foreignpolicy--2020-02-26--China’s Military Can’t Deliver on Humanitarian Promises

All eyes have been on China as it struggles to contain the coronavirus , which , as of Feb. 26 , has infected more than 80,000 people , the vast majority in China itself , and killed at least 2,700 around the world .
But there has been one stark absence : the People ’ s Liberation Army ( PLA ) .
That is particularly odd since the PLA has traditionally played a critical role in disaster relief domestically—and has been at the forefront of China ’ s efforts to establish soft power through humanitarian and medical relief capabilities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ region should take note , particularly if they are counting on China ’ s humanitarian and medical assistance in times of crisis .
China has invested heavily in a deployable medical assistance capability over the past 15 years with a clear intent of honing the soft power of medical diplomacy .
While it has been developing hospital ships since the 1970s and put two in service in 1991 , the PLA ’ s launching in 2007 of the 300-bed hospital ship Peace Ark signaled China ’ s intent to become a medical and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , according to China ’ s State Council Information Office , the Peace Ark had “ fulfilled 7 voyages coded as Mission Harmony and visited 43 countries ” throughout Asia , Latin America , and Africa .
The ship had “ provided medical services to the local communities , organized medical exchanges , and helped over 230,000 people.
” Additionally , the PLA has conducted medical training and exercises with U.S. allies such as Australia and Germany , including simulating a response to a cholera outbreak .
Medical components of the PLA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in the field as well as academic discussions .
The PLA has also deployed assets to provide medical assistance following humanitarian crises , including Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines in 2013 , flooding in Sri Lanka in 2018 , and the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa .
Most notably , China sought to solidify its reputation with its Ebola response and possibly erase memory of its slow responses to the 2002-2003 SARS , the 2009 H1N1 , and 2013 H7N9 outbreaks .
China sent more than 100 infectious disease experts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered roughly $ 115 million in assistance to the Ebola effort .
Still , these efforts were modest and smaller even than the assistance offered by the Netherlands , a country whose GDP at the time , according to the World Bank , was around 8 percent the size of China ’ s .
Yet even on this relatively small scale , for China , the benefits of this soft-power approach can be many .
While its trade outreach and endeavors such as the Belt and Road Initiative still generate debates about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , medical assistance is much less threatening .
This softer and more humane outreach saves lives , generates goodwill , and makes the PLA appear an important security partner .
More importantly , it makes China a counterweight and potential alternative to the United States , which has had a long history of medical diplomacy and has effectively deployed its own hospital ships , the USNS Comfort and the USNS Mercy , to disasters far and wide .
Many countries now take for granted that the U.S. Navy will provide assistance in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite this buildup in capability and allegedly positive intentions , the PLA ’ s failure to respond to the epidemic has proved that it is not up to the task of serving as an international provider of humanitarian and medical aid .
In fact , it can not even adequately provide medical assistance inside its own country .
According to news reports , the first PLA medical staff did not arrive in Wuhan , the epicenter of the recent coronavirus outbreak , until Jan. 24 , nearly a month after the spread was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government has since erected additional medical facilities with impressive speed , and the PLA has deployed medics and other personnel to these and regular hospitals throughout the surrounding province of Hubei .
But problems mount .
Tellingly , since engaging in Hubei , the PLA has had to quarantine around 1,800 of its own soldiers and sailors after possible exposure to the virus .
The sluggishness and ineffectiveness of the PLA have raised questions of if the PLA is capable of containing such an outbreak .
By publicizing its additional investments into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised expectations that it would have an effective mechanism for humanitarian or medical crises in its region .
That raised expectations for the domestic response .
However , the PLA ’ s response to the coronavirus outbreak shows that these expectations far outstripped reality .
The PLA ’ s response to the coronavirus outbreak may not be a great referendum on its overall response capabilities .
After all , could any country other than perhaps the United States have responded effectively to an emergency of this size ?
Furthermore , perhaps the muted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government has not tapped the PLA as the lead for the response effort , possibly making the cautious calculation to protect the PLA from contagion by limiting its front-line exposure .
The PLA has responded more quickly to other recent natural disasters in China .
But fair or not , and whether the PLA ’ s role is due to a lack of capabilities or a political calculation , China has been flexing its muscles and setting the expectation that it can respond to these very medical situations .
By all of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government have failed China ’ s own citizens .
This outbreak has exposed critical weaknesses in both the civilian and military public health systems of China .
How to Prepare for a Coronavirus Lockdown With outbreaks worldwide , the prospect of quarantine looms .
Here are some tips for surviving it .
Failing within your own country is serious enough , especially when the impacts of that failure are felt around the world .
But this setback also carries implications for the region ’ s future .
Many countries in Southeast Asia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own , have looked to China and the PLA for timely assistance should an outbreak such as this occur within their own borders .
As with U.S. efforts to exercise soft power through humanitarian capabilities , China was busy reassuring its neighbors that it would be there in a time of crisis .
As a result , many say privately they now count on China to keep medical emergencies from escalating into full-blown crises .
The recent performance of the PLA indicates that their expectations are unjustified .
But the countries of Southeast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they can no longer rely on the PLA .
There are important steps that they should take , as soon as feasible , to ensure that not all their medical eggs are in the PLA basket .
First and foremost , they should invest in regional information-sharing capabilities , with a premium on speed and transparency .
The coronavirus outbreak has aptly demonstrated the dire consequences of suppressing or delaying information .
Second , these countries should develop their own regional capabilities , perhaps under the auspices of the Association of Southeast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources for use in the event of another outbreak or crisis .
These countries would likely not have the resources to develop sophisticated capabilities individually .
By pooling their money and expertise , they could stretch their funds further while also protecting the entire region .
Most importantly , Southeast Asian countries should learn from China ’ s mistakes by taking steps to minimize opportunities for infections to jump from animals to humans , address conditions and cultural practices that could allow infections to spread , and foster a strong relationship with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wake of China ’ s failure to contain the virus on its own , it seems clear that strong ties with the United States should be maintained .
Despite recent political uncertainty , the United States continues to invest in military emergency medical response capabilities and has a strong track record of helping countries in need .
Perhaps the most important lesson from what has happened in China is the need for Southeast Asian countries to manage their own expectations .
China and the PLA talk a big game , but when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be there for you .

All eyes have been on China as it struggles to contain the coronavirus, which, as of Feb. 26, has infected more than 80,000 people, the vast majority in China itself, and killed at least 2,700 around the world . But there has been one stark absence: the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). That is particularly odd since the PLA has traditionally played a critical role in disaster relief domestically—and has been at the forefront of China’s efforts to establish soft power through humanitarian and medical relief capabilities in recent years. Other countries in the region should take note, particularly if they are counting on China’s humanitarian and medical assistance in times of crisis.
All eyes have been on China as it struggles to contain the coronavirus, which, as of Feb. 26, has infected more than 80,000 people, the vast majority in China itself, and killed at least 2,700 around the world. But there has been one stark absence: the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). That is particularly odd since the PLA has traditionally played a critical role in disaster relief domestically—and has been at the forefront of China’s efforts to establish soft power through humanitarian and medical relief capabilities in recent years. Other countries in the region should take note, particularly if they are counting on China’s humanitarian and medical assistance in times of crisis.
China has invested heavily in a deployable medical assistance capability over the past 15 years with a clear intent of honing the soft power of medical diplomacy. While it has been developing hospital ships since the 1970s and put two in service in 1991, the PLA’s launching in 2007 of the 300-bed hospital ship Peace Ark signaled China’s intent to become a medical and humanitarian assistance powerhouse. As of July 2019, according to China’s State Council Information Office, the Peace Ark had “fulfilled 7 voyages coded as Mission Harmony and visited 43 countries” throughout Asia, Latin America, and Africa. The ship had “provided medical services to the local communities, organized medical exchanges, and helped over 230,000 people.” Additionally, the PLA has conducted medical training and exercises with U.S. allies such as Australia and Germany, including simulating a response to a cholera outbreak. Medical components of the PLA and U.S. forces have also had exchanges out in the field as well as academic discussions.
The PLA has also deployed assets to provide medical assistance following humanitarian crises, including Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines in 2013, flooding in Sri Lanka in 2018, and the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Most notably, China sought to solidify its reputation with its Ebola response and possibly erase memory of its slow responses to the 2002-2003 SARS, the 2009 H1N1, and 2013 H7N9 outbreaks. China sent more than 100 infectious disease experts, constructed an Ebola treatment unit, and offered roughly $115 million in assistance to the Ebola effort. Still, these efforts were modest and smaller even than the assistance offered by the Netherlands, a country whose GDP at the time, according to the World Bank, was around 8 percent the size of China’s.
Yet even on this relatively small scale, for China, the benefits of this soft-power approach can be many. While its trade outreach and endeavors such as the Belt and Road Initiative still generate debates about the long-term implications of economic reliance on China, medical assistance is much less threatening. This softer and more humane outreach saves lives, generates goodwill, and makes the PLA appear an important security partner. More importantly, it makes China a counterweight and potential alternative to the United States, which has had a long history of medical diplomacy and has effectively deployed its own hospital ships, the USNS Comfort and the USNS Mercy, to disasters far and wide. Many countries now take for granted that the U.S. Navy will provide assistance in the wake of humanitarian emergencies.
However, despite this buildup in capability and allegedly positive intentions, the PLA’s failure to respond to the epidemic has proved that it is not up to the task of serving as an international provider of humanitarian and medical aid. In fact, it cannot even adequately provide medical assistance inside its own country. According to news reports, the first PLA medical staff did not arrive in Wuhan, the epicenter of the recent coronavirus outbreak, until Jan. 24, nearly a month after the spread was first reported.
To be sure, the government has since erected additional medical facilities with impressive speed, and the PLA has deployed medics and other personnel to these and regular hospitals throughout the surrounding province of Hubei. But problems mount. Tellingly, since engaging in Hubei, the PLA has had to quarantine around 1,800 of its own soldiers and sailors after possible exposure to the virus. The sluggishness and ineffectiveness of the PLA have raised questions of if the PLA is capable of containing such an outbreak.
By publicizing its additional investments into medical response so heavily, the PLA raised expectations that it would have an effective mechanism for humanitarian or medical crises in its region. That raised expectations for the domestic response. However, the PLA’s response to the coronavirus outbreak shows that these expectations far outstripped reality.
The PLA’s response to the coronavirus outbreak may not be a great referendum on its overall response capabilities. After all, could any country other than perhaps the United States have responded effectively to an emergency of this size? Furthermore, perhaps the muted PLA role is because the Chinese central government has not tapped the PLA as the lead for the response effort, possibly making the cautious calculation to protect the PLA from contagion by limiting its front-line exposure. The PLA has responded more quickly to other recent natural disasters in China. But fair or not, and whether the PLA’s role is due to a lack of capabilities or a political calculation, China has been flexing its muscles and setting the expectation that it can respond to these very medical situations. By all of these measures, the PLA and the central government have failed China’s own citizens. This outbreak has exposed critical weaknesses in both the civilian and military public health systems of China.
Read More A family looks out the window of their home on the outskirts of Wuhan, China, on Jan. 27 amid the coronavirus outbreak. A family looks out the window of their home on the outskirts of Wuhan, China, on Jan. 27 amid the coronavirus outbreak. How to Prepare for a Coronavirus Lockdown With outbreaks worldwide, the prospect of quarantine looms. Here are some tips for surviving it. Argument | James Palmer Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrives in Kathmandu, Nepal, for a summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation on Nov. 25, 2014. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrives in Kathmandu, Nepal, for a summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation on Nov. 25, 2014. India Is Pushing Back Against China in South Asia Beijing’s attempts to encircle New Delhi are being systematically reversed. Analysis | Derek Grossman Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks during a press conference held at the Florida National Guard Robert A. Ballard Armory in Miami, Florida. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks during a press conference held at the Florida National Guard Robert A. Ballard Armory in Miami, Florida. DeSantis Is Out to Prove He’s the GOP’s Top China Hawk The Florida governor looks to correct his slide in the polls with a major China speech. Report | Jack Detsch
Failing within your own country is serious enough, especially when the impacts of that failure are felt around the world. But this setback also carries implications for the region’s future. Many countries in Southeast Asia, lacking adequate medical response capabilities of their own, have looked to China and the PLA for timely assistance should an outbreak such as this occur within their own borders. As with U.S. efforts to exercise soft power through humanitarian capabilities, China was busy reassuring its neighbors that it would be there in a time of crisis. As a result, many say privately they now count on China to keep medical emergencies from escalating into full-blown crises. The recent performance of the PLA indicates that their expectations are unjustified.
But the countries of Southeast Asia need not sit idly by just because they can no longer rely on the PLA. There are important steps that they should take, as soon as feasible, to ensure that not all their medical eggs are in the PLA basket. First and foremost, they should invest in regional information-sharing capabilities, with a premium on speed and transparency. The coronavirus outbreak has aptly demonstrated the dire consequences of suppressing or delaying information.
Second, these countries should develop their own regional capabilities, perhaps under the auspices of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and pool medical response resources for use in the event of another outbreak or crisis. These countries would likely not have the resources to develop sophisticated capabilities individually. By pooling their money and expertise, they could stretch their funds further while also protecting the entire region.
Most importantly, Southeast Asian countries should learn from China’s mistakes by taking steps to minimize opportunities for infections to jump from animals to humans, address conditions and cultural practices that could allow infections to spread, and foster a strong relationship with the World Health Organization. Finally, in the wake of China’s failure to contain the virus on its own, it seems clear that strong ties with the United States should be maintained. Despite recent political uncertainty, the United States continues to invest in military emergency medical response capabilities and has a strong track record of helping countries in need.
Perhaps the most important lesson from what has happened in China is the need for Southeast Asian countries to manage their own expectations. China and the PLA talk a big game, but when you need them, they may not be there for you.


foreignpolicy--2020-02-26--Malaysia’s Geriatric Palace Intrigues Are Causing Political Turmoil

Anwar Ibrahim may be the most outmaneuvered man in Malaysia .
The trials of his political life have been Job-like , from multiple sodomy accusations to police assaults to nearly a decade spent in jail .
In 2018 he seemed , momentarily , to have been rewarded for his forbearance , when his party coalition with former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad won a surprise election victory , overturning the National Front that had ruled Malaysia since its independence from Britain in 1957 .
Anwar “ won ” from jail , through a baroque setup by which he was supposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two years , in a transition whose specifics were never explained .
But he would eventually get his day in the sun … right ?
Wrong .
After a series of hushed , closed-door meetings , backdoor plots , and obtuse power plays over the past five days , the Malaysian government is now in chaos , and it seems like Anwar may let power slip through his fingers again .
Mahathir resigned as prime minister at 1 p.m. on Monday , as well as from his leadership of the Bersatu political party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 26 seats in the lower house of Parliament , announced that it was exiting the Alliance of Hope ( Pakatan Harapan ) coalition that won in 2018 , depriving it of its parliamentary majority and essentially dissolving the government .
The same day , 11 members of Anwar ’ s party resigned .
The clock is ticking for a new ruling coalition to emerge soon .
The suddenness and rapid succession of these events have the dramatic flair of late-season scripted television .
“ This is a very typical Malaysian way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a political scientist at the University of Tasmania .
“ They are trying to create a herd mentality so people can start rushing to the presumed forerunner.
” Anwar ’ s People ’ s Justice Party was the largest component of the Alliance of Hope , having won 47 seats in the 2018 general election .
A new coalition needs 112 members of Parliament to form a government , said Chin , but “ to prove stability they will need at least 130 people.
” On top of that , Malaysia is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must greenlight a new government .
The current king , Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah , interviewed every single member of Parliament on Tuesday and Wednesday in order to establish which faction has the majority support , according to the Associated Press .
The king also appointed Mahathir as interim prime minister .
On Wednesday , Mahathir delivered a national address and apologized for the recent “ political turmoil , ” which seemed , at surface level , like an effort to distance himself from the week ’ s machinations .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish a government that does not favor any party .
Only the interests of the nation will take precedence , ” he told the country .
“ He is speaking in code , ” said Chin .
“ He is saying : Everyone can come together , but I get to pick and choose who gets to come in .
And he is addressing the other MPs as individuals , not as parties .
He remains the kingmaker.
” The choice before members of Parliament is essentially whether to back Anwar or Mahathir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been prime minister for a cumulative 24 years , whereas the other has been spectacularly foiled at multiple junctures during that time frame .
“ The choice , ” said Chin , “ is not exactly difficult.
” So what set all this off ?
“ Last Friday , there was an important meeting of the Alliance of Hope leadership and Mahathir ’ s party was very unhappy with what transpired , ” said Chin .
Several members of the Bersatu party later told Chin that “ they felt strongly bullied by Amanah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other parties in the coalition , particularly the Democratic Action Party , which demanded a specific date for Mahathir to step down .
“ Bersatu felt that you can not talk to a statesman that way , which triggered talk of acting fast , and sure enough , the ground started moving on Saturday.
” The more deep-seated dynamic underlying these events was one of brewing discontent among Malay Muslims , who make up about 50 percent of Malaysia ’ s population , said Chin .
In September 2019 , the United Malays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading national party that claims to represent Malays , and the Malaysian Islamic Party ( PAS ) , a conservative , Islamist party popular in rural , peninsular Malaysia , joined forces in a “ unity pact ” despite their previous rivalry .
“ They pushed the line that minorities had too much influence and scared voters that the Alliance of Hope will not protect Islam , ” said Chin .
They pointed to symbolic examples that the new finance minister , chief justice , and attorney general were all non-Malays .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Chin .
The upheaval has already affected the country ’ s stock market , which dipped 2.69 percent on Monday , ending a 12-year bull run , the longest in the world .
Mahathir retains a broad base of support from diverse politicians and sectors of Malaysian society , who hold him in high regard for the economic development he fostered during his previous 22-year leadership and his epic comeback to beat the corrupt former Prime Minister Najib Razak , who allegedly pocketed nearly $ 700 million in state funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) scandal .
“ All the forces involved [ in the reshuffle this week ] are hoping to draw on Tun Mahathir ’ s personal credibility as a shrewd , strong , and longstanding national leader to form a government that he would lead until he either dies or decides to step down , ” said Amrita Malhi , a research fellow and Malaysia expert at the Australian National University .
Many of his supporters believe he did not actively create the recent upheaval .
“ I personally do not think that [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legacy , ” said Abdul Farouk Musa , a liberal Islamic intellectual in Kuala Lumpur , who does not believe that he actively dismantled the ruling coalition .
“ He would not compromise on his principles to join hands with the crooks .
He has brought down one of the biggest kleptocrats in the world and his cohorts and it is simply unthinkable that he would now want to join forces with these disgraced politicians.
” Even Anwar seemed to disbelieve that Mahathir was involved in the recent events .
“ No I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .… His name was used by those within my party and outside .
And he reiterated what he had said to me earlier , that he played no part in it , ” he told reporters after meeting with the king at the National Palace on Monday .
It ’ s hard to ignore that the two players at the heart of this drama are now 94 and 72 years old .
They ’ ve been in Malaysian politics forever .
And not only are the players the same , but even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Anwar was Mahathir ’ s deputy prime minister , but they fell out , Mahathir fired Anwar , and had him tried for trumped-up sodomy allegations and thrown in jail .
Incredibly , Anwar was accused of sodomy again in 2008 and went to jail again in 2015 .
Last December , Anwar faced a fresh round of sexual assault claims , while his party ’ s then deputy president Azmin Ali was targeted with an alleged sex tape in June .
“ I think the alarm bells started ringing for us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video was circulated , ” said Thomas Fann , chairperson of Bersih 2.0 , an electoral watchdog group .
“ That sparked the power struggle within Anwar ’ s party.… And then when Azmin reached out to PAS and supported their call for Mahathir to remain in office , we realized that the Alliance of Hope was cracking.
” Bersih 2.0 issued a concerned statement at the time pressing for a speedy transition of power to Anwar , but it may have already been too late .
What are the possible consequences of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost certainly reinforce Malay Muslim superiority , said Chin , to the exclusion of the county ’ s various minority ethnicities , including Chinese , Indians , and non-Malay indigenous peoples .
UMNO and PAS “ are practised at forcing the government to back down on its proposed reform measures , whether through street mobilisations or digital campaigning using tools like WhatsApp , ” said Malhi .
Their policy agenda includes “ reserving leadership positions in government for Malay Muslims , abolishing vernacular schools … and even the possibility of withdrawing Malaysian citizenship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
However , she added , “ it ’ s important to remember that the Pakatan Harapan government was elected , and its component parties still carry the legitimacy that comes with winning an election .
Remember also that UMNO has had its reputation dragged through the mud by the 1MDB scandal.
” Furthermore , Mahathir pointedly stated on Wednesday that he will never rule with a coalition that includes UMNO in full , the party of his corrupt predecessor .
“ Mahathir is a very cunning politician , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of Malaya .
“ He can twist , manipulate the situation to his will .
We can not deny the possibility that UMNO tried to maneuver this whole situation to reclaim power , but they may have pushed their luck too far.
” He said that Mahathir ’ s main goal will be to get enough members of Parliament from any party in a new coalition so that he can return to his longtime preoccupation with economic development .
Both factions have gone to see the king , so this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , either through the king ’ s direct decision to award the government to one of them , or else through his counsel to hold another general election and take it back to the people , said Chin .
Most civil-society activists prefer the latter option .
At any rate , activists say that any new coalition could erode the political reforms promised by the Alliance of Hope in 2018 , which included fighting corruption and enacting political finance legislation .
“ The reform agenda of the Alliance of Hope manifesto , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations like ours , is now effectively useless , and we are back to square one , ” said Fann .
“ No matter what happens after this week , even if the Alliance of Hope somehow survives , people ’ s trust in this government has certainly eroded , ” he said .
The 2018 election was widely seen as a major milestone for democracy in Southeast Asia in an age of rising authoritarianism .
Cornell University political scientist Tom Pepinsky told Foreign Policy at the time that it was “ without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Southeast Asia ” in several years and “ an incredible result.
” “ The biggest tragedy for Malaysia will be if people become cynical about democracy and no longer want to participate in the process , ” said Fann .
There was over 82 percent turnout of registered voters in 2018 .
Fann ’ s organization , Bersih 2.0 , has organized several huge rallies in recent years calling for electoral reforms and they are “ most definitely ” preparing for another potential protest , he said .
“ If a snap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders do not go back to the people for a mandate , we will be on the streets again .
”

Anwar Ibrahim may be the most outmaneuvered man in Malaysia. The trials of his political life have been Job-like, from multiple sodomy accusations to police assaults to nearly a decade spent in jail. In 2018 he seemed, momentarily, to have been rewarded for his forbearance, when his party coalition with former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad won a surprise election victory, overturning the National Front that had ruled Malaysia since its independence from Britain in 1957. Anwar “won” from jail, through a baroque setup by which he was supposed to eventually succeed the then 92-year-old Mahathir after two years, in a transition whose specifics were never explained. But he would eventually get his day in the sun … right?
Anwar Ibrahim may be the most outmaneuvered man in Malaysia. The trials of his political life have been Job-like, from multiple sodomy accusations to police assaults to nearly a decade spent in jail. In 2018 he seemed, momentarily, to have been rewarded for his forbearance, when his party coalition with former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad won a surprise election victory, overturning the National Front that had ruled Malaysia since its independence from Britain in 1957. Anwar “won” from jail, through a baroque setup by which he was supposed to eventually succeed the then 92-year-old Mahathir after two years, in a transition whose specifics were never explained. But he would eventually get his day in the sun … right?
Wrong. After a series of hushed, closed-door meetings, backdoor plots, and obtuse power plays over the past five days, the Malaysian government is now in chaos, and it seems like Anwar may let power slip through his fingers again. Mahathir resigned as prime minister at 1 p.m. on Monday, as well as from his leadership of the Bersatu political party. Meanwhile, Bersatu, which accounts for 26 seats in the lower house of Parliament, announced that it was exiting the Alliance of Hope (Pakatan Harapan) coalition that won in 2018, depriving it of its parliamentary majority and essentially dissolving the government. The same day, 11 members of Anwar’s party resigned. The clock is ticking for a new ruling coalition to emerge soon. The suddenness and rapid succession of these events have the dramatic flair of late-season scripted television.
“This is a very typical Malaysian way of doing politics,” said James Chin, a political scientist at the University of Tasmania. “They are trying to create a herd mentality so people can start rushing to the presumed forerunner.” Anwar’s People’s Justice Party was the largest component of the Alliance of Hope, having won 47 seats in the 2018 general election. A new coalition needs 112 members of Parliament to form a government, said Chin, but “to prove stability they will need at least 130 people.” On top of that, Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy, and the king must greenlight a new government. The current king, Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, interviewed every single member of Parliament on Tuesday and Wednesday in order to establish which faction has the majority support, according to the Associated Press. The king also appointed Mahathir as interim prime minister.
On Wednesday, Mahathir delivered a national address and apologized for the recent “political turmoil,” which seemed, at surface level, like an effort to distance himself from the week’s machinations. “If it is possible I will try to establish a government that does not favor any party. Only the interests of the nation will take precedence,” he told the country.
“He is speaking in code,” said Chin. “He is saying: Everyone can come together, but I get to pick and choose who gets to come in. And he is addressing the other MPs as individuals, not as parties. He remains the kingmaker.”
The choice before members of Parliament is essentially whether to back Anwar or Mahathir now, and one of them has been prime minister for a cumulative 24 years, whereas the other has been spectacularly foiled at multiple junctures during that time frame. “The choice,” said Chin, “is not exactly difficult.”
So what set all this off?
“Last Friday, there was an important meeting of the Alliance of Hope leadership and Mahathir’s party was very unhappy with what transpired,” said Chin. Several members of the Bersatu party later told Chin that “they felt strongly bullied by Amanah and the Democratic Action Party,” other parties in the coalition, particularly the Democratic Action Party, which demanded a specific date for Mahathir to step down. “Bersatu felt that you cannot talk to a statesman that way, which triggered talk of acting fast, and sure enough, the ground started moving on Saturday.”
The more deep-seated dynamic underlying these events was one of brewing discontent among Malay Muslims, who make up about 50 percent of Malaysia’s population, said Chin. In September 2019, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), a leading national party that claims to represent Malays, and the Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), a conservative, Islamist party popular in rural, peninsular Malaysia, joined forces in a “unity pact” despite their previous rivalry. “They pushed the line that minorities had too much influence and scared voters that the Alliance of Hope will not protect Islam,” said Chin. They pointed to symbolic examples that the new finance minister, chief justice, and attorney general were all non-Malays. “This scared the shit out of Mahathir,” said Chin.
The upheaval has already affected the country’s stock market, which dipped 2.69 percent on Monday, ending a 12-year bull run, the longest in the world.
Mahathir retains a broad base of support from diverse politicians and sectors of Malaysian society, who hold him in high regard for the economic development he fostered during his previous 22-year leadership and his epic comeback to beat the corrupt former Prime Minister Najib Razak, who allegedly pocketed nearly $700 million in state funds in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal.
“All the forces involved [in the reshuffle this week] are hoping to draw on Tun Mahathir’s personal credibility as a shrewd, strong, and longstanding national leader to form a government that he would lead until he either dies or decides to step down,” said Amrita Malhi, a research fellow and Malaysia expert at the Australian National University.
Many of his supporters believe he did not actively create the recent upheaval.
“I personally do not think that [Mahathir] would want to tarnish his legacy,” said Abdul Farouk Musa, a liberal Islamic intellectual in Kuala Lumpur, who does not believe that he actively dismantled the ruling coalition. “He would not compromise on his principles to join hands with the crooks. He has brought down one of the biggest kleptocrats in the world and his cohorts and it is simply unthinkable that he would now want to join forces with these disgraced politicians.”
Even Anwar seemed to disbelieve that Mahathir was involved in the recent events.
“No I think it is not [Mahathir].… His name was used by those within my party and outside. And he reiterated what he had said to me earlier, that he played no part in it,” he told reporters after meeting with the king at the National Palace on Monday.
It’s hard to ignore that the two players at the heart of this drama are now 94 and 72 years old. They’ve been in Malaysian politics forever. And not only are the players the same, but even the trajectory of the drama. In 1998, Anwar was Mahathir’s deputy prime minister, but they fell out, Mahathir fired Anwar, and had him tried for trumped-up sodomy allegations and thrown in jail. Incredibly, Anwar was accused of sodomy again in 2008 and went to jail again in 2015. Last December, Anwar faced a fresh round of sexual assault claims, while his party’s then deputy president Azmin Ali was targeted with an alleged sex tape in June.
“I think the alarm bells started ringing for us several months ago, when that sex video was circulated,” said Thomas Fann, chairperson of Bersih 2.0, an electoral watchdog group. “That sparked the power struggle within Anwar’s party.… And then when Azmin reached out to PAS and supported their call for Mahathir to remain in office, we realized that the Alliance of Hope was cracking.” Bersih 2.0 issued a concerned statement at the time pressing for a speedy transition of power to Anwar, but it may have already been too late.
What are the possible consequences of a new ruling coalition? It will almost certainly reinforce Malay Muslim superiority, said Chin, to the exclusion of the county’s various minority ethnicities, including Chinese, Indians, and non-Malay indigenous peoples.
UMNO and PAS “are practised at forcing the government to back down on its proposed reform measures, whether through street mobilisations or digital campaigning using tools like WhatsApp,” said Malhi. Their policy agenda includes “reserving leadership positions in government for Malay Muslims, abolishing vernacular schools … and even the possibility of withdrawing Malaysian citizenship from members of minority groups,” she said. However, she added, “it’s important to remember that the Pakatan Harapan government was elected, and its component parties still carry the legitimacy that comes with winning an election. Remember also that UMNO has had its reputation dragged through the mud by the 1MDB scandal.”
Furthermore, Mahathir pointedly stated on Wednesday that he will never rule with a coalition that includes UMNO in full, the party of his corrupt predecessor.
“Mahathir is a very cunning politician,” said Awang Azman Awang Pawi, a professor at the University of Malaya. “He can twist, manipulate the situation to his will. We cannot deny the possibility that UMNO tried to maneuver this whole situation to reclaim power, but they may have pushed their luck too far.” He said that Mahathir’s main goal will be to get enough members of Parliament from any party in a new coalition so that he can return to his longtime preoccupation with economic development.
Both factions have gone to see the king, so this situation is likely to be resolved soon, either through the king’s direct decision to award the government to one of them, or else through his counsel to hold another general election and take it back to the people, said Chin. Most civil-society activists prefer the latter option.
At any rate, activists say that any new coalition could erode the political reforms promised by the Alliance of Hope in 2018, which included fighting corruption and enacting political finance legislation. “The reform agenda of the Alliance of Hope manifesto, which was composed with input from civil society organizations like ours, is now effectively useless, and we are back to square one,” said Fann. “No matter what happens after this week, even if the Alliance of Hope somehow survives, people’s trust in this government has certainly eroded,” he said.
The 2018 election was widely seen as a major milestone for democracy in Southeast Asia in an age of rising authoritarianism. Cornell University political scientist Tom Pepinsky told Foreign Policy at the time that it was “without a doubt the best news for democracy in Southeast Asia” in several years and “an incredible result.”
“The biggest tragedy for Malaysia will be if people become cynical about democracy and no longer want to participate in the process,” said Fann. There was over 82 percent turnout of registered voters in 2018.
Fann’s organization, Bersih 2.0, has organized several huge rallies in recent years calling for electoral reforms and they are “most definitely” preparing for another potential protest, he said. “If a snap election does not happen, if our leaders do not go back to the people for a mandate, we will be on the streets again.”


foreignpolicy--2020-02-26--After Virus Peak, Beijing Tries to Get Back on Track

After Virus Peak , Beijing Tries to Get Back on Track Welcome to Foreign Policy ’ s weekly China Brief .
The highlights this week : China ’ s government starts lifting lockdowns and pushing people to return to work as new coronavirus cases decline , the rest of the world prepares for a possible pandemic , and Chinese President Xi Jinping holds a massive conference call .
If you would like to receive China Brief in your inbox every Wednesday , please sign up here .
A World Health Organization ( WHO ) expert delegation that just returned from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has peaked , even as a global pandemic becomes a looming possibility .
( WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has called the increase in new cases in other parts of the world “ deeply concerning.
” ) Our previous newsletters—and plenty of analysts—have raised significant doubts over China ’ s official figures .
Those remain , especially given WHO ’ s reluctance to speak about Chinese politics .
Yet over the last week , in many areas lockdowns have been partially lifted , with Chinese authorities shifting to models of monitored surveillance instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such monitoring in addition to the government , with some workers required to download apps that track their movements—allowing only transit between home and office out of fear of punishment .
Empty offices , empty cities .
The push for workers to return to factories and offices may be a sign that the Chinese government is genuinely confident that it has beaten the worst of the virus epidemic .
But it may also be a sign of economic desperation .
It doesn ’ t seem to be paying off yet : The streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities remain disturbingly empty , with the holiday decorations for what turned out to be a bleak Lunar New Year still up .
Economic data shows a slight recovery , but nothing near the scale needed to get China back on track .
On Monday , China announced it would postpone critical annual political meetings without setting a new date .
It ’ s possible President Xi Jinping is as nervous about conspiracy as contamination .
Bringing thousands of officials together , where they are able to talk privately without arousing suspicion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s agenda right now .
Desperate businesses .
China ’ s small and medium-sized enterprises are now teetering on the edge of the abyss .
It ’ s not just the loss of staff and productivity hurting business but also the sharp drop in exports as foreign businesses look to diversify their suppliers .
The government has promised workers they will still be paid , but in practice that has become a negotiation between firms and workers .
Migrant workers , who often change jobs after the Lunar New Year , have suffered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and discrimination .
What about health care workers ?
On Feb. 14 , more than a month into the crisis , China disclosed that around 1,400 medical workers had been infected .
WHO has pressed China for specific figures on cases among medical workers , but it has so far not reported the data to the organization—leaving an information gap , the Washington Post reports .
So far , China has reported ( link in Chinese ) the deaths of 22 health care workers since the outbreak began—with 11 attributed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious outbreaks in Iran , Italy , and South Korea , and the first coronavirus cases detected in vulnerable countries such as Algeria , the rest of the world may could soon face the challenges that China has dealt with over the last month .
South Korea ’ s openness in virus-hit Daegu , which hasn ’ t imposed travel restrictions , could be an alternative model to China ’ s lockdowns—if it works .
South Korea has run more than 35,000 diagnostic tests and pledged to test all 200,000 members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the heart of the outbreak .
( The United States , in contrast , has tested just 426 people . )
If the world sees a coronavirus pandemic , it will be impossible for China to avoid further infections , even if its current outbreak is truly under control .
Read Foreign Policy ’ s tips for how to prepare for the possibility of a coronavirus quarantine .
Undiplomatic ambassadors .
As China ramps up its nationalistic rhetoric over the coronavirus outbreak , the notoriously trollish Chinese diplomat Zhao Lijian made his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foreign Affairs this week .
Zhao has pioneered an aggressive style of Chinese diplomacy over the last few months , particularly on Twitter .
It has paid off for him professionally , and his manner is being imitated by other diplomatic personnel , such as the recent appearance by a Chinese diplomat at a soft-power conference in Britain who claimed that reports on Chinese treatment of Uighurs in Xinjiang were “ fake news.
” Media skirmishes .
The expulsion of three Wall Street Journal reporters from China following U.S. restrictions on Chinese state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion within the Trump administration of further retaliation .
It ’ s being debated whether such measures are effective and whether they would put U.S. reporters in China at greater risk .
Targeting of Chinese officials could be a smarter move than going after Chinese journalists , even at propaganda outlets .
There are already rumors of future expulsions of prominent U.S. journalists from China , whatever Washington does .
Conspiracy theories .
A new conspiracy theory circulating online claims the coronavirus originated in the United States , based on the supposed discrepancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( The discrepancy is actually because China records deaths by pneumonia separately from flu .
Chinese doctors estimate the real number of flu deaths in China is around 88,000 annually . )
Popular WeChat sites such as CollegeDaily , already a vector for Islamophobia and anti-Americanism , are spreading the theories ( link in Chinese ) without censorship .
CCP conference call .
Xi led a teleconference of as many as 170,000 party and military officials on Sunday to emphasize his role at the center of the fight against the coronavirus outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Xi , especially given the prominent role that an app dedicated to the leader ’ s dogma now plays .
Party propaganda has emphasized Xi ’ s ability to reach cadres directly , though in practice it ’ s hard to see any difference between watching a meeting live and seeing it on TV .
It ’ s not as if Xi is taking questions .
Scientific evaluation .
A major change to the way that Chinese scientists are evaluated emphasizes the need to publish in domestic journals and downplays the status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is a much-needed change , avoiding the rush to publish abroad that has led to poor-quality work .
But it has also raised fears of further decoupling from the rest of the world and even greater politicization of science in China .
At the same time , the emphasis of the pseudoscience of so-called traditional Chinese medicine continues , with Xinhua claiming it has been used to treat 60,000 coronavirus cases .
Agricultural disaster .
Remember when the biggest epidemic worry for China was the African swine fever decimating its pig @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the food chain , with feed unable to reach animals and bees dying en masse .
These trends may be scarier to the government than the manufacturing slowdown .
China ’ s ability to feed itself is one of the country ’ s proudest achievements , and agriculture remains the subject of the first central party circular each year .
Australia and China : A Healthy Relationship ?
, from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation The comedian , analyst , and Foreign Policy contributor Vicky Xiuzhong Xu takes on China ’ s ambassador to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show Q+A .
What ’ s notable here is not just the ambassador ’ s usual lying over the conditions in Xinjiang but the mocking laughter with which the Australian audience greets his claims .
Thanks to social media , one Uighur victim ’ s family was able to refute the ambassador ’ s claims on the show almost immediately .
Xi has described the fight against the coronavirus as a “ people ’ s war.
” The term was originally conceived as an actual strategy : Mao Zedong ’ s guerrilla movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the Japanese .
“ The people ” are everywhere in the People ’ s Republic of China , from the People ’ s Daily to the Great Hall of the People , even as the actual public has no say in those institutions .
Chinese official rhetoric is still suffused with wartime terms—fight , all-out struggle , battle , campaign .
The people ’ s war is just another one , simultaneously militaristic and banal .
That ’ s it for this week .
We welcome your feedback at newsletters @ foreignpolicy.com @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China Brief here .
For more from Foreign Policy , subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters .

Welcome to Foreign Policy’s weekly China Brief. The highlights this week: China’s government starts lifting lockdowns and pushing people to return to work as new coronavirus cases decline , the rest of the world prepares for a possible pandemic , and Chinese President Xi Jinping holds a massive conference call.
Welcome to Foreign Policy’s weekly China Brief. The highlights this week: China’s government starts lifting lockdowns and pushing people to return to work as new coronavirus cases decline, the rest of the world prepares for a possible pandemic, and Chinese President Xi Jinping holds a massive conference call.
If you would like to receive China Brief in your inbox every Wednesday, please sign up here.
WHO Says China’s Virus Outbreak Has Peaked
A World Health Organization (WHO) expert delegation that just returned from China claims that the coronavirus epidemic there has peaked, even as a global pandemic becomes a looming possibility. (WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has called the increase in new cases in other parts of the world “deeply concerning.”) Our previous newsletters—and plenty of analysts—have raised significant doubts over China’s official figures. Those remain, especially given WHO’s reluctance to speak about Chinese politics.
Yet over the last week, in many areas lockdowns have been partially lifted, with Chinese authorities shifting to models of monitored surveillance instead of total quarantine. Workplaces are conducting such monitoring in addition to the government, with some workers required to download apps that track their movements—allowing only transit between home and office out of fear of punishment.
Empty offices, empty cities. The push for workers to return to factories and offices may be a sign that the Chinese government is genuinely confident that it has beaten the worst of the virus epidemic. But it may also be a sign of economic desperation. It doesn’t seem to be paying off yet: The streets and subways of China’s big cities remain disturbingly empty, with the holiday decorations for what turned out to be a bleak Lunar New Year still up. Economic data shows a slight recovery, but nothing near the scale needed to get China back on track.
On Monday, China announced it would postpone critical annual political meetings without setting a new date. It’s possible President Xi Jinping is as nervous about conspiracy as contamination. Bringing thousands of officials together, where they are able to talk privately without arousing suspicion, may not be high on Xi’s agenda right now.
Desperate businesses. China’s small and medium-sized enterprises are now teetering on the edge of the abyss. It’s not just the loss of staff and productivity hurting business but also the sharp drop in exports as foreign businesses look to diversify their suppliers. The government has promised workers they will still be paid, but in practice that has become a negotiation between firms and workers. Migrant workers, who often change jobs after the Lunar New Year, have suffered the most: facing isolation, poverty, and discrimination.
What about health care workers? On Feb. 14, more than a month into the crisis, China disclosed that around 1,400 medical workers had been infected. WHO has pressed China for specific figures on cases among medical workers, but it has so far not reported the data to the organization—leaving an information gap, the Washington Post reports. So far, China has reported (link in Chinese) the deaths of 22 health care workers since the outbreak began—with 11 attributed to the coronavirus.
What We’re Following
Global virus outbreaks. With serious outbreaks in Iran, Italy, and South Korea, and the first coronavirus cases detected in vulnerable countries such as Algeria, the rest of the world may could soon face the challenges that China has dealt with over the last month. South Korea’s openness in virus-hit Daegu, which hasn’t imposed travel restrictions, could be an alternative model to China’s lockdowns—if it works. South Korea has run more than 35,000 diagnostic tests and pledged to test all 200,000 members of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus, the cult at the heart of the outbreak. (The United States, in contrast, has tested just 426 people.) If the world sees a coronavirus pandemic, it will be impossible for China to avoid further infections, even if its current outbreak is truly under control.
Read Foreign Policy’s tips for how to prepare for the possibility of a coronavirus quarantine.
Undiplomatic ambassadors. As China ramps up its nationalistic rhetoric over the coronavirus outbreak, the notoriously trollish Chinese diplomat Zhao Lijian made his debut as spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs this week. Zhao has pioneered an aggressive style of Chinese diplomacy over the last few months, particularly on Twitter. It has paid off for him professionally, and his manner is being imitated by other diplomatic personnel, such as the recent appearance by a Chinese diplomat at a soft-power conference in Britain who claimed that reports on Chinese treatment of Uighurs in Xinjiang were “fake news.”
Media skirmishes. The expulsion of three Wall Street Journal reporters from China following U.S. restrictions on Chinese state media in the United States has prompted discussion within the Trump administration of further retaliation. It’s being debated whether such measures are effective and whether they would put U.S. reporters in China at greater risk. Targeting of Chinese officials could be a smarter move than going after Chinese journalists, even at propaganda outlets. There are already rumors of future expulsions of prominent U.S. journalists from China, whatever Washington does.
Conspiracy theories. A new conspiracy theory circulating online claims the coronavirus originated in the United States, based on the supposed discrepancy between influenza deaths there and in China. (The discrepancy is actually because China records deaths by pneumonia separately from flu. Chinese doctors estimate the real number of flu deaths in China is around 88,000 annually.) Popular WeChat sites such as CollegeDaily, already a vector for Islamophobia and anti-Americanism, are spreading the theories (link in Chinese) without censorship.
Tech and Business
CCP conference call. Xi led a teleconference of as many as 170,000 party and military officials on Sunday to emphasize his role at the center of the fight against the coronavirus outbreak. Videoconferencing may become a regular tool for Xi, especially given the prominent role that an app dedicated to the leader’s dogma now plays. Party propaganda has emphasized Xi’s ability to reach cadres directly, though in practice it’s hard to see any difference between watching a meeting live and seeing it on TV. It’s not as if Xi is taking questions.
Scientific evaluation. A major change to the way that Chinese scientists are evaluated emphasizes the need to publish in domestic journals and downplays the status of international publications. Some scientists argue that this is a much-needed change, avoiding the rush to publish abroad that has led to poor-quality work. But it has also raised fears of further decoupling from the rest of the world and even greater politicization of science in China. At the same time, the emphasis of the pseudoscience of so-called traditional Chinese medicine continues, with Xinhua claiming it has been used to treat 60,000 coronavirus cases.
Agricultural disaster. Remember when the biggest epidemic worry for China was the African swine fever decimating its pig herds? The coronavirus has also slashed the food chain, with feed unable to reach animals and bees dying en masse. These trends may be scarier to the government than the manufacturing slowdown. China’s ability to feed itself is one of the country’s proudest achievements, and agriculture remains the subject of the first central party circular each year.
What We’re Watching
Australia and China: A Healthy Relationship?, from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
The comedian, analyst, and Foreign Policy contributor Vicky Xiuzhong Xu takes on China’s ambassador to Australia over Xinjiang repression on the Australian show Q+A. What’s notable here is not just the ambassador’s usual lying over the conditions in Xinjiang but the mocking laughter with which the Australian audience greets his claims. Thanks to social media, one Uighur victim’s family was able to refute the ambassador’s claims on the show almost immediately.
Decoder
Xi has described the fight against the coronavirus as a “people’s war.” The term was originally conceived as an actual strategy: Mao Zedong’s guerrilla movement would swim among the people to fight against the Japanese. “The people” are everywhere in the People’s Republic of China, from the People’s Daily to the Great Hall of the People, even as the actual public has no say in those institutions. Chinese official rhetoric is still suffused with wartime terms—fight, all-out struggle, battle, campaign. The people’s war is just another one, simultaneously militaristic and banal.
That’s it for this week.
We welcome your feedback at newsletters@foreignpolicy.com. You can find older editions of China Brief here. For more from Foreign Policy, subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters.


foreignpolicy--2020-02-26--Democrats Fail the Commander-in-Chief Test

On Tuesday , Democrats held yet another debate .
And refreshingly , for once , foreign policy was actually on the agenda .
Bernie Sanders came under fire for praising authoritarian leaders , Michael Bloomberg insisted that Xi Jinping isn ’ t one , Joe Biden tried to play up his diplomatic experience , and the rest of the pack sought to prove their credentials .
The Elephants in the Room team weighs in on what the South Carolina debate means for the 2020 election .
The Cold War ended three decades ago .
But watching the Democratic debate on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for thinking it was still in full swing .
Prompted by Bernie Sanders ’ s gratuitous praise a few days earlier for the communist regime in Havana , the candidates found themselves relitigating their stances toward Marxist governments in places like Cuba , Nicaragua , and even the erstwhile Soviet Union—the infamous destination of Sanders ’ s honeymoon in 1988 .
For viewers of a certain vintage , it recalled the Democratic Party ’ s struggles on national security in the 1970s and 1980s , when a number of prominent Democrats—including George McGovern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and John Kerry—either offered qualified praise for some communist governments or otherwise struggled to make unambiguous denunciations of communism .
Many voters viewed the Democratic Party as mired in moral equivalency between communism and democracy or—at its worst—susceptible to a “ Blame America First ” reflex , in former U.N .
Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick ’ s memorable phrase .
( For younger viewers and readers who might wonder what all the fuss is about , it bears remembering that communist regimes caused the deaths of somewhere between 60 million and 100 million of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
This is the generation in which Sanders came of age , and he seems unreformed , even unrepentant , for his past fawning over such loathsome regimes .
The issue matters not just as a debate about history .
It gives a sense for what kinds of moral principles the candidates will bring to their foreign policy ; it reveals how they view the lessons of history ; and , in the case of Sanders , it provides some clarity as to what governments he sees as models for his version @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders , the answer seems to be a strange amalgam of Cuba and Denmark . )
Interestingly , it fell to the two former mayors on stage , Michael Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg , who are at opposite ends of the generational spectrum , to offer the most forceful denunciations of communism—though Bloomberg undercut himself with a qualified defense of Xi Jinping ’ s leadership .
On Tuesday , Democratic candidates devoted a whopping 30 minutes to national security .
Who knew the suits at CBS read Foreign Policy ?
But kudos to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week ’ s debate to heart .
If Las Vegas was a foreign-policy wasteland , Charleston offered up an abundance of moments to take the candidates ’ measure on international affairs .
First and foremost , it ’ s clear that Bernie Sanders ’ s inability to strike the right tone in talking about murderous left-wing totalitarians of the past is a feature , not a bug .
As he more or less acknowledged , his first move is invariably to slam the United States for not being so great while pointing out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so bad .
That ’ s who he is .
It ’ s authentic .
But it ’ s also likely a gift to Donald Trump should Sanders be the nominee .
The same applies to Sanders ’ s toxic views of Israel .
His hostility to America ’ s most powerful and reliable Middle Eastern ally is the real deal—right up to the “ I love Israel , but ” trope .
As in : I love Israel , but it has repeatedly elected a “ racist ” ( in his words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The American Israel Public Affairs Committee , the leading advocacy group for U.S.-Israel relations , provides a platform to “ bigotry.
” As in : Moving the U.S. Embassy out of Jerusalem is a distinct possibility .
His animus is genuine , deeply held , and refreshingly transparent for all to see .
It ’ s also wrongheaded and a losing political proposition for most fair-minded Americans .
The failure of Sanders ’ s opponents to call him out on it is a mistake that Trump won ’ t make .
Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the need to keep limited numbers of combat troops in the Middle East to disrupt terrorists .
But his refusal to call China ’ s Xi Jinping a dictator because he answers to the Communist Party ’ s Politburo sounded just plain idiotic .
Joe Biden was at his best in the coronavirus discussion , invoking his role in the U.S. government ’ s successful containment of the 2014 Ebola crisis .
Biden ’ s overall toughness on China also resonated , though it would be fitting if he and others gave Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential shift to viewing Beijing as a strategic competitor , rather than a partner .
Finally , several other candidates collectively assembled what should be a powerful critique of Trump ’ s tenure as commander in chief .
He consistently is AWOL in talking seriously to the American people about some of the most critical issues facing the country .
Amy Klobuchar hit him on the coronavirus , Tom Steyer on Russian election interference , Pete Buttigieg on the humanitarian catastrophe that the war crimes of Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad are currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s good stuff .
Tie it all together and you ’ ve got the makings of an effective line of attack on Trump ’ s record .
Though it likely drew high ratings ( the last one in Las Vegas was seen by over 19 million viewers ) , Tuesday night ’ s debate was sometimes painful to listen to , with its cacophony of waving hands and candidates talking over each other .
Bernie Sanders took some hard shots .
Pete Buttigieg ’ s zinger that no nation in Europe has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , homing in on Sanders ’ s oft-referenced Scandinavian models ; both Sweden and Denmark , he said , allow private insurance .
On world affairs , all the candidates were simplistic , mundane , and often wrong .
On climate change , there was no articulation of a sensible climate policy—or conceding that the Sanders/Warren plan of banning fracking would be worse for the climate , moving us back from cleaner natural gas to coal .
There was little realism on China , with Joe Biden blithely suggesting he would force the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other issues .
Amy Klobuchar gave the most thoughtful reply when asked about North Korea , saying she would meet with leader Kim Jong Un but only as part of a larger , thought-through process .
For Republican foreign-policy wonks , there has been precious little to like in the Democratic primary , and that did not change Tuesday night .
The debate came against the backdrop of an odd week of split screens : the twin absurd spectacles of a president doggedly seeking adulation on the fringes of the Indian subcontinent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the far-left fringe of the American electorate .
On one screen , an administration plainly flailing about in its response to an emerging global pandemic , arguably the first bona fide crisis of the Trump presidency ; on the other screen , a passel of would-be contenders shouting at each other but especially drowning out the few with genuine executive experience of the sort needed to manage a crisis like this .
Meanwhile , Elizabeth Warren continued to reprise her version of the role played by Chris Christie in 2016 : kneecapping those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front-runner without significantly enhancing her own chances at the top prize—but , one suspects , perhaps hoping to increase her odds of landing herself on the undercard .
Obviously , people like me are not the target audience for these debates .
But eventually , people like me—people who believe the country can do better than Donald Trump but also fear the country can do worse than Donald Trump—will have a vote .
At that point , what will the menu of options look like ?

On Tuesday, Democrats held yet another debate. And refreshingly, for once, foreign policy was actually on the agenda. Bernie Sanders came under fire for praising authoritarian leaders, Michael Bloomberg insisted that Xi Jinping isn’t one, Joe Biden tried to play up his diplomatic experience, and the rest of the pack sought to prove their credentials. The Elephants in the Room team weighs in on what the South Carolina debate means for the 2020 election.
Party Like It’s 1979
By William Inboden
The Cold War ended three decades ago. But watching the Democratic debate on Tuesday night, one could be forgiven for thinking it was still in full swing. Prompted by Bernie Sanders’s gratuitous praise a few days earlier for the communist regime in Havana, the candidates found themselves relitigating their stances toward Marxist governments in places like Cuba, Nicaragua, and even the erstwhile Soviet Union—the infamous destination of Sanders’s honeymoon in 1988.
For viewers of a certain vintage, it recalled the Democratic Party’s struggles on national security in the 1970s and 1980s, when a number of prominent Democrats—including George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry—either offered qualified praise for some communist governments or otherwise struggled to make unambiguous denunciations of communism.
Many voters viewed the Democratic Party as mired in moral equivalency between communism and democracy or—at its worst—susceptible to a “Blame America First” reflex, in former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick’s memorable phrase. (For younger viewers and readers who might wonder what all the fuss is about, it bears remembering that communist regimes caused the deaths of somewhere between 60 million and 100 million of their own people in the 20th century.)
This is the generation in which Sanders came of age, and he seems unreformed, even unrepentant, for his past fawning over such loathsome regimes. The issue matters not just as a debate about history. It gives a sense for what kinds of moral principles the candidates will bring to their foreign policy; it reveals how they view the lessons of history; and, in the case of Sanders, it provides some clarity as to what governments he sees as models for his version of “democratic socialism.” (For Sanders, the answer seems to be a strange amalgam of Cuba and Denmark.)
Interestingly, it fell to the two former mayors on stage, Michael Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg, who are at opposite ends of the generational spectrum, to offer the most forceful denunciations of communism—though Bloomberg undercut himself with a qualified defense of Xi Jinping’s leadership.
Bernie Sanders Blames America First. That’s a Gift to Trump.
By John Hannah
On Tuesday, Democratic candidates devoted a whopping 30 minutes to national security. Who knew the suits at CBS read Foreign Policy? But kudos to them for taking our critique of last week’s debate to heart.
If Las Vegas was a foreign-policy wasteland, Charleston offered up an abundance of moments to take the candidates’ measure on international affairs.
First and foremost, it’s clear that Bernie Sanders’s inability to strike the right tone in talking about murderous left-wing totalitarians of the past is a feature, not a bug. As he more or less acknowledged, his first move is invariably to slam the United States for not being so great while pointing out that its enemies weren’t really so bad. That’s who he is. It’s authentic. But it’s also likely a gift to Donald Trump should Sanders be the nominee.
The same applies to Sanders’s toxic views of Israel. His hostility to America’s most powerful and reliable Middle Eastern ally is the real deal—right up to the “I love Israel, but” trope. As in: I love Israel, but it has repeatedly elected a “racist” (in his words) as prime minister. As in: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the leading advocacy group for U.S.-Israel relations, provides a platform to “bigotry.” As in: Moving the U.S. Embassy out of Jerusalem is a distinct possibility. His animus is genuine, deeply held, and refreshingly transparent for all to see. It’s also wrongheaded and a losing political proposition for most fair-minded Americans. The failure of Sanders’s opponents to call him out on it is a mistake that Trump won’t make.
Michael Bloomberg came off like an adult on the need to keep limited numbers of combat troops in the Middle East to disrupt terrorists. But his refusal to call China’s Xi Jinping a dictator because he answers to the Communist Party’s Politburo sounded just plain idiotic.
Joe Biden was at his best in the coronavirus discussion, invoking his role in the U.S. government’s successful containment of the 2014 Ebola crisis. Biden’s overall toughness on China also resonated, though it would be fitting if he and others gave Trump at least some credit for making the essential shift to viewing Beijing as a strategic competitor, rather than a partner.
Finally, several other candidates collectively assembled what should be a powerful critique of Trump’s tenure as commander in chief. He consistently is AWOL in talking seriously to the American people about some of the most critical issues facing the country. Amy Klobuchar hit him on the coronavirus, Tom Steyer on Russian election interference, Pete Buttigieg on the humanitarian catastrophe that the war crimes of Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad are currently perpetrating in Idlib, Syria.
That’s good stuff. Tie it all together and you’ve got the makings of an effective line of attack on Trump’s record.
Simplistic, Mundane, Wrong
By Robert Manning
Though it likely drew high ratings (the last one in Las Vegas was seen by over 19 million viewers), Tuesday night’s debate was sometimes painful to listen to, with its cacophony of waving hands and candidates talking over each other. Bernie Sanders took some hard shots. Pete Buttigieg’s zinger that no nation in Europe has banned private health insurance was especially sharp, homing in on Sanders’s oft-referenced Scandinavian models; both Sweden and Denmark, he said, allow private insurance.
On world affairs, all the candidates were simplistic, mundane, and often wrong. On climate change, there was no articulation of a sensible climate policy—or conceding that the Sanders/Warren plan of banning fracking would be worse for the climate, moving us back from cleaner natural gas to coal. There was little realism on China, with Joe Biden blithely suggesting he would force the country to move on climate change and other issues. Amy Klobuchar gave the most thoughtful reply when asked about North Korea, saying she would meet with leader Kim Jong Un but only as part of a larger, thought-through process.
Not an Encouraging Night
By Peter Feaver
For Republican foreign-policy wonks, there has been precious little to like in the Democratic primary, and that did not change Tuesday night.
The debate came against the backdrop of an odd week of split screens: the twin absurd spectacles of a president doggedly seeking adulation on the fringes of the Indian subcontinent and his would-be successors doggedly seeking adulation on the far-left fringe of the American electorate.
On one screen, an administration plainly flailing about in its response to an emerging global pandemic, arguably the first bona fide crisis of the Trump presidency; on the other screen, a passel of would-be contenders shouting at each other but especially drowning out the few with genuine executive experience of the sort needed to manage a crisis like this.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren continued to reprise her version of the role played by Chris Christie in 2016: kneecapping those who stand in the way of the front-runner without significantly enhancing her own chances at the top prize—but, one suspects, perhaps hoping to increase her odds of landing herself on the undercard.
Obviously, people like me are not the target audience for these debates. But eventually, people like me—people who believe the country can do better than Donald Trump but also fear the country can do worse than Donald Trump—will have a vote. At that point, what will the menu of options look like?


foreignpolicy--2020-02-26--Trump’s Pick for Intelligence Chief Represents a Step Forward for Gay Rights

There are growing reasons to fear that Richard Grenell is a security risk for the United States .
ProPublica has reported that Grenell , the U.S. ambassador to Germany and newly designated acting director of national intelligence , failed to disclose work for Moldovan oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc , who is barred from entering the United States under anti-corruption sanctions .
Disclosure of such paid work is required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act—the same law that both Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were convicted of violating .
Another recent accusation made against Grenell , however , has been almost universally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research Council expressed concern last week about Grenell ’ s sexuality , fearing he will engage in “ LGBT activism ” while overseeing the nation ’ s top intelligence-gathering apparatus .
And yet Perkins ’ s objection didn ’ t arrive from nowhere .
It ’ s not so long ago that Grenell ’ s homosexuality would have been considered—in the culture and under the law—a major security breach .
At the outset of Washington ’ s intelligence-gathering institutions during World War II and the Cold War , and throughout much of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security , not good stewards of it .
It ’ s worth trying to reinhabit this bygone worldview , if only to better appreciate the milestone that Grenell ’ s appointment represents .
Grenell is the first openly gay cabinet appointment in U.S. history , and the first openly gay director of national intelligence .
Given Grenell ’ s right-leaning politics—he has been one of President Donald Trump ’ s most strident defenders—and lack of qualifications , not many gay or lesbian activists have been celebrating his new position .
But Grenell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have barred him illustrates a sea change in the government ’ s approach to sexuality and security .
In the summer of 1950 , Rear Adm. Roscoe Hillenkoetter , the first director of the Central Intelligence Agency ( and the third director of central intelligence ) , told Congress that homosexuals must not be employed “ in positions of trust.
” He gave them 13 reasons from which to choose .
He claimed they exhibited “ psychopathic tendencies ” which affected the soundness of their judgement and rendered them unstable employees .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , indiscreet , and susceptible to blackmail .
Because they were “ extremely vulnerable to seduction by another pervert employed for that purpose by a foreign power , ” he warned that they presented a security risk of enormous importance .
As evidence for his claims , Hillenkoetter offered the story of Col. Alfred Redl , the head of Austrian intelligence prior to World War I .
He noted that the Russians learned of Redl ’ s sexual proclivities , supplied him with an attractive “ newsboy , ” and then burst in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Through this alleged blackmail scheme , Russian intelligence acquired hundreds of important documents , including Austria ’ s war mobilization plans .
Hillenkoetter ’ s testimony was meant to provide evidence to the wild claims of Sen. Joseph McCarthy that the State Department was honeycombed with “ communists and queers.
” But like McCarthy ’ s charges , Hillenkoetter ’ s story had been embellished .
Although Redl was a notorious double agent , the story of the newsboy and blackmail was invented .
Police officers gave similar testimony that homosexuals were uniquely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for evidence , they could only recount failed cases of blackmail—where gay men reported the blackmail to the police and the blackmailer was arrested .
Confirming this pattern , Soviet intelligence would later attempt to blackmail noted American journalist Joseph Alsop with photographs of a tryst in a Moscow hotel room .
Alsop went to the FBI and never succumbed to the blackmail .
( Of course , heterosexual married men having affairs with women were equally vulnerable to such blackmail schemes , but Hillenkoetter and his colleagues made no mention of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the desired effect .
They led to a scathing report by U.S. Congress about the dangers posed by homosexuals within the government .
Security agencies developed policies and procedures to detect and remove men and women suspected of homosexuality .
Reports that a woman lacked shapely hips or that a man had a funny walk would often be enough evidence to open an investigation .
Proof that an employee had visited a gay bar or had a gay roommate were considered sufficient grounds for dismissal .
When faced with the threat of exposure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resigned .
With the election of Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 under the campaign slogan “ Let ’ s Clean House , ” the ban on gay employees was codified in Executive Order 10450 .
Lasting into the 1970s , well past the McCarthy era , it ruined thousands of lives .
During the Cold War , the U.S. government even pressured its allies and many international organizations to adopt U.S.-style security services with a focus on restricting homosexuality .
Canada proved the most zealous in carrying out its own anti-gay purges .
Unsatisfied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used in the United States , the Royal Canadian Mounted Police spent four years trying to detect homosexual public servants based on pupillary responses to suggestive images .
They called the experimental apparatus “ the fruit machine.
” By the 1960s , gay activists were pushing back , asserting that they were being treated as second-class citizens .
They formed picket lines in front of government buildings and filed lawsuits demanding the government demonstrate a connection between off-duty behavior and job performance .
Unable to prove a connection , the Civil Service Commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But national-security agencies continued to discriminate , claiming the granting of a security clearance was a privilege requiring a higher level of screening .
Not until 1980 would an openly gay National Security Agency linguist , Jamie Shoemaker , be allowed to keep his job and his security clearance .
As a condition , Shoemaker was required to tell his family about his sexuality to reduce the alleged risk of blackmail .
Shoemaker won his case with the assistance of long-time gay activist Frank Kameny , himself a victim of the government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Dwight Eisenhower .
Only in 1995 did President Bill Clinton pass an executive order banning discrimination in the granting of security clearances based solely on sexual orientation .
Clinton ’ s executive order shifted the emphasis in security clearances from issues of sexual to financial impropriety , requiring government workers with security clearances to disclose personal financial records .
As gay rights activist Frank Kameny said at the time , “ The Government has gone beyond simply ceasing to be a hostile and vicious adversary and has now become an ally.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBT employees and host official Pride Month celebrations .
If there is a lesson in this story , it is the power of unsubstantiated stereotypes , rumor , and lies to influence public policy .
There has never been a single example of a gay or lesbian U.S. government employee who submitted to blackmail by a foreign agent or betrayed national security secrets because of their sexuality .
And yet the government fired thousands of gay men and lesbians because they feared one might .
The other lesson is that this change in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was the result of sustained and courageous activism on the part of gay men and lesbians , who stood up to the most powerful and secretive national-security network in the world and demanded to be treated fairly .
Grenell is now the most prominent beneficiary of this social activism .
The question now is how he will use the vast power it has helped put at his disposal .
National intelligence is an extremely vital function that requires a high level of trust at all levels .
While it ’ s great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign of one ’ s trustworthiness , extreme partisanship is .
Grenell , of all people , should understand the dangers of manipulating intelligence to serve a preexisting narrative or demonize a particular group .

There are growing reasons to fear that Richard Grenell is a security risk for the United States. ProPublica has reported that Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany and newly designated acting director of national intelligence, failed to disclose work for Moldovan oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc, who is barred from entering the United States under anti-corruption sanctions. Disclosure of such paid work is required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act—the same law that both Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were convicted of violating.
There are growing reasons to fear that Richard Grenell is a security risk for the United States. ProPublica has reported that Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany and newly designated acting director of national intelligence, failed to disclose work for Moldovan oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc, who is barred from entering the United States under anti-corruption sanctions. Disclosure of such paid work is required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act—the same law that both Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were convicted of violating.
Another recent accusation made against Grenell, however, has been almost universally dismissed. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council expressed concern last week about Grenell’s sexuality, fearing he will engage in “LGBT activism” while overseeing the nation’s top intelligence-gathering apparatus.
And yet Perkins’s objection didn’t arrive from nowhere. It’s not so long ago that Grenell’s homosexuality would have been considered—in the culture and under the law—a major security breach. At the outset of Washington’s intelligence-gathering institutions during World War II and the Cold War, and throughout much of their history, homosexuals were considered threats to national security, not good stewards of it.
It’s worth trying to reinhabit this bygone worldview, if only to better appreciate the milestone that Grenell’s appointment represents. Grenell is the first openly gay cabinet appointment in U.S. history, and the first openly gay director of national intelligence. Given Grenell’s right-leaning politics—he has been one of President Donald Trump’s most strident defenders—and lack of qualifications, not many gay or lesbian activists have been celebrating his new position. But Grenell’s leadership over agencies that once would have barred him illustrates a sea change in the government’s approach to sexuality and security.
In the summer of 1950, Rear Adm. Roscoe Hillenkoetter, the first director of the Central Intelligence Agency (and the third director of central intelligence), told Congress that homosexuals must not be employed “in positions of trust.” He gave them 13 reasons from which to choose. He claimed they exhibited “psychopathic tendencies” which affected the soundness of their judgement and rendered them unstable employees. Worse, he claimed they were promiscuous, indiscreet, and susceptible to blackmail. Because they were “extremely vulnerable to seduction by another pervert employed for that purpose by a foreign power,” he warned that they presented a security risk of enormous importance.
As evidence for his claims, Hillenkoetter offered the story of Col. Alfred Redl, the head of Austrian intelligence prior to World War I. He noted that the Russians learned of Redl’s sexual proclivities, supplied him with an attractive “newsboy,” and then burst in on them in a hotel room. Through this alleged blackmail scheme, Russian intelligence acquired hundreds of important documents, including Austria’s war mobilization plans.
Hillenkoetter’s testimony was meant to provide evidence to the wild claims of Sen. Joseph McCarthy that the State Department was honeycombed with “communists and queers.” But like McCarthy’s charges, Hillenkoetter’s story had been embellished. Although Redl was a notorious double agent, the story of the newsboy and blackmail was invented.
Police officers gave similar testimony that homosexuals were uniquely vulnerable to blackmail. But when pressed for evidence, they could only recount failed cases of blackmail—where gay men reported the blackmail to the police and the blackmailer was arrested. Confirming this pattern, Soviet intelligence would later attempt to blackmail noted American journalist Joseph Alsop with photographs of a tryst in a Moscow hotel room. Alsop went to the FBI and never succumbed to the blackmail. (Of course, heterosexual married men having affairs with women were equally vulnerable to such blackmail schemes, but Hillenkoetter and his colleagues made no mention of them.)
Nevertheless, the stories had the desired effect. They led to a scathing report by U.S. Congress about the dangers posed by homosexuals within the government. Security agencies developed policies and procedures to detect and remove men and women suspected of homosexuality. Reports that a woman lacked shapely hips or that a man had a funny walk would often be enough evidence to open an investigation. Proof that an employee had visited a gay bar or had a gay roommate were considered sufficient grounds for dismissal. When faced with the threat of exposure, most suspected gay men and lesbians resigned. With the election of Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 under the campaign slogan “Let’s Clean House,” the ban on gay employees was codified in Executive Order 10450. Lasting into the 1970s, well past the McCarthy era, it ruined thousands of lives.
During the Cold War, the U.S. government even pressured its allies and many international organizations to adopt U.S.-style security services with a focus on restricting homosexuality. Canada proved the most zealous in carrying out its own anti-gay purges. Unsatisfied with the results of polygraph exams often used in the United States, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police spent four years trying to detect homosexual public servants based on pupillary responses to suggestive images. They called the experimental apparatus “the fruit machine.”
By the 1960s, gay activists were pushing back, asserting that they were being treated as second-class citizens. They formed picket lines in front of government buildings and filed lawsuits demanding the government demonstrate a connection between off-duty behavior and job performance. Unable to prove a connection, the Civil Service Commission ended its anti-gay policies in 1975. But national-security agencies continued to discriminate, claiming the granting of a security clearance was a privilege requiring a higher level of screening.
Not until 1980 would an openly gay National Security Agency linguist, Jamie Shoemaker, be allowed to keep his job and his security clearance. As a condition, Shoemaker was required to tell his family about his sexuality to reduce the alleged risk of blackmail. Shoemaker won his case with the assistance of long-time gay activist Frank Kameny, himself a victim of the government’s Lavender Scare under the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower.
Only in 1995 did President Bill Clinton pass an executive order banning discrimination in the granting of security clearances based solely on sexual orientation. Clinton’s executive order shifted the emphasis in security clearances from issues of sexual to financial impropriety, requiring government workers with security clearances to disclose personal financial records.
As gay rights activist Frank Kameny said at the time, “The Government has gone beyond simply ceasing to be a hostile and vicious adversary and has now become an ally.” Agencies such as the CIA now recruit LGBT employees and host official Pride Month celebrations.
If there is a lesson in this story, it is the power of unsubstantiated stereotypes, rumor, and lies to influence public policy. There has never been a single example of a gay or lesbian U.S. government employee who submitted to blackmail by a foreign agent or betrayed national security secrets because of their sexuality. And yet the government fired thousands of gay men and lesbians because they feared one might. The other lesson is that this change in policy did not just happen naturally. It was the result of sustained and courageous activism on the part of gay men and lesbians, who stood up to the most powerful and secretive national-security network in the world and demanded to be treated fairly.
Grenell is now the most prominent beneficiary of this social activism. The question now is how he will use the vast power it has helped put at his disposal. National intelligence is an extremely vital function that requires a high level of trust at all levels. While it’s great that sexuality is no longer considered a sign of one’s trustworthiness, extreme partisanship is. Grenell, of all people, should understand the dangers of manipulating intelligence to serve a preexisting narrative or demonize a particular group.