Ist das richtig?

Es ist richtig, dass für die Demokratische Partei dieser Gegner, den man sozusagen auch verteufeln und zu Recht oder zu Unrecht als jemand bezeichnen kann, der die amerikanische Tradition bricht und autoritäre Regierungsformen eingeführt hat und ein hohes Maß an Korruption zu verantworten hat, natürlich eine ganz breite Koalition der Demokraten leichter gangbar und mobilisierbar macht.

Die Verschiebung hängt unter anderem damit zusammen, dass die republikanische Partei sich zunehmend politisch und weltanschaulich verengt hat auf einen sozusagen vornehmlich weißen, christlichen, konservativen Fundamentalismus.

Und dass die Demokratische Partei dadurch in der politischen Bandbreite enorm angewachsen ist, also etwa auf deutsche Verhältnisse übertragen, könnte man sagen, die Demokratische Partei deckt ein politisches Spektrum ab, das von der linken SPD über den Seeheimer Kreis, die Fundigrünen, die Realogrünen, die FDP bis hin in die rheinische CDU reicht.

Und das müssen sie dann multiplizieren mit 50 Bundesstaaten und der extremen Heterogenität der demokratischen Wählerinnen und Wähler, die nicht nur sozial, sondern auch von der ethischen Herkunft her aus ganz verschiedenen Bereichen der amerikanischen Gesellschaft kommen.

Was könnten sie denn damit politisch erreichen?

Im Senat ist es einfacher zu beantworten, wenn es dort eine demokratische, vielleicht eine deutliche demokratische Mehrheit gibt, bedeutet dies, dass alle Nominierungen des Präsidenten, das bedeutet Nominierungen für politische Regierungsämter, aber auch die Ernennung von Richtern blockiert werden können.

Im Abgeordnetenhaus ist es eher schwierig, weil die Gesetzgebungsagenda zum Erliegen kommen wird.

We have El Nino, we have the Strait of Hormuz, we have all of these things going on, the poly crisis that Evan mentioned at the beginning of this event.

Right.

Thank you for having me.

It's a great pleasure here.

And we work at the Council of Foreign Relations on that specific issue, on the weaponization of food and food as a geopolitical national security issue.

And this ties into what Maximo has just said.

He has mostly focused on the on the input side.

Where do you expect those new opportunities to come from? Who's going to take on this leadership? And maybe, Michael, you go first.

Are there other options for these countries that are feeling this hit the most to get their fertilizer or their energy for food production right now?

The problem is that the issues that we're talking about right now, they are limited to no really short-term fixes because I think countries will start to think about the diversification of import sources when it comes to food and fertilizer.

Uh, we need more regional coordination, specifically in Africa.

Uh, and there will be obviously more, uh, countries looking into the expansion of domestic agriculture to become more independent from these long-distance, uh, supply routes.

Um, and, uh, obviously in the medium term, sustainable fertilizer production that uses less energy and renewable energy investments will insulate the system, uh, in a, a much more consistent manner.

But none of these are short-term fixes.

Um, it is also important to recognize that, um, this creates tremendous vulnerabilities.

Have you seen any good models or examples of this kind of regional coordination that you're discussing that builds resiliency against these kind of food and fertilizer supply shocks?

What is the food context for this war?

Most of what we read in newspapers here in the United States, but also in Europe, is the question of the impact on gas prices.

And while those increased gas prices are a problem, they might also be relatively easy absorbed in highly mobile Western and wealthy societies.

But what happens as a parallel dimension of this war is a potential food crisis, which has different components.

And I would say the important thing here to understand is that the Gulf is a regular channel for crude oil, but also for food and crucial agricultural products, most of all fertilizers.

And there are different dimensions to this.

There are 60 million people in the region which are exposed to food shocks because of the interruptions in the supply chains.

So Michael, maybe you could say a little bit about the work that you did on the high-level working group for the MSC, because you've been working in this space to bring food security to the attention, not of people like Catherine, who's sort of been working in this space at a very high level for her entire career, But for maybe people in a more, I guess, traditionally national security sector who've sort of been called in to manage crises but haven't really been thinking about food first and foremost, could you tell us a little bit about that work?