foreignpolicy--2020-03-02--Grow Up About Dictators, America!

Grow Up About Dictators, America!

For foreign-policy mavens , the primary race for the Democratic Party ’ s presidential nomination hasn ’ t been especially edifying , mostly because the subject has received relatively little attention .
Even so , the recent squabble over the candidates ’ attitudes toward autocrats has been a new low .
I refer , of course , to the charge that Bernie Sanders is an apologist for dictatorship because he told an interviewer that Fidel Castro ’ s Cuba had some genuine educational achievements , as well as the parallel attack on Michael Bloomberg for saying that China ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” As Daniel Larison later noted , “ [ T ] oo much of the foreign policy section was consumed by this ‘ denounce a dictator ’ exercise and many other issues were neglected as a result.
” I like liberal democracy as much as anyone , and I ’ m grateful that I live in a country where those values are still ( mostly ) respected .
But this reflexive need to offer full-throated attacks on authoritarianism is symptomatic of a long-standing pathology in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy ; namely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s moral vision and commitments as the most important ( and maybe the only ) criterion by which their foreign-policy competence should be assessed .
It is an enduring manifestation of what realists have long criticized as America ’ s “ legalistic/moralistic approach ” to foreign affairs , an approach that overlooks the political and moral complexities of statecraft and has consistently led policymakers astray .
Moral considerations are hardly irrelevant in the conduct of foreign policy , but the simplistic moral litmus test on view in the recent Democratic debate mostly reveals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wrote back in 2005 , “ a remarkably immature Great Power—one whose rhetoric is frequently at odds with the reality of its own conduct and one that often treats the management of foreign affairs as an adjunct to domestic politics.
” Why is a politician ’ s willingness to denounce dictators a poor litmus test for his or her fitness for office ?
For starters , it ’ s too easy : Anyone running for president knows that you ’ re not supposed to say too many nice things about foreign despots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mild praise for people like Russia ’ s Vladimir Putin when he was on the campaign trail in 2016 .
More importantly , no matter what a candidate says on the campaign trail , whoever gets elected is going to have to do business with a lot of autocrats ( some of whom are pretty odious ) and especially if they happen to be in charge of a powerful country .
Back in 1992 , for example , Bill Clinton attacked George H.W .
Bush for being too tolerant of Chinese human rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough with Beijing ; once in office , he found that hectoring China didn ’ t work very well , and he soon reversed course .
The next president is going to talk with people like Putin , Xi , Saudi Arabia ’ s Mohammed bin Salman , Turkey ’ s Recep Tayyip Erdogan , and many , many more , and beginning the conversation by denouncing their immoral conduct won ’ t be the best way to advance U.S. interests or get them to improve their behavior even a little .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further : In most cases , ostracizing autocrats or trying to freeze them out advances neither strategic nor moral objectives and may even be counterproductive .
The failed U.S. embargo on Cuba is a clear case in point .
The mighty United States refused to deal with Cuba for nearly half a century—solely to appease the Cuba lobby in Florida—yet this policy didn ’ t bring down the regime , didn ’ t help the Cuban people , and didn ’ t moderate Castro ’ s international conduct .
One suspects a policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more pressure over time , by allowing Cubans to see how much better life was elsewhere and by exposing the limitations of their own system .
Similarly , not talking to countries like North Korea or Iran makes it harder to address the issues where interests conflict , which is why it makes sense to talk to them despite legitimate moral objections to these countries ’ systems of rule .
Third , moral posturing of the sort on stage last week makes America look hypocritical .
As everyone around the world knows , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record of supporting some pretty objectionable dictators , and it overthrew or undermined genuine and legitimate democrats on more than one occasion .
Nor is U.S. behavior at home or abroad above reproach or consistent with the moral values to which Americans like to hold others .
Before some of you leap to Twitter to denounce what you just read , let me emphasize that I am not suggesting a moral equivalence between the United States and every autocrat who has ever ruled .
I am merely pointing out that a tactic that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accuse a political rival of being soft on dictators and insufficiently committed to America ’ s core political values—isn ’ t going to play very well abroad .
Other nations already think the United States is remarkably hypocritical—and with good reason—and such antics are only likely to reinforce this view .
Unfortunately , the problem goes beyond the mudslinging of a contentious political campaign .
As realists have warned for decades , America ’ s tendency to make morality the touchstone of its foreign policy isn ’ t just an occasional distraction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and moral objectives alike .
One danger is utopianism , whereby the United States tries to rely on idealistic solutions that simply aren ’ t going to work .
The Kellogg-Briand Pact is perhaps the best-known example of this kind of solution , but the tendency to see regime change and democracy promotion as the answer to numerous contemporary problems , including terrorism , is a close second .
Liberal democracy has many virtues , but overzealous efforts to spread it abroad—either by peaceful or more forceful means—have a deeply disappointing track record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to conform to our values may also lead us to neglect less idealistic outcomes that might still alleviate conflict and suffering in the short term .
Even worse , once we begin to view international politics and foreign policy as a morality play—with virtuous democrats on one side and evil despots on the other—the only logical solution to most global problems is to get rid of the latter .
Once the troublemakers are gone , we tell ourselves , there simply won ’ t be any more trouble .
At a minimum , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wicked despots leads to hubristic debacles like the war in Iraq or the ill-fated intervention in Libya .
At worst , it is a recipe for endless war to “ eradicate evil ” forever .
If simplistic moral litmus tests are not the answer , what is ?
A better approach was sketched many years ago , in Hans Morgenthau ’ s Scientific Man vs. Power Politics .
Although Morgenthau is widely ( and correctly ) viewed as a central figure in the realist canon , he was also deeply concerned with moral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divorced from social and political life .
Indeed , a central theme of this book is that all political action has moral consequences ; there is no way to operate in the political world and keep entirely clean hands .
( Similar themes run through the works of other realists , most notably the Christian realist Reinhold Niebuhr . )
For Morgenthau , therefore , there is an unavoidable tension between the moral universe of human beings and the real world where power politics prevails .
Anyone who aspires to political leadership thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his words , “ To act successfully , that is , according to the rules of the political art , is political wisdom .
To know with despair that the political act is inevitably evil , and to act nevertheless , is moral courage .
To choose among several expedient actions the least evil one is moral judgment.
” Instead of asking for ritual denunciations of this despot or that dictatorship , therefore , the proper question to ask Sanders , Bloomberg , Elizabeth Warren , etc.—and Trump—is how they will weigh these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal with governments whose conduct and character differs substantially from American ideals .
Does Sanders think Cuba ’ s legitimate educational accomplishments were possible only under a communist dictatorship ?
Are there any circumstances where he believes a country is better off under one-party rule ?
If not , are there conditions where he thinks the United States should use its power to advance purely moral ends ?
Similarly , instead of asking Bloomberg if Xi is a real dictator or not , a better question is what steps , if any , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral issues and what those moral issues might be .
Nor should Americans stop asking their current president why he seems to prefer autocrats to the leaders of other democracies and why his administration keeps taking steps right out of the authoritarian ’ s playbook .
In short , it is one thing to recognize the inescapable tension between our moral preferences and the realities of an imperfect world—and to do what we can to advance the former without sacrificing our security or making bad situations worse—and another thing to ignore moral considerations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) or to reduce them to the shallow mudslinging and faux outrage of last week ’ s Democratic debate .
The next time the remaining candidates are on stage , maybe someone will ask them how they would navigate some of the moral trade-offs and dilemmas that exist in the real world .
For instance : How would they try to pressure China into halting the forced indoctrination of its Uighur Muslims ?
Would they be willing to extend diplomatic recognition to North Korea in exchange for progress on nuclear arms control ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know about you , but I ’ d love to hear what they have to say .

For foreign-policy mavens, the primary race for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination hasn’t been especially edifying, mostly because the subject has received relatively little attention. Even so, the recent squabble over the candidates’ attitudes toward autocrats has been a new low. I refer, of course, to the charge that Bernie Sanders is an apologist for dictatorship because he told an interviewer that Fidel Castro’s Cuba had some genuine educational achievements, as well as the parallel attack on Michael Bloomberg for saying that China’s Xi Jinping was “not a dictator.” As Daniel Larison later noted , “[T]oo much of the foreign policy section was consumed by this ‘denounce a dictator’ exercise and many other issues were neglected as a result.”
For foreign-policy mavens, the primary race for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination hasn’t been especially edifying, mostly because the subject has received relatively little attention. Even so, the recent squabble over the candidates’ attitudes toward autocrats has been a new low. I refer, of course, to the charge that Bernie Sanders is an apologist for dictatorship because he told an interviewer that Fidel Castro’s Cuba had some genuine educational achievements, as well as the parallel attack on Michael Bloomberg for saying that China’s Xi Jinping was “not a dictator.” As Daniel Larison later noted, “[T]oo much of the foreign policy section was consumed by this ‘denounce a dictator’ exercise and many other issues were neglected as a result.”
I like liberal democracy as much as anyone, and I’m grateful that I live in a country where those values are still (mostly) respected. But this reflexive need to offer full-throated attacks on authoritarianism is symptomatic of a long-standing pathology in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy; namely, the tendency to see someone’s moral vision and commitments as the most important (and maybe the only) criterion by which their foreign-policy competence should be assessed. It is an enduring manifestation of what realists have long criticized as America’s “legalistic/moralistic approach” to foreign affairs, an approach that overlooks the political and moral complexities of statecraft and has consistently led policymakers astray.
Moral considerations are hardly irrelevant in the conduct of foreign policy, but the simplistic moral litmus test on view in the recent Democratic debate mostly reveals that the United States remains, as I wrote back in 2005, “a remarkably immature Great Power—one whose rhetoric is frequently at odds with the reality of its own conduct and one that often treats the management of foreign affairs as an adjunct to domestic politics.”
Why is a politician’s willingness to denounce dictators a poor litmus test for his or her fitness for office? For starters, it’s too easy: Anyone running for president knows that you’re not supposed to say too many nice things about foreign despots, and even Donald Trump offered only mild praise for people like Russia’s Vladimir Putin when he was on the campaign trail in 2016.
More importantly, no matter what a candidate says on the campaign trail, whoever gets elected is going to have to do business with a lot of autocrats (some of whom are pretty odious) and especially if they happen to be in charge of a powerful country. Back in 1992, for example, Bill Clinton attacked George H.W. Bush for being too tolerant of Chinese human rights abuses and said he’d get tough with Beijing; once in office, he found that hectoring China didn’t work very well, and he soon reversed course. The next president is going to talk with people like Putin, Xi, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and many, many more, and beginning the conversation by denouncing their immoral conduct won’t be the best way to advance U.S. interests or get them to improve their behavior even a little.
I’d take this insight a step further: In most cases, ostracizing autocrats or trying to freeze them out advances neither strategic nor moral objectives and may even be counterproductive. The failed U.S. embargo on Cuba is a clear case in point. The mighty United States refused to deal with Cuba for nearly half a century—solely to appease the Cuba lobby in Florida—yet this policy didn’t bring down the regime, didn’t help the Cuban people, and didn’t moderate Castro’s international conduct. One suspects a policy of engagement would have put Castro under more pressure over time, by allowing Cubans to see how much better life was elsewhere and by exposing the limitations of their own system. Similarly, not talking to countries like North Korea or Iran makes it harder to address the issues where interests conflict, which is why it makes sense to talk to them despite legitimate moral objections to these countries’ systems of rule.
Third, moral posturing of the sort on stage last week makes America look hypocritical. As everyone around the world knows, the United States has a long track record of supporting some pretty objectionable dictators, and it overthrew or undermined genuine and legitimate democrats on more than one occasion. Nor is U.S. behavior at home or abroad above reproach or consistent with the moral values to which Americans like to hold others.
Before some of you leap to Twitter to denounce what you just read, let me emphasize that I am not suggesting a moral equivalence between the United States and every autocrat who has ever ruled. I am merely pointing out that a tactic that might play on a debate stage—i.e., to accuse a political rival of being soft on dictators and insufficiently committed to America’s core political values—isn’t going to play very well abroad. Other nations already think the United States is remarkably hypocritical—and with good reason—and such antics are only likely to reinforce this view.
Unfortunately, the problem goes beyond the mudslinging of a contentious political campaign. As realists have warned for decades, America’s tendency to make morality the touchstone of its foreign policy isn’t just an occasional distraction; it is actively harmful to strategic and moral objectives alike.
One danger is utopianism, whereby the United States tries to rely on idealistic solutions that simply aren’t going to work. The Kellogg-Briand Pact is perhaps the best-known example of this kind of solution, but the tendency to see regime change and democracy promotion as the answer to numerous contemporary problems, including terrorism, is a close second. Liberal democracy has many virtues, but overzealous efforts to spread it abroad—either by peaceful or more forceful means—have a deeply disappointing track record. Insisting that other nations really ought to conform to our values may also lead us to neglect less idealistic outcomes that might still alleviate conflict and suffering in the short term.
Even worse, once we begin to view international politics and foreign policy as a morality play—with virtuous democrats on one side and evil despots on the other—the only logical solution to most global problems is to get rid of the latter. Once the troublemakers are gone, we tell ourselves, there simply won’t be any more trouble. At a minimum, this urge to do good by toppling wicked despots leads to hubristic debacles like the war in Iraq or the ill-fated intervention in Libya. At worst, it is a recipe for endless war to “eradicate evil” forever.
If simplistic moral litmus tests are not the answer, what is? A better approach was sketched many years ago, in Hans Morgenthau’s Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. Although Morgenthau is widely (and correctly) viewed as a central figure in the realist canon, he was also deeply concerned with moral issues and believed they could never be divorced from social and political life. Indeed, a central theme of this book is that all political action has moral consequences; there is no way to operate in the political world and keep entirely clean hands. (Similar themes run through the works of other realists, most notably the Christian realist Reinhold Niebuhr.)
For Morgenthau, therefore, there is an unavoidable tension between the moral universe of human beings and the real world where power politics prevails. Anyone who aspires to political leadership thus faces a very real burden. In his words, “To act successfully, that is, according to the rules of the political art, is political wisdom. To know with despair that the political act is inevitably evil, and to act nevertheless, is moral courage. To choose among several expedient actions the least evil one is moral judgment.”
Instead of asking for ritual denunciations of this despot or that dictatorship, therefore, the proper question to ask Sanders, Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren, etc.—and Trump—is how they will weigh these unavoidable tensions when they are forced to deal with governments whose conduct and character differs substantially from American ideals. Does Sanders think Cuba’s legitimate educational accomplishments were possible only under a communist dictatorship? Are there any circumstances where he believes a country is better off under one-party rule? If not, are there conditions where he thinks the United States should use its power to advance purely moral ends? Similarly, instead of asking Bloomberg if Xi is a real dictator or not, a better question is what steps, if any, he would take to pressure China over moral issues and what those moral issues might be. Nor should Americans stop asking their current president why he seems to prefer autocrats to the leaders of other democracies and why his administration keeps taking steps right out of the authoritarian’s playbook.
In short, it is one thing to recognize the inescapable tension between our moral preferences and the realities of an imperfect world—and to do what we can to advance the former without sacrificing our security or making bad situations worse—and another thing to ignore moral considerations entirely (as Trump tends to do) or to reduce them to the shallow mudslinging and faux outrage of last week’s Democratic debate. The next time the remaining candidates are on stage, maybe someone will ask them how they would navigate some of the moral trade-offs and dilemmas that exist in the real world. For instance: How would they try to pressure China into halting the forced indoctrination of its Uighur Muslims? Would they be willing to extend diplomatic recognition to North Korea in exchange for progress on nuclear arms control? And so on. I don’t know about you, but I’d love to hear what they have to say.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-03--Crisis Escalates at Turkey-Greece Border

Here is today ’ s Foreign Policy brief : Thousands of refugees seek to leave Turkey after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan opens the border , Benjamin Netanyahu claims victory in Israel ’ s election based on early results , and updates on the global spread of the coronavirus .
We welcome your feedback at morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .
Since Turkey said last week it would no longer stop refugees from crossing into Europe , more than 10,000 migrants—including many from Syria and Afghanistan—have arrived at its land borders with EU countries and at least 1,000 have landed on Greece ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have responded with tear gas and a halt to asylum requests .
The rush to the border is already fueling a crisis .
A child died when a boat capsized on Monday , and Turkish security sources have reported at least one Syrian migrant was killed at the land border .
Ursula von der Leyen , the president of the European Commission , is expected to visit the Greek-Turkish border today .
She has expressed sympathy with Turkey ’ s “ difficult situation ” —hosting more than 3 million refugees—but condemned its move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Europe .
German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan directly , calling the decision “ unacceptable.
” But Erdogan doubled down on Monday .
“ The period of single-sided sacrifice has come to an end , ” he said .
“ The number of people who are headed toward Europe since the moment we opened our borders has reached hundreds of thousands .
This figure will soon reach millions.
” ( These figures do not correspond to eyewitness accounts and appear to be vastly inflated . )
Can Greece stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kyriakos Mitsotakis announced Sunday that Greece would stop taking new asylum requests for a month .
The U.N. refugee agency said Monday that it has no right to do so under international or EU law , even as the EU rushes to help Greece police its border .
Driving displacement .
Meanwhile , the Syrian government offensive that has displaced at least 1 million people continues in the country ’ s northwest .
The fighting has escalated in recent days , and President Bashar al-Assad ’ s troops reentered a strategic town on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebel groups , has said it will keep up drone strikes against the Syrian army .
Turkey ’ s decision to allow migrants to cross into Europe was intended to get EU leaders to come to its aid against Assad—but so far it isn ’ t working , Tessa Fox reports for FP from the Turkey-Greece border .
Netanyahu declares victory , hasn ’ t won yet .
With 90 percent of the votes counted , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds a narrow lead in Israel ’ s parliamentary elections , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final results trickle in .
Netanyahu declared victory on Monday night based on exit polls that showed his party was ahead of rival Benny Gantz ’ s Blue and White party and only one or two seats away from a governing majority .
Despite Netanyahu ’ s Likud party winning 36 seats—while Gantz ’ s party took 32 , according to preliminary results—the Likud-led right-wing bloc still appears to have won only 59 seats in Israel ’ s Knesset , two seats short of the 61 needed for a majority .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be a third inconclusive election in less than a year .
Still , Netanyahu has a solid chance of forming the next government , Joshua Mitnick reports for FP .
A victory would be a major boost for the prime minister , who is set to face a corruption trial on March 17 .
Millions vote in U.S. Democratic primaries .
Today , 14 U.S. states hold presidential primaries with the potential to greatly shape the race , with around one-third of total delegates up for grabs .
Heading into Super Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dramatically .
Three candidates have withdrawn since Saturday , including Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg—both of whom dropped out and endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden .
The exits in part suggest a push to boost the moderate Biden over frontrunner Sen. Bernie Sanders .
But they could benefit the other candidates , especially Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg .
Check out our coverage of foreign policy in the 2020 election here .
WHO warns of stigma as coronavirus spreads .
The coronavirus is now spreading almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as inside , and the World Health Organization ( WHO ) has warned that stigma is “ the most dangerous enemy.
” On Monday , a WHO technical team and a shipment of medical supplies arrived in Iran , where 66 people have been reported dead from the virus , including a senior government official .
South Korea , meanwhile , has recorded 4,335 cases—the most outside China—and announced it would launch a murder investigation into the leaders of the church at the center of the outbreak in the city of Daegu .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on hopes that governments would take action to soften the blow to the economy .
The European Union is mulling fiscal policy options to be decided later this month .
AMLO ’ s approval ratings .
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is suffering in opinion polls , as respondents say that violence in the country is on the rise—particularly against women .
López Obrador ’ s support had remained steady since he took office in December 2018 , but two new polls show that his approval rating has fallen—a sign that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record number of homicides and a struggling economy .
Barrier to Afghan peace talks .
After signing an agreement with the United States on Saturday , the Taliban is refusing to take part in peace talks with the Afghan government unless it releases 5,000 Taliban prisoners .
The demand , rejected by President Ashraf Ghani , presents a significant barrier to the peace process proposed by the U.S.-Taliban agreement .
The Taliban also announced that a seven-day reduction of violence had formally ended .
India ’ s communal violence .
Indian lawmakers have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least 45 people—mostly Muslims—in Delhi last week .
Conducted with some complicity on the part of the police , the violence bears the hallmarks of an organized pogrom—and could be repeated in other parts of the country , Brown University professor Ashutosh Varshney tells FP ’ s Ravi Agrawal .
For more news and analysis on stories like this , sign up for South Asia Brief , delivered on Tuesdays .
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Monday that he was considering deleting his social media accounts , including Facebook , Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t provide a reason , but removing himself from social media could distance the prime minister from some hot-button issues , such as the protests against his government ’ s controversial citizenship law .
Still , Modi is one of the most popular world leaders on Twitter : He has 58 million followers .
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: Thousands of refugees seek to leave Turkey after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan opens the border, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims victory in Israel's election based on early results, and updates on the global spread of the coronavirus .
Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: Thousands of refugees seek to leave Turkey after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan opens the border, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims victory in Israel’s election based on early results, and updates on the global spread of the coronavirus.
If you would like to receive Morning Brief in your inbox every weekday, please sign up here.
Crisis Grows as Refugees Head for Greek Border
Since Turkey said last week it would no longer stop refugees from crossing into Europe, more than 10,000 migrants—including many from Syria and Afghanistan—have arrived at its land borders with EU countries and at least 1,000 have landed on Greece’s eastern Aegean islands. Greek authorities have responded with tear gas and a halt to asylum requests. The rush to the border is already fueling a crisis. A child died when a boat capsized on Monday, and Turkish security sources have reported at least one Syrian migrant was killed at the land border.
Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, is expected to visit the Greek-Turkish border today. She has expressed sympathy with Turkey’s “difficult situation”—hosting more than 3 million refugees—but condemned its move to let them leave its territory for Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan directly, calling the decision “unacceptable.”
But Erdogan doubled down on Monday. “The period of single-sided sacrifice has come to an end,” he said. “The number of people who are headed toward Europe since the moment we opened our borders has reached hundreds of thousands. This figure will soon reach millions.” (These figures do not correspond to eyewitness accounts and appear to be vastly inflated.)
Can Greece stop accepting asylum seekers? Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis announced Sunday that Greece would stop taking new asylum requests for a month. The U.N. refugee agency said Monday that it has no right to do so under international or EU law, even as the EU rushes to help Greece police its border.
Driving displacement. Meanwhile, the Syrian government offensive that has displaced at least 1 million people continues in the country’s northwest. The fighting has escalated in recent days, and President Bashar al-Assad’s troops reentered a strategic town on Monday. Turkey, which supports some rebel groups, has said it will keep up drone strikes against the Syrian army.
Turkey’s decision to allow migrants to cross into Europe was intended to get EU leaders to come to its aid against Assad—but so far it isn’t working, Tessa Fox reports for FP from the Turkey-Greece border.
What We’re Following Today
Netanyahu declares victory, hasn’t won yet. With 90 percent of the votes counted, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds a narrow lead in Israel’s parliamentary elections, but appears just short of a majority as the final results trickle in. Netanyahu declared victory on Monday night based on exit polls that showed his party was ahead of rival Benny Gantz’s Blue and White party and only one or two seats away from a governing majority.
Despite Netanyahu’s Likud party winning 36 seats—while Gantz’s party took 32, according to preliminary results—the Likud-led right-wing bloc still appears to have won only 59 seats in Israel’s Knesset, two seats short of the 61 needed for a majority.
That means more deadlock is possible after what could be a third inconclusive election in less than a year. Still, Netanyahu has a solid chance of forming the next government, Joshua Mitnick reports for FP. A victory would be a major boost for the prime minister, who is set to face a corruption trial on March 17.
Millions vote in U.S. Democratic primaries. Today, 14 U.S. states hold presidential primaries with the potential to greatly shape the race, with around one-third of total delegates up for grabs. Heading into Super Tuesday, the Democratic field has already changed dramatically. Three candidates have withdrawn since Saturday, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg—both of whom dropped out and endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden. The exits in part suggest a push to boost the moderate Biden over frontrunner Sen. Bernie Sanders. But they could benefit the other candidates, especially Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Check out our coverage of foreign policy in the 2020 election here.
WHO warns of stigma as coronavirus spreads. The coronavirus is now spreading almost nine times as quickly outside of China as inside, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that stigma is “the most dangerous enemy.” On Monday, a WHO technical team and a shipment of medical supplies arrived in Iran, where 66 people have been reported dead from the virus, including a senior government official. South Korea, meanwhile, has recorded 4,335 cases—the most outside China—and announced it would launch a murder investigation into the leaders of the church at the center of the outbreak in the city of Daegu.
Global markets were calm on Monday, on hopes that governments would take action to soften the blow to the economy. The European Union is mulling fiscal policy options to be decided later this month.
Keep an Eye On
AMLO’s approval ratings. Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is suffering in opinion polls, as respondents say that violence in the country is on the rise—particularly against women. López Obrador’s support had remained steady since he took office in December 2018, but two new polls show that his approval rating has fallen—a sign that he’s feeling the effects of a record number of homicides and a struggling economy.
Barrier to Afghan peace talks. After signing an agreement with the United States on Saturday, the Taliban is refusing to take part in peace talks with the Afghan government unless it releases 5,000 Taliban prisoners. The demand, rejected by President Ashraf Ghani, presents a significant barrier to the peace process proposed by the U.S.-Taliban agreement. The Taliban also announced that a seven-day reduction of violence had formally ended.
India’s communal violence. Indian lawmakers have clashed over the religious riots that killed at least 45 people—mostly Muslims—in Delhi last week. Conducted with some complicity on the part of the police, the violence bears the hallmarks of an organized pogrom—and could be repeated in other parts of the country, Brown University professor Ashutosh Varshney tells FP’s Ravi Agrawal.
For more news and analysis on stories like this, sign up for South Asia Brief, delivered on Tuesdays.
Odds and Ends
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Monday that he was considering deleting his social media accounts, including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. He didn’t provide a reason, but removing himself from social media could distance the prime minister from some hot-button issues, such as the protests against his government’s controversial citizenship law. Still, Modi is one of the most popular world leaders on Twitter: He has 58 million followers.
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--2020-03-03--Beijing Knows Who to Blame for the Virus: America

Beijing Knows Who to Blame for the Virus : America Amid a national lockdown , desperate patients , anger at a cover-up , an economic crisis , and a virus breaking beyond its own borders , the Chinese government ’ s priorities were clear : It was time to publish a glossy book on how wonderful Beijing ’ s handling of the virus has been .
A Battle Against Epidemic : China Combating COVID-19 in 2020 compiles numerous state media accounts on the heroic leadership of President Xi Jinping , the vital role of the Communist Party , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
It has gotten rave reviews in Chinese media , not least because it was published by their ultimate boss—the Central Committee Publicity Department , formerly known as the Propaganda Department .
The Chinese audience won ’ t be the only lucky readers .
The book will be translated into English , French , Spanish , Russian and Arabic , with more likely to follow .
Authorities know the virus could irreparably damage China ’ s image in the world s eyes , but they also see an opportunity to push @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and triumph .
Part of that involves glossy propaganda texts , combined with more sophisticated , individually targeted efforts .
Part of it is pushing a new set of conspiracy theories about the virus itself , aimed at the ultimate enemy : the United States .
The downside of the epidemic for China ’ s image is obvious .
There are legitimate reasons : The cover-up of the early extent of the outbreak by authorities more concerned with politics than pandemics gave it critical time to spread .
But the Chinese government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events outside its control , especially as patients and casualties pile up.Authorities know the virus could irreparably damage China ’ s image in the world ’ s eyes , but they also see an opportunity to push their own narrative .
The damage to China ’ s economy and image is also seriously worrying the leadership , which has been attempting to push people back to work .
That damage is already visible in the United States , where the virus has pushed opinions of China to record lows—and made people less confident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Firms were already looking for suppliers outside of China as a result of the trade war ; the coronavirus is giving that a critical push .
Yet Beijing is pushing a powerful counternarrative : the idea that Chinese organization and authoritarianism allowed for a rapid and effective response to the crisis that other countries can learn from .
The export of authoritarian techniques has been one of the underrated selling points of China ’ s global projects in the past few years , especially in Central Asia .
The primary audience , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too , especially in developing countries .
In fairness , it may be that the widspread lockdown truly played a critical role in containing the virus .
Yet it ’ s hard to know for sure because of the government-led clampdown on reporting , as well as the introduction of yet another set of new media and Internet controls , already planned before the coronavirus .
At the provincial level , statistics on the outbreak range from the dubious to the obviously false .
Disturbingly , the World Health Organization , already facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese failures , is a willing participant in pushing that narrative , writing a comically sycophantic report on Chinese efforts based on a recent managed propaganda tour of Hubei province , where the virus first erupted .
Much of this is clumsily obvious and will have little effect on audiences with no obligation to pretend Xi ’ s speeches are rhetorical masterpieces .
But other parts of Chinese outreach are far smarter and more sophisticated , drawing on the country ’ s huge linguistic and diplomatic resources when it comes to Africa and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this video produced by China Radio International that ’ s been widely circulated on Telegram in Iran , in which a fluent Farsi speaker explains how China managed the outbreak , and offers help to Iran , one of the countries outside China most affected by the outbreak .
That ’ s the kind of engagement that can make a lasting difference to ordinary people rather than fellow autocrats .
From early on , there ’ s also been a deliberate doubling-down on anti-U.S. propaganda .
In part that was an almost instinctive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominate the Chinese media in the last four years that it ’ s the default position for writers .
Even in the early weeks of the outbreak , Chinese officials were blaming the United States for supposed overreaction and falsely claiming Washington was the first to impose travel bans .
But there ’ s also a clear desire to divert anger away from officialdom and toward an external foe.The fact that these stories stay up in China shows that , at the very least , the government is tolerating them .
The next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deny that the virus started in China at all .
( Quite how the virus crossed species is still unclear , but there ’ s nothing to suggest it didn ’ t happen in China , which saw the first outbreak in the city of Wuhan . )
Those claims erupted on Chinese social media last week , where conspiracy-minded sites such as College Daily , already vectors for deeply racist and Islamophobic stories winked at by the propaganda authorities , are pushing the idea that the virus really originated in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mistranslated captions from American reporting are used to back up the case .
They ’ re helped in this by China ’ s own bad recording of flu stats , which makes it appear as though the country has only had a few hundred seasonal flu deaths this year , when in reality 84,000 to 92,000 people in China die of the flu each year .
Claims of the deadliness of American flu appeared in January , leading to officials believing that U.S. reporters didn ’ t fear the coronavirus because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explicit claim that coronavirus started in the United States is relatively new , but—judging from reported conversations between Chinese abroad and their parents and grandparents at home—has spread disturbingly fast .
Flu isn ’ t the only culprit blamed ; one other popular theory is that vaping deaths under President Donald Trump were a cover for coronavirus fatalities .
It ’ s unclear how much of this is state-sanctioned .
The United States , of course , has hardly been short of conspiracy theories of its own about the virus .
While he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described the virus as “ fake news.
” Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton has also played a part in spreading them .
But the United States doesn ’ t have thousands of government and private-sector personnel dedicated to online censorship , who block key search terms and take down stories and rumors unfavorable to the government with lightning speed .
The fact that these stories stay up in China shows that , at the very least , the government is tolerating them .
Most worryingly , top Chinese epidemiologist Zhong Nanshan , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the response to the outbreak , recently made an enigmatic claim at a press conference that the virus may not have originated in China—winking at these conspiracy theories without explicitly endorsing them .
Even more than boasts about China ’ s effectiveness , conspiracy theories are targeted at a domestic audience , as well as the Chinese diaspora .
But they ’ re likely to be embraced elsewhere , especially in countries with their own tendency to spot U.S. plots everywhere .
If the coronavirus is uncontainable , as many epidemiologists fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be looking for someone to blame—and Beijing wants to make sure that blame falls on Washington .

Amid a national lockdown, desperate patients, anger at a cover-up, an economic crisis, and a virus breaking beyond its own borders, the Chinese government’s priorities were clear: It was time to publish a glossy book on how wonderful Beijing’s handling of the virus has been.
Amid a national lockdown, desperate patients, anger at a cover-up, an economic crisis, and a virus breaking beyond its own borders, the Chinese government’s priorities were clear: It was time to publish a glossy book on how wonderful Beijing’s handling of the virus has been.
A Battle Against Epidemic: China Combating COVID-19 in 2020 compiles numerous state media accounts on the heroic leadership of President Xi Jinping, the vital role of the Communist Party, and the superiority of the Chinese system in fighting the virus. It has gotten rave reviews in Chinese media, not least because it was published by their ultimate boss—the Central Committee Publicity Department, formerly known as the Propaganda Department.
The Chinese audience won’t be the only lucky readers. The book will be translated into English, French, Spanish, Russian and Arabic, with more likely to follow. Authorities know the virus could irreparably damage China’s image in the world s eyes, but they also see an opportunity to push their own narrative of organization, success, and triumph. Part of that involves glossy propaganda texts, combined with more sophisticated, individually targeted efforts. Part of it is pushing a new set of conspiracy theories about the virus itself, aimed at the ultimate enemy: the United States.
The downside of the epidemic for China’s image is obvious. There are legitimate reasons: The cover-up of the early extent of the outbreak by authorities more concerned with politics than pandemics gave it critical time to spread. But the Chinese government is also likely to be blamed for events outside its control, especially as patients and casualties pile up.Authorities know the virus could irreparably damage China’s image in the world’s eyes, but they also see an opportunity to push their own narrative.
The damage to China’s economy and image is also seriously worrying the leadership, which has been attempting to push people back to work. That damage is already visible in the United States, where the virus has pushed opinions of China to record lows—and made people less confident in China’s economic future. Firms were already looking for suppliers outside of China as a result of the trade war; the coronavirus is giving that a critical push.
Yet Beijing is pushing a powerful counternarrative: the idea that Chinese organization and authoritarianism allowed for a rapid and effective response to the crisis that other countries can learn from. The export of authoritarian techniques has been one of the underrated selling points of China’s global projects in the past few years, especially in Central Asia. The primary audience, as always, is domestic—but it includes foreigners too, especially in developing countries.
In fairness, it may be that the widspread lockdown truly played a critical role in containing the virus. Yet it’s hard to know for sure because of the government-led clampdown on reporting, as well as the introduction of yet another set of new media and Internet controls, already planned before the coronavirus. At the provincial level, statistics on the outbreak range from the dubious to the obviously false. Disturbingly, the World Health Organization, already facing public criticism for its refusal to confront Chinese failures, is a willing participant in pushing that narrative, writing a comically sycophantic report on Chinese efforts based on a recent managed propaganda tour of Hubei province, where the virus first erupted.
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
Much of this is clumsily obvious and will have little effect on audiences with no obligation to pretend Xi’s speeches are rhetorical masterpieces. But other parts of Chinese outreach are far smarter and more sophisticated, drawing on the country’s huge linguistic and diplomatic resources when it comes to Africa and the Middle East in particular. Take this video produced by China Radio International that’s been widely circulated on Telegram in Iran, in which a fluent Farsi speaker explains how China managed the outbreak, and offers help to Iran, one of the countries outside China most affected by the outbreak. That’s the kind of engagement that can make a lasting difference to ordinary people rather than fellow autocrats.
From early on, there’s also been a deliberate doubling-down on anti-U.S. propaganda. In part that was an almost instinctive reaction; anti-Americanism has so come to dominate the Chinese media in the last four years that it’s the default position for writers. Even in the early weeks of the outbreak, Chinese officials were blaming the United States for supposed overreaction and falsely claiming Washington was the first to impose travel bans. But there’s also a clear desire to divert anger away from officialdom and toward an external foe.The fact that these stories stay up in China shows that, at the very least, the government is tolerating them.
The next stage of the propaganda push has been to deny that the virus started in China at all. (Quite how the virus crossed species is still unclear, but there’s nothing to suggest it didn’t happen in China, which saw the first outbreak in the city of Wuhan.) Those claims erupted on Chinese social media last week, where conspiracy-minded sites such as College Daily, already vectors for deeply racist and Islamophobic stories winked at by the propaganda authorities, are pushing the idea that the virus really originated in the United States. Clips from Taiwanese TV and mistranslated captions from American reporting are used to back up the case.
They’re helped in this by China’s own bad recording of flu stats, which makes it appear as though the country has only had a few hundred seasonal flu deaths this year, when in reality 84,000 to 92,000 people in China die of the flu each year. Claims of the deadliness of American flu appeared in January, leading to officials believing that U.S. reporters didn’t fear the coronavirus because they were inured to the disease. The explicit claim that coronavirus started in the United States is relatively new, but—judging from reported conversations between Chinese abroad and their parents and grandparents at home—has spread disturbingly fast. Flu isn’t the only culprit blamed; one other popular theory is that vaping deaths under President Donald Trump were a cover for coronavirus fatalities.
It’s unclear how much of this is state-sanctioned. The United States, of course, has hardly been short of conspiracy theories of its own about the virus. While he walked it back later, Trump himself described the virus as “fake news.” Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton has also played a part in spreading them. But the United States doesn’t have thousands of government and private-sector personnel dedicated to online censorship, who block key search terms and take down stories and rumors unfavorable to the government with lightning speed.
The fact that these stories stay up in China shows that, at the very least, the government is tolerating them. Most worryingly, top Chinese epidemiologist Zhong Nanshan, who has been at the front and center of the response to the outbreak, recently made an enigmatic claim at a press conference that the virus may not have originated in China—winking at these conspiracy theories without explicitly endorsing them.
Even more than boasts about China’s effectiveness, conspiracy theories are targeted at a domestic audience, as well as the Chinese diaspora. But they’re likely to be embraced elsewhere, especially in countries with their own tendency to spot U.S. plots everywhere.
If the coronavirus is uncontainable, as many epidemiologists fear, the whole world is going to be looking for someone to blame—and Beijing wants to make sure that blame falls on Washington.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-03--Democrats Threaten Energy Rollback

Democrats Threaten Energy Rollback

A host of candidates for the U.S. Democratic presidential nomination have been bandying about radical energy and environmental policies for months , including a ban on hydraulic fracturing .
Now that the primary season is entering its crucial phase with Super Tuesday voting in 14 states , those dreamy plans are suddenly looking a whole lot more real .
The three leading Democratic candidates—Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , former Vice President Joe Biden , and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren—all propose vigorous federal action to limit or even roll back production of oil and natural gas .
Viewing the increased production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the fight against climate change , all three have called for production limits ranging from the more modest , like Biden ’ s plan to ban Arctic oil drilling and boost regulations on fracking , to the more aggressive , like that of Sanders and Warren , who both back a ban on fracking and an end to fossil fuel leases on federal land .
In the crosshairs in particular is the fracking boom that in a little over a decade turned the United States from the world ’ s biggest oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil and gas producer , which gave the United States both an edge in curbing greenhouse gas emissions by using cleaner-burning gas and a newfound heft on the international stage .
For Democrats , even Biden , the new sentiment for restrictions is a stark departure from the middle-of-the-road energy policies of the Obama administration—which at the time Republicans attacked as too radical .
“ It is jaw-dropping to see how far these candidates have shifted from [ former President Barack ] Obama ’ s all-of-the-above approach to energy , ” said Bob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Group , a consultancy .
Particularly surprising , he said , is the animosity toward the use of natural gas , a cleaner-burning fossil fuel that displaced coal and helped lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions , but which now is vilified in most Democratic energy proposals .
“ If oil is Nazi Germany , gas is Fascist Italy—it ’ s not quite as bad as Hitler , but it ’ s in league with the enemy , ” McNally said .
Tallying up the different proposals on the table—from bans on fracking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil and gas investments , McNally said the oil and gas industry is bracing for a potential regulatory onslaught .
“ If a Democrat wins , we ’ re going to see a Tet Offensive against the oil and gas industry the likes of which we ’ ve never seen before , ” he said .
Oil and stock markets ( when not getting hammered by coronavirus ) have so far been blase about the prospects of a radical , structural change in U.S. energy policy , but with the ascendance of Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposals among all major remaining candidates , that might be starting to change , said Kevin Book , the co-founder and managing director of ClearView Energy Partners , an energy consultancy .
“ None of the Democrats , from an energy-production point of view , are moderate , ” he said .
“ I think the market should start to price things in on Wednesday , ” after the Super Tuesday primary results start to lay out the stakes of a nearly binary choice for president this fall .
Politically , such energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many progressive activists oppose greater oil and gas production because it entrenches the dominance of fossil fuels that are the biggest contributors to climate change .
And many oppose fracking in particular because of environmental concerns including groundwater contamination , methane emissions , and even the greater risk of earthquakes .
Progressives who advocate “ keep it in the ground ” policies toward fossil fuels are actively clamoring for a more aggressive stance from the next president—not a continued push to out-drill Russia and Saudi Arabia—and galvanizing those kinds of voters will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ This election takes place during a crucial inflection point for climate action , ” said May Boeve , the executive director of 350 Action , a climate advocacy group , in a rare double endorsement Monday of both Sanders and Warren .
“ We need a president who will fight against the fossil fuel industry that is standing in the way of progress.
” And since the overwhelming majority of U.S. oil and gas production is concentrated in states that voted for President Donald Trump in 2016 and will almost certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the electoral map for aggressive Democrats to lose , Book said , though such policies could make Pennsylvania an even tougher state for Democrats to win .
One thing that will be almost impossible for any Democratic president to do is ban fracking outright , as Warren and Sanders have promised , including on private land that makes up the vast majority of the shale patch .
That would be exceedingly difficult without a change in U.S. law , which would require Democrats to sweep both houses of Congress as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to survive inevitable legal challenges in federal courts packed with Trump nominees .
But when it comes to restrictive energy policies , any future Democratic president still has lots of ways to limit U.S. oil and gas production—at least on federal lands , which account for about 20 percent of oil output and 14 percent of gas .
The next White House could take steps to end or slow down fossil fuel leasing , slow down or stop fracking there , and even shut down offshore oil production .
“ You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Jason Bordoff , a former Obama energy and climate advisor and the founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University .
“ But you can throw a lot of sand in the gears with regulations that raise costs.
” Book figures a Sanders or Warren-style brake on federal oil and gas activities could knock off more than 600,000 barrels a day of U.S. oil production ( out of a total of about 11.8 million barrels a day ) and roughly 5 billion cubic feet a day of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total of about 92 billion cubic feet per day .
Banning fracking on federal lands or other steps to limit fossil fuels wouldn ’ t even necessarily require a lengthy and cumbersome rules change .
The next president could simply issue more restrictive guidance to federal agencies , or apply environmental rules more rigorously , or simply decide that the economic cost of greenhouse gas emissions is higher than the Trump administration has determined , which would enable all sorts of environmental restrictions .
The next administration could even—taking a page from Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed border emergency to raid the Pentagon budget to build his wall on the U.S.-Mexican border—declare a climate emergency to invoke all sorts of broad economic authorities .
That would enable the next administration to potentially shut down exports of crude oil and gas , stop offshore oil and gas production , and maybe even halt the shipment of oil and gas by pipelines , Book said .
( ClearView last fall published an exhaustive analysis of different ways the next president could seek to ban or curtail oil and gas production .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies would be in the U.S. interest .
Thanks to the fracking boom and the explosive growth of U.S. natural gas production , coal has been steadily pushed out of the electricity mix and replaced with natural gas .
That has made the United States—first under the Obama administration , but even under the Trump administration—one of the countries that has most reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector .
But that initial fracking boom that reduced emissions has given way in the last couple of years to more progress thanks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true for the last decade may not be true for the next decade , ” Bordoff said .
Opponents of fossil fuels argue that to really fight climate change and kickstart a wholesale energy transition , the time for interim solutions like natural gas is over .
That ’ s why they ’ d hope to see any fracking ban coupled with more aggressive policies to promote renewable energy , electric vehicles , and other parts of a greener economy as part of a crash decadelong program to wean the United States off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders , and especially Warren have all proposed different mixes of federal support for clean energy , such as renewable energy , electric cars , and battery storage .
“ The concern about natural gas on the left reflects the growing understanding about methane leakage , the fact that renewables have gotten a lot cheaper , and the dwindling time frame we have to make progress on the climate , ” Bordoff said .
The problem is that , despite decades of investment in renewables and other clean energy , the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for energy is still overwhelmingly supplied by fossil fuels , including oil and gas .
Despite Democratic talk of a “ Green New Deal , ” it ’ s not at all clear how , how soon , or at what cost greener technologies could replace such a central component of the world ’ s biggest economy .
“ People just sort of think that with national will , or a New Deal , or a Manhattan Project , that we can achieve an energy transition in a matter of years , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I think it ’ s complete lunacy .
There is nothing in history to suggest that .
The marvel of this whole discussion is its delusional quality.
” The U.S. energy boom had another big side effect beyond lower emissions : It dramatically ramped up America ’ s geopolitical heft .
Greater production of oil thanks to the fracking boom enabled the Obama administration and later the Trump administration to levy severe oil sanctions on Iran—sanctions that would have been unthinkable before the energy boom because they would have spiked global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ production has enabled a much more aggressive stance toward countries like Venezuela .
U.S. natural gas production and exports , too , have given the United States fresh geoeconomic tools .
Tankers with U.S. gas can help wean Europe off of reliance on Russian gas , and all the additional gas sloshing around the market makes it easier for Washington take aim at big Russian energy projects , like the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Germany .
In other words , the fracking-fueled U.S. energy boom both gave the United States new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s favorite economic weapons and , by flooding the market , helped drain the coffers of petrostates such as Russia , Iran , and Venezuela .
Those newfound geopolitical benefits could be at risk if Democratic proposals are carried out .
But many Democrats , such as the Sanders campaign , are happy to dial back what they see as an excessive abuse of U.S. financial and sanctions might , anyway .
“ The shale revolution has been a game changer from a geopolitical standpoint , ” Bordoff said .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and imports rose , that would weaken the United States geopolitically , and benefit countries around the world that don ’ t always have U.S. interests at heart .
”

A host of candidates for the U.S. Democratic presidential nomination have been bandying about radical energy and environmental policies for months, including a ban on hydraulic fracturing. Now that the primary season is entering its crucial phase with Super Tuesday voting in 14 states, those dreamy plans are suddenly looking a whole lot more real.
A host of candidates for the U.S. Democratic presidential nomination have been bandying about radical energy and environmental policies for months, including a ban on hydraulic fracturing. Now that the primary season is entering its crucial phase with Super Tuesday voting in 14 states, those dreamy plans are suddenly looking a whole lot more real.
The three leading Democratic candidates—Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren—all propose vigorous federal action to limit or even roll back production of oil and natural gas. Viewing the increased production of fossil fuels as being at odds with the fight against climate change, all three have called for production limits ranging from the more modest, like Biden’s plan to ban Arctic oil drilling and boost regulations on fracking, to the more aggressive, like that of Sanders and Warren, who both back a ban on fracking and an end to fossil fuel leases on federal land.
In the crosshairs in particular is the fracking boom that in a little over a decade turned the United States from the world’s biggest oil importer into the world’s biggest oil and gas producer, which gave the United States both an edge in curbing greenhouse gas emissions by using cleaner-burning gas and a newfound heft on the international stage.
For Democrats, even Biden, the new sentiment for restrictions is a stark departure from the middle-of-the-road energy policies of the Obama administration—which at the time Republicans attacked as too radical.
“It is jaw-dropping to see how far these candidates have shifted from [former President Barack] Obama’s all-of-the-above approach to energy,” said Bob McNally, the head of Rapidan Energy Group, a consultancy. Particularly surprising, he said, is the animosity toward the use of natural gas, a cleaner-burning fossil fuel that displaced coal and helped lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, but which now is vilified in most Democratic energy proposals.
“If oil is Nazi Germany, gas is Fascist Italy—it’s not quite as bad as Hitler, but it’s in league with the enemy,” McNally said. Tallying up the different proposals on the table—from bans on fracking to offshore drilling, and tougher scrutiny of oil and gas investments, McNally said the oil and gas industry is bracing for a potential regulatory onslaught. “If a Democrat wins, we’re going to see a Tet Offensive against the oil and gas industry the likes of which we’ve never seen before,” he said.
Oil and stock markets (when not getting hammered by coronavirus) have so far been blase about the prospects of a radical, structural change in U.S. energy policy, but with the ascendance of Bernie Sanders and the uniformity of Democratic energy proposals among all major remaining candidates, that might be starting to change, said Kevin Book, the co-founder and managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, an energy consultancy.
“None of the Democrats, from an energy-production point of view, are moderate,” he said. “I think the market should start to price things in on Wednesday,” after the Super Tuesday primary results start to lay out the stakes of a nearly binary choice for president this fall.
Politically, such energy policies make plenty of sense for Democrats. Many progressive activists oppose greater oil and gas production because it entrenches the dominance of fossil fuels that are the biggest contributors to climate change. And many oppose fracking in particular because of environmental concerns including groundwater contamination, methane emissions, and even the greater risk of earthquakes.
Progressives who advocate “keep it in the ground” policies toward fossil fuels are actively clamoring for a more aggressive stance from the next president—not a continued push to out-drill Russia and Saudi Arabia—and galvanizing those kinds of voters will be crucial to Democratic hopes this fall.
“This election takes place during a crucial inflection point for climate action,” said May Boeve, the executive director of 350 Action, a climate advocacy group, in a rare double endorsement Monday of both Sanders and Warren. “We need a president who will fight against the fossil fuel industry that is standing in the way of progress.”
And since the overwhelming majority of U.S. oil and gas production is concentrated in states that voted for President Donald Trump in 2016 and will almost certainly vote Republican again, there is little on the electoral map for aggressive Democrats to lose, Book said, though such policies could make Pennsylvania an even tougher state for Democrats to win.
One thing that will be almost impossible for any Democratic president to do is ban fracking outright, as Warren and Sanders have promised, including on private land that makes up the vast majority of the shale patch. That would be exceedingly difficult without a change in U.S. law, which would require Democrats to sweep both houses of Congress as well as the White House, and for any plan to survive inevitable legal challenges in federal courts packed with Trump nominees.
But when it comes to restrictive energy policies, any future Democratic president still has lots of ways to limit U.S. oil and gas production—at least on federal lands, which account for about 20 percent of oil output and 14 percent of gas. The next White House could take steps to end or slow down fossil fuel leasing, slow down or stop fracking there, and even shut down offshore oil production.
“You can’t ban fracking without Congress,” said Jason Bordoff, a former Obama energy and climate advisor and the founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. “But you can throw a lot of sand in the gears with regulations that raise costs.”
Book figures a Sanders or Warren-style brake on federal oil and gas activities could knock off more than 600,000 barrels a day of U.S. oil production (out of a total of about 11.8 million barrels a day) and roughly 5 billion cubic feet a day of natural gas output, out of a total of about 92 billion cubic feet per day.
Banning fracking on federal lands or other steps to limit fossil fuels wouldn’t even necessarily require a lengthy and cumbersome rules change. The next president could simply issue more restrictive guidance to federal agencies, or apply environmental rules more rigorously, or simply decide that the economic cost of greenhouse gas emissions is higher than the Trump administration has determined, which would enable all sorts of environmental restrictions.
The next administration could even—taking a page from Trump’s playbook when he used a supposed border emergency to raid the Pentagon budget to build his wall on the U.S.-Mexican border—declare a climate emergency to invoke all sorts of broad economic authorities. That would enable the next administration to potentially shut down exports of crude oil and gas, stop offshore oil and gas production, and maybe even halt the shipment of oil and gas by pipelines, Book said. (ClearView last fall published an exhaustive analysis of different ways the next president could seek to ban or curtail oil and gas production.)
A bigger question is whether such policies would be in the U.S. interest. Thanks to the fracking boom and the explosive growth of U.S. natural gas production, coal has been steadily pushed out of the electricity mix and replaced with natural gas. That has made the United States—first under the Obama administration, but even under the Trump administration—one of the countries that has most reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector.
But that initial fracking boom that reduced emissions has given way in the last couple of years to more progress thanks to renewable energy. “What has been true for the last decade may not be true for the next decade,” Bordoff said.
Opponents of fossil fuels argue that to really fight climate change and kickstart a wholesale energy transition, the time for interim solutions like natural gas is over. That’s why they’d hope to see any fracking ban coupled with more aggressive policies to promote renewable energy, electric vehicles, and other parts of a greener economy as part of a crash decadelong program to wean the United States off dirtier forms of energy. Biden, Sanders, and especially Warren have all proposed different mixes of federal support for clean energy, such as renewable energy, electric cars, and battery storage.
“The concern about natural gas on the left reflects the growing understanding about methane leakage, the fact that renewables have gotten a lot cheaper, and the dwindling time frame we have to make progress on the climate,” Bordoff said.
The problem is that, despite decades of investment in renewables and other clean energy, the United States and the world’s voracious appetite for energy is still overwhelmingly supplied by fossil fuels, including oil and gas. Despite Democratic talk of a “Green New Deal,” it’s not at all clear how, how soon, or at what cost greener technologies could replace such a central component of the world’s biggest economy.
“People just sort of think that with national will, or a New Deal, or a Manhattan Project, that we can achieve an energy transition in a matter of years, if not a decade,” McNally said. “I think it’s complete lunacy. There is nothing in history to suggest that. The marvel of this whole discussion is its delusional quality.”
The U.S. energy boom had another big side effect beyond lower emissions: It dramatically ramped up America’s geopolitical heft. Greater production of oil thanks to the fracking boom enabled the Obama administration and later the Trump administration to levy severe oil sanctions on Iran—sanctions that would have been unthinkable before the energy boom because they would have spiked global oil prices. Likewise, greater U.S. production has enabled a much more aggressive stance toward countries like Venezuela.
U.S. natural gas production and exports, too, have given the United States fresh geoeconomic tools. Tankers with U.S. gas can help wean Europe off of reliance on Russian gas, and all the additional gas sloshing around the market makes it easier for Washington take aim at big Russian energy projects, like the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Germany.
In other words, the fracking-fueled U.S. energy boom both gave the United States new ways to blunt one of the Kremlin’s favorite economic weapons and, by flooding the market, helped drain the coffers of petrostates such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela.
Those newfound geopolitical benefits could be at risk if Democratic proposals are carried out. But many Democrats, such as the Sanders campaign, are happy to dial back what they see as an excessive abuse of U.S. financial and sanctions might, anyway.
“The shale revolution has been a game changer from a geopolitical standpoint,” Bordoff said. “If U.S. oil and gas output suddenly collapsed and imports rose, that would weaken the United States geopolitically, and benefit countries around the world that don’t always have U.S. interests at heart.”


foreignpolicy--2020-03-03--The United States Can’t Win Playing China’s Media Games

It ’ s very tempting to applaud the measures that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced yesterday—that the visas issued to five Chinese media organizations would be capped at 100 , likely forcing them to send home dozens of Chinese employees—journalists , managers , or whomever the organizations select .
After all , these bloated operations—Xinhua News Agency , CGTN , China Radio International , China Daily , and People ’ s Daily—really are propaganda outfits that do the bidding of the Communist Party of China .
That ’ s not supposition or a big secret .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the role of Chinese news organizations .
Of course , that ’ s not healthy , at least not for press freedom .
So sure , send them home .
And what could be more fitting in view of the miserable way that China treats foreign reporters on its own soil ?
Monday ’ s report from the Foreign Correspondents ’ Club of China described in the great detail the sort of intimidation and threats foreign correspondents face day in and out : threats to revoke their visas when they report news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats that are carried out often enough to scare everyone ; threats and intimidation of locally hired Chinese staff who are asked to spy on their employers , including threats to their families ; surveillance and interference with what are supposed to be legally authorized reporting activities around the country .
A majority of correspondents in China reported on the FCCC survey that working conditions had deteriorated .
For the second year in a row , not one said conditions had improved .
But as I write this , enjoying a kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media workers in the United States get the boot , I have to keep reminding myself that what may feel good isn ’ t necessarily good for you .
The State Department wasn ’ t technically wrong to designate these organizations last month as foreign missions , akin to foreign embassies or consulates .
It ’ s not that they never report actual news .
That ’ s just not their purpose , and they have free rein to broadcast or circulate , even in the United States , distorted or highly one-sided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hong Kong protests that read more like press releases from China than a news report .
Under President Xi Jinping , controls over the Chinese media have grown progressively stricter .
So , yes , it ’ s fair to question whether they are really journalism operations .
Indeed , the organizations are believed to act as cover for espionage operations as well , sending exclusive reports back to China ’ s spy agencies .
All the more reason to get a handle on their operations .
But just one day after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ foreign missions , ” China decided to expel three reporters for the Wall Street Journal , citing an allegedly racist headline in an opinion piece the previous week that had nothing to do with the reporters .
True , some Chinese undoubtedly found the headline “ China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia ” to be offensive .
But , honestly , so what ?
China can ’ t live with a few offensive words thrown its way ?
( And the Journal made a reasonable case for why they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the move made it obvious what the real reason was ; the reporters simply happened to be in the crosshairs .
That brings to nine the number of journalists expelled since 2013 , including those denied visa renewal—often for exposing corruption or human-rights abuses in Xinjiang .
The expulsions were a stark reminder about the need for caution , especially today .
One of the Journal reporters , an American named Chao Deng , has been unable to leave China by the deadline because she is stuck in Wuhan under quarantine .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was happening at the epicenter of the epidemic , and now that voice is silenced .
She ’ s been permitted to remain , but not allowed to continue her reporting .
It ’ s true that the visa imbalance is extreme .
Last year , according to the State Department , 425 visas were issued to Chinese media workers and immediate family , while U.S. journalists working in China number about 100 ( not including families ) .
Now that the U.S. government has decided to prohibit the five designated organizations from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forcing up to 60 to lose their jobs and visa sponsorship , just how many foreign correspondents will China decide to expel in retaliation ?
And how will that affect the vitally important work of reporting on the unfolding global health crisis ?
Sure , Pompeo spoke about creating a level playing field , and hoping that Beijing would , in response to U.S. moves , “ adopt a more fair and reciprocal approach to U.S. and other foreign press in China.
” Really ?
Is there some precedent that no one else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a positive , cooperative , way after the United States gives it a thrashing by expelling up to 60 of its nationals ?
And it won ’ t simply turn the screws tighter on the Beijing foreign press corps .
China took just one day to vow retaliation .
“ Now the US kicked off the game , let ’ s play , ” said foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying on Twitter .
I appreciate Pompeo ’ s intent , but we ’ ve been suckered into playing China ’ s game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it than we are .
We might have real leverage on trade issues ; not so much on media visas .
And the timing—when the world needs a free flow of accurate information in the midst of a global crisis—that could not be worse .
There ’ s no easy solution .
What hasn ’ t been tried is a global coordinated and principled push for China to behave , executed by governments that understand the critical importance of press freedom .
For that to happen , the U.S. president would have to @ @ @ @ @ @

It’s very tempting to applaud the measures that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced yesterday—that the visas issued to five Chinese media organizations would be capped at 100, likely forcing them to send home dozens of Chinese employees—journalists, managers, or whomever the organizations select. After all, these bloated operations—Xinhua News Agency, CGTN, China Radio International, China Daily, and People’s Daily—really are propaganda outfits that do the bidding of the Communist Party of China. That’s not supposition or a big secret. That’s what China’s own leadership says about the role of Chinese news organizations. Of course, that’s not healthy, at least not for press freedom. So sure, send them home.
It’s very tempting to applaud the measures that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced yesterday—that the visas issued to five Chinese media organizations would be capped at 100, likely forcing them to send home dozens of Chinese employees—journalists, managers, or whomever the organizations select. After all, these bloated operations—Xinhua News Agency, CGTN, China Radio International, China Daily, and People’s Daily—really are propaganda outfits that do the bidding of the Communist Party of China. That’s not supposition or a big secret. That’s what China’s own leadership says about the role of Chinese news organizations. Of course, that’s not healthy, at least not for press freedom. So sure, send them home.
And what could be more fitting in view of the miserable way that China treats foreign reporters on its own soil? Monday’s report from the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China described in the great detail the sort of intimidation and threats foreign correspondents face day in and out: threats to revoke their visas when they report news that China doesn’t like, threats that are carried out often enough to scare everyone; threats and intimidation of locally hired Chinese staff who are asked to spy on their employers, including threats to their families; surveillance and interference with what are supposed to be legally authorized reporting activities around the country. A majority of correspondents in China reported on the FCCC survey that working conditions had deteriorated. For the second year in a row, not one said conditions had improved.
But as I write this, enjoying a kind of smug feel-good vibe as I watch Chinese media workers in the United States get the boot, I have to keep reminding myself that what may feel good isn’t necessarily good for you.
The State Department wasn’t technically wrong to designate these organizations last month as foreign missions, akin to foreign embassies or consulates. It’s not that they never report actual news. That’s just not their purpose, and they have free rein to broadcast or circulate, even in the United States, distorted or highly one-sided accounts, for example, of the Hong Kong protests that read more like press releases from China than a news report. Under President Xi Jinping, controls over the Chinese media have grown progressively stricter. So, yes, it’s fair to question whether they are really journalism operations. Indeed, the organizations are believed to act as cover for espionage operations as well, sending exclusive reports back to China’s spy agencies. All the more reason to get a handle on their operations.
But just one day after the United States designated these media groups as “foreign missions,” China decided to expel three reporters for the Wall Street Journal, citing an allegedly racist headline in an opinion piece the previous week that had nothing to do with the reporters. True, some Chinese undoubtedly found the headline “China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia” to be offensive. But, honestly, so what? China can’t live with a few offensive words thrown its way? (And the Journal made a reasonable case for why they were not offensive.) The timing of the move made it obvious what the real reason was; the reporters simply happened to be in the crosshairs. That brings to nine the number of journalists expelled since 2013, including those denied visa renewal—often for exposing corruption or human-rights abuses in Xinjiang.
The expulsions were a stark reminder about the need for caution, especially today. One of the Journal reporters, an American named Chao Deng, has been unable to leave China by the deadline because she is stuck in Wuhan under quarantine. She had been sending excellent dispatches on what was happening at the epicenter of the epidemic, and now that voice is silenced. She’s been permitted to remain, but not allowed to continue her reporting.
It’s true that the visa imbalance is extreme. Last year, according to the State Department, 425 visas were issued to Chinese media workers and immediate family, while U.S. journalists working in China number about 100 (not including families). Now that the U.S. government has decided to prohibit the five designated organizations from employing more than 100 Chinese nationals, forcing up to 60 to lose their jobs and visa sponsorship, just how many foreign correspondents will China decide to expel in retaliation? And how will that affect the vitally important work of reporting on the unfolding global health crisis?
Sure, Pompeo spoke about creating a level playing field, and hoping that Beijing would, in response to U.S. moves, “adopt a more fair and reciprocal approach to U.S. and other foreign press in China.”
Really? Is there some precedent that no one else knows about suggesting that China will respond in a positive, cooperative, way after the United States gives it a thrashing by expelling up to 60 of its nationals? And it won’t simply turn the screws tighter on the Beijing foreign press corps. China took just one day to vow retaliation. “Now the US kicked off the game, let’s play,” said foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying on Twitter.
I appreciate Pompeo’s intent, but we’ve been suckered into playing China’s game, and they are just better at it than we are. We might have real leverage on trade issues; not so much on media visas. And the timing—when the world needs a free flow of accurate information in the midst of a global crisis—that could not be worse. There’s no easy solution. What hasn’t been tried is a global coordinated and principled push for China to behave, executed by governments that understand the critical importance of press freedom. For that to happen, the U.S. president would have to show some so-far absent leadership.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-03--America’s Hinge Moment: Sanders or Biden

Joe Biden , the new comeback kid of American politics , laid out the stakes pretty clearly as he basked in the grand consolidation of Democratic Party moderates who—in an eye blink , or so it seemed—stood united behind him onstage in Texas Monday night : Pete Buttigieg , Amy Klobuchar , and Beto O ’ Rourke .
“ People don ’ t want the promise of revolution , they want results , they want the revival of decency , honor , and character , ” declared the former vice president , who only two weeks ago had been all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race but is now surging and focusing his attack directly on Sen. Bernie Sanders , his populist chief rival in the Democratic primary .
The Super Tuesday run of 14 state primaries and two caucuses will go a long way toward determining if Biden is right .
Do most Democrats—and Americans—want a return to the previous status quo in the form of a Biden presidency , as he suggests ?
Or do they want an embrace of runaway populism—the “ revolution ” Sanders has promised for decades—that will have the Vermont senator vying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , to drag the United States and possibly the world into further uncharted political territory ?
Certainly Sanders is no Trump , as even Biden defenders admit .
“ Trump ’ s faux populism , rarely grounded in facts , is an extension of his pathological narcissism .
Whatever his campaign slogans , Trump puts his own interests , not America ’ s , first , ” said Michael Haltzel , a scholar at Johns Hopkins University ’ s School of Advanced International Studies and a former senior advisor to Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is a genuine populist whose policies flow from a rigid adherence to what he defines as democratic socialism.
” Sanders argues that he is as far away from Trump in his approach to the world as Biden is—and why , after all , should America revert to a status quo foreign policy that led to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and a huge loss of U.S. prestige around the world ?
Sanders often points out , accurately , that he , not Biden , voted against authorizing the Iraq invasion in 2002 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complimentary things about Fidel Castro ’ s Cuba and other socialist countries—he regularly invokes the soft socialism of Europe as a model—Sanders also has fiercely opposed authoritarian rule around the world and has called for rebuilding relations with U.S. allies .
But although they appear to stand for very different things , Trump and Sanders are in many ways two sides of the same political coin : that of grassroots outrage over flawed economic and social policies adopted by both Democrats and Republicans in recent decades .
As right-wing and left-wing populists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America ’ s present discontent ; both address , in different ways , the seething sense of unfairness , of inequality in Americans , ” as I wrote four years ago at an equivalent moment in the 2016 race .
“ Trump emphasizes shutting down job-stealing immigrants and getting ‘ better ’ deals from the world ; Sanders , imprisoning wealth-gobbling , spoiled Wall Streeters and getting ‘ fairer ’ deals from the world .
Both candidates plainly appeal to people who feel that no one is really standing up for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their middle class.
” Biden ’ s appeal , on the other hand—and he ’ s plainly running on this—is more personal than policy-oriented .
He ’ s political comfort food : the nice guy and nostalgia candidate rooted in post-Cold War tradition who hopes to restore much of the world abruptly abandoned by U.S. politics in November 2016 when Trump was elected .
Certainly , like all the Democratic candidates , Biden has shifted leftward to meet the demands of Sanders ’ s progressive appeal , saying labor and environmentalists would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Obamacare must be improved .
But , fundamentally , he ’ s still selling centrist Democrat identity politics : “ If Democrats want a nominee who ’ s a Democrat , a lifelong Democrat , an Obama-Biden Democrat , then join us .
We can either win big or lose big , that ’ s a choice , ” Biden said Monday .
He was speaking after his former moderate rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination , ex-South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Buttigieg , Minnesota Sen. Klobuchar , and former Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him in a matter of hours , also warning of the danger from the left embodied by Sanders , who is technically an independent in the Senate .
The wild card remains former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg , the multibillionaire ex-Republican businessman who is billing himself as a moderate/pragmatist alternative to Biden but who remains untested in national elections .
Tuesday ’ s outcome matters not just for the future of American democracy but for what it means in a world in which post-Cold War conventional wisdom about the virtues of democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the globe .
From Brexiteers such as Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the U.K. to such leaders as Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey , Narendra Modi in India , Viktor Orban in Hungary , and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines , a new phalanx of nationalists is actively campaigning against a globalized world .
Trump ’ s “ America First ” credo has become , around the world , “ ( Country name here ) First.
” That would probably change less than you think in a Bernie Sanders presidency .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left-wing radical from Vermont ( via Brooklyn ) is a lifelong , unrepentant anti-imperialist who supports a rapid drawdown of U.S. forces and , even now when he is within reach of the Democratic nomination , refuses to give up the “ socialist ” label .
“ In many ways Sanders would continue Trump ’ s retreat from international responsibility , ” Haltzel said in an email .
“ Radically cutting the defense budget and withdrawing U.S. forces from some crisis areas would be a central element of a Sanders foreign policy—a classic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foolish ’ which would almost certainly come back to haunt us .
”

Joe Biden, the new comeback kid of American politics, laid out the stakes pretty clearly as he basked in the grand consolidation of Democratic Party moderates who—in an eye blink, or so it seemed—stood united behind him onstage in Texas Monday night: Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Beto O’Rourke.
Joe Biden, the new comeback kid of American politics, laid out the stakes pretty clearly as he basked in the grand consolidation of Democratic Party moderates who—in an eye blink, or so it seemed—stood united behind him onstage in Texas Monday night: Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Beto O’Rourke.
“People don’t want the promise of revolution, they want results, they want the revival of decency, honor, and character,” declared the former vice president, who only two weeks ago had been all but counted out of the 2020 presidential race but is now surging and focusing his attack directly on Sen. Bernie Sanders, his populist chief rival in the Democratic primary.
The outcome in the Super Tuesday run of 14 state primaries and two caucuses went a long way toward suggesting that Biden might prove right. The 77-year-old candidate continued his startling political comeback by winning Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Alabama, and Massachusetts, while Sanders took Colorado, Utah, and his home state of Vermont. The biggest prizes, California and Texas, were split, with Sanders tallying well ahead in the former and Biden winning the latter.
Still, it’s likely the race will remained undecided for some time, and the question remains: Do most Democrats—and Americans—want a return to the previous status quo in the form of a Biden presidency, as he suggests? Or do they want an embrace of runaway populism—the “revolution” Sanders has promised for decades—that will have the Vermont senator vying with his fellow populist, President Donald Trump, to drag the United States and possibly the world into further uncharted political territory?
Certainly Sanders is no Trump, as even Biden defenders admit. “Trump’s faux populism, rarely grounded in facts, is an extension of his pathological narcissism. Whatever his campaign slogans, Trump puts his own interests, not America’s, first,” said Michael Haltzel, a scholar at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a former senior advisor to Biden.
“Sanders, on the other hand, is a genuine populist whose policies flow from a rigid adherence to what he defines as democratic socialism.”
Sanders argues that he is as far away from Trump in his approach to the world as Biden is—and why, after all, should America revert to a status quo foreign policy that led to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and a huge loss of U.S. prestige around the world? Sanders often points out, accurately, that he, not Biden, voted against authorizing the Iraq invasion in 2002. Despite being criticized recently for saying complimentary things about Fidel Castro’s Cuba and other socialist countries—he regularly invokes the soft socialism of Europe as a model—Sanders also has fiercely opposed authoritarian rule around the world and has called for rebuilding relations with U.S. allies.
But although they appear to stand for very different things, Trump and Sanders are in many ways two sides of the same political coin: that of grassroots outrage over flawed economic and social policies adopted by both Democrats and Republicans in recent decades. As right-wing and left-wing populists, they represent “the yin and yang of America’s present discontent; both address, in different ways, the seething sense of unfairness, of inequality in Americans,” as I wrote four years ago at an equivalent moment in the 2016 race.
“Trump emphasizes shutting down job-stealing immigrants and getting ‘better’ deals from the world; Sanders, imprisoning wealth-gobbling, spoiled Wall Streeters and getting ‘fairer’ deals from the world. Both candidates plainly appeal to people who feel that no one is really standing up for them and what used to be known as their middle class.”
Biden’s appeal, on the other hand—and he’s plainly running on this—is more personal than policy-oriented. He’s political comfort food: the nice guy and nostalgia candidate rooted in post-Cold War tradition who hopes to restore much of the world abruptly abandoned by U.S. politics in November 2016 when Trump was elected. Certainly, like all the Democratic candidates, Biden has shifted leftward to meet the demands of Sanders’s progressive appeal, saying labor and environmentalists would have a say in any future trade deals and Obamacare must be improved.
But, fundamentally, he’s still selling centrist Democrat identity politics: “If Democrats want a nominee who’s a Democrat, a lifelong Democrat, an Obama-Biden Democrat, then join us. We can either win big or lose big, that’s a choice,” Biden said Monday.
He was speaking after his former moderate rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, ex-South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Buttigieg, Minnesota Sen. Klobuchar, and former Texas Rep. O’Rourke, all endorsed him in a matter of hours, also warning of the danger from the left embodied by Sanders, who is technically an independent in the Senate. The wild card remains former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, the multibillionaire ex-Republican businessman who is billing himself as a moderate/pragmatist alternative to Biden but who, until Tuesday, remained untested in national elections.
Tuesday’s outcome matters not just for the future of American democracy but for what it means in a world in which post-Cold War conventional wisdom about the virtues of democratic capitalism is fast fading—and populists are rising around the globe. From Brexiteers such as Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the U.K. to such leaders as Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, Narendra Modi in India, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, a new phalanx of nationalists is actively campaigning against a globalized world. Trump’s “America First” credo has become, around the world, “(Country name here) First.”
That would probably change less than you think in a Bernie Sanders presidency. If Trump is a neo-isolationist, the former left-wing radical from Vermont (via Brooklyn) is a lifelong, unrepentant anti-imperialist who supports a rapid drawdown of U.S. forces and, even now when he is within reach of the Democratic nomination, refuses to give up the “socialist” label.
“In many ways Sanders would continue Trump’s retreat from international responsibility,” Haltzel said in an email. “Radically cutting the defense budget and withdrawing U.S. forces from some crisis areas would be a central element of a Sanders foreign policy—a classic case of ‘penny wise, pound foolish’ which would almost certainly come back to haunt us.”
March 4: This story was updated with election results.