vox--2020-12-01--4 looming foreign policy crises that could derail Biden’s agenda early on

President-elect Joe Biden may want his administration to focus on long-term issues like the coronavirus pandemic , climate change , rebuilding alliances , and America ’ s relationship with China , but some key near-term foreign policy problems will likely require his attention first .
After the assassination of its top nuclear scientist by an unknown attacker , Iran might be less willing to engage in diplomacy with America and instead seek revenge by targeting US officials .
North Korea could test an intercontinental ballistic missile early in Biden ’ s term to try to gauge the new administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms control deal between the US and Russia is set to expire just over two weeks after Biden takes office .
And the reduced number of American troops in Afghanistan could derail sputtering peace talks and worsen the country ’ s security situation .
Such a dilemma wouldn ’ t be unique to Biden .
Every new president comes in with ideas on how to handle larger global problems , only to have the colloquial “ tyranny of the inbox ” monopolize their time .
“ If you assume that foreign policy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarter , of the president ’ s time , then that really shines a light on how serious this inbox problem is , ” said Christopher Preble , co-director of the New American Engagement Initiative at the Atlantic Council think tank .
Once he ’ s in the Oval Office , then , Biden will likely find his hopes of tackling grander foreign policy challenges dashed by the effort he ’ ll have to expend cleaning up more immediate messes .
What follows is what four of those messes could look like .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ American officials The 2015 nuclear agreement among Iran , the US , European powers , Russia , and China put tight restrictions on Tehran ’ s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief .
The Obama administration ’ s goal was to block Iran ’ s path to a nuclear weapon diplomatically instead of by military force .
But President Donald Trump withdrew America from the deal in 2018 , reimposed financial penalties on Iran , and asked European countries to cease their business with the country .
That kicked off a years-long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things , has seen Iran stockpile 12 times the amount of low-enriched uranium the deal allowed and the assassinations of two prominent Iranian officials .
The first took place in January , when the US killed Qassem Soleimani , the head of Iran ’ s paramilitary forces and one of the most powerful men in the country .
Iran promised to exact a “ harsher revenge ” in response ; so far , that revenge has consisted mostly of attacks on US forces and assets by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq .
The second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mastermind behind Iran ’ s nuclear program , Mohsen Fakhrizadeh , was fatally shot inside his vehicle near Tehran , reportedly with a remote-controlled weapon .
No one has publicly claimed responsibility for the attack , but Israel has been suspected of orchestrating similar assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists in the past .
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has already blamed Israel for it — and added his own threat .
“ Iran will surely respond to the martyrdom of our scientist at the proper time , ” he said in a Saturday speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these assassinations by escalating attacks on US personnel in Iraq or by attempting to assassinate US or Israeli officials , it would pose a major challenge for a Biden administration .
“ Certainly a retaliation that led to the killing of an American in a theater like Iraq would create serious complications for the Biden team , ” said Dalia Dassa Kaye , a Middle East expert at the RAND Corporation .
The president-elect has often stated that America ’ s commitment to Israel will remain “ ironclad ” under his presidency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ indirectly attack Israel , Biden would be under a lot of pressure to support Jerusalem in some way .
All of this , of course , would lead the US and Iran further down the path toward war and away from a possible diplomatic resolution .
“ Such responses are likely to undermine the chances for diplomacy with Biden and easing of US sanctions , ” Ellie Geranmayeh , an Iran analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations , told me .
However , Iran could use the threat of an attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Iran could instead hold back its retaliatory moves — maintaining it will respond at a time and place of its choosing .
This way Iran has some more bargaining chips when it comes to potential future talks with the Biden administration and Europeans.
” What Iran does or doesn ’ t do in the coming months , then , could greatly impact Biden ’ s grander foreign policy plans .
As the oft-quoted saying goes : “ The enemy gets a vote.
” North Korea could test its most powerful missile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barack Obama ’ s presidency , North Korea tested a long-range missile and a nuclear device .
And in Trump ’ s first year in charge , Pyongyang test-launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile ( ICBM ) and tested its most powerful nuclear bomb to date .
Some experts warn that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un may make similar provocative moves in the early stages of a Biden administration .
“ North Korea is one of those challenges that no one really wants to deal with right now , since there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the growth of the program .
But Kim has a way of putting himself back on the high-priority list , ” said Vipin Narang , an expert on North Korea ’ s nuclear program at MIT .
There are many ways Kim could do that , but one in particular stands out : He could conduct the first test of the new ICBMs he displayed during an October parade .
Those missiles were not only the biggest ever seen in North Korea ’ s arsenal , experts also said they were the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ launchers in the world .
In case of a war , then , North Korea ’ s military could roll these missiles out of underground bunkers , place them somewhere on land , and shoot them at the United States .
A test simulating that kind of launch would rank among the most threatening actions ever taken by Pyongyang — surely ratcheting up tensions with the US in the process .
The new missiles haven ’ t been tested yet , though , and they may have issues North Korea still needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts predict Pyongyang will probably test one in early 2021 , in part to see how it goes and in part to send a message to Biden : North Korea is a nuclear power , and you can ’ t do anything about it .
Such a provocative move would require some sort of response from the Biden administration .
That doesn ’ t necessarily mean war , said Elizabeth Saunders , a US foreign policy expert at Georgetown University .
But it could mean more sanctions on North Korea , reinstating US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more US warships to the area , or all of the above .
Figuring out the best response could take up a lot of time and energy early in Biden ’ s term , leaving less time and energy to address some of his longer-term policy objectives .
New START , short for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty , is a nuclear arms control agreement signed between the US and Russia in 2011 .
The pact limits the size of the two countries ’ nuclear arsenals , which together account for 93 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The problem is that the deal — the last major arms control accord between Washington and Moscow still in effect — is set to expire on February 5 , 2021 .
That gives Biden just 16 days after becoming president to extend the pact .
Biden has committed to extending New START , and Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he wants to extend it for at least one year .
Most experts believe Biden and Putin will swiftly extend the agreement before the deadline .
“ My impression is that Russia still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being in their interest , ” said Sarah Bidgood , an expert on Russia ’ s nuclear program at the Middlebury Institute for International Studies .
But the short timeline could give Moscow an advantage to extract some early concessions from the Biden administration before greenlighting an extension .
The Kremlin , experts say , could demand Biden lift Trump-imposed sanctions on the country , or ask that the US make a statement praising Russia ’ s military presence in Nagorno-Karabakh to keep the peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the take-it-or-leave-it variety .
Moscow might want to see what it could get , if anything , before agreeing to an extension .
Still , such a move could take the US and Russia to the brink of losing New START and decades of arms control efforts along with it .
What ’ s more , Bidgood said , a tough negotiation could follow after the extension , especially if Washington and Moscow don ’ t prolong New START for the full five years allowed under the deal .
The potential for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start of a new administration , then , could be a time suck for the Biden administration .
Fewer US troops in Afghanistan could derail peace talks between Kabul and the Taliban With just two months left in office , the Trump administration is rushing to wind down the 19-year US war in Afghanistan by cutting the number of US troops in the country from 4,500 to 2,500 by January 15 — five days before Biden is to be sworn in .
But while many on both the left and the right in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an end , experts worry such a quick withdrawal will harm America ’ s interests in the country .
“ It ’ s hard to imagine a less responsible way to withdraw , ” Jason Dempsey , a former Army infantry officer who served in Afghanistan and Iraq , told me earlier this month .
The main concern is what leaving so abruptly means for America ’ s diplomatic pact with the Taliban .
The deal both parties signed earlier this year said all US troops had to leave by May 2021 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peaceful and the Taliban has upheld its end of the deal , which includes engaging in peace talks with the Afghan government and not attacking international forces .
Those peace talks began in September but are not going very well — not least because Taliban fighters have increased their attacks on Afghan security forces and civilians across the country in recent months .
Dempsey , who ’ s now at the Center for a New American Security think tank , said pulling more US troops out of the country as those negotiations proceed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and encourage even more Taliban attacks .
“ Giving away any leverage you have as you leave is a pretty stupid way to go about it , ” he told me .
The question is what Biden would do with the forces Trump plans to leave him with .
The president-elect has said he wants to keep at least some troops in Afghanistan to serve as a counterterrorism force , so it ’ s possible he may not change anything when he takes office in January .
But if the smaller US presence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in diplomatic talks with the Afghan government , or even attempt a forcible takeover of the Afghan government — as it did in 1996 — then the Biden administration might have to scramble to back its ally in Kabul .
That could potentially lead the new president to escalate the war in the country , thereby turning much of his time and attention away from other projects to focus on an old one .

President-elect Joe Biden may want his administration to focus on long-term issues like the coronavirus pandemic, climate change, rebuilding alliances, and America’s relationship with China, but some key near-term foreign policy problems will likely require his attention first.
After the assassination of its top nuclear scientist by an unknown attacker, Iran might be less willing to engage in diplomacy with America and instead seek revenge by targeting US officials. North Korea could test an intercontinental ballistic missile early in Biden’s term to try to gauge the new administration’s response. The last remaining nuclear arms control deal between the US and Russia is set to expire just over two weeks after Biden takes office. And the reduced number of American troops in Afghanistan could derail sputtering peace talks and worsen the country’s security situation.
Such a dilemma wouldn’t be unique to Biden. Every new president comes in with ideas on how to handle larger global problems, only to have the colloquial “tyranny of the inbox” monopolize their time. “If you assume that foreign policy is less than half, and maybe a quarter, of the president’s time, then that really shines a light on how serious this inbox problem is,” said Christopher Preble, co-director of the New American Engagement Initiative at the Atlantic Council think tank.
Once he’s in the Oval Office, then, Biden will likely find his hopes of tackling grander foreign policy challenges dashed by the effort he’ll have to expend cleaning up more immediate messes. What follows is what four of those messes could look like.
Iran could try to assassinate Israeli or American officials
The 2015 nuclear agreement among Iran, the US, European powers, Russia, and China put tight restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The Obama administration’s goal was to block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon diplomatically instead of by military force. But President Donald Trump withdrew America from the deal in 2018, reimposed financial penalties on Iran, and asked European countries to cease their business with the country.
That kicked off a years-long cycle of escalations that, among other things, has seen Iran stockpile 12 times the amount of low-enriched uranium the deal allowed and the assassinations of two prominent Iranian officials.
The first took place in January, when the US killed Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s paramilitary forces and one of the most powerful men in the country. Iran promised to exact a “harsher revenge” in response; so far, that revenge has consisted mostly of attacks on US forces and assets by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq.
The second killing happened last Friday, when the mastermind behind Iran’s nuclear program, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was fatally shot inside his vehicle near Tehran, reportedly with a remote-controlled weapon. No one has publicly claimed responsibility for the attack, but Israel has been suspected of orchestrating similar assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists in the past.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has already blamed Israel for it — and added his own threat. “Iran will surely respond to the martyrdom of our scientist at the proper time,” he said in a Saturday speech.
If Iran were to respond to these assassinations by escalating attacks on US personnel in Iraq or by attempting to assassinate US or Israeli officials, it would pose a major challenge for a Biden administration.
“Certainly a retaliation that led to the killing of an American in a theater like Iraq would create serious complications for the Biden team,” said Dalia Dassa Kaye, a Middle East expert at the RAND Corporation.
The president-elect has often stated that America’s commitment to Israel will remain “ironclad” under his presidency. If Iran were to directly or even indirectly attack Israel, Biden would be under a lot of pressure to support Jerusalem in some way.
All of this, of course, would lead the US and Iran further down the path toward war and away from a possible diplomatic resolution. “Such responses are likely to undermine the chances for diplomacy with Biden and easing of US sanctions,” Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told me.
However, Iran could use the threat of an attack as a pressure tool, she continued. “Iran could instead hold back its retaliatory moves — maintaining it will respond at a time and place of its choosing. This way Iran has some more bargaining chips when it comes to potential future talks with the Biden administration and Europeans.”
What Iran does or doesn’t do in the coming months, then, could greatly impact Biden’s grander foreign policy plans. As the oft-quoted saying goes: “The enemy gets a vote.”
North Korea could test its most powerful missile yet
Within the first few months of Barack Obama’s presidency, North Korea tested a long-range missile and a nuclear device. And in Trump’s first year in charge, Pyongyang test-launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and tested its most powerful nuclear bomb to date.
Some experts warn that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un may make similar provocative moves in the early stages of a Biden administration.
“North Korea is one of those challenges that no one really wants to deal with right now, since there are no easy solutions or pathways to slowing down the growth of the program. But Kim has a way of putting himself back on the high-priority list,” said Vipin Narang, an expert on North Korea’s nuclear program at MIT.
There are many ways Kim could do that, but one in particular stands out: He could conduct the first test of the new ICBMs he displayed during an October parade.
Those missiles were not only the biggest ever seen in North Korea’s arsenal, experts also said they were the largest road-mobile missiles with their own truck-based launchers in the world. In case of a war, then, North Korea’s military could roll these missiles out of underground bunkers, place them somewhere on land, and shoot them at the United States.
A test simulating that kind of launch would rank among the most threatening actions ever taken by Pyongyang — surely ratcheting up tensions with the US in the process.
High resolution of the new North Korean ICBM. pic.twitter.com/gpd6CileNd — Ankit Panda (@nktpnd) October 10, 2020
The new missiles haven’t been tested yet, though, and they may have issues North Korea still needs to fix.
That’s why many experts predict Pyongyang will probably test one in early 2021, in part to see how it goes and in part to send a message to Biden: North Korea is a nuclear power, and you can’t do anything about it.
Such a provocative move would require some sort of response from the Biden administration. That doesn’t necessarily mean war, said Elizabeth Saunders, a US foreign policy expert at Georgetown University. But it could mean more sanctions on North Korea, reinstating US military drills with South Korea, sending more US warships to the area, or all of the above.
Figuring out the best response could take up a lot of time and energy early in Biden’s term, leaving less time and energy to address some of his longer-term policy objectives.
Russia could play hardball on arms control
New START, short for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, is a nuclear arms control agreement signed between the US and Russia in 2011. The pact limits the size of the two countries’ nuclear arsenals, which together account for 93 percent of all nuclear warheads on earth.
The problem is that the deal — the last major arms control accord between Washington and Moscow still in effect — is set to expire on February 5, 2021. That gives Biden just 16 days after becoming president to extend the pact.
Biden has committed to extending New START, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he wants to extend it for at least one year. Most experts believe Biden and Putin will swiftly extend the agreement before the deadline. “My impression is that Russia still regards an extension of New START as being in their interest,” said Sarah Bidgood, an expert on Russia’s nuclear program at the Middlebury Institute for International Studies.
But the short timeline could give Moscow an advantage to extract some early concessions from the Biden administration before greenlighting an extension. The Kremlin, experts say, could demand Biden lift Trump-imposed sanctions on the country, or ask that the US make a statement praising Russia’s military presence in Nagorno-Karabakh to keep the peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
It’s unclear if such requests would truly be of the take-it-or-leave-it variety. Moscow might want to see what it could get, if anything, before agreeing to an extension. Still, such a move could take the US and Russia to the brink of losing New START and decades of arms control efforts along with it.
What’s more, Bidgood said, a tough negotiation could follow after the extension, especially if Washington and Moscow don’t prolong New START for the full five years allowed under the deal. The potential for nuclear-related trouble with Russia right at the start of a new administration, then, could be a time suck for the Biden administration.
Fewer US troops in Afghanistan could derail peace talks between Kabul and the Taliban
With just two months left in office, the Trump administration is rushing to wind down the 19-year US war in Afghanistan by cutting the number of US troops in the country from 4,500 to 2,500 by January 15 — five days before Biden is to be sworn in.
But while many on both the left and the right in the US support bringing that war to an end, experts worry such a quick withdrawal will harm America’s interests in the country. “It’s hard to imagine a less responsible way to withdraw,” Jason Dempsey, a former Army infantry officer who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, told me earlier this month.
The main concern is what leaving so abruptly means for America’s diplomatic pact with the Taliban. The deal both parties signed earlier this year said all US troops had to leave by May 2021, assuming conditions in the country are relatively peaceful and the Taliban has upheld its end of the deal, which includes engaging in peace talks with the Afghan government and not attacking international forces.
Those peace talks began in September but are not going very well — not least because Taliban fighters have increased their attacks on Afghan security forces and civilians across the country in recent months.
Dempsey, who’s now at the Center for a New American Security think tank, said pulling more US troops out of the country as those negotiations proceed could hurt Kabul’s negotiating position and encourage even more Taliban attacks. “Giving away any leverage you have as you leave is a pretty stupid way to go about it,” he told me.
The question is what Biden would do with the forces Trump plans to leave him with. The president-elect has said he wants to keep at least some troops in Afghanistan to serve as a counterterrorism force, so it’s possible he may not change anything when he takes office in January.
But if the smaller US presence emboldens the Taliban to ask for more in diplomatic talks with the Afghan government, or even attempt a forcible takeover of the Afghan government — as it did in 1996 — then the Biden administration might have to scramble to back its ally in Kabul. That could potentially lead the new president to escalate the war in the country, thereby turning much of his time and attention away from other projects to focus on an old one.


vox--2020-12-01--The battle over Trump’s huge UAE arms deal, explained

On Monday evening , members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee met for a classified briefing with Trump administration officials to hear about a proposed $ 23 billion weapons sale to the United Arab Emirates .
Right when it ended , one of the attendees blasted what had transpired behind closed doors .
“ Just a mind blowing number of unsettled issues and questions the Administration couldn ’ t answer , ” tweeted Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy .
“ Hard to overstate the danger of rushing this though.
” That remark underscored the growing political fight over the arms deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could severely impact America ’ s relations with its authoritarian ally and the military balance in the Middle East .
President Donald Trump wants to sell up to 50 F-35 fighter jets , nearly 20 Reaper drones , and around 14,000 bombs and munitions to the UAE — and he wants to do it before President-elect Joe Biden enters the Oval Office and potentially scuttles the sale .
The administration has explicitly linked the massive arms package to Trump ’ s broader efforts to counter Iran and to the UAE ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ This is in recognition of our deepening relationship and the UAE ’ s need for advanced defense capabilities to deter and defend itself against heightened threats from Iran , ” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement announcing his authorization of the sales .
“ The UAE ’ s historic agreement to normalize relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to positively transform the region ’ s strategic landscape.
” But some Republicans and Democrats in Congress , along with certain activist groups , oppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country responsible for killing civilians in Yemen and funding Russian mercenaries in Libya doesn ’ t deserve to be rewarded with even better US-made weapons .
“ To sell such advanced military equipment to the UAE now would be to endorse those policies and threaten US interests and regional stability , ” said Seth Binder , an advocacy officer at the Project on Middle East Democracy , who ’ s leading an effort by arms control organizations and human rights groups to stop the sale .
Which means the next 50 days before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tussle over one of Trump ’ s last major foreign policy initiatives , one he ’ s trying to ram through before the clock runs out .
“ This is happening way too fast , ” said Michael Hanna , a Middle East security expert at the Century Foundation in New York City .
“ Process is important , substance is important , and neither is good here.
” Why the UAE wants US-made weapons The UAE has long wanted advanced fighter jets and top-of-the-line drones , which would make it a greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — not just militarily , but politically , too .
“ We ’ re not talking about going to war here .
We ’ re talking about affecting change in the Middle East , ” said Dalia Fahmy , an expert on the UAE ’ s foreign policy at Long Island University .
“ The UAE is reasserting itself in the region .
It ’ s all about being able to leverage that perceived power.
” In other words , the UAE wants the world ’ s most advanced warplane , the F-35 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it could then throw its weight around in the Middle East .
That sounds fine in principle — after all , most nations seek to increase their power and influence whenever they can .
But one big question is how — and where — exactly the UAE may try to do that .
The sale is “ not helpful [ for the US ] if there is greater adventurism in Libya or the Horn of Africa , ” said a State Department official , who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak to press .
“ It ’ s maybe helpful in a theoretical multilateral framework ” against Iran .
Both Trump and Biden would certainly rather see the country use the weapons against Iran in case of a war and not , say , to bomb innocent men , women , and children in Yemen , where the UAE is fighting a war as part of a Saudi-led coalition .
Figuring out what assurances the US received from the UAE ahead of the sales took up much of Monday ’ s classified Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar with the discussion .
Murphy ’ s tweet made clear the answers senators received weren ’ t satisfactory — and now he and others are trying to stop the transfers from happening .
On November 18 , three senators — Democrats Murphy and Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Robert Menendez , along with Republican Rand Paul — introduced four joint resolutions to stop the UAE arms deal from happening .
“ Congress is once again stepping in to serve as a check to avoid putting profit over US national security and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent a new arms race in the Middle East , ” Menendez said in a statement at the time .
Those resolutions must be voted on and passed by December 11 or they will expire , clearing Trump ’ s pathway to the sale .
But whether or not the blocking effort works , the resolutions do help make clear the five main arguments against the deal .
The first , as mentioned above , is that the UAE could use the weapons indiscriminately , killing civilians in Yemen or elsewhere .
Without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen , the senators and activists don ’ t want the measure moving forward .
The second concern is that Israel could lose what ’ s called its “ qualitative military edge ” ( QME ) in the Middle East .
Simply put , US policy since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war has been to ensure that Israel has more powerful forces than its Arab neighbors .
Israel and others fear giving the UAE F-35s and drones might erode that advantage .
However , that issue “ has receded in importance ” more recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambassador to the UAE from 2014 to 2018 .
The main reason is that in October , Israel ’ s government dropped its objection to the F-35 transfers in particular , soon after the Pentagon promised Jerusalem its edge would remain intact .
“ It ’ s now more about the foreign policy dimensions of the proposed sale , ” Leaf told me .
Which brings us to the third objection : that the UAE having this advanced weaponry could change the balance of power in the Middle East , making the Gulf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regional player .
If that were the case , experts told me , the UAE might use its newfound strength to attack its enemies , namely Iran , on its own and back other proxies in the area .
But some aren ’ t so worried about that possibility .
“ This won ’ t change the military balance in the Middle East , ” said Leaf , now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in Washington , DC .
“ Iran ’ s missile and nonconventional arsenals are formidable and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UAE gets the F-35.
” The fourth concern is the potential for an arms race .
Basically , if the UAE gets a lot of advanced weapons , others — like Qatar and Iran , the UAE ’ s adversaries — might want them , too .
At that point , each country may continue to buy more and more weapons until the region becomes increasingly militarized and dangerous .
That ’ s an outcome many experts hope to avoid , although such a possibility remains far off .
The fifth worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through in a matter of months a deal that would normally take years to complete .
“ This is definitely being rushed through .
That ’ s abnormal and bad practice , ” said the Century Foundation ’ s Hanna .
What normally happens is that a deal is painstakingly worked out between the two parties first , then reviewed closely by the State Department and the Pentagon , and then long-term consultations with Congress begin .
One item up for debate would be the Israel issue , for example , which could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case , the Trump administration wants to go from an announcement in November to a sale before January 20 , the day Biden is sworn in as president .
That ’ s just unheard of , especially for an arms package of this size .
That ’ s why one Senate aide told me they don ’ t want to see the deal go through before “ they ’ ve dotted the i ’ s and crossed the t ’ s. ” Until then , the backlash against the deal is likely @ @ @

On Monday evening, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee met for a classified briefing with Trump administration officials to hear about a proposed $23 billion weapons sale to the United Arab Emirates. Right when it ended, one of the attendees blasted what had transpired behind closed doors.
“Just a mind blowing number of unsettled issues and questions the Administration couldn’t answer,” tweeted Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy. “Hard to overstate the danger of rushing this though.”
That remark underscored the growing political fight over the arms deal announced in early November, a standoff that could severely impact America’s relations with its authoritarian ally and the military balance in the Middle East.
President Donald Trump wants to sell up to 50 F-35 fighter jets, nearly 20 Reaper drones, and around 14,000 bombs and munitions to the UAE — and he wants to do it before President-elect Joe Biden enters the Oval Office and potentially scuttles the sale.
The administration has explicitly linked the massive arms package to Trump’s broader efforts to counter Iran and to the UAE’s normalization of relations with Israel in August.
“This is in recognition of our deepening relationship and the UAE’s need for advanced defense capabilities to deter and defend itself against heightened threats from Iran,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement announcing his authorization of the sales. “The UAE’s historic agreement to normalize relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to positively transform the region’s strategic landscape.”
But some Republicans and Democrats in Congress, along with certain activist groups, oppose the proposed weapons transfer, saying a country responsible for killing civilians in Yemen and funding Russian mercenaries in Libya doesn’t deserve to be rewarded with even better US-made weapons.
“To sell such advanced military equipment to the UAE now would be to endorse those policies and threaten US interests and regional stability,” said Seth Binder, an advocacy officer at the Project on Middle East Democracy, who’s leading an effort by arms control organizations and human rights groups to stop the sale.
Which means the next 50 days before Biden takes over will see a nasty tussle over one of Trump’s last major foreign policy initiatives, one he’s trying to ram through before the clock runs out.
“This is happening way too fast,” said Michael Hanna, a Middle East security expert at the Century Foundation in New York City. “Process is important, substance is important, and neither is good here.”
Why the UAE wants US-made weapons
The UAE has long wanted advanced fighter jets and top-of-the-line drones, which would make it a greater, more powerful player in the region — not just militarily, but politically, too.
“We’re not talking about going to war here. We’re talking about affecting change in the Middle East,” said Dalia Fahmy, an expert on the UAE’s foreign policy at Long Island University. “The UAE is reasserting itself in the region. It’s all about being able to leverage that perceived power.”
In other words, the UAE wants the world’s most advanced warplane, the F-35, and surveillance and attack drones because it could then throw its weight around in the Middle East. That sounds fine in principle — after all, most nations seek to increase their power and influence whenever they can. But one big question is how — and where — exactly the UAE may try to do that.
The sale is “not helpful [for the US] if there is greater adventurism in Libya or the Horn of Africa,” said a State Department official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak to press. “It’s maybe helpful in a theoretical multilateral framework” against Iran.
Both Trump and Biden would certainly rather see the country use the weapons against Iran in case of a war and not, say, to bomb innocent men, women, and children in Yemen, where the UAE is fighting a war as part of a Saudi-led coalition.
Figuring out what assurances the US received from the UAE ahead of the sales took up much of Monday’s classified Senate hearing, according to two Senate sources familiar with the discussion.
Murphy’s tweet made clear the answers senators received weren’t satisfactory — and now he and others are trying to stop the transfers from happening.
There’s a five-pronged case against the UAE arms deal
On November 18, three senators — Democrats Murphy and Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Robert Menendez, along with Republican Rand Paul — introduced four joint resolutions to stop the UAE arms deal from happening.
“Congress is once again stepping in to serve as a check to avoid putting profit over US national security and that of our allies, and to hopefully prevent a new arms race in the Middle East,” Menendez said in a statement at the time.
Those resolutions must be voted on and passed by December 11 or they will expire, clearing Trump’s pathway to the sale. But whether or not the blocking effort works, the resolutions do help make clear the five main arguments against the deal.
The first, as mentioned above, is that the UAE could use the weapons indiscriminately, killing civilians in Yemen or elsewhere. Without clear guarantees that that won’t happen, the senators and activists don’t want the measure moving forward.
The second concern is that Israel could lose what’s called its “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the Middle East. Simply put, US policy since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war has been to ensure that Israel has more powerful forces than its Arab neighbors. Israel and others fear giving the UAE F-35s and drones might erode that advantage.
However, that issue “has receded in importance” more recently, said Barbara Leaf, the US ambassador to the UAE from 2014 to 2018. The main reason is that in October, Israel’s government dropped its objection to the F-35 transfers in particular, soon after the Pentagon promised Jerusalem its edge would remain intact.
“It’s now more about the foreign policy dimensions of the proposed sale,” Leaf told me.
Which brings us to the third objection: that the UAE having this advanced weaponry could change the balance of power in the Middle East, making the Gulf country an even stronger, more influential regional player. If that were the case, experts told me, the UAE might use its newfound strength to attack its enemies, namely Iran, on its own and back other proxies in the area.
But some aren’t so worried about that possibility. “This won’t change the military balance in the Middle East,” said Leaf, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in Washington, DC. “Iran’s missile and nonconventional arsenals are formidable and could wreak immense damage, even if the UAE gets the F-35.”
The fourth concern is the potential for an arms race. Basically, if the UAE gets a lot of advanced weapons, others — like Qatar and Iran, the UAE’s adversaries — might want them, too. At that point, each country may continue to buy more and more weapons until the region becomes increasingly militarized and dangerous. That’s an outcome many experts hope to avoid, although such a possibility remains far off.
The fifth worry is that the Trump administration is ramming through in a matter of months a deal that would normally take years to complete. “This is definitely being rushed through. That’s abnormal and bad practice,” said the Century Foundation’s Hanna.
What normally happens is that a deal is painstakingly worked out between the two parties first, then reviewed closely by the State Department and the Pentagon, and then long-term consultations with Congress begin. One item up for debate would be the Israel issue, for example, which could take years to hash out.
In this case, the Trump administration wants to go from an announcement in November to a sale before January 20, the day Biden is sworn in as president. That’s just unheard of, especially for an arms package of this size.
That’s why one Senate aide told me they don’t want to see the deal go through before “they’ve dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s.”
Until then, the backlash against the deal is likely to persist.


vox--2020-12-01--A bipartisan group of senators wants to pass emergency Covid-19 relief

A bipartisan group of senators and members of the House unveiled a new $ 908 billion plan for emergency Covid-19 relief funding on Tuesday to extend unemployment benefits and small business loans .
The proposal comes after months of stalemate on stimulus talks , and during a critical time in the Covid-19 crisis .
About 14 million Americans receiving unemployment benefits will see those programs expire at the end of the month unless Congress takes action , and cities and states around the country are also facing massive budget shortfalls .
The plan , spearheaded by Sens .
Joe Manchin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R-ME ) and also supported by the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus , is designed to be a short-term extension of federal aid heading into a winter where Covid-19 cases are spiking again and unemployment claims are ticking up .
The funding would extend benefits until April 1 , around when many public health experts expect widespread distribution of a vaccine to be underway .
“ This is going to get us through the most difficult times , ” Manchin said at a Tuesday press conference announcing the framework .
The question going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the support of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
Multiple Senate votes for a “ skinny ” $ 500 billion stimulus bill backed by McConnell and Republicans have failed , with no Democratic support .
House Democrats , meanwhile , most recently passed a revised $ 2.2 trillion version of their HEROES Act in October .
“ We have not had assurances from them on that for a vote , but I think the American people will put [ on ] the pressure , ” Manchin told reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go home until we do something , so it ’ s up to them to work with us .
We want to work with them.
” No new coronavirus aid package is going to get through the Senate without bipartisan support , so the new plan is a signal that Republicans and Democrats are indeed talking .
Lawmakers supporting the plan emphasized on Tuesday that while each party is not going to get exactly what they want , their framework contains key points of agreement .
McConnell is circulating his own proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy met with White House officials on Tuesday to suss out what President Donald Trump wants to come out of a coronavirus relief deal .
McConnell ’ s version of an emergency package is more limited , providing just a one-month extension of unemployment benefits , rather than the three-month extension in the bipartisan proposal .
Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also sent McConnell a separate proposal on Monday night .
“ Additional COVID relief is long overdue and must be passed in this lame duck session @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday .
With the November election in the rear-view mirror and coronavirus cases spiking across the country , there could be new momentum behind getting a deal done .
But there ’ s still a long way to go , and Trump — who has proved the wild card for many a congressional deal — is still very much in the picture .
This new proposal is a $ 908 billion package that repurposes $ 560 billion in unused funds from the CARES Act , the $ 2.2 trillion stimulus package that passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposal adds only $ 348 billion in new spending .
It ’ s much smaller than the $ 2.2 trillion revised HEROES Act that House Democrats passed in October , but larger than the $ 500 billion Senate Republicans were proposing in October .
Two large sticking points in negotiations have been whether there should be another round of stimulus checks ( a priority for Pelosi and Trump ) and liability protections for businesses worried about being sued for exposing customers and workers to Covid-19 ( a priority of McConnell ’ s ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both of these issues ( at least in this initial proposal ) — stimulus checks are not included in this new bipartisan proposal and the framework provided by Sen. Manchin ’ s office notes that the proposal will “ provide short term Federal protection from Coronavirus related lawsuits with the purpose of giving states time to develop their own response.
” Both Pelosi and Trump have signaled support for another round of stimulus payments going out to working Americans .
Here ’ s what actually made it into the proposal : • $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tribal governments .
For context , US cities alone are facing a $ 360 billion shortfall and are being forced to pursue austerity measures to balance their budgets .
As Emily Stewart has reported for Vox , state budget shortfalls could exceed $ 500 billion .
In other words , this money could be a drop in the bucket .
State and local government woes have been lower on McConnell ’ s list of priorities — at one point he suggested that states declare bankruptcy .
• $ 180 billion in unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act gave unemployed Americans a weekly $ 600 lifeline on top of state unemployment insurance , a move widely regarded as staving off catastrophe for the millions of Americans who lost their jobs this year .
As Dylan Matthews has reported for Vox , research has shown that “ the average UI recipient is getting 134 percent of their previous salary , ” and it may have temporarily lowered the poverty rate .
This program expired in August , so any relief will be welcome for those still unemployed .
Congress originally estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 260 billion which the Tax Policy Center viewed as an underestimate , so it ’ s likely this extension wouldn ’ t cover the full cost of unemployed workers ’ needs .
The Washington Post reported that this amount would cover an additional $ 300 a week for four months .
• $ 288 billion in support for small businesses .
This support will partially come through the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans .
As Forbes has reported , an August 2020 survey from the US census @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses reported being negatively affected by Covid-19 .
• $ 25 billion in rental assistance .
Notably , the new bipartisan proposal only provides for $ 25 billion in rental assistance even as economists are predicting that tenants could owe nearly $ 70 billion in back rent by year ’ s end .
Vox has reported that policy experts and advocates have been pushing for $ 100 billion to be included in stimulus negotiations in order to prevent an eviction crisis that could impact as many as 40 million Americans .
The framework @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including airlines and Amtrak , $ 16 billion for vaccine development and more Covid-19 testing and tracing , $ 82 billion in federal education funding , $ 10 billion for the struggling US Postal Service , and $ 10 billion for child care , among other things .
“ This is emergency relief , this is designed to get us through this next quarter , ” Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) told reporters .
“ We know we have more to do , but ... we can not abandon the American people.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposal In the coming weeks , Collins , Manchin , and the others will have to reach out to a lot of senators to see if they can increase the support for the bill .
They ’ ll also have to do a lot of additional work to get McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on board .
Trump is still president until Biden is sworn in on January 20 , and McConnell told reporters he doesn ’ t want to pass anything that Trump won ’ t sign .
That said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have supported two very different numbers for stimulus relief .
McConnell repeatedly tried to pass a $ 500 billion package , while Trump voiced support for a package closer to $ 1.8 trillion .
McConnell ’ s version of an emergency package he sent to his Republican members on Tuesday contains no funding for state and local aid , no money for rental assistance , and provides just a one-month extension of unemployment benefits rather than the bipartisan proposal ’ s three-month extension .
McConnell ’ s bill contains $ 332.7 billion for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education funding , and $ 47 billion for vaccine distribution and testing and tracing .
While Schumer hasn ’ t explicitly endorsed the bipartisan bill , Manchin told reporters that the Senate minority leader has “ encouraged us to work on a bipartisan way on this agreement.
” Any emergency relief bill will need 60 votes to pass the Senate , and McConnell ’ s previous smaller bills have failed along party lines .
But Democrats are also wary of what Trump — still stinging over his election loss and refusing to concede @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stimulus package should it reach his desk .
Congressional and White House leaders may be talking , but there ’ s a long way to go in a short amount of time before a deal can be reached .

A bipartisan group of senators and members of the House unveiled a new $908 billion plan for emergency Covid-19 relief funding on Tuesday. Now, 24 hours later, there has been more movement on stimulus negotiations than in the past three months.
In a statement Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the framework — with extended unemployment benefits, state and local aid, and small business loans — should be “used as the basis for immediate bipartisan, bicameral negotiations” with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. (McConnell on Tuesday started circulating a counterproposal of his own among Republicans.)
“In the spirit of compromise we believe the bipartisan framework introduced by Senators yesterday should be used as the basis for immediate bipartisan, bicameral negotiations,” Pelosi and Schumer said. “Of course, we and others will offer improvements, but the need to act is immediate and we believe that with good-faith negotiations we could come to an agreement.”
The movement from Democrats is significant; it comes after months of stalemate on stimulus talks, and during a critical time in the Covid-19 crisis as the US sees another surge in cases heading into the winter. About 14 million Americans receiving unemployment benefits will see those programs expire at the end of the month unless Congress takes action, and cities and states around the country are also facing massive budget shortfalls.
The plan was spearheaded by Joe Manchin (D-WV), Susan Collins (R-ME), and other senators, and supported by the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus. It’s designed as a short-term extension of federal aid to see the public through the winter; the funding would extend benefits until April 1, when many public health experts expect distribution of a vaccine to be well underway.
“This is going to get us through the most difficult times,” Manchin said at a Tuesday press conference announcing the framework.
McConnell, too, has made moves after meeting with White House officials on Tuesday to suss out what President Donald Trump wants to come out of a coronavirus relief deal. Backed by the White House, McConnell’s version of an emergency package is more limited, providing just a one-month extension of unemployment benefits, rather than the three-month extension in the bipartisan proposal.
Pelosi and Schumer backing a cross-party plan isn’t the only significant change from past attempts at a deal. The plan is supported by a number of Republican senators, including Collins, Lisa Murkowski (AK), Mitt Romney (UT), and Bill Cassidy (LA), so it could weaken McConnell’s leverage in upcoming negotiations.
On Wednesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters that he and McConnell agree it would be “optimal” for leadership to wrap up negotiations on a relief package by the weekend, with the end goal being a bill on the floor by next Wednesday or Thursday.
“[McConnell] and I both agree that it would be optimal, if in fact we get to an agreement by the end of this weekend, get that agreement put on paper and memorialized so that we can consider it as early as Wednesday or Thursday of next week,” Hoyer said, adding, “I know that sounds very optimistic.”
With the November election in the rear-view mirror and coronavirus cases spiking across the country, there seems to be new momentum behind getting a deal done. But there’s still a long way to go, and Trump — who has proved the wild card for many a congressional deal — is still very much in the picture.
What’s in the bipartisan proposal
This new proposal is a $908 billion package that repurposes $560 billion in unused funds from the CARES Act, the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that passed in March, meaning that this new proposal adds only $348 billion in new spending. It’s much smaller than the $2.2 trillion revised HEROES Act that House Democrats passed in October, but larger than the $500 billion Senate Republicans were proposing in October.
Two large sticking points in negotiations have been whether there should be another round of stimulus checks (a priority for Pelosi and Trump) and liability protections for businesses worried about being sued for exposing customers and workers to Covid-19 (a priority of McConnell’s). Republicans came out on top on both of these issues (at least in this initial proposal) — stimulus checks are not included in this new bipartisan proposal and the framework provided by Sen. Manchin’s office notes that the proposal will “provide short term Federal protection from Coronavirus related lawsuits with the purpose of giving states time to develop their own response.”
Pelosi and Trump have signaled past support for another round of stimulus payments going out to working Americans. But both seem more interested in getting a narrower package approved, in the interest of timing and getting a bill passed quickly.
Here’s what made it into the bipartisan proposal:
$160 billion for state, local, and tribal governments. For context, US cities alone are facing a $360 billion shortfall and are being forced to pursue austerity measures to balance their budgets. As Emily Stewart has reported for Vox, state budget shortfalls could exceed $500 billion. In other words, this money could be a drop in the bucket. State and local government woes have been lower on McConnell’s list of priorities — at one point he suggested that states declare bankruptcy.
For context, US cities alone are facing a $360 billion shortfall and are being forced to pursue austerity measures to balance their budgets. As Emily Stewart has reported for Vox, state budget shortfalls could exceed $500 billion. In other words, this money could be a drop in the bucket. State and local government woes have been lower on McConnell’s list of priorities — at one point he suggested that states declare bankruptcy. $180 billion in unemployment insurance (UI). The CARES Act gave unemployed Americans a weekly $600 lifeline on top of state unemployment insurance, a move widely regarded as staving off catastrophe for the millions of Americans who lost their jobs this year. As Dylan Matthews has reported for Vox, research has shown that “the average UI recipient is getting 134 percent of their previous salary,” and it may have temporarily lowered the poverty rate.
This program expired in August, so any relief will be welcome for those still unemployed. Congress originally estimated that the UI program would cost $260 billion which the Tax Policy Center viewed as an underestimate, so it’s likely this extension wouldn’t cover the full cost of unemployed workers’ needs. The Washington Post reported that this amount would cover an additional $300 a week for four months.
$288 billion in support for small businesses. This support will partially come through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans. As Forbes has reported, an August 2020 survey from the US census showed that almost 79 percent of small businesses reported being negatively affected by Covid-19.
This support will partially come through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans. As Forbes has reported, an August 2020 survey from the US census showed that almost 79 percent of small businesses reported being negatively affected by Covid-19. $25 billion in rental assistance. Notably, the new bipartisan proposal only provides for $25 billion in rental assistance even as economists are predicting that tenants could owe nearly $70 billion in back rent by year’s end. Vox has reported that policy experts and advocates have been pushing for $100 billion to be included in stimulus negotiations in order to prevent an eviction crisis that could impact as many as 40 million Americans.
The framework also includes $45 billion for transportation including airlines and Amtrak, $16 billion for vaccine development and more Covid-19 testing and tracing, $82 billion in federal education funding, $10 billion for the struggling US Postal Service, and $10 billion for child care, among other things.
“This is emergency relief, this is designed to get us through this next quarter,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) told reporters. “We know we have more to do, but ... we cannot abandon the American people.”
What’s next for this proposal
With McConnell and the White House backing a skinnier Republican proposal, and Pelosi, Schumer, and the bipartisan group of lawmakers backing the $908 billion proposal, the real negotiations will begin.
McConnell’s version of an emergency package he sent to his Republican members on Tuesday contains no funding for state and local aid, no money for rental assistance, and provides just a one-month extension of unemployment benefits rather than the bipartisan proposal’s three-month extension. McConnell’s bill contains $332.7 billion for PPP loans, $100 billion for education funding, and $47 billion for vaccine distribution and testing and tracing. In the past, the Senate majority leader has capped his bills at $500 billion.
With Democrats coming down from their starting point of $2.2 trillion with the HEROES Act, it’s yet to be seen whether McConnell will also budge from his position. Even though the bipartisan group has more leverage in the Senate, Trump is still president until Biden is sworn in on January 20, and McConnell told reporters he doesn’t want to pass anything that Trump won’t sign.
In the coming weeks, Collins, Manchin, and the others will have to reach out to a lot of senators to see if they can increase the support for their plan. But Democrats are also wary of what Trump — still stinging over his election loss and refusing to concede to Biden — will do with a stimulus package should it reach his desk.
In short, congressional and White House leaders may be talking, but there’s a long way to go in a short amount of time before a final deal can be reached.


vox--2020-12-01--Want to help animals? Here’s where to donate your money.

If you care about animals and want to reduce their suffering , but aren ’ t sure exactly how , Animal Charity Evaluators has you covered .
The California-based nonprofit has released its annual list of top recommended animal charities .
Most of these charities focus on strategies that aim to improve conditions on factory farms — or to get around factory farming altogether by promoting the transition to a plant-based diet .
Concentrating on factory farms makes sense , because they are sites of suffering on a massive scale .
It ’ s not just the death that takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , factory farming kills about 9 billion land animals each year — but the suffering that animals are forced to endure while they ’ re alive .
Hens , calves , and pigs are often confined in spaces so small they can barely move , and conditions are so galling that “ ag-gag ” laws exist to hide the cruelty from the public .
When we hear about some of these conditions — like the fact that chickens are forced to produce eggs at such a fast rate that their intestines sometimes partially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may want to put a stop to them .
But it can be hard to know which charities will actually make good use of our dollars .
Animal Charity Evaluators ( ACE ) researches and promotes the most high-impact , effective ways to help animals .
The group uses three main criteria when deciding whether to recommend an organization , as my colleague Kelsey Piper previously explained : • Charities must be “ likely to produce the greatest gains for animals ” — that is , they ’ re doing high-impact work and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back it up .
• Charities must “ actively evaluate and improve their programs ” — they ’ re constantly trying to figure out the most effective way to advocate for animals ( which may change over time ) and adjusting their programming accordingly .
• Charities must “ have a demonstrated need for more funding ” — they actually need more money on hand in order to reach everyone they know how to reach ( which is not the case for every charity ) .
With this in mind , ACE has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 1 ) The Albert Schweitzer Foundation : This group does outreach to corporations to demand they use humanely raised products .
It also does legal work ; for example , it defended undercover investigators in a case in Germany .
It ’ s also one of the first animal charities starting to prioritize corporate outreach on behalf of farmed fish .
“ We believe that farmed fish advocacy can be particularly impactful , ” ACE writes , “ due to the large scale and neglectedness of farmed fish suffering.
” There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pain and that fish are more emotionally complex than you might think .
2 ) The Good Food Institute : This organization promotes the development of delicious plant-based alternatives to meat , dairy , and eggs .
( Think Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat . )
It offers business , legal , scientific , and strategic advice to plant-based companies , and advocates for regulations that won ’ t penalize their products in the consumer market .
In the long run , developing plant-based foods could prove very effective at weakening the animal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral arguments against factory farming .
“ There are few charities working in this area , and GFI has shown strong leadership and efficiency , ” ACE writes .
3 ) The Humane League : This organization runs successful campaigns urging corporations to adopt higher animal welfare standards .
It also conducts grassroots legislative advocacy .
Importantly , it has an evidence-driven outlook , collecting and using data to guide its approach , and testing news ways to improve its programs .
4 ) Wild Animal Initiative : A new entry this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year ’ s list ) , this group is doing something unique : researching and advocating for ways to help wild animals .
Instead of focusing on the welfare of animals in factory farms , it ’ s focused on the welfare of free-ranging animals from birds to raccoons to insects .
It studies questions like : Which animals are capable of subjective experiences ?
What is the quality of their lives like in the wild ?
How can we safely and sustainably help them ?
ACE also named some standout charities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work despite not making it into the top four — such as Anima International , which runs corporate campaigns , releases undercover investigations , organizes protests and conferences on animal advocacy , and pushes restaurants and food service companies to make plant-based options available .
If you donate to one of the charities above , you can be reasonably confident that your money will be used effectively to minimize animal suffering .
And if you ’ re not sure which of them you ’ d like to donate to , you can give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it up to ACE to distribute the money based on what their research suggests is most effective at the time .
Is it misguided to worry about animals when so many humans are suffering ?
Americans are increasingly concerned with animal welfare .
The incredibly rapid embrace of plant-based meat products like Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat is , in part , attributable to a growing sense that we can and should be inflicting far less suffering on animals .
A 2015 Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans said animals deserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — nearly one-third — expressed an even stronger pro-animal stance , saying they believe animals should get the same rights as people .
In 2008 , only 25 percent voiced that view .
It seems more and more Americans are coming to see animals as part of our moral circle , the imaginary boundary we draw around those we consider worthy of ethical consideration .
Some people , however , react to this with a bout of “ whataboutism ” : What about urgent human problems like the pandemic and poverty ?
Underlying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can ’ t afford to “ waste ” compassion on animal suffering , because every bit of caring we devote to that cause means we have less to devote to human suffering .
But as Vox ’ s Ezra Klein wrote , recent research from Harvard ’ s Yon Soo Park and Dartmouth ’ s Benjamin Valentino showed that concern for human suffering and concern for animal suffering is not zero-sum — in fact , where you find one , you tend to find the other : In one half of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data to see whether people who supported animal rights were likelier to support a variety of human rights , a test of whether abstract compassion is zero-sum .
Then they compared how strong animal treatment laws were in individual states to how strong laws were protecting human beings , a test of whether political activism is zero-sum .
The answer , in both cases , is that compassion seems to beget compassion .
People who strongly favored government help for the sick “ were over 80 percent more likely to support animal rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the authors write .
The finding held even after controlling for factors like political ideology .
Support for animal rights was also correlated — though the size of the effect was smaller — with support for LGBT individuals , racial and ethnic minorities , unauthorized immigrants , and low-income people .
Similarly , states that did the most to protect animal rights also did the most to protect and expand human rights .
States with strong laws protecting LGBT residents , strong protections against hate crimes , and inclusive policies for undocumented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections for animals .
The question of why these correlations exist is up for debate , but the bottom line is that we ’ d better hope our society takes action on animal suffering : If it does , we ’ re more likely to see it taking action on human suffering , too .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter .
Twice a week , you ’ ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges : improving public health , decreasing human and animal suffering , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put it simply — getting better at doing good .

If you care about animals and want to reduce their suffering, but aren’t sure exactly how, Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) is an organization that might be able to help. The California-based nonprofit puts out an annual guide for recommended animal charities, and it just released its list for this year. (Disclosure: ACE helped fund some of Future Perfect’s work in 2020 and 2021.)
Most of the top charities focus on improving conditions on factory farms — which makes sense, given that they’re sites of suffering on a massive scale. It’s not just the death that takes place there — in the US, factory farming kills about 10 billion land animals each year — but the suffering that animals are forced to endure while they’re alive. Hens, calves, and pigs are often confined in spaces so small they can barely move, and conditions are so galling that “ag-gag” laws exist to hide the cruelty from the public.
Sign up for the Meat/Less newsletter course Want to eat less meat but don’t know where to start? Sign up for Vox’s five-day newsletter full of practical tips — and food for thought — to incorporate more plant-based food into your diet.
When we hear about some of these conditions — like the fact that chickens are forced to produce eggs at such a fast rate that their intestines sometimes partially fall out under the strain — we may want to put a stop to them. But it can be hard to know which charities will actually make good use of our dollars.
ACE researches and promotes the most high-impact, effective ways to help animals. The group uses three main criteria when deciding whether to recommend an organization, as my colleague Kelsey Piper previously explained:
Charities must be “likely to produce the greatest gains for animals” — that is, they’re doing high-impact work and they’ve got the evidence to back it up.
Charities must “actively evaluate and improve their programs” — they’re constantly trying to figure out the most effective way to advocate for animals (which may change over time) and adjusting their programming accordingly.
Charities must “have a demonstrated need for more funding” — they actually need more money on hand in order to reach everyone they know how to reach (which is not the case for every charity).
With this in mind, ACE has selected its four top charities of 2022:
1) The Good Food Institute: This organization works to make alternative proteins (think plant-based burgers or cell-cultured meat) competitive with conventional proteins like beef, which could help reduce livestock consumption. It engages in scientific research, industry partnerships, and government advocacy that improves the odds of alternative proteins going mainstream.
The charity evaluator Giving Green also recommends this organization as one of the best climate charities of 2022, so if you want to donate to helping the climate as well as helping animals, here’s your two-for-one deal.
2) Faunalytics: This US-based nonprofit is a bit meta in its approach to animal advocacy: It conducts and publishes independent research, mostly related to farmed animals, in an effort to make other animal advocates more impactful and evidence-based.
For example, it examines social psychology data on how to influence public opinion about animals in a way that actually leads to behavior change. ACE notes that advocacy research is a neglected intervention, writing, “Faunalytics’ programs support the animal advocacy movement by examining effective advocacy strategies, problem areas, and tactics, and by providing advocates with a curated database of academic research summaries.”
3) The Humane League: Founded in 2005, this organization operates in the US, Mexico, the UK, and Japan. It runs successful campaigns urging corporations to adopt higher animal welfare standards. It has worked to end the use of battery cages internationally and improve conditions for chickens raised for meat. It also conducts grassroots legislative advocacy. Importantly, The Humane League has an evidence-driven outlook, collecting and using data to guide its approach, and testing new ways to improve its programs.
4) Wild Animal Initiative: As my colleague Dylan Matthews has documented, this group is doing something unique: researching and advocating for ways to help wild animals. Instead of focusing on the welfare of animals in factory farms, it’s focused on the welfare of free-ranging animals from birds to raccoons to insects. It studies questions like: Which animals are capable of subjective experiences? What is the quality of their lives like in the wild? How can we safely and sustainably help them?
ACE also named some standout charities — organizations it says are doing good work despite not making it into the top four — such as xiaobuVEGAN, a Chinese organization that aims to reduce the suffering of farmed animals and increase the availability of animal-free products in China, and the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organizations, which pursues similar goals in India. It’s nice to see such non-US-based groups highlighted given that, as Marc Gunther explained in Vox, the vast majority of farmed animals are outside of the US and EU.
If you donate to one of the charities above, you can be reasonably confident that your money will be used effectively to minimize animal suffering. And if you’re not sure which of them you’d like to donate to, you can give to the Recommended Charity Fund and leave it up to ACE to distribute the money based on what their research suggests is most effective at the time.
Is it misguided to worry about animals when so many humans are suffering?
Americans are increasingly concerned with animal welfare. The incredibly rapid embrace of plant-based meat products like Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat is, in part, attributable to a growing sense that we can and should be inflicting far less suffering on animals.
A 2015 Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans said animals deserve some legal protections. Another 32 percent — nearly one-third — expressed an even stronger pro-animal stance, saying they believe animals should get the same rights as people. In 2008, only 25 percent voiced that view.
It seems more and more Americans are coming to see animals as part of our moral circle, the imaginary boundary we draw around those we consider worthy of ethical consideration.
Some people, however, react to this with a bout of “whataboutism”: What about urgent human problems like poverty? Underlying this objection is typically a sense that we can’t afford to “waste” compassion on animal suffering, because every bit of caring we devote to that cause means we have less to devote to human suffering.
But as Ezra Klein wrote, research from Harvard’s Yon Soo Park and Dartmouth’s Benjamin Valentino showed that concern for human suffering and concern for animal suffering is not zero-sum — in fact, where you find one, you tend to find the other:
In one half of the study, they used General Social Survey data to see whether people who supported animal rights were likelier to support a variety of human rights, a test of whether abstract compassion is zero-sum. Then they compared how strong animal treatment laws were in individual states to how strong laws were protecting human beings, a test of whether political activism is zero-sum. The answer, in both cases, is that compassion seems to beget compassion. People who strongly favored government help for the sick “were over 80 percent more likely to support animal rights than those who strongly opposed it,” the authors write. The finding held even after controlling for factors like political ideology. Support for animal rights was also correlated — though the size of the effect was smaller — with support for LGBT individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, unauthorized immigrants, and low-income people. Similarly, states that did the most to protect animal rights also did the most to protect and expand human rights. States with strong laws protecting LGBT residents, strong protections against hate crimes, and inclusive policies for undocumented immigrants were much likelier to have strong protections for animals.
The question of why these correlations exist is up for debate, but the bottom line is that we’d better hope our society takes action on animal suffering: If it does, we’re more likely to see it taking action on human suffering, too.
Update, November 29, 2022: This story was originally published in 2019 and has been updated for 2022.
Correction, November 29: This story now reflects the dates Animal Charity Evaluators funded some of Future Perfect’s work. It was in 2020, 2021, and 2022.


vox--2020-12-01--The 12 Days of Christmas: The story behind the holiday’s most annoying carol

It might seem unbelievable given that the “ Christmas creep ” now begins before Halloween , but the true Christmas season actually starts on Christmas Day itself .
That ’ s right : December 25 marks the official start of the 12 days of Christmas , the Christian tradition that shares its name with a relentlessly stick-in-your-head Christmas carol .
Here are a few things you may not know about the song and the season .
What are the 12 days of Christmas ?
The 12 days of Christmas is the period in Christian theology that marks the span between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Magi , the three wise men .
It begins on December 25 ( Christmas ) and runs through January 6 ( the Epiphany , sometimes also called Three Kings ’ Day ) .
The four weeks preceding Christmas are collectively known as Advent , which begins four Sundays before Christmas and ends on December 24 .
Some families choose to mark the 12-day period by observing the feast days of various saints ( including St. Stephen on December 26 ) and planning daily Christmas-related activities , but for many , things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December 25 .
“ The 12 Days of Christmas ” is also a Christmas carol in which the singer brags about all the cool gifts they received from their “ true love ” during the 12 days of Christmas .
Each verse builds on the previous one , serving as a really effective way to annoy family members on road trips .
The lyrics to “ The 12 Days of Christmas ” have changed over the years The version most people are familiar with today begins with this verse : The song then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building on the verse before it , until you ’ re reciting all 12 gifts together : The history of the carol is somewhat murky .
The earliest known version first appeared in a 1780 children ’ s book called Mirth With-out Mischief .
( A first edition of that book sold for $ 23,750 at a Sotheby ’ s auction in 2014 , but you can also buy a digital copy on Amazon . )
Some historians think the song could be French in origin , but most agree it was designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game , in which singers tested their recall of the lyrics and had to award their opponents a “ forfeit ” — a kiss or a favor of some kind — if they made a mistake .
Many variations of the lyrics have existed at different points .
Some mention “ bears a-baiting ” or “ ships a-sailing ” ; some name the singer ’ s mother as the gift giver instead of their true love .
Early versions list four “ colly ” birds , an archaic term meaning black as coal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And some people theorize that the five gold rings actually refer to the markings of a ring-necked pheasant , which would align with the bird motif of the early verses .
In any case , the song most of us are familiar with today comes from an English composer named Frederic Austin ; in 1909 , he set the melody and lyrics ( including changing “ colly ” to “ calling ” ) and added as his own flourish the drawn-out cadence of “ five go-old rings.
” The song is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory that ’ s made the internet rounds is that the lyrics to “ The 12 Days of Christmas ” are coded references to Christianity ; it posits that the song was written to help Christians learn and pass on the tenets of their faith while avoiding persecution .
Under that theory , the various gifts break down as follows , as the myth-debunking website Snopes explained : The partridge in the pear tree , naturally , represents Jesus Christ .
This theory seems tailor-made for circulation via chain emails , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Snopes has a great explanation of the many , many holes in its logic .
The most egregious : First , the song ’ s gifts have nothing to do with their Christian “ equivalents , ” so the song is basically useless as a way to remember key pillars of the faith .
And second , if Christians were so restricted from practicing their faith that they had to conceal messages in a song , they also wouldn ’ t be able to celebrate Christmas in the first place — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late historian William Studwell , known for his Christmas carol expertise , also refuted the coded message idea .
As he told the Religion News Service in 2008 : Sorry to spoil your dinner party fun fact ; while I ’ m at it , I might as well tell you “ Ring Around the Rosie ” isn ’ t about the Black Plague , either .
Giving someone all the gifts in the song would be ... pricey To calculate the cost of all the gifts in “ The 12 Days of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the PNC financial services group ’ s annual Christmas Price Index , which PNC has been putting out since 1984 ( and which occasionally makes its way into school lesson plans ) .
The index calculates the cost of all the gifts in the song based on current market rates ; the total for 2019 , the most recent year for which numbers are available , comes to a hefty $ 38,993.59 , or $ 170,298.03 if you count each mention of an item separately ( which would amount to 364 gifts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 0.2 percent from 2018 .
The takeaway : Swans are damn expensive ( at $ 1,875 each , or $ 13,125 for all seven ) but at least stayed the same price as 2018 , while the cost of the five gold rings ( $ 825 total ) increased 10 percent .
No matter the cost , though , actually giving someone all this stuff is probably not a great idea ; just think of all the bird poo .
Are there any other versions of “ The 12 Days of Christmas ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Days of Christmas ” lends itself easily to parodies , of which there have been many .
There ’ s Jeff Foxworthy ’ s redneck version , Twisted Sister ’ s heavy metal take , and , of course , a Muppets version ( featuring John Denver ) : There ’ s also a 12 Days of Christmas diet of sorts , which the Atlantic ’ s Olga Khazan attempted in 2013 .
She calculated the calories in a serving of each bird mentioned in the song and offset them with the calories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , leaping , etc. )
.
Turns out all that poultry is somehow less indulgent than the typical American holiday meal .
She sums up : It seems even more reasonable , relatively speaking , when you consider that if you wanted to burn off your meal by just singing its namesake tune , you ’ d have to make it all the way through roughly 300 times — about 17.5 hours of caroling .
And that ’ s a gift we doubt anyone would welcome .

It might seem unbelievable given that the “Christmas creep” now begins before Halloween, but the true Christmas season actually starts on Christmas Day itself. That’s right: December 25 marks the official start of the 12 days of Christmas, the Christian tradition that shares its name with a relentlessly stick-in-your-head Christmas carol.
Here are a few things you may not know about the song and the season.
What are the 12 days of Christmas?
The 12 days of Christmas is the period in Christian theology that marks the span between the birth of Christ and the coming of the Magi, the three wise men. It begins on December 25 (Christmas) and runs through January 6 (the Epiphany, sometimes also called Three Kings’ Day). The four weeks preceding Christmas are collectively known as Advent, which begins four Sundays before Christmas and ends on December 24.
Some families choose to mark the 12-day period by observing the feast days of various saints (including St. Stephen on December 26) and planning daily Christmas-related activities, but for many, things go back to business as usual after December 25.
“The 12 Days of Christmas” is also a Christmas carol in which the singer brags about all the cool gifts they received from their “true love” during the 12 days of Christmas. Each verse builds on the previous one, serving as a really effective way to annoy family members on road trips.
The lyrics to “The 12 Days of Christmas” have changed over the years
The version most people are familiar with today begins with this verse:
On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a partridge in a pear tree.
The song then adds a gift for each day, building on the verse before it, until you’re reciting all 12 gifts together:
Day 2: two turtle doves
Day 3: three French hens
Day 4: four calling birds
Day 5: five gold rings
Day 6: six geese a-laying
Day 7: seven swans a-swimming
Day 8: eight maids a-milking
Day 9: nine ladies dancing
Day 10: 10 lords a-leaping
Day 11: 11 pipers piping
Day 12: 12 drummers drumming
The history of the carol is somewhat murky. The earliest known version first appeared in a 1780 children’s book called Mirth With-out Mischief. (A first edition of that book sold for $23,750 at a Sotheby’s auction in 2014, but you can also buy a digital copy on Amazon.) Some historians think the song could be French in origin, but most agree it was designed as a “memory and forfeits” game, in which singers tested their recall of the lyrics and had to award their opponents a “forfeit” — a kiss or a favor of some kind — if they made a mistake.
Many variations of the lyrics have existed at different points. Some mention “bears a-baiting” or “ships a-sailing”; some name the singer’s mother as the gift giver instead of their true love. Early versions list four “colly” birds, an archaic term meaning black as coal (blackbirds, in other words). And some people theorize that the five gold rings actually refer to the markings of a ring-necked pheasant, which would align with the bird motif of the early verses.
In any case, the song most of us are familiar with today comes from an English composer named Frederic Austin; in 1909, he set the melody and lyrics (including changing “colly” to “calling”) and added as his own flourish, the drawn-out cadence of “five go-old rings.”
The song is not a coded primer on Christianity
A popular theory that’s made the internet rounds is that the lyrics to “The 12 Days of Christmas” are coded references to Christianity; it posits that the song was written to help Christians learn and pass on the tenets of their faith while avoiding persecution. Under that theory, the various gifts break down as follows, as the myth-debunking website Snopes explained:
2 Turtle Doves = The Old and New Testaments 3 French Hens = Faith, Hope and Charity, the Theological Virtues 4 Calling Birds = the Four Gospels and/or the Four Evangelists 5 Golden Rings = The first Five Books of the Old Testament, the “Pentateuch,” which gives the history of man’s fall from grace 6 Geese A-laying = the six days of creation 7 Swans A-swimming = the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the seven sacraments 8 Maids A-milking = the eight beatitudes 9 Ladies Dancing = the nine Fruits of the Holy Spirit 10 Lords A-leaping = the Ten Commandments 11 Pipers Piping = the 11 faithful apostles 12 Drummers Drumming = the 12 points of doctrine in the Apostle’s Creed
The partridge in the pear tree, naturally, represents Jesus Christ.
This theory seems tailor-made for circulation via chain emails, but it actually makes little sense once you examine it. Snopes has a great explanation of the many, many holes in its logic. The most egregious: First, the song’s gifts have nothing to do with their Christian “equivalents,” so the song is basically useless as a way to remember key pillars of the faith. And second, if Christians were so restricted from practicing their faith that they had to conceal messages in a song, they also wouldn’t be able to celebrate Christmas in the first place — much less sing Christmas carols.
The late historian William Studwell, known for his Christmas carol expertise, also refuted the coded message idea. As he told the Religion News Service in 2008:
This was not originally a Catholic song, no matter what you hear on the Internet. … Neutral reference books say this is nonsense. If there was such a catechism device, a secret code, it was derived from the original secular song. It’s a derivative, not the source.
Sorry to spoil your dinner party fun fact; while I’m at it, I might as well tell you “Ring Around the Rosie” isn’t about the Black Plague, either.
Giving someone all the gifts in the song would be ... pricey
To calculate the cost of all the gifts in “The 12 Days of Christmas,” I’ll turn to the PNC financial services group’s annual Christmas Price Index, which PNC has been putting out since 1984; it calculates the cost of all the gifts in the song based on current market rates. Given the current pace of inflation, this smorgasbord of gift-giving is extra-costly this year: The total for 2022 comes to a whopping $45,523.27, up 10.5 percent from 2021 prices, or $197,071.09 if you count each mention of an item separately (which would amount to 364 gifts in all) — a 9.8 percent increase from last year.
The rising price of items like gold and fertilizer means those five rings ($1,245, a 39 percent increase) and the infamous partridge in a pear tree ($280.18, up nearly 26 percent) are costlier than ever. Some things haven’t changed at all, though — as the index points out, the federal minimum wage hasn’t increased since 2009, meaning the rate for eight maids a-milking is holding steady at a relative steal of $58.
No matter the cost, though, actually giving someone all this stuff is probably not a great idea; just think of all the bird poo.
Are there any other versions of “The 12 Days of Christmas”?
The structure of “The 12 Days of Christmas” lends itself easily to parodies, of which there have been many. There’s Jeff Foxworthy’s redneck version, Twisted Sister’s heavy metal take, and, of course, a Muppets version (featuring John Denver):
Others have attempted to interpret the 12 Days of Christmas via food, with dishes like deviled eggs representing geese a-laying and so on. Then there’s the “12 Days of Christmas diet,” which the Atlantic’s Olga Khazan attempted in 2013. She calculated the calories in a serving of each bird mentioned in the song and offset them with the calories burned by the various activities (milking, leaping, etc.). Turns out all that poultry is somehow less indulgent than the typical American holiday meal. She sums up:
If you ate all of the birds in one day, including the pheasant pie, but not including all the trimmings for the other dishes, and subtracted the energy you expended milking, dancing, leaping, and drumming, you’d have consumed 2,384 net calories. That’s really not bad, considering the average American Thanksgiving dinner adds up to about 4,500 calories.
It seems even more reasonable, relatively speaking, when you consider that if you wanted to burn off your meal by just singing its namesake tune, you’d have to make it all the way through the song roughly 300 times — about 17.5 hours of caroling. And that’s a gift I doubt anyone would welcome.
Update, December 1, 2022, 11:05 am: This story, originally published in 2020, has been updated with the 2022 numbers from PNC’s Christmas Price Index.