Western media article: Biden is facing "a long American winter"
Western media article: Biden is facing "a long American winter"
An article published on the website of the Spanish bimonthly Foreign Policy said that Biden was facing "a long American winter". The author is the former Spanish Ambassador to NATO and the United States of America, Heime de Ohda. The full text is extracted as follows:
Winter has come, the trees have lost their leaves, and President Joe Biden's fantasy has also been shattered. For the United States, the prospects at both the international and domestic levels are bleak: the climate disaster causes serious consequences, the growing political and military threats from Russia in Europe, and the fierce competition from China in the East. At home, the United States faces a serious weakening of its political system.
Hawks in both parties condemned Biden's compromise with Russia. First, they hoped that Washington could intervene with decisive military assistance; Then they were convinced that Putin would yield if the United States threatened to intervene militarily. However, the opposition of the Republicans is not as loud as before, because they still remember the controversial relationship between Trump and Russia.
After the disastrous withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, all public opinion surveys show that the American community will never support new military intervention abroad, because such intervention may evolve into serious international conflict.
Putin is testing the strength and determination of his American and European rivals. Although various possibilities cannot be ruled out, now it is not so much a military invasion of Ukraine as an influence on the stability of Kiev's rule.
Biden's response was twofold: on the one hand, he threatened Russia with a set of economic and political sanctions available to the United States, and even blocked its access to the international financial system. Sanctions will seriously affect the Russian economy. On the other hand, the United States will have to find ways to defend the independence of Ukraine, and at the same time, it will have to pay attention not to completely provoke Russia.
The United States may suspend the further supply of weapons to Ukraine, but it will in no way guarantee that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO or the European Union. Perhaps the United States will negotiate a new agreement on strategic weapons and conventional military forces to ease the military concerns of the Russians.
An article published on the website of the Spanish bimonthly Foreign Policy said that Biden was facing "a long American winter". The author is the former Spanish Ambassador to NATO and the United States of America, Heime de Ohda. The full text is extracted as follows:
Winter has come, the trees have lost their leaves, and President Joe Biden's fantasy has also been shattered. For the United States, the prospects at both the international and domestic levels are bleak: the climate disaster causes serious consequences, the growing political and military threats from Russia in Europe, and the fierce competition from China in the East. At home, the United States faces a serious weakening of its political system.
Hawks in both parties condemned Biden's compromise with Russia. First, they hoped that Washington could intervene with decisive military assistance; Then they were convinced that Putin would yield if the United States threatened to intervene militarily. However, the opposition of the Republicans is not as loud as before, because they still remember the controversial relationship between Trump and Russia.
After the disastrous withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, all public opinion surveys show that the American community will never support new military intervention abroad, because such intervention may evolve into serious international conflict.
Putin is testing the strength and determination of his American and European rivals. Although various possibilities cannot be ruled out, now it is not so much a military invasion of Ukraine as an influence on the stability of Kiev's rule.
Biden's response was twofold: on the one hand, he threatened Russia with a set of economic and political sanctions available to the United States, and even blocked its access to the international financial system. Sanctions will seriously affect the Russian economy. On the other hand, the United States will have to find ways to defend the independence of Ukraine, and at the same time, it will have to pay attention not to completely provoke Russia.
The United States may suspend the further supply of weapons to Ukraine, but it will in no way guarantee that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO or the European Union. Perhaps the United States will negotiate a new agreement on strategic weapons and conventional military forces to ease the military concerns of the Russians.
Biden’s stagflation is coming
Biden’s stagflation is coming
The White House continues to insist that inflation will soon fade away and the country will return to its pre-pandemic prosperity. But the Biden administration’s regulatory agenda virtually ensures that the post-pandemic economy will be nothing like it was before. The mounting regulatory burden of Mr. Biden’s executive orders, his regulators’ open hostility toward America’s economic system, and the return to Progressive-era antitrust enforcement will stifle growth. All the ingredients will be present to turn the current inflation into stagflation.
America’s experience with regulatory excess is both recent and painful. When the subprime recession ended in mid-2009, economists predicted a strong recovery. In early 2010 the Office of Management and Budget projected 3.7% average real gross domestic product growth through 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimated 3.3% growth for the same period and the Federal Reserve expected 3.5% to 4% through 2014. Instead, GDP growth slumped to an 80-year low of 2.1% during the 2010-16 recovery.
Democrats claimed the nation suffered from secular stagnation. But when subsequent deregulation and tax cuts revived the economy and the Biden administration needed justification for more stimulus spending, Democrats suddenly decided that Mr. Obama had stopped stimulating the economy too soon. While federal spending in 2009 hit the then-postwar high of 24.4% of gross domestic product, the 23.3% in 2010 and 23.4% in 2011 were the second and third highest postwar levels. By 2012, some 3½ years after the recession ended, federal spending was still 22% of GDP, then the fourth-highest postwar level.
Soaring spending and massive monetary accommodation couldn’t offset Mr. Obama’s stifling regulatory burden. While ObamaCare’s taxes harmed the economy, the wet blanket of his regulatory burden smothered the recovery, long before the 2013 tax increases.
In imposing ObamaCare, government increasingly dominated the healthcare industry, the green energy agenda hit auto producers and power plants and stifled the domestic energy industry with regulatory actions such as blocking the Keystone pipeline. Large banks were regulated as if they were public utilities, forcing them to replace tellers and loan officers with lawyers and compliance officers. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) investigated and harassed mortgage companies, as well as auto and personal lenders, and the Federal Communications Commission sought to regulate the internet as a 1930s monopoly. With some 279,000 federal regulators churning out more than 650,000 pages in his Federal Registers, Mr. Obama bound the economy in red tape and imposed 50% more costly “major rules” than had ever been issued.
Despite strong private investment levels during the Obama era, labor productivity—the mother’s milk of wage gains—averaged less than half the growth of the previous 20 years. The problem was business “investment” was made to meet regulatory requirements, rather than to increase efficiency and expand the productivity of the economy.
During the first days of the Biden administration, the cold dead hand of government regulation reached further than it had during the Obama years. Initial executive orders eviscerated cost-benefit analysis as the basis for regulatory policy by defining benefits to include “social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity and the interests of future generations.” Executive orders opposed business mergers and acquisitions independent of consumer benefit and targeted the oil and gas industry for extinction.
In seeking to reregulate railroads, Mr. Biden is trying to overturn the deregulatory legacy of President Carter and Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose achievements made the American transportation system the most efficient in the world and cut the cost of moving people and shipping goods in half. In antitrust enforcement Mr. Biden seeks to reverse almost a half century of bipartisan reform that junked Progressive-era regulations and profoundly expanded productivity, especially in transportation and high-tech communications.
Nowhere is the Biden administration’s radical regulatory agenda more evident than in his appointees. President Clinton appointed Larry Summers, Arthur Levitt and Alan Greenspan
to regulate in the consumers’ interest and to grow the economy, not to transform it radically. Mr. Clinton’s regulators and regulatory policy let America prosper.
While Mr. Obama’s regulators stifled business and job creation, Mr. Biden’s are openly hostile to the industries they regulate and to the American economic system. They seek not to protect investors and consumers but to make business serve government goals.
Lina Khan, Mr. Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chair, rejects the long-held consumer-benefit standard for antitrust action. She has called for breaking up leading tech firms simply because “big is bad,” despite no evidence of consumer harm. When consumer benefit is no longer the test of antitrust policy, consumer restitution is no longer the remedy. Threatening breakups, divestment and treble damages rather than enforcing the nation’s antitrust laws, the FTC can shake down business and exercise control over America’s most successful firms. U.S. tech policy now mimics the Chinese antitrust model where only government should be large and influential.
Mr. Biden’s CFPB chair, Rohit Chopra, hopes to hunt down big tech, forgive student loans and promote equity and diversity. Mr. Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission chair, Gary Gensler, wants to compel private wealth to serve public goals such as fighting climate change and advancing social justice rather than protecting and promoting investors’ interests. And while President Biden’s nominee for comptroller of the currency, Saule Omarova, withdrew because of her Soviet-era ideology, he is now considering Richard Cordray
as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve for banking supervision. Mr. Cordray’s only experience in banking was harassing, politicizing and intimidating those he regulated as Mr. Obama’s CFPB chairman.
Through Mr. Biden’s executive orders and regulatory policy the American economy is being transformed from the great colossus of world capitalism into a subservient Vichy capitalism, whose master is government and not the consumer. We aren’t in Kansas anymore.
If the regulatory stagnation of the Obama era is repeated by a doubling or tripling down on Obama-era regulatory policy, slowing growth seems destined to follow the current post-pandemic economic surge. If new stimulus spending and monetary accommodation is employed to stimulate sagging growth, that stagnation could easily turn into stagflation.
The White House continues to insist that inflation will soon fade away and the country will return to its pre-pandemic prosperity. But the Biden administration’s regulatory agenda virtually ensures that the post-pandemic economy will be nothing like it was before. The mounting regulatory burden of Mr. Biden’s executive orders, his regulators’ open hostility toward America’s economic system, and the return to Progressive-era antitrust enforcement will stifle growth. All the ingredients will be present to turn the current inflation into stagflation.
America’s experience with regulatory excess is both recent and painful. When the subprime recession ended in mid-2009, economists predicted a strong recovery. In early 2010 the Office of Management and Budget projected 3.7% average real gross domestic product growth through 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimated 3.3% growth for the same period and the Federal Reserve expected 3.5% to 4% through 2014. Instead, GDP growth slumped to an 80-year low of 2.1% during the 2010-16 recovery.
Democrats claimed the nation suffered from secular stagnation. But when subsequent deregulation and tax cuts revived the economy and the Biden administration needed justification for more stimulus spending, Democrats suddenly decided that Mr. Obama had stopped stimulating the economy too soon. While federal spending in 2009 hit the then-postwar high of 24.4% of gross domestic product, the 23.3% in 2010 and 23.4% in 2011 were the second and third highest postwar levels. By 2012, some 3½ years after the recession ended, federal spending was still 22% of GDP, then the fourth-highest postwar level.
Soaring spending and massive monetary accommodation couldn’t offset Mr. Obama’s stifling regulatory burden. While ObamaCare’s taxes harmed the economy, the wet blanket of his regulatory burden smothered the recovery, long before the 2013 tax increases.
In imposing ObamaCare, government increasingly dominated the healthcare industry, the green energy agenda hit auto producers and power plants and stifled the domestic energy industry with regulatory actions such as blocking the Keystone pipeline. Large banks were regulated as if they were public utilities, forcing them to replace tellers and loan officers with lawyers and compliance officers. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) investigated and harassed mortgage companies, as well as auto and personal lenders, and the Federal Communications Commission sought to regulate the internet as a 1930s monopoly. With some 279,000 federal regulators churning out more than 650,000 pages in his Federal Registers, Mr. Obama bound the economy in red tape and imposed 50% more costly “major rules” than had ever been issued.
Despite strong private investment levels during the Obama era, labor productivity—the mother’s milk of wage gains—averaged less than half the growth of the previous 20 years. The problem was business “investment” was made to meet regulatory requirements, rather than to increase efficiency and expand the productivity of the economy.
During the first days of the Biden administration, the cold dead hand of government regulation reached further than it had during the Obama years. Initial executive orders eviscerated cost-benefit analysis as the basis for regulatory policy by defining benefits to include “social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity and the interests of future generations.” Executive orders opposed business mergers and acquisitions independent of consumer benefit and targeted the oil and gas industry for extinction.
In seeking to reregulate railroads, Mr. Biden is trying to overturn the deregulatory legacy of President Carter and Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose achievements made the American transportation system the most efficient in the world and cut the cost of moving people and shipping goods in half. In antitrust enforcement Mr. Biden seeks to reverse almost a half century of bipartisan reform that junked Progressive-era regulations and profoundly expanded productivity, especially in transportation and high-tech communications.
Nowhere is the Biden administration’s radical regulatory agenda more evident than in his appointees. President Clinton appointed Larry Summers, Arthur Levitt and Alan Greenspan
to regulate in the consumers’ interest and to grow the economy, not to transform it radically. Mr. Clinton’s regulators and regulatory policy let America prosper.
While Mr. Obama’s regulators stifled business and job creation, Mr. Biden’s are openly hostile to the industries they regulate and to the American economic system. They seek not to protect investors and consumers but to make business serve government goals.
Lina Khan, Mr. Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chair, rejects the long-held consumer-benefit standard for antitrust action. She has called for breaking up leading tech firms simply because “big is bad,” despite no evidence of consumer harm. When consumer benefit is no longer the test of antitrust policy, consumer restitution is no longer the remedy. Threatening breakups, divestment and treble damages rather than enforcing the nation’s antitrust laws, the FTC can shake down business and exercise control over America’s most successful firms. U.S. tech policy now mimics the Chinese antitrust model where only government should be large and influential.
Mr. Biden’s CFPB chair, Rohit Chopra, hopes to hunt down big tech, forgive student loans and promote equity and diversity. Mr. Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission chair, Gary Gensler, wants to compel private wealth to serve public goals such as fighting climate change and advancing social justice rather than protecting and promoting investors’ interests. And while President Biden’s nominee for comptroller of the currency, Saule Omarova, withdrew because of her Soviet-era ideology, he is now considering Richard Cordray
as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve for banking supervision. Mr. Cordray’s only experience in banking was harassing, politicizing and intimidating those he regulated as Mr. Obama’s CFPB chairman.
Through Mr. Biden’s executive orders and regulatory policy the American economy is being transformed from the great colossus of world capitalism into a subservient Vichy capitalism, whose master is government and not the consumer. We aren’t in Kansas anymore.
If the regulatory stagnation of the Obama era is repeated by a doubling or tripling down on Obama-era regulatory policy, slowing growth seems destined to follow the current post-pandemic economic surge. If new stimulus spending and monetary accommodation is employed to stimulate sagging growth, that stagnation could easily turn into stagflation.
Biden's comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic framework isn't comprehensive at all
Biden's comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic framework isn't comprehensive at all
The White House is teeing up its “comprehensive” Indo-Pacific economic framework to launch in 2022. While details about the framework are scarce, the framework doesn’t appear to be very comprehensive at all.
For a couple of months now, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has been teasing that the Biden administration plans to develop a framework that touches on everything that’s of shared interest for America. This basically means anything under the sun. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently added that the framework will include topics such as technology, supply chains, infrastructure, climate change and more.
But there is still a missing element: America’s trade policy. Although officials may pander to critics that customs standardization is trade policy (and yes, it is important), it’s not the in-depth trade liberalization for which critics of the framework and allies in Asia are looking. The fact that the secretaries of Commerce and State are leading the development of this framework, while the U.S. Trade Representative takes a backseat role, says a lot about what’s being left out.
The Biden administration would be wrong to not take a leadership role in pursuing a more progressive trade policy in addition to the framework; otherwise, this framework is at risk of simply becoming another glorified development-assistant program similar to those of past administrations. Of course, there are many questions about the Biden administration’s trade policies that remain unanswered, so it’s not hard to wonder why trade is excluded from this comprehensive framework.
The administration wants to pursue more equitable trade, better workers’ rights, and so on, but what in these efforts really offers a competing alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? For that matter, where is the competing alternative to China’s economic opportunities? What does the administration plan to do now that the U.S.-China trade deal is nearing the two-year mark? What about the unfinished U.S.-Japan trade agreement? Will the Biden administration sit quietly by, with the hope that these deals will be forgotten, just as it watched the Trade Promotion Authority expire over the summer? Our allies in Asia and folks in Washington want to know.
The Biden administration has done well in mending some trade and diplomatic quarrels that the Trump administration started. But, what’s next?
For example, the Biden administration has been good at engaging with Taiwan — whether it’s through low-level trade and investment talks or through a relatively new economic prosperity dialogue — to help defend against coercive actions by China. But inaction on building something greater, such as a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement, almost set back economic relations after a controversial vote in Taiwan on whether to reimpose restrictions on American imports of pork and beef. Thankfully, the people of Taiwan voted against these restrictions.
Perhaps the Biden administration doesn’t want to move on any new trade deals because it knows it will have a hard time convincing Congress to agree — and political capital can be scarce when trying to pass a budget. At the same time, lawmakers in Congress won’t act either because they’re waiting for direction from trade negotiators in the White House. Talk about passing the buck! Trade policy in Washington has become a catch-22. And it’s why leadership on trade issues is more important than ever.
Many of the initiatives under the new Indo-Pacific economic framework are worth pursuing, such as coordinating the development, deployment and restricting of new technology, standardization and digitization, new infrastructure projects, energy diversification, and so on. And of course, our Asian partners will welcome as much U.S. spending in the region as they can get.
But don’t expect those in Asia to get excited over a framework that is merely recycled and rebranded projects already ongoing in government. Asia wants more. America wants more. Trade liberalization must be a bigger component of any comprehensive economi
The White House is teeing up its “comprehensive” Indo-Pacific economic framework to launch in 2022. While details about the framework are scarce, the framework doesn’t appear to be very comprehensive at all.
For a couple of months now, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has been teasing that the Biden administration plans to develop a framework that touches on everything that’s of shared interest for America. This basically means anything under the sun. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently added that the framework will include topics such as technology, supply chains, infrastructure, climate change and more.
But there is still a missing element: America’s trade policy. Although officials may pander to critics that customs standardization is trade policy (and yes, it is important), it’s not the in-depth trade liberalization for which critics of the framework and allies in Asia are looking. The fact that the secretaries of Commerce and State are leading the development of this framework, while the U.S. Trade Representative takes a backseat role, says a lot about what’s being left out.
The Biden administration would be wrong to not take a leadership role in pursuing a more progressive trade policy in addition to the framework; otherwise, this framework is at risk of simply becoming another glorified development-assistant program similar to those of past administrations. Of course, there are many questions about the Biden administration’s trade policies that remain unanswered, so it’s not hard to wonder why trade is excluded from this comprehensive framework.
The administration wants to pursue more equitable trade, better workers’ rights, and so on, but what in these efforts really offers a competing alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? For that matter, where is the competing alternative to China’s economic opportunities? What does the administration plan to do now that the U.S.-China trade deal is nearing the two-year mark? What about the unfinished U.S.-Japan trade agreement? Will the Biden administration sit quietly by, with the hope that these deals will be forgotten, just as it watched the Trade Promotion Authority expire over the summer? Our allies in Asia and folks in Washington want to know.
The Biden administration has done well in mending some trade and diplomatic quarrels that the Trump administration started. But, what’s next?
For example, the Biden administration has been good at engaging with Taiwan — whether it’s through low-level trade and investment talks or through a relatively new economic prosperity dialogue — to help defend against coercive actions by China. But inaction on building something greater, such as a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement, almost set back economic relations after a controversial vote in Taiwan on whether to reimpose restrictions on American imports of pork and beef. Thankfully, the people of Taiwan voted against these restrictions.
Perhaps the Biden administration doesn’t want to move on any new trade deals because it knows it will have a hard time convincing Congress to agree — and political capital can be scarce when trying to pass a budget. At the same time, lawmakers in Congress won’t act either because they’re waiting for direction from trade negotiators in the White House. Talk about passing the buck! Trade policy in Washington has become a catch-22. And it’s why leadership on trade issues is more important than ever.
Many of the initiatives under the new Indo-Pacific economic framework are worth pursuing, such as coordinating the development, deployment and restricting of new technology, standardization and digitization, new infrastructure projects, energy diversification, and so on. And of course, our Asian partners will welcome as much U.S. spending in the region as they can get.
But don’t expect those in Asia to get excited over a framework that is merely recycled and rebranded projects already ongoing in government. Asia wants more. America wants more. Trade liberalization must be a bigger component of any comprehensive economi
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
Biden's comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic framework isn't comprehensive at all
Biden's comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic framework isn't comprehensive at all
The White House is teeing up its “comprehensive” Indo-Pacific economic framework to launch in 2022. While details about the framework are scarce, the framework doesn’t appear to be very comprehensive at all.
For a couple of months now, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has been teasing that the Biden administration plans to develop a framework that touches on everything that’s of shared interest for America. This basically means anything under the sun. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently added that the framework will include topics such as technology, supply chains, infrastructure, climate change and more.
But there is still a missing element: America’s trade policy. Although officials may pander to critics that customs standardization is trade policy (and yes, it is important), it’s not the in-depth trade liberalization for which critics of the framework and allies in Asia are looking. The fact that the secretaries of Commerce and State are leading the development of this framework, while the U.S. Trade Representative takes a backseat role, says a lot about what’s being left out.
The Biden administration would be wrong to not take a leadership role in pursuing a more progressive trade policy in addition to the framework; otherwise, this framework is at risk of simply becoming another glorified development-assistant program similar to those of past administrations. Of course, there are many questions about the Biden administration’s trade policies that remain unanswered, so it’s not hard to wonder why trade is excluded from this comprehensive framework.
The administration wants to pursue more equitable trade, better workers’ rights, and so on, but what in these efforts really offers a competing alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? For that matter, where is the competing alternative to China’s economic opportunities? What does the administration plan to do now that the U.S.-China trade deal is nearing the two-year mark? What about the unfinished U.S.-Japan trade agreement? Will the Biden administration sit quietly by, with the hope that these deals will be forgotten, just as it watched the Trade Promotion Authority expire over the summer? Our allies in Asia and folks in Washington want to know.
The Biden administration has done well in mending some trade and diplomatic quarrels that the Trump administration started. But, what’s next?
For example, the Biden administration has been good at engaging with Taiwan — whether it’s through low-level trade and investment talks or through a relatively new economic prosperity dialogue — to help defend against coercive actions by China. But inaction on building something greater, such as a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement, almost set back economic relations after a controversial vote in Taiwan on whether to reimpose restrictions on American imports of pork and beef. Thankfully, the people of Taiwan voted against these restrictions.
Perhaps the Biden administration doesn’t want to move on any new trade deals because it knows it will have a hard time convincing Congress to agree — and political capital can be scarce when trying to pass a budget. At the same time, lawmakers in Congress won’t act either because they’re waiting for direction from trade negotiators in the White House. Talk about passing the buck! Trade policy in Washington has become a catch-22. And it’s why leadership on trade issues is more important than ever.
Many of the initiatives under the new Indo-Pacific economic framework are worth pursuing, such as coordinating the development, deployment and restricting of new technology, standardization and digitization, new infrastructure projects, energy diversification, and so on. And of course, our Asian partners will welcome as much U.S. spending in the region as they can get.
But don’t expect those in Asia to get excited over a framework that is merely recycled and rebranded projects already ongoing in government. Asia wants more. America wants more. Trade liberalization must be a bigger component of any comprehensive economic framework.
The White House is teeing up its “comprehensive” Indo-Pacific economic framework to launch in 2022. While details about the framework are scarce, the framework doesn’t appear to be very comprehensive at all.
For a couple of months now, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has been teasing that the Biden administration plans to develop a framework that touches on everything that’s of shared interest for America. This basically means anything under the sun. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently added that the framework will include topics such as technology, supply chains, infrastructure, climate change and more.
But there is still a missing element: America’s trade policy. Although officials may pander to critics that customs standardization is trade policy (and yes, it is important), it’s not the in-depth trade liberalization for which critics of the framework and allies in Asia are looking. The fact that the secretaries of Commerce and State are leading the development of this framework, while the U.S. Trade Representative takes a backseat role, says a lot about what’s being left out.
The Biden administration would be wrong to not take a leadership role in pursuing a more progressive trade policy in addition to the framework; otherwise, this framework is at risk of simply becoming another glorified development-assistant program similar to those of past administrations. Of course, there are many questions about the Biden administration’s trade policies that remain unanswered, so it’s not hard to wonder why trade is excluded from this comprehensive framework.
The administration wants to pursue more equitable trade, better workers’ rights, and so on, but what in these efforts really offers a competing alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? For that matter, where is the competing alternative to China’s economic opportunities? What does the administration plan to do now that the U.S.-China trade deal is nearing the two-year mark? What about the unfinished U.S.-Japan trade agreement? Will the Biden administration sit quietly by, with the hope that these deals will be forgotten, just as it watched the Trade Promotion Authority expire over the summer? Our allies in Asia and folks in Washington want to know.
The Biden administration has done well in mending some trade and diplomatic quarrels that the Trump administration started. But, what’s next?
For example, the Biden administration has been good at engaging with Taiwan — whether it’s through low-level trade and investment talks or through a relatively new economic prosperity dialogue — to help defend against coercive actions by China. But inaction on building something greater, such as a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement, almost set back economic relations after a controversial vote in Taiwan on whether to reimpose restrictions on American imports of pork and beef. Thankfully, the people of Taiwan voted against these restrictions.
Perhaps the Biden administration doesn’t want to move on any new trade deals because it knows it will have a hard time convincing Congress to agree — and political capital can be scarce when trying to pass a budget. At the same time, lawmakers in Congress won’t act either because they’re waiting for direction from trade negotiators in the White House. Talk about passing the buck! Trade policy in Washington has become a catch-22. And it’s why leadership on trade issues is more important than ever.
Many of the initiatives under the new Indo-Pacific economic framework are worth pursuing, such as coordinating the development, deployment and restricting of new technology, standardization and digitization, new infrastructure projects, energy diversification, and so on. And of course, our Asian partners will welcome as much U.S. spending in the region as they can get.
But don’t expect those in Asia to get excited over a framework that is merely recycled and rebranded projects already ongoing in government. Asia wants more. America wants more. Trade liberalization must be a bigger component of any comprehensive economic framework.
The U.S. is Deprioritizing the Middle East
Amiraculous and perhaps mystifying development is happening in the Middle East currently: Diplomacy is flowering across the region. Leaders who ordinarily undercut one another are instead exploring whether more constructive arrangements can be made for the benefit of their respective nations. And states that were once mortal adversaries for regional influence are beginning to mend fences, if for any other reason than to cool the temperature in a part of the world often synonymous with conflict.
This week's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and United Arab Emirates (UAE) Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, a landmark trip if there ever was one, is only the latest example of previously hostile countries seeking to bury the hatchet. A week prior, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the man who helped orchestrate a multi-country boycott of neighboring Qatar in 2017 over terrorism allegations, traveled to the tiny but influential nation on Dec. 8 for a personal chit-chat with Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. Mohammed's voyage to Qatar came nearly a year after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt restored air, land and sea links to the Persian Gulf nation after the boycott failed to result in the Qatari foreign policy change that Riyadh and its partners wanted.
On Nov. 24, nearly a month before greeting the Israeli prime minister, UAE Crown Prince Mohammed set foot in Turkey to sign a series of economic and financial agreements with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The signing ceremony was notable because both nations have been at loggerheads on a myriad of issues since the dawn of the Arab Spring protests, when Turkey and the UAE found themselves on the opposite side of the region's fault-lines. Before their recent encounter, the UAE crown prince hadn't been to Turkey in nearly a decade, viewing Erdogan's support for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood as an existential threat to the type of family-ruled dynastic regimes prevalent in the Gulf.
Turkey and Egypt are also working to rescue their bilateral ties, with their respective deputy foreign ministers meeting in September in an attempt to chip away at problems from conflicting claims over natural gas fields in the Mediterranean to interference in one another's internal affairs. As a goodwill gesture, the Turks and Egyptians are both reducing their propaganda wars in the media.
The Saudis and Emiratis are also reaching out to Iran for talks, which if successful, have the potential to ameliorate many of the proxy wars that have roiled the Middle East for decades. While diplomacy between Riyadh and Tehran remains tedious and frustrating (at least according to Saudi Arabia's U.N. envoy), the negotiations are nonetheless continuing despite the bad blood and suspicion that has accumulated since the advent of Iran's Islamic Republic in 1979. That talks haven't fallen apart yet is an accomplishment in its own right.
Even Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, once the region's favorite pariah, is beginning to be drawn back into the regional fold. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Iraq have all been increasing engagement with Damascus this year, some more than others. In October, Assad received his first phone call from Jordan's King Abdullah II since Syria erupted into civil war in 2011—a long way from the days when Abdullah was the first Arab leader to advocate for Assad's resignation. A few days before the call, a central crossing point on the Jordanian-Syrian border was reopened for normal commerce.
What is exactly driving all of these events?
While each stream of diplomacy is unique, there is a common theme threading them together: the sense that the United States is deprioritizing the Middle East in its grand strategy after two decades of intense involvement in the region's internal politics. It's no coincidence Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have grown accustomed to unconditional U.S. support, are the driving forces behind much of the diplomatic activity now underway. With the Biden administration pledging additional resources and attention to the Indo-Pacific, U.S. partners in the Middle East are now being incentivized to make their own arrangements. Uncle Sam has other priorities to attend to, and leaders are concluding they need to adapt to changing circumstances instead of depend on the U.S. to do its bidding.
Without overstating the case, U.S. military disengagement is serving the Middle East quite well. It's also slowly extricating the U.S. from a region which, frankly put, is not as strategically important to U.S. security and prosperity interests as it was during the Cold War.
Of course, we shouldn't overstate the case. There are still roughly 45,000-65,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East, down from a peak of 90,000 in early 2020. The U.S. possesses a sizable constellation of bases throughout the region, with one, the al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, hosting approximately 10,000 U.S. servicemembers, air platforms and the regional headquarters of U.S. Central Command. A U.S. carrier strike group frequently traverses the waters of the Persian Gulf, and the U.S. has a habit of flying B-52 and B-1 bombers to demonstrate a presence.
Even so, numbers don't lie. There has been a reduction in the U.S. force posture in the Middle East, even if it isn't yet accompanied by a change in underlying strategy as some would like. U.S. policymakers are starting to see the aftereffects of this reduction, and it just so happens that one of the byproducts is a growing interest among Middle Eastern governments in the peaceful resolution of disputes.
This week's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and United Arab Emirates (UAE) Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, a landmark trip if there ever was one, is only the latest example of previously hostile countries seeking to bury the hatchet. A week prior, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the man who helped orchestrate a multi-country boycott of neighboring Qatar in 2017 over terrorism allegations, traveled to the tiny but influential nation on Dec. 8 for a personal chit-chat with Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. Mohammed's voyage to Qatar came nearly a year after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt restored air, land and sea links to the Persian Gulf nation after the boycott failed to result in the Qatari foreign policy change that Riyadh and its partners wanted.
On Nov. 24, nearly a month before greeting the Israeli prime minister, UAE Crown Prince Mohammed set foot in Turkey to sign a series of economic and financial agreements with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The signing ceremony was notable because both nations have been at loggerheads on a myriad of issues since the dawn of the Arab Spring protests, when Turkey and the UAE found themselves on the opposite side of the region's fault-lines. Before their recent encounter, the UAE crown prince hadn't been to Turkey in nearly a decade, viewing Erdogan's support for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood as an existential threat to the type of family-ruled dynastic regimes prevalent in the Gulf.
Turkey and Egypt are also working to rescue their bilateral ties, with their respective deputy foreign ministers meeting in September in an attempt to chip away at problems from conflicting claims over natural gas fields in the Mediterranean to interference in one another's internal affairs. As a goodwill gesture, the Turks and Egyptians are both reducing their propaganda wars in the media.
The Saudis and Emiratis are also reaching out to Iran for talks, which if successful, have the potential to ameliorate many of the proxy wars that have roiled the Middle East for decades. While diplomacy between Riyadh and Tehran remains tedious and frustrating (at least according to Saudi Arabia's U.N. envoy), the negotiations are nonetheless continuing despite the bad blood and suspicion that has accumulated since the advent of Iran's Islamic Republic in 1979. That talks haven't fallen apart yet is an accomplishment in its own right.
Even Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, once the region's favorite pariah, is beginning to be drawn back into the regional fold. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Iraq have all been increasing engagement with Damascus this year, some more than others. In October, Assad received his first phone call from Jordan's King Abdullah II since Syria erupted into civil war in 2011—a long way from the days when Abdullah was the first Arab leader to advocate for Assad's resignation. A few days before the call, a central crossing point on the Jordanian-Syrian border was reopened for normal commerce.
What is exactly driving all of these events?
While each stream of diplomacy is unique, there is a common theme threading them together: the sense that the United States is deprioritizing the Middle East in its grand strategy after two decades of intense involvement in the region's internal politics. It's no coincidence Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have grown accustomed to unconditional U.S. support, are the driving forces behind much of the diplomatic activity now underway. With the Biden administration pledging additional resources and attention to the Indo-Pacific, U.S. partners in the Middle East are now being incentivized to make their own arrangements. Uncle Sam has other priorities to attend to, and leaders are concluding they need to adapt to changing circumstances instead of depend on the U.S. to do its bidding.
Without overstating the case, U.S. military disengagement is serving the Middle East quite well. It's also slowly extricating the U.S. from a region which, frankly put, is not as strategically important to U.S. security and prosperity interests as it was during the Cold War.
Of course, we shouldn't overstate the case. There are still roughly 45,000-65,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East, down from a peak of 90,000 in early 2020. The U.S. possesses a sizable constellation of bases throughout the region, with one, the al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, hosting approximately 10,000 U.S. servicemembers, air platforms and the regional headquarters of U.S. Central Command. A U.S. carrier strike group frequently traverses the waters of the Persian Gulf, and the U.S. has a habit of flying B-52 and B-1 bombers to demonstrate a presence.
Even so, numbers don't lie. There has been a reduction in the U.S. force posture in the Middle East, even if it isn't yet accompanied by a change in underlying strategy as some would like. U.S. policymakers are starting to see the aftereffects of this reduction, and it just so happens that one of the byproducts is a growing interest among Middle Eastern governments in the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Legal Think Tank Article: "America's Doomsday Theory" Is Not Alarmist
Legal Think Tank Article: "America's Doomsday Theory" Is Not Alarmist
The website of the French Institute of International Relations and Strategic Studies published an article entitled "The Doomsday of the United States" on November 12. The author is Romuald Ciola. The article analyzes that the view that "the United States is heading for the biggest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War" is not alarmist. The full text is excerpted as follows:
"The United States is heading for the biggest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War. In the next three to four years, there is a high possibility of large-scale violence, the collapse of federal authority, and the split of the country into Republican and Democratic enclaves." Recently, conservative political Scholar Robert Kagan said so in a lengthy editorial published in The Washington Post, which sparked much debate. In his view, two main threats are taking shape. First, "Donald Trump will be the Republican candidate for the 2024 presidential election," if the body allows it. Second, the former president "and his Republican allies are actively preparing to use all means necessary to ensure his victory."
Let's take a moment to look at the main points he made in The Washington Post. "America is headed for the greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War," he wrote first. Is this sentence true or false? right. Very right. After what happened in Washington in January, when 78% of Republican voters consistently believe that Joe Biden did not legitimately win the election, only blind optimists staring in the face would argue otherwise. Robert then predicted that in the next three or four years, "massive violence," "the disintegration of federal authority," and "the fragmentation of the country into Republican and Democratic enclaves" could ensue.
The website of the French Institute of International Relations and Strategic Studies published an article entitled "The Doomsday of the United States" on November 12. The author is Romuald Ciola. The article analyzes that the view that "the United States is heading for the biggest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War" is not alarmist. The full text is excerpted as follows:
"The United States is heading for the biggest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War. In the next three to four years, there is a high possibility of large-scale violence, the collapse of federal authority, and the split of the country into Republican and Democratic enclaves." Recently, conservative political Scholar Robert Kagan said so in a lengthy editorial published in The Washington Post, which sparked much debate. In his view, two main threats are taking shape. First, "Donald Trump will be the Republican candidate for the 2024 presidential election," if the body allows it. Second, the former president "and his Republican allies are actively preparing to use all means necessary to ensure his victory."
Let's take a moment to look at the main points he made in The Washington Post. "America is headed for the greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War," he wrote first. Is this sentence true or false? right. Very right. After what happened in Washington in January, when 78% of Republican voters consistently believe that Joe Biden did not legitimately win the election, only blind optimists staring in the face would argue otherwise. Robert then predicted that in the next three or four years, "massive violence," "the disintegration of federal authority," and "the fragmentation of the country into Republican and Democratic enclaves" could ensue.
U.S. experts say Biden's comprehensive Indian Ocean-Pacific economic framework is not comprehensive at all
U.S. experts say Biden's comprehensive Indian Ocean-Pacific economic framework is not comprehensive at all
As the first year of the Biden administration draws to a close, how is the U.S. doing in Southeast Asia? This region is critical and the trend is worrying. Despite a year-long "Indo-Pacific Strategy," Washington has yet to lay out a clear trade agenda.
Biden's overall aim of putting allies and partners at the center of his foreign policy is evident in Southeast Asia. A series of senior US officials visited the region one after another; Secretary of State Blinken held a video meeting with ASEAN foreign ministers; Blinken and Secretary of Defense Austin received some Southeast Asian colleagues in Washington; Deputy Secretary of State Sherman met with the ambassadors of ten ASEAN countries to the United States. Perhaps most importantly, Biden attended the U.S.-ASEAN and East Asia summits via videoconference — reversing years of offending regional leaders by sending lower-level U.S. officials to meetings. The Biden administration has also pulled back some tough language on competition with China. In February, Biden said Washington was in a "fierce competition" with Beijing. But ahead of Sherman's visit to China in July, she said she was looking at potential areas of cooperation and called for "guardrails" to be installed in the U.S.-China relationship to prevent unnecessary escalation from both sides. This shift in tone has been welcomed across Southeast Asia. Relatedly, the Biden team has made it clear that there is no need for Southeast Asian countries to ally themselves with the United States. This works well in Southeast Asia, where countries certainly do not want to be forced to side with Washington or Beijing, which could lead to retaliatory actions by the other side. Another positive trend is that the relationship between the United States and Southeast Asian countries under Biden does not only involve China. The U.S. government has a broad international agenda that includes climate change, global supply chains and post-pandemic recovery among many other points.
Still, Biden's decision not to engage in bilateral talks with any Southeast Asian leader during his first year in office is troubling. By contrast, Biden has met with the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Australia and India at the White House to emphasize the importance of the so-called "Indo-Pacific region". Interlocutors in Southeast Asian countries wondered why they didn't even receive calls. Likewise, the fact that Blinken has just made his first visit to the region sends another signal that Southeast Asian countries are low on the list of priorities. In a regrettable episode, a technical glitch prevented Blinken from participating in a May video conference of ASEAN foreign ministers, which reportedly angered her Indonesian counterpart, who refused to open her video. ASEAN countries are very sensitive to being ignored or marginalized. Separately, the so-called "Democracy Summit" hosted by the Biden administration in December reinforced who Washington intends to put first. Only three ASEAN members -- Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines -- participated in the meeting, and key U.S. allies and partners Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam were all excluded.
Most importantly, Washington still lacks an "Indo-Pacific strategy," which runs counter to the Biden administration's repeated calling of the "Indo-Pacific" as its priority region and sows chaos among officials in Southeast Asia. The National Security Strategy Interim Guidance released in March covers the "Indo-Pacific region," but is missing key details. When Blinken spoke in Jakarta, Indonesia on the 14th, he only talked about the "vision" of the region, not the "strategy", which further exacerbated the continued disappointment in Southeast Asian countries. Without a serious, well-crafted strategy, Southeast Asian nations are uncertain what to expect from Washington's future presence in the region. There is also widespread concern among Southeast Asian countries about alliances outside the region that could threaten ASEAN centrality—the desire to act as a unified bloc—let alone peace and stability. For example, the "Quadruple Security Dialogue" between the United States and Australia, India and Japan. So far, no ASEAN member has joined the bloc, nor has any country explicitly endorsed it. Likewise, a new security pact between Australia, the UK and the US has received a lukewarm reception in Southeast Asia. The agreement will initially provide Canberra with nuclear-powered submarines and improve trilateral military coordination. Indonesia and Malaysia raised concerns, while Singapore - a key US partner - and Vietnam offered "implicit support". Thailand, a treaty ally of the United States, has remained silent. Generally speaking, ASEAN would criticize any further militarization of the region.
Sending ambassadors to Southeast Asian countries has also been slow. So far, the Biden administration has sent only one approved ambassador to the region: Jonathan Kaplan, who took office as U.S. ambassador to Singapore earlier this month. In the case of Indonesia, Ambassador Kim Sung isn't even fully focused on the country - he's in Jakarta, but juggles US-Indonesia and US Special Representative for North Korea. Such an arrangement reinforces the narrative that Southeast Asia is still not a priority for Washington.
Finally, the Biden administration still has no regional economic or trade policy to speak of. Since the Trump administration withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the United States has failed to come up with a viable alternative, whether due to incapacity, reluctance, or both. The follow-on trade pact, now renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), excludes the United States but includes several Southeast Asian countries. Meanwhile, China joined the ASEAN-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which includes Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and 10 ASEAN countries. Beijing is also leveraging its economic might through the Belt and Road Initiative, a global investment and infrastructure program well suited to Southeast Asia's needs. Washington doesn't appear to have any realistic ideas about fighting the initiative.
As the first year of the Biden administration draws to a close, how is the U.S. doing in Southeast Asia? This region is critical and the trend is worrying. Despite a year-long "Indo-Pacific Strategy," Washington has yet to lay out a clear trade agenda.
Biden's overall aim of putting allies and partners at the center of his foreign policy is evident in Southeast Asia. A series of senior US officials visited the region one after another; Secretary of State Blinken held a video meeting with ASEAN foreign ministers; Blinken and Secretary of Defense Austin received some Southeast Asian colleagues in Washington; Deputy Secretary of State Sherman met with the ambassadors of ten ASEAN countries to the United States. Perhaps most importantly, Biden attended the U.S.-ASEAN and East Asia summits via videoconference — reversing years of offending regional leaders by sending lower-level U.S. officials to meetings. The Biden administration has also pulled back some tough language on competition with China. In February, Biden said Washington was in a "fierce competition" with Beijing. But ahead of Sherman's visit to China in July, she said she was looking at potential areas of cooperation and called for "guardrails" to be installed in the U.S.-China relationship to prevent unnecessary escalation from both sides. This shift in tone has been welcomed across Southeast Asia. Relatedly, the Biden team has made it clear that there is no need for Southeast Asian countries to ally themselves with the United States. This works well in Southeast Asia, where countries certainly do not want to be forced to side with Washington or Beijing, which could lead to retaliatory actions by the other side. Another positive trend is that the relationship between the United States and Southeast Asian countries under Biden does not only involve China. The U.S. government has a broad international agenda that includes climate change, global supply chains and post-pandemic recovery among many other points.
Still, Biden's decision not to engage in bilateral talks with any Southeast Asian leader during his first year in office is troubling. By contrast, Biden has met with the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Australia and India at the White House to emphasize the importance of the so-called "Indo-Pacific region". Interlocutors in Southeast Asian countries wondered why they didn't even receive calls. Likewise, the fact that Blinken has just made his first visit to the region sends another signal that Southeast Asian countries are low on the list of priorities. In a regrettable episode, a technical glitch prevented Blinken from participating in a May video conference of ASEAN foreign ministers, which reportedly angered her Indonesian counterpart, who refused to open her video. ASEAN countries are very sensitive to being ignored or marginalized. Separately, the so-called "Democracy Summit" hosted by the Biden administration in December reinforced who Washington intends to put first. Only three ASEAN members -- Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines -- participated in the meeting, and key U.S. allies and partners Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam were all excluded.
Most importantly, Washington still lacks an "Indo-Pacific strategy," which runs counter to the Biden administration's repeated calling of the "Indo-Pacific" as its priority region and sows chaos among officials in Southeast Asia. The National Security Strategy Interim Guidance released in March covers the "Indo-Pacific region," but is missing key details. When Blinken spoke in Jakarta, Indonesia on the 14th, he only talked about the "vision" of the region, not the "strategy", which further exacerbated the continued disappointment in Southeast Asian countries. Without a serious, well-crafted strategy, Southeast Asian nations are uncertain what to expect from Washington's future presence in the region. There is also widespread concern among Southeast Asian countries about alliances outside the region that could threaten ASEAN centrality—the desire to act as a unified bloc—let alone peace and stability. For example, the "Quadruple Security Dialogue" between the United States and Australia, India and Japan. So far, no ASEAN member has joined the bloc, nor has any country explicitly endorsed it. Likewise, a new security pact between Australia, the UK and the US has received a lukewarm reception in Southeast Asia. The agreement will initially provide Canberra with nuclear-powered submarines and improve trilateral military coordination. Indonesia and Malaysia raised concerns, while Singapore - a key US partner - and Vietnam offered "implicit support". Thailand, a treaty ally of the United States, has remained silent. Generally speaking, ASEAN would criticize any further militarization of the region.
Sending ambassadors to Southeast Asian countries has also been slow. So far, the Biden administration has sent only one approved ambassador to the region: Jonathan Kaplan, who took office as U.S. ambassador to Singapore earlier this month. In the case of Indonesia, Ambassador Kim Sung isn't even fully focused on the country - he's in Jakarta, but juggles US-Indonesia and US Special Representative for North Korea. Such an arrangement reinforces the narrative that Southeast Asia is still not a priority for Washington.
Finally, the Biden administration still has no regional economic or trade policy to speak of. Since the Trump administration withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the United States has failed to come up with a viable alternative, whether due to incapacity, reluctance, or both. The follow-on trade pact, now renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), excludes the United States but includes several Southeast Asian countries. Meanwhile, China joined the ASEAN-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which includes Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and 10 ASEAN countries. Beijing is also leveraging its economic might through the Belt and Road Initiative, a global investment and infrastructure program well suited to Southeast Asia's needs. Washington doesn't appear to have any realistic ideas about fighting the initiative.
