The World: A Brief Introduction

by Richard Haass

  A third, nascent policy area would attempt to reverse climate change—for example, by putting particles in the atmosphere that would block out some of the sun’s rays. Such actions (termed geo-engineering) are controversial because their effects cannot be confidently predicted. The science is still in its early days. There is no process for approving what could have far-reaching or irreversible impacts. (A 1978 international convention that prohibits actions that would modify the environment with the intention of harming another country would not apply here.) But if there are technology advances, geo-engineering could emerge as a viable potential policy alternative or complement to both mitigation and adaptation if, as seems likely, global climate change advances with the projected disastrous effects.

  Short of some technological revolution that would transform global energy use, we should be concerned, even alarmed, about the future impact of climate change on the world. It is the quintessential global challenge in that no single country can solve this problem on its own and there is no way for any single country to shield itself from its effects. Generating the required collective response, however, seems highly unlikely. As a result, climate change could conceivably be the defining issue of this century.

  Migration

  Migration, the movement of people within and across borders, has long been a feature of international relations. Such movement can be voluntary, for example, to pursue economic opportunity, or it can be forced, for instance, to escape armed conflict or persecution. The term “migrant” is not defined under international law, nor is there a commonly accepted definition. The UN, however, defines a migrant broadly as a “person who moves away from his or her place of usual residence, whether within a country or across an international border, temporarily or permanently, and for a variety of reasons.” Elsewhere, migrants are defined as those “who live temporarily or permanently in a country of which they are not nationals” and where the decision to do so “has been taken freely by the individual concerned.” This narrower definition is more useful, because it distinguishes migrants from those forced to leave their homes, who are termed internally displaced persons (IDPs) if they remain within their country or refugees (or at times “asylum seekers” or “forced migrants”) if they cross an international border.

  Current statistics suggest there are some 250 million international migrants in the world. The vast majority of these leave voluntarily for economic reasons. They tend to settle in countries with relatively high average incomes, in particular the United States, which is home to just under 50 million immigrants. Statistics such as this underscore the economic dimension of international migration and the reality that most of it is voluntary.

  But as of 2019, 71 million people, or close to one out of every one hundred in the world, are involuntarily or forcibly displaced. Of these, 41 million are IDPs and have moved elsewhere within their home country, while 26 million are refugees who have been forced to leave their home country to escape persecution or violence and 3.5 million are asylum seekers.

  ONE PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S POPULATION HAS BEEN FORCIBLY DISPLACED

  71 million

  people are forcibly displaced worldwide by conflict, the most since World War II

  41 million

  of them are internally displaced, while the rest are refugees or are seeking asylum

  37,000

  people were forced to flee their homes each day, on average, during 2018

  Source: UNHCR, June 2019.

  Migrants are subject to the decisions and immigration laws of the country they wish to enter and reside in. Each country has the prerogative to decide whether to admit a migrant and the terms of admission. Some countries, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—and to a lesser extent the United States—select immigrants based on educational attainment, skills, and/or wealth. This helps to explain why many immigrants contribute to the economy of their adopted country as well as to their former country through sending payments (remittances) back home.

  The United States has more immigrants than any other country in the world. Approximately one million people obtain permanent resident status in the United States each year. Most of these decisions are based on grounds of family reunification. Once one person legally migrates to the United States, he or she can sponsor family members to also move there. The United States permits no more than 7 percent of immigrants each year to come from any single country, which puts a cap on large “sending” countries like India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines. Some immigrants enter on the basis of skills, education, and wealth. Over time, many immigrants become citizens; in 2017, for example, nearly one million immigrants applied to become naturalized American citizens.

  History suggests immigration can help a society by bringing in enough working-age men and women so that the ratio of those working as compared with those either too young or too old does not reach a point difficult to sustain. Many Asian countries are now grappling with the challenges posed by a rapidly aging population, partly the result of their restrictive stance toward immigration. And as the American technology sector demonstrates, immigrants can also be a major source of innovation and talent. Almost 45 percent of companies in the 2019 Fortune 500—a list of America’s biggest companies—were founded or co-founded by an immigrant or the child of an immigrant.

  This is not to suggest that immigration does not have downsides. There is evidence that immigrants with lower education levels and skills can compete with and replace workers with similar education and skills. Immigrants can also increase the burden on education, health care, and other public services. And there is the anxiety (often cited in Europe) that immigrants can pose what some see as a cultural challenge when they resist integrating into the society.

  There is a considerable disparity in the numbers of immigrants (as well as refugees) governments around the world admit, ranging from none to more than a million annually. Immigration policy, including openness to refugees, has become a matter of intense political debate in many countries in Europe, in Japan, and in the United States, the result of real or imagined consequences for the potential host country’s security, employment, and identity.

  Global efforts to shape migration (and immigration) policy have had a limited impact. A global “compact” on migration adopted by many of the world’s governments (but not the United States and some two dozen others) in 2018 set nonbinding guidelines and standards for the treatment of migrants but left it up to individual governments to determine their policies.

  International efforts have had greater impact on the status and treatment of those who migrate out of necessity rather than choice. The number of IDPs and refugees is the highest it has been since World War II and quite possibly ever, with much of the increase a result of conflicts within countries. In fact, the population of forcibly displaced persons has nearly doubled over the past decade. Eighty-five percent of the world’s refugees are in developing countries, and nearly 60 percent of all current refugees have come from Syria, Afghanistan, and South Sudan.

  Why does this issue, or more accurately set of issues, matter so much? Partly the reason is humanitarian; the number of lives affected is staggering. There is also the economic dimension, in terms of both cost (dependents to be housed, clothed, fed, protected, and provided with education and health care) and opportunity, in that immigrants (be they refugees or migrants) have often proved a great source of innovation and valuable labor.

  Large numbers of IDPs and refugees can also have significant political and national security effects. Wars have broken out to stem flows of refugees. For example, the 1971 war between India and Pakistan that gave rise to Bangladesh was triggered by large flows of individuals streaming out of East Pakistan and into India in order to escape repression. And even without triggering conflict, large inflows of r
efugees can cause a political backlash and alter the politics of countries in their path. Contemporary European politics are a case in point: much of the populism that emerged in the second decade of this century was the result of a backlash to immigration from the Middle East and Africa.

  A 1951 international convention (subsequently amended and complemented by various regional organizations) gives refugees specific rights and protections. Refugees are defined as persons outside their own country with a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” and who for these reasons are unwilling or unable to return to their country. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees leads an agency charged with providing protection to refugees and seeking permanent solutions to their problems, and there are also a large number of private organizations whose mission it is to assist refugees.

  This set of arrangements is helpful but inadequate. Persecution, the operative word in the 1951 international convention, is too narrow a basis for determining refugee status, because someone could reasonably deserve to have the status and rights of being a refugee if, for example, he were to flee his home to avoid a war or gang violence rather than persecution per se. In addition, the decision whether to grant refugee status is left to each government to make for itself. There is no international judge or organization that makes this determination, even though governments are often reluctant to make such a determination lest they be required to let people inside their borders and provide them with assistance.

  As the above makes clear, refugees must be able to convince the country they are seeking to enter that they qualify for such treatment and protections, because in principle someone could pose as a refugee when in fact he or she is an economic migrant. Refugees are often termed asylum seekers until the government decides whether their justification is legitimate and they can remain. (The Trump administration has sought to make it impossible for such individuals to even enter the United States until such a determination has been made lest they be able to stay for years while their case is being adjudicated.) Countries have varying policies and mechanisms for determining whether someone merits refugee status, how many refugees to accept, where to allow them to stay, and whether to allow them to remain in the country under a different, more permanent status. In addition, refugees cannot be forced to return to their country of origin if conditions there have not improved to the point where they could expect to live free from violence or persecution.

  International efforts to assist refugees largely fall into four areas. The first and most basic is to prevent the conditions that create refugees (or to alter the conditions if they do). Conflict is the most common cause of large-scale refugee flows. The problem is that ending wars can require an enormous commitment, one often beyond the capacity or willingness of most countries, the relevant regional organization, or the United Nations to undertake successfully. This has certainly been the experience with respect to Syria in recent years.

  Other causes of large refugee flows can be just as difficult to contend with. One is climate change, which can make large swaths of territory uninhabitable. It is only a matter of time before climate change becomes the greatest cause of refugee flows. Also difficult to deal with is internal violence and crime, which just like war make people flee to safety. But as we are seeing in Central America, where endemic violence and crime have generated significant refugee flows, combating these conditions is often beyond the capacity of the state. A mixture of crime, political repression, and economic hardship has led in recent years to millions of men, women, and children fleeing Venezuela.

  A second area of international effort involves taking refugees in on a temporary basis, although this often turns out to be an open-ended if not permanent commitment. The countries that have accepted the largest number of refugees in recent years include Turkey, Pakistan, Uganda, and Sudan, all neighbors of those countries where conflict has generated large flows of refugees.

  A third area of assistance is to help those countries that absorb a large number of refugees. Such help is typically economic. This financial aid, for the most part, has come from the United States, Canada, individual European countries, and the European Union itself. The countries that absorb refugees, along with private organizations, also provide significant support.

  A fourth and final area of international support for refugees involves how they are treated. The 1951 convention and other documents detail the rights of refugees, although the unfortunate reality is that all too often men, women, and children do not receive the services, including health care and education, or the physical protection that they require and deserve.

  Internally displaced persons are defined in a 1998 UN document as those “who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border.” The document goes on to identify the rights of such persons, which are much the same as any citizen, but the reality is the document does not have the force of law and is not binding. It is not just that governments have not formally signed on to it. Rather, the reality is that IDPs receive considerably less attention and protection than refugees because, by definition, they remain within their country of residence (and under the sovereign jurisdiction of that government), something that limits the reach of international law.

  What appears certain is that whatever answers there are to the global challenge of migration will most likely originate on the national and local levels. A consistent international response is highly unlikely. Conditions that generate the decision by people and families to migrate (be it out of choice or necessity) will continue to reflect local conditions and prospects. Most of those forced to leave their homes will end up either inside their country or in a neighboring country. And governments will continue to set their own policies for whom to admit and what resources to make available for alleviating the burdens associated with migration. Those requiring a new permanent home will surely outnumber the availability of such homes. Resolving the conditions that lead to migration has the highest payoff. But if the past is prologue, it will be difficult to address either the cause of migration or its consequences.

  The Internet, Cyberspace, and Cybersecurity

  The internet is central to modern life. Developed over the past few decades, it has evolved at a speed and scope and gained an importance that was truly unimaginable to its creators. Nearly 300 billion email messages are sent every day. The internet allows the flow of enormous amounts of data and information among billions of users at extraordinary speeds—be they individuals, businesses, governments, or organizations. Geography and distance count not at all.

  The technology associated with cyberspace has its constructive and destructive uses, although there is no international consensus as to what kind of action would fall into each category. What we know is that the internet functions smoothly for the most part, facilitating a worldwide flow of information and communications. At the same time, we also know that the internet can be used to steal money and intellectual property (for instance, manufacturing secrets and cutting-edge technology); compromise identities; violate individual and corporate privacy; influence political processes; inspire, train, and instruct terrorists; interfere with communications central to managing military operations; and, perhaps in the future, carry out attacks no less consequential than those conducted with military force. The very connectivity and openness of the system also makes it vulnerable, as does the rapid pace of change. Furthermore, we are introducing new weaknesses and complexities as billions of sensors and devices are connected to each other through the Internet of Things, and millions more are coming online.

  The relative lack of oversight and policing of a doma
in and a technology so critical to so many aspects of life and work is surprising. What has “governed” the internet is not a single authority so much as a collection of individuals, civil society groups, corporations, and governments, sometimes working together, at other times in parallel or not at all. It has been more of an informal bottom-up process than something formal and top-down. Much of this evolution took place when the internet was new and before it took on the significance it currently holds.

  How the internet should be used and who should have access to the data that users generate are hotly contested topics. Related to this is the question of who has the authority to decide policy when it comes to the internet and whether governments and formal international authorities ought to take over.

  To be clear, there is some international governance of the internet. In 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, was created as a nonprofit organization to bring some order into what would otherwise be chaos. As its name suggests, ICANN established a process to manage the granting of domain names and addresses, that is, what you type into a browser when you want to go to a website. There have also been international conferences and agreements to facilitate commerce, advance human rights, protect privacy, and combat crime and terrorism. For instance, the UN has recognized that people have the same human rights online as off. There have also been bilateral efforts to determine what is permissible in cyberspace. In 2015, for example, the United States and China agreed that they would not “conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property” for commercial gain. But there is no overall global consensus; there are few rules and few ways to enforce what rules there are. For instance, there is a prevailing view in the United States that China has not kept its end of the bargain in living up to the 2015 accord.