Month: November 2023

High Voltage Diplomacy: Elon Musk’s Emergence as a National Security Threat

tsulli24

By Edward Nagler

Elon Musk, America’s top entrepreneur, typically applauded for his leadership of Tesla, SpaceX, and OpenAI, has taken on a new role in our national security landscape. Musk’s industrial dominance over electric vehicles, satellite technology, and nascent artificial intelligence research positions him at the center of America’s relationship with its two most prominent adversaries – China and Russia. News of Musk’s decision to deactivate Ukraine’s access to Starlink as they prepared to engage Russian troops in Crimea and his flippant comparison between Taiwan and Hawaii has sent shockwaves through the foreign policy world. Musk’s influence over foreign affairs may even outrank John D. Rockefeller, who wielded unparalleled power through his Standard Oil Monopoly in the early 1900s. However, Musk’s unchecked rhetoric and unprecedented influence over foreign policy have undermined the Biden Administration’s  agenda and jeopardized U.S. interests overseas. While Musk’s entrepreneurship and unorthodoxy once warranted applause from American audiences, we must now consider whether his recent actions make him a grave national security threat. 

A Missed Opportunity? Defending Musk’s Initial Foreign Policy Actions

While Musk’s recent decisions to shut off Ukraine’s access to Starlink technology and declaration that Taiwan is an integral part of China endangers U.S. interests, his initial actions regarding China and Russia arguably served them. By providing Ukraine access to Starlink in February 2022, Musk bolstered their communication and surveillance capabilities, hindering a swift Russian victory and a potential challenge to NATO territory. Meanwhile, Musk’s meeting with Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang in May 2023 emphasized the benefits of continued American-Chinese economic cooperation, facilitating communication between the two nations during a time of frozen diplomatic channels. Musk’s initial actions demonstrate that private citizens can benefit U.S. national security under the proper circumstances.

Musk’s decision to activate Starlink at the onset of Russia’s invasion on February 26, 2022 demonstrates his willingness to use technology to promote U.S. national security. After being asked by Mykhalio Fedorov, Ukraine’s Vice Prime Minister to activate Starlink on Twitter, Elon granted his request within hours.1 While Musk may appear to be conducting a publicity stunt, the government did not initially fund Starlink, implying that he independently chose to fund the Ukrainian effort.2 Starlink has contributed significantly to Ukraine’s communication and detection of Russian battlefield movements, contributing to the war effort and therefore promoting U.S. interests. However, Musk consistently expressed uneasiness towards the prospect of Starlink technology being used to mount an attack on Russian territory – including Crimea.3 Musk’s initial willingness to offer technology to support the Ukrainian cause was admirable, however the Biden Administration’s failure to interpret Musk’s war aims or harness his technological prowess positioned Musk to inevitably use Starlink against U.S. interests.

Meanwhile, Musk’s meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang inadvertently served U.S. National Security interests by highlighting the severe economic costs of a conflict with China. According to liberal conceptions of international relations, a key way for states to overcome an anarchic international order and facilitate cooperation is through economic interdependence.4 Accordingly, if states’ economies become deeply intertwined, the mutually devastating consequences of war would deter conflict.5 Musk’s visit strengthened interdependence between the two countries by defying both states’ strategy of economic decoupling. However, Musk’s intentions were not rooted in patriotism but instead out of personal gain. American-Chinese economic cooperation is in Tesla’s interest, considering that 30 to 50 percent of Tesla’s total production is based in Shanghai.6 Nevertheless, Musk’s business interests ultimately promoted U.S. national security through the benefits of economic interdependence, highlighting the possibility for business tycoons to serve U.S. interests while chasing their own profit. However, Musk may have gone too far in his efforts to appease the CCP by supporting their territorial claim over Taiwan. 

Things Go Astray: Elon’s Daunting Power Grab and Fanatical Rhetoric

Despite Musk’s initial contributions to U.S. national security, his recent decisions to curtail Ukraine’s access to Starlink technology and issue provocative statements regarding Taiwan has only endangered the United States. While private citizens like Musk can act in the national interest, their efforts at foreign policymaking can also have disastrous consequences that propel the United States into international conflict.

On September 7, 2023, days before Walter Issacson’s biography, Elon Musk, was released to the American public, Musk’s decision to sever Ukraine’s access to Starlink in Fall 2022 made national headlines. In the biography, Issacson provides a detailed account of Musk’s rationale for sabotaging Ukraine’s attempt to attack a Russian fleet off the coast of Crimea. According to the biography, Musk justified his decision by claiming that “Space X would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation” if Starlink contributed to Ukraine’s attack.7 Moreover, Musk backed up his claim by asserting that he was merely trying to stop another “Pearl Harbor.”8 However, Musk’s defense that he would be “complicit in a major act of war” rings hollow given his prior willingness to provide Ukraine with ongoing Starlink access, which undoubtedly contributed to their war effort. Musk’s claim that he made the decision after consulting the Russian government9 also raises concerns that he acted on behalf of an American adversary. 

Elon Musk’s actions, despite the ongoing debate regarding U.S. economic and military support for Ukraine, are jeopardizing American national security interests. By thwarting Ukrainian war plans, Musk is prolonging the conflict, forcing Ukraine to ask the United States for more financial and military support. Moreover, Musk’s decision to consult Russia instead of the United States implies that he is defying the U.S. government’s wishes. What is most alarming  though is that news of this sneaky maneuver made public headlines a year after the incident. It remains to be seen whether any other moves to undermine Ukrainian objectives will arise in the months to come. 

Meanwhile, on September 13, 2023, Musk thrust himself into the debate over China’s claim on Taiwan in a virtual appearance at the All-In Summit while sitting comfortably on his luxurious private jet. In his appearance, Musk claimed that China’s perception of Taiwan is analogous to our relationship with Hawaii.10 While Musk’s statement demonstrates his desire to appease China and safeguard his business interests, his subsequent comments defied U.S. security objectives. Following his Hawaii analogy, Musk asserted that Taiwan is “like an integral part of China that is arbitrarily not part of China, mostly because the U.S. Pacific Fleet has stopped any sort of reunification by force.”11 This statement not only ignores Taiwan’s strong desire for independence, a significant factor hindering reunification efforts, but also places the blame for stalled reunification squarely on the United States. Furthermore, Musk’s claim that Taiwan’s separation from China is “arbitrary” suggests that it is somehow unnatural that reunification has not yet occurred. 

Musk’s commentary poses a severe threat to U.S.-China relations and actually undermines his business interests. By suggesting that American warships are responsible for the separation of China and Taiwan, Musk strengthens China’s claim on Taiwan and emboldens China to take action. Reunification of China and Taiwan undermines American objectives in the Pacific because a Chinese invasion of Taiwan could result in a direct military conflict between two major powers with a chance of nuclear escalation. Furthermore, if the United States were to withdraw support from Taiwan, a Chinese victory would allow China to project more military power in the Pacific from Taiwan and threaten key U.S. allies. Musk’s comments ironically undermine his interests because he is escalating U.S.-China tensions, compromising his efforts to promote economic cooperation between the two countries. In the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, a military blockade of China or a trade embargo would inflict severe costs on Tesla’s profits. Musk’s fanatical rhetoric demonstrates why he is ill-suited to conduct diplomacy with our adversaries.

Where Can We Go From Here?

  Elon Musk’s recent political stunts with U.S. adversaries highlight his dangerous influence on U.S. national security. Moreover, Musk’s ability to thwart U.S. interests in the future is still growing. As a result, the U.S. government must take action to limit his ability to conduct foreign policy as a private citizen. 

A potential solution to handcuffing Musk’s control over Starlink is for the United States government to pay for it entirely. In Fall 2022, Musk hinted that he’d like the Pentagon to start funding Starlink, noting the high costs of his private contributions.12 The United States should fulfill Musk’s request on the condition that Musk forfeits his presidential-like power to independently control Ukraine’s access to it. If Musk continues to fund Starlink, even partially, he will maintain his claim to control its implementation. Luckily, Senators Warren, Shaheen and Duckworth recognize the need to curb Musk’s control over Starlink technology. On September 18, 2023, they drafted a letter to Lloyd Austin and the Department of Defense lamenting Musk’s unilateral control over the technology. In the letter, they asked Austin if there were other incidents where Musk unilaterally chose to shut off Starlink technology or if contract protections existed to block Musk from taking unilateral action.13 The U.S. government should also stop awarding contracts to SpaceX to punish Musk for undermining American interests. While Musk has the right to object to U.S. Foreign Policy, the government owes it to its citizens to refrain from purchasing military technologies from contractors who discreetly consult foreign adversaries.

Regarding Musk’s Taiwan rhetoric, there is little the United States can do to stop his reckless action. His ownership of X (formerly known as Twitter) allows him to control information regarding China’s claim on Taiwan, raising severe concerns over Musk’s capability to promote disinformation favoring China’s claims and suppress information supporting Taiwan’s claim for independence. Musk can also use these same powers to promote Russian propaganda and decrease U.S. support for the Ukrainian war effort. In fact, a September 2023 report from the European Union substantiated these concerns. The EU found Musk’s X Platform to have the largest number of posts containing disinformation and noted the high frequency of posts parroting Russian narratives.

Americans should fear Musk’s unprecedented ability to leverage his tech empire to influence U.S. foreign policy as an unelected official. While countless Americans pursue their dreams of shaping foreign policy through meritocratic channels, Musk uses his control over satellite technology, social media, and artificial intelligence to play his own game of great power diplomacy. Musk’s impact on our relationships with our adversaries sends a chilling message to future generations, suggesting that power and wealth, rather than knowledge and experience are the keys to influencing policy. As Musk cements his position as a volatile player in the national security ecosystem, Americans have a patriotic duty to scrutinize his ongoing communications with Russia, China, and other U.S. adversaries to safeguard the integrity of our foreign policy. 

Notes

  1. Christine H Fox and Emelia S. Probasco, “Big Tech Goes to War,” Foreign Affairs, July 13, 2023,  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/big-tech-goes-war. ↩︎
  2. Christine H Fox and Emelia S. Probasco, “Big Tech Goes to War,” Foreign Affairs, July 13, 2023,  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/big-tech-goes-war. ↩︎
  3. Christine H Fox and Emelia S. Probasco, “Big Tech Goes to War,” Foreign Affairs, July 13, 2023,  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/big-tech-goes-war. ↩︎
  4. Daniel W Drezner, “The Dangers of Misunderstanding Economic Interdependence,” CATO Institute, September 12, 2023, https://www.cato.org/publications/dangers-misunderstanding-economic-interdependence. ↩︎
  5. Daniel W Drezner, “The Dangers of Misunderstanding Economic Interdependence,” CATO Institute, September 12, 2023, https://www.cato.org/publications/dangers-misunderstanding-economic-interdependence. ↩︎
  6. Roula Khalaf, “Elon Musk: ‘Aren’t You Entertained?,’” Financial Times, October 7, 2022, https://www.ft.com/content/5ef14997-982e-4f03-8548-b5d67202623a. ↩︎
  7. Elon Musk Says He Denied Ukraine Satellite Request to Avoid Complicity in ‘Major Act of War’ vs. Russia,” CBS News, September 8, 2023, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-ukraine-russia-war-starlink-satellite-denied-major-act-of-war/. ↩︎
  8. Marc Champion, “Analysis | Elon Musk Has Power in Ukraine. Does He Know How to Use It?,” The Washington Post, September 8, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/08/ukraine-war-it-doesn-t-matter-how-elon-musk-got-involved-he-s-in-it/83d1a4a8-4e51-11ee-bfca-04e0ac43f9e4_story.html. ↩︎
  9. Jack Detsch, “Musk’s Starlink Shutdown Raises Eyebrows,” Foreign Policy, September 14, 2023, https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/14/elon-musk-ukraine-russia-starlink-shutdown-crimea/. ↩︎
  10. Jack Detsch, “Musk’s Starlink Shutdown Raises Eyebrows,” Foreign Policy, September 14, 2023, https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/14/elon-musk-ukraine-russia-starlink-shutdown-crimea/. ↩︎
  11. Jack Detsch, “Musk’s Starlink Shutdown Raises Eyebrows,” Foreign Policy, September 14, 2023, https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/14/elon-musk-ukraine-russia-starlink-shutdown-crimea/. ↩︎
  12. Christine H Fox and Emelia S. Probasco, “Big Tech Goes to War,” Foreign Affairs, July 13, 2023,  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/big-tech-goes-war. ↩︎
  13. Shaheen, Jeanne, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Duckworth, Tim Kaine and Gary Peters. “Shaheen, Warren, Duckworth, Kaine and Peters Send Letter to Secretary Austin Requesting Information about Defense Contracts with Commercial Providers Following the Reported Starlink Incident in Ukraine: U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire,” U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, September 15, 2023, https://www.shaheen.senate.gov/shaheen-warren-and-duckworth-send-letter-to-secretary-austin-requesting-information-about-defense-contracts-with-commercial-providers-following-the-reported-starlink-incident-in-ukraine.
    ↩︎

Orientation to the Political World

tsulli24

By Michael Donelan

The breadth of political philosophies is a bizarre thing. Each of us are intimate members of political life, yet our communal involvement scarcely results in homogenous conceptions of what “politics” is. In a way, this is itself a deeply political situation: we come together with our own perspectives; our own theories; our own concerns and epistemologies and histories. Somehow, without exactly agreeing on what a “community” is, or what counts as “functioning,” we have to intellectually bargain our way to a functioning community.

Like how policies are unintelligible without the context they are conceived in, my particular political arguments lean heavily on my broader view of the nature of politics; this inaugural piece consequently has the unique (and cumbersome) purpose of laying out ex nihilo the foundations of my political thought. Its successors will engage with more specific and widely familiar topics, but this initial baptism in what might be deeply foreign thought is the mandatory first step. However, as you will learn should you bore yourself with my editorial series, authoritarianism and I find each other something loathsome. It would be wrong for me, then, to impress on you my own political conception as patent truth. Take it instead as a footsoldier in the army of idiosyncratic imaginations indigenous to any free society.

I understand politics broadly, as the causal principles that govern reality. I even contend that this is hardly a heterodox theory; I see it only as a generalization of the mainstream definition of politics, “who gets what, and why.” The conventional conceptions revolve around this distributive theme, conferring the “political” label on anything deciding resource assignment. But that perspective zooms in too far, cutting out the reason why distribution is political. It is that question that my own understanding answers.

When you see politics as the causal principles of reality, it places our intraspecies contensions in their appropriate theoretical context. Rather than a peculiar, fundamentally human activity, we can recognize politics as the pattern and grammar of reality across a slew of areas usually condemned to the apolitical.

Think of it like this: when Party A is more popular than Party B, it wins elections; when it wins elections, it implements its policies. Politics—as we commonly recognize it—is the causal language dictating our policy reality. Now take it a step back: when Organism A is more fit for its environment than Organism B, it is selected for; when it is selected for, it becomes the dominant species. The distinctions between this and the former case are so superficial it would be obscene to focus on those petty differences rather than the deep, categorical likeness. The most important information about the former solution is likewise the most important information about the latter: what results, and why? The supposed “distinctions” that make the former case “political” tell you nothing meaningful. Who cares what the parties are, or what policies they endorse? The substance resides entirely in the logic of why one party wins and what the reality it causes looks like; and this template is prominently at work anywhere you look, regardless of the relevance of human activity. Politics is the creation of reality. It is the logic of two molecules binding; the reason behind the engine of natural selection; the rationale of a gunfight. Who lives, who dies: what happens, what does not. In my eyes, politics is the umbrella over this panoply of caused events, a term silly on its face, but profound when you recognize what a marvel it is to change the state of reality. Have you ever heard a professor sermonize on how philosophy is the foundation of the intellectual sphere? (I have). Well in precisely the same way, politics is the foundation of the practical sphere. An astrophysicist cannot know the sun will rise tomorrow without a philosophical justification for empirical belief, and the sun will not rise tomorrow without a politics allowing it to. Using the common denominator of logical cause and effect, politics binds together superficially irreconcilable phenomena, which we arrogantly divide in some self-aggrandizing project to claim “the political” exclusively for human affairs.

But what does this tell us? What does my conception give that conventional distribution narratives deprive?

A recognition of what matters. And once you have that, you have the interpretive key to understand politics beyond facades of unsure norms and fragile narratives.

Entertain an analogy. Consider something commonly considered to be in the “political” realm, like the personal demeanor or policy aspirations of political leaders. These superficial traits are like the variables of an equation: though important, they are useless without understanding their relations to each other. If you had to choose which to know—the variables, or their operators, exponents, and so on—you would much prefer knowledge of the latter elements. At least if you understand the logic connecting the variables, you can see how they will scale with each other, or determine the shape of their curve. If you have the variables, and no connective logic, you would be up a creek with no paddle. Politics is that logic. It is the causation into which variables fit. Whether those variables concern states, firms, galaxies or curling teams, they are all members in the same category: causative determination of reality.

But what does this tell us about human politics? (I will concede that, despite its failure to contextualize human politics in the grand pattern of reality-determination, the distributional definition is excellent at catering to our interests).

I think it tells us something quite important: the politics of our “politics.” That is, it focuses us, clearing out superficial distractions so we can recognize the meaningful logic driving our own world.

So, allow us to make sense of our authentic politics.

It begins by recognizing that political processes, as logical causal processes, are governed by sets of rules. These rules can be arranged in hierarchies, such that one countermands another. Federal law, for instance, is generally unrestrained by state law. Rules need not be literal regulations, though; for instance, an appellate court can overturn the ruling of a district court. Here, the appellate court, though an actor rather than a literal law, is the superior rule. As a final nuance, the hierarchy among rules may be incomplete, or even contradictory. Perhaps all rules are equal, and none can override another, or perhaps they are intransitive. But for our purposes, only one rule matters: the one at the top, called the ultima ratio, which we’ll nickname the U.R. for short. It stands always in superposition to its counterparts. There is no rule which can defy it.

Conveniently, there is a consensus over what the U.R. is in our politics. Call it force, violence, coercion, or another moniker, so long as you respect the essential fact: that there is no higher appeal than physical authority. The presence of an U.R. changes the structure of political rules. When there is an unexceptional rule, which overrides all others, then all political behavior becomes rooted in the eventual exercise of the U.R. In this sense, the U.R. is foundational; it is the bedrock upon which the entire regime of political rules is constructed. Importantly, the share of activity which inferior rules comprise should never be taken to imply a superiority to the U.R. Consider how one must define an origin to make a physics problem intelligible. Without a point of reference, distance and movement have no practical meaning. Thus, though the “important” parts of physics, the parts that dominate our work with it, are conducted in terms of velocity, acceleration, jerk, snap, crackle, and pop (those are the real fourth, fifth, and sixth time-derivatives of position; and physicists call us the fake scientists), they all exist only in their relation to the rarely-used position value. When a U.R. exists, it creates much the same ecosystem amongst the political rules. With an absolute law present, all inferior rules become defined in relation to their ultimate superior; they literally become derivatives of the highest rule. 

Politics is the logic of reality, and the logic of our reality—no matter how many proxies we build—is violence. This is the ecosystem within which my thought exists, and which these editorials will explore: a world where politics is always, everywhere, inevitably, cruelly, the exercise of irrational violence.