to the JCPOA vowed to keep the deal alive and offer Iran alternative financing mechanisms to mitigate the detrimental effects of U.S. unilateral sanctions, so far, no country has been successfully able to bypass the sanctions. Europe has dabbled between strong rhetoric, in-principle blocking of unilateral sanctions, and conceptualizing a special purpose vehicle INSTEX, to facilitate trade with Iran, given the primary international settlement vehicle SWIFT disassociated with Iran shortly after U.S. sanctions were announced. However, to this day, none of these mechanisms have been effectively operationalized to a working extent.

To understand why, it is necessary to frame sanctions compliance as a multi-player prisoner’s dilemma, in which Schelling’s critical mass model between compliance and defiance can be applied. Each country in this game has a payoff which is dependent on a threshold of whether other countries choose to comply or defy. So far, for the EU, the dominant strategy has been to comply. This is because, for European companies, the payoff of non-compliance with U.S. sanctions and participating in trade with Iran while losing dollar-based financing has so far been significantly lower than the payoff of sacrificing Iran business and maintaining the far larger volume of U.S. business. Beyond American and European companies, even Indian and Russian companies have calculated the risk of losing access to western financing, in addition to the risk of losing U.S. business, to not be worth the tradeoff gained in trading with Iran. The U.S. has furthermore threatened to sanction any company which participates in INSTEX, explicitly lowering the payoffs to participate.

Will this altered payoff remain the case for the foreseeable future, or is there a viable avenue for non-compliance with ever-expanding U.S. unilateral sanctions?

In a multi-player’s prisoner’s dilemma, just as in a two-player prisoner’s dilemma, there is a superior outcome of higher payoffs for players if they collude and decide to not comply together. This can only be achieved if there’s a critical mass of colluding players (countries or companies in this case) which choose not to comply. This achieves payoff parity with compliance based on the sheer number of players in the colluding coalition.
So far, the U.S. has been able to prevent this colluding coalition from forming by threats of secondary sanctions as well as escalating trade tariffs, which served as a backdrop to the JCPOA E3 (France, Germany, and the U.K.) countries’ decision to trigger the JCPOA dispute mechanism despite their initial reluctance. But the question remains if the U.S. can perpetually prevent a coalition of critical mass states which are unperturbed by U.S. threats from forming eventually.

There is certainly a momentum of increasing states wishing to trade with Iran despite the threat of U.S. sanctions, with 6 new European countries becoming INSTEX shareholders. However, with INSTEX still not operating due to fear of secondary U.S. sanctions, this additional boost is not a significant enough threshold for a minimum critical mass.Instead, any push will likely come from Asia. Iran’s preferential customs-free trade agreement with the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union has been operationalized last year, which is facilitating payments that bypass U.S. financial reach by using Russia’s and Iran’s home-grown alternatives to SWIFT. China not only continues to import Iranian crude despite U.S. sanctions waivers expiring, but has also made Iran an essential hub in its Belt and Road Trade Initiative, with plans to invest $400 billion into Iranian energy and transport infrastructure facilitating wider trade with partners across Eurasia. BRICS countries, which account for 30% of Iran’s non-oil trade (16), have pushed for global trade de-dollarization efforts, alarming U.S. grand strategists.

It remains to be seen how resilient these coalitions will emerge against U.S. sanctions pressure, as for example India’s much touted plans to develop Iran’s Chabahar port have faltered in the midst of sanctions risks despite being granted an explicit waiver. However, the increasing number of countries that are part of one of these coalitions are also six out of the top 10 U.S. trading partners. Additionally, sanctions are having a blowback into supply chains feeding critical portions of the U.S. economy, as was the case when the U.S. sanctioned large Russian parastatal commodity enterprises in 2018. As more countries join coalitions to continue trade with sanctioned entities, eventually a point is being reached where the ripple effect consequences for sanctions will damage the U.S. economy to an extent which outweighs any marginal benefit, as was the case when the proposed “sanctions bill from hell” against Russian sovereign wealth and financial giants was met with hesitation and reluctancy. As the reach of sanctions increases, such cases point to the leverage that large entities enjoy against sanctions due to integrated supply chains and investment flows.

Similarly, the expanding list of entities and countries which are being subjected to expanding sanctions is also reaching a point where compliance with sanctions will hurt their own economic interests more than help it, altering the payoffs in a multi-player prisoner’s dilemma game. This is the impetus behind the increasing number of states with an incentive to de-dollarize, and is the catalyst in forming the critical mass coalition which will eventually be able to refuse to comply with sanctions despite the risks of losing U.S. business and secondary sanctions. At the rate at which sanctions are expanding, it is only a matter of time before sanctions are expanded to activity which will naturally encompass a large portion of the U.S.’s foreign trade portfolios, and implementing sanctions will hurt the U.S. economy further. At this point, the collective bargaining power of the entities subjected to U.S. sanctions will exceed the leverage that the U.S.’s financial hegemony has relied upon til date. This will be the “tipping point” in the U.S.’s ability to enforce sanctions, with a critical mass economic coalition preventing their effectiveness.

U.S. policymakers have to take this reality into consideration in forming sanctions policy. The same economic author of the model behind maximum pressure also authored the model behind its constraints.

References

“Trump threatens Iraq with sanctions if US troops are expelled” BBC World News. January 6, 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51003159

“John Bolton threatens ICC with US sanctions” BBC World News. September 11, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45474864

Chazan, Guy. “US envoy defends Nord Stream 2 sanctions as ‘pro-European’” Financial Times. December 22, 2019. https://www.ft.com/content/21535ebe-23dc-11ea-9a4f-963f0ec7e134

“The “Maximum Pressure” Policy is the Illegitimate Child of Diplomacy” Lobe Log. September 24, 2019. https://lobelog.com/the-maximum-pressure-policy-is-the-bastard-child-of-diplomacy/

“Iran Sanctions” U.S. State Dept. 2020. https://www.state.gov/iran-sanctions/

Borak, Donna et. al. “US imposes new sanctions on Iran” CNN. January 10, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/10/politics/us-sanctions-iran-mnuchin/index.html

Dowling, Siobhan. “INSTEX: Doubts linger over Europe’s Iran sanctions workaround” Al Jazeera. July 1, 2019. https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/instex-doubts-linger-europe-iran-sanctions-workaround-190701095202660.html

Wald, Ellen. “10 Companies Leaving Iran As Trump’s Sanctions Close In” Forbes. Jun 6, 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2018/06/06/10-companies-leaving-iran-as-trumps-sanctions-close-in/#9541afec90ff

Stearns, Jonathan et. al. “U.S. Warns Europe That Its Iran Workaround Could Face Sanctions” Bloomberg News. May 29, 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-29/u-s-warns-europe-that-its-iran-workaround-could-face-sanctions

Hudson, John et. al. “Days before Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose 25% tariff on European autos if they didn’t” Washington Post. Jan. 15, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/days-before-europeans-warned-iran-of-nuclear-deal-violations-trump-secretly-threatened-to-impose-25percent-tariff-on-european-autos-if-they-didnt/2020/01/15/0a3ea8ce-37a9-11ea-a01d-b7cc8ec1a85d_story.html

“Six more countries join Trump-busting Iran barter group” Guardian. Nov 30, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/01/six-more-countries-join-trump-busting-iran-barter-group.

Brzozowski, Alexandra. “INSTEX fails to support EU-Iran trade as nuclear accord falters” EURACTIV. Jan 14, 2020 https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/instex-fails-to-support-eu-iran-trade-as-nuclear-accord-falters/

“Iran Trades $430m With Eurasian Economic Union at Preferential Tariff Rates” Financial Tribune. December 29, 2019. https://financialtribune.com/articles/domestic-economy/101446/iran-trades-430m-with-eurasian-economic-union-at-preferential

“Banks in Iran, Russia Connected via Non-SWIFT Financial Messaging Service” Financial Tribune. September 17, 2019. https://financialtribune.com/articles/business-and-markets/99912/banks-in-iran-russia-connected-via-non-swift-financial-messaging

“China to Invest $400 bn in Iran’s Energy, Transport Sectors” Belt and Road News. Sep. 7, 2019. https://www.beltandroad.news/2019/09/07/china-to-invest-400-bn-in-irans-energy-transport-sectors/

“BRICS Accounts for 30% of Iranian Non-Oil Trade” Financial Tribune. April 21, 2019. https://financialtribune.com/articles/domestic-economy/97526/brics-accounts-for-30-of-iranian-non-oil-trade

Luft, Gal. “The anti-dollar awakening could be ruder and sooner than most economists predict”
Aug 27, 2018. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/27/the-anti-dollar-awakening-could-be-ruder-and-sooner-than-most-economists-predict.html

Kutty, Sumitha. “India’s Iran Port Plans Languish Despite US Waiver” Bourse and Bazaar. August 28, 2019. https://www.bourseandbazaar.com/articles/2019/8/28/indias-iran-port-plans-languish-despite-us-exemption

“Foreign Trade: Top Trading Partners” U.S. Census Bureau. December 2019. https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/index.html

Whalen, Jeanne. “Too big to sanction? U.S. struggles with punishing large Russian businesses.” Washington Post. August 26, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/too-big-to-sanction-us-struggles-with-punishing-large-russian-businesses/2018/08/26/c797e294-9fd6-11e8-8e87-c869fe70a721_story.html

Prince, Todd. “U.S. Lawmakers Pass Russia ‘Sanctions Bill From Hell’” Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. December 18. 2019. https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-lawmakers-to-discuss-russia-sanctions-bill-from-hell-/30331992.html

Huang, Eustance. “A ‘growing club’ of ‘very powerful countries’ is steering away from using the dollar” CNBC. Oct 30, 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/31/de-dollarization-russia-china-eu-are-motivated-to-shift-from-using-usd.html

Rappeport, Alan. et. al. “Trump’s Embrace of Sanctions Irks Allies and Prompts Efforts to Evade Measures” NY Times. Nov. 15, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/politics/trump-iran-sanctions.html

The topics discussed in depth included migration and integration policy, the use of renewable energies and the energy transition, the CETA trade agreement and its perception in Germany and Canada, as well as the role of women in politics.

We would like to thank Mr. Gartshore and Mr. Ducharme for the interesting and inspiring exchange and look forward to future cooperation with the Canadian Embassy in Berlin.

As part of the Fulbright Diversity Initiative – composed of German students with a migrant background –, we visited Trinity University in San Antonio (Texas). We were supposed to get an insight into the student life of a Liberal Arts College. Simultaneously, the Diversity Initiative shows American students how Germany is shaped by multiculturalism as well. While leading the Fulbright program in important new directions, the Diversity Initiative most importantly influenced our views regarding the US.

The general perception of the US is that they are a land of boundless opportunities. It protects Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness of each citizen and provides them with Justice, Tranquility and general Welfare. Considering that in contemporary US politics nationalism, populism and racism are on the rise, we must pose the question whether those values apply to a currently divided and polarized US society. Hence, this essay is going to emphasize how much aspirations differ from reality by relying on our subsequently shared experiences. We will refer to our stays in 2015 and 2018 respectively, during which we were able to visit, for example, Bexar County Jail or the San Antonio Food Bank. These excursions offered us an opportunity to experience San Antonio and US society from another perspective.

Justice system, social mobility, political system and immigration policy – The issues in these four domestic areas demonstrate America’s declining role as the world’s leading superpower.

A local judge offered us a walkthrough in the County Jail where Texas’ most dangerous people were arrested. It’s the third largest jail in Texas and 16th largest in the entire country. The jail, imprisoning more than 4.500 people, mainly Afro-Americans and Latinos, attaches utmost importance to safety. For instance, inmates are completely cut off from their environment and fellows by living in small cells within protected walls. Since they are being held captive for 23 hours without daylight, they barely experience the freedom and the right to pursue their happiness proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Additionally, the Officer’s statement after the walkthrough “We keep working for your safety.” stuck in my mind, trying to justify and whitewash the inhumane treatment.

Moreover, an excursion to the San Antonio Food Bank illustrated the people’s dependence on food distribution and municipal subsidies. The Food Bank that aims to “fight hunger and feed hope” provides 500 partner agencies in 16 counties throughout Texas with grocery products. Measures like those are not only applied in Texas but also throughout the entire country. Statistics show that one quarter of American workers make less than $10 per hour and thus rely on subsidies and the support from agencies like the Food Bank. Those 25% of US workers have an income below the federal poverty level. The perception of the US as a wealthy country where each person has the chance to make a fortune is diminished by the fact that only in Southwest Texas 58.000 individuals are served each week and 74 million meals are distributed annually.

Consequently, the principal of American exceptionalism and domestic coherence are being challenged, while a new configuration of power in current global affairs takes place. Thus, the nature of American power and its standing as Primus Inter Pares in the liberal world order are being fundamentally questioned. According to the historian Adam Tooze the American century is over and America’s prominent role as sole superpower needs to be redefined. Does the end of the American century mean that the American Dream reached its end, too? Has the American Dream been irrevocably dreamt to nothing? A look at the currently polarized US society gives us the answer.

Current socio-economic and cultural alienation processes fuel the debate about a new economic model – socialism instead of capitalism. But why are many Americans longing for a socialist economy and not a capitalist one? According to economic research institutes, the top 1% of families in the USA made more than 25 times what families in the bottom 99% did. Income inequality which has risen in nearly every state affects virtually every part of the country and thus many policy fields, such as societal coherence and openness for immigrants. This also reveals a paradox which European societies are also confronted with: On the one hand, the cosmopolitan and multicultural approach. This approach pleads for a liberal immigration society, diversity and inclusion. On the other hand, the nation-state and ethnocentric approach, which emphasizes national sovereignty and the protection of one’s own cultural identity and perceives refugees as a threat.

In fact, the sociologist Andreas Reckwitz points out in his study The Society of Singularities that with the transition from an egalitarian, industrial modernity to an industrial late modernity, the process of social declassification transpires, that goes hand in hand with the feeling of cultural devaluation. Subsequently, the rise of the new middle class is mirrored by the emergence of a new subclass. Those class interests are threatened by strong migration movements towards the US and Europe, whereby the fear of “Strangers at Our Door” (Zygmunt Bauman), particularly the fear of immigrants, exemplify the theory postulated by the sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild: They feel like strangers in their own land.

As a result, the different perspectives and policy measures of libertarians, leftists, rightists and conservatives accentuate how deeply the US-American society is polarized, even divided. Thus, we live in an age of identity politics that vividly addresses crucial aspects of society. According to the political scientist Francis Fukuyama “the rise of identity politics in modern liberal democracies is one of the chief threats that they face, […].” (Fukuyama 2018: xvi) Fukuyama argues that the “demand for recognition of one’s identity is a master concept that unifies much of what is going on in world politics today.” (Fukuyama 2018: xv)

Moreover, humans instead of money/commodities should occupy the center stage again. American workers that have an income below the federal poverty level should be supported in pursuing their ambitions and dreams. In the short term, they can rely on subsidies and support from authorities. In the long term, however, less privileged citizens should be supported more sustainably through acceptance, social convergence and life-long learning. The perception of the US as a wealthy country and as the leader of the free world where everyone can make his or her fortune and where democratic ideals are lived to the fullest remains an illusion. The fact that economic inequality, social tensions and the violation of civil and human rights are experienced in daily life conveys the impression that there is still a long way to go to make the American Dream become a reality. The food distribution and advocacy program of the Food Bank are exemplary for America’s struggle in being a role model in terms of economic success. But primarily, the derogatory treatment of inmates due to their ethnicity, social class or sex – experienced in the County Jail – displays the USA’s double standard when it comes to preaching democratic and liberal values.

In conclusion, the USA’s self-image as a melting pot attracts many people from all over the world. Meanwhile, Germany struggled and still struggles to define itself as Einwanderungsgesellschaft (society of migration). Furthermore, they share common societal difficulties, such as social inequality, cultural alienation processes, societal upheavals and democratic deficits. From a historical perspective, one could argue that the end of American hegemony is mirrored by the return of the German question which signifies the difficulty of keeping up the European balance of power due to Germany’s semi-hegemonic position in Europe called the Mittellage. Both countries necessarily need to redefine their respective roles in the light of a multipolar world in which new regional and global powers are emerging. Germany and the USA can only find ways to revive their respective dream if they acknowledge these issues. Finally, former US Senator James William Fulbright once wrote: “In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith.” That assertion can be understood as an appeal for Germany and the United States to accept variety in all facets in order to keep the promise of the American and German Dream alive.

The transatlantic community faces a multiplicity of challenges, such as increasing tensions with Russia, an uncertain future of nuclear arms control, on-going frictions in the area of trade and the rise of populism across the Atlantic. Not only do these developments put significant pressure on the transatlantic relationship, they also create political instability which is further deepened by the rhetoric and policies of the current US administration. Once at the core of the liberal international order, the U.S. is now represented by a President who openly embraces the actions of illiberal politicians and pursues an increasingly transactional approach to foreign policy by renouncing multilateral structures of cooperation and seeing the global order exclusively through the lens of strategic competition.

Redefining the Relationship

Although the transatlantic partners seem to have moved as far apart from each other as never before, the underlying assumption that the U.S. and Europe remain of vital importance to each other still holds true. Not only are both parties each other’s main trading partners, the EU – as the largest economy in the world – also remains the U.S.’s largest investor. Irrespective of economic factors, both parties continue to share a common set of foreign policy interests such as ensuring strategic stability, adapting to newly emerging security threats in cyberspace, countering terrorism as well as ending regional conflicts. Despite current beliefs of the U.S. administration, effective responses to such globalized threats will require joint efforts and the support of allies, which, from an American perspective, are mostly located in Europe.

As some of the challenges tend to be structural in the long-term, returning to old patterns does not represent a sustainable option. Strengthening the relationship will therefore require redefinition. Having played an important role in tying the transatlantic partners together, international organizations should remain at the core of transatlantic cooperation. In order to maintain a systematic framework for continuous dialogue, it might ultimately be beneficial to facilitate decision-making and revise certain structures as is currently pursued by the EU with regard to the Dispute Settlement System of the WTO. From a security perspective, changing strategic environments and declining trust are forcing the EU to become a more autonomous actor. Strengthening capabilities at operational levels while maintaining a balance between the EU and NATO will be crucial. These changes should be pursued with the qualitative objective of making Europe a more self-sustainable and reliable military partner, thereby easing increasing tensions over the subject of burden-sharing.

Europe will need to assume new responsibilities, actively preserve the assets of democracy and multilateralism despite domestic populist forces and act as a guardian of the values and institutions of the transatlantic relationship – an effort that will require engaging all levels of society. Although transatlantic cooperation will remain a challenge in the near future, historical, cultural and economic ties are too strong for the partnership to unravel entirely.

This article was previously published on the website of “Diplomatisches Magazin”, Issue 08/2019: All Is Not Lost In Transatlantic Relations.

This has a considerable impact on the flexibility of the sanction regimes, as the example of Myanmar/Burma clearly shows. Here, the ease of some US sanctions took four years longer than the EU’s removal of all its sanctions. Unlike the EU which prefers targeted sanctions to limit the effects on the immediate producers of the wrong behaviour, the US sanctions are generally broader in scope. Thus, US sanctions tend to be more comprehensive than the EU ones, for instance, while the EU targets 38 organisations related to the East Ukraine conflict the US`s sanctions list encompasses 428. Finally, EU sanctions and regulations are only binding to EU related entities and persons, whereas US secondary sanctions have extraterritorial effects. As a result, the US is also expecting non-US citizens and companies to comply with them and threatens them with punishments range from massive penalties to prohibition of access to US markets.

This final aspect is worth a detailed examination because the EU created a regulatory measure named “Blocking Regulation” (Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96) to offset these extraterritorial effects of US sanctions on EU entities.

The Blocking Regulation was initially adopted in 1996 to provide protection against and counteracts the effects of the extra-territorial application of the laws specified in the Annex of this Regulation. So, this EU regulation was designed as a countermeasure to the US measures targeting Iran, Libya and Cuba, which were harming EU interests. Recently, after the unilateral withdrawal of the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran and the re-imposition of previously suspended sanctions, the European Commission amended the annex of the Blocking Regulation. On August 7th 2018, this updated regulation becomes effective. As stated in Article 5 of the Regulation, no EU entity “shall comply, whether directly or through a subsidiary or other intermediary person, actively or by deliberate omission, with any requirement or prohibition, including requests of foreign courts, based on or resulting, directly or indirectly, from the laws specified in the Annex or from actions based thereon or resulting therefrom”. It applies to EU nationals, EU residents and companies incorporated in one of the EU Member States.

Article 4 proclaims that any foreign court judgment covered by the regulation is not enforceable before the courts of the EU and Article 6 allows companies to “recover any damages” arising from US sanctions. Non-compliance with the EU Blocking Regulation will result in penalties.  Against this backdrop, EU companies are facing the chose to either get a punishment in the US for non-compliance with US sanctions or violating the Blocking Regulation and risk a fine in the EU.

In brief, the EU Blocking Regulation is an attempt to position the EU as an independent actor on the realm of sanction policy and its adoption sends a political message to the US government. But at the same time, it displays the limitations of the EU’s scope of action vis-à-vis the US.

This article was published in February’s (2019) issue of the Diplomatic Magazine.

Not my president!” With this battle cry thousands of American citizens went to the streets to protest against the election of Donald Trump as US President. After the election on November 8, there were nationwide demonstrations in cities such as Chicago, Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Denver, Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland and San Francisco for several consecutive nights. The anger and horror of the protesters over Trump’s election victory are understandable given Trump’s unpredictable character and the fact that the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won the majority of votes at 47.9 to 47.2 percent.

However, according to the American electoral system only the electoral delegates count, and there Trump was ahead with 290 to 232. Contrary to all previous surveys that had predicted Clinton’s victory, Trump was able to win crucial swing states like Florida, Ohio and North Carolina and, surprisingly, won traditionally Democratic states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. A large number of white, elderly and predominantly male Americans living in the country voted for the Republican. Many votes came from the white working class hoping that Trump will bring back more jobs to the US. Strangely enough, female voters had a share of 53 percent in the victory of the political novice. Many women voted for Trump, despite his misogynic statements, his latent sexist attitude and the numerous allegations of sexual harassment from his past that kept emerging throughout his election campaign.

Trump stands for nationalism and xenophobia

Just as hard to explain are the 30 percent of votes each of Latinos and Asians for Trump. He had insulted Latinos, and especially Mexicans living in the United States, by calling them “criminals”, “drug dealers” and “rapists”, and he announced the construction of a wall on the border to Mexico. In addition, he agitated against Muslims during his election campaign, whom he would rather deny entry to the US. Moreover, he wanted to deport millions of illegal immigrants, some of whom have lived in the country for decades and are a vital part of the economy.

What is to be said of a country where so many people choose a politically completely inexperienced ignorant and proven liar as their leader, who despises women and minorities as much as the media and the whole political system of the U.S.? There is only hope because of the other half of the voters voted for Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, the democrat did not manage to mobilize more of the voters who gave Obama two terms African Americans, Latinos and young voters aged between 18 and 29 years. Clinton’s decades of experience as First Lady, Senator and Foreign Minister were of little help, as the Clinton ‘dynasty’ is regarded by many as the personified status quo of Washington’s political Establishment, thought to be devoted only to its own advantage. In view of these tendencies, the Democratic Party must now ask themselves whether Bernie Sanders would not have been the better candidate. Even though the 75-year-old Senator lost against Clinton in the Democratic primaries, with his comprehensive reform proposals such as making public colleges and universities tuition-free, tax increases to minimize wealth inequality and expanding Social Security benefits, he scored especially with young Americans.

Debtas, Protectionsism, Isolationism

But what are Donald Trump’s political plans, what has he in mind in the areas of economy, domestic and foreign policy? Well, much is uncertain, as his election campaign consisted of general promises and polemics rather than content. What can be gathered from his statements are tax reliefs for big corporations, high-income earners and the repatriation of the profits of American corporations abroad. In addition, Trump promises to invest in infrastructure while reducing debts. However, quite a few economists doubt the financial viability of these projects. “I think he’s going to make massive debts like Ronald Reagan. And that weakens the dollar and damages Europe’s exports”, the economic expert Peter Bofinger told Süddeutsche Zeitung.

This is bad news for the export nation Germany, just as Trump’s protectionist plans on the introduction of tariffs on foreign products and rejecting the principle of free trade. The prospects are likewise bleak for the working class people who feel they have been left behind by the globalization. By protesting against the growing social inequality in America with their vote they have helped Trump get into office. However, the Republicans have never been a party of workers, and tax reliefs for big corporations and high-income earners will rather increase the disparity between the rich and the poor. Thus, the American economist and President of the Institute for World Economy in Kiel, Dennis Snower said shortly after the election: “Trumps greatest advocates will be his greatest victims.”

Top priority on the agenda remains the election pledge to build a wall on the border with Mexico in order to prevent immigrants from Latin America from entering the country illegally. Mexico is supposed to pay the construction costs of the wall, but Mexican politicians have publicly refused. In addition, the new president wants to quickly expel or imprison up to three million people without valid documents, as he announced in his first television interview after his election.

Trump’s election must be a wake-up call for Europe

Trump’s foreign policy attitude can be summed up by the motto “America First” – the country should act as isolationist as possible, pursue primarily its own interests and stay out of the affairs of other nations. There should be no longer any involvement in military actions without a direct link to national security. Protection, even for NATO partners, should only be given for cash payment as is the case in Trump’s business world. How realistic this policy will be in the cumbersome daily operations remains to be seen. Certain is, however, that the Republicans now have a majority in both chambers of the Congress and will probably soon have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

The “appropriate” staff for these plans has yet to be found. The selection so far, however, surprises and gives reason to fear the worst. One of Trump’s first decisions was to appoint his campaign manager Stephen Bannon to serve as chief consultant. Until 2011 Bannon was in charge of the ultra-right-wing news page Breitbart News, which acts as a platform of the so-called alt-right movement. The movement propagates a racially defined nationalism, which is very popular with American Neo-Nazis and the Ku-Klux Klan. It’s no wonder the news service Bloomberg described Bannon as “the most dangerous political operative in America”. Further disturbing news are that such politicians as Newt Gingrich are considered as foreign minister or Sarah Palin as interior minister.

Immediately after the election it became clear which politicians rushed to congratulate Trump on his victory. Among the first congratulants were not only authoritarian heads of state such as Egyptian President Al-Sisi or Vladimir Putin but also right-wing populists such as Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Viktor Orban and Frauke Petry. Currently, right-wing populist parties are represented in parliaments in 15 European countries, six of which have government participation. For Europe, Trump’s election must be a wake-up call in order to prevent these numbers from rising , with particular interest in the Dutch elections in March 2017, the elections in France in May 2017 and the Bundestag elections in autumn 2017. Politics must speak out for democratic and European values, fight social inequality, and it must not imitate populists in fear of electoral votes.

Ultimately, Donald J. Trump will be sworn in on January 20, 2017 as the 45th President of the United States. But the cultural struggle of the chauvinist and authoritarianist against the open and liberal America will keep the world on the alert and busy for the next four years.

This article is part of CISS’s cooperation with the Diplomatic Magazine and was published in Decembers’s issue under Ausgabe 12/2016.

It comes down to the question of who can prevent a successful agreement. Not only the behavior of the negotiating partner, but also spoilers from within play a role. Many influential U.S. officials in 2003 like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were known for their hawkish positions towards Iran. The Bush era was also characterized by infighting between sub-groups. Cheney and Rumsfeld decided not to forward the Iranian proposal to the President and rejected it right away. Under Obama, the administration has a common and much more favorable stance on negotiations. His top foreign policy advisors are all openly in favor of an agreement. Secretary of State John Kerry even travelled to Oman in 2011, still as a Senator, helping to keep the secret channel open.

The Obama administration has a coherent opinion on the issue and does not suffer from infighting in this regard; this may account for the success of the secret back-channel in leading to official negotiations. However, another actor within the U.S. political system has a very problematic role in this case. In Congress, not only Republicans, but also high-ranking Democrats, in an initiative led by House Foreign Affairs chairman Robert Menendez, are trying to pass additional sanctions legislation. If their initiative succeeds, it will make a final agreement unlikely since this would be an open breach of the interim accord. Iran has made very clear that they are sensitive for any move coming from Washington. Its negotiating team in Vienna left the table in December 2013 following a U.S. announcement to blacklist companies bypassing the sanctions.

All members of Congress had been kept out of the loop about the secret negotiations, and some politicians expressed deep concern about this fact. It cannot be ruled out that this might have detrimental effects on the agreement in the long term. Certain senators or members of the House of Representative could feel compelled to step up their efforts against an agreement they do not favor and had no chance to influence. The problem could worsen over time as spoilers might be increasingly able to rally support for their cause. Right now, the number co-sponsors of a sanctions bill in the Senate is increasing, and soon Democratic majority leader Harry Reid might feel pressured to put it up for a vote.

But what would have happened if the spoilers had known about the talks earlier? It is possible that this would have also diminished the chances of coming to an interim agreement. Congress could have pushed for additional sanctions earlier, which might have destroyed Iranian faith in negotiations.

Given the fact that the proponents of tougher restrictions on Iran are a bipartisan group, the ability of the Obama administration to prevent Congress from derailing the agreement must be doubted. This problem might worsen in 2014, should the mid-term elections turn out in favor of the Republicans. In the end, the future success of negotiations with Iran might depend less on Iran and the other international powers than on Obama’s ability to engage Congress.