foreignpolicy--2020-02-20--Meet Pete Buttigieg’s Foreign-Policy Mentor

This is the first in a series of profiles of the people advising the 2020 Democratic field on foreign policy .
Sixteen years later , that campaign worker , Pete Buttigieg , is in the midst of a long-shot presidential bid that has propelled him close to the front of the pack in the Democratic primaries .
And Wilson , Buttigieg ’ s former supervisor—a veteran of the State Department , Defense Department , and eight Democratic campaigns—now serves as one of his top advisors on foreign policy .
In an interview with Foreign Policy , Wilson recalled picking Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work on the 2004 Kerry campaign for Arizona and quickly becoming impressed with his work .
“ The qualities that attracted me to him , that made me respect him , that made me think that this was a match [ for the Kerry campaign job ] are the same qualities that he ’ s bringing to the campaign , ” he said .
“ He impressed everybody with the fact that he was a team player.
” Wilson now leads a team of experts , many of whom served in the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to run U.S. foreign policy rather than just a return to the Obama years .
For example , the Buttigieg campaign stands for a more aggressive approach to tackling climate change and vows to replace the 2001-era war powers authorities that both the Obama and Trump administrations used to deploy forces at will in the Middle East without additional congressional approval .
Wilson shares another unique bond with Buttigieg as a trailblazer for LGBT issues : As the first openly gay Senate-confirmed Pentagon official , Wilson helped repeal the so-called “ don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” policy that barred openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military .
It came two years after his protege joined the Navy Reserves , and three years before Buttigieg was called up to active duty service for a seven-month tour in Afghanistan .
As the first openly gay Senate-confirmed Pentagon official , Wilson helped repeal the so-called “ don ’ t ask , don ’ t tell ” policy that barred openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military .
It was only later , after Wilson met and befriended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mayor—the first openly gay candidate to mount a major presidential campaign— “ had been on the same personal journey I had been on years before , ” he recalled .
Foreign policy often plays a peripheral issue in elections , particularly primaries , where issues closer to home , such as health care and the economy , drive the campaigns .
At a Democratic debate on Wednesday night , Buttigieg locked horns with Sen. Amy Klobuchar , another presidential hopeful fighting for the center-left vote .
But outside of a bitter exchange between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name of the president of Mexico , foreign-policy issues received virtually no attention .
As the election date in November approaches , however , top candidates vying for the Democratic nomination are already solidifying teams of foreign-policy advisors to help craft their campaign platforms and respond to major foreign-policy developments as they arise .
Election day is far off , but the candidates ’ teams of expert volunteers give insights into their foreign-policy priorities .
They also offer a glimpse into what a candidate ’ s administration would look like if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the campaign advisors and volunteers who secure influential positions in the White House , State Department , Pentagon , and other federal agencies in the early days of an administration .
Andrew Albertson , the executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Foreign Policy for America , said not to discount the importance of foreign policy in the 2020 election cycle .
“ Americans are so weary of conflict and the next war we might purposefully or inadvertently find ourselves in , ” he said .
“ I think people underestimate the degree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a foreign policy election.
” But in Wilson , Buttigieg has both a foreign-policy expert and a seasoned campaign veteran helping coordinate his foreign-policy platform .
Wilson leads a team of some 450 foreign-policy experts volunteering for Buttigieg , hoping to vault the former mayor , veteran , and Rhodes scholar to the most powerful public office in the world .
In Wilson , Buttigieg has both a foreign-policy expert and a seasoned campaign veteran helping coordinate the mayor ’ s foreign-policy platform .
Wilson , who works on a volunteer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of foreign-policy advisors along with Tarek Ghani , an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis .
While his Democratic rival Biden boasts a large cadre of former senior officials in Democratic administrations , Buttigieg ’ s team in many ways represents the next generation of foreign-policy experts , among them : Ned Price , a former CIA official and National Security Council staffer ; Amanda Sloat , an expert on European issues and former State Department official ; Rebecca Bill Chavez , a former senior Pentagon official and scholar on Latin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary of the army ; and Robert Holleyman , a former deputy trade representative under President Barack Obama .
An Arizona native , Wilson cut his teeth in the world of foreign policy after joining the U.S. foreign service , serving stints in Rome , Naples , and London .
While in London , he served as the embassy spokesperson during the Iran hostage crisis that began amid the country ’ s revolution in 1979 , where 52 U.S. diplomats and citizens were held hostage for over 14 months before being released after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Wilson was friends with four of those detained .
He has worked on eight Democratic campaigns , from former Sen. Gary Hart ’ s presidential bid in 1988 , to Kerry ’ s in 2004 , to Martin O ’ Malley ’ s primary bid in 2016 , which the former Maryland governor lost to Hillary Clinton .
During the Obama administration , Wilson served as the Pentagon ’ s top public affairs official from early 2010 to 2012 , advising on issues spanning public communications , China , and Afghanistan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials who advocated against labeling the Obama administration ’ s renewed focus on China as a “ pivot ” to Asia , lest it appear the United States was retreating from its commitments elsewhere in the world .
It was while he was at the Pentagon that Wilson helped the administration repeal the “ don ’ t ask , don ’ t tell ” policy in 2011 .
He recalls it as a defining moment in his career .
“ It was something that made me feel very proud , because it meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people again and they could serve their country with distinction and not have to worry that their lives would be bifurcated , ” he told Foreign Policy .
“ It meant that so many people could be whole people again and they could serve their country with distinction and not have to worry that their lives would be bifurcated.
” Before he came out , Wilson struggled with balancing his professional and personal life , “ one publicly striving to advance in a career in foreign policy and communications ; another hidden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wondering whether I would ever find love and acceptance for who I am , ” he later wrote when he began campaigning for Buttigieg .
He wrote that he learned to find his place through an LGBT swimming team in the 1990s , when acceptance of LGBT rights was much less widespread in the United States than it is today .
( As Buttigieg has written , the struggle for full equality is “ not over.
” ) After leaving the Pentagon , Wilson was nominated to serve on the U.S .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his confirmation to the part-time post languished in Senate amid political squabbles and the sclerotic background investigations that has dogged nominees in all recent administrations .
Wilson said one of the bright spots in his long career is mentoring future leaders , including Buttigieg .
“ I ’ m proud to have been part of Pete ’ s life .
I ’ m hugely proud to be working for him now .
And he ’ s certainly one of the people that I saw early on as someone who could make a real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public service , ” he said .
About half of the working groups are led by women , and one of the working groups focuses specifically on diversity and inclusion .
Still , Buttigieg himself has struggled to gain traction with blocs of minority voters that Democratic candidates are hoping to energize in the 2020 elections to oust President Donald Trump from office .
A Quinnipiac University poll released on Feb. 10 found that only 4 percent of black voters would support Buttigieg if the primary were held that day , compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positioning himself as a centrist in a race with fierce competition on the far left from Warren and Sanders , has also faced criticism from the left flank for accepting money from major deep-pocketed political donors .
Biden has the backing of 60 billionaires and Buttigieg has the backing of 56 , according to Forbes magazine , compared to zero for Sanders .
Warren and Sanders have painted Buttigieg as a favored candidate of wealthy donors and corporations as part of their bid to overtake him in the primaries .
Warren has set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donors from becoming ambassadors , a practice carried out by Trump and past Republican and Democratic presidents alike .
In an interview with CNN last month , Buttigieg did not rule out appointing donors as ambassadors if they had the right qualifications .
“ If I ’ m trying to figure out who ought to be a senior envoy to deal with , let ’ s say , Afghanistan and Pakistan , and somebody emerges as the right person for that job with the best qualifications , are they going to turn out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a house party for my campaign years earlier ?
” he said .
Still , foreign policy appears to be one of Buttigieg ’ s strengths in the eyes of voters , despite his relative lack of experience compared with other candidates .
Still , foreign policy appears to be one of Buttigieg ’ s strengths in the eyes of voters .
An exit poll of voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary , which Buttigieg only narrowly lost to Sanders , found that Buttigieg won the most votes among voters that rated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Buttigieg was one of the first Democratic candidates to give a speech on foreign policy , in June 2019 , which several advisors say Wilson played a key role in orchestrating .
In the speech , Buttigieg gave tangible policy recommendations that largely aligned with the views of other candidates in the Democratic field : returning to the Iran nuclear deal , rejoining the Paris climate accords , and withholding some U.S. funding to Israel if it annexed part of the West Bank .
But he also distinguished himself from the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to repeal and replace the 2001 congressional authority that successive U.S. administrations still use to justify military force in the Middle East—the center of an ongoing heated debate on Capitol Hill .
His push to replace the so-called Authorization for Use of Military Force was born in large part from his seven-month tour in Afghanistan in 2014 , where he fretted over what purpose U.S. involvement in Afghanistan was serving and how the war could ever end , as he recounts in his 2019 memoir , Shortest Way Home .
Several advisors who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a key role in encouraging Buttigieg to pursue a career path in the U.S. military .
Wilson conceded foreign policy wasn ’ t dominating primary season , but he said candidates need to communicate their approaches on foreign policy to voters ahead of the general election .
Among the issues he and his team are working on currently for the mayor ’ s campaign : whether sanctions are the only default nonmilitary way to respond to foreign-policy crises , how to rethink and restore U.S. alliances after Trump leaves office , and how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal agencies with a new generation of talent .
“ Our view is , how do we recruit and retain more Chris Stevenses ?
” he said , referring to the veteran U.S. ambassador killed by militants in Benghazi , Libya , in 2012 .
Buttigieg is the greenest candidate on the campaign trail , which some of his advisors say gives them more opportunities to help him inject fresh thinking into the stale foreign policy debates in Washington .
It ’ s one of the ways that Wilson has been able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of foreign policy experts despite Buttigieg lagging behind other candidates in the national polls .
“ It ’ s definitely the case that not every position has been litigated in the interagency 15 times already , ” said one .
“ There was more ability to shape and develop policies than [ with ] other candidates.
” “ I think people would probably look at me and say the Biden [ campaign ] would have been the better fit , ” said Chavez , the former Pentagon official advising Buttigieg .
She praised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and described him as a strong candidate , but “ with Pete , the vision is broader , and bigger , and more inclusive , which is one of the reasons why I made the decision [ to join Buttigieg ’ s team ] , ” she said .

Doug Wilson, then-assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, speaks during a briefing on the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" at the Pentagon on July 22, 2011. Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images
This is the first in a series of profiles of the people advising the 2020 Democratic field on foreign policy.
Doug Wilson was directing John Kerry’s presidential campaign in Arizona in 2004 when an energetic young campaign staffer caught his attention. Wilson, impressed by the staffer, recruited him to be an assistant for a venture back in Washington organizing conferences for emerging leaders.
Sixteen years later, that campaign worker, Pete Buttigieg, is in the midst of a long-shot presidential bid that has propelled him close to the front of the pack in the Democratic primaries. And Wilson, Buttigieg’s former supervisor—a veteran of the State Department, Defense Department, and eight Democratic campaigns—now serves as one of his top advisors on foreign policy.
In an interview with Foreign Policy, Wilson recalled picking Buttigieg out of a sheaf of resumes to work on the 2004 Kerry campaign for Arizona and quickly becoming impressed with his work. “The qualities that attracted me to him, that made me respect him, that made me think that this was a match [for the Kerry campaign job] are the same qualities that he’s bringing to the campaign,” he said. “He impressed everybody with the fact that he was a team player.”
Wilson now leads a team of experts, many of whom served in the Obama administration but yearn for a fresh face to run U.S. foreign policy rather than just a return to the Obama years. For example, the Buttigieg campaign stands for a more aggressive approach to tackling climate change and vows to replace the 2001-era war powers authorities that both the Obama and Trump administrations used to deploy forces at will in the Middle East without additional congressional approval.
Wilson shares another unique bond with Buttigieg as a trailblazer for LGBT issues: As the first openly gay Senate-confirmed Pentagon official, Wilson helped repeal the so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that barred openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military. It came two years after his protege joined the Navy Reserves, and three years before Buttigieg was called up to active duty service for a seven-month tour in Afghanistan.
As the first openly gay Senate-confirmed Pentagon official, Wilson helped repeal the so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that barred openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military.
It was only later, after Wilson met and befriended Buttigieg, that he learned the former mayor—the first openly gay candidate to mount a major presidential campaign—“had been on the same personal journey I had been on years before,” he recalled.
Foreign policy often plays a peripheral issue in elections, particularly primaries, where issues closer to home, such as health care and the economy, drive the campaigns. At a Democratic debate on Wednesday night, Buttigieg locked horns with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, another presidential hopeful fighting for the center-left vote. But outside of a bitter exchange between the two over Klobuchar failing to remember the name of the president of Mexico, foreign-policy issues received virtually no attention.
As the election date in November approaches, however, top candidates vying for the Democratic nomination are already solidifying teams of foreign-policy advisors to help craft their campaign platforms and respond to major foreign-policy developments as they arise.
Election day is far off, but the candidates’ teams of expert volunteers give insights into their foreign-policy priorities. They also offer a glimpse into what a candidate’s administration would look like if they were elected. Oftentimes, it is the campaign advisors and volunteers who secure influential positions in the White House, State Department, Pentagon, and other federal agencies in the early days of an administration.
Andrew Albertson, the executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Foreign Policy for America, said not to discount the importance of foreign policy in the 2020 election cycle. “Americans are so weary of conflict and the next war we might purposefully or inadvertently find ourselves in,” he said. “I think people underestimate the degree to which this really could turn out to be a foreign policy election.”
Wilson’s journey to becoming one of Buttigieg’s most influential advisors comes from decades of experience in both foreign-policy making and campaigning for Democratic candidates. Buttigieg, a former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and an Afghanistan War veteran, lacks some of the foreign-policy credentials of other Democratic presidential contenders, such as former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have each served in the Senate on committees that oversee key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.
But in Wilson, Buttigieg has both a foreign-policy expert and a seasoned campaign veteran helping coordinate his foreign-policy platform. Wilson leads a team of some 450 foreign-policy experts volunteering for Buttigieg, hoping to vault the former mayor, veteran, and Rhodes scholar to the most powerful public office in the world.
In Wilson, Buttigieg has both a foreign-policy expert and a seasoned campaign veteran helping coordinate the mayor’s foreign-policy platform.
Wilson, who works on a volunteer basis, leads Buttigieg’s team of foreign-policy advisors along with Tarek Ghani, an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis. While his Democratic rival Biden boasts a large cadre of former senior officials in Democratic administrations, Buttigieg’s team in many ways represents the next generation of foreign-policy experts, among them: Ned Price, a former CIA official and National Security Council staffer; Amanda Sloat, an expert on European issues and former State Department official; Rebecca Bill Chavez, a former senior Pentagon official and scholar on Latin America; Eric Fanning, a former secretary of the army; and Robert Holleyman, a former deputy trade representative under President Barack Obama.
An Arizona native, Wilson cut his teeth in the world of foreign policy after joining the U.S. foreign service, serving stints in Rome, Naples, and London. While in London, he served as the embassy spokesperson during the Iran hostage crisis that began amid the country’s revolution in 1979, where 52 U.S. diplomats and citizens were held hostage for over 14 months before being released after the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was stormed. Wilson was friends with four of those detained.
He has worked on eight Democratic campaigns, from former Sen. Gary Hart’s presidential bid in 1988, to Kerry’s in 2004, to Martin O’Malley’s primary bid in 2016, which the former Maryland governor lost to Hillary Clinton. During the Obama administration, Wilson served as the Pentagon’s top public affairs official from early 2010 to 2012, advising on issues spanning public communications, China, and Afghanistan. He was one of the dissenting Pentagon officials who advocated against labeling the Obama administration’s renewed focus on China as a “pivot” to Asia, lest it appear the United States was retreating from its commitments elsewhere in the world.
It was while he was at the Pentagon that Wilson helped the administration repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in 2011. He recalls it as a defining moment in his career. “It was something that made me feel very proud, because it meant that so many people could be whole people again and they could serve their country with distinction and not have to worry that their lives would be bifurcated,” he told Foreign Policy.
“It meant that so many people could be whole people again and they could serve their country with distinction and not have to worry that their lives would be bifurcated.”
Before he came out, Wilson struggled with balancing his professional and personal life, “one publicly striving to advance in a career in foreign policy and communications; another hidden, struggling to accept my sexual orientation, and wondering whether I would ever find love and acceptance for who I am,” he later wrote when he began campaigning for Buttigieg. He wrote that he learned to find his place through an LGBT swimming team in the 1990s, when acceptance of LGBT rights was much less widespread in the United States than it is today. (As Buttigieg has written, the struggle for full equality is “not over.”)
After leaving the Pentagon, Wilson was nominated to serve on the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, but his confirmation to the part-time post languished in Senate amid political squabbles and the sclerotic background investigations that has dogged nominees in all recent administrations.
Wilson said one of the bright spots in his long career is mentoring future leaders, including Buttigieg. “I’m proud to have been part of Pete’s life. I’m hugely proud to be working for him now. And he’s certainly one of the people that I saw early on as someone who could make a real difference as he brought his talents to public service,” he said.
Wilson and Ghani have organized the cadre of volunteers on the foreign-policy team into 25 working groups, each with a focus on different regions or subjects. Ned Price, one of the advisors, said Wilson kept “the trains running on time” with all the advisors despite the frenetic pace of the campaign season.
About half of the working groups are led by women, and one of the working groups focuses specifically on diversity and inclusion. Still, Buttigieg himself has struggled to gain traction with blocs of minority voters that Democratic candidates are hoping to energize in the 2020 elections to oust President Donald Trump from office. A Quinnipiac University poll released on Feb. 10 found that only 4 percent of black voters would support Buttigieg if the primary were held that day, compared to 27 percent for Biden.
Buttigieg, positioning himself as a centrist in a race with fierce competition on the far left from Warren and Sanders, has also faced criticism from the left flank for accepting money from major deep-pocketed political donors. Biden has the backing of 60 billionaires and Buttigieg has the backing of 56, according to Forbes magazine, compared to zero for Sanders. Warren and Sanders have painted Buttigieg as a favored candidate of wealthy donors and corporations as part of their bid to overtake him in the primaries. Warren has set herself apart by pledging to bar wealthy donors from becoming ambassadors, a practice carried out by Trump and past Republican and Democratic presidents alike.
In an interview with CNN last month, Buttigieg did not rule out appointing donors as ambassadors if they had the right qualifications. “If I’m trying to figure out who ought to be a senior envoy to deal with, let’s say, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and somebody emerges as the right person for that job with the best qualifications, are they going to turn out to be disqualified because they came to a house party for my campaign years earlier?” he said.
Still, foreign policy appears to be one of Buttigieg’s strengths in the eyes of voters, despite his relative lack of experience compared with other candidates.
Still, foreign policy appears to be one of Buttigieg’s strengths in the eyes of voters. An exit poll of voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, which Buttigieg only narrowly lost to Sanders, found that Buttigieg won the most votes among voters that rated foreign policy as their most important issue.
Buttigieg was one of the first Democratic candidates to give a speech on foreign policy, in June 2019, which several advisors say Wilson played a key role in orchestrating. In the speech, Buttigieg gave tangible policy recommendations that largely aligned with the views of other candidates in the Democratic field: returning to the Iran nuclear deal, rejoining the Paris climate accords, and withholding some U.S. funding to Israel if it annexed part of the West Bank. But he also distinguished himself from the Obama administration’s foreign policy by vowing to repeal and replace the 2001 congressional authority that successive U.S. administrations still use to justify military force in the Middle East—the center of an ongoing heated debate on Capitol Hill.
His push to replace the so-called Authorization for Use of Military Force was born in large part from his seven-month tour in Afghanistan in 2014, where he fretted over what purpose U.S. involvement in Afghanistan was serving and how the war could ever end, as he recounts in his 2019 memoir, Shortest Way Home. Several advisors who spoke to Foreign Policy said Wilson played a key role in encouraging Buttigieg to pursue a career path in the U.S. military.
Wilson conceded foreign policy wasn’t dominating primary season, but he said candidates need to communicate their approaches on foreign policy to voters ahead of the general election. Among the issues he and his team are working on currently for the mayor’s campaign: whether sanctions are the only default nonmilitary way to respond to foreign-policy crises, how to rethink and restore U.S. alliances after Trump leaves office, and how to revive the State Department and other federal agencies with a new generation of talent. “Our view is, how do we recruit and retain more Chris Stevenses?” he said, referring to the veteran U.S. ambassador killed by militants in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012.
Buttigieg is the greenest candidate on the campaign trail, which some of his advisors say gives them more opportunities to help him inject fresh thinking into the stale foreign policy debates in Washington. It’s one of the ways that Wilson has been able to amass such a large and diverse group of foreign policy experts despite Buttigieg lagging behind other candidates in the national polls.
“It’s definitely the case that not every position has been litigated in the interagency 15 times already,” said one. “There was more ability to shape and develop policies than [with] other candidates.”
“I think people would probably look at me and say the Biden [campaign] would have been the better fit,” said Chavez, the former Pentagon official advising Buttigieg. She praised Biden’s record as vice president and described him as a strong candidate, but “with Pete, the vision is broader, and bigger, and more inclusive, which is one of the reasons why I made the decision [to join Buttigieg’s team],” she said.


foreignpolicy--2020-02-21--Will American Firms Put America First?

Will American Firms Put America First?

At a panel discussion about global trade during the Munich Security Conference last week , BMW CEO Oliver Zipse praised his firm ’ s role in the global economy : Its largest manufacturing plant is in the United States , he said ; its fastest growth is in China .
Zipse , who is German , himself went to college in the United States and remains an international man at the helm of his international company : one of the world ’ s many phenomenally successful Davos men ( and Davos women ) .
“ There ’ s a trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of American corporate achievement , appointing non-American CEOs , ” declared Slate in 2007 , going on to list recent appointments : Indian-born Indra Nooyi at PepsiCo , Irishman Neville Isdell at Coca-Cola , German Klaus Kleinfeld at Alcoa .
European companies followed the trend .
In 2012 , Germany ’ s Deutsche Bank announced that the British Indian banker Anshu Jain would become co-CEO , replacing the Swiss-born Josef Ackermann ; three years later Jain was succeeded by John Cryan , a Briton .
Their co-CEO at the time , Jürgen Fitschen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in countries including Britain and Singapore .
Another German giant , Siemens , hired a German CEO with such an international mindset that he changed his name from Josef Käser to the Americanized Joe Kaeser .
Nokia , the Finnish paper-and-pulp company that that transformed its fortunes by becoming a mobile-phone company , turned to network equipment and brought in a whole suite of new executives led by Indian-born Rajeev Suri .
Suri ’ s counterpart at Swedish rival Ericsson , Börje Ekholm , also serves on the board of the Chinese e-retailing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chrysler was sold to Germany ’ s Daimler ; the quintessentially Swedish Volvo was acquired by Geely of China .
This sort of internationalization permeated corporate culture : nationality—corporate or individual—barely mattered .
English increasingly became the working language .
Executives regularly convened with political leaders to sort any the remaining obstacles to a smoothly running global economy .
“ Davos man ” was in charge .
Today ’ s geopolitical standoffs are making companies ’ home countries relevant again ; companies have a role to play in their home countries ’ national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , today ’ s geopolitical standoffs are making companies ’ home countries relevant again ; companies have a role to play in their home countries ’ national security .
Countries are increasingly at loggerheads with one another , and those conflicts are playing out with minimal military aggression .
Instead , countries are weaponizing globalization .
There ’ s Huawei ’ s government-supported international expansion that has seen the Chinese tech giant , aided by massive government subsidies , develop inexpensive 5G technology with which it undercuts its competitors Ericsson and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introduce 5G are quite reasonably opting for Huawei , much to the ire of advocates of fair business practices , who object to the unlevel playing field , and of the U.S. government , which senses a national security risk in having a firm linked to the Chinese government providing sensitive technology .
There ’ s also the Belt and Road Initiative , which offers infrastructure investment and construction to foreign countries at low cost , then leaves those countries beholden to China .
Nord Stream 2 , the natural gas pipeline between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government is being roundly criticized by allies who view it as a Russian tool of influence—is a partly private enterprise undertaken by a mix of Russia ’ s state-controlled Gazprom and a handful of Western European firms such as Wintershall and Engie .
A 2019 report by the Swedish Defense Research Agency found that more than 1,000 Swedish businesses are now owned by Chinese nationals , with over half of the firms active in areas designated as priorities in China ’ s Made in China 2025 industrial plan .
Volvo has been joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acquired by Chinese firms .
The U.S. National Defense Strategy speaks of “ predatory economics , ” and in 2018 Sens .
Chris Coons , Jeff Merkley , Marco Rubio , and Todd Young introduced the bipartisan National Economic Security Strategy Act of 2018 bill , which would require U.S. administrations to treat predatory economics as seriously as military aggression .
In authoritarian countries , companies can of course act at the government ’ s behest .
And so far , most predatory practices are not illegal .
They do , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ united front .
As Sen. Mitt Romney pointed out at the Munich Security Conference , even the United States is small compared to China and should team up with its allies .
That includes captains of industry in the United States and allied countries .
But with Davos man , there ’ s no such certainty .
Last year , Kaeser announced that Siemens would invest another 100 million euros ( $ 113 million ) in Russia , even as Russia continues to undermine democracy in Germany and other Western countries by spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Apple has removed apps such as one used by Hong Kong protesters from its App Store at the request of the Chinese government while refusing to give the U.S. government access to its backdoor , which Washington argues is vital in terrorist investigations .
Facebook ran Russian ads designed to harm the 2016 election .
Western telecommunications companies advocate using Huawei even though support from the Chinese government means it competes against Ericsson and Nokia on highly unequal terms .
And U.S. President Donald Trump , who remains the owner though not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes seems put the conglomerate ’ s global operations ahead of U.S. national interests even as he declares “ America First.
” Sure , it ’ s tricky to help your home country counter predatory economics if your company is ultimately owned by a rival power—but a first step is for captains of industry to recognize the role of business in today ’ s geopolitical standoff .
Here ’ s the challenge : No government in a liberal democracy can oblige business leaders or companies to act in the interest of the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting a fierce battle against their mighty Chinese rival , they could decide that the battle is quixotic and shift their focus to another business area .
And although the two firms are headquartered in Sweden and Finland , respectively , they don ’ t represent the countries .
Indeed , no executives have an obligation to act in the interest of either country .
Zipse ’ s BMW , meanwhile , keeps selling to China even though the country continues to steal intellectual property from the West , a significant problem Western @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , China is building a new airliner—the C919 , which will compete head-on with Airbus and Boeing—largely by using intellectual property stolen from those two firms .
Governments , though , seem to assume that a company ’ s home base implies allegiance to that country .
Ericsson and Nokia are treated as safe alternatives to Huawei simply because they ’ re Scandinavian .
They are most likely safer—but that ’ s thanks to their higher ethical standards , not because they ’ re located in Finland and Sweden .
Governments sometimes also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately linked to the prosperity of the country : In other words , what ’ s good for General Motors is good for the United States , as then-GM President Charles Wilson once argued .
That ’ s sometimes the case even when companies ’ profits are channeled through other countries .
Though the U.S. government was aware that Apple was moving profits to Ireland—which offered extremely low tax rates—the practice was allowed to go on for years .
In 2018 , the tech giant finally paid the U.S. tax collector $ 38 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , do well to understand that the continued prosperity of democratic countries is vital not just for the governments and ordinary taxpayers but ultimately for global companies , too .
The success of such companies—even if their largest growth is in China , even if they invest enormous sums in Russia , even if they do business in authoritarian countries—depends on the rule of law , democracy , and prosperity in their home countries .
Global executives would do well to understand that the continued prosperity of their home countries is vital not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but ultimately for global companies , too .
Without such pillars of liberal democracy , companies ’ profits aren ’ t safe , nor is their executives ’ freedom .
And even in a crisis short of war , a foreign government can simply decide to shut down their production , as is happening in China due to the coronavirus epidemic , forcing Apple to warn of impending iPhone shortages .
According to a 2018 YouGov poll , 50 percent of Americans believe Russia interfered in the 2016 election ; Russia notoriously did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zuckerberg may not realize it , but the democratic malaise his company has helped bring about in the United States will eventually harm Facebook , too .
That malaise could , for example , led Facebook users to migrate to online platforms with even fewer restrictions , or it could be used for sophisticated disinformation campaigns against a country or specific companies that would cause a drop in the stock market .
As the much-maligned U.S. Attorney General William Barr has realized , the alternative is radical : nationalization .
Earlier this month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference in Washington that the U.S. government should buy Ericsson and Nokia to blunt Huawei ’ s “ drive to domination.
” Although the White House immediately dismissed the proposal , Barr had a point .
During the Cold War , large chunks of critical national infrastructure in Western Europe—airlines , postal services , energy providers , railways , telephone companies—were government-owned precisely because governments calculated that they could not rely on the free market in vital areas .
Today , social networks and 5G equipment are vital areas , too .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in an era of gray-zone aggression , having governments look after the national interest while business leaders pursue ever-increasing globalization is no longer sustainable .
That doesn ’ t mean that businesses should become Western governments ’ lackeys : they should simply show good corporate citizenship .
Zuckerberg and his ilk , a highly educated group , will easily grasp that doing their part for their continued well-being of their democratic countries is the ultimate long-term strategy .
Davos man must wake up ; seamless globalization was nothing but a fleeting dream @

At a panel discussion about global trade during the Munich Security Conference last week, BMW CEO Oliver Zipse praised his firm’s role in the global economy: Its largest manufacturing plant is in the United States, he said; its fastest growth is in China. Zipse, who is German, himself went to college in the United States and remains an international man at the helm of his international company: one of the world’s many phenomenally successful Davos men (and Davos women).
At a panel discussion about global trade during the Munich Security Conference last week, BMW CEO Oliver Zipse praised his firm’s role in the global economy: Its largest manufacturing plant is in the United States, he said; its fastest growth is in China. Zipse, who is German, himself went to college in the United States and remains an international man at the helm of his international company: one of the world’s many phenomenally successful Davos men (and Davos women).
“There’s a trend of Dow components, the iconic representation of American corporate achievement, appointing non-American CEOs,” declared Slate in 2007, going on to list recent appointments: Indian-born Indra Nooyi at PepsiCo, Irishman Neville Isdell at Coca-Cola, German Klaus Kleinfeld at Alcoa. European companies followed the trend. In 2012, Germany’s Deutsche Bank announced that the British Indian banker Anshu Jain would become co-CEO, replacing the Swiss-born Josef Ackermann; three years later Jain was succeeded by John Cryan, a Briton.
Their co-CEO at the time, Jürgen Fitschen, was a German who had worked in countries including Britain and Singapore. Another German giant, Siemens, hired a German CEO with such an international mindset that he changed his name from Josef Käser to the Americanized Joe Kaeser. Nokia, the Finnish paper-and-pulp company that that transformed its fortunes by becoming a mobile-phone company, turned to network equipment and brought in a whole suite of new executives led by Indian-born Rajeev Suri. Suri’s counterpart at Swedish rival Ericsson, Börje Ekholm, also serves on the board of the Chinese e-retailing giant Alibaba. The American automotive icon Chrysler was sold to Germany’s Daimler; the quintessentially Swedish Volvo was acquired by Geely of China.
This sort of internationalization permeated corporate culture: nationality—corporate or individual—barely mattered. English increasingly became the working language. Executives regularly convened with political leaders to sort any the remaining obstacles to a smoothly running global economy. “Davos man” was in charge.
Today’s geopolitical standoffs are making companies’ home countries relevant again; companies have a role to play in their home countries’ national security.
But the world is changing. Indeed, today’s geopolitical standoffs are making companies’ home countries relevant again; companies have a role to play in their home countries’ national security. Countries are increasingly at loggerheads with one another, and those conflicts are playing out with minimal military aggression. Instead, countries are weaponizing globalization.
There’s Huawei’s government-supported international expansion that has seen the Chinese tech giant, aided by massive government subsidies, develop inexpensive 5G technology with which it undercuts its competitors Ericsson and Nokia. Many countries now planning to introduce 5G are quite reasonably opting for Huawei, much to the ire of advocates of fair business practices, who object to the unlevel playing field, and of the U.S. government, which senses a national security risk in having a firm linked to the Chinese government providing sensitive technology.
There’s also the Belt and Road Initiative, which offers infrastructure investment and construction to foreign countries at low cost, then leaves those countries beholden to China. Nord Stream 2, the natural gas pipeline between Russia and Germany—for which Germany’s government is being roundly criticized by allies who view it as a Russian tool of influence—is a partly private enterprise undertaken by a mix of Russia’s state-controlled Gazprom and a handful of Western European firms such as Wintershall and Engie. A 2019 report by the Swedish Defense Research Agency found that more than 1,000 Swedish businesses are now owned by Chinese nationals, with over half of the firms active in areas designated as priorities in China’s Made in China 2025 industrial plan. Volvo has been joined by other classic Swedish brands in being acquired by Chinese firms.
The U.S. National Defense Strategy speaks of “predatory economics,” and in 2018 Sens. Chris Coons, Jeff Merkley, Marco Rubio, and Todd Young introduced the bipartisan National Economic Security Strategy Act of 2018 bill, which would require U.S. administrations to treat predatory economics as seriously as military aggression.
In authoritarian countries, companies can of course act at the government’s behest. And so far, most predatory practices are not illegal. They do, however, require Western countries to put up a united front. As Sen. Mitt Romney pointed out at the Munich Security Conference, even the United States is small compared to China and should team up with its allies.
That includes captains of industry in the United States and allied countries. But with Davos man, there’s no such certainty. Last year, Kaeser announced that Siemens would invest another 100 million euros ($113 million) in Russia, even as Russia continues to undermine democracy in Germany and other Western countries by spreading disinformation and trying to interfere with elections. Apple has removed apps such as one used by Hong Kong protesters from its App Store at the request of the Chinese government while refusing to give the U.S. government access to its backdoor, which Washington argues is vital in terrorist investigations.
Facebook ran Russian ads designed to harm the 2016 election. Western telecommunications companies advocate using Huawei even though support from the Chinese government means it competes against Ericsson and Nokia on highly unequal terms. And U.S. President Donald Trump, who remains the owner though not the CEO of the Trump Organization, sometimes seems put the conglomerate’s global operations ahead of U.S. national interests even as he declares “America First.”
Sure, it’s tricky to help your home country counter predatory economics if your company is ultimately owned by a rival power—but a first step is for captains of industry to recognize the role of business in today’s geopolitical standoff.
Here’s the challenge: No government in a liberal democracy can oblige business leaders or companies to act in the interest of the country. While Ericsson and Nokia are currently fighting a fierce battle against their mighty Chinese rival, they could decide that the battle is quixotic and shift their focus to another business area. And although the two firms are headquartered in Sweden and Finland, respectively, they don’t represent the countries.
Indeed, no executives have an obligation to act in the interest of either country. Zipse’s BMW, meanwhile, keeps selling to China even though the country continues to steal intellectual property from the West, a significant problem Western governments are struggling to solve. Indeed, China is building a new airliner—the C919, which will compete head-on with Airbus and Boeing—largely by using intellectual property stolen from those two firms.
Governments, though, seem to assume that a company’s home base implies allegiance to that country. Ericsson and Nokia are treated as safe alternatives to Huawei simply because they’re Scandinavian. They are most likely safer—but that’s thanks to their higher ethical standards, not because they’re located in Finland and Sweden.
Governments sometimes also assume that large companies’ success is ultimately linked to the prosperity of the country: In other words, what’s good for General Motors is good for the United States, as then-GM President Charles Wilson once argued . That’s sometimes the case even when companies’ profits are channeled through other countries. Though the U.S. government was aware that Apple was moving profits to Ireland—which offered extremely low tax rates—the practice was allowed to go on for years. In 2018, the tech giant finally paid the U.S. tax collector $38 billion.
Global executives would, however, do well to understand that the continued prosperity of democratic countries is vital not just for the governments and ordinary taxpayers but ultimately for global companies, too. The success of such companies—even if their largest growth is in China, even if they invest enormous sums in Russia, even if they do business in authoritarian countries—depends on the rule of law, democracy, and prosperity in their home countries.
Global executives would do well to understand that the continued prosperity of their home countries is vital not just for the governments and ordinary taxpayers but ultimately for global companies, too.
Without such pillars of liberal democracy, companies’ profits aren’t safe, nor is their executives’ freedom. And even in a crisis short of war, a foreign government can simply decide to shut down their production, as is happening in China due to the coronavirus epidemic, forcing Apple to warn of impending iPhone shortages.
According to a 2018 YouGov poll, 50 percent of Americans believe Russia interfered in the 2016 election; Russia notoriously did so largely through Facebook. CEO Mark Zuckerberg may not realize it, but the democratic malaise his company has helped bring about in the United States will eventually harm Facebook, too. That malaise could, for example, led Facebook users to migrate to online platforms with even fewer restrictions, or it could be used for sophisticated disinformation campaigns against a country or specific companies that would cause a drop in the stock market.
As the much-maligned U.S. Attorney General William Barr has realized, the alternative is radical: nationalization. Earlier this month, Barr proposed at a think tank conference in Washington that the U.S. government should buy Ericsson and Nokia to blunt Huawei’s “drive to domination.”
Although the White House immediately dismissed the proposal, Barr had a point. During the Cold War, large chunks of critical national infrastructure in Western Europe—airlines, postal services, energy providers, railways, telephone companies—were government-owned precisely because governments calculated that they could not rely on the free market in vital areas. Today, social networks and 5G equipment are vital areas, too.
The global executive isn’t evil. But in an era of gray-zone aggression, having governments look after the national interest while business leaders pursue ever-increasing globalization is no longer sustainable. That doesn’t mean that businesses should become Western governments’ lackeys: they should simply show good corporate citizenship. Zuckerberg and his ilk, a highly educated group, will easily grasp that doing their part for their continued well-being of their democratic countries is the ultimate long-term strategy. Davos man must wake up; seamless globalization was nothing but a fleeting dream.


foreignpolicy--2020-02-21--Low Turnout Could Help Hardliners in Iran’s Election

Low Turnout Could Help Hardliners in Iran ’ s Election Here is today ’ s Foreign Policy brief : Iran holds parliamentary elections , Irish lawmakers face crunch time to form a government , and fears of the coronavirus are rising in South Korea after a spike in cases .
We welcome your feedback at morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .
Iran holds parliamentary elections today , but recent crises and a growing lack of confidence in the country ’ s leadership—and the limited list of candidates running , thanks to the government ’ s disqualification of many moderates and reformists—could keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The disillusionment with what many see as a stacked election is particularly strong among women and voters under 30 .
Both groups tend to vote for social reform , but many have been disappointed in President Hassan Rouhani ’ s record and angry over the deaths of hundreds of anti-government protesters at the hands of security forces last November .
The elections are the first test of Iran ’ s leadership , and particularly the clerical establishment , since the unrest erupted .
It ’ s also the first vote since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal between Iran and other powers in 2018 , reimposing sanctions that have triggered economic hardship and increased tensions between Iran and the United States .
Those tensions brought the two countries to the brink of war last month after the U.S. assassination of Iranian military commander Qassem Suleimani .
What to expect .
Conservative hardliners already dominate the ballots , with thousands of moderate or reformist candidates—including 90 incumbents—barred from running by the Guardian Council , which is largely appointed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei .
That means the hardliners could win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That would undermine the reformist Rouhani in his last year in office .
U.S. response .
On Thursday , the United States imposed sanctions against five members of the Guardian Council , labeling the elections a “ sham ” because of the disqualified candidates .
“ It is not free or fair , ” said U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday during a visit to Saudi Arabia—a key U.S. partner as it seeks to balance against Iran in the Middle East .
Irish lawmakers seek tough coalition .
Irish Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amid political deadlock as the new parliament—elected on Feb. 8—failed to choose a new leader , as expected .
The parties haven ’ t had a breakthrough in talks since the vote , which disrupted the political status quo when the left-wing nationalist Sinn Fein party won a surge in support .
Lawmakers have set three weeks to try to form a coalition government , reconvening on March 5 .
Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald says the party is still seeking a partner , though the two major parties are unwilling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korea .
The mayor of Daegu , South Korea ’ s fourth-largest city , asked residents to stay indoors on Thursday after dozens of people developed coronavirus symptoms after attending church with a woman who tested positive for the disease .
Health officials called the incident a “ super-spreading event.
” South Korea has so far recorded 104 cases of the virus and confirmed its first death on Thursday .
In China , officials still report that new cases are declining nationwide , though Wuhan—the virus epicenter—remains under quarantine .
G-20 financial leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world ’ s 20 largest economies meet in Saudi Arabia on Saturday and Sunday .
The leaders are expected to announce a modest rise in global growth in 2020 and 2021 , while highlighting the risk of the coronavirus , according to a draft statement seen by Reuters .
( China is not sending officials to the meeting . )
The draft also endorses global tax rules proposed by the OECD that would have consequences for technology companies such as Google and Facebook .
Refugees in Rwanda .
Hardening European Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Libya , where they face imminent danger .
In September , Rwanda announced that it would begin to take evacuees from Libya—with 1,500 expected to arrive by the end of the year .
Many expected to be resettled elsewhere by the U.N. refugee agency , but in reality their future still remains uncertain , Sally Hayden reports for FP .
Buttigieg ’ s foreign-policy mentor .
Pete Buttigieg once worked under foreign-policy veteran Doug Wilson on John Kerry ’ s 2004 presidential campaign .
Now , Wilson is working on his campaign : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help Buttigieg stand out from the pack , FP ’ s Robbie Gramer reports as part of a series of profiles on the 2020 Democrats ’ foreign-policy advisors .
Read our coverage of foreign policy in the 2020 election here .
The Vatican says there is already intense interest in the World War II-era Pope Pius XII ’ s archive , which is set to open on March 2 .
More than 150 researchers have signed up for access to the documents—spanning millions of pages—with many particularly interested in his record during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups have said that Pius remained silent on the Holocaust , while his defenders say he helped save lives .
For more from FP , visit foreignpolicy.com , subscribe here , or sign up for our other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments , questions , or corrections to morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com

Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: Iran holds parliamentary elections, Irish lawmakers face crunch time to form a government, and fears of the coronavirus are rising in South Korea after a spike in cases.
Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: Iran holds parliamentary elections, Irish lawmakers face crunch time to form a government, and fears of the coronavirus are rising in South Korea after a spike in cases.
We welcome your feedback at morningbrief@foreignpolicy.com.
Khamenei Loyalists Likely to Win in Iran
Iran holds parliamentary elections today, but recent crises and a growing lack of confidence in the country’s leadership—and the limited list of candidates running, thanks to the government’s disqualification of many moderates and reformists—could keep many citizens from turning out to vote.
The disillusionment with what many see as a stacked election is particularly strong among women and voters under 30. Both groups tend to vote for social reform, but many have been disappointed in President Hassan Rouhani’s record and angry over the deaths of hundreds of anti-government protesters at the hands of security forces last November.
The elections are the first test of Iran’s leadership, and particularly the clerical establishment, since the unrest erupted. It’s also the first vote since the United States pulled out of the nuclear deal between Iran and other powers in 2018, reimposing sanctions that have triggered economic hardship and increased tensions between Iran and the United States. Those tensions brought the two countries to the brink of war last month after the U.S. assassination of Iranian military commander Qassem Suleimani.
What to expect. Conservative hardliners already dominate the ballots, with thousands of moderate or reformist candidates—including 90 incumbents—barred from running by the Guardian Council, which is largely appointed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. That means the hardliners could win, particularly if the turnout is low. That would undermine the reformist Rouhani in his last year in office.
U.S. response. On Thursday, the United States imposed sanctions against five members of the Guardian Council, labeling the elections a “sham” because of the disqualified candidates. “It is not free or fair,” said U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday during a visit to Saudi Arabia—a key U.S. partner as it seeks to balance against Iran in the Middle East.
What We’re Following Today
Irish lawmakers seek tough coalition. Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar formally resigned on Thursday amid political deadlock as the new parliament—elected on Feb. 8—failed to choose a new leader, as expected. The parties haven’t had a breakthrough in talks since the vote, which disrupted the political status quo when the left-wing nationalist Sinn Fein party won a surge in support. Lawmakers have set three weeks to try to form a coalition government, reconvening on March 5. Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald says the party is still seeking a partner, though the two major parties are unwilling to join.
Virus fears rise in South Korea. The mayor of Daegu, South Korea’s fourth-largest city, asked residents to stay indoors on Thursday after dozens of people developed coronavirus symptoms after attending church with a woman who tested positive for the disease. Health officials called the incident a “super-spreading event.” South Korea has so far recorded 104 cases of the virus and confirmed its first death on Thursday. In China, officials still report that new cases are declining nationwide, though Wuhan—the virus epicenter—remains under quarantine.
G-20 financial leaders meet in Riyadh. The finance ministers of the world’s 20 largest economies meet in Saudi Arabia on Saturday and Sunday. The leaders are expected to announce a modest rise in global growth in 2020 and 2021, while highlighting the risk of the coronavirus, according to a draft statement seen by Reuters. (China is not sending officials to the meeting.) The draft also endorses global tax rules proposed by the OECD that would have consequences for technology companies such as Google and Facebook.
Keep an Eye On
Refugees in Rwanda. Hardening European Union border policies have forced refugees back to Libya, where they face imminent danger. In September, Rwanda announced that it would begin to take evacuees from Libya—with 1,500 expected to arrive by the end of the year. Many expected to be resettled elsewhere by the U.N. refugee agency, but in reality their future still remains uncertain, Sally Hayden reports for FP.
Buttigieg’s foreign-policy mentor. Pete Buttigieg once worked under foreign-policy veteran Doug Wilson on John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. Now, Wilson is working on his campaign: He leads a team of experts trying to help Buttigieg stand out from the pack, FP’s Robbie Gramer reports as part of a series of profiles on the 2020 Democrats’ foreign-policy advisors.
Read our coverage of foreign policy in the 2020 election here.
Odds and Ends
The Vatican says there is already intense interest in the World War II-era Pope Pius XII’s archive, which is set to open on March 2. More than 150 researchers have signed up for access to the documents—spanning millions of pages—with many particularly interested in his record during the Holocaust. Some historians and Jewish groups have said that Pius remained silent on the Holocaust, while his defenders say he helped save lives.
That’s it for today.
For more from FP, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to morningbrief@foreignpolicy.com
Photo: Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images


foreignpolicy--2020-02-21--Britain’s Labour Party Starts Deciding Its Post-Corbyn Future

On Feb. 21 , Labour ’ s 580,000 party members will finally get their chance to move past the disaster of last December ’ s British parliamentary election and find a way forward after nearly five years of Jeremy Corbyn ’ s leadership .
But if front-runner Keir Starmer manages to best his two chief rivals , Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy , and return the party to the early glory days of former Prime Minister Tony Blair ’ s majority , he will still have to reckon with the lingering legacy of Corbyn and the hard leftward turn embraced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s legacy—and how best to describe it—will be a deciding factor in the vote , which takes place between now and early April .
Within the party ’ s more centrist circles , Corbyn was simply too far to the left for the British public to stomach ; for others—especially the party ’ s youth wing—he was a transformational figure who reinvigorated the party with new blood following the stagnant post-Blair years .
The clear leader in the race to replace Corbyn is Starmer , the U.K. ’ s former director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parliament in 2015 .
Ladbrokes , the U.K. ’ s largest betting company , is giving odds of a Starmer victory at 1-8 , or an implied probability of 88.9 percent .
Long-Bailey , his closest rival , is only given a 12.5 percent chance by the bookmaker .
( Betting markets can be deceiving , however—in 2015 Ladbrokes gave Jeremy Corbyn a 0.5 percent chance just two months before the election . )
Starmer is pitching himself as the unity candidate .
Starmer is pitching himself as the unity candidate , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the promise to end the infighting that has engulfed the Labour Party over the last decade .
“ We can not fight the Tories if we are fighting each other .
Factionalism has to go , ” he said at his campaign launch .
The Labour Party ’ s desperation for a candidate who can unite various factions into a winning coalition broadly parallels the debate across the Atlantic , where the fractious Democrats are trying to find common ground between progressives and moderates before taking on U.S. President Donald Trump in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflective of the Labour Party ’ s desire to win after a decade of losing national elections .
A poll of Labour members showed 43 percent said Starmer was someone likely to win back the prime ministership , and 83 percent said they were willing to make compromises to Labour values if it would make the party more electable .
Even so , many on the left are wary of Starmer ’ s political leanings , something he has tried to preempt by releasing 10 pledges that align broadly with Labour ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he was also considered one of the architects of Labour ’ s electorally disastrous second referendum policy , though that hasn ’ t stopped him being backed by the trade union Unison , the UK ’ s largest trade union .
As the front-runner , Starmer seems to be playing it as safe as possible .
In a BBC interview , he refused to be drawn into commenting on what went wrong in the last election , pointing out that the rot goes deeper and that this defeat was the fourth in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corbyn .
When asked where on the spectrum he sits between Blair and Corbyn , he again demurred .
“ I want to lead a Labour Party that is trusted enough to bring about fundamental change , ” he said .
“ I don ’ t need somebody else ’ s name or badge in order to do that.
” How did we get here ?
Labour ’ s crushing defeat at the polls in the December 2019 general election , with the party losing 54 seats and handing Boris Johnson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end for Jeremy Corbyn .
He announced his resignation immediately following the election result .
One factor complicating the current race is that Labour began using a new voting system with the election of Corbyn in 2015 and in his subsequent leadership challenge in 2016 .
Previously , the choice was heavily weighted toward Labour members of the U.K. and European parliaments whose decision carried a third of the vote in an electoral college-style system , where the Labour membership ’ s vote represented a third and the vote Labour-affiliated unions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The new system ( called “ one member , one vote ” ) removes any electoral college and is conducted as a straight ranked-choice vote by the party membership .
As a result , it tends to favor the typically more left-wing grassroots of the party .
The new voting system also helps explain why the contest has been so tame , and the candidates have been wary of attacking one another in televised debates .
Every voter gets to rank their top three choices , and if none of the three candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first round of voting , then the top two gain the No .
2 votes of the third-ranking candidate , who drops out .
In a competition that is about replacing Corbyn , the candidates have had to walk a tightrope on how they characterize their soon-to-be former leader .
In a recent Lord Ashcroft poll asking Britons to name the best Labour leader of the past 50 years , the highest portion chose Tony Blair .
When the same question was asked of Labour supporters , the most common answer was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates were asked the same question in a TV debate , none said Blair or Corbyn . )
It is with this tension in mind that the candidates are making their case—they must acknowledge that the previous leadership was a failure while being careful not to blame Corbyn himself , or his policies , outright .
An internal Labour Party review conducted after the December 2019 election and leaked to the Financial Times underscores the party ’ s position .
The review blames their defeat on the party ’ s inconsistent Brexit strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a party of Remain .
But it stops short of blaming the 2019 party manifesto or Labour leadership , pointing to the relatively positive results in the 2017 election , where the leadership and manifesto were similar .
Instead the review lays much of the blame on the country ’ s press , which is accused of launching a four-year campaign of attacks on Corbyn “ without precedent in modern politics.
” Recent polling also leads to confusion on where Labour should be headed .
Polls by BMG showed widespread support for Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relate to climate change , nationalization , and taxation .
However , in the same poll , when voters were asked whether the next Labour leader should stick to Corbyn ’ s policies—which were reflected in the 2019 manifesto—it seems as if his very name caused support to drop dramatically and the trend reversed .
YouGov polls taken directly after the election tell a similar story , with Corbyn listed as the top reason ( 35 percent ) why Labour voters switched parties , with Brexit in second with 19 percent—52 out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservatives in 2019 were in constituencies that voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union .
Labour ’ s other policies only accounted for 16 percent of switching , according to the poll .
The challenge for all three candidates for leader will be to present a vision that proves to disaffected supporters that they recognize the mistakes of the party ’ s recent past without alienating those in the party who think Corbyn was a step in the right direction .
The remaining candidates in the race , Starmer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their campaigns to varying degrees in reaction to Corbyn .
Long-Bailey ’ s campaign staff include two founding members of Momentum , the Labour-aligned political organization aligned with Corbyn .
Starmer has hired an ex-Corbyn advisor as well as the founder of Labour First , a group considered on the party ’ s right .
Many of Nandy ’ s team hail from the party ’ s Ed Miliband era .
What are the candidates saying ?
All three candidates share one thing in common : their relative political inexperience .
Nandy has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , having been elected in 2010 and touted as a possible leader in 2015 .
Long-Bailey and Starmer both won their first seats in the 2015 general election .
Of the three , Long-Bailey seems the most clearly aligned with Corbyn and the forces that led him to power .
As well as employing Momentum ’ s founders , she has received the endorsement of the group , whose estimated 40,000 members will be encouraged to vote and campaign for her .
She has also received the backing of the union Unite , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a previous backer of Corbyn .
Although a member of Corbyn ’ s front bench and a key author of the party ’ s 2019 manifesto , Long-Bailey has been at pains to distance herself from the claim that she is merely “ continuity Corbyn , ” dismissing the charge as sexist .
Speaking at a Channel 4 News debate on Feb. 17 , her statement that began “ there is no such thing as Corbynism , there ’ s our Labour values ” was met with loud audience applause .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempts to distance herself from Corbyn will be enough to deter Britain ’ s highly influential right-wing press from launching the same attacks that made Corbyn toxic to a large swath of the British electorate—although her supporters would say that any future Labour leader , regardless of previous ties , should expect to bear the brunt of such attacks .
In interviews and promotional videos , she has talked up her plans for “ aspirational socialism ” and has underlined the need for Labour to speak to areas like her home constituency of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who voted leave in Britain ’ s 2016 referendum on EU membership .
She has also backed open selection for Labour candidates in elections , a practice similar to the open primary system within U.S. political parties and a long-held goal of the party ’ s left.All three candidates share one thing in common : their relative political inexperience .
A YouGov poll of Labour members conducted in January while there were still 5 candidates in the race showed Long-Bailey losing out to Starmer in the final round , receiving only 37 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nandy , meanwhile , is considered the candidate most aligned with the party ’ s soft left .
She was part of the shadow cabinet that resigned in protest of Corbyn ’ s leadership in 2016 and co-chaired Owen Smith ’ s campaign team in the ensuing leadership challenge .
She set out her case in a Guardian op-ed by signaling she would be a break from the recent past .
“ Now is not the time to steady the ship or try not to oversteer .
Unless we change course , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hardly a Blairite , she was the only one of the three candidates at the Feb. 17 debate to say she would vote to abolish the monarchy .
She has been recognized for her strong voice against anti-Semitism—an accusation that has dogged the party—and has won the endorsement of the Jewish Labour Movement , the Labour Party ’ s officially affiliated Jewish society .
Nandy ’ s focus is on reclaiming Labour ’ s traditional electoral map , especially in Britain ’ s towns , many of which have suffered the effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative Party as major cities have moved more toward Labour .
Nandy founded the Centre for Towns , a nonpartisan think tank seeking to draw attention to the issues facing small towns .
Such has been her full-throated advocacy for Britain ’ s towns , meme accounts celebrating her almost have as many online followers as the organization she founded .
Considered an outsider in the leadership battle , she nonetheless has won the backing of one of the U.K. ’ s most powerful unions , GMB .
When will we know the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Feb. 21 , and does not close until April 4 when the winner will be announced in a special party conference .
Who wins will depend on the makeup of the selectorate , which could end up lower than previous years if Labour ’ s crushing December defeat depresses turnout .
Chances of a Long-Bailey comeback will depend strongly on the strength of Momentum and its ability to turn out its younger and more left-leaning members in the coming weeks .
For the political columnist Polly Toynbee , who has written in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would draw a stark contrast to Boris Johnson .
“ The fact that he is the opposite to Boris will turn out to be an advantage , ” she told Foreign Policy .
On the party ’ s left , the worry is that Starmer could end up something of a Joe Biden-type figure , who some U.S. Democrats see as good on paper but unable to excite the party base .
“ Starmer is leading because the thinking is that he would be the most prime-ministerial candidate , ” Ronan Burtenshaw , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told Foreign Policy , “ I don ’ t think he is the performer a lot of the public thinks he is .
He ’ s not someone who ’ s going to excite crowds and isn ’ t someone who is going to come off as compelling and clear as an alternative to Boris Johnson.
” Burtenshaw said the relatively easy ride Starmer has received thus far from the U.K. ’ s right-wing press would evaporate were he to be selected as leader , following a trend experienced by his predecessors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not too worried that Starmer won ’ t win any charisma contests , referring to the Conservative Party ’ s latest upheavals .
“ We ’ ve got a lot of charisma in the Tory party right now , ” she said , “ and that isn ’ t going too well .
”

On Feb. 21, Labour’s 580,000 party members will finally get their chance to move past the disaster of last December’s British parliamentary election and find a way forward after nearly five years of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. But if front-runner Keir Starmer manages to best his two chief rivals, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy, and return the party to the early glory days of former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s majority, he will still have to reckon with the lingering legacy of Corbyn and the hard leftward turn embraced by the Labour faithful.
On Feb. 21, Labour’s 580,000 party members will finally get their chance to move past the disaster of last December’s British parliamentary election and find a way forward after nearly five years of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. But if front-runner Keir Starmer manages to best his two chief rivals, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy, and return the party to the early glory days of former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s majority, he will still have to reckon with the lingering legacy of Corbyn and the hard leftward turn embraced by the Labour faithful.
Indeed Corbyn’s legacy—and how best to describe it—will be a deciding factor in the vote, which takes place between now and early April. Within the party’s more centrist circles, Corbyn was simply too far to the left for the British public to stomach; for others—especially the party’s youth wing—he was a transformational figure who reinvigorated the party with new blood following the stagnant post-Blair years.
The clear leader in the race to replace Corbyn is Starmer, the U.K.’s former director of public prosecutions who was first elected to Parliament in 2015. Ladbrokes, the U.K.’s largest betting company, is giving odds of a Starmer victory at 1-8, or an implied probability of 88.9 percent. Long-Bailey, his closest rival, is only given a 12.5 percent chance by the bookmaker. (Betting markets can be deceiving, however—in 2015 Ladbrokes gave Jeremy Corbyn a 0.5 percent chance just two months before the election.)Starmer is pitching himself as the unity candidate.
Starmer is pitching himself as the unity candidate, and his campaign for leadership has hinged on the promise to end the infighting that has engulfed the Labour Party over the last decade. “We cannot fight the Tories if we are fighting each other. Factionalism has to go,” he said at his campaign launch. The Labour Party’s desperation for a candidate who can unite various factions into a winning coalition broadly parallels the debate across the Atlantic, where the fractious Democrats are trying to find common ground between progressives and moderates before taking on U.S. President Donald Trump in November.
Starmer’s rise is mainly reflective of the Labour Party’s desire to win after a decade of losing national elections. A poll of Labour members showed 43 percent said Starmer was someone likely to win back the prime ministership, and 83 percent said they were willing to make compromises to Labour values if it would make the party more electable. Even so, many on the left are wary of Starmer’s political leanings, something he has tried to preempt by releasing 10 pledges that align broadly with Labour’s 2017 manifesto. As shadow Brexit secretary, he was also considered one of the architects of Labour’s electorally disastrous second referendum policy, though that hasn’t stopped him being backed by the trade union Unison, the UK’s largest trade union.
As the front-runner, Starmer seems to be playing it as safe as possible. In a BBC interview, he refused to be drawn into commenting on what went wrong in the last election, pointing out that the rot goes deeper and that this defeat was the fourth in a row in a streak that predates Corbyn. When asked where on the spectrum he sits between Blair and Corbyn, he again demurred. “I want to lead a Labour Party that is trusted enough to bring about fundamental change,” he said. “I don’t need somebody else’s name or badge in order to do that.”
How did we get here?
Labour’s crushing defeat at the polls in the December 2019 general election, with the party losing 54 seats and handing Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party an 80-seat majority, spelled the end for Jeremy Corbyn. He announced his resignation immediately following the election result.
One factor complicating the current race is that Labour began using a new voting system with the election of Corbyn in 2015 and in his subsequent leadership challenge in 2016. Previously, the choice was heavily weighted toward Labour members of the U.K. and European parliaments whose decision carried a third of the vote in an electoral college-style system, where the Labour membership’s vote represented a third and the vote Labour-affiliated unions and organizations making up the remaining third. The new system (called “one member, one vote”) removes any electoral college and is conducted as a straight ranked-choice vote by the party membership. As a result, it tends to favor the typically more left-wing grassroots of the party.
The new voting system also helps explain why the contest has been so tame, and the candidates have been wary of attacking one another in televised debates. Every voter gets to rank their top three choices, and if none of the three candidates gets a majority of first preferences in the first round of voting, then the top two gain the No. 2 votes of the third-ranking candidate, who drops out.
In a competition that is about replacing Corbyn, the candidates have had to walk a tightrope on how they characterize their soon-to-be former leader. In a recent Lord Ashcroft poll asking Britons to name the best Labour leader of the past 50 years, the highest portion chose Tony Blair. When the same question was asked of Labour supporters, the most common answer was Jeremy Corbyn. (When the current candidates were asked the same question in a TV debate, none said Blair or Corbyn.) It is with this tension in mind that the candidates are making their case—they must acknowledge that the previous leadership was a failure while being careful not to blame Corbyn himself, or his policies, outright.
An internal Labour Party review conducted after the December 2019 election and leaked to the Financial Times underscores the party’s position. The review blames their defeat on the party’s inconsistent Brexit strategy, which they say unfairly labeled them a party of Remain. But it stops short of blaming the 2019 party manifesto or Labour leadership, pointing to the relatively positive results in the 2017 election, where the leadership and manifesto were similar. Instead the review lays much of the blame on the country’s press, which is accused of launching a four-year campaign of attacks on Corbyn “without precedent in modern politics.”
Recent polling also leads to confusion on where Labour should be headed. Polls by BMG showed widespread support for Labour’s 2019 manifesto policies as they relate to climate change, nationalization, and taxation. However, in the same poll, when voters were asked whether the next Labour leader should stick to Corbyn’s policies—which were reflected in the 2019 manifesto—it seems as if his very name caused support to drop dramatically and the trend reversed.
YouGov polls taken directly after the election tell a similar story, with Corbyn listed as the top reason (35 percent) why Labour voters switched parties, with Brexit in second with 19 percent—52 out of the 54 seats Labour lost to the Conservatives in 2019 were in constituencies that voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. Labour’s other policies only accounted for 16 percent of switching, according to the poll. The challenge for all three candidates for leader will be to present a vision that proves to disaffected supporters that they recognize the mistakes of the party’s recent past without alienating those in the party who think Corbyn was a step in the right direction.
The remaining candidates in the race, Starmer, Long-Bailey, and Nandy, have begun their campaigns to varying degrees in reaction to Corbyn. Long-Bailey’s campaign staff include two founding members of Momentum, the Labour-aligned political organization aligned with Corbyn. Starmer has hired an ex-Corbyn advisor as well as the founder of Labour First, a group considered on the party’s right. Many of Nandy’s team hail from the party’s Ed Miliband era.
What are the candidates saying?
All three candidates share one thing in common: their relative political inexperience. Nandy has double the parliamentary experience of her rivals, having been elected in 2010 and touted as a possible leader in 2015. Long-Bailey and Starmer both won their first seats in the 2015 general election.
Of the three, Long-Bailey seems the most clearly aligned with Corbyn and the forces that led him to power. As well as employing Momentum’s founders, she has received the endorsement of the group, whose estimated 40,000 members will be encouraged to vote and campaign for her. She has also received the backing of the union Unite, the country’s second-largest trade union and a previous backer of Corbyn.
Although a member of Corbyn’s front bench and a key author of the party’s 2019 manifesto, Long-Bailey has been at pains to distance herself from the claim that she is merely “continuity Corbyn,” dismissing the charge as sexist. Speaking at a Channel 4 News debate on Feb. 17, her statement that began “there is no such thing as Corbynism, there’s our Labour values” was met with loud audience applause. It is not clear whether Long-Bailey’s attempts to distance herself from Corbyn will be enough to deter Britain’s highly influential right-wing press from launching the same attacks that made Corbyn toxic to a large swath of the British electorate—although her supporters would say that any future Labour leader, regardless of previous ties, should expect to bear the brunt of such attacks.
In interviews and promotional videos, she has talked up her plans for “aspirational socialism” and has underlined the need for Labour to speak to areas like her home constituency of Salford and Eccles in Greater Manchester, who voted leave in Britain’s 2016 referendum on EU membership. She has also backed open selection for Labour candidates in elections, a practice similar to the open primary system within U.S. political parties and a long-held goal of the party’s left.All three candidates share one thing in common: their relative political inexperience.
A YouGov poll of Labour members conducted in January while there were still 5 candidates in the race showed Long-Bailey losing out to Starmer in the final round, receiving only 37 percent to Starmer’s 63 percent.
Nandy, meanwhile, is considered the candidate most aligned with the party’s soft left. She was part of the shadow cabinet that resigned in protest of Corbyn’s leadership in 2016 and co-chaired Owen Smith’s campaign team in the ensuing leadership challenge. She set out her case in a Guardian op-ed by signaling she would be a break from the recent past. “Now is not the time to steady the ship or try not to oversteer. Unless we change course, we will become irrelevant,” she wrote. Hardly a Blairite, she was the only one of the three candidates at the Feb. 17 debate to say she would vote to abolish the monarchy.
She has been recognized for her strong voice against anti-Semitism—an accusation that has dogged the party—and has won the endorsement of the Jewish Labour Movement, the Labour Party’s officially affiliated Jewish society.
Nandy’s focus is on reclaiming Labour’s traditional electoral map, especially in Britain’s towns, many of which have suffered the effects of deindustrialization and have drifted toward the Conservative Party as major cities have moved more toward Labour. Nandy founded the Centre for Towns, a nonpartisan think tank seeking to draw attention to the issues facing small towns. Such has been her full-throated advocacy for Britain’s towns, meme accounts celebrating her almost have as many online followers as the organization she founded.
Considered an outsider in the leadership battle, she nonetheless has won the backing of one of the U.K.’s most powerful unions, GMB.
When will we know the official winner?
Voting begins on Friday, Feb. 21, and does not close until April 4 when the winner will be announced in a special party conference.
Who wins will depend on the makeup of the selectorate, which could end up lower than previous years if Labour’s crushing December defeat depresses turnout. Chances of a Long-Bailey comeback will depend strongly on the strength of Momentum and its ability to turn out its younger and more left-leaning members in the coming weeks.
For the political columnist Polly Toynbee, who has written in support of Starmer, his serious disposition would draw a stark contrast to Boris Johnson. “The fact that he is the opposite to Boris will turn out to be an advantage,” she told Foreign Policy.
On the party’s left, the worry is that Starmer could end up something of a Joe Biden-type figure, who some U.S. Democrats see as good on paper but unable to excite the party base. “Starmer is leading because the thinking is that he would be the most prime-ministerial candidate,” Ronan Burtenshaw, the editor of the left-wing Tribune magazine, told Foreign Policy, “I don’t think he is the performer a lot of the public thinks he is. He’s not someone who’s going to excite crowds and isn’t someone who is going to come off as compelling and clear as an alternative to Boris Johnson.” Burtenshaw said the relatively easy ride Starmer has received thus far from the U.K.’s right-wing press would evaporate were he to be selected as leader, following a trend experienced by his predecessors in the post-Blair Labour Party.
Toynbee is not too worried that Starmer won’t win any charisma contests, referring to the Conservative Party’s latest upheavals. “We’ve got a lot of charisma in the Tory party right now,” she said, “and that isn’t going too well.”