Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, President Joe Biden has argued that aiding Ukraine in its war with one of America’s chief adversaries is a bargain enhancing U.S. national security.

And for over a year, to the tune of about $75 billion in military and economic assistance, the national security argument worked – both in public opinion and in Congress.

But no more.

As the war has hit a stalemate, U.S. support for continuing aid to Ukraine has dropped, particularly among Republicans in Congress. One factor in that falling support is that the national security argument appears to have lost its appeal as more Americans decide – as some recent opinion polls indicate – that aiding Ukraine has become too expensive for something they don’t see directly affecting them.

As Sen. James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, noted as he addressed continuing aid to Ukraine on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, “What you hear from so many people is, why would we deal with other people’s security and ignore American national security?”

Now Mr. Biden is trying to reestablish that link in the national perception between U.S. aid to Ukraine and national security as he prods Congress to approve about $60 billion in additional assistance for Ukraine.

For their part, Republicans are tying any approval of additional aid for Ukraine to tougher measures to secure the southern U.S. border – an issue they insist is much more important to average Americans.

Amid the political controversy, Mr. Biden has stepped up warnings that a failure to continue aiding Ukraine would hand Russian President Vladimir Putin a dangerous victory.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is escorted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (left) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, as he comes to the Capitol in Washington to issue a plea for Congress to break its deadlock and approve continued wartime funding for Ukraine.

“Putin is banking on the United States failing to deliver for Ukraine,” Mr. Biden said at the White House Tuesday. “We must, we must, we must prove him wrong.”

But he also invokes national security, arguing that a revanchist Russian leader – who happens to control the world’s largest nuclear arsenal – would not stop at Ukraine but would be emboldened to threaten America’s NATO allies, especially states of the former Soviet Union.

On Tuesday he invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the White House to help him make the national security case.

On his third trip to Washington since the war started, Mr. Zelenskyy invoked the memory of former President Ronald Reagan. In a speech Monday, he said it is now his country that is carrying on the fight for European freedom and democracy that Mr. Reagan successfully waged against the former Soviet Union.

“We can show our children, grandchildren what real confidence is, as was shown to us when in Berlin, the great words were spoken: ‘Tear down this wall,’” Mr. Zelenskyy said, citing Mr. Reagan’s 1987 speech. “We need no less confidence now than President Reagan had then.”

The debate over additional aid to Ukraine comes as surveys show an isolationist tug gaining ground in the U.S., one that argues for America to mind its own security while a wealthy Western Europe does more to defend itself. Indeed, one of former President Donald Trump’s draws among Republican voters considering the 2024 election is his call to reevaluate the U.S. role as leader of the NATO alliance.

But many diplomats and trans-Atlantic relations experts say Americans should think twice before concluding that Ukraine’s fight has nothing to do with them – or that a victory for Mr. Putin would not affect them.

Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana speaks to reporters following a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, at the Capitol in Washington.

“Right now the Ukrainians are holding the line against our chief adversary in Europe, and they are doing it with what amounts to about 5% of our defense spending and with no American boots on the ground,” says William Taylor, a former ambassador to Ukraine who is now vice president, Russia and Europe Center, at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington.

“But make no mistake, what President Putin aims to do is reassemble the Soviet Union,” he says.

“And if Ukraine is not successful and is absorbed into Russia,” he adds, “our NATO allies will become the front lines and come under threat – the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Latvians, the Romanians – and then it will be a battle with U.S. boots on the ground.”

Others argue that aid that might appear to be a handout to Ukraine is actually enhancing national security by creating thousands of defense sector jobs and strengthening the U.S. defense industry – which some claim had lost capacity over recent years to respond to multiplying military threats.

“If you look at what the U.S. has spent [on Ukraine], it’s about 50 cents a day per American ... but about half of that 50 cents a day has gone to the U.S. defense industry, creating tens of thousands of jobs,” says Matthew Schmidt, a political scientist with expertise in Russia and Ukraine at the University of New Haven in Connecticut.

“What that tells us is that the money we’re spending is benefiting Americans and Ukrainians economically,” he adds, “and it’s benefiting both Americans and Ukrainians in terms of national security.”

Perhaps most crucially, Professor Schmidt says, continued U.S. aid will “buy time” for Ukraine to hold off Russian advances, perhaps make some additional gains – in particular concerning Russian-occupied Crimea – and secure a stronger position for eventual negotiations.

Still, some say that beyond all of the practical reasons is an overarching argument for the aid based on the international values at stake.

“Yes, there is the national security rationale for aiding Ukraine. But beyond that is a moral argument,” says Ambassador Taylor, “which is that nations should not be able to invade their neighbor, commit atrocities there, and then not be held accountable for their actions.”

That argument is being put to the test in Russia’s war on Ukraine, he says.

“If Ukraine wins, there will be accountability. But if Russia wins,” he adds, “not only will there not be accountability, but autocratic nations around the world will see that you can invade your neighbor without accountability – and they will act on it.”

The world’s nations agreed on Wednesday to transition away from the fossil fuels that power their economies but are heating the planet to temperatures that imperil current and future generations.

The deal, reached at an annual United Nations climate conference, represents the first-ever agreement by all countries to move away from the burning of oil, gas, and coal.

It stopped short, however, of calling for the “phaseout” of carbon-based fuels that many climate scientists say is necessary and that dozens of countries had demanded during the COP28 talks held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

“Fossil fuels finally faced a reckoning at the UN climate negotiations after three decades of dodging the spotlight,” World Resources Institute President Ani Dasgupta said in a statement. “This historic outcome marks the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era.”

The final text called for “tripling renewable energy capacity globally” by 2030, doubling the pace of energy efficiency gains, and “accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power.” The reference to abatement – carbon capture technology that is nascent and not widely used – is a concession to fossil fuel producers who made their presence felt in Dubai, to the frustration of activists who questioned whether the hosts were on the side of climate science.

Whether COP28’s compromise agreement is sufficient to bend the curve in rising global emissions of greenhouse gases, which must fall substantially over the next few decades in order to limit temperature rises, is unclear. Countries recommitted in Dubai to the goal of a maximum warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050 over preindustrial levels. But after a year of record high temperatures, that goal still seems elusive, given current levels of oil and gas consumption. The world has warmed by about 1.3 degrees Celsius, or 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit, since the 1800s.

Peter Dejong/AP

Activists demonstrate against fossil fuels at the COP28 U.N. climate summit Dec. 12, 2023, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

In a social media post, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres took aim at oil-producing states that had resisted future limits. “To those who opposed a clear reference to phase out of fossil fuels during the #COP28 Climate Conference, I want to say: Whether you like it or not, fossil fuel phase out is inevitable,” Mr. Guterres said. “Let’s hope it doesn’t come too late.”

On Monday a draft text by the UAE was widely panned for a watered-down pledge to reduce fossil fuel production. Tense talks extended past a Tuesday noon deadline and stretched into Wednesday morning, as nations most vulnerable to climate change pushed for tougher language on fossil fuels, while oil-producing states led by Saudi Arabia held firm. The final declaration, which must be approved by all 198 countries and territories, commits parties to “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.”

But the negotiations led by Sultan al-Jaber, a top UAE oil executive, were criticized by some countries for excluding their voices. Anne Rasmussen, Samoan representative and lead negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States, said the COP28 presidency had approved the text before the group could coordinate its response. Ms. Rasmussen said in a statement that states would “return to their islands with the message that this process has failed us.” 

Show me the money

An immediate concern raised by activists and individual countries was over a lack of a formal commitment to providing financing for poor and developing countries for their transition to clean energy. At the start of the conference on Nov. 30, a fund was created to compensate vulnerable countries for “loss and damage” caused by climate change. That pledge is separate, however, from the trillions of dollars that must be mobilized for renewable energy systems, lest countries continue down the path of oil and gas extraction to provide for their populations.  

Amr Alfiky/Reuters

U.S. climate envoy John Kerry (center) attends a plenary session after a draft deal was released, at the United Nations climate conference in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Dec. 13, 2023.

Host country UAE highlighted splashy pledges and side events in which countries unveiled nonbinding promises. The next COP (Conference of Parties) summit, to be held in Azerbaijan, will focus more on financing for green energy and adaptation. But the mixed signal sent from Dubai about wealthy countries’ readiness to contribute more is a setback, say observers.

“These are the elements that create trust. And if you don’t have all of those elements you don’t have the full trust,” Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland who attended the talks, told BBC Radio 4 Wednesday.

The World Resources Institute and others estimate that in order to meet global emissions goals, the world needs $4.3 trillion a year in climate-related finance by 2030.

John Kerry, the U.S. climate envoy, hailed the Dubai agreement as a victory for multilateralism. “While nobody here will see their views completely reflected in a consensus document of so many nations, the fact is this document sends very strong messages to the world. ... People have taken individual interests and have attempted to define the common good.”

Amr Alfiky/Reuters

COP28 President Sultan al-Jaber, of the United Arab Emirates, applauds as he attends a plenary meeting after the draft of a negotiated deal was released in Dubai, Dec. 13, 2023.

Food and forestry pledges

The announcement of a climate loss and damage fund, following through on a hard-fought win for developing nations at the 2022 COP held in Egypt, made headlines at the start of the talks. Parties to the talks have pledged around $700 million to it. However, experts say hundreds of billions of dollars are required and that it’s unclear whether these pledges are for grants or loans – a critical difference for debt-laden developing countries. The United States pledged a little over $20 million to developing countries through the fund.  

“Having a formal loss and damage fund that is not only under the [U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change] and the Paris Agreement but also recognized as an operating entity has a certain weight and significance,” says Liane Schalatek, associate director of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, a German think tank, in Washington. “But how much will it turn out to be of financial significance really remains to be seen,” she says, noting that pledges may be repurposed funds.

Another innovation at this year’s COP was addressing the carbon footprint of the global food industry. A declaration committed 150 countries to set ambitious targets on food in their national climate plans, and to the “containing and reducing harmful impacts” of the agricultural and food sectors on the climate. Signatories account for 76% of food-based greenhouse gases.  

However, the final text from the conference failed to make any mention of reducing emissions from food production systems. The communiqué did call for halting and reversing deforestation and conserving biodiversity, though such promises have been made in past talks.

Speaking to reporters in Dubai after the agreement was announced, U.N. climate chief Simon Stiell put a positive spin on the outcome and what it means going forward. “This agreement is an ambitious floor, not a ceiling,” he said. “So, the crucial years ahead must keep ramping up ambition and climate action.”

From one end of the Gulf to the other, the frustration in Arab capitals is palpable.

The positive spirit of regional cooperation that reigned here only two months ago has been swamped by frustration with the United States. Washington may have recommitted to the Middle East, but it has proved unable or unwilling to end a war in Gaza that Gulf officials fear will destabilize the entire region.

Seeking to curb that war – now seen as potentially an existential threat – Gulf sheikhdoms are partnering with Egypt and Jordan to act as a united bloc, hoping their combined clout can bring an end to the conflict before it ignites a new wave of extremism and violence.

“We don’t want the moderate middle to fall,” says one Gulf diplomat. “This war does not only threaten all the progress we have made the past couple of years. It threatens to be another Iraq War and create a cycle of violence and instability that spreads across the region.”

“Think about what this will create in the age of social media,” Bahraini Crown Prince Salman warned recently, recalling how the U.S. invasion of Iraq paved the way for the rise of the Islamic State.

Hamad I Mohammed/Reuters

Bahraini Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa attends a security conference in Manama last month.

“I think we will be looking at a far more difficult next 20 years,” he told participants in an international security conference.

The war in Gaza has brought conflict back to a region where détente and cooperation had been taking hold.

Saudi Arabia and Iran recently sealed their rapprochement, Gulf states and Turkey resolved some of their differences, as did the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, amid a broader regional push for normalization with Israel.

Initially an inconvenience, the war is now being viewed by Gulf states as a security threat. They see the Israel-Hamas war undermining the very idea of moderation, bolstering Islamist extremists sympathetic to Hamas who advocate violence.

The longer the war drags out, they conclude, the higher the likelihood it could threaten Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and the Jordanian monarchy. Their collapse would be catastrophic, according to several senior Gulf officials.

Gulf rulers already feel overextended, propping up failed Arab states such as Sudan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen with diplomatic and financial aid. Jordan and Egypt, key Gulf allies, are among the last functioning non-Gulf Arab states.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani’s government has mediated hostage negotiations between Israel and Hamas.

A new bloc

Gulf states are also worried by the pressure the war is putting on Arab countries with ties with Israel, whose public opinion is demanding action.

Protests in Egypt, sometimes targeting President Sisi, have been growing; in Jordan, near-daily demonstrations have called for Jordan to scrap its peace treaty with Israel and close the Israeli Embassy in Amman.

In Bahrain, small-scale protests continue, while anti-Israel protests have sparked violent crackdowns by the authorities in Morocco.

In the absence of a clear American stand, Arab states have united into a bloc, coordinating their diplomatic efforts and coalescing around three “nos”: no forced transfer of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, no Arab troops in Gaza, and no Israeli reoccupation of the strip.

Several Arab officials described this cooperation as the closest coordination among Arab states on the Palestinian issue for generations.

Each country is playing to its relative strengths: Qatar retains diplomatic and communication channels with Hamas to broker cease-fire and hostages talks; the UAE retains ties with Israel; Jordan’s influence in the West Bank provides a diplomatic voice for the Palestinians; Egypt, which borders Gaza, is a corridor for humanitarian aid; and Saudi Arabia, which until the war broke out was on the brink of normalizing its relations with Israel, adds further weight.

The bloc has drawn up plans for the day-after in Gaza, including new Palestinian governance in Gaza to replace Hamas, and a Gulf-funded reconstruction plan worth billions of dollars.

Mohammed Salem/Reuters

Displaced Palestinians, who fled their houses due to Israeli strikes, stand next to a tent in southern Gaza.

Where’s China?

But their immediate concern is a cease-fire. The bloc has increased its collective diplomatic effort to pressure the Biden administration to call for a pause or end to the fighting.

A United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire, introduced by the UAE last Friday, prompted a predictable U.S. veto, which “made America take ownership for continuing the war,” as one Arab diplomat put it.

A follow-up, nonbinding General Assembly resolution calling for a cease-fire, introduced by Egypt on Tuesday, was passed overwhelmingly. The U.S. was one of only 10 countries to vote against it, adding to Washington’s isolation on the world stage.

“Voting against the resolution at the UNGA today amounts to condoning war crimes,” Ayman Safadi, the top Jordanian diplomat, said in a statement on X, formerly Twitter.

If the U.S.’s renewed interest in the Middle East has been insufficient to force a cease-fire, it has nonetheless posed a puzzle for Arab states.

Over the past four years, Gulf Arab states and their allies have built alliances and connections elsewhere, feeling that Washington’s pivot away from the Middle East, toward Asia, meant that it was no longer a reliable guarantor of their security.

Brendan McDermid/Reuters

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and United Nations chief António Guterres attend a Security Council meeting on the Israel-Hamas war.

Most recently, Gulf states have been advancing ties with China, seen as a rival to American influence in the region, and to Russia.

Yet since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, these new partners have been nowhere to be found. “Where is China?” wonders Abdulkhaleq Abdalla, who teaches politics at UAE University. “After all the talk of Chinese involvement in the region, where are the Chinese officials?”

Not a single high-level Chinese official has visited an Arab capital since Oct. 7; Russia, consumed by its war in Ukraine, has been largely absent.

In contrast, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Austin Lloyd, CIA Director William Burns, and White House Middle East point man Brett McGurk have been rotating in and out of Arab capitals since Oct. 7.

President Joe Biden’s military commitment to Israel and his rapid mobilization of warships to the region have once again reinforced America’s hegemonic position – and reignited Gulf states’ desire to secure written security pacts with the U.S.

One Saudi official, not authorized to speak to the press, described a “paradox.”

“America is the sole superpower with the ability to protect us from external threats,” he says.

“But what happens when the one power which can guarantee your security is not willing to do anything to stop a war that is threatening that?”

Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro this month ordered schools and government offices to use a redrawn map of the country, which includes a brand-new state – carved out of neighboring Guyana’s territory. The national oil company plans to hand out exploration licenses there, and the military is creating a division to administer the territory.

Guyana – and international courts – aren’t on board.

Venezuela and Guyana are at odds over the Essequibo, a sparsely populated patch of land that is covered by rainforests, flat-topped mountains, and sweeping savannas. It has belonged to Guyana since a 19th-century court ruling that never made Venezuela happy, but recently discovered oil reserves have reignited President Maduro’s interest in claiming control.

As concerns grow that Venezuela’s authoritarian government could attack its small neighbor over the intensifying land dispute, Presidents Maduro and Irfaan Ali of Guyana will meet in the Caribbean island of St. Vincent tomorrow to try to defuse tensions.

Despite sometimes violent conflicts erupting inside Latin American countries, cross-border attacks are a rarity here. “If a conflict of force emerges, the implications would be horrendous to contemplate,” said St. Vincent and the Grenadine’s Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves, who organized tomorrow’s meeting.

Mr. Maduro held a referendum vote on the Essequibo earlier this month, but observers say the dispute is about more than territorial expansion. Venezuela, which already has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, is preparing to hold its first internationally-monitored presidential election in 11 years, and Mr. Maduro faces the real prospect of losing to the opposition. 

The leader’s popularity has plummeted amid a protracted economic crisis, which has been worsened by U.S. sanctions on the nation’s oil exports. Some sanctions were eased recently under a deal in which Venezuela’s government promised to reinstate opposition candidates previously barred from participating in elections. 

“The real reason this has blown up now is because Maduro needs an issue that will unite Venezuelans around his government,” says Phil Gunson, a Caracas-based analyst for the International Crisis Group. “The opposition now has a very popular candidate … and Maduro needs to find a way to avoid losing power.”

While Mr. Maduro’s moves around the Essequibo have been “symbolic” so far, Mr. Gunson says the situation could escalate if Mr. Maduro continues to struggle domestically – possibly using the dispute as an excuse to delay or suspend the anticipated presidential vote.

Matias Delacroix/AP

Members of Venezuela’s Presidential Guard line up at a Caracas polling station on Dec. 3, 2023, to vote in a referendum about the future of a disputed territory in Guyana.

Unhappy since 1899

The Essequibo is roughly the size of Florida, with about 125,000 residents who are mostly members of Indigenous tribes. It makes up two-thirds of Guyana’s territory, is rich in rivers and gold deposits, and has become crucial for the economy since 2015, when vast oil reserves were found off its shores.

In 1899, when Guyana was a British colony, most of the territory was granted to the United Kingdom by an arbitration court in Paris.

Venezuela, which was then recovering from a series of debilitating civil wars, grudgingly accepted the ruling. Over the past 50 years Venezuela has challenged Guyana’s control over the Essequibo through diplomatic channels, occasionally using its navy to harass Guyanese fishing boats off the region’s shores. 

But Venezuela ramped up its claims on Dec. 3 with a referendum on the Essequibo’s future. 

Venezuelan voters were asked five questions, including whether they reject the 1899 court ruling, if they agree with the plan to turn the territory into a Venezuelan state, if the current residents should be granted Venezuelan citizenship, and if they agree with the Maduro administration’s decision to handle the dispute without the International Court of Justice’s involvement. The court had previously invited both countries to present their arguments at its headquarters in The Hague. 

The referendum was overwhelmingly approved – according to Venezuelan election officials, who say 10.4 million people participated. Officials have not shared data from voting centers.

Local media outlets showed empty polling stations and voting centers stayed open for an additional two hours in an effort to get more people to the polls. 

In the town of San Antonio del Táchira, near Venezuela’s border with Colombia, fruit vendor William González says he stayed home on referendum day, like most of his neighbors.

“They are trying to pave the way for an invasion, which regular citizens will ultimately have to pay” for, Mr. González says. “The matter should be settled in a court.”

Juan Manuel Trak, a Venezuelan sociologist who specializes in electoral processes, says that like recent elections in Venezuela – including the 2018 presidential vote – the referendum lacked independent or international observers. 

“There is no way to audit the results, so we may never really know what happened,” he says. 

Jacob Turcotte/Staff

Military threat?

The referendum provided Mr. Maduro with a way to “justify” his next steps, says Mr. Gunson.

Guyana is preparing for the worst.

The small English-speaking nation is seeking closer military cooperation with the U.S., which already began conducting air patrols over the Essequibo region this month.

President Ali has described Venezuela’s recent actions such as the referendum and public plans to create an Essequibo state as a “direct threat” to Guyana. 

With just 3,000 troops and four patrol boats known as “barracudas” to protect its coast, Guyana’s military is no match for Venezuela’s, which has 120,000 regular troops in addition to high-tech equipment and a submarine, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think tank.

But geography may be in Guyana’s favor. The lack of roads between Venezuela and the Essequibo would make it difficult for Venezuela to move many troops into Guyana, says Christopher Hernandez-Roy, deputy director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

Not to mention, Venezuela’s troops may not be as mighty as they look on paper. Mr. Hernandez-Roy points to an attempt two years ago by Venezuela to remove a Colombian rebel group from its territory. The Venezuelans were routed and suffered heavy casualties.

“This is not the kind of army that is prepared to invade another country,” Mr. Hernandez-Roy says. “The military has endemic corruption, and lacks a central command structure.”

There’s also the risk of angering left-wing presidents in nearby Colombia and Brazil, who currently have a favorable relationship with Venezuela, but would not approve of an invasion, says Brian Fonseca, a professor of national security at Florida International University.

The threat of escalation could depend on how desperate Mr. Maduro becomes in the face of internal challenges to his presidency. 

“When dictators are in hard spots, they sometimes do crazy things,” Mr. Hernandez-Roy says. “The international community needs to make sure that it sends a message to Maduro that any kind of armed action is unacceptable.”

Fiction

The Heaven & Earth Grocery Store, by James McBride

Chona Ludlow runs the local grocery in the Black and Jewish neighborhood of Chicken Hill with a fearless heart. When an attack at the store leads to an orphaned boy’s arrest, community members rally. This triumph from James McBride stresses the challenges of accessing America’s promises.

Stealing, by Margaret Verble

“I love my family, and I’m going to get to them as soon as I can,” promises Kit, a girl whose close ties to her mother’s Cherokee family are cut when she is dispatched to an abusive Christian boarding school in the 1950s. Kit chronicles the events leading to her removal from family, home, and community. Frank and fearless, the novel is a portrait of perseverance. 

Birnam Wood, by Eleanor Catton

In New Zealand, guerrilla gardeners cross paths with an American billionaire secretly up to no good. As the characters debate ideals, weigh choices, and battle their own and others’ egos, the tale gathers speed. Expertly crafted by Booker Prize-winning author Eleanor Catton, it’s a heart-pumping thriller that exposes the tragedy of selfishness.

The Berry Pickers, by Amanda Peters

After their youngest daughter, Ruthie, vanishes during a summer of berry-picking in Maine, a Micmac family from Nova Scotia struggles to move forward. Indigenous Voices Award winner Amanda Peters delivers an un-put-down-able novel of identity, forgiveness, and insistent hope.

The End of Drum-Time, by Hanna Pylväinen

When a charismatic Lutheran minister is sent to northern Scandinavia to convert the Indigenous population, both sides must deal with the consequences, especially when a tribal leader experiences a religious awakening. Set in the mid-19th century, Hanna Pylväinen’s tale offers fresh perspectives on family bonds, cultural traditions, and religious colonialism.

Earth’s the Right Place for Love, by Elizabeth Berg

In 1940s Missouri, timid Arthur Moses gleans sage advice from his confident older brother, Frank. As he waits for love, and deals with a family tragedy, Arthur turns to nature for solace. Gracefully, he grows into the man that readers admired in Elizabeth Berg’s “The Story of Arthur Truluv.”

Loot, by Tania James

Tania James’ dazzling, richly embroidered historical novel imagines the journey of a life-size automaton of a wooden tiger – and those connected with it – from late 18th century India to France and England over 65 years. “Loot” is about the spoils and displacements of colonialism and the quest for betterment, autonomy, and love. 

North Woods, by Daniel Mason

“North Woods” follows the story of a house in the woods of western Massachusetts and its occupants over four centuries. This dazzling novel intertwines the often tragically truncated lives of its characters and its wooded setting, all gorgeously captured in multiple literary styles, genres, and voices.

The Liberators, by E.J. Koh

Korean American memoirist and poet E.J. Koh’s exceptional debut novel is full of delicately crafted snapshots of Korean history and the Korean diaspora. Spanning four generations, this epic embraces themes of colonization and loss.

The Museum of Failures, by Thrity Umrigar

While caring for his estranged mother in a Bombay hospital, Remy Wadia uncovers family secrets. Thrity Umrigar’s evocative novel explores the personal, political, and cultural reckonings of an immigrant son discovering compassion and forgiveness. 

The First Ladies, by Marie Benedict and Victoria Christopher Murray

The friendship between first lady Eleanor Roosevelt and civil rights activist Mary McLeod Bethune enriched both women, whose efforts set the stage for the modern Civil Rights Movement. The novel captures their invincibility and conviction.

Orbital, by Samantha Harvey

In a space station high above Earth, an international crew of six astronauts circles the planet – 16 times in a 24-hour span – ticking off tasks, eating meals from pouches, and hanging “like bats in their quarters.” Samantha Harvey’s hushed, perfect novel, her fifth, transports. “The earth feels – not small,” muses the narrator, “but almost endlessly connected, an epic poem of flowing verses.”

The General and Julia, by Jon Clinch

The general at the helm of Jon Clinch’s affecting novel is none other than Ulysses S. Grant; Julia is the practical, perceptive young woman he marries. As the story shifts between Grant’s arduous final days penning his memoirs and scenes from his life as war hero and president, a portrait emerges of realization, regret, and newfound humility.

Nonfiction

Preparing for War, by Bradley Onishi

A religion scholar and former evangelical youth minister looks at evangelical Christianity in the United States and the movement’s increasing involvement with political extremism. The author argues that the Jan. 6 insurrection was not an aberration but the logical outcome of the melding of politics and white Christian nationalism. 

King: A Life, by Jonathan Eig

This major biography of Martin Luther King Jr. benefits from a trove of newly available sources, from declassified FBI files to recently discovered audiotapes recorded by King’s widow, Coretta Scott King. In elegant prose, Eig presents King in full, capturing both the heroism and the frailties of the civil rights icon.

Poverty, by America, by Matthew Desmond

Matthew Desmond’s follow-up to his Pulitzer Prize-winning “Evicted” is a stirring study of why the United States, the world’s richest country, has the most poverty of any advanced democracy. He offers solutions by focusing not only on poor people but also on wealthy people and the middle class, who he says unwittingly benefit from the current system.

The Wounded World, by Chad Williams

This compelling nonfiction book traces civil rights leader and scholar W.E.B. Du Bois’ decades of reckoning with World War I. Du Bois at first encouraged Black men to enlist, believing that their sacrifices overseas would lead to equality at home, but was disillusioned when racist violence escalated after the war.

How To Say Babylon, by Safiya Sinclair

Acclaimed poet Safiya Sinclair’s searing and lyrical memoir describes her upbringing in Jamaica in a strict Rastafarian household ruled by her autocratic father. As his dreams of reggae stardom wither, he becomes increasingly rigid and violent; through poetry, she imagines a different life for herself.

Kennan: A Life Between Worlds, by Frank Costigliola

George F. Kennan played a central role in 20th-century American foreign policy and is regarded as the architect of the containment strategy that guided America’s approach to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But Kennan believed that his ideas had been badly misinterpreted. As the book makes clear, while he was certainly brilliant, he was also a complex and often troubled man.

The Red Hotel, by Alan Philps

Shortly after the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, a small group of Anglo-American reporters traveled to Moscow to cover the conflict. Assigned to live and work in the legendary Metropol Hotel, they found their movements curtailed and their efforts thwarted by Soviet officials. A fascinating, insightful, and disturbing portrait of Western reporters working in a police state and how the experience changed their lives.

Necessary Trouble, by Drew Gilpin Faust

Drew Gilpin Faust is an acclaimed Civil War historian and the first woman to serve as president of Harvard University. Her memoir is both a moving personal narrative and an enlightening account of the transformative political and social forces that impacted her as she came of age as a privileged white girl in segregated Virginia.

Gator Country, by Rebecca Renner

Florida native Rebecca Renner delivers an engrossing account of wildlife officer Jeff Babauta’s two-year stint as an undercover agent for Operation Alligator Thief. The sting led to the arrest of 11 alligator poachers in the Everglades in a single day. Renner blends fine storytelling with Florida history, local lore, nature writing, and personal anecdotes.

The Exceptions, by Kate Zernike

Kate Zernike’s gripping and galvanizing account charts molecular biologist Nancy Hopkins’ struggle for equal treatment as one of the few women scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The story takes an inspirational turn when Hopkins teams up with her female colleagues in the mid-1990s. Together, they convince the university to acknowledge and correct its long-standing gender bias.

The Cost of Free Land, by Rebecca Clarren

Rebecca Clarren’s Jewish family benefited from U.S. government policies in the early 1900s that encouraged hundreds of thousands of people of European ancestry to move west and claim Native American land. Her book grew from a desire to understand, and possibly redress, the role her family played – directly and indirectly – in the denial of land rights to Native Americans.

Reuters/Pascal Rossignol

Migrants crossing the English Channel from the coast of northern France, on Oct. 2, 2023.

South Africa’s ruling African National Congress has posted a spotty record during its three decades in power. Yesterday it received sharp notice from the country’s highest bench that the challenges of governing are no excuse for suspending individual rights and the rule of law.

In a unanimous decision, the Constitutional Court struck down recent amendments to the nation’s refugee law that revoke legal protections for asylum-seekers if they failed to renew their visas before they expire. The government argued it needed the measures to process more asylum applications efficiently and clear a long backlog. The justices disagreed.

“Bureaucratic circumstances” that “infringe the right to dignity [or] unjustifiably limit the rights of children” violate international laws embedded in South Africa’s Constitution, they argued.

Ordinary South Africans are likely to find that message reassuring. They are weary of corruption, joblessness, constant electricity cuts, and crime. On the eve of an election year, three recent polls showed the African National Congress heading toward defeat for the first time since 1994.

But the court’s decision has a broader resonance, too, at a time when some of the world’s most established democracies are grappling with similar issues of immigration and international law. The Geneva Conventions require nations to uphold the dignity of individuals fleeing danger in their own countries. They prohibit discrimination or forced return. All signatory nations are required to uphold them.

The rising tide of migrants globally, however, is straining that commitment. In Britain, the Supreme Court ruled last month that a proposal to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda violates international law because the government would not be able to guarantee the safety of those expelled. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak narrowly averted a revolt within his own party yesterday over revisions he proposed to satisfy the justices.

Simultaneously, the French Parliament yesterday rejected immigration reforms sought by President Emmanuel Macron. Among its provisions, the bill would lift a ban on expelling migrants who arrived in France as children and make it easier to deport foreigners suspected of being criminals. In the United States, meanwhile, House Republicans have tied further military aid for Ukraine to tighter asylum rules and security measures along the southern border.

Amid these challenges, the court rulings in South Africa and Britain have challenged the notion that abiding by international law is a burden. And Claire Hédon, France’s defender of rights, argues that protecting rights for refugees is in fact vital to public stability.

“A balance must be struck between, on the one hand, the sovereign right of states to decide on rules governing entry and residence on their territory, taking into account the imperative of safeguarding public order, and, on the other hand, the necessary protection of fundamental rights,” she wrote today in Le Monde. That balance rests on “essential legal principles, particularly the principles of dignity and equality.”

In South Africa, acting Judge Ashton Schippers wrote, the Constitution “asserts dignity ‘to invest in our democracy respect for the intrinsic worth of all human beings.’” The court’s ruling has set defense of innocent life as a starting point for renewing confidence in government.