East Asia and the Pacific Archives

Parenthood, Surrogacy and the Labor of Childbirth

In early October 2025, Reem Alsalem, a United Nations special rapporteur, submitted a report calling for a ban on surrogacy, and describing it as a “system of exploitation and violence”. Alsalem went further to liken the system of surrogacy to the system of prostitution, saying she found a lot of similarities between the two in terms of how they exploited women.

She isn’t the only international figure to take such a strong stance against surrogacy. Pope Francis, who passed in 2025, had also called for a worldwide ban on the practice which he believed was exploiting the women who became surrogates.

This call – which has seen equally heated criticism and support – comes at a time where more and more celebrities have been posting about their surrogacy journeys. The latest was actress Lily Collins earlier that year, who faced a slew of backlash to her announcement about welcoming her baby via surrogacy, including from many people who blamed the rich for exploiting women for their own desires to have children. While some celebrities like Kim Kardashian have been open about their reasons for using surrogates, others like Collins and Priyanka Chopra haven’t shared why they chose this particular path.

But as stories where parents welcome babies via surrogacy become more and more commonly shared publicly, the harms and complications of surrogacy have also been coming to light. More than the stories themselves it’s the fact that so many of these cases are now becoming public knowledge that is allowing people to look deeper into the impact of surrogacy and explore it from different perspectives. Treating surrogacy as inherently exploitative isn’t a recent phenomenon – in fact countries such as France, UAE, Saudi Arabia and even India have long banned the practice, regardless of whether or not the surrogacy is commercial or not. Other countries like the UK and Canada allow altruistic surrogacy but have banned it commercially – which means that surrogates cannot be paid, except beyond reasonable expenses in certain cases. On the other hand, most states in the US do allow gestational surrogacy commercially, although compensation and protections around this vary by state. Across the world, experiences around surrogacy can vary significantly, as governments, families, and agencies work within (or sometimes around) the law to match the desires of would-be parents in wealthy countries while respecting what exists of local law for the birth family and the child. This is much like how experiences have played out with international adoption, where the lure of a payday can complicate and confound the process.

“It would be incorrect to say surrogacy is always exploitation and incorrect to say surrogacy is never exploitation. That’s why it is so important to have proper legal protections, for the parents but also for the surrogate,” says Janene Oleaga, a family formation attorney and reproductive rights advocate, who works closely both with surrogates and intended parents. But for many others, like advocates working with Stop Surrogacy Now, who see it as categorically harmful, or intended parents who see it as the best decision they’ve ever made, the situation isn’t as nuanced. Which brings about the question of who is surrogacy really for? Who benefits from the system and what can be done to protect those most vulnerable?

International Approaches, Varied Responses

With so many emotional, financial and physical considerations coming into play with any decision around surrogacy, reactions to both bans or a lack of them can get quite heated, especially as different groups are affected in very different ways. India’s legislative ban on commercial surrogacy was advanced in 2019 and adopted in 2020, after many critics called international surrogacy an India a system that exploited poor women, but the ban is also seen as discriminatory against LGBTQ couples as altruistic surrogacy is now only allowed for heterosexual couples who’ve been married for 5 years. Italy’s ban on surrogacy has also been criticised for similar reasons. But for anti-surrogacy campaigners, their stance against surrogacy is not discriminatory, simply protective of the women they are hoping to release from this system.

Lexi Ellingsworth the founder of Stop Surrogacy Now UK says that the “euphemistic language disguises the brutal reality. Surrogacy exploits women for their reproduction ability, their fertility and denies newborns their mothers from birth,” she says adding, “Exploitation, human trafficking, obstetric violence, and coercion is rife. And the numbers are increasing. As we are against surrogacy as a whole, we do not discriminate. We reject the practice regardless of sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, income, marital status and circumstance.”

A recent case where a stillbirth in a surrogacy case turned into a legal battle is just one of many examples that campaigners like Ellingsworth point towards to showcase just how easy it is to harm surrogate mothers within this process.

Ellingsworth also points out that support for surrogate mothers who may feel exploited or harmed in the process is rare, and it’s not just the mothers campaigners like Ellingsworth are concerned about. Olivia Maurel, a spokesperson for the Casablanca Declaration also shares Ellingsworth’s views regarding the importance of protecting both surrogate mother and child. For Maurel, the issue is also deeply personal.

“My activism began with a double awareness, that of a child and that of a mother. As a child born through surrogacy, I quickly realised that this practice tramples on the most fundamental rights of the child: the right to know and be raised by the woman who carried and gave birth to them, and the right to an identity that isn’t fractured by contract,” shares Maurel, further adding, “Behind the glossy marketing lies a global market going to be worth 200 billion dollars by 2032, one that operates with virtually no oversight. Reem Alsalem’s report calls this what it is: a form of gender-based violence and reproductive exploitation. She urges states to recognize that consent obtained under structural inequality is not true consent.”

But Oleaga, who’s worked in cases where parents from various countries have come to the US for surrogacy still sees the positive in it, even as she agrees that safety and protections are crucial. “So I’ve had intended parents come from China and Europe to the US for surrogacy because it may be less expensive to go to other places but it’s oftentimes less legally secure. In the US it is a legally secure process,” she says adding that while the bad stories deserve to be reported on and exposed, “For every negative story you see in the news, there are hundreds if not thousands of opposite stories not just for the intended parents but surrogates as well. That’s why you see surrogates coming back”

And while financial exploitation remains a major concern, Rachel Goldberg, a licensed marriage and family therapist finds more nuance in working around that and safeguarding clients than calling for an outright ban. “If someone is pursuing surrogacy out of financial desperation, it can feel like I’m preventing them from moving forward, but my role is to protect them as much as the intended parents. When someone is in a desperate situation, there is more room for exploitation,” she says, adding that she will also consider many other factors including stability in the home and emotional readiness before assessing whether a client is ready to take this step.

In a 2023 paper, Dr Yingyi Luo argues for the application of labor law to bolster surrogate rights and protections while operating in a global market of cross-border surrogacy. Building on the example of Bulgarian labor law and safeguards for non-standard workers, Luo writes, “Surrogate mothers, even those who have not signed a surrogacy contract, do not need to validate their employment status. Once a surrogate mother becomes pregnant with the child of the intended parents, her status transitions to that of “employed.”” This labor-law forward approach could ensure accountability, financial and health protections, standards of care and due diligence, and compliance that can all be lost in the often informal or discreet nature of facilitating surrogacy.

An Inside Look At What Works, And What Doesn’t

For those who’ve worked in the surrogacy industry or been connected to it, the gaps are clear. Belal Breaga Bakht used to run a concierge service that provided on ground services between surrogacy companies based in the US and surrogates in India between 2007 and 2011. Bakht’s job became a way make sure the surrogates were cared for and looked after, both medically and financially and he shares that his position as an Indian who had been raised in the UK allowed him to connect well not just with the surrogacy company and intended parents, but also with the surrogates themselves.

“There are many working parts of this complex process, you’ve got marketing company and surrogacy company in US (or anywhere else), you’ve got the IVF side which is usually not linked surrogacy side – and they are the crucial part of this equation, if they are complicit in exploiting the women you can’t really stop it. So we took over that role slightly, even though we were not supposed to, and that’s because we had a very very strong Indian team,” Bakht shares. While Bakht was mindful of the gaps in the industry and where exploitation was possible he shared that would ideally like to see a regulated but legal surrogacy industry, where with the right care and protections both sides could benefit.

Yessenia Lattore, a mother of three in the US, who is currently undergoing her second surrogacy journey shares her own experience of what it meant to be working in an industry that is largely self regulated. Despite the fact that she’s aware of bad actors, and has seen bad experiences, she chose to come back as a surrogate because of her own positive experience.

“I don’t think surrogacy should be illegal, but in the US its not regulated and I personally think it should be regulated,” she says adding, “The first time I did it I was very naive, I kind of went with the first agency that responded to me – was communicative with me.” Still Lattore got lucky, both with the family she chose and her agency, although she chose to work with a new agency this time around.

Focus on the birth mother and child - policy makers building laws and restrictions around surrogacy need to put the health and safety of the surrogate mother and baby first and foremost. This means safeguards that limit exploitation and restrictions where needed

No Cookie Cutter Approach - communities and countries across the world will need localised policies, with countries with higher rates of exploitation of women needing stricter laws and maybe even bans where necessary.

Labor Protections Protect Laboring - clear, transparent protections built not just on human rights but labor law frameworks could improve conditions, protections, and accountability while protecting against exploitation.

For Lattore, the decision to become a surrogate was motivated from her own experience with pregnancy loss, and when she was able to have healthy children after that she realised that she wanted to help other women have children too. She likes to joke that she can’t be doing it for the money because she receives “minimum wage” – if she looks at it compared to the hours being put in. But even for someone who’s had a positive experience, she knows the industry can do better in making sure it’s the same for everyone. “Surrogacy should be done ethically, so a surrogate isn’t left with 3 babies that aren’t her own. We have a psych evaluation, contracts, and our own lawyer. I personally think it should be regulated because right now it is done in different ways,” she says.

Both Oleaga and Goldberg, who’ve worked with different actors within the industry, agree that self regulation is difficult, but question the extent to which regulations may be the answer, particularly under the current US administration.

“I do think safeguards are important, but when they become overly restrictive, they can prevent families from growing. More regulation means more red tape, which is the challenge when involving politics. At the end of the day, even though it shouldn’t be this way and doesn’t feel fair, consumers still have to do their own homework to protect themselves from bad players,” Goldberg says.

Oleaga also agrees that regulation is important and there needs to be more consistency, particularly in laws that offer protection to surrogates, intended parents and children.

While Oleago and may seem like they’re miles apart from what Ellingsworth or Maurel are saying – and in some ways of course they are – what all of them are asking for and working towards are protections for the women and children often left most vulnerable in the world. And that should be the main goal for the industry, regardless of what side of the argument you lie on.

Anmol Irfan is a Muslim-Pakistani freelance journalist and editor. Her work aims at exploring marginalized narratives in the Global South with a key focus on gender, climate and tech. She tweets @anmolirfan22

How Legacies of War Turns Survivor Memory into Policy

For over nine years, the United States waged a bloody ‘Secret War’ in the country of Laos, alongside the more overt Vietnam War in Southeast Asia. The U.S. dropped at least 2.5 million tons of explosives on the people of Laos from 1964 to 1973, a quantity comparable to the entire amount used in both European and the Pacific theaters of World War II combined. Laos, a country the size of Utah, was attacked by the equivalent of a planeload of bombs once every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nearly a decade. An estimated one million people were displaced, wounded, or killed – almost one out of every two people living in Laos. While the people responsible for the bombing are dead, those in Laos during the Secret War and their descendants continue to pass down and share stories of their survival from the horrors visited upon them.

“What we do in Laos has thus as its aim to bring about conditions for progress toward peace in the entire Indo-Chinese Peninsula,” President Richard Nixon said in a 1970 statement. “We are also supporting the independence and neutrality of Laos.”

American leaders from the President on down justified the Secret War in Laos by claiming to only target North Vietnamese troops and an allied group in Laos called the Pathet Lao. In that 1970 statement, President Nixon described American military action in Laos as “limited” and “defensive,” and dismissed rumors of American war crimes in Laos as “grossly inaccurate.” By the time the Secret War in Laos started, it was known to the administration that groups such as the Pathet Lao used guerilla war tactics, dispersed and under the protection of the forest. Civilian villages were the only visible targets for American pilots in the sky.

In contrast to the reality for people in Laos, Nixon’s public statements are duplicitous at best. His calculated tone and hollow support for Laos independence obscured any objective truth about the United States’ bombing campaign.

This dehumanizing language is common in American foreign policy. Degrading and equating a group of people with an inflated boogeyman to justify violence has been used to rationalize the War on Terror, the recent strikes in the Caribbean, and U.S. support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Harmful foreign policy decisions are made at both a physical and a narrative distance from those most impacted. To reverse this trend we must intentionally reintegrate memory like that of the survivors of the Secret War in Laos into our policymaking process. Survivor memory not only deserves to be shared but is also a rigorous source of data that can both correct history and prevent those in power from repeating it. It must be treated as such when crafting foreign policy.

Seeing Laos Beyond the Bombsight Reticle

Fred Branfman was the first American to document the atrocities that people in Laos lived through during the Secret War. Branfman and his Laotian partner Bouangeun Luangpraseuth talked to thousands of refugees in Vientiane, the capital of Laos, who had been forced from their homes in a heavily-bombed region of Laos known as the Plain of Jars. They collected a series of drawings and testimonials from the survivors of the Secret War, depicting life under constant shelling from American warplanes, and compiled them in the book Voices from the Plain of Jars.

The United States had intentionally kept its assault on civilians in Laos secret, fearful that knowledge of the war would further hinder public support for its military actions in Southeast Asia. Critically, television coverage of atrocities like the My Lai massacre in Laos’ neighbor, Viet Nam, allowing the American public to witness the war’s human costs, is credited with decreasing voters’ support for U.S. involvement. Because of this, the drawings were some of the only media from Laos collected and shown to the American public. When Branfman returned to the United States, he publicly shared the refugees’ stories in a congressional hearing in 1971.

The more we spend time with the refugees’ drawings and testimonies, the more we can see ourselves and our loved ones in them.

Three jets do a bombing run. One person's head is blown off their body. Two other people get caught in the fire and the smoke. — “Then they heard loud sound of guns so the three, father and children in one family, hurried forward searching to find a hole in which to flee from the falling bombs in the sky. But just then the bombs fell down on their heads before they could get into the holes … Is there anyone who knows and sees pity for and with them?” – artist unknown. (Voices from the Plain of Jars)

In this pencil drawing, two wounded people lie under trees. A woman cares for an emaciated person. A bird pecks at the open side wound of a man with holes torn into his body — “… But wherever you went all you heard about was people who had died. … there was an eight year old who was hit and wounded by the airplanes, but hadn’t yet died. He just screamed in the road. Then the hand of an old woman led the wounded child into the forest for temporary shelter.” *(Voices from the Plain of Jars)*

In this pen drawing, three jets are seen on a bombing run while bombs hit the ground. A person on the ground has lost their head and arm, both visible. Another person lies wounded, perhaps torn in half. A third person hides under a branch. — “A life whose only value was death. I saw this in the village of my birth, as every day and every night the planes came to drop bombs on us. We lived in holes to protect our lives. There were bombs of many kinds, as in this picture I have drawn.… My heart was most disturbed and my voice called out loudly as I ran to the houses. Thus, I saw life and death for the people on account of the war of many airplanes in the region of Xieng Khouang. Until there were no houses at all. And the cows and buffalo were dead. Until everything was leveled and you could see only the red, red ground. I think of this time and still I am afraid.” (*Voices from the Plain of Jars)*

Without directly facing the human horrors inflicted on the people of Laos, policymakers at home and Americans deployed in Southeast Asia were able to detach from the atrocities they were committing. The United States’ military interventions in Southeast Asia were the first time a majority of damage was inflicted by artillery in the sky instead of troops on the ground, further accelerating this disconnection.

“[T]ens of thousands of innocents who were killed or wounded were not even regarded as human beings, their lives worth no more than those of chickens, pigs, or water buffalo,” wrote Branfman in Voices.

Branfman found the contrast between the harrowing memories of people in Laos and the disassociation of the American bombers he encountered particularly appalling .

“I remembered how gentle Thao Vong, the thirty-eight-year-old rice farmer who had been blinded in an air raid, had described the horror his life had become. It was chilling to hear how cold and bloodlessly [American] pilots described their role in ruining his life,” recounted Branfman. One pilot told him “‘I’m as liberal, as much for peace as anyone else. But war is not a pretty thing. In a guerrilla war, the civilians are going to pay a price.’”

Despite Branfman having shared the refugees stories with Congress in 1971, the United States did not openly recognize its involvement in the Secret War in Laos until over two decades later. In 2016, President Barack Obama traveled to Laos and acknowledged the civilian cost of the American Secret War in Laos for the first time 52 years after it was first waged.

The conclusion of the American Secret War in Laos was not the end of the horrors for the people of Laos. Of the at least 2.5 million tons of explosives dropped, around 30% failed to detonate, leaving millions of pieces of explosive ordnance (UXO) polluting the agricultural land that people in Laos rely on to provide for their families. Since the end of the Secret War, at least 25,000 people have been injured or killed from explosive ordnance in Laos. Today, Laos is still the most UXO-contaminated country in the world, and only an estimated 10% of previously contaminated land has been cleared for safe use.

In 2003, Channapha Khamvongsa, a Lao-American activist, rediscovered the original drawings collected by Fred Branfmann decades before after fortuitously meeting one of his colleagues in Washington, D.C. Recognizing that the drawings still had an important story to tell, she used them as inspiration to found Legacies of War, an organization that advocates for demining efforts in Southeast Asia. In 2010, Kahmvongsa spoke at the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment– the first hearing focusing on UXO in Laos with a Lao-American giving testimony. Fueled by the stories from the refugees and guided by the leadership of Khamvongsa, Legacies of War ushered millions of dollars of congressional funding for demining in Laos in just two decades. From 2004 to 2023, U.S. funding for demining in Laos increased from $1.4 million to $36 million. A total of almost $80 million was allocated for demining efforts across Southeast Asia in 2023. Legacies of War leadership was passed on to Sera Koulabdara in 2019, and she now chairs the U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines and Cluster Munitions coalition and oversees a Demining/UXO caucus that educates the staff of 74 congressional offices. Channapha, Sera, and Legacies of War are a testament to the material impact of survivor memory on policy.

Human Rights: A Legal Framework Built on Survivor Memory

Legacies of War’s story is not the only of its kind. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the first legal framework that defines the enshrined right of all people to life and freedom, was signed 77 years ago today, on December 10th, 1948. The UDHR has roots in stories not unlike those told by survivors of the American Secret War in Laos. It came on the heels of the the Holocaust, where the world bore witness to genocide as Jewish communities were designated as sub-human. Testimonies such as The Diary of a Young Girl by 13-year-old Anne Frank, published a year before the signing of the UDHR, painted a personal and vivid picture of the humanity that was robbed from Jewish people in Nazi-occupied Europe. Many Americans grow up rightfully learning about the Holocaust. Its stories are often paired with the phrase “Never Again,” using the power of survivor memory to motivate young people to stand up and speak out against antisemitism.

The opening statement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights simply states the foundation of the legal system that defines what we now call human rights. From its roots in Holocaust memory, a more radical, universal idea blossomed:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

In November, former Obama speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz remarked that Holocaust education for Jewish Americans has “backfired” as many young Jewish Americans universalize its teachings to speak out against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

In Israeli-occupied Palestine, social media has allowed Palestinians to share their stories of living through a genocide directly with the world. Like the stories and drawings shared by the refugees in Laos, they bring to life what many Americans only know about through a filter of disinformation. Hurwitz referred to this Palestinian content as a “wall of carnage” that prevents Jewish Americans from being persuaded by “facts and arguments” in support of Israel. In the same vein that Hurwitz advocates for survivor memory through Holocaust education, she blatantly asserts that the memory of Palestinians be stifled. Much like the memories of Holocaust survivors, the voices of Palestinians are the most accurate, rigorous source of information available. Anyone who has listened will know that members of the U.S. political class like Hurwitz have it twisted: human rights are not a privilege saved for a select few.

Today marks 77 years since the UDHR was created. Even so, American leaders are increasingly removed from the terror they inflict on people abroad. In November, the United States was one of just five states at the United Nations to vote down legislation emphasizing the dangers of autonomous weapons systems, machines designed to target and kill people with no human intervention.

The framework of human rights offers us a chance to break out of the accelerating dehumanization of war and expand our definition of survivor memory to include victims of American imperialism and intervention. The notion of human rights would not exist without the testimonies of survivors.

In commemoration of the UDHR and in recognition of our own part in dispossessing the rights of people abroad, the United States must take steps to expand the role of survivor memory into its policymaking process.

Institutionalizing Survivor Memory

Policy players who are serious about reversing the harmful escalation of violence in American foreign policy must take steps to integrate the expertise of survivors into the center of their work. There are a variety of policy recommendations that can be implemented by members of congress and their staff on Capitol Hill, leaders of think tanks and coalitions, and journalists that are serious about using survivor memory to slow the destructive tailspin of American foreign policy.

Members of the House and Senate should join caucuses led by survivors of American imperialism.
Intentional staffing and witness testimony can promote survivor memory on the Hill.
Survivorship should be regarded as a form of expertise in academic and foreign policy spaces.
The collection and preservation of survivor memory of American wars and interventions abroad should be federally funded and publicly available.

• Members of the House and Senate should join caucuses led by survivors of American imperialism.

Joining caucuses such as the Legacies of War-led UXO/Demining Caucus are the most immediate way representatives and their staff can demonstrate their commitment to learning from the expertise of survivors. While any congressperson can join foreign policy caucuses, it is particularly important that members of foreign policy committees on the hill are in all of the relevant caucuses led by survivors of American war abroad.

• Intentional staffing and witness testimony can promote survivor memory on the Hill.

When foreign policy committees such as the Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee are gathering expert testimony for a hearing on a region, conflict, or issue area, at least one of the expert witnesses must have personal experience at the receiving end of American foreign policy in that area. In addition to this, a pre-existing research group like the Congressional Research Service should have a branch dedicated entirely to collecting and providing first-hand accounts of survivors to Congress.

Members of congress should be intentional about hiring foreign policy staffers that have personal experience in a foreign policy issue that their constituents are interested in. Meetings with diaspora leaders in home districts can help guide policy and staffing decisions. In addition to this, members of foreign policy committees in the Senate and the House should create professional pipelines and scholarship programs to support staffers with survivor expertise.

• Survivorship should be regarded as a form of expertise in academic and foreign policy spaces.

Title is meaningful in policy spaces: it determines who gets a voice in conversations and debates. The title given to survivors of American imperialism should be no less than the leading experts. Personal experience with the effects of American war contains the full gravity and nuance that is necessary to pass legislation that matches the moment. No guest on a panel, co-author on a research paper, interviewee on a show or for a news article should be given any higher priority than that of the survivor. The expertise of survivors does not require any “scientific support” from American historians or scientists to be rigorous.

• The collection and preservation of survivor memory of American wars and interventions abroad should be federally funded and publicly available.

The upkeep of survivor memory and story databases should be supported by public funding, insulated from congressional attacks, and made freely available. In addition to this, public high schools and universities should be encouraged to use these collections as primary sources for education and research. Legacies Library created and maintained by Legacies of War is a good example of a collection of survivor memory by a nonprofit – these initiatives should not require donations or grants to continue upkeep.

Human rights are a shared language that allows us to see the humanity in each other. They are a needle that threads through each of our lives, reminding us that threats to the rights of any human are threats to our own humanity. The families separated at the U.S.-Mexico border are our families. The children buried under the rubble in Palestine are our children. The elderly in Laos hiding in holes from the bombs dropped overhead are our grandparents. The connections that stories make are not only valuable in rhetoric: they create real policy change.

If the public narrative always serves the people that gain power and profit from war, we can never take the first step toward a world that is reflective of the ideals of the UDHR. Looking honestly at survivor memory forces us to do the essential first step of ethical policymaking: facing the human consequences of our policy decisions, both at home and abroad. This is inherently messy and often uncomfortable, but it must be. Our humanity requires it to be.

Allie Hansen is the Security Assistance Monitor, Arms Trade, and Technology Research Fellow at CIP and an Advocacy Ambassador with Legacies of War.

Borrowing from the past for sustainable future fashion

On the red carpet at Cannes in May, Indian actress Parul Gulati stunned by wearing a dress made entirely out of human hair. Her dress was designed by ITRH², an innovative design label known for pushing the boundaries of what’s considered acceptable in sustainable fashion, and in it she took one high-heeled step further into what counts as formal and decent in high fashion. Gulati wore the dress to a Cannes film festival freshly revisiting its fashion rules, and launched a soft salvo into how and where the auteurs of attire must think about sustainability. Earlier this year, Copenhagen fashion week also highlighted sustainability as a key feature of the ramp. Sustainability requirements were introduced at the event in 2023, and this year collections were smaller, inclusive and used far more natural fabrics.

Gulati is just one example of how South Asian fashion has also quickly become a key part of the global fashion industry, with designers like Gaurav Gupta, Tarun Tahiliani and even Rastah all making appearances at Cannes, fashion shows and even the Met Gala. But the globalisation of fashion has also led to an increase in fast fashion – one that’s worrying sustainability advocates everywhere. In the last 20 years, global fibre production has almost doubled from 58 million tonnes in 2000 to 116 million tonnes in 2022. It is further expected to continue to grow to 147 million tonnes in 2030. The fashion industry is responsible for 2-8 % of global carbon emissions, and 85% of textiles go to the dump each year.

This comes at a time when countries across the world are already seeing the impacts of climate change, through increasingly drastic changes in weather patterns, heatwaves and disasters. It also coincides with Trump’s controversial global tariffs, many of which have targeted countries that are home to some of the biggest fashion production factories, including countries like Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. And in the US, South Asians are taking a stand against the silencing of a culture that has long embodied sustainable fashion. From brands like Labyrinthave and eight thousand miles, to spaces like Society of Cloth, South Asians are diversifying the sustainable fashion space through age-old traditions.

With the South Asian diaspora also increasing in the US, South Asian fashion is quickly becoming a part and parcel of US society, and more and more sustainability advocates are emphasising diversity in that area. Even within the western fashion space, South Asian trends are making a mark, but not always in the right way. In April, fashion brand Reformation was called out for culturally appropriating South Asian attire and it’s not the first time. Last year the dupatta was repackaged as a “scandinavian scarf” trend. South Asia has a long and rich fashion history that has, until recently, prioritised long term, slow, sustainable fashion through its intricate hand techniques, traditions of hand me downs and mending, and use of natural materials. But as Trump’s tariffs and policy changes come into play – connecting to global fashion may be getting harder, and less sustainable.

“I’m more likely to tell you where Pakistani or Indian embroidery comes from compared to western fashion. There’s hand techniques like block printing and materials like khadi that are indigenous and have a lower environmental output,” says Zainab of Ahista Stories – a slow fashion advocacy platform based in London.

Building brands, sustainably

As more and more South Asians in the US and across the world raise their voices within the sustainability space, they’re building brands and fashion spaces that bridge the gap between generations worth of South Asian sustainability and the modern sustainability movement.

Nisha Khater founded Society of Cloth as a marketplace for designers based across South Asia to find a home in the US. In November 2024, they opened a store in New York as well, where they keep pieces from a range of designers they collaborate with. The goal is to bring ethically made South Asian fashion that represents South Asian traditions to customers in the US. Khater, who has lived between various cities in India, Bangladesh and the US, and was living in Dhaka when the Rana Plaza collapse happened, says she’s always been aware of the missing pieces in the western sustainability conversations regarding supply chains and garment workers.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Parul Gulati 🤍 (@gulati06)

“The whole concept around textiles in South Asia is very circular. It prioritises low waste and environmental impact, whereas sustainability in the west focuses on specific facets of it and the reason I don’t mean this as a critique is that it’s just about the way we grow up in the US,” she says. For her, this is merely an opportunity to build up more sustainable fashion choices for consumers in the US through education. Collected xx, a Pakistani brand that Khater stocks at Society of Cloth, just did a line of bags made from recycled fabric waste. “Our brands put a lot of educational material on the tags so we try and include that in our messaging like “hey when you look at the pieces don’t forget to look at the tags”,” Khater says, adding that it allows customers to connect to what they’re buying and the journey of the piece. She says this entire process is inspired by South Asian sustainability practices.

“I think within South Asian tradition and I’m just speaking from personal experience as well, we’ve always been so connected to the earth. A common thread is always connection to the earth, the idea of it is life giving,” she says adding, “There’s a collectivist mindset we see in South Asian cultures. The passing down of clothes between families and friends creates lots of interactions in communities where garments are passed down and used much more frequently than they probably are in US communities.”

This is a stark comparison to the heavily consumerism-led society in the US, where decisions are made focusing much more on economics. With Trump’s latest tariffs, those divides may have increased further. “The harmful thing is that they [tariffs] do create a lot of uncertainty around a market that’s already foreign to somebody and that creates fear both ways, for audience shopping from these brands and also from our brands side,” says Khater.

Experts also worry that tariffs could make it even more difficult for already struggling consumers to spend on sustainable clothes.

Worn Out

Even South Asian consumers within the US have started thinking about how to connect their heritage with their everyday choices. Shwetha Ravishankar, a sustainable fashion advocate and host of podcast “Chai Break” points out that for many South Asians, traditional fashion has become fast fashion because it’s only for occasions, and so no one really puts thought into the clothes they are getting and where they are coming from. Ravishankar adds that it wasn’t easy to make the shift, saying sustainable South Asian brands in the US still do struggle to find a market. But she points out that there’s a space for brands to do everyday wear using sustainable South Asian techniques.

That’s exactly why Shweyta Mudgal founded 8000 miles, a sustainable & ethically handcrafted lifestyle collection for children. Mudgal uses sustainably sourced cotton and block printing techniques done by artisans who have been printing for generations.

“The story of my brand has been very simple and straightforward and the idea was to create social impact through design. We wanted to start with the art of block printing, because it’s been an age old technique in South Asia. The idea was to contemporize block printing, make it accessible to western markets,” Mudgal shares.

She adds that in the last decade of working in this space, she’s seen a growing awareness around these age-old techniques and the unique nature of hand printed clothes. “If people come across our work for the first time or work across a booth they always ask because I think our fabrics speak,” Mudgal points out, talking about the importance of having such products available so that people can know more about them.

Ravishankar also points out that these things take time and the price points are higher, and in a world where everyone needs instant gratification, a shift back to South Asian traditions can help us appreciate the value of crafts again.

Still, this already niche industry may struggle further under Trump’s new tariffs. Both Khater and Mudgal share that they have a lot of decisions to make with regards to how they need to adjust the tariff costs into their supply chain. Neither wants their customers or artisans to have to bear the brunt of it. For now, most brands, like hers, are ‘trying to make sure tariffs don’t cause loss of value to the garment,” Khater says.

Current research on the impact of tariffs so far has shown little change in the way the fast fashion industry is working. True change may need more than just restrictions – but collaboration with the communities that have been harboring these traditions for so long. Michelle Gabriel, program director of MS in Sustainable Fashion at IE New York College, said in a recent article that fashion needs policy solutions if we need to see long term sustainable change.

Bills for companies to disclose environmental impact are already underway, but international trade policies also need to reflect these commitments. In September, the EU set up new rules

where producers of clothing and other textiles, cover the costs for collecting, sorting, and recycling their products

“State-level fashion acts are meaningful because they could force brands to take real responsibility for their supply chain emissions in some of the world’s largest economies,” Rachel Van Metre Kibbe, CEO of American Circular Textiles (ACT) in Brooklyn told Trellis.

With the future seeming so uncertain, it’s even more important for these brands to continue raising awareness as they’re doing. Until conversations around sustainability become truly global and encapsulate how communities in the global south have been harbouring sustainability for generations, we won’t see any solutions.

This Indigenous tribe fights for Indonesia’s vanishing forests

It is a blistering afternoon in the mangrove forest of Langsa, a town located on the eastern shores of Aceh province, at the northernmost tip of the island of Sumatra. The dry season has now kicked into full gear as the relentless sun beats down the small patrol boat organized by locals who try to deter illegal logging. After hours of sailing around the forest, a bang noisier than the boat’s own engine can be heard in the background. It is only getting louder. It is an illegal logger cutting some branches of a mangrove tree.

”Stop! What are you doing?,” one of the members of the boat patrol shouts at the logger across the distance.

By the time the patrol reached the area, the logger had managed to flee with the wood. It is a hopeless scene they all are too familiar with. The mangrove has been destroyed and their boat can’t keep up with the logger on his more powerful boat. ”We always lose,” one of the members of the patrol said as they gave up on the chase. ”We can only scare them away,” he said.

*A ranger in a destroyed mangrove.* (*Omar Hamed Beato*)

Indonesia has the biggest share of mangrove forests than any other country on earth, accounting for about a quarter of the world’s mangroves. This kind of forest is essential to the fight against climate change as globally they store 11 billion tons of carbon — the equivalent of the CO2 emissions over 5.4 billion homes in a year in the United States — and their storage capacity is four times that of other tropical forests. Mangroves also provide critical habitat for countless bird and fish species, while supporting the livelihoods of Indigenous communities who have coexisted with these environments for generations.

In Aceh — notorious for its implementation of Sharia Law — the coastal town of Langsa has not been spared from forest loss. Over the past few decades, about 86 percent of its mangrove cover has been destroyed to make way to palm oil plantations, urban areas, or cut down by the logging industry. While the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami killed more than 140,000 people in the province (and killed a total death toll of 230,000 around neighbouring countries), the villages that preserved their mangrove forest suffered less damages and fewer deaths than those that had converted them for other uses. In response, a group of locals formed boat patrols in 2016 to bring illegal loggers to justice and deter the growing illegal logging business. Operating under Adat law, or Indigenous customary law, they now guard a mangrove area of 255 hectares — roughly the size of 350 football fields.

”We had so many mangroves before but a lot of people cut off the trees. That’s why a lot of local people feel sad. A lot of people think that the trees are given by God and have the right to take them. From when I was a kid until 2016, we have lost 70 percent of mangroves but because we have been planting mangroves back we are now at 50 percent loss,” says Jaiful Anwar, the 53-year-old head of the Kelompok Tani Hutan Bangka Bantimoh or Growing Mangrove Forest Farmers Group which organizes the patrols. ”There is a lot of conflict between local people and those who cut the mangroves. Three years ago, I was on patrol and the loggers came to attack me with a machete, but we ran away,” he recalled.

*A logger cutting mangrove branches into smaller pieces that are then transformed into charcoal. (Omar Hamed Beato)*

Despite their best efforts to arrest the loggers and bring them to local courts, Anwar is aware that with their lack of resources, it is nearly impossible to completely stop illegal logging. ”In 2016, we asked the government to give us a speed boat but in 2020, the speed boat broke and now we always lose in the patrols because we don’t have a fast enough boat,” Anwar explained.

According to the Aceh Wetland Foundation (AWF), an NGO founded in 2010 to protect marine areas in Aceh from being erased by development projects, the government is not doing nearly enough to protect the 45,000 hectares of protected mangroves in the province due to a lack of resources. “The government has no money, no boats — nothing. They’re lazy and don’t care. They only have rangers, and even those don’t have boats,” says Yusmadi Yusuf, founder of AWF. Locals in Langsa city have pioneered boat patrols as a big share of their local economy relies on the mangrove forest to obtain crabs, shrimps, or other kinds of fisheries that are then exported to feed China’s massive seafood market.

”The forest can live without humans, but humans cannot live without the forest,” he says, sipping a cup of mangrove juice under a tent beside the forest.

No easy way out

At a local coffee shop or Warung under the midday sun, fishermen have gathered to discuss possible solutions to the problem. ”The loggers are so dangerous for our livelihood,” says Zaimal Mohammad Yusuf, a 45-year-old fisherman who has been fishing in the city for over 10 years. ”Mangroves are disappearing and we need a solution. I have had violent incidents with the loggers four times now but we haven’t been given a solution by the government — the loggers have no space in our village”

”We want the government to protect our forest. Working is more difficult now. It is harder to find fish because there are less mangroves, we need to navigate for two hours to find fish, before it was only 10 minutes away.”

Climate organizations should find ways to back indigenous people protecting mangrove forests, from materials like faster boats to paid opportunities to do forestry protection instead of logging.
States should condition engagement with Indonesia’s economy on meeting its climate goals, and be willing to impose real costs should Prawobo continue with deforestation
The state should recognize indigenous people's rights to their forests and prioritize sustainable development

According to data provided by the local government to International Policy Journal, 27,000 people living in the towns of Langsa, Aceh Tamiang, and Aceh Timur, three of the bordering regencies home to the mangrove ecosystem, work in the illegal logging industry. Many of the loggers are forced into this business due to lack of job opportunities in an area with more than 12 percent of its population living under the poverty line, just above the country’s average of eight percent.

”Some people [can only] find jobs by cutting mangroves,” says Suriyatno, deputy mayor of Langsa city for the last 10 years. ”When people get arrested by Adat law, it says you have to fix what you destroyed. We cannot use Sharia Law because people have to cut the mangroves to stay alive.”

*Fishermen in a meeting with Yusuf exposing their concerns about illegal logging and discussing possible solutions.* *(Omar Hamed Beato)*

Despite the local government’s efforts to subsidize small canoes and nets to incentivise illegal loggers to switch to fishing, many struggle to change professions due to limited educational opportunities to learn new skills. Abdul Mutallib is one of them. At 70, he has been cutting trees since his childhood — he can’t recall how old he was when he began cutting trees as he followed his father’s footsteps, who also worked in the logging industry. As a father of five and grandfather of 12, Mutallib says the work is increasingly difficult and often unprofitable — some days bringing in nothing, and on others just a single bag of charcoal sold for as little as USD 1.80. “I never considered doing something else. This is the only thing I know how to do. If we got support, I could consider doing something else, but I am too old,” he says, sitting by the river where loggers have set up a camp to turn felled wood into charcoal.

Strongmen politics, the environment, and net zero

Since President Prawobo — a former army general — rose into power in the 2024 elections, he has adopted different pro-industry policies that put the environment at risk of further degradation. Last January, the ministry of forestry proposed the deforestation of 20 million hectares (50 million acres) of forests to make space for crops, an area roughly the same size as the U.S. state of Nebraska or double the size of South Korea. This will not only put a strain on the environment and the communities that rely on it, but also jeopardize the country’s goal to be carbon neutral by 2060, as the country’s yearly greenhouse gas emissions have yet to reach their peak in the upcoming years.

”If the country plans to reach net zero, it basically requires really steep reductions [of emissions] after 2030,” says Jamie Wong, a climate policy analyst at NewClimate Institute, a non-profit focusing on climate policy and sustainability. ”This administration’s goal is to pursue economic growth at all costs. There’s an ambitious eight percent economic growth target a year and what that means is an expansion of extractive activities. In mining, you see the industry expanding its bioenergy visions of increasing biofuel production and that’s coming from palm oil. An expansion in palm oil production requires land and emissions. It seems like the current government’s policy direction and the way that they aim to achieve economic growth is not really compatible with its climate goals or with protecting the environment and halting deforestation.”

*Indigenous people reaching the scene moments after the illegal logger managed to flee with the wood. With only one small and slow patrol boat, they have little odds of succeeding against the loggers.* *(Omar Hamed Beato)*

What is more, earlier this year, following Donald Trump’s authoritarian playbook, Prawobo authorized a regulation to deploy the country’s armed forces to crack down on illegal forest use, a militarization that has been also present during last week’s anti-government protests when the army was deployed to the streets. This has raised questions about the army cracking down on small farmers and loggers rather than on big corporations that have the ability to bribe government officials. “Judging from the long history of this country, it is easier to regulate, evict and seize people’s land than to reclaim forests and lands that have been illegally or legally but illegitimately controlled by corporations,” explained Uli Arta Siagian, a member of Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi), the largest environmental NGO in Indonesia, for Mongabay.

In a statement released by Walhi in February, the NGO stated: “The Minister of Forestry should maximize the role of communities who have been working to protect and restore forests. This full maximization can only be achieved by first recognizing people’s rights to their forests and prioritizing the knowledge and experience of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in and around forest areas who have been working to protect and restore them.”

Until then, safeguarding the mangroves will fall upon the fishermen taking it upon themselves, protecting the environment no matter how hard, hoping for the day their plea for help is heard.

Omar Hamed Beato is a visual journalist from Spain covering conflict, climate change, migration, and social issues. You can find him on Instagram and follow his work here.

CIP Condemns COVID Vaccine Disinformation Campaign by Pentagon

In response to the shocking report that the Pentagon initiated a social media manipulation-based disinformation campaign under the Trump Administration to discredit Chinese-origin vaccines and protective equipment among the Filipino public in an effort to undermine perceptions of China in the Philippines in the midst of the COVID pandemic, Center for International Policy President & CEO Nancy Okail issued the following statement:

“Americans should be outraged that their government launched a disinformation campaign under Donald Trump that essentially weaponized the COVID pandemic, imperiling the lives of countless innocent people in the Philippines and beyond.

Spreading dangerous lies about vaccines and personal protective equipment among an especially hard-hit population is inhumane in and of itself. To have done so for the sole purpose of eroding public perceptions about China in a partner country, while callously disregarding the certainty that it would jeopardize the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocents, is utterly indefensible.

We are glad that the Biden Administration appears to have ended the campaign within its first few months of taking office. We call on relevant Congressional committees and leaders to seek a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign and hold those responsible for it fully accountable.

It is dangerous to let an abstract geopolitical concept override the urgent necessity of saving human lives. The outrage and distrust of the United States this cruel gambit is already beginning to engender demonstrates some of the inherent dangers of the ‘great power competition’ mindset that is shaping US foreign policy across the globe. Rather than cooperating in areas like global health where US and Chinese interests align, the obsession with undercutting China on every issue and in every region leads to outcomes that ultimately harm US standing and security. The United States can be clear-eyed about the need to address China’s destabilizing actions and repressive policies, while at the same time better serving our essential interests by engaging China in a manner that reduces dangerous tensions rather than exacerbating them.”

###

Can Climate Refugees Find A Home In The Metaverse?

With a total land mass of fewer than 26 square kilometers across its three coral islands and six atolls, the Pacific Island nation of Tuvalu is expected to be the first nation in the world lost completely to climate change. Facing this very near threat, authorities are working with international organizations to mitigate the impacts of climate change, as well as resettling people in other countries like New Zealand. But there’s a third approach being taken as well – creating a digital Tuvalu. At the Cop27 climate conference in November 2022, then-Minister for Justice, Communication & Foreign Affairs Simon Kofe gave a speech where he said that the threat to Tuvalu left them with no choice but to become the world’s first digital nation.

“Our land, our ocean, our culture are the most precious assets of our people and to keep them safe from harm, no matter what happens in the physical world, we will move them to the cloud,” Kofe said in a video. At the time, Kofe hinged the expectations for a digital Tuvalu on the metaverse. Now, almost two years on from his announcement, experts still remain confused as to what that digital nation can really look like, and more importantly if tech like the metaverse is really the future for the climate action movement.

For Tuvalu, becoming a digital nation encompasses multiple aspects, including a digital replica of the country’s landscapes, digital citizenship, and archives of cultural heritage so that the Tuvalese diaspora can stay connected to their identity, and visit a digital replica of the country they were forced to leave behind. They also want citizens to be able to participate in polls and events. Whether all that can be possible is a question of the sustainability impact of such undertakings, the policies surrounding these decisions and the investment of those in power.

“Technology is for the most part perceived to be neutral, though that is not always in fact the case and of course almost any innovation can be used in both positive and negative ways” says Professor Karen Morrow, professor of Environmental Law at Swansea University. She adds, “It’s taken us a long time in human history to reach a point where there’s enough of us and our technology is invasive enough to change the planet. Some things no amount of technology can help reverse, like dealing with polar ice melting, but what technology can do is help us understand the issues better,” especially when talking about how what we really need is pursuing the law and policy around these issues in a way that leads to action.

The metaverse itself might be abandoned before the people of Tuvalu leave their islands and atolls, but the question of a “digital nation” remains. With such little regulation over, or even research around its energy-impact, backing such a large scale project as a digital migration to a virtual space might just do more harm than good. But that doesn’t mean abandoning any such action. Rather, policy makers should focus on the best course of action for the Tuvalu and the Tuvalese diaspora that prioritizes their needs.

Virtual safety

For Tuvalu’s case, this digitization offers a means to preservation of artifacts and culture – but on a policy level, there’s still little knowledge of how these digital boundaries can be managed. Manann Donoghoe, senior research associate at Brookings Metro, whose work focuses on climate reparations says that a digital nation cannot be the only solution. “I think for a lot of the people of Pacific Island nations, perhaps it makes more sense to be pursuing a strategy where those people can gain sovereignty somewhere else. Australia, for example, is in talks about settlement agreements which are not perfect but you need to start thinking about where you put these communities,” he says. He’s also wary of the way tech advancements have divided the globe in the past. “Unfortunately, a lot of tech advancements in the past have led to increasing division in Global North and Global South countries. If you don’t have strong policy structures about who has access, who’s using them and how, that could happen again,” Donoghoe adds.

Tuvalu may succeed in creating a digital replica of the landscape in the metaverse, but historically, technological advancements haven’t favored Global South nations, and it’s likely that the people’s experience in that digital replica may be coloured with the impact of that history.

Besides offering a digital home for climate, the metaverse could join other technologies used to fight climate change, if it can shift user behaviors away from emissions-generating activity. Last year, a Cornell study stated that by replacing the air pollutants, the use of a virtual world through the metaverse could potentially lower greenhouse gas emissions by 10 gigatons, and help lower the global surface temperature by 0.02 degrees. To get there, the metaverse needs to join other technologies that facilitate digital learning, remote working and other digital aspects of everyday life. But what about the policy needed to put this future into action?

“There are huge opportunities for advances in technology to enable policy and action. Using machine learning to analyze satellite imagery or field sensors can help to close data gaps. One recent example is [the World Resources Institute]’s work with Meta where we developed a new algorithm for measuring tree height at global scale. As this work matures, we’ll be able to measure an individual tree’s height anywhere in the world, which is critical for carbon measurement, restoration monitoring, and so much more,” says Evan Tachovsky, the Global Director of WRI’s Data Lab.

But even for something as big as WRI, Meta and technologies work has been largely focused on data and inanimate objects, not people. And unlike other data collected, people cannot and should not be so neatly categorized. Nor can their actions be controlled or limited, and with unchecked environmental impact, the Metaverse at this scale may be a climate disaster waiting to happen.

Material Limits

Assistant Professor Robert Verdecchia at the University of Florence worries that policies around technology regulation aren’t sustainable enough for tech to really have a net positive impact. The impact that many optimists are looking for can only be positive when the technology being used isn’t having a negative impact on climate in the first place. “The lack of standards of what sustainable means from an IT perspective then leads in turn to a complete lack of policy, IT is consuming more and more energy and the lack of standardization especially in measurement of sustainability leads to complete lack of policy.”

Which is why Verdecchia and other experts are concerned that not enough policy is being geared towards managing the sustainability and equitable division of AI development. Verdecchia further adds that AI’s energy consumption is currently very high, and that’s not being talked about enough in conversations around taking action.

A 2023 study found that ChatGPT consumes 500 ml of water for every 20-50 simple questions and answers. Another, specifically looking at reducing the carbon footprint of the metaverse, pointed out that training an AI model consumed 284 tons of carbon dioxide, which is more than 5 times the amount of greenhouse gas a car emits in its lifetime. While the research around the metaverse’s energy consumption is much less precise, one comparison can be seen through the energy consumption of transactions. While a credit card transaction in the real world consumes about 149 kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy, a similar transaction digitally in the metaverse consumes 2189 kWh, which is 14 times that amount.

Precedent also shows that much of the power for development and mitigation both in terms of resources and finances lies in the hands of the Global North, which raises further questions about equity within policy. Currently a major chunk of technology development, whether it be in projects like the metaverse, generative AI or other similar innovations, lies in the hands of private companies, like Google and Microsoft.

Public-private partnerships to involve these developments in climate action might seem like a good way forward when it comes to scaling them up, but Morrow questions whether these would really be true partnerships at all. “Partnership is a word that’s everywhere, you’ll see it used in climate contexts globally. But the word partnership can only be used if you have the same goal. Furthermore, Big Tech is more powerful than many governments, and that’s not a partnership when power isn’t equal,” she says.

So even when countries like the United States, who have more resources, think of funding projects like Tuvalu in the metaverse, they need to reckon with the power private institutions – who don’t always have citizen’s interests in mind – will have in these decisions. That coupled with the still vague environmental impact of such projects creates perhaps too many question marks for this to be seen as a major solution.

There’s other issues like international collaboration, and putting vulnerable communities first to consider as well. Michelle Solomon, senior policy analyst at Energy Innovation, says, “This is something we think about with the transition of communities, particularly like coal plant communities in the US where the situation may be similar to what Tuvalu is facing in terms of identity loss. Putting communities first and what the communities priorities are is crucial. Ultimately solutions built from the ground up will be most positive and long lasting for the community.”

It’s why Tuvalu’s example needs to become the starting point for governments to start thinking about how technology can actually be used to benefit vulnerable communities. Verdecchia suggests that might be easier in Global South nations away from the strongholds of the major Big Tech companies. While tech may be the answer to some environmental problems, such mass usage of tech that consumes energy on such a large scale cannot be the answer to an already existing climate problem.

Instead of the last word, Tuvalu’s efforts to preserve the nation in the metaverse can be the start of a conversation. Beyond digital preservation, the effort can spur efforts towards resettlement, physical archives and attempts to preserve cultures in other ways that align with the values of the communities that are most vulnerable.

Taiwan & Tensions with China: Five Recommendations for US Policy

Taiwan has built a vibrant democracy on values Americans share and is an important US economic partner. China is the largest power in the region and sees Taiwan’s fate as central to its own national interest. US leaders need to manage these realities in a way that enhances regional and global stability, rather than framing disagreements over Taiwan as part of a dangerous narrative of inevitable conflict with China. Rhetoric about “winning” wars that neither Americans nor the people in that region want to fight is misguided and reckless. The US can best serve Taiwan’s security, and our own, by stabilizing relations with China in a manner that reduces the dangerous tensions that have built up between Washington and Beijing. The Center for International Policy has developed the following recommendations for US action toward that goal.

Recommendation #1: Ratchet “competition” rhetoric down rather than up

The people and government of Taiwan—as well as nearly all countries in the region—are saying loud and clear that they want a reduction in US–China tensions. Most countries also do not want to be forced to align with one side against the other.

The United States should amplify statements and actions that bolster the status quo. It should reiterate its longstanding position of strategic ambiguity to both China and Taiwan, and avoid inflammatory symbolic gestures that do little to increase Taiwan’s security but signal to China that Taiwan is moving toward formal independence. While opinion in Taiwan is highly fragmented on what status to ultimately aim for, there is an overwhelming consensus on what to do today: four of every five people in Taiwan want to maintain the ambiguous status quo.

When Chinese official actions warrant criticism, the United States must also take care to clearly distinguish between the Chinese Communist Party-controlled government and the Chinese people. Calling out the human rights violations, repressive policies and authoritarianism of the Chinese government is crucial, but so is countering the increasing vilification of China in American politics, which not only puts the Chinese diaspora and Asian-Americans at risk of increased discrimination and violence; it repeats the dangerous “clash of civilizations” narrative reminiscent of the disastrous “war on terror” era.

Recommendation #2: Support—don’t jeopardize—Taiwan’s self-defense

Meeting the United States’ long-held objective of preserving stability in East Asia and the Pacific requires avoiding and dissuading others from taking actions that increase risks of war, encourage militarist policies, or empower reactionary politicians. America’s key tasks in this regard are to foreclose on the prospect of a future crisis and make miscalculation less, rather than more, likely.

That means robustly supporting Taiwan’s self defense according to a principle of non-offensive or non-provocative defense, balancing the need to defend against and render prohibitively costly Chinese attempts at conquest with the twin imperatives of both preventing war in the first place and reducing the prospects of nuclear escalation should a war occur. Accordingly, US arms sales should focus on capabilities that support the political status quo and preserve strategic stability. That includes systems to help Taiwan blunt Chinese power projection while avoiding new weapons systems that could range deep into the Chinese mainland and eschewing an arms buildup on a scale that would be reasonably misperceived as mobilizing for war. It also means undertaking efforts to ensure Taiwanese cybersecurity and combat disinformation that could stoke belligerent sentiment and trigger confrontation.

Recommendation #3: Foster stability by ensuring the legitimacy of international law survive its tests in Ukraine and Gaza

While differences in the precise circumstances and histories of each conflict are apparent, Chinese aggression toward Taiwan would be subject to the same international humanitarian law (IHL) obligations as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the war in Gaza. The extent to which the United States affirms and acts to uphold the laws of war, human rights and democratic principles with regard to those conflicts has a tremendous impact on the international legal landscape in which China operates vis-a-vis Taiwan.

Failure to champion adherence to international law in these conflicts – either by backing away from material support for Ukraine as it fights illegal conquest or by continuing to largely ignore Israeli IHL violations both in Gaza and in connection with its deepening occupation and annexation of the West Bank – undermines the universality of their application and makes it easier for actors like China to ignore them without fear of consequences from other states. The US unwillingness to take meaningful steps to protect Palestinian lives and rights in the Gaza war has led to accusations of hypocrisy. Continuing that mistaken approach, alongside the movement by rightwing forces in the US to limit or cease support for Ukraine, will only further degrade the international order the US constructed after WWII, eroding an important barrier to China and other actors that may consider more aggressive actions of their own.

Recommendation #4: Invest in the US domestic critical technology workforce, while cooperating with China on shared challenges like climate change.

The Biden administration has already taken steps to increase domestic production capacity for technologies critical to the security and economy of the United States, especially advanced technologies and those essential to address dire challenges like climate change. US technical innovation led the way in the 20th century and should continue to do so as we face new global challenges. Increasing government support for programs to ensure an ample and sustainable workforce for these industries – including through transitional income support, student loan forgiveness and substantially increased across–the-board investments in public education and societal welfare – should therefore also be pursued as a US security priority.

At the same time, US strategic investments in American democracy, equality, and prosperity must be undertaken in such a way that they do not simply redirect insecurity toward the rest of the world. The technologies needed to survive, mitigate, and overcome challenges like climate change and global health threats will not be built in one nation, and will require significant investment and cooperation from governments across the world.

Both China and the US face tremendous challenges from warming temperatures, particularly in the area of desertification and water security. Cynically exploiting these vulnerabilities in China, as some have argued the United States should, in the hope that they lead to crisis and instability is both immoral and dangerous. Catastrophic or even substantial dysfunction in one of the world’s largest countries, economic engines and a nuclear power would imperil US and global security in a multitude of areas. Instead, the United States should approach cooperation on addressing urgent climate change imperatives – such as working with China to leverage non debt-creating climate finance investments and provide critical technical assistance to developing countries – as an opportunity to build trust and identify areas of mutual benefit on other issues.

Recommendation #5: Advance global priorities that break away from an outdated and counterproductive “Great Power Competition” mindset

The explicit embrace of a “Great Power Competition” worldview by the Biden Administration and much of the US foreign policy establishment drives its fixation on reducing China’s presence and influence around the world. The dangerously unquestioned need to “counter” or even “beat” China in region after region across the globe is not only reactionary, but subordinates US interests at home and abroad to a zero-sum fight that drains US resources and goodwill. China’s leaders, in turn, seem happy to accept the prestige that comes with being the apparently destined competitor of the United States. They shape China’s foreign and military policy with this confrontation paradigm in mind, with Taiwan’s fate teetering at the leading edge.

The United States needs to recognize and secure its interests in the reality of a multi-polar world, rather than futilely attempting to forestall it via a costly and ultimately self-defeating effort to constantly disadvantage China. US military spending is already three times that of China (which is investing much of the difference in sectors like green technology). While China has a larger naval fleet in terms of vessel numbers, the US has far greater naval capability. What ultimately matters is not the actual balance of forces, but what a nation does with its share of the balance–and that has much to do with the overall tenor of relations and policy choices outside the military domain. The challenges that we face globally – among them climate change, political instability and pandemics — require equally global cooperation and cannot be solved militarily.

To break out of the zero-sum competition that dominates strategic thinking on both sides, a new approach to defining success in global influence is required, focusing on 1) global public goods like universal public health infrastructure and green energy for all; 2) significantly increasing development investment in those countries and regions that have been starved of capital for decades; and 3) guaranteeing human, political and labor rights globally. Building international cooperation around such a transformation of the global economy would reestablish US–China relations on a new foundation, revive the legitimacy of international norms by expanding the opportunity it offers to people of all countries, and address the truly existential threats humanity faces today.

Region: East Asia and the Pacific