foreignpolicy--2020-10-08--Harris, Pence Battle Over Foreign Policy

In an election that until now has been mostly defined by COVID-19 and domestic policy issues , Sen. Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence spent a surprising amount of time Wednesday night battling over President Donald Trump ’ s foreign policy and America ’ s role in the world , as well as how Democratic challenger Joe Biden might perform as a global leader .
The two vice presidential candidates engaged in a notably sober discussion , moderated by USA Today ’ s Susan Page , about whether Trump or Biden would be the tougher president , who would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Iran , and who has the better approach to climate change .
Harris , a 55-year-old California Democrat who became Biden ’ s running mate in August , made history as the first Black woman to appear in a vice presidential debate .
And though she appeared at times smug , constantly interrupting Pence to say “ I ’ m speaking , ” Harris delivered an extended and coherent attack on Trump ’ s foreign policy , including his cozy relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin , whom she said the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director .
She said Trump had betrayed American allies and made the country less safe .
“ You ’ ve got to be loyal to your friends , ” she said .
“ What we ’ ve seen with Donald Trump is he ’ s betrayed our friends and [ embraced ] dictators around the world.
” She also defended the Iran nuclear deal that Trump rejected , saying America is “ less safe … because of Donald Trump ’ s unilateral approach to foreign policy.
” Pence , who was predictably restrained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mudslinging madhouse that was the first debate a little more than a week ago between Trump and Biden—offered up a strong defense of Trump , saying he had defeated ISIS , killing its leader , Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi , and had cowed Iran by assassinating its chief military strategist , Qassem Suleimani .
He noted that both Harris and Biden had opposed that strike and that Biden , as vice president , had also argued against the 2011 mission to take out Osama bin Laden .
The two also engaged sharply over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost absent from the campaign : climate change .
Pence sought to argue that carbon dioxide emissions were down in the United States despite its withdrawal from the Paris climate accord , and he accused Harris and Biden several times of backing a left-wing and economically ruinous “ Green New Deal.
” ( Harris denied that Biden supports the progressive bill . )
Harris accused the administration of ignoring all science about climate change , even removing it from the White House website .
Biden has pledged to return to the Paris pact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the U.S. approach to China , though both of them gingerly avoided Page ’ s question about whether Beijing was an adversary or competitor .
Pence repeated the administration line that “ China is to blame for the coronavirus and President Trump is not happy about it , ” and that he “ has stood up to China and continues to stand strong.
” Harris contended that Trump ’ s trade war with China has failed and resulted only in a “ loss of American lives , American jobs and America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of wastefully dropping all coordination efforts with Beijing on monitoring pandemics , and she said the trade war has resulted in the loss of more than 300,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs .
But most of all Harris attacked Pence over his leadership of the White House task force on the coronavirus , saying , “ The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in our history.
” Both avoided the issue of age : Trump is 74 , and Biden would be 78 if inaugurated in January .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up as the biggest internet meme to come out of the debate : the fly that mysteriously landed in Pence ’ s hair late in the night .
Like Trump , Pence also avoided the question of whether the administration would commit to a peaceful transfer of power , telling Harris , “ You ’ re party that has spent most of the last three and a half years trying to overturn the results of the last election.
” On that score , Trump himself preempted his own vice president earlier in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweets from Trump overnight demanding the arrests of Biden , former President Barack Obama and his 2016 rival Hillary Clinton over their alleged ( and mostly debunked ) role in concocting a Russian plot against Trump .
Indeed , since his release from Walter Reed Medical Center and his COVID diagnosis , Trump has appeared increasingly erratic .
On Tuesday he called off talks on an economic stimulus that could be the only thing to save his presidency , since he is losing badly in most polls .
Then overnight he insisted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic critics , beginning with Biden , over their roles in what he has alleged was a plot to launch a “ coup ” against him by trumping up Russian interference in the 2016 election .
“ DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS , THE BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS ( IN HISTORY ) !
!
!
BIDEN , OBAMA AND CROOKED HILLARY LED THIS TREASONOUS PLOT !
!
!
BIDEN SHOULDN ’ T BE ALLOWED TO RUN – GOT CAUGHT !
!
!
” Trump tweeted .
Trump ’ s chief of staff , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump had spent Monday morning , after his return to the White House , ordering the declassification of documents related to the FBI ’ s Russia probe .
However , the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee and Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s ’ s team have both concluded that allegations about Democratic complicity with Russia against Trump remain unverified .
In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham accompanying the new document release , even Trump ’ s director of national intelligence , John Ratcliffe , noted that the source was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence community “ does not know the accuracy ” of the allegations “ or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication .
”

In an election that until now has been mostly defined by COVID-19 and domestic policy issues, U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence spent a surprising amount of time Wednesday night battling over President Donald Trump’s foreign policy and America’s role in the world, as well as how Democratic challenger Joe Biden might perform as a global leader.
In an election that until now has been mostly defined by COVID-19 and domestic policy issues, U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence spent a surprising amount of time Wednesday night battling over President Donald Trump’s foreign policy and America’s role in the world, as well as how Democratic challenger Joe Biden might perform as a global leader.
The two vice presidential candidates engaged in a notably sober discussion, moderated by USA Today’s Susan Page, about whether Trump or Biden would be the tougher president, who would do a better job taking on China and Iran, and who has the better approach to climate change.
Harris, a 55-year-old California Democrat who became Biden’s running mate in August, made history as the first Black woman to appear in a vice presidential debate. And though she appeared at times smug, pushing back against Pence’s interruptions to say, “I’m speaking,” Harris delivered an extended and coherent attack on Trump’s foreign policy, including his cozy relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom she said the U.S. president trusts more than his own FBI director. She said Trump had betrayed American allies and made the country less safe.
“You’ve got to be loyal to your friends,” she said. “What we’ve seen with Donald Trump is he’s betrayed our friends and [embraced] dictators around the world.” She also defended the Iran nuclear deal that Trump rejected, saying America is “less safe … because of Donald Trump’s unilateral approach to foreign policy.”
Pence, 61, was predictably restrained given his sober reputation—especially in contrast to the mudslinging madhouse that was the first debate a little more than a week ago between Trump and Biden. He offered up a strong defense of Trump, saying he had defeated the Islamic State, killing its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and had cowed Iran by assassinating its chief military strategist, Qassem Suleimani. He noted that both Harris and Biden had opposed that strike and that Biden, as vice president, had also argued against the 2011 mission to kill Osama bin Laden.
The two also engaged sharply over an issue that has been until now almost absent from the campaign: climate change. Pence sought to argue that carbon dioxide emissions were down in the United States despite its withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, and he accused Harris and Biden several times of backing the left-wing Green New Deal that he described as economically ruinous. (Harris denied that Biden supports the progressive bill.) Harris accused the administration of ignoring all science about climate change, even removing it from the White House website. Biden has pledged to return to the Paris pact.
The two candidates fought as well over the U.S. approach to China, though both of them gingerly avoided Page’s question about whether Beijing was an adversary or competitor. Pence repeated the administration line that “China is to blame for the coronavirus, and President Trump is not happy about it,” and that he “has stood up to China and continues to stand strong.”
Harris contended that Trump’s trade war with China has failed and resulted only in a “loss of American lives, American jobs, and America’s standing.” She accused the administration of wastefully dropping all coordination efforts with Beijing on monitoring pandemics, and she said the trade war has resulted in the loss of more than 300,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs.
But most of all Harris attacked Pence over his leadership of the White House task force on the coronavirus, saying, “The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in our history.” Both avoided the issue of age: Trump is 74, and Biden would be 78 if inaugurated in January. No one mentioned what will likely end up as the biggest internet meme to come out of the debate: the fly that mysteriously landed in Pence’s hair late in the night.
Like Trump, Pence also avoided the question of whether the administration would commit to a peaceful transfer of power, telling Harris, “Your party has spent most of the last three and a half years trying to overturn the results of the last election.”
On that score, Trump himself preempted his own vice president earlier in the day. Overshadowing the debate were wild tweets from Trump overnight demanding the arrests of Biden, former President Barack Obama, and his 2016 rival Hillary Clinton over their alleged (and mostly debunked) role in concocting a Russian plot against Trump.
Indeed, since his release from Walter Reed Medical Center and his COVID-19 diagnosis, Trump has appeared increasingly erratic. On Tuesday he called off talks on an economic stimulus that could be the only thing to save his presidency, since he is losing badly in most polls. Then overnight he insisted the Attorney General William Barr start arresting his Democratic critics, beginning with Biden, over their roles in what he has alleged was a plot to launch a “coup” against him by trumping up Russian interference in the 2016 election. “DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, THE BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS (IN HISTORY)!!! BIDEN, OBAMA AND CROOKED HILLARY LED THIS TREASONOUS PLOT!!! BIDEN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO RUN – GOT CAUGHT!!!” Trump tweeted.
Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, told Fox News that Trump had spent Monday morning, after his return to the White House, ordering the declassification of documents related to the FBI’s Russia probe. However, the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee and special counsel Robert Mueller’s ’s team have both concluded that allegations about Democratic complicity with Russia against Trump remain unverified. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham accompanying the new document release, even Trump’s director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe, noted that the source was Russian intelligence and said that the U.S. intelligence community “does not know the accuracy” of the allegations “or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.”


foreignpolicy--2020-10-09--After Five Years of Fighting in Syria, Putin Has Gotten What He Wants

After Five Years of Fighting in Syria , Putin Has Gotten What He Wants “ Far from learning from others ’ mistakes , everyone just keeps repeating them.
” So argued Russian President Vladimir Putin in September 2015 , two days before ordering his country ’ s military into Syria to support long-ruling dictator Bashar al-Assad ’ s desperate effort to cling to power .
We have just passed the fifth year since Russia launched its first airstrikes in the Syrian war around the city of Homs .
As Russia ’ s intervention in Syria enters its second half-decade , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far ?
Start with the Kremlin ’ s rationale for the war .
To justify the Russian intervention , Putin pointed a finger at the United States , no stranger to Middle Eastern wars , most of which Russia had opposed .
“ How did it actually turn out ?
” Putin asked .
“ Rather than bringing about reforms , an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions .
… Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress , we got violence , poverty , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about human rights , including the right to life.
” To prevent the same from happening in Syria , his argument went , Russia would need to step into the fray .
Five years on , Putin ’ s critique of American interventionism in the Middle East looks a bit rich .
“ How did it actually turn out ?
” is a question one might fairly ask of Russia ’ s war in Syria .
There has been “ brazen destruction ” aplenty , notably in the brutal assault on Aleppo .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ disaster ” continue to plague the Syrian people .
As for human rights , the government whose torture of protesters incited the civil war remains firmly entrenched in power .
Moreover , the “ political stabilization , as well as social and economic recovery , of the Middle East ” that Putin promised look as far off as ever .
Syria ’ s civil war is far from over .
Fighting continues around Idlib , in northwest Syria .
And in August , U.S. soldiers were injured in a standoff with Russian troops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , remains a distant dream .
Despite continued Russian promises of economic help , Syrian citizens continue to suffer immensely .
And Russia has put little money toward rebuilding the country , hoping that the West would eventually foot the bill to avoid further refugee flows to Europe .
Syria ’ s civil war has spilled across the region , too , affecting not only neighboring Lebanon and Turkey but also Libya .
There is now an arc of conflict crossing the Eastern Mediterranean .
Russia has deployed mercenaries to Libya , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response .
Far from stabilizing the region , Russia ’ s intervention has had the opposite effect .
From Moscow ’ s perspective , though , such critiques matter little .
The point of Russia ’ s military intervention was to assert the Kremlin ’ s presence in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean .
In that , Putin has obviously succeeded .
If the war in Syria ever ends , it will only happen with Russian assent .
The Kremlin has made itself a key player in other regional disputes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Eastern Mediterranean and in Libya .
Moreover , Syria was an exemplary proving ground for Russia ’ s military in its first large-scale operations since Russia ’ s war with Georgia in 2008 , as a new book that I co-edited , Russia ’ s War in Syria from the Foreign Policy Research Institute , shows .
The military operations went more smoothly than most analysts , Russian or foreign , expected , demonstrating that Russia can intervene beyond its borders with relative ease .
There are still serious limits to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devised its military aims with these constraints in mind .
When Russia first entered the war in Syria , some Western observers wondered if it would be Putin ’ s Afghanistan .
It doesn ’ t look that way from Moscow .
The Russian military sees Syria as its “ good war , ” as the military analyst Michael Kofman puts it .
Russian officers must serve in Syria to get promoted .
They treat their operations in Syria as case studies for improving future performance .
Syria therefore stands out in comparison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia ’ s ongoing actions in Ukraine ’ s Donbass still can ’ t be openly discussed , and the military ’ s performance in Georgia in 2008 was widely criticized for operational inefficiency .
Syria , however , is considered an exemplary success .
What , exactly , has Russia succeeded at ?
Certainly not at forging peace .
Russian-brokered peace talks between the Syrian government and various opposition groups have gone nowhere , despite years of effort .
Nor even at ending the fighting , which continues—notably in Syria ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Russia was withdrawing from Syria , first in 2016 and again in 2017 .
But Russia has made no signs of departing .
Compare that to the U.S. position in Syria , which like Russia ’ s involves a small ground contingent but relies on local forces to bear the brunt of the fighting .
Washington has been debating its exit strategy since the day the Syrian war began , stuck between a desire to draw down from a forever war and concern that doing so would further destabilize the country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ its war in Syria .
“ Exit strategy ” doesn ’ t translate into Russian strategic thinking about the Middle East .
The point was never to win and to leave .
The goal was to stay—to make Russia a major player in the region , and then to defend this new role .
The Kremlin sees the fifth anniversary of Russia ’ s intervention in Syria not as time for reflection about a war without end but as an opportunity to toast success , and to hope that it continues well into @ @ @ @

“Far from learning from others’ mistakes, everyone just keeps repeating them.” So argued Russian President Vladimir Putin in September 2015, two days before ordering his country’s military into Syria to support long-ruling dictator Bashar al-Assad’s desperate effort to cling to power. We have just passed the fifth year since Russia launched its first airstrikes in the Syrian war around the city of Homs. As Russia’s intervention in Syria enters its second half-decade, what can we say about the conflict so far?
“Far from learning from others’ mistakes, everyone just keeps repeating them.” So argued Russian President Vladimir Putin in September 2015, two days before ordering his country’s military into Syria to support long-ruling dictator Bashar al-Assad’s desperate effort to cling to power. We have just passed the fifth year since Russia launched its first airstrikes in the Syrian war around the city of Homs. As Russia’s intervention in Syria enters its second half-decade, what can we say about the conflict so far?
Start with the Kremlin’s rationale for the war. To justify the Russian intervention, Putin pointed a finger at the United States, no stranger to Middle Eastern wars, most of which Russia had opposed. “How did it actually turn out?” Putin asked. “Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions. … Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty, and social disaster. Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.” To prevent the same from happening in Syria, his argument went, Russia would need to step into the fray.
Five years on, Putin’s critique of American interventionism in the Middle East looks a bit rich. “How did it actually turn out?” is a question one might fairly ask of Russia’s war in Syria. There has been “brazen destruction” aplenty, notably in the brutal assault on Aleppo. “Violence, poverty, and social disaster” continue to plague the Syrian people. As for human rights, the government whose torture of protesters incited the civil war remains firmly entrenched in power.
Moreover, the “political stabilization, as well as social and economic recovery, of the Middle East” that Putin promised look as far off as ever. Syria’s civil war is far from over. Fighting continues around Idlib, in northwest Syria. And in August, U.S. soldiers were injured in a standoff with Russian troops in northeast Syria. Reconstruction, meanwhile, remains a distant dream. Despite continued Russian promises of economic help, Syrian citizens continue to suffer immensely. And Russia has put little money toward rebuilding the country, hoping that the West would eventually foot the bill to avoid further refugee flows to Europe.
Syria’s civil war has spilled across the region, too, affecting not only neighboring Lebanon and Turkey but also Libya. There is now an arc of conflict crossing the Eastern Mediterranean. Russia has deployed mercenaries to Libya, and Turkey has shipped Syrian militias there in response. Far from stabilizing the region, Russia’s intervention has had the opposite effect.
From Moscow’s perspective, though, such critiques matter little. The point of Russia’s military intervention was to assert the Kremlin’s presence in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. In that, Putin has obviously succeeded. If the war in Syria ever ends, it will only happen with Russian assent. The Kremlin has made itself a key player in other regional disputes, too, including over the gas fields of the Eastern Mediterranean and in Libya.
Moreover, Syria was an exemplary proving ground for Russia’s military in its first large-scale operations since Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008, as a new book that I co-edited, Russia’s War in Syria from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, shows. The military operations went more smoothly than most analysts, Russian or foreign, expected, demonstrating that Russia can intervene beyond its borders with relative ease. There are still serious limits to Russian power projection, but the Kremlin devised its military aims with these constraints in mind.
When Russia first entered the war in Syria, some Western observers wondered if it would be Putin’s Afghanistan. It doesn’t look that way from Moscow. The Russian military sees Syria as its “good war,” as the military analyst Michael Kofman puts it. Russian officers must serve in Syria to get promoted. They treat their operations in Syria as case studies for improving future performance. Syria therefore stands out in comparison to Russia’s recent wars. Russia’s ongoing actions in Ukraine’s Donbass still can’t be openly discussed, and the military’s performance in Georgia in 2008 was widely criticized for operational inefficiency. Syria, however, is considered an exemplary success.
What, exactly, has Russia succeeded at? Certainly not at forging peace. Russian-brokered peace talks between the Syrian government and various opposition groups have gone nowhere, despite years of effort. Nor even at ending the fighting, which continues—notably in Syria’s northeast. Putin has very publicly declared that Russia was withdrawing from Syria, first in 2016 and again in 2017. But Russia has made no signs of departing.
Compare that to the U.S. position in Syria, which like Russia’s involves a small ground contingent but relies on local forces to bear the brunt of the fighting. Washington has been debating its exit strategy since the day the Syrian war began, stuck between a desire to draw down from a forever war and concern that doing so would further destabilize the country.
The Kremlin has no such ambivalence about its war in Syria. “Exit strategy” doesn’t translate into Russian strategic thinking about the Middle East. The point was never to win and to leave. The goal was to stay—to make Russia a major player in the region, and then to defend this new role. The Kremlin sees the fifth anniversary of Russia’s intervention in Syria not as time for reflection about a war without end but as an opportunity to toast success, and to hope that it continues well into its second half-decade.


foreignpolicy--2020-10-08--Ireland Is on the Ballot in Pennsylvania

Ireland Is on the Ballot in Pennsylvania Nearly 100 years ago , Irish Americans formed the bedrock of the New Deal-era Democratic Party .
Today , they ’ re up for grabs .
And in a swing state like Pennsylvania , that matters—a lot .
Ireland hasn ’ t really been on the ballot since the 1990s , when decades of violence were put to rest by the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 .
Now , the fate of Northern Ireland ’ s tenuous peace process is again in question , thanks to the British government ’ s decision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union , threatening a return to checkpoints and a hard border between Northern Ireland—which is part of the United Kingdom—and the Republic of Ireland—which is part of the EU .
“ People are probably paying attention to [ the Northern Ireland issue ] now more than at any point since the peace process in the mid-to-late 1990s , ” said Rep. Brendan Boyle , a third-term Democrat who represents a district in the Philadelphia area .
In a state like Pennsylvania , where President Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by a few thousand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Irish vote could be decisive .
“ Of the swing states , Pennsylvania would be the one that the Irish would have the most influence , ” said Stella O ’ Leary , the president of the Irish American Democrats , a political action committee .
Ireland used to play an outsized role in U.S. politics .
The Kennedy political dynasty ensured that Ireland was front and center on the national stage , while some leading politicians , including Republican Rep. Peter King , expressed strong sympathies for the Provisional Irish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Troubles .
The FBI also had its hands full in the 1980s as it sought to thwart efforts by Boston mobsters to ship arms to the IRA .
Though Irish America ’ s political influence has since waned considerably , the Brexit train wreck has shifted attention during this election cycle , and many Irish Americans are concerned about its potential impact on Ireland .
Many Irish Americans are concerned about [ Brexit ’ s ] potential impact on Ireland .
“ Irish issues don ’ t necessarily animate all Irish Americans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a certain segment of Irish American voters in my district , it is enormously important.
” More than 16 percent of Pennsylvania ’ s population claims Irish ancestry—higher than the national average—and for many of those voters , warnings from experts have been eye-catching .
Economists generally agree that Brexit could have a negative effect on the Irish economy as a whole , and political scientists warn that it threatens to undo the fragile peace Northern Ireland has grown into over the past two decades .
Democrats have leapt into the breach , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Former President Bill Clinton famously diverged from long-standing Washington orthodoxy on Northern Ireland in the 1990s and took an active part in the peace process , going over the heads of irate British officials and cementing the party ’ s role as Irish America ’ s standard-bearer .
Joe Biden , the Democratic nominee for president , is a Pennsylvania native who descends from Irish Catholic immigrants , as he touted in the first—and perhaps last—presidential debate on Sept. 29 .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned the U.K. that threatening peace in Northern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade deal with the United States .
Rep. Richard Neal , a Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee , which must sign off on any trade deal , has said the same , as has Biden .
“ An awful lot of people associate their Irishness with the Democratic Party , ” O ’ Leary said .
By contrast , Trump has taken little interest in Ireland .
It took him until early this year to appoint former White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney as the U.S. special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established during the Good Friday negotiations to copper-fasten the U.S. role in Northern Ireland .
Meanwhile , Trump has consistently praised Britain ’ s effort to withdraw from the EU and has stopped well short of matching Democrats ’ condemnation of London ’ s recent efforts to abrogate the withdrawal agreement .
“ An awful lot of people associate their Irishness with the Democratic Party , ” But Republicans do have some key advantages—like the culture wars .
Irish Americans “ are all more conservative than the Irish , ” O ’ Leary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divided at the moment over that abortion issue.
” For many urban and suburban Irish Americans , especially in Pennsylvania , Trump ’ s purported social conservatism aligns more closely with their immediate concerns , and his ambivalence toward Ireland is not a deal breaker .
That ’ s why the Trump campaign is focusing almost solely on domestic issues to court the Irish American vote .
In a press statement announcing the launch of the Irish Americans for Trump political group , the campaign said the president ’ s reelection would ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creation , lower taxes , and putting America first.
” For many working-class Irish Americans with only vestigial links to Ireland , that resonates a lot more than Trump ’ s stance on Brexit or the Good Friday Agreement .
Still , for those voters who do prioritize the United States ’ relationship with Ireland , the country ’ s sudden relevance could be a game-changer .
“ I think this is an important constituency , ” Boyle said , “ and I ’ m glad that the Biden campaign is paying attention @ @ @ @

Nearly 100 years ago, Irish Americans formed the bedrock of the New Deal-era Democratic Party. Today, they’re up for grabs. And in a swing state like Pennsylvania, that matters—a lot.
Nearly 100 years ago, Irish Americans formed the bedrock of the New Deal-era Democratic Party. Today, they’re up for grabs. And in a swing state like Pennsylvania, that matters—a lot.
Ireland hasn’t really been on the ballot since the 1990s, when decades of violence were put to rest by the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. Now, the fate of Northern Ireland’s tenuous peace process is again in question, thanks to the British government’s decision to rewrite its divorce agreement with the European Union, threatening a return to checkpoints and a hard border between Northern Ireland—which is part of the United Kingdom—and the Republic of Ireland—which is part of the EU.
“People are probably paying attention to [the Northern Ireland issue] now more than at any point since the peace process in the mid-to-late 1990s,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle, a third-term Democrat who represents a district in the Philadelphia area.
In a state like Pennsylvania, where President Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by a few thousand votes four years ago, a fraction of the Irish vote could be decisive.
“Of the swing states, Pennsylvania would be the one that the Irish would have the most influence,” said Stella O’Leary, the president of the Irish American Democrats, a political action committee.
Ireland used to play an outsized role in U.S. politics. The Kennedy political dynasty ensured that Ireland was front and center on the national stage, while some leading politicians, including Republican Rep. Peter King, expressed strong sympathies for the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) during the Troubles. The FBI also had its hands full in the 1980s as it sought to thwart efforts by Boston mobsters to ship arms to the IRA.
Though Irish America’s political influence has since waned considerably, the Brexit train wreck has shifted attention during this election cycle, and many Irish Americans are concerned about its potential impact on Ireland.
Many Irish Americans are concerned about [Brexit’s] potential impact on Ireland.
“Irish issues don’t necessarily animate all Irish Americans,” Boyle said. “But for a certain segment of Irish American voters in my district, it is enormously important.”
More than 16 percent of Pennsylvania’s population claims Irish ancestry—higher than the national average—and for many of those voters, warnings from experts have been eye-catching. Economists generally agree that Brexit could have a negative effect on the Irish economy as a whole, and political scientists warn that it threatens to undo the fragile peace Northern Ireland has grown into over the past two decades.
Democrats have leapt into the breach, as they did in the 1990s. Former President Bill Clinton famously diverged from long-standing Washington orthodoxy on Northern Ireland in the 1990s and took an active part in the peace process, going over the heads of irate British officials and cementing the party’s role as Irish America’s standard-bearer.
Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president, is a Pennsylvania native who descends from Irish Catholic immigrants, as he touted in the first—and perhaps last—presidential debate on Sept. 29. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned the U.K. that threatening peace in Northern Ireland would kill the chance of any trade deal with the United States. Rep. Richard Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, which must sign off on any trade deal, has said the same, as has Biden.
“An awful lot of people associate their Irishness with the Democratic Party,” O’Leary said.
By contrast, Trump has taken little interest in Ireland. It took him until early this year to appoint former White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney as the U.S. special envoy to Northern Ireland, a position established during the Good Friday negotiations to copper-fasten the U.S. role in Northern Ireland. Meanwhile, Trump has consistently praised Britain’s effort to withdraw from the EU and has stopped well short of matching Democrats’ condemnation of London’s recent efforts to abrogate the withdrawal agreement.
“An awful lot of people associate their Irishness with the Democratic Party,”
But Republicans do have some key advantages—like the culture wars.
Irish Americans “are all more conservative than the Irish,” O’Leary said. “We’re severely divided at the moment over that abortion issue.” For many urban and suburban Irish Americans, especially in Pennsylvania, Trump’s purported social conservatism aligns more closely with their immediate concerns, and his ambivalence toward Ireland is not a deal breaker.
That’s why the Trump campaign is focusing almost solely on domestic issues to court the Irish American vote. In a press statement announcing the launch of the Irish Americans for Trump political group, the campaign said the president’s reelection would ensure “four more years of historic job creation, lower taxes, and putting America first.” For many working-class Irish Americans with only vestigial links to Ireland, that resonates a lot more than Trump’s stance on Brexit or the Good Friday Agreement.
Still, for those voters who do prioritize the United States’ relationship with Ireland, the country’s sudden relevance could be a game-changer.
“I think this is an important constituency,” Boyle said, “and I’m glad that the Biden campaign is paying attention to it.”


foreignpolicy--2020-10-08--Why We Still Need Democracy

Why We Still Need Democracy

Why We Still Need Democracy In a particularly telling tweet after the U.S. vice presidential debate on Wednesday , Republican Sen. Mike Lee wrote : “ Democracy isn ’ t the objective ; liberty , peace , and prospefity are.
” ( He meant prosperity . )
Democracy should be the principle that ties the United States together , but as we see more and more evidence that elected officials at the highest levels are not interested in defending it , maybe it is time for Americans to remind themselves why they chose democracy—and why they should keep fighting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Americans may have forgotten why it ’ s good .
In the public discourse , the word practically comes with triumphant chords and maybe an echo effect , much like freedom !
But the concept has been diluted with casual assumptions of unquestioned good to the point of largely losing its meaning .
So why democracy ?
Why , now , is it still the best government the United States has ?
One thing democracy offers , above all the other forms of government , is accountability .
Democracy lets us hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them out if we don ’ t like the job they ’ re doing .
This may seem simple , but it ’ s important .
Consider the assertion , by Amartya Sen , that famines don ’ t take place in a democracy .
Or the scarcity of wars in which both parties are democratic .
While these could be attributed to correlation rather than causation , it ’ s also reasonable to suppose that serving at the pleasure of the people inculcates at least a modicum of concern about their welfare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sight of that attribute because it is so diluted in the representative form of democracy .
Take a U.S. senator : In six years , they are likely to make some policy decisions their constituents agree with as well as some they dislike , or they might be corrupt but still carry out their job to voters ’ satisfaction .
The yea or nay of the ballot does not offer any nuance for signaling which is which .
Moreover , the opposition might be equally mixed and almost certainly less well known .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are some changes Americans could make that would strengthen it : for example , ranked-choice voting and steps toward direct democracy , such as formal systems allowing voters to tell their representatives how to vote on specific legislation .
But even as it is today , the system is still better at accountability than an undemocratic government .
Authoritarian systems may claim to listen to the people or work in their best interests , but when a leader serves at his ( and it ’ s usually his ) own pleasure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such assurances have little to back them up , and the people have no recourse when it goes wrong .
Self-determination is another phrase that might come to mind .
It ’ s a bit misleading , since democracy is not about each individual getting what he or she wants .
But democracy—especially one with complex legislative representation like the United States ’ —does offer the potential for compromise and interest trading .
More importantly , the interests , at least in theory , come from everyone .
In theory , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will happen and brokering deals among themselves ; everyone gets to vote , and since by definition the elites make up a smaller number than everyone else , the nonelites should have a strong voice .
This is important because , despite the claims of those who think a meritocracy would solve all the country ’ s problems , it is in fact very difficult to know what ’ s best for someone else .
( I say this as someone with a substantial amount of privilege who has spent quite a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less . )
Yes , expertise and experience are useful .
But they are less useful if you don ’ t know what problem you ’ re trying to solve , and it is often all but impossible to identify that from the outside .
Democracy , in theory , lets the people closest to the problem have some say in how their government should fix it .
I emphasize in theory because while each person may have only one vote , money buys influence ( and fame , less explicably , seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Many , though not all , American representatives come from a small group of the wealthy and well-educated in the first place , and if they don ’ t , they usually join it while in office .
Money buys television advertisements and lobbyists .
It ’ s not completely effective—there have been plenty of elections in which the candidate with higher spending lost—but it certainly sways the U.S. government away from the interests of the many .
But even as it is today , the U.S. system is still better at including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undemocratic government .
Even at the basic level of money , the leadership of undemocratic countries like China and Russia is even more stuffed with the ultra-rich than the United States .
There ’ s another , more abstract reason for choosing democracy : It promotes participation in government .
When Americans engage in democratic processes—whether by casting a vote , attending a town hall , calling a representative , discussing policy choices with neighbors—they are asserting a role in the government and its choices .
If people have a role , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to educate themselves and others , to demand better in return for the effort they are expending .
It gives a kind of ownership and , therefore , responsibility .
This is an end in itself , as well as a means to having more people contribute their interests , needs , and abilities toward forming a more perfect government .
Needless to say , the United States is not doing terrifically well at this measure either .
A strikingly low proportion of people vote in the United States as compared with peer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more participation than is possible in an undemocratic government .
Of course , democracy also has its flaws .
It opens a risk of oppression by the majority , in which the rights of a small group are trampled because they do not have the numbers to outvote the interests of the larger group .
The United States defend against that in part through , for example , the Bill of Rights , which puts certain fundamental principles beyond the reach of democratic legislating .
Those principles are subject to constant interpretation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue that they don ’ t go far enough , others that they go too far .
But they still give citizens more protection than they would have without them or under an undemocratic government .
Yet perhaps the most pernicious argument against democracy is the idea that the people won ’ t vote well .
That was what frightened the Founding Fathers into restricting democracy to the elite and including plenty of elite safeguards , like the Senate and the Electoral College .
And it ’ s a refrain that continues today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ low-information voters ” or “ people voting against their own interests.
” It ’ s certainly possible that the people can make less-than-perfect decisions or base their decisions on poor information .
However , there ’ s no evidence that dictators or autocrats do any better .
( Contrary to popular myth , Benito Mussolini did not in fact make the trains run on time . )
At least in a democracy you have the chance to change your mind in the next election cycle ( or with a snap election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are free to keep making bad decisions over and over ( see again : famine , wars ) .
In terms of poor information , that is on everyone .
I argue that a democracy that does not include accessible , quality education for its citizens should not be considered a democracy at all .
Why put the burden of decision-making on people but not give them the tools they need to do it well ?
But once again , dictators and autocrats are not always particularly well educated or informed themselves and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one kind or another .
Yugoslavia ’ s Josip Broz Tito only completed four years of school and failed second grade ; Romania ’ s Nicolae Ceausescu stopped school at 11 ; and hereditary dictators like Syria ’ s Bashar al-Assad and Haiti ’ s Jean-Claude Duvalier were brought up in luxury .
So as much as we may want to critique or complain about the voting choices of the majority , there ’ s no reason to think their decisions would be any worse than those taken in an undemocratic society and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be better .
Someday we might devise a form of government that works better than democracy as we understand it now .
I hope we do , and I hope that until then we make our democracies more democratic .
In the meantime , though , we need to defend what we have .
It ’ s far better than anything else on offer .

In a particularly telling tweet after the U.S. vice presidential debate on Wednesday, Republican Sen. Mike Lee wrote: “Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity are.” (He meant prosperity.) Democracy should be the principle that ties the United States together , but as we see more and more evidence that elected officials at the highest levels are not interested in defending it, maybe it is time for Americans to remind themselves why they chose democracy—and why they should keep fighting for it.
In a particularly telling tweet after the U.S. vice presidential debate on Wednesday, Republican Sen. Mike Lee wrote: “Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity are.” (He meant prosperity.) Democracy should be the principle that ties the United States together, but as we see more and more evidence that elected officials at the highest levels are not interested in defending it, maybe it is time for Americans to remind themselves why they chose democracy—and why they should keep fighting for it.
Democracy has become so obligatory that Americans may have forgotten why it’s good. In the public discourse, the word practically comes with triumphant chords and maybe an echo effect, much like freedom! But the concept has been diluted with casual assumptions of unquestioned good to the point of largely losing its meaning.
So why democracy? Why, now, is it still the best government the United States has?
One thing democracy offers, above all the other forms of government, is accountability. Democracy lets us hold elected leaders accountable, primarily by chucking them out if we don’t like the job they’re doing. This may seem simple, but it’s important. Consider the assertion, by Amartya Sen, that famines don’t take place in a democracy. Or the scarcity of wars in which both parties are democratic. While these could be attributed to correlation rather than causation, it’s also reasonable to suppose that serving at the pleasure of the people inculcates at least a modicum of concern about their welfare.
It’s easy to lose sight of that attribute because it is so diluted in the representative form of democracy. Take a U.S. senator: In six years, they are likely to make some policy decisions their constituents agree with as well as some they dislike, or they might be corrupt but still carry out their job to voters’ satisfaction. The yea or nay of the ballot does not offer any nuance for signaling which is which. Moreover, the opposition might be equally mixed and almost certainly less well known.
Accountability in the U.S. system is weak. There are some changes Americans could make that would strengthen it: for example, ranked-choice voting and steps toward direct democracy, such as formal systems allowing voters to tell their representatives how to vote on specific legislation. But even as it is today, the system is still better at accountability than an undemocratic government. Authoritarian systems may claim to listen to the people or work in their best interests, but when a leader serves at his (and it’s usually his) own pleasure rather than that of the people, such assurances have little to back them up, and the people have no recourse when it goes wrong.
Self-determination is another phrase that might come to mind. It’s a bit misleading, since democracy is not about each individual getting what he or she wants. But democracy—especially one with complex legislative representation like the United States’—does offer the potential for compromise and interest trading. More importantly, the interests, at least in theory, come from everyone. In theory, it’s not just the elites deciding what will happen and brokering deals among themselves; everyone gets to vote, and since by definition the elites make up a smaller number than everyone else, the nonelites should have a strong voice.
This is important because, despite the claims of those who think a meritocracy would solve all the country’s problems, it is in fact very difficult to know what’s best for someone else. (I say this as someone with a substantial amount of privilege who has spent quite a lot of my career supposedly helping people with less.) Yes, expertise and experience are useful. But they are less useful if you don’t know what problem you’re trying to solve, and it is often all but impossible to identify that from the outside.
Democracy, in theory, lets the people closest to the problem have some say in how their government should fix it. I emphasize in theory because while each person may have only one vote, money buys influence (and fame, less explicably, seems to access some as well). Many, though not all, American representatives come from a small group of the wealthy and well-educated in the first place, and if they don’t, they usually join it while in office. Money buys television advertisements and lobbyists. It’s not completely effective—there have been plenty of elections in which the candidate with higher spending lost—but it certainly sways the U.S. government away from the interests of the many.
But even as it is today, the U.S. system is still better at including the interests of the people than an undemocratic government. Even at the basic level of money, the leadership of undemocratic countries like China and Russia is even more stuffed with the ultra-rich than the United States.
There’s another, more abstract reason for choosing democracy: It promotes participation in government. When Americans engage in democratic processes—whether by casting a vote, attending a town hall, calling a representative, discussing policy choices with neighbors—they are asserting a role in the government and its choices. If people have a role, they are more likely to pay attention, to educate themselves and others, to demand better in return for the effort they are expending. It gives a kind of ownership and, therefore, responsibility. This is an end in itself, as well as a means to having more people contribute their interests, needs, and abilities toward forming a more perfect government.
Needless to say, the United States is not doing terrifically well at this measure either. A strikingly low proportion of people vote in the United States as compared with peer countries. However, it is still far more participation than is possible in an undemocratic government.
Of course, democracy also has its flaws. It opens a risk of oppression by the majority, in which the rights of a small group are trampled because they do not have the numbers to outvote the interests of the larger group. The United States defend against that in part through, for example, the Bill of Rights, which puts certain fundamental principles beyond the reach of democratic legislating. Those principles are subject to constant interpretation and debate in U.S. society; some argue that they don’t go far enough, others that they go too far. But they still give citizens more protection than they would have without them or under an undemocratic government.
Yet perhaps the most pernicious argument against democracy is the idea that the people won’t vote well. That was what frightened the Founding Fathers into restricting democracy to the elite and including plenty of elite safeguards, like the Senate and the Electoral College. And it’s a refrain that continues today, sometimes couched in the guise of “low-information voters” or “people voting against their own interests.”
It’s certainly possible that the people can make less-than-perfect decisions or base their decisions on poor information. However, there’s no evidence that dictators or autocrats do any better. (Contrary to popular myth, Benito Mussolini did not in fact make the trains run on time.) At least in a democracy you have the chance to change your mind in the next election cycle (or with a snap election, in some cases), while dictators are free to keep making bad decisions over and over (see again: famine, wars).
In terms of poor information, that is on everyone. I argue that a democracy that does not include accessible, quality education for its citizens should not be considered a democracy at all. Why put the burden of decision-making on people but not give them the tools they need to do it well? But once again, dictators and autocrats are not always particularly well educated or informed themselves and are often lacking in real-world experiences of one kind or another. Yugoslavia’s Josip Broz Tito only completed four years of school and failed second grade; Romania’s Nicolae Ceausescu stopped school at 11; and hereditary dictators like Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Haiti’s Jean-Claude Duvalier were brought up in luxury.
So as much as we may want to critique or complain about the voting choices of the majority, there’s no reason to think their decisions would be any worse than those taken in an undemocratic society and plenty of reason to think they might be better.
Someday we might devise a form of government that works better than democracy as we understand it now. I hope we do, and I hope that until then we make our democracies more democratic. In the meantime, though, we need to defend what we have. It’s far better than anything else on offer.


foreignpolicy--2020-10-08--Why the Quad Is the One Alliance Trump Cares About

Why the Quad Is the One Alliance Trump Cares About Welcome to Foreign Policy ’ s South Asia Brief , back in business after a short break .
Today : What to make of the Australia-India-Japan-U.S. Quad meetings in Tokyo , Pakistani police file sedition charges against Nawaz Sharif , Amnesty International closes shop in India , and the World Bank predicts South Asia ’ s “ worst-ever ” recession .
Despite the turmoil at the White House after the U.S. president and several top aides tested positive for the coronavirus , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made time this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his three counterparts from the so-called Quad , the rebranded security dialogue between Australia , India , Japan , and the United States .
At the start of the meeting on Tuesday , Pompeo called on the group to collaborate against what he called Beijing ’ s “ exploitation , coercion , and corruption.
” Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar was more diplomatic in underscoring the group ’ s differences with China , saying the Quad is composed of “ vibrant and pluralistic democracies with shared values.
” Australia ’ s Marise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made similar points , outlining visions for a peaceful and inclusive Indo-Pacific , but without specifically naming China .
Why now ?
The exact nature and vision of the Quad remains confusing .
Started in 2007 as the Quadrilateral Initiative and championed by Japan ’ s then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe , the group has often failed to generate real consensus or momentum .
It is unclear whether Abe ’ s recent successor , Yoshihide Suga , shares his foreign-policy vision .
Australia was for a period keen to strengthen ties with China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Narendra Modi came to power in 2014 , still appeared tethered to its historic policy of no-alignment .
But in 2020 , Canberra and especially New Delhi have revised their approaches toward Beijing .
Australia has moved to actively combat Chinese foreign influence , while India ’ s foreign-policy and defense apparatus has focused on its deadly border conflict with China .
Joining a more explicitly anti-China alliance may seem appealing , mostly as a way of making Beijing ’ s individual problems appear bigger when combined .
What does Washington really want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ philosophies of the Trump administration is movement away from multilateralism and alliances .
But the White House seems to make an exception for the Quad .
This may be because the Quad today is defined less by what it stands for and more by what it opposes : China .
The Trump administration has identified China as its primary adversary and therefore its top foreign-policy issue .
After Trump was hospitalized last week , Pompeo canceled other parts of his Asia visit but kept Tokyo on his agenda .
The question is how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially under a new potential administration .
In the vice presidential debate on Wednesday , both Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris sidestepped direct questions on how they would define America ’ s fundamental relationship with China .
( Most Chinese couldn ’ t have tuned in even if they wanted to : CNN , for example , was blacked out in the country every time the debate mentioned China . )
One clue about the potential Biden administration ’ s China policy may come from the past .
Kurt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama administration who was responsible for the so-called pivot to Asia and now a senior advisor to the Biden campaign , recently told the Wall Street Journal that “ there is a broad recognition in the Democratic Party that Trump was largely accurate in diagnosing China ’ s predatory practices.
” Canberra , New Delhi , and Tokyo will likely see those words as a hint that whoever wins the U.S. election on Nov. 3 , the Quad ’ s latest iteration may be here to stay for a while .
Coronavirus update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus cases is on track to exceed 7 million this weekend , bringing it closer to overtaking the United States as the country with the most cases .
In reality , India likely surpassed the United States a while ago .
Most experts believe the true number of cases in India is significantly higher .
Bangladesh and Pakistan remain the second and third most affected countries in South Asia , but their recorded numbers are very low in comparison to India .
Our weekly chart below lays out the country-by-country numbers over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an economist and epidemiologist who has studied COVID-19 closely , told me this week the large disparity in numbers between India and its neighbors is likely down to widely different rates of testing .
Meanwhile in Nepal , three advisors to the prime minister tested positive on Saturday .
( Last week , Foreign Policy pulled together a list of world leaders have contracted COVID-19 so far . )
Pakistan ’ s military strikes back .
Pakistani police have filed sedition charges against former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif after his party joined forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s powerful military of rigging the 2018 election that brought Imran Khan to power .
The charges extend to Sharif ’ s daughter and dozens of party leaders .
Sharif is currently based in London .
Pakistan ’ s opposition parties have joined forces to form the Pakistan Democratic Movement , an alliance seeking to remove Khan from power and reduce the military ’ s influence .
Moving money in Male .
A Maldives court has sentenced former Vice President Ahmed Adeeb to 20 years in prison on corruption charges .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ leasing tropical islands for hotel development well below market prices .
He was fined nearly $ 130,000 , but his actions reportedly cost the government more than $ 250 million .
Amnesty closes its India operations .
Last month , Amnesty International decided to shut down its operations in India after New Delhi froze its bank assets .
This isn ’ t the first time the human rights watchdog has faced pressure from India .
Nor is Amnesty the only high-profile group targeted by New Delhi .
Others include the Ford Foundation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch list in 2015 .
As FP ’ s Sumit Ganguly points out , “ there ’ s little hope that Modi ’ s human rights record will improve .
That ’ s especially true given that the Indian judiciary , long known for its independence , is increasingly submissive to Modi , too.
” India rape case .
India has attracted global outrage after police in the Hathras district of Uttar Pradesh cremated the body of a 19-year-old Dalit woman without the permission of her family .
The woman died from her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she had been gang-raped .
The entire chain of events is deeply disturbing and touches on several current flash points in India : caste dynamics , rampant sexual assault , lax policing , and medieval attitudes among the police force .
Read more in the BBC—especially this report by Geeta Pandey , who traveled to Hathras to piece together what happened at the end of September .
Worst-ever recession .
A new report released by the World Bank this week projects that South Asia is set to plunge into its worst-ever recession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Regional growth is expected to contract by 7.7 percent in 2020 , private consumption will decline by more than 10 percent , and informal workers will be hit hardest .
App store wars .
Google has delayed the enforcement of a 30 percent fee on in-app payments through its Play Store after facing backlash in India .
Google may also have felt pressure after reports of a move by New Delhi to launch a domestic alternative to Google ’ s Play Store and Apple ’ s App Store .
Google ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the domestic market : The vast majority of Indian smartphone users have Android devices .
Rice fight .
As if India and Pakistan didn ’ t have enough to disagree on , the latest issue of contention is now basmati rice .
Last month , India applied for permission to geographically label basmati rice—a move that would enhance basmati ’ s reputation , as similar moves have done for champagne and Darjeeling tea .
But now Pakistan says it will give a “ befitting reply ” to India , since it also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Arab News , Pakistan exported $ 2.17 billion worth of rice last year , of which more than 36 percent came from sales of basmati rice .
India ’ s move would almost certainly harm Pakistan ’ s ability to export basmati .
That ’ s it for this week .
We welcome your feedback at newsletters @ foreignpolicy.com .
You can find older editions of South Asia Brief here .
For more from FP , subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters .

Welcome to Foreign Policy’s South Asia Brief, back in business after a short break.
Today: What to make of the Australia-India-Japan-U.S. Quad meetings in Tokyo, Pakistani police file sedition charges against Nawaz Sharif, Amnesty International closes shop in India, and the World Bank predicts South Asia’s “worst-ever” recession.
If you would like to receive South Asia Brief in your inbox every Thursday, please sign up here.
Why Pompeo Kept His Meeting With the Quad
Despite the turmoil at the White House after the U.S. president and several top aides tested positive for the coronavirus, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made time this week to travel to Tokyo to meet his three counterparts from the so-called Quad, the rebranded security dialogue between Australia, India, Japan, and the United States.
At the start of the meeting on Tuesday, Pompeo called on the group to collaborate against what he called Beijing’s “exploitation, coercion, and corruption.” Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar was more diplomatic in underscoring the group’s differences with China, saying the Quad is composed of “vibrant and pluralistic democracies with shared values.”
Australia’s Marise Payne and Japan’s Toshimitsu Motegi made similar points, outlining visions for a peaceful and inclusive Indo-Pacific, but without specifically naming China.
Why now? The exact nature and vision of the Quad remains confusing. Started in 2007 as the Quadrilateral Initiative and championed by Japan’s then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the group has often failed to generate real consensus or momentum. It is unclear whether Abe’s recent successor, Yoshihide Suga, shares his foreign-policy vision. Australia was for a period keen to strengthen ties with China. And India, particularly before Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, still appeared tethered to its historic policy of no-alignment.
But in 2020, Canberra and especially New Delhi have revised their approaches toward Beijing. Australia has moved to actively combat Chinese foreign influence, while India’s foreign-policy and defense apparatus has focused on its deadly border conflict with China. Joining a more explicitly anti-China alliance may seem appealing, mostly as a way of making Beijing’s individual problems appear bigger when combined.
What does Washington really want? One of the few tangible foreign-policy philosophies of the Trump administration is movement away from multilateralism and alliances. But the White House seems to make an exception for the Quad. This may be because the Quad today is defined less by what it stands for and more by what it opposes: China. The Trump administration has identified China as its primary adversary and therefore its top foreign-policy issue. After Trump was hospitalized last week, Pompeo canceled other parts of his Asia visit but kept Tokyo on his agenda.
The question is how Washington might approach the Quad in 2021, especially under a new potential administration. In the vice presidential debate on Wednesday, both Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris sidestepped direct questions on how they would define America’s fundamental relationship with China. (Most Chinese couldn’t have tuned in even if they wanted to: CNN, for example, was blacked out in the country every time the debate mentioned China.)
One clue about the potential Biden administration’s China policy may come from the past. Kurt Campbell, the senior diplomat in the Obama administration who was responsible for the so-called pivot to Asia and now a senior advisor to the Biden campaign, recently told the Wall Street Journal that “there is a broad recognition in the Democratic Party that Trump was largely accurate in diagnosing China’s predatory practices.”
Canberra, New Delhi, and Tokyo will likely see those words as a hint that whoever wins the U.S. election on Nov. 3, the Quad’s latest iteration may be here to stay for a while.
What We’re Following
Coronavirus update. India’s tally of confirmed coronavirus cases is on track to exceed 7 million this weekend, bringing it closer to overtaking the United States as the country with the most cases. In reality, India likely surpassed the United States a while ago. Most experts believe the true number of cases in India is significantly higher. Bangladesh and Pakistan remain the second and third most affected countries in South Asia, but their recorded numbers are very low in comparison to India.
Our weekly chart below lays out the country-by-country numbers over the last four weeks.
Ramanan Laxminarayan, an economist and epidemiologist who has studied COVID-19 closely, told me this week the large disparity in numbers between India and its neighbors is likely down to widely different rates of testing.
Meanwhile in Nepal, three advisors to the prime minister tested positive on Saturday. (Last week, Foreign Policy pulled together a list of world leaders have contracted COVID-19 so far.)
Pakistan’s military strikes back. Pakistani police have filed sedition charges against former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif after his party joined forces with other opposition parties to accuse the country’s powerful military of rigging the 2018 election that brought Imran Khan to power. The charges extend to Sharif’s daughter and dozens of party leaders. Sharif is currently based in London. Pakistan’s opposition parties have joined forces to form the Pakistan Democratic Movement, an alliance seeking to remove Khan from power and reduce the military’s influence.
Moving money in Male. A Maldives court has sentenced former Vice President Ahmed Adeeb to 20 years in prison on corruption charges. Adeeb pleaded guilty for crimes that included leasing tropical islands for hotel development well below market prices. He was fined nearly $130,000, but his actions reportedly cost the government more than $250 million.
Amnesty closes its India operations. Last month, Amnesty International decided to shut down its operations in India after New Delhi froze its bank assets. This isn’t the first time the human rights watchdog has faced pressure from India. Nor is Amnesty the only high-profile group targeted by New Delhi. Others include the Ford Foundation, which was put on a national security watch list in 2015.
As FP’s Sumit Ganguly points out, “there’s little hope that Modi’s human rights record will improve. That’s especially true given that the Indian judiciary, long known for its independence, is increasingly submissive to Modi, too.”
India rape case. India has attracted global outrage after police in the Hathras district of Uttar Pradesh cremated the body of a 19-year-old Dalit woman without the permission of her family. The woman died from her injuries shortly after reporting to the police that she had been gang-raped. The entire chain of events is deeply disturbing and touches on several current flash points in India: caste dynamics, rampant sexual assault, lax policing, and medieval attitudes among the police force.
Read more in the BBC—especially this report by Geeta Pandey, who traveled to Hathras to piece together what happened at the end of September.
South Asia, Inc.
Worst-ever recession. A new report released by the World Bank this week projects that South Asia is set to plunge into its worst-ever recession as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Regional growth is expected to contract by 7.7 percent in 2020, private consumption will decline by more than 10 percent, and informal workers will be hit hardest.
App store wars. Google has delayed the enforcement of a 30 percent fee on in-app payments through its Play Store after facing backlash in India. Google may also have felt pressure after reports of a move by New Delhi to launch a domestic alternative to Google’s Play Store and Apple’s App Store. Google’s move is surprising given its complete dominance of the domestic market: The vast majority of Indian smartphone users have Android devices.
And Finally…
A farmer works in a rice field on the outskirts of Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir, on June 11.
Rice fight. As if India and Pakistan didn’t have enough to disagree on, the latest issue of contention is now basmati rice. Last month, India applied for permission to geographically label basmati rice—a move that would enhance basmati’s reputation, as similar moves have done for champagne and Darjeeling tea.
But now Pakistan says it will give a “befitting reply” to India, since it also produces varieties of basmati rice. According to Arab News, Pakistan exported $2.17 billion worth of rice last year, of which more than 36 percent came from sales of basmati rice. India’s move would almost certainly harm Pakistan’s ability to export basmati.
That’s it for this week.
We welcome your feedback at newsletters@foreignpolicy.com. You can find older editions of South Asia Brief here. For more from FP, subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters.


foreignpolicy--2020-10-08--‘There’s a Complete Destruction of Reality’

Last weekend , as U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s doctors lined up in white coats in front of Walter Reed Medical Center to issue opaque , often confusing statements about Trump ’ s health , it drew comparisons to the film The Death of Stalin , the darkly comedic portrayal of the chaos unleashed within the Soviet Politburo following the death of the generalissimo .
The British satirist Armando Iannucci , who wrote and directed the film , is no stranger to political comedy , having created the HBO series Veep , the BBC ’ s The Thick of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loop .
Foreign Policy spoke to Iannucci about the role of satire in turbulent times , the State Department ’ s ill-fitting chairs , and how he ’ d react if the events of 2020 were handed to him as a script .
What follows has been lightly edited for clarity and brevity .
Foreign Policy : You filmed Death of Stalin in 2016 before Trump was elected .
What do you think you would have said then if a time traveler from 2020 had come and told you , by the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this movie to the health of a U.S. president , and that president is Trump ?
Armando Iannucci : I think I probably would have thought , “ Right , let ’ s make sure we get this on film !
” It ’ s not that we knew Trump was going to happen , because obviously that was a complete shock to everyone .
But the reason I looked at that story was because that kind of strong leader , authoritarian , the “ I ’ m not a standard politician .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to be tough.
” That was happening a lot .
It was happening with Putin .
It was happening with Erdogan in Turkey .
It was happening in Hungary .
Le Pen in France .
We had UKIP in the U.K. That sense of politics is just going in a strange 1930s way .
And it ’ s just bizarre that it ’ s happening again , and most of the people who experienced it the first time are no longer with us .
I kind of thought that actually it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you know , what that can lead to .
FP : When you were writing Veep and The Thick of It and also The Death of Stalin , what did you learn about politics and power ?
AI : A lot of it is about show .
A lot of the buildings either in Whitehall or in Washington , they look grand , they look like they were from ancient Rome .
They look like power is centered there .
But when you go inside , you realize that they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And there ’ s a lot of office politics going on .
When I was going around the State Department , I could see that none of the chairs fitted the desks because they were under so much pressure to cut costs that they would just buy some cheap chairs and buy some cheap desks .
But the chairs were too high to fit under the desks .
I was going around the West Wing and it ’ s such a tiny warren of small corridors .
And yet , there was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stool with a laptop because he wanted to say he was working from the West Wing .
He could have an enormous suite of offices across the road … but no , he ’ d rather say that his address was the West Wing .
So he was quite happy to sit in the corner with a laptop .
And also what was interesting was just how young people were .
When America invaded Iraq , the constitution for Iraq was being drawn up by some 24-year-old who had just come out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yes , it ’ s that .
That for me was eye-opening .
And therefore , you begin to realize , they ’ re human beings , but they ’ re a strange breed of human beings who get off on talking about politics all the time .
But they fundamentally share the same kinds of petty concerns and ambitions as everyone else has , really .
FP : Do you think that it will ever be possible to write a satire about the Trump administration ?
AI : Possibly , maybe in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s like every day is a whole new kind of episode really .
Today he ’ s turned into this snake oil salesman doing videos like , “ I ’ m cured .
You can be cured too , if you just take my special regimen of cocktails.
” It ’ s absurd .
And nobody saw that happening even a week ago .
FP : If somebody had handed you the story of 2020 from the perspective of Washington as a script for , say , Veep the Movie , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d have to try and work out what the theme was , because it feels so random .
I think the theme is the complete destruction of reality .
It ’ s any authority figure is no longer regarded as credible .
Because he ’ s so worn down our belief in words and facts and information .
And what the internet has done is put all these words and facts in a larger field of other words and facts that are nonsense , and it ’ s very difficult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FP : Do you think that you ’ d be able to write Veep now , or has it been surpassed by reality ?
AI : I ’ m glad I ’ m not doing Veep now .
If anything , Selina Meyer would be the hero figure , trying to kind of bring a bit of sense into things .
In comparison with what ’ s happening , she ’ s not that bad .
Things like Veep and The Thick of It were written at a time where there was understood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you publicly stuck to .
And every episode was how that code was bent and slightly corrupted and even broken .
But if there is no code , if Trump is saying I could shoot a guy in the middle of Fifth Avenue , and still be elected , if he can be shown a clip of him saying something and yet say , “ I didn ’ t say that .
I never said that , ” you know , there are no rules anymore .

Explore the benefits included in your subscription.
Explore the benefits of your FP subscription.
Stay updated on the topics you care about with My FP. Sign up below.


foreignpolicy--2020-10-08--Is Turkey’s Military Overstretched?

Is Turkey’s Military Overstretched?

In the escalating conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed Caucasus enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh , most global powers have called for a negotiated cease-fire rather than backing one side .
Most powers , that is , except Turkey .
Nearly immediately after clashes began in late September , Ankara came to the aid of its allies in Azerbaijan , supplying arms , propaganda , and allegedly fighters transferred from Syria .
Rather than working toward a modicum of stability , Ankara seems intent on backing Baku—enraging its NATO allies .
Turkey ’ s pursuit of greater influence in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by ethnic Armenians and ethnic Turks , is unsurprising .
If Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan does indeed decide to deploy his military in Nagorno-Karabakh—which is internationally recognized as sovereign Azerbaijani territory despite being home to a majority Armenian population and being occupied and regarded as an independent state by Armenia since a war in the 1990s—it would only be the latest in a string of Turkish strategic entanglements stretching from the Mediterranean to Central Asia .
Here ’ s an overview of everywhere Turkey ’ s military is active right now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ began in 2014 , Turkey supports the United Nations-backed Government of National Accord ( GNA ) , which is based in Tripoli but maintains nominal control over the country .
The GNA is facing off against the Libyan National Army , which is led by Gen. Khalifa Haftar and based in Benghazi .
Haftar ’ s forces are backed by Russia , France , Egypt , and the United Arab Emirates .
Turkey ’ s involvement in Libya is inextricably linked to its role in the Syrian civil war , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Greece and Cyprus over the sea ’ s rich natural gas and petroleum reserves .
In addition to supplying the GNA with arms and drone technology , Ankara has sent thousands of Syrian militants to Tripoli fight on its behalf .
Though Turkey ostensibly became involved in the Syrian civil war in 2011 to oppose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ’ s forces and in 2015 to fight the Islamic State , its role in the conflict has in many ways become an extension of its domestic war against Kurdish militants .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom are a part of the People ’ s Protection Units ( YPG ) have been critical in warding off Islamic State forces .
Turkey , however , is intent on countering Kurdish militants within and beyond its borders .
Ankara regards the YPG as an extension of the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers ’ Party ( PKK ) , which Turkey considers a terrorist organization .
Since 1984 , the Turkish military has been intent on quashing a PKK insurgency in its southeast , where Kurds have long demanded more cultural and political autonomy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minority population .
A tenuous two-year cease-fire between the Turkish government and the PKK collapsed in 2015 , and it is estimated that at least 3,589 Kurds and 1,261 Turkish forces have been killed in the conflict since .
Now , Turkey has effectively occupied swaths of Northern Syria and continues to wage offensives against the region ’ s Kurds while seeking to create a so-called safe zone to stop additional waves of refugees from entering Turkey .
Turkey intervened in Northern Cyprus in 1974 and established a de facto state : the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not recognized by the international community , which considers the Republic of Cyprus to be the island ’ s sole sovereign entity ( apart from two military bases belonging to the U.K. ) .
Nicosia , the Cypriot capital , remains divided .
Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan attempted to resolve the dispute between Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus in a series of peace talks in the early 2000s , but these did not ultimately lead to any meaningful outcome .
In recent months , the Turkish navy has been active @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as belonging to Greece , a move compelled by Turkey ’ s thirst for natural gas .
The moves have angered NATO members , which fear an escalation of tensions between the two historical foes .
Turkey ’ s moves in the Eastern Mediterranean are driven by the so-called Blue Homeland policy , which disputes several international agreements and claims many Greek islands and waters as Turkey ’ s own .
The standoff has taken on heightened importance due to the European Union ’ s attempts to incentivize Turkey to stop unauthorized migrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boat .
Turkey in 2019 announced the completion of a military base in Qatar , a milestone for a country that otherwise enjoys few allies in the Gulf .
( Qatar is the lone Gulf member of the Turkish-backed coalition supporting the GNA in Libya . )
Turkey ’ s base in Qatar joins existing bases in Bashiqa , Iraq—located in Iraqi Kurdistan—and Mogadishu .

In the escalating conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed Caucasus enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, most global powers have called for a negotiated cease-fire rather than backing one side.
Most powers, that is, except Turkey. Nearly immediately after clashes began in late September, Ankara came to the aid of its allies in Azerbaijan, supplying arms, propaganda, and allegedly fighters transferred from Syria. Rather than working toward a modicum of stability, Ankara seems intent on backing Baku—enraging its NATO allies.
Turkey’s pursuit of greater influence in the Caucasus, particularly in a region contested by ethnic Armenians and ethnic Turks, is unsurprising. If Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan does indeed decide to deploy his military in Nagorno-Karabakh—which is internationally recognized as sovereign Azerbaijani territory despite being home to a majority Armenian population and being occupied and regarded as an independent state by Armenia since a war in the 1990s—it would only be the latest in a string of Turkish strategic entanglements stretching from the Mediterranean to Central Asia.
Here’s an overview of everywhere Turkey’s military is active right now.
1. Libya
In the Libyan civil war, which began in 2014, Turkey supports the United Nations-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), which is based in Tripoli but maintains nominal control over the country. The GNA is facing off against the Libyan National Army, which is led by Gen. Khalifa Haftar and based in Benghazi. Haftar’s forces are backed by Russia, France, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates.
Turkey’s involvement in Libya is inextricably linked to its role in the Syrian civil war, as well as its skirmishes with other Mediterranean states such as Greece and Cyprus over the sea’s rich natural gas and petroleum reserves. In addition to supplying the GNA with arms and drone technology, Ankara has sent thousands of Syrian militants to Tripoli fight on its behalf.
2. Syria
Though Turkey ostensibly became involved in the Syrian civil war in 2011 to oppose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces and in 2015 to fight the Islamic State, its role in the conflict has in many ways become an extension of its domestic war against Kurdish militants.
The Kurds in northern Syria, many of whom are a part of the People’s Protection Units (YPG) have been critical in warding off Islamic State forces. Turkey, however, is intent on countering Kurdish militants within and beyond its borders. Ankara regards the YPG as an extension of the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which Turkey considers a terrorist organization.
Since 1984, the Turkish military has been intent on quashing a PKK insurgency in its southeast, where Kurds have long demanded more cultural and political autonomy for Turkey’s 15 million-strong Kurdish minority population. A tenuous two-year cease-fire between the Turkish government and the PKK collapsed in 2015, and it is estimated that at least 3,589 Kurds and 1,261 Turkish forces have been killed in the conflict since.
Now, Turkey has effectively occupied swaths of Northern Syria and continues to wage offensives against the region’s Kurds while seeking to create a so-called safe zone to stop additional waves of refugees from entering Turkey.
3. Northern Cyprus
Turkey intervened in Northern Cyprus in 1974 and established a de facto state: the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. It is not recognized by the international community, which considers the Republic of Cyprus to be the island’s sole sovereign entity (apart from two military bases belonging to the U.K.). Nicosia, the Cypriot capital, remains divided.
Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan attempted to resolve the dispute between Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus in a series of peace talks in the early 2000s, but these did not ultimately lead to any meaningful outcome.
4. Eastern Mediterranean
In recent months, the Turkish navy has been active in waters recognized by the international community as belonging to Greece, a move compelled by Turkey’s thirst for natural gas. The moves have angered NATO members, which fear an escalation of tensions between the two historical foes.
Turkey’s moves in the Eastern Mediterranean are driven by the so-called Blue Homeland policy, which disputes several international agreements and claims many Greek islands and waters as Turkey’s own.
The standoff has taken on heightened importance due to the European Union’s attempts to incentivize Turkey to stop unauthorized migrants from crossing the sea from Turkey by boat.
5. Qatar and Iraq
Turkey in 2019 announced the completion of a military base in Qatar, a milestone for a country that otherwise enjoys few allies in the Gulf. (Qatar is the lone Gulf member of the Turkish-backed coalition supporting the GNA in Libya.) Turkey’s base in Qatar joins existing bases in Bashiqa, Iraq—located in Iraqi Kurdistan—and Mogadishu.