foreignpolicy--2020-01-27--WHO Chief Arrives in China Amid Growing Virus Fears

Here is today ’ s Foreign Policy brief : The head of the World Health Organization arrives in China as fears over the Wuhan virus rise , Israeli leaders head to the White House to discuss Trump ’ s Middle East peace plan , and what to watch in the world this week .
We welcome your feedback at morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .
Chinese official figures on the Wuhan virus keep rising : On Monday , 2,744 cases had been confirmed and the death toll had risen to 80—with all but four in Hubei province .
Major cities there including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts have called the effectiveness of the quarantines into question—particularly if the virus is carried by people without symptoms .
There is still limited information about how easily it spreads , and it is difficult to recognize , as Annie Sparrow reports for FP .
The head of the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , is in Beijing , where he is expected to meet Chinese officials and medical experts about the response to the outbreak .
The WHO has not yet declared the Wuhan virus a global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entering a more serious and complex period , ” said Ma Xiaowei , the director of China ’ s National Health Commission .
“ It looks like it will continue for some time , and the number of cases may increase.
” Hong Kong takes action .
There are six confirmed and 77 suspected cases of the Wuhan virus in Hong Kong , which has so far refused to block travel from mainland China in general .
On Sunday , authorities did ban residents of Hubei province from entering the city .
Hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans to convert an empty apartment building into a temporary quarantine zone , blocking roads and throwing Molotov cocktails .
What ’ s next ?
The confirmed numbers could represent just a fraction of the total number of cases : The virus has a long incubation period , and hundreds of thousands of people left Wuhan before Lunar New Year , as FP ’ s James Palmer explains .
Still , there is not cause for global panic : “ The coronavirus is highly worrying , but so far it lacks the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low—experts believe—mortality rate , ” he writes .
Trump hosts Netanyahu and Gantz .
Today U.S. President Donald Trump is scheduled for back-to-back meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition leader Benny Gantz at the White House .
There , U.S. officials are expected to release details of Trump ’ s delayed Middle East peace plan , though it is unclear when the plan will be made public .
Trump meets Netanyahu first and Gantz second , and on Tuesday he will deliver joint remarks with Netanyahu .
The meetings come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in which Netanyahu will face off against Gantz , again .
Italy ’ s Salvini loses key local election .
Exit polls in Italy ’ s Emilia-Romagna regional election on Sunday showed the left-wing Democratic party ahead of a right-wing coalition led by Matteo Salvini ’ s League party .
The apparent loss foils Salvini ’ s plan to push the left-leaning region to the right , which could have triggered a political crisis at the national level .
After a significant campaign that saw Salvini challenged by the grassroots Sardines protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much higher than in the region ’ s last vote .
Salvini is broadly popular across Italy , but he has struggled to mount a comeback after backing out of the coalition government in August .
Travel ban expansion expected today .
The Trump administration ’ s travel ban could be expanded today to include seven countries : Belarus , Eritrea , Kyrgyzstan , Myanmar , Nigeria , Sudan , and Tanzania .
( It remains unclear if the ban will apply to all U.S .
visas . )
Meanwhile , the 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muslim-majority countries , heads to a federal appeals court in Richmond on Tuesday .
The court will consider three lawsuits filed by U.S. citizens or permanent residents whose family members have been stopped from entering the United States .
The Trump administration has asked the court to dismiss the suits .
Bolton ’ s book and Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
Impeachment proceedings continue this week in the Senate , with the president ’ s lawyers wrapping up their defense by Tuesday .
Once the opening arguments are completed , senators will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions—in writing .
Debate over whether the Senate should subpoena witnesses or documents is expected to start on Friday .
Portions of former National Security Advisor John Bolton ’ s draft book manuscript—circulated among various associates who described the draft to the New York Times—could throw a wrench in Republicans ’ plans for a quick trial .
Bolton ’ s book reportedly describes Trump ’ s decision to withhold aid to Ukraine in detail and reveals the involvement of other top officials , including Attorney General William Barr and Secretary of State Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trial would extend into next month .
World leaders meet in Poland today to mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp , with ceremonies held there .
More than a dozen heads of state will be in attendance—fewer than traveled to another event held in Jerusalem last week .
Polish President Andrzej Duda was absent at the Israeli memorial , due to an ongoing feud with Russia over World War II history .
The U.K.-EU withdrawal agreement is up for a final vote in the European Parliament @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass the deal put forward by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson ’ s government .
The vote comes just ahead of the Brexit deadline on Friday , with Britain leaving the EU at midnight central European time .
( It will remain in the EU ’ s single market and customs union until the end of the year . )
The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank meets this week , holding a press conference on Wednesday .
Expect interest rates to hold steady : Though Trump has pushed for negative interest rates , notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest that officials are concerned doing so could disrupt the U.S. financial system .
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo travels to Ukraine on Thursday and will meet President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv on Friday , as well as other top officials .
The visit , which coincides with Trump ’ s impeachment trial , is intended to show that the United States stands by Ukraine .
It comes at an awkward time for Pompeo , who over the weekend publicized an angry letter accusing an NPR journalist of violating an agreement over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being able to find Ukraine on a map .
NPR has responded by publicizing emails that contradict Pompeo ’ s account .
Unrest in Iraq .
Anti-government unrest continues in Baghdad , where security forces killed at least one protester on Sunday and set protesters ’ tents on fire .
The demonstrations began in October but have accelerated again since the U.S. assassination of Iranian military commander Qassem Suleimani in Baghdad .
Demonstrators are demanding that the entire government step down .
Nearly 500 people have been killed during the protests so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peru ’ s voters elected a split Congress on Sunday , with a center-right party winning the most seats : just 24 out of 130 .
The election means the right-wing Popular Force party led by Keiko Fujimori , the daughter of a former president , has lost the legislature .
Still , the new Congress will be replaced next year , when Peruvians return to the polls to elect a five-year legislature and a new president .
The Trump administration has made it prohibitively difficult for Afghans to seek asylum in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. military in the field .
Many are waiting for resettlement in Turkey , where they are only granted temporary protection .
Moreover , Turkish authorities are increasingly detaining and deporting Afghan refugees , with some now unable to even register for temporary protected status , Umar Farooq reports for FP from Van , Turkey .
FP Conference Call—Please join us for a timely FP Insider conference call today at 11 a.m. EST on the Wuhan coronavirus .
What can be done to stop the epidemic ?
What are the business and political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay safe ?
FP managing editor Ravi Agrawal and expert guests Laurie Garrett , Pulitzer Prize-winning FP science columnist , and James Palmer , FP senior editor and China Brief newsletter writer , will give answers and take your questions .
Reserve your spot now .
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un ’ s aunt , Kim Kyong Hui , has been seen in public for the first time since her husband was executed for treachery in 2013 .
She was pictured seated next to Kim Jong Un at a Lunar New Year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the sister of former leader Kim Jong Il , was widely assumed to be exiled or executed .
( Such reports about North Korea are often unconfirmed , as FP ’ s Robbie Gramer reported earlier this year . )
For more from FP , visit foreignpolicy.com , subscribe here , or sign up for our other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments , questions , or corrections to morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .

Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: The head of the World Health Organization arrives in China as fears over the Wuhan virus rise, Israeli leaders head to the White House to discuss Trump’s Middle East peace plan , and what to watch in the world this week .
Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: The head of the World Health Organization arrives in China as fears over the Wuhan virus rise, Israeli leaders head to the White House to discuss Trump’s Middle East peace plan, and what to watch in the world this week.
If you would like to receive Morning Brief in your inbox every weekday, please sign up here.
How Will the World Respond to the Wuhan Virus?
Chinese official figures on the Wuhan virus keep rising: On Monday, 2,744 cases had been confirmed and the death toll had risen to 80—with all but four in Hubei province. Major cities there including Wuhan remain on lockdown, though some experts have called the effectiveness of the quarantines into question—particularly if the virus is carried by people without symptoms. There is still limited information about how easily it spreads, and it is difficult to recognize, as Annie Sparrow reports for FP.
The head of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, is in Beijing, where he is expected to meet Chinese officials and medical experts about the response to the outbreak. The WHO has not yet declared the Wuhan virus a global emergency. “The epidemic is now entering a more serious and complex period,” said Ma Xiaowei, the director of China’s National Health Commission. “It looks like it will continue for some time, and the number of cases may increase.”
Hong Kong takes action. There are six confirmed and 77 suspected cases of the Wuhan virus in Hong Kong, which has so far refused to block travel from mainland China in general. On Sunday, authorities did ban residents of Hubei province from entering the city. Hundreds of citizens protested the city’s plans to convert an empty apartment building into a temporary quarantine zone, blocking roads and throwing Molotov cocktails.
What’s next? The confirmed numbers could represent just a fraction of the total number of cases: The virus has a long incubation period, and hundreds of thousands of people left Wuhan before Lunar New Year, as FP’s James Palmer explains. Still, there is not cause for global panic: “The coronavirus is highly worrying, but so far it lacks the pandemic properties of influenza and has a relatively low—experts believe—mortality rate,” he writes.
What We’re Following Today
Trump hosts Netanyahu and Gantz. Today U.S. President Donald Trump is scheduled for back-to-back meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition leader Benny Gantz at the White House. There, U.S. officials are expected to release details of Trump’s delayed Middle East peace plan, though it is unclear when the plan will be made public. Trump meets Netanyahu first and Gantz second, and on Tuesday he will deliver joint remarks with Netanyahu. The meetings come ahead of Israel’s March election, in which Netanyahu will face off against Gantz, again.
Italy’s Salvini loses key local election. Exit polls in Italy’s Emilia-Romagna regional election on Sunday showed the left-wing Democratic party ahead of a right-wing coalition led by Matteo Salvini’s League party. The apparent loss foils Salvini’s plan to push the left-leaning region to the right, which could have triggered a political crisis at the national level. After a significant campaign that saw Salvini challenged by the grassroots Sardines protest movement, turnout in the election was much higher than in the region’s last vote. Salvini is broadly popular across Italy, but he has struggled to mount a comeback after backing out of the coalition government in August.
Travel ban expansion expected today. The Trump administration’s travel ban could be expanded today to include seven countries: Belarus, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. (It remains unclear if the ban will apply to all U.S. visas.) Meanwhile, the 2017 travel ban, which applied mainly to Muslim-majority countries, heads to a federal appeals court in Richmond on Tuesday. The court will consider three lawsuits filed by U.S. citizens or permanent residents whose family members have been stopped from entering the United States. The Trump administration has asked the court to dismiss the suits.
The World This Week
Bolton’s book and Trump’s impeachment trial. Impeachment proceedings continue this week in the Senate, with the president’s lawyers wrapping up their defense by Tuesday. Once the opening arguments are completed, senators will have up to 16 hours to ask questions—in writing. Debate over whether the Senate should subpoena witnesses or documents is expected to start on Friday.
Portions of former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s draft book manuscript—circulated among various associates who described the draft to the New York Times—could throw a wrench in Republicans’ plans for a quick trial. Bolton’s book reportedly describes Trump’s decision to withhold aid to Ukraine in detail and reveals the involvement of other top officials, including Attorney General William Barr and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. If witnesses are called, the trial would extend into next month.
World leaders meet in Poland today to mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp, with ceremonies held there. More than a dozen heads of state will be in attendance—fewer than traveled to another event held in Jerusalem last week. Polish President Andrzej Duda was absent at the Israeli memorial, due to an ongoing feud with Russia over World War II history.
The U.K.-EU withdrawal agreement is up for a final vote in the European Parliament on Wednesday, with lawmakers expected to pass the deal put forward by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government. The vote comes just ahead of the Brexit deadline on Friday, with Britain leaving the EU at midnight central European time. (It will remain in the EU’s single market and customs union until the end of the year.)
The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank meets this week, holding a press conference on Wednesday. Expect interest rates to hold steady: Though Trump has pushed for negative interest rates, notes from the Fed’s October meeting suggest that officials are concerned doing so could disrupt the U.S. financial system.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo travels to Ukraine on Thursday and will meet President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv on Friday, as well as other top officials. The visit, which coincides with Trump’s impeachment trial, is intended to show that the United States stands by Ukraine. It comes at an awkward time for Pompeo, who over the weekend publicized an angry letter accusing an NPR journalist of violating an agreement over the terms of an interview and not being able to find Ukraine on a map. NPR has responded by publicizing emails that contradict Pompeo’s account.
Keep an Eye On
Unrest in Iraq. Anti-government unrest continues in Baghdad, where security forces killed at least one protester on Sunday and set protesters’ tents on fire. The demonstrations began in October but have accelerated again since the U.S. assassination of Iranian military commander Qassem Suleimani in Baghdad. Demonstrators are demanding that the entire government step down. Nearly 500 people have been killed during the protests so far.
Peru’s new legislature. Peru’s voters elected a split Congress on Sunday, with a center-right party winning the most seats: just 24 out of 130. The election means the right-wing Popular Force party led by Keiko Fujimori, the daughter of a former president, has lost the legislature. Still, the new Congress will be replaced next year, when Peruvians return to the polls to elect a five-year legislature and a new president.
Afghan Refugees Are Stuck in Turkey
Qadir, a refugee from Afghanistan who didn’t want to use his real name, looks out the window of the apartment where he lives with his family in Van, Turkey, on March 3, 2019.
The Trump administration has made it prohibitively difficult for Afghans to seek asylum in the United States—even those who worked with the U.S. military in the field. Many are waiting for resettlement in Turkey, where they are only granted temporary protection. Moreover, Turkish authorities are increasingly detaining and deporting Afghan refugees, with some now unable to even register for temporary protected status, Umar Farooq reports for FP from Van, Turkey.
FP Conference Call—Please join us for a timely FP Insider conference call today at 11 a.m. EST on the Wuhan coronavirus. What can be done to stop the epidemic? What are the business and political impacts? And how can regular people stay safe? FP managing editor Ravi Agrawal and expert guests Laurie Garrett, Pulitzer Prize-winning FP science columnist, and James Palmer, FP senior editor and China Brief newsletter writer, will give answers and take your questions. Reserve your spot now.
Odds and Ends
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s aunt, Kim Kyong Hui, has been seen in public for the first time since her husband was executed for treachery in 2013. She was pictured seated next to Kim Jong Un at a Lunar New Year celebration on Sunday. Kim Kyong Hui, the sister of former leader Kim Jong Il, was widely assumed to be exiled or executed. (Such reports about North Korea are often unconfirmed, as FP’s Robbie Gramer reported earlier this year.)
That’s it for today.
For more from FP, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to morningbrief@foreignpolicy.com.


foreignpolicy--2020-01-27--Don’t Blame Bat Soup for the Wuhan Virus

As news of the Wuhan virus spread online , one video became emblematic of its claimed origin : It showed a young Chinese woman , supposedly in Wuhan , biting into a virtually whole bat as she held the creature up with chopsticks .
Media outlets from the Daily Mail to RT promoted the video , as did a number of prominent extremist bloggers such as Paul Joseph Watson .
Thousands of Twitter users blamed supposedly “ dirty ” Chinese eating habits—in particular the consumption of wildlife—for the outbreak , said to have begun at a so-called wet market that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There was just one problem .
The video wasn ’ t set in Wuhan at all , where bat isn ’ t a delicacy .
It wasn ’ t even from China .
Instead it showed Wang Mengyun , the host of an online travel show , eating a dish in Palau , a Pacific island nation .
Sampling the bat was simply an addition to the well-trodden cannon of adventurism and enthusiasm for unusual foods that numerous American chefs and travel hosts have shown in the past .
At a time of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Palau video has been deployed in the United States and Europe to renew an old narrative about the supposedly disgusting eating habits of foreigners , especially Asians .
Images of Chinese people or other Asians eating insects , snakes , or mice frequently circulate on social media or in clickbait news stories .
This time , that was mixed with another old racist idea : that the “ dirty ” Chinese are carriers of disease .
Many Americans long believed that , as the New York Daily Tribune wrote in 1854 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , filthy beyond all conception.
” Today , those same ideas have often been transferred to other groups such as South American refugees , yet they still persist in the way some Westerners think about China .
These prejudices can fuel fear and racism .
As the Wuhan virus spreads , the Chinese as a group are more and more likely to be blamed for its incubation and spread .
In countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia , where there are already clashes around ethnic Chinese , those sentiments could turn nasty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration , it could fuel both government and public prejudices .
To be sure , the treatment of wildlife may be at the root of the virus .
Wet markets where live animals are sold , mostly for food or medicine , still exist in most Chinese cities , and the Huanan Seafood Market was originally believed to be the source of this outbreak .
The Chinese government has banned the wildlife trade until the epidemic is over .
But as it turns out , the market may not have been the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A new study shows that the early known victims had no contact with the market .
And although the virus , at present , does seem to have originated in bats , it ’ s unclear how it made its way to humans .
It ’ s quite likely no chowing down on the creatures of the night was involved .
Many Chinese people certainly like tucking into dishes Americans would consider unusual , though a lot of this is confined to very high-end or weirdly macho audiences , such as Beijing ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what animals we do and don ’ t eat are culturally arbitrary .
Vegetarianism is morally consistent , but deploring the eating of dogs while tucking into companionable and intelligent pigs isn ’ t .
( I myself have eaten many things others might find gross : dog soup , insects , Chicago deep-dish pizza . )
And it goes both ways : A lot of East Asians , for instance , find the taste of lamb disgusting .
The range of tastes inside China is as great as it is outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything with four legs save the table and everything that flies but the airplane ” is a standing joke in the rest of the country .
And when it comes to disease , it ’ s not what ’ s being eaten that matters as much as the conditions—such as the standards workers are trained to meet , the lack of barriers at markets , and the absence or bribing of regulators and health inspectors .
The H1N1 virus , after all , started not in any uncommon species , but in pigs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really does have issues .
The country ’ s food safety standards are notoriously bad , despite numerous government-led initiatives to improve them .
Food scandals are common , and diarrhea and food poisoning are a distressingly regular experience .
Markets , like Huanan , that aren ’ t licensed for live species nevertheless sell them .
Workers are undertrained in basic hygiene techniques like glove-wearing and hand-washing .
Dangerous additives are commonly used to increase production .
China ’ s conditions are not unique .
It looks , in fact , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past , before muckraking exposés led to the creation of modern regulation systems .
Even today , the United States can lag behind best practices on such issues as antibiotics in feed , cattle slaughter , or poultry washing .
And , as with the American public of the 1900s , the Chinese citizenry badly wants change .
Seventy-seven percent of the public ranks food safety as their single biggest concern .
As with so much else in China , politics gets in the way of sensible policy .
Exposés of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States have a hard time finding traction in China ’ s censorious media environment , where the interests of billion-dollar corporations and their party backers often override those of the public .
When the author Zhou Qing wrote a groundbreaking exposé , What Kind of God , on the Chinese food industry in 2006 , two-thirds of the book was removed before publication and its success eventually forced him into political exile .
Part of China ’ s problem can be attributed to the power of traditional Chinese medicine , which is responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many wild animals in China are killed not for culinary reasons but for essentially magical ones .
Whether it ’ s tiger paws or pangolin scales , quack cures persist on a vast scale—even in cases like bear bile where a real active ingredient existed , has been discovered , and can be produced in labs without animal cruelty .
The government has been heavily promoting traditional Chinese medicine , especially under President Xi Jinping ’ s new nationalism , and while officially pharmaceutical companies following this model eschew the wildlife trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helps ensure belief survives .
If the fallout from the Wuhan outbreak changes anything for the better , it may be that it gives a vital push to reform and more teeth to regulation .
But as with so many past disasters in China , it could also mean a brief period of change before profits and power take precedence once again .
Whatever happens , amid the current moment of fear and panic , support for the Chinese public will make a bigger difference than culinary judgments or racism .

As news of the novel coronavirus spread online, one video became emblematic of its claimed origin: It showed a young Chinese woman , supposedly in Wuhan, biting into a virtually whole bat as she held the creature up with chopsticks. Media outlets from the Daily Mail to RT promoted the video, as did a number of prominent extremist bloggers such as Paul Joseph Watson . Thousands of Twitter users blamed supposedly “dirty” Chinese eating habits—in particular the consumption of wildlife—for the outbreak, said to have begun at a so-called wet market that sold animals in Wuhan, China.
As news of the novel coronavirus spread online, one video became emblematic of its claimed origin: It showed a young Chinese woman, supposedly in Wuhan, biting into a virtually whole bat as she held the creature up with chopsticks. Media outlets from the Daily Mail to RT promoted the video, as did a number of prominent extremist bloggers such as Paul Joseph Watson. Thousands of Twitter users blamed supposedly “dirty” Chinese eating habits—in particular the consumption of wildlife—for the outbreak, said to have begun at a so-called wet market that sold animals in Wuhan, China.
There was just one problem. The video wasn’t set in Wuhan at all, where bat isn’t a delicacy. It wasn’t even from China. Instead it showed Wang Mengyun, the host of an online travel show, eating a dish in Palau, a Pacific island nation. Sampling the bat was simply an addition to the well-trodden cannon of adventurism and enthusiasm for unusual foods that numerous American chefs and travel hosts have shown in the past.
At a time of heightened fear over a viral pandemic, the Palau video has been deployed in the United States and Europe to renew an old narrative about the supposedly disgusting eating habits of foreigners, especially Asians. Images of Chinese people or other Asians eating insects, snakes, or mice frequently circulate on social media or in clickbait news stories. This time, that was mixed with another old racist idea: that the “dirty” Chinese are carriers of disease. Many Americans long believed that, as the New York Daily Tribune wrote in 1854, Chinese people were “uncivilized, unclean, filthy beyond all conception.” Today, those same ideas have often been transferred to other groups such as South American refugees, yet they still persist in the way some Westerners think about China.
At a time of heightened fear over a viral pandemic, the Palau video has been deployed in the United States and Europe to renew an old narrative about the supposedly disgusting eating habits of foreigners, especially Asians.
These prejudices can fuel fear and racism. As the virus spreads, the Chinese as a group are more and more likely to be blamed for its incubation and spread. In countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, where there are already clashes around ethnic Chinese, those sentiments could turn nasty. In the West, especially under the Trump administration, it could fuel both government and public prejudices.
To be sure, the treatment of wildlife may be at the root of the virus. Wet markets where live animals are sold, mostly for food or medicine, still exist in most Chinese cities, and the Huanan Seafood Market was originally believed to be the source of this outbreak. The Chinese government has banned the wildlife trade until the epidemic is over.
But as it turns out, the market may not have been the cause of the outbreak at all. A new study shows that the early known victims had no contact with the market. And although the virus, at present, does seem to have originated in bats, it’s unclear how it made its way to humans. It’s quite likely no chowing down on the creatures of the night was involved.
Many Chinese people certainly like tucking into dishes Americans would consider unusual, though a lot of this is confined to very high-end or weirdly macho audiences, such as Beijing’s penis restaurant. But the standards of what animals we do and don’t eat are culturally arbitrary. Vegetarianism is morally consistent, but deploring the eating of dogs while tucking into companionable and intelligent pigs isn’t. (I myself have eaten many things others might find gross: dog soup, insects, Chicago deep-dish pizza.) And it goes both ways: A lot of East Asians, for instance, find the taste of lamb disgusting. The range of tastes inside China is as great as it is outside; the Cantonese habit of eating “everything with four legs save the table and everything that flies but the airplane” is a standing joke in the rest of the country.
Get the latest coronavirus epidemic coverage from Foreign Policy in your inbox. Sign up now to receive Editors' Picks, a curated selection of FP's must-read stories. Delivered daily. Enter your email By signing up, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to occasionally receive special offers from Foreign Policy. By signing up, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to occasionally receive special offers from Foreign Policy. Sign Up ✓ Signed Up
And when it comes to disease, it’s not what’s being eaten that matters as much as the conditions—such as the standards workers are trained to meet, the lack of barriers at markets, and the absence or bribing of regulators and health inspectors. The H1N1 virus, after all, started not in any uncommon species, but in pigs.
And that’s where China really does have issues. The country’s food safety standards are notoriously bad, despite numerous government-led initiatives to improve them. Food scandals are common, and diarrhea and food poisoning are a distressingly regular experience. Markets, like Huanan, that aren’t licensed for live species nevertheless sell them. Workers are undertrained in basic hygiene techniques like glove-wearing and hand-washing. Dangerous additives are commonly used to increase production.
China’s conditions are not unique. It looks, in fact, a lot like the United States did in the past, before muckraking exposés led to the creation of modern regulation systems. Even today, the United States can lag behind best practices on such issues as antibiotics in feed, cattle slaughter, or poultry washing. And, as with the American public of the 1900s, the Chinese citizenry badly wants change. Seventy-seven percent of the public ranks food safety as their single biggest concern.
As with so much else in China, politics gets in the way of sensible policy. Exposés of the kind that drove reform in the United States have a hard time finding traction in China’s censorious media environment, where the interests of billion-dollar corporations and their party backers often override those of the public. When the author Zhou Qing wrote a groundbreaking exposé, What Kind of God, on the Chinese food industry in 2006, two-thirds of the book was removed before publication and its success eventually forced him into political exile.
Part of China’s problem can be attributed to the power of traditional Chinese medicine, which is responsible for much of the trade in wildlife. Many wild animals in China are killed not for culinary reasons but for essentially magical ones. Whether it’s tiger paws or pangolin scales, quack cures persist on a vast scale—even in cases like bear bile where a real active ingredient existed, has been discovered, and can be produced in labs without animal cruelty. The government has been heavily promoting traditional Chinese medicine, especially under President Xi Jinping’s new nationalism, and while officially pharmaceutical companies following this model eschew the wildlife trade, the propaganda around such traditional medicine in general helps ensure belief survives.
If the fallout from the Wuhan outbreak changes anything for the better, it may be that it gives a vital push to reform and more teeth to regulation. But as with so many past disasters in China, it could also mean a brief period of change before profits and power take precedence once again. Whatever happens, amid the current moment of fear and panic, support for the Chinese public will make a bigger difference than culinary judgments or racism.
Editor’s Note: This piece originally used the term “Wuhan virus” to refer to the coronavirus. It has been updated in line with WHO recommendations.


foreignpolicy--2020-01-27--Who’s More Powerful, Jeff Bezos or Mohammed bin Salman? Neither.

Who ’ s More Powerful , Jeff Bezos or Mohammed bin Salman ?
Neither .
The alleged Saudi hack of the Amazon founder , Washington Post owner , and world ’ s richest person Jeff Bezos offers plenty of insight into the nature of power in an era of headlong technological change .
Above all , it confirms the insight that the more things change , the more they stay the same .
For those of you who have been on a desert island for the past couple of years , the whole story started back in 2019 , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposing Bezos ’ s affair with a Los Angeles television personality .
Bezos hinted that Saudi Arabia might have been involved , and he hired a cybersecurity firm to investigate .
Last week , the firm released a report tracing the hack to malicious code contained in a WhatsApp message he had received from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman , although it remains unclear if this is how the Enquirer obtained the embarrassing information .
If the Saudi government could hack the phone of someone who fully grasps the impact of technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which to protect himself , how can ordinary folks possibly protect themselves from similar intrusions ?
Only by remaining below the radar and off the grid , and even that approach may not be enough .
Given the heady mix of wealth , sex , celebrity , and politics involved , it ’ s hardly surprising this one incident has garnered so much attention .
But does this event foretell a new global hierarchy , where hackers rule the world and traditional sources of power are increasingly irrelevant ?
I doubt it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a reminder—as if we needed one—that politics , privacy , and international affairs are increasingly permeated by the world of cybersecurity , and in ways we still don ’ t fully appreciate .
Human beings have raced to link themselves to the internet for a variety of reasons—convenience , curiosity , necessity , faddishness , etc.—without thinking very much about what it might mean or how vulnerable it might make us .
Previous noteworthy incidents—such as the ( presumably ) Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee ’ s computers during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack on Sony Pictures in response to the movie The Interview in 2014—highlight both the vulnerabilities we all now face and the difficulty of identifying perpetrators in a timely and convincing manner .
And so it is with Bezos : Although the cybersecurity firm he hired claims to have “ medium to high confidence ” that the Saudis did hack Bezos ’ s phone , the forensic evidence behind this conclusion has not been made public and does not show how information that may have been acquired from Bezos ’ s phone made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say , Saudi Arabia has denied any involvement .
That ’ s what you ’ d expect them to say , but can you prove otherwise ?
The Bezos affair also illustrates the limits of wealth alone as a source of political power and protection , but also the limits of hacking as a source of influence .
Bezos may have thought he was too important to be hacked , or he may have thought that Mohammed bin Salman wouldn ’ t dare do something so brazen .
His wealth was no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had in place were not enough to protect him from a targeted attack .
Assuming Saudi Arabia was responsible , it ’ s not clear that it got anything for its effort other than another embarrassing set of revelations .
It ’ s possible Bezos ’ s phone contained other information that would be of value to Saudi officials , though it ’ s hard for me to imagine what such information might be .
Bezos is a brilliantly successful businessman , and Amazon has been a transformative company , but does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he manages to get so many packages to so many places so quickly ?
There ’ s been speculation that the whole business was part of an effort by American Media ( the publisher of the National Enquirer , which first reported on Bezos ’ s infidelity ) and/or Mohammed bin Salman to curry favor with U.S. President Donald Trump , whose dislike for Bezos is well known .
But Trump is already firmly in the crown prince ’ s corner and a close friend of American Media ’ s president , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either party would gain much from this gambit .
Another plausible explanation is that Mohammed bin Salman was upset by all the negative coverage that the Washington Post had dished out ever since Saudi agents murdered the dissident Saudi exile and Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi .
In this version , Bezos got hacked in an attempt to pressure him into telling the Post staff to tone down its relentless criticism of the kingdom .
If so , there ’ s no sign that it worked .
Bezos may have been embarrassed when evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he may have ended his marriage , but American Media claims the information that exposed him was obtained from his paramour ’ s brother and not from any Saudi hack of Bezos ’ s phone .
Even if the Saudis were involved , Bezos ’ s reaction to the revelations showed that he wasn ’ t going to be intimidated by them .
Unless the Saudis had found a way to drain his bank accounts or mysteriously acquire all his Amazon stock ( and they didn ’ t ) , what real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Which brings us back to our friend Mohammed bin Salman .
The Bezos hack is the latest in a growing body of evidence showing that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia is a complete loose cannon : reckless , paranoid , and a bit of a fool .
He launched a war in Yemen that is a humanitarian disaster and a military failure .
He helped convince the Trump administration to inflict maximum pressure on Iran , but then he had to try to lower the temperature with Tehran when it retaliated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picked a pointless quarrel with Qatar and tried to force the prime minister of Lebanon to resign by holding him hostage on a visit to Riyadh , and he detained dozens of Saudi royals and businessmen until they agreed to cough up billions of dollars , even as he was trying to convince the global financial community that Saudi Arabia was a terrific investment opportunity .
Oh , and the CIA believes he also ordered the brutal murder of a journalist who posed no threat to his rule .
None of these actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if anything , they have left the kingdom in a more vulnerable position .
Mohammed bin Salman has gotten away with these dangerous follies for two simple reasons : Saudi Arabia still has lots of oil and gas , and Donald Trump supports him no matter what he does .
The attack on Bezos ’ s phone also reminds us of another sad truth of international politics : States almost always exploit new technologies to gain an advantage .
Putting limits on technology is always difficult , and most new weapons eventually get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and global internet integration could do for us , we willingly allowed ourselves to become more vulnerable .
It didn ’ t take long for governments , criminals , and bored teenagers to start using these new technologies for amusement , profit , or political advantage .
Yet the Bezos hack also reminds us that cyber-capabilities aren ’ t going to turn weaker actors into great powers—digital Davids aren ’ t likely to become all-powerful global Goliaths .
Saudi Arabia may have obtained access to Bezos ’ s emails , phone book , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they still can ’ t subdue the Houthis in neighboring Yemen .
As for Bezos , being the world ’ s richest man doesn ’ t give him the power to retaliate against Mohammed bin Salman , American Media , or the president who embraces them .
All he can do is give them some more negative publicity .
So at the risk of seeming utterly hidebound and unimaginative , I think the role of power in the future is going to look a lot like the past .
Henceforth , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence will not be those who possess only one source of power , whether it is money , arms , an eloquent pen , a nasty cyberweapon , or a seductive idea .
Rather , the most powerful and influential actors will be those that combine sophisticated technological expertise in many different realms , state-of-the-art data analytics , a robust economy , resource independence , reasonably well-functioning political institutions , and genuine hard military power .
Having a bunch of smart hackers on your payroll won ’ t be a great equalizer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be working for wealthy and powerful states that can pay them well .
Instead of leveling the playing field of world politics , these new capabilities will tend to make the greatest powers even stronger—and leave weaker ones to suffer what they must .

The alleged Saudi hack of the Amazon founder, Washington Post owner, and world’s richest person Jeff Bezos offers plenty of insight into the nature of power in an era of headlong technological change. Above all, it confirms the insight that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The alleged Saudi hack of the Amazon founder, Washington Post owner, and world’s richest person Jeff Bezos offers plenty of insight into the nature of power in an era of headlong technological change. Above all, it confirms the insight that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
For those of you who have been on a desert island for the past couple of years, the whole story started back in 2019, when the National Enquirer released emails and photos exposing Bezos’s affair with a Los Angeles television personality. Bezos hinted that Saudi Arabia might have been involved, and he hired a cybersecurity firm to investigate. Last week, the firm released a report tracing the hack to malicious code contained in a WhatsApp message he had received from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, although it remains unclear if this is how the Enquirer obtained the embarrassing information.
If the Saudi government could hack the phone of someone who fully grasps the impact of technology and who has nearly limitless resources with which to protect himself, how can ordinary folks possibly protect themselves from similar intrusions? Only by remaining below the radar and off the grid, and even that approach may not be enough.
Given the heady mix of wealth, sex, celebrity, and politics involved, it’s hardly surprising this one incident has garnered so much attention. But does this event foretell a new global hierarchy, where hackers rule the world and traditional sources of power are increasingly irrelevant? I doubt it.
To be clear: the Bezos hack is a reminder—as if we needed one—that politics, privacy, and international affairs are increasingly permeated by the world of cybersecurity, and in ways we still don’t fully appreciate. Human beings have raced to link themselves to the internet for a variety of reasons—convenience, curiosity, necessity, faddishness, etc.—without thinking very much about what it might mean or how vulnerable it might make us. Previous noteworthy incidents—such as the (presumably) Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computers during the 2016 election or North Korea’s attack on Sony Pictures in response to the movie The Interview in 2014—highlight both the vulnerabilities we all now face and the difficulty of identifying perpetrators in a timely and convincing manner.
And so it is with Bezos: Although the cybersecurity firm he hired claims to have “medium to high confidence” that the Saudis did hack Bezos’s phone, the forensic evidence behind this conclusion has not been made public and does not show how information that may have been acquired from Bezos’s phone made it into the public domain. Needless to say, Saudi Arabia has denied any involvement. That’s what you’d expect them to say, but can you prove otherwise?
The Bezos affair also illustrates the limits of wealth alone as a source of political power and protection, but also the limits of hacking as a source of influence. Bezos may have thought he was too important to be hacked, or he may have thought that Mohammed bin Salman wouldn’t dare do something so brazen. His wealth was no deterrent, however, and whatever safeguards he had in place were not enough to protect him from a targeted attack.
Assuming Saudi Arabia was responsible, it’s not clear that it got anything for its effort other than another embarrassing set of revelations. It’s possible Bezos’s phone contained other information that would be of value to Saudi officials, though it’s hard for me to imagine what such information might be. Bezos is a brilliantly successful businessman, and Amazon has been a transformative company, but does Saudi Arabia really need to know how he manages to get so many packages to so many places so quickly? There’s been speculation that the whole business was part of an effort by American Media (the publisher of the National Enquirer, which first reported on Bezos’s infidelity) and/or Mohammed bin Salman to curry favor with U.S. President Donald Trump, whose dislike for Bezos is well known. But Trump is already firmly in the crown prince’s corner and a close friend of American Media’s president, so it’s hard to see that either party would gain much from this gambit.
Another plausible explanation is that Mohammed bin Salman was upset by all the negative coverage that the Washington Post had dished out ever since Saudi agents murdered the dissident Saudi exile and Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. In this version, Bezos got hacked in an attempt to pressure him into telling the Post staff to tone down its relentless criticism of the kingdom.
If so, there’s no sign that it worked. Bezos may have been embarrassed when evidence of his extramarital affair was exposed, and he may have ended his marriage, but American Media claims the information that exposed him was obtained from his paramour’s brother and not from any Saudi hack of Bezos’s phone. Even if the Saudis were involved, Bezos’s reaction to the revelations showed that he wasn’t going to be intimidated by them. Unless the Saudis had found a way to drain his bank accounts or mysteriously acquire all his Amazon stock (and they didn’t), what real leverage did they gain over him?
Which brings us back to our friend Mohammed bin Salman. The Bezos hack is the latest in a growing body of evidence showing that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia is a complete loose cannon: reckless, paranoid, and a bit of a fool. He launched a war in Yemen that is a humanitarian disaster and a military failure. He helped convince the Trump administration to inflict maximum pressure on Iran, but then he had to try to lower the temperature with Tehran when it retaliated by attacking some Saudi oil facilities. He picked a pointless quarrel with Qatar and tried to force the prime minister of Lebanon to resign by holding him hostage on a visit to Riyadh, and he detained dozens of Saudi royals and businessmen until they agreed to cough up billions of dollars, even as he was trying to convince the global financial community that Saudi Arabia was a terrific investment opportunity. Oh, and the CIA believes he also ordered the brutal murder of a journalist who posed no threat to his rule. None of these actions enhanced Saudi security in the slightest; if anything, they have left the kingdom in a more vulnerable position. Mohammed bin Salman has gotten away with these dangerous follies for two simple reasons: Saudi Arabia still has lots of oil and gas, and Donald Trump supports him no matter what he does.
The attack on Bezos’s phone also reminds us of another sad truth of international politics: States almost always exploit new technologies to gain an advantage. Putting limits on technology is always difficult, and most new weapons eventually get used. Once mankind discovered what digitalization and global internet integration could do for us, we willingly allowed ourselves to become more vulnerable. It didn’t take long for governments, criminals, and bored teenagers to start using these new technologies for amusement, profit, or political advantage.
Yet the Bezos hack also reminds us that cyber-capabilities aren’t going to turn weaker actors into great powers—digital Davids aren’t likely to become all-powerful global Goliaths. Saudi Arabia may have obtained access to Bezos’s emails, phone book, personal photos, and Spotify playlists, but they still can’t subdue the Houthis in neighboring Yemen. As for Bezos, being the world’s richest man doesn’t give him the power to retaliate against Mohammed bin Salman, American Media, or the president who embraces them. All he can do is give them some more negative publicity.
So at the risk of seeming utterly hidebound and unimaginative, I think the role of power in the future is going to look a lot like the past. Henceforth, the global actors with the greatest power and influence will not be those who possess only one source of power, whether it is money, arms, an eloquent pen, a nasty cyberweapon, or a seductive idea. Rather, the most powerful and influential actors will be those that combine sophisticated technological expertise in many different realms, state-of-the-art data analytics, a robust economy, resource independence, reasonably well-functioning political institutions, and genuine hard military power. Having a bunch of smart hackers on your payroll won’t be a great equalizer, and in most cases the best hackers will be working for wealthy and powerful states that can pay them well. Instead of leveling the playing field of world politics, these new capabilities will tend to make the greatest powers even stronger—and leave weaker ones to suffer what they must.


foreignpolicy--2020-01-27--The Journey of John Bolton: From Right-Wing Zealot to Rock of the Republic

The Journey of John Bolton : From Right-Wing Zealot to Rock of the Republic “ Yes , John Bolton Really Is That Dangerous.
” So read the headline of a New York Times editorial in March 2018 , shortly after Bolton was named U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s national security advisor .
The editorial took stock of the extreme views publicly advocated by the “ fiery ” Bolton over the years , from urging preemptive strikes on Iran and North Korea to zealously insisting that “ the United States can do what it wants without regard to international law.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ how far off the scale of sanity Washington has gone that a man who was long demonized by both Democrats and mainstream Republicans as a right-wing zealot is today seen by some as a rock of integrity who could quite possibly save the republic .
What is most interesting , perhaps , is that Bolton himself hasn ’ t really changed .
But under Trump , much of Washington has been altered beyond recognition , lurching into a never-never land of ethics where extorting dirt on political rivals from foreign leaders in exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new normal , at least by the Republican Party .
Bolton is simply saying it is not a new normal , in his book .
Literally in his book , since it was this revelation in the former national security advisor ’ s forthcoming book , The Room Where It Happened—as leaked to the Times over the weekend—that threw a giant wrench into Trump ’ s impeachment trial on Monday .
After the newspaper revealed that Bolton has undercut one of the central planks of the president ’ s defense—writing in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid to Ukraine dependent on a commitment by that country to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden—the mood among Republicans shifted from ebullience over a sense that Democrats had failed to make their case to a new sobriety : Trump ’ s acquittal may not happen so swiftly after all .
On Monday , Utah Sen. Mitt Romney , one of Capitol Hill ’ s last remaining Republican moderates , opened the door to a much longer and more politically damaging impeachment trial for Trump , telling reporters it ’ s “ increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now join Democratic demands for calling witnesses .
His fellow Republican Sen. Susan Collins suggested something similar , saying that “ reports about John Bolton ’ s book strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues.
” Sen. Angus King , an independent from Maine , later told National Public Radio that he now expected that five to 10 Republican senators would vote in favor of hearing from Bolton and other witnesses .
The trial , which resumed Monday with the president ’ s lawyers making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected to conclude as soon as this week , but that is looking far less likely now .
To those who know Bolton well , it ’ s little surprise that he is playing the role of truth-teller .
“ I have not known John to lie .
In my experience , he is tenacious but not mendacious , ” said Reuel Marc Gerecht , a conservative former CIA officer and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who has known Bolton for many years .
In an email to Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” irony that “ not that long ago , John would have been properly classified as on the ‘ nationalist ’ side of the foreign-policy establishment of the Republican Party—he was never a neo-con since he really didn ’ t care all that much about whether foreigners lived under tyranny or democracy ; now , with Trump at the helm of the Republican Party , he is positively cosmopolitan.
” He added : “ It is also wry that American liberals who would have , and did , casually damn John for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and errantly , for being a neo-con ) , now praise him .
I am certain John is enjoying this .
He can appreciate irony and schadenfreude.
” What Bolton may be enjoying less is that , in a consummate irony , he now finds himself lumped with the so-called deep state—the permanent government bureaucracy—he spent so much of his career as a militant libertarian opposing and ferociously deriding .
Among his new enemies is Lou Dobbs , a Fox News host and Trump minion , who in a tweet called him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the revelation in Bolton ’ s book as the “ Deep State ’ s Last Desperate Act.
” Numerous witnesses in the impeachment trial , including former close aides to Bolton such as Fiona Hill , have testified that Bolton was appalled by Trump ’ s Ukraine policy , calling it a “ drug deal.
” And Bolton now finds himself the latest victim of the ongoing revilement of Trump witnesses by the White House and its allies .
The president himself tweeted Monday that he “ NEVER told John Bolton that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into Democrats , including the Bidens .
In fact , he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination .
If John Bolton said this , it was only to sell a book.
” But the Bolton revelations put the president ’ s defense lawyers in a sticky place .
As they opened their arguments on Saturday , following three days of presentations of evidence by Democratic House managers , Trump ’ s lawyers said that one of the keystones of their defense would be that there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a link between withholding security assistance to Ukraine and a demand for an investigation into Biden .
Bolton may have somewhat changed that calculus .
As the trial resumed on Monday , Trump ’ s attorney Jay Sekulow appeared to have shifted the focus from those earlier points to the issue of whether Trump was acting within his “ constitutional authority , legal authority , and the national interest ” to pressure on Ukraine over the issue of corruption .

“Yes, John Bolton Really Is That Dangerous.” So read the headline of a New York Times editorial in March 2018, shortly after Bolton was named U.S. President Donald Trump’s national security advisor. The editorial took stock of the extreme views publicly advocated by the “fiery” Bolton over the years, from urging preemptive strikes on Iran and North Korea to zealously insisting that “the United States can do what it wants without regard to international law.”
“Yes, John Bolton Really Is That Dangerous.” So read the headline of a New York Times editorial in March 2018, shortly after Bolton was named U.S. President Donald Trump’s national security advisor. The editorial took stock of the extreme views publicly advocated by the “fiery” Bolton over the years, from urging preemptive strikes on Iran and North Korea to zealously insisting that “the United States can do what it wants without regard to international law.”
It may be a measure of how far off the scale of sanity Washington has gone that a man who was long demonized by both Democrats and mainstream Republicans as a right-wing zealot is today seen by some as a rock of integrity, one who could quite possibly save the republic.
What is most interesting, perhaps, is that Bolton himself hasn’t really changed. But under Trump, much of Washington has been altered beyond recognition, lurching into a never-never land of ethics where extorting dirt on political rivals from foreign leaders in exchange for security assistance is apparently accepted as a new normal, at least by the Republican Party.
Bolton is simply saying it is not a new normal, in his book. Literally in his book, since it was this revelation in the former national security advisor’s forthcoming book, The Room Where It Happened—as leaked to the Times over the weekend—that threw a giant wrench into Trump’s impeachment trial on Monday.
After the newspaper revealed that Bolton has undercut one of the central planks of the president’s defense—writing in his book that Trump did indeed make military aid to Ukraine dependent on a commitment by that country to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden—the mood among Republicans shifted from ebullience over their sense that Democrats had failed to make their case to a new sobriety: Trump’s acquittal may not happen so swiftly after all.
On Monday, Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, one of Capitol Hill’s last remaining Republican moderates, opened the door to a much longer and more politically damaging impeachment trial for Trump, telling reporters it’s “increasingly likely” that enough Republican senators will now join Democratic demands for calling witnesses. His fellow Republican Sen. Susan Collins suggested something similar, saying that “reports about John Bolton’s book strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues.” Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine, later told National Public Radio that he now expected that five to 10 Republican senators would vote in favor of hearing from Bolton and other witnesses.
The trial, which resumed Monday with the president’s lawyers making their case for acquittal, had been expected to conclude as soon as this week, but that is looking far less likely now.
To those who know Bolton well, it’s little surprise that he is playing the role of truth-teller. “I have not known John to lie. In my experience, he is tenacious but not mendacious,” said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a conservative former CIA officer and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who has known Bolton for many years. In an email to Foreign Policy, Gerecht noted the “wry” irony that “not that long ago, John would have been properly classified as on the ‘nationalist’ side of the foreign-policy establishment of the Republican Party—he was never a neo-con since he really didn’t care all that much about whether foreigners lived under tyranny or democracy; now, with Trump at the helm of the Republican Party, he is positively cosmopolitan.”
He added: “It is also wry that American liberals who would have, and did, casually damn John for a whole list of sins (most amusingly, and errantly, for being a neo-con), now praise him. I am certain John is enjoying this. He can appreciate irony and schadenfreude.”
What Bolton may be enjoying less is that, in a consummate irony, he now finds himself lumped with the so-called deep state—the permanent government bureaucracy—he spent so much of his career as a militant libertarian opposing and ferociously deriding. Among his new enemies is Lou Dobbs, a Fox News host and Trump minion, who in a tweet called him a “Rejected Neocon” and described the revelation in Bolton’s book as the “Deep State’s Last Desperate Act.”
Numerous witnesses in the impeachment trial, including former close aides to Bolton such as Fiona Hill, have testified that Bolton was appalled by Trump’s Ukraine policy, calling it a “drug deal.”
What Bolton reportedly wrote in his book “actually makes sense in a way,” said Mark Lagon, a former official with the George W. Bush administration who worked with Bolton on United Nations issues. “Because however much of a bureaucratic fighter Bolton was, no matter how conservative his policy positions were, he is kind of someone who stands on principle,”
Because of that stand, Bolton now finds himself the latest victim of the ongoing revilement of Trump witnesses by the White House and its allies. The president himself tweeted Monday that he “NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book.”
But the Bolton revelations put the president’s defense lawyers in a sticky place. As they opened their arguments on Saturday, following three days of presentations of evidence by Democratic House managers, Trump’s lawyers said that one of the keystones of their defense would be that there is no direct evidence that Trump ever made explicit a link between withholding security assistance to Ukraine and a demand for an investigation into Biden.
Bolton may have somewhat changed that calculus. As the trial resumed on Monday, Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow appeared to shift the focus from those earlier points to the issue of whether Trump was acting within his “constitutional authority, legal authority, and the national interest” to pressure on Ukraine over the issue of corruption. The Trump lawyers spent most of the rest of the day arguing that he was, and that nothing Trump did, whether it was an abuse of power or not, came close to rising to the level of an impeachable offense.


foreignpolicy--2020-01-27--In Israel’s Endless Elections, Female Candidates Have Been the Biggest Losers

In Israel ’ s Endless Elections , Female Candidates Have Been the Biggest Losers In mid-January , Israel ’ s political parties finalized their lists for what will hopefully be the last general election for a while .
A referendum on the future of Israel ’ s longest-serving prime minister , dogged by corruption charges , and on the prospect of West Bank annexation , this election—the third in the last year—could be among Israel ’ s most consequential .
As both the right and left scrambled to preempt yet another postelection stalemate over government formation , their parties entered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face of the country ’ s politics .
The most striking casualty in all these shifts has been women .
The downward trend began in the first iteration of these elections in April 2019 , when the number of women elected to the Knesset dropped from 35 to 29 seats .
In the September election , the number slipped to 28 .
The decline has transcended party lines .
On the upcoming election slates , only two women are represented among the top 10 seats of each of the three largest parties—Likud , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ List .
The numbers do start to improve further down the lists .
Meanwhile , the right-wing political alliance Yamina has five women in its top 10 seats , and the left-wing Labor-Gesher-Meretz party has four .
The ultra-Orthodox parties , per usual , have none .
These changes mean that even fewer women could enter the 23rd Knesset than the last .
Israeli women have also lost leadership roles , which in turn means that fewer women are positioned to assume powerful cabinet positions or coveted committee assignments .
In the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major parties .
Political stars like Tzipi Livni , Shelly Yachimovich , and Stav Shaffir have , for now , been cast out of politics .
Their remaining female colleagues have been downgraded .
Orly Levy-Abekasis , Ayelet Shaked , and Tamar Zandberg—all former party leaders—now occupy the second , third , and fourth seats in their new parties , respectively .
And while there are women at the helm of several smaller parties , ranging from the new women ’ s activist party Kol Hanashim ( Voices of Women ) to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin ’ s assassin , none is expected to garner enough votes to assume seats in the Knesset .
For a country often romanticized as a pioneer in female leadership , the new reality is especially disappointing .
Women have served as Israel ’ s prime minister , speaker of the Knesset , governor of the Bank of Israel , and chief justice of the Supreme Court—three times over .
Between 1988 and 2017 , the number of women in Knesset increased fivefold .
And many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the workplace , and by extension their ability to ascend to leadership roles , are conspicuously absent in Israel .
Families have access to high-quality universal health care , relatively low child care costs , 15 weeks of paid maternity leave , and , since 2013 , universal access to pre-primary education beginning for children age 3 .
Why then , at a time when women ’ s leadership around the world is on the rise , is Israel bracing for a backslide ?
The party mergers have played the most immediate role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spectrum , larger parties , all led by men , absorbed smaller parties and pushed the heads of those parties into the second and third slots on the roster .
As the mergers were finalized , other high-ranking party members , including women , found themselves pushed to seats further down the ticket to accommodate senior members from partner parties .
But far more systemic issues persist .
The Haredi parties , which are among the largest in the government , continue to block women ’ s participation outright ; the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Further , many party lists are selected by male party leadership , rather than direct primaries , where women at least have an opportunity to compete .
Yet even when primaries do take place , women often lose to men who hail from existing leadership positions in the army or elsewhere—arenas where women ’ s leadership has also been lacking and which serve as good platforms for fundraising .
The country ’ s hyperfocus on security , and corresponding worship of generals , meanwhile , regularly boxes women out from the top tiers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secure leadership roles or placement on powerful committees .
Women have served in only 18 of 246 cabinet positions in Israel ’ s history and never in three of the four most prestigious positions : minister of defense , interior , or finance .
Israelis of both genders should be deeply concerned .
The value of women ’ s leadership is definitive .
Leaders who reflect their populations better champion the needs of the very people they represent .
They may have greater legitimacy , which can inspire greater confidence in government institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social issues—including those that disproportionately affect women—that are often overlooked by male legislators , even when doing is to the detriment of their own careers .
And modern challenges , particularly in a conflict-plagued region like the Middle East , require diverse ideas and innovation , which in turn require diverse actors .
So what are Israelis to do if they are to reverse the current trend toward less female representation ?
They can start by creating a leadership pipeline that takes in large numbers of trained , mobilized , and well-mentored women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Political parties in Israel do a good job of harnessing talent among university cohorts—they need to focus on cultivating female talent in these spaces , too , and then on driving these women to enter local politics as well .
Second , for parties that do hold primaries , women need equal access to private sources of campaign funds that will help drive them up to the top of the ticket .
Third , individual parties should start implementing quotas to ensure women ’ s participation at the top , and government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finally , for any of this to be possible , Israel ’ s male-dominated leadership must become vocal champions of equality .
Women ’ s leadership in Israel , and around the world , has a long way to go .
But if Israel wishes to be the beacon of progress that it views itself as , it will need to take tangible steps to make the vision of trailblazing female leadership a modern reality .

In mid-January, Israel’s political parties finalized their lists for what will hopefully be the last general election for a while. A referendum on the future of Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, dogged by corruption charges, and on the prospect of West Bank annexation, this election—the third in the last year—could be among Israel’s most consequential. As both the right and left scrambled to preempt yet another postelection stalemate over government formation, their parties entered into groundbreaking mergers that could alter the face of the country’s politics. The most striking casualty in all these shifts has been women.
In mid-January, Israel’s political parties finalized their lists for what will hopefully be the last general election for a while. A referendum on the future of Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, dogged by corruption charges, and on the prospect of West Bank annexation, this election—the third in the last year—could be among Israel’s most consequential. As both the right and left scrambled to preempt yet another postelection stalemate over government formation, their parties entered into groundbreaking mergers that could alter the face of the country’s politics. The most striking casualty in all these shifts has been women.
The downward trend began in the first iteration of these elections in April 2019, when the number of women elected to the Knesset dropped from 35 to 29 seats. In the September election, the number slipped to 28. The decline has transcended party lines. On the upcoming election slates, only two women are represented among the top 10 seats of each of the three largest parties—Likud, Blue and White, and the Joint List. The numbers do start to improve further down the lists. Meanwhile, the right-wing political alliance Yamina has five women in its top 10 seats, and the left-wing Labor-Gesher-Meretz party has four. The ultra-Orthodox parties, per usual, have none. These changes mean that even fewer women could enter the 23rd Knesset than the last.
Israeli women have also lost leadership roles, which in turn means that fewer women are positioned to assume powerful cabinet positions or coveted committee assignments. In the 2020 elections, no women will lead any major parties. Political stars like Tzipi Livni, Shelly Yachimovich, and Stav Shaffir have, for now, been cast out of politics. Their remaining female colleagues have been downgraded. Orly Levy-Abekasis, Ayelet Shaked, and Tamar Zandberg—all former party leaders—now occupy the second, third, and fourth seats in their new parties, respectively. And while there are women at the helm of several smaller parties, ranging from the new women’s activist party Kol Hanashim (Voices of Women) to the disturbing Mishpat Tzedek party led by the wife of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassin, none is expected to garner enough votes to assume seats in the Knesset.
For a country often romanticized as a pioneer in female leadership, the new reality is especially disappointing. Women have served as Israel’s prime minister, speaker of the Knesset, governor of the Bank of Israel, and chief justice of the Supreme Court—three times over. Between 1988 and 2017, the number of women in Knesset increased fivefold. And many of the factors that have elsewhere undermined women in the workplace, and by extension their ability to ascend to leadership roles, are conspicuously absent in Israel. Families have access to high-quality universal health care, relatively low child care costs, 15 weeks of paid maternity leave, and, since 2013, universal access to pre-primary education beginning for children age 3.
Why then, at a time when women’s leadership around the world is on the rise, is Israel bracing for a backslide? The party mergers have played the most immediate role in marginalizing women. Across the political spectrum, larger parties, all led by men, absorbed smaller parties and pushed the heads of those parties into the second and third slots on the roster. As the mergers were finalized, other high-ranking party members, including women, found themselves pushed to seats further down the ticket to accommodate senior members from partner parties.
But far more systemic issues persist. The Haredi parties, which are among the largest in the government, continue to block women’s participation outright; the Supreme Court has only just begun to intervene. Further, many party lists are selected by male party leadership, rather than direct primaries, where women at least have an opportunity to compete. Yet even when primaries do take place, women often lose to men who hail from existing leadership positions in the army or elsewhere—arenas where women’s leadership has also been lacking and which serve as good platforms for fundraising. The country’s hyperfocus on security, and corresponding worship of generals, meanwhile, regularly boxes women out from the top tiers. Those who are elected struggle to secure leadership roles or placement on powerful committees. Women have served in only 18 of 246 cabinet positions in Israel’s history and never in three of the four most prestigious positions: minister of defense, interior, or finance.
Israelis of both genders should be deeply concerned. The value of women’s leadership is definitive. Leaders who reflect their populations better champion the needs of the very people they represent. They may have greater legitimacy, which can inspire greater confidence in government institutions. Women are more likely to champion social issues—including those that disproportionately affect women—that are often overlooked by male legislators, even when doing is to the detriment of their own careers. And modern challenges, particularly in a conflict-plagued region like the Middle East, require diverse ideas and innovation, which in turn require diverse actors.
So what are Israelis to do if they are to reverse the current trend toward less female representation? They can start by creating a leadership pipeline that takes in large numbers of trained, mobilized, and well-mentored women at the earliest stages of their careers. Political parties in Israel do a good job of harnessing talent among university cohorts—they need to focus on cultivating female talent in these spaces, too, and then on driving these women to enter local politics as well. Second, for parties that do hold primaries, women need equal access to private sources of campaign funds that will help drive them up to the top of the ticket. Third, individual parties should start implementing quotas to ensure women’s participation at the top, and government funding should reward those who do. Finally, for any of this to be possible, Israel’s male-dominated leadership must become vocal champions of equality.
Women’s leadership in Israel, and around the world, has a long way to go. But if Israel wishes to be the beacon of progress that it views itself as, it will need to take tangible steps to make the vision of trailblazing female leadership a modern reality.


foreignpolicy--2020-01-27--Robert O’Brien Is the Anti-Bolton

Robert O’Brien Is the Anti-Bolton

Explosive new allegations from John Bolton that could undercut U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment defense fueled fresh outrage from his former boss on Monday , demonstrating that the outspoken ex-national security advisor can still get under the president ’ s skin four months after leaving his post .
The latest controversy throws into sharp relief the contrast between Bolton and his successor , Robert O ’ Brien , a former officer in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General ’ s Corps and Los Angeles lawyer who quietly took the reins of the National Security Council ( NSC ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drive headlines even from outside the White House , O ’ Brien is stolidly focused on implementing the president ’ s agenda without making news .
Since replacing Bolton in September , O ’ Brien has proved himself an enigmatic political operator who likes to remain behind the scenes and sees his primary role as coordinating policy rather than running it .
He has been a loyal spokesman for the White House , defending the administration ’ s agenda during frequent TV appearances .
“ My job as the national security adviser is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the views and options that come from the various departments and agencies , ” wrote O ’ Brien , who most recently served as the State Department ’ s point man for hostage negotiations , in an October Washington Post op-ed .
But O ’ Brien ’ s low public profile and focus on internal matters—such as reforming the NSC and increasing the size of the U.S. Navy—have also raised questions about his role in crafting U.S. foreign policy and whether he is staffing the White House agency with loyalists who will rubber-stamp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Brien ’ s proponents argue that he intends to follow the “ honest broker ” model for the job established by Brent Scowcroft , George H.W .
Bush ’ s national security advisor .
O ’ Brien has deliberately limited the NSC ’ s role to gathering options for the president and implementing , rather than directing , foreign policy .
And , as a successful lawyer , he is experienced in both distilling large amounts of information and tailoring advice for the client ’ s needs .
“ He is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the implementor of American foreign policy , ” said Jim Talent , a former Republican senator from Missouri who worked with O ’ Brien on Mitt Romney ’ s presidential campaign .
O ’ Brien ’ s associates point to his strong work ethic and modest demeanor , which have helped ingratiate him with former colleagues and his current boss .
“ Robert , I think , really distinguished himself as low ego , high energy , ” said Mike Gallagher , a Republican congressman who worked with O ’ Brien on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He was never trying to go behind our backs .
He ’ s very transparent .
He ’ s incredibly ethical .
He is a good , honest human being.
” That description contrasts with Bolton , who reportedly unloaded on Trump ’ s foreign-policy decisions behind closed doors and tried to undercut the president ’ s agenda .
Even so , some current and former U.S. officials decry O ’ Brien ’ s move to reduce the number of policy advisors at the NSC by more than a third .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the cuts primarily through attrition , two current and one former officials told Foreign Policy that the NSC is sending civilian and military experts detailed from other departments , such as Defense and State , back to their home bases early .
The NSC is “ gutted , ” said one former Trump administration official , noting that the president has told O ’ Brien he wants a smaller agency filled with loyalists who will carry out his instructions .
“ Bolton was viewed as very independent and having his own agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the former official , referring to the president .
“ O ’ Brien was told he was going to be the opposite .
He would carry out the instructions of POTUS and coordinate the interagency and not be a separate policymaking organization.
” O ’ Brien ’ s spokesman , John Ullyot , said the national security advisor has made clear he is working to streamline an NSC “ that had become bloated under the previous administration , ” noting that the agency is on track to meet its goals by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past five months , the NSC has been proud to support President Trump effectively as he has achieved numerous foreign-policy victories for the American people , ” Ullyot said .
But experts say cutting back the NSC could have a detrimental impact on policymaking .
Loren DeJonge Schulman , a former Pentagon official , noted that the NSC ’ s primary job of coordinating options within the agencies for the president is a complex process that requires a robust team of experts .
It is possible that O ’ Brien intends to move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies—but with the bench of civilian experts at the State and Defense departments already depleted , it ’ s hard to see where that knowledge base will come from .
She added that the various departments already struggle to speak with one voice on critical topics like Iran—and fewer staff will likely make that problem worse .
“ Both DOD and State have either been cutting or undermining their civilian policy staff over the last three years , and they are not in a great place to take on some of those functions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O ’ Brien hasn ’ t had those conversations … this may just be a political cover for staffing the NSC with [ Trump ] loyalists.
” In addition to cutting back the NSC staff , O ’ Brien has made growing the Navy a key focus—one some observers say is puzzling .
Growing the fleet to 355 ships is an issue where O ’ Brien and his boss already see eye to eye , those who know him say .
Years before his most recent appointment , O ’ Brien passionately espoused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as in a book .
In an April 2017 essay for Politico , O ’ Brien and co-author Jerry Hendrix argued for rebuilding the United States ’ seafaring service after years of atrophy under Obama in order to “ deter America ’ s adversaries ” —particularly an ever-more aggressive China— “ and reassure her friends.
” “ If there is an issue that Robert would personally take on as the national security advisor … if there is a personal issue that he would step out and advocate for , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Talent said .
The push to grow the Navy is in line with the Pentagon ’ s National Defense Strategy ( NDS ) , rolled out by then-Defense Secretary James Mattis in January 2018 , which calls on the military to shift focus from the counterterrorism fights of the past few decades to future competition with near-peer adversaries like China and Russia .
“ This is a core conviction for Robert that predates his time in this job , predates his time as [ hostage envoy ] , ” Gallagher said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the primary task of the NDS is to deter China … then you need forward presence , you need to complicate their decision-making on a day-to-day basis.
” But even the Navy leadership has not fully supported the plan to significantly grow the fleet .
The Navy ’ s top officer said in January that he would prefer to focus on making sure existing ships are properly outfitted , rather than building new ones .
The Navy has struggled to tackle a crisis in readiness after two fatal collisions in 2017 that killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on poor training and a ceaseless pace of operations .
Although Schulman noted that growing the Navy to 355 ships is now mandated by law—enacted in the 2018 defense policy bill— “ it is a bit odd for that to be [ O ’ Brien ’ s ] focus when there are other things going on.
” One U.S. official noted that America ’ s massive shipbuilding industrial complex stands to gain billions of dollars from the initiative .
When asked whether O ’ Brien has any ties to the shipbuilding industry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ None whatsoever.
” Taking up the mantle of a bigger Navy is also strategic—it provides O ’ Brien an opportunity to prove his loyalty on an issue that resonates both with Trump ’ s core constituency and with the Republican national security establishment .
It also allows him to focus internally while steering clear of thorny foreign-policy problems that could get him caught in the president ’ s crosshairs .
Ullyot denied that the national security advisor has any alternative agenda , noting that he believes Defense Secretary Mark Esper and acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the effort to grow the Navy .
“ Ambassador O ’ Brien has zero agenda other than implementing the president ’ s agenda , and as the president has said , ‘ Very soon , we are going to get to 355 beautiful ships , ’ ” Ullyot said .

Explosive new allegations from John Bolton that could undercut U.S. President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense fueled fresh outrage from his former boss on Monday, demonstrating that the outspoken ex-national security advisor can still get under the president’s skin four months after leaving his post.
Explosive new allegations from John Bolton that could undercut U.S. President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense fueled fresh outrage from his former boss on Monday, demonstrating that the outspoken ex-national security advisor can still get under the president’s skin four months after leaving his post.
The latest controversy throws into sharp relief the contrast between Bolton and his successor, Robert O’Brien, a former officer in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps and Los Angeles lawyer who quietly took the reins of the National Security Council (NSC) in September. While Bolton continues to drive headlines even from outside the White House, O’Brien is stolidly focused on implementing the president’s agenda without making news.
Since replacing Bolton in September, O’Brien has proved himself an enigmatic political operator who likes to remain behind the scenes and sees his primary role as coordinating policy rather than running it. He has been a loyal spokesman for the White House, defending the administration’s agenda during frequent TV appearances.
“My job as the national security adviser is to distill and present to the president the views and options that come from the various departments and agencies,” wrote O’Brien, who most recently served as the State Department’s point man for hostage negotiations, in an October Washington Post op-ed.
But O’Brien’s low public profile and focus on internal matters—such as reforming the NSC and increasing the size of the U.S. Navy—have also raised questions about his role in crafting U.S. foreign policy and whether he is staffing the White House agency with loyalists who will rubber-stamp the president’s agenda.
O’Brien’s proponents argue that he intends to follow the “honest broker” model for the job established by Brent Scowcroft, George H.W. Bush’s national security advisor. O’Brien has deliberately limited the NSC’s role to gathering options for the president and implementing, rather than directing, foreign policy. And, as a successful lawyer, he is experienced in both distilling large amounts of information and tailoring advice for the client’s needs.
“He is not trying to present himself as the formulator or the implementor of American foreign policy,” said Jim Talent, a former Republican senator from Missouri who worked with O’Brien on Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.
O’Brien’s associates point to his strong work ethic and modest demeanor, which have helped ingratiate him with former colleagues and his current boss.
“Robert, I think, really distinguished himself as low ego, high energy,” said Mike Gallagher, a Republican congressman who worked with O’Brien on Scott Walker’s presidential campaign. “He was never trying to go behind our backs. He’s very transparent. He’s incredibly ethical. He is a good, honest human being.”
That description contrasts with Bolton, who reportedly unloaded on Trump’s foreign-policy decisions behind closed doors and tried to undercut the president’s agenda.
Even so, some current and former U.S. officials decry O’Brien’s move to reduce the number of policy advisors at the NSC by more than a third. While O’Brien has said he will make the cuts primarily through attrition, two current and one former officials told Foreign Policy that the NSC is sending civilian and military experts detailed from other departments, such as Defense and State, back to their home bases early.
The NSC is “gutted,” said one former Trump administration official, noting that the president has told O’Brien he wants a smaller agency filled with loyalists who will carry out his instructions.
“Bolton was viewed as very independent and having his own agenda not necessarily aligned with POTUS,” said the former official, referring to the president. “O’Brien was told he was going to be the opposite. He would carry out the instructions of POTUS and coordinate the interagency and not be a separate policymaking organization.”
O’Brien’s spokesman, John Ullyot, said the national security advisor has made clear he is working to streamline an NSC “that had become bloated under the previous administration,” noting that the agency is on track to meet its goals by the end of February.
“During the past five months, the NSC has been proud to support President Trump effectively as he has achieved numerous foreign-policy victories for the American people,” Ullyot said.
But experts say cutting back the NSC could have a detrimental impact on policymaking. Loren DeJonge Schulman, a former Pentagon official, noted that the NSC’s primary job of coordinating options within the agencies for the president is a complex process that requires a robust team of experts. It is possible that O’Brien intends to move policy development functions back to the other agencies—but with the bench of civilian experts at the State and Defense departments already depleted, it’s hard to see where that knowledge base will come from.
She added that the various departments already struggle to speak with one voice on critical topics like Iran—and fewer staff will likely make that problem worse.
“Both DOD and State have either been cutting or undermining their civilian policy staff over the last three years, and they are not in a great place to take on some of those functions,” she said. “If O’Brien hasn’t had those conversations … this may just be a political cover for staffing the NSC with [Trump] loyalists.”
In addition to cutting back the NSC staff, O’Brien has made growing the Navy a key focus—one some observers say is puzzling.
Growing the fleet to 355 ships is an issue where O’Brien and his boss already see eye to eye, those who know him say. Years before his most recent appointment, O’Brien passionately espoused the effort in op-eds for various outlets, as well as in a book. In an April 2017 essay for Politico, O’Brien and co-author Jerry Hendrix argued for rebuilding the United States’ seafaring service after years of atrophy under Obama in order to “deter America’s adversaries”—particularly an ever-more aggressive China—“and reassure her friends.”
355 Ships by 2034
“If there is an issue that Robert would personally take on as the national security advisor … if there is a personal issue that he would step out and advocate for, it’s a strong Navy,” Talent said.
The push to grow the Navy is in line with the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy (NDS), rolled out by then-Defense Secretary James Mattis in January 2018, which calls on the military to shift focus from the counterterrorism fights of the past few decades to future competition with near-peer adversaries like China and Russia.
“This is a core conviction for Robert that predates his time in this job, predates his time as [hostage envoy],” Gallagher said. “If you believe as I do that the primary task of the NDS is to deter China … then you need forward presence, you need to complicate their decision-making on a day-to-day basis.”
But even the Navy leadership has not fully supported the plan to significantly grow the fleet. The Navy’s top officer said in January that he would prefer to focus on making sure existing ships are properly outfitted, rather than building new ones. The Navy has struggled to tackle a crisis in readiness after two fatal collisions in 2017 that killed more than a dozen sailors were blamed on poor training and a ceaseless pace of operations.
Although Schulman noted that growing the Navy to 355 ships is now mandated by law—enacted in the 2018 defense policy bill—“it is a bit odd for that to be [O’Brien’s] focus when there are other things going on.”
One U.S. official noted that America’s massive shipbuilding industrial complex stands to gain billions of dollars from the initiative. When asked whether O’Brien has any ties to the shipbuilding industry, Ullyot vehemently denied it, saying, “None whatsoever.”
Taking up the mantle of a bigger Navy is also strategic—it provides O’Brien an opportunity to prove his loyalty on an issue that resonates both with Trump’s core constituency and with the Republican national security establishment. It also allows him to focus internally while steering clear of thorny foreign-policy problems that could get him caught in the president’s crosshairs.
Ullyot denied that the national security advisor has any alternative agenda, noting that he believes Defense Secretary Mark Esper and acting Navy Secretary Tom Modly are on board with the effort to grow the Navy.
“Ambassador O’Brien has zero agenda other than implementing the president’s agenda, and as the president has said, ‘Very soon, we are going to get to 355 beautiful ships,’” Ullyot said.