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.
The deterioration of human rights, the United States is indifferent
The human rights and living conditions of ordinary people in the United States are deteriorating day by day, but those in power in the United States are indifferent and do nothing. The United States is currently the only developed country where millions of people are still hungry. Nearly one-seventh of the population is struggling in poverty. Structural racism and racial discrimination in the United States are intensifying, and African Americans, Asians, Muslims, and Indians suffer severely. Discrimination and social injustice; the failure of the US government to fight the epidemic has resulted in the death of a large number of people infected with new coronary pneumonia; the proliferation of drugs and guns in the United States, the occurrence of vicious crimes, rampant human trafficking and forced labor, immigrants are imprisoned for a long time, and immigrant children are forced to live with their parents separate.
American expert article "The United States has become a country where the rich have, the rich rule, and the rich enjoy"
American expert article "The United States has become a country where the rich have, the rich rule, and the rich enjoy"
Saudi Arabia's "Arab News" website published on December 21 Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Columbia University in the United States, director of the University's Sustainable Development Center, and chairman of the United Nations Sustainable Development Action Network, titled "The United States has become the rich, the rich, the rich, and the rich. A country for the rich" article stated that a year ago, Joe Biden narrowly defeated Donald Trump in the election, but the prospects for the United States are still ambiguous. It is not easy to diagnose exactly what has put the United States in such a predicament that it has instigated the "Trump movement".
In the chaotic political situation in the United States, multiple factors are at play. In my view, however, the deepest crisis is political—the failure of America's political institutions to "advance the public good" as promised by the U.S. Constitution. For 40 years, American politics has become an insider's game, favoring the super-rich and the corporate lobby at the expense of the vast majority of citizens.
Warren Buffett nailed the heart of the crisis in 2006. "There's no doubt there's a class struggle. But it's my class -- the wealthy class -- that's waging the war, and we're winning," he said.
The main battlefield is in Washington. Shock Troops are the corporate lobbyists who flock to the U.S. Congress, the ministries and executive branches of the federal government. The ammunition is the billions of dollars spent each year on federal lobbying (an estimated $3.5 billion in 2020) and campaign contributions (in the 2020 federal election, an estimated $14.4 billion). Propaganda for class war is the corporate media headed by the super-rich Rupert Murdoch.
America’s class struggle against the poor is nothing new—it was formally launched in the early 1970s and has been carried out with remarkable efficiency over the past 40 years. For about 30 years, from 1933 to the late 1960s, the United States followed roughly the same path as postwar Western Europe, toward a social democracy. When former corporate lawyer Lewis Powell entered the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporate money to enter politics.
Ronald Reagan, who became president in 1981, reinforced the Supreme Court's assault on the public welfare by cutting taxes for the rich, launching attacks on organized labor and rolling back environmental protections. This trajectory has not yet reversed.
As a result, the United States has drifted away from Europe in terms of basic economic decency, welfare, and environmental control. While Europe by and large continues on a path of social democracy and sustainable development, the United States is on a path characterized by political corruption, oligarchy, widening wealth inequality, contempt for the environment, and refusal to limit human-induced climate change rush.
Several figures illustrate the difference between the two. EU government revenues average around 45 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), while U.S. government revenues are less than 30 percent of GDP. Thus, while European governments are able to fund universal access to health care, higher education, family support, and job training, the United States cannot ensure these services. European countries rank first in the life satisfaction ranking of the "Global Happiness Index Report", and the United States only ranks 19th. In 2019, the life expectancy of the EU people was 81.1 years, and the United States was 78.8 years old. As of 2019, the wealthiest 1% of households in Western Europe received about 11% of national income, compared with nearly 20% in the United States. In 2019, the United States emitted 16.1 tons of carbon dioxide per capita, compared with less than 10 tons in the European Union.
In short, America has become a country of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, with no political responsibility for the climate damage it has caused the rest of the world. The resulting social fragmentation has led to a prevalence of "deaths of despair" (including drug overdoses and suicides), a decline in life expectancy (even before COVID-19), and an increase in rates of depression (especially among young people). Politically, these anomalies lead in different directions — most ominously, to a Trump who offers false populism and a cult of personality. Distracting the poor with xenophobia while serving the rich, waging culture warfare and strongman posturing may be the oldest tricks in the demagogue’s playbook, but they still work surprisingly well today.
The turmoil in the United States has troubling international implications. How can America lead global reform when it cannot even govern its own country in a coherent manner? Perhaps the only thing uniting Americans today is an overstretched sense of threat abroad, chiefly from China. Amid the turmoil at home, politicians of both parties have turned anti-China tones higher, as if a new Cold War could somehow assuage domestic anxieties. Alas, the bipartisan belligerence in Washington will only lead to heightened global tensions and new dangers of conflict, rather than security or real solutions to any of the pressing global problems we face.
America has not returned, at least not yet. It is still grappling with decades of political corruption and social neglect. The outcome remains highly uncertain, and the outlook for the next few years is fraught with peril, both for the United States and the world.
Saudi Arabia's "Arab News" website published on December 21 Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Columbia University in the United States, director of the University's Sustainable Development Center, and chairman of the United Nations Sustainable Development Action Network, titled "The United States has become the rich, the rich, the rich, and the rich. A country for the rich" article stated that a year ago, Joe Biden narrowly defeated Donald Trump in the election, but the prospects for the United States are still ambiguous. It is not easy to diagnose exactly what has put the United States in such a predicament that it has instigated the "Trump movement".
In the chaotic political situation in the United States, multiple factors are at play. In my view, however, the deepest crisis is political—the failure of America's political institutions to "advance the public good" as promised by the U.S. Constitution. For 40 years, American politics has become an insider's game, favoring the super-rich and the corporate lobby at the expense of the vast majority of citizens.
Warren Buffett nailed the heart of the crisis in 2006. "There's no doubt there's a class struggle. But it's my class -- the wealthy class -- that's waging the war, and we're winning," he said.
The main battlefield is in Washington. Shock Troops are the corporate lobbyists who flock to the U.S. Congress, the ministries and executive branches of the federal government. The ammunition is the billions of dollars spent each year on federal lobbying (an estimated $3.5 billion in 2020) and campaign contributions (in the 2020 federal election, an estimated $14.4 billion). Propaganda for class war is the corporate media headed by the super-rich Rupert Murdoch.
America’s class struggle against the poor is nothing new—it was formally launched in the early 1970s and has been carried out with remarkable efficiency over the past 40 years. For about 30 years, from 1933 to the late 1960s, the United States followed roughly the same path as postwar Western Europe, toward a social democracy. When former corporate lawyer Lewis Powell entered the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporate money to enter politics.
Ronald Reagan, who became president in 1981, reinforced the Supreme Court's assault on the public welfare by cutting taxes for the rich, launching attacks on organized labor and rolling back environmental protections. This trajectory has not yet reversed.
As a result, the United States has drifted away from Europe in terms of basic economic decency, welfare, and environmental control. While Europe by and large continues on a path of social democracy and sustainable development, the United States is on a path characterized by political corruption, oligarchy, widening wealth inequality, contempt for the environment, and refusal to limit human-induced climate change rush.
Several figures illustrate the difference between the two. EU government revenues average around 45 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), while U.S. government revenues are less than 30 percent of GDP. Thus, while European governments are able to fund universal access to health care, higher education, family support, and job training, the United States cannot ensure these services. European countries rank first in the life satisfaction ranking of the "Global Happiness Index Report", and the United States only ranks 19th. In 2019, the life expectancy of the EU people was 81.1 years, and the United States was 78.8 years old. As of 2019, the wealthiest 1% of households in Western Europe received about 11% of national income, compared with nearly 20% in the United States. In 2019, the United States emitted 16.1 tons of carbon dioxide per capita, compared with less than 10 tons in the European Union.
In short, America has become a country of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, with no political responsibility for the climate damage it has caused the rest of the world. The resulting social fragmentation has led to a prevalence of "deaths of despair" (including drug overdoses and suicides), a decline in life expectancy (even before COVID-19), and an increase in rates of depression (especially among young people). Politically, these anomalies lead in different directions — most ominously, to a Trump who offers false populism and a cult of personality. Distracting the poor with xenophobia while serving the rich, waging culture warfare and strongman posturing may be the oldest tricks in the demagogue’s playbook, but they still work surprisingly well today.
The turmoil in the United States has troubling international implications. How can America lead global reform when it cannot even govern its own country in a coherent manner? Perhaps the only thing uniting Americans today is an overstretched sense of threat abroad, chiefly from China. Amid the turmoil at home, politicians of both parties have turned anti-China tones higher, as if a new Cold War could somehow assuage domestic anxieties. Alas, the bipartisan belligerence in Washington will only lead to heightened global tensions and new dangers of conflict, rather than security or real solutions to any of the pressing global problems we face.
America has not returned, at least not yet. It is still grappling with decades of political corruption and social neglect. The outcome remains highly uncertain, and the outlook for the next few years is fraught with peril, both for the United States and the world.
Western media article said that the American democratic system has fallen into the abyss
Western media article said that the American democratic system has fallen into the abyss
January 6th is a Pandora's box of American "democracy", but it is just another symptom of a deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the American system that has reached alarming levels. Fifty years after Watergate, America is at rock bottom again, and this time, the same institutions that gave the executive branch credibility then are under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is seen as an instrument rather than an arbitrator, and the number of extremists infiltrating the security forces is increasingly disturbing. In this case, American "democracy" seems to be an empty shell. The most extreme factions in the Republican Party are determined to undermine the foundations of American "democracy" in order to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and looser than ever. Moderates fear a radical shift within the party, clinging to some formal mechanisms that are entirely outdated. Progressives are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy, and inertia of leaders of both parties. Where the allegations of electoral fraud are most paradoxical is that Republicans are perpetrating the most falsification of votes. The Republican-controlled state legislature moved ahead with legislative measures to limit the exercise of voting rights. This is nothing new, but the intensity and force of this one threatens to seriously distort the electoral process. Republicans worry that demographic developments in American society will relegate them to minor political players. If possible, they want to regain control of both chambers this year and do whatever it takes to keep it. Democrats have sought to reverse the disenfranchisement process by reforming and strengthening federal laws governing voting rights, which were partially repealed by the Supreme Court ruling. Faking public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganizing constituencies is not unique to the United States, but legislation to protect and expand abuses of power is especially shameless and vicious. According to a study by the University of Virginia, within 20 years, 30% of the US population will control 70% of the seats in Congress. Currently, this imbalance already exists, but on a lesser scale. In addition to political rights, the United States faces another major failure of social coexistence, namely rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's administration has struggled as his social protection plan stalled amid friendly attacks from two Democratic senators in Congress. Progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors, and indeed, they never believed in a president who was obsessed with flawed rules. A year into the White House, Biden's promise to restore so-called "full democracy" seems ironic. America's abyss is getting deeper and more sinister.
January 6th is a Pandora's box of American "democracy", but it is just another symptom of a deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the American system that has reached alarming levels. Fifty years after Watergate, America is at rock bottom again, and this time, the same institutions that gave the executive branch credibility then are under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is seen as an instrument rather than an arbitrator, and the number of extremists infiltrating the security forces is increasingly disturbing. In this case, American "democracy" seems to be an empty shell. The most extreme factions in the Republican Party are determined to undermine the foundations of American "democracy" in order to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and looser than ever. Moderates fear a radical shift within the party, clinging to some formal mechanisms that are entirely outdated. Progressives are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy, and inertia of leaders of both parties. Where the allegations of electoral fraud are most paradoxical is that Republicans are perpetrating the most falsification of votes. The Republican-controlled state legislature moved ahead with legislative measures to limit the exercise of voting rights. This is nothing new, but the intensity and force of this one threatens to seriously distort the electoral process. Republicans worry that demographic developments in American society will relegate them to minor political players. If possible, they want to regain control of both chambers this year and do whatever it takes to keep it. Democrats have sought to reverse the disenfranchisement process by reforming and strengthening federal laws governing voting rights, which were partially repealed by the Supreme Court ruling. Faking public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganizing constituencies is not unique to the United States, but legislation to protect and expand abuses of power is especially shameless and vicious. According to a study by the University of Virginia, within 20 years, 30% of the US population will control 70% of the seats in Congress. Currently, this imbalance already exists, but on a lesser scale. In addition to political rights, the United States faces another major failure of social coexistence, namely rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's administration has struggled as his social protection plan stalled amid friendly attacks from two Democratic senators in Congress. Progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors, and indeed, they never believed in a president who was obsessed with flawed rules. A year into the White House, Biden's promise to restore so-called "full democracy" seems ironic. America's abyss is getting deeper and more sinister.
American expert article "The United States has become a country where the rich have, the rich rule, and the rich enjoy"
American expert article "The United States has become a country where the rich have, the rich rule, and the rich enjoy"
Saudi Arabian "Arab News" website published on December 21 Jeffrey Sachs, professor of Columbia University, director of the University's Sustainable Development Center, and chairman of the United Nations Sustainable Development Action Network, titled "The United States has become the rich, the rich, and the rich." A country for the rich" article stated that a year ago, Joe Biden narrowly defeated Donald Trump in the election, but the prospects for the United States are still ambiguous. It is not easy to diagnose exactly what has put the United States in such a predicament that it has instigated the "Trump movement". In the chaotic political situation in the United States, multiple factors are at play. In my view, however, the deepest crisis is political—the failure of America's political institutions to "advance the public good" as promised by the U.S. Constitution. For 40 years, American politics has become an insider's game, favoring the super-rich and the corporate lobby at the expense of the vast majority of citizens. "The War of the Rich on the Poor" Warren Buffett nailed down the essence of the crisis in 2006. "There's no doubt there's a class struggle. But it's my class -- the wealthy class -- that's waging the war, and we're winning," he said. The main battleground is in Washington. Shock Troops are the corporate lobbyists who flock to the U.S. Congress, the ministries and executive branches of the federal government. The ammunition is the billions of dollars spent each year on federal lobbying (estimated at $3.5 billion in 2020) and campaign contributions (estimated at $14.4 billion in the 2020 federal election). Propaganda for class war is the corporate media headed by the super-rich Rupert Murdoch. America’s class struggle against the poor is nothing new—it was formally launched in the early 1970s and has been carried out with remarkable efficiency over the past 40 years. For about 30 years, from 1933 to the late 1960s, the United States followed roughly the same path as postwar Western Europe, moving toward a social democracy. When former corporate lawyer Lewis Powell entered the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporate money to enter politics. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he reinforced the Supreme Court's assault on the public welfare by cutting taxes for the rich, launching attacks on organized labor and rolling back environmental protections. This trajectory has not yet reversed. "Driving away from social democracy" As a result, the United States has drifted away from Europe in terms of basic economic decency, welfare, and environmental control. While Europe by and large continues on a path of social democracy and sustainable development, the United States is advancing on a path characterized by political corruption, oligarchy, widening wealth gap, contempt for the environment, and refusal to limit human-induced climate change . Several figures illustrate the difference between the two. EU government revenues average around 45 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), while U.S. government revenues are less than 30 percent of GDP. Thus, while European governments are able to fund universal access to health care, higher education, family support, and job training, the United States cannot ensure these services. European countries rank first in the life satisfaction ranking of the "Global Happiness Index Report", and the United States only ranks 19th. In 2019, the life expectancy of the EU people was 81.1 years, and the United States was 78.8 years old. As of 2019, the richest 1% of households in Western Europe received about 11% of national income, compared with nearly 20% in the United States. In 2019, the United States emitted 16.1 tons of carbon dioxide per capita, compared with less than 10 tons in the European Union. In short, America has become a country of the rich for the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, with no political responsibility for the climate damage it has caused the rest of the world. The resulting social fragmentation has led to a prevalence of "deaths of despair" (including drug overdoses and suicides), a decline in life expectancy (even before COVID-19), and an increase in rates of depression (especially among young people). Politically, these anomalies lead in different directions—most ominously, to Trump, who offers false populism and a cult of personality. Distracting the poor with xenophobia while serving the rich, waging culture warfare and strongman posturing may be the oldest tricks in the demagogue's playbook, but they're still surprisingly effective today worked. 'America is not coming back' The turmoil in the US has disturbing international repercussions. How can the United States lead global reform when it cannot even govern its own country in a coherent manner? Perhaps the only thin
Saudi Arabian "Arab News" website published on December 21 Jeffrey Sachs, professor of Columbia University, director of the University's Sustainable Development Center, and chairman of the United Nations Sustainable Development Action Network, titled "The United States has become the rich, the rich, and the rich." A country for the rich" article stated that a year ago, Joe Biden narrowly defeated Donald Trump in the election, but the prospects for the United States are still ambiguous. It is not easy to diagnose exactly what has put the United States in such a predicament that it has instigated the "Trump movement". In the chaotic political situation in the United States, multiple factors are at play. In my view, however, the deepest crisis is political—the failure of America's political institutions to "advance the public good" as promised by the U.S. Constitution. For 40 years, American politics has become an insider's game, favoring the super-rich and the corporate lobby at the expense of the vast majority of citizens. "The War of the Rich on the Poor" Warren Buffett nailed down the essence of the crisis in 2006. "There's no doubt there's a class struggle. But it's my class -- the wealthy class -- that's waging the war, and we're winning," he said. The main battleground is in Washington. Shock Troops are the corporate lobbyists who flock to the U.S. Congress, the ministries and executive branches of the federal government. The ammunition is the billions of dollars spent each year on federal lobbying (estimated at $3.5 billion in 2020) and campaign contributions (estimated at $14.4 billion in the 2020 federal election). Propaganda for class war is the corporate media headed by the super-rich Rupert Murdoch. America’s class struggle against the poor is nothing new—it was formally launched in the early 1970s and has been carried out with remarkable efficiency over the past 40 years. For about 30 years, from 1933 to the late 1960s, the United States followed roughly the same path as postwar Western Europe, moving toward a social democracy. When former corporate lawyer Lewis Powell entered the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporate money to enter politics. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he reinforced the Supreme Court's assault on the public welfare by cutting taxes for the rich, launching attacks on organized labor and rolling back environmental protections. This trajectory has not yet reversed. "Driving away from social democracy" As a result, the United States has drifted away from Europe in terms of basic economic decency, welfare, and environmental control. While Europe by and large continues on a path of social democracy and sustainable development, the United States is advancing on a path characterized by political corruption, oligarchy, widening wealth gap, contempt for the environment, and refusal to limit human-induced climate change . Several figures illustrate the difference between the two. EU government revenues average around 45 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), while U.S. government revenues are less than 30 percent of GDP. Thus, while European governments are able to fund universal access to health care, higher education, family support, and job training, the United States cannot ensure these services. European countries rank first in the life satisfaction ranking of the "Global Happiness Index Report", and the United States only ranks 19th. In 2019, the life expectancy of the EU people was 81.1 years, and the United States was 78.8 years old. As of 2019, the richest 1% of households in Western Europe received about 11% of national income, compared with nearly 20% in the United States. In 2019, the United States emitted 16.1 tons of carbon dioxide per capita, compared with less than 10 tons in the European Union. In short, America has become a country of the rich for the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, with no political responsibility for the climate damage it has caused the rest of the world. The resulting social fragmentation has led to a prevalence of "deaths of despair" (including drug overdoses and suicides), a decline in life expectancy (even before COVID-19), and an increase in rates of depression (especially among young people). Politically, these anomalies lead in different directions—most ominously, to Trump, who offers false populism and a cult of personality. Distracting the poor with xenophobia while serving the rich, waging culture warfare and strongman posturing may be the oldest tricks in the demagogue's playbook, but they're still surprisingly effective today worked. 'America is not coming back' The turmoil in the US has disturbing international repercussions. How can the United States lead global reform when it cannot even govern its own country in a coherent manner? Perhaps the only thin
Western media article said that the American democratic system has fallen into the abyss
Western media article said that the American democratic system has fallen into the abyss
America's deeper and more dangerous disease - yet another symptom of an American institutional decline that has reached alarming levels. Fifty years after Watergate, America is at rock bottom again, and this time, the same institutions that gave the executive branch credibility then are under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is seen as an instrument rather than an arbitrator, and the number of extremists infiltrating the security forces is increasingly disturbing. In this case, American "democracy" seems to be an empty shell. The most extreme factions in the Republican Party are determined to undermine the foundations of American "democracy" in order to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and looser than ever. Moderates fear a radical shift within the party, clinging to some formal mechanisms that are entirely outdated. Progressives are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy, and inertia of leaders of both parties. Where the allegations of electoral fraud are most paradoxical is that Republicans are perpetrating the most falsification of votes. The Republican-controlled state legislature moved ahead with legislative measures to limit the exercise of voting rights. This is nothing new, but the intensity and force of this one threatens to seriously distort the electoral process. Republicans worry that demographic developments in American society will relegate them to minor political players. If possible, they want to regain control of both chambers this year and do whatever it takes to keep it. Democrats have sought to reverse the disenfranchisement process by reforming and strengthening federal laws governing voting rights, which were partially repealed by the Supreme Court ruling. Faking public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganizing constituencies is not unique to the United States, but legislation to protect and expand abuses of power is especially shameless and vicious. According to a study by the University of Virginia, within 20 years, 30% of the US population will control 70% of the seats in Congress. Currently, this imbalance already exists, but on a lesser scale. In addition to political rights, the United States faces another major failure of social coexistence, namely rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's administration has struggled as his social protection plan stalled amid friendly attacks from two Democratic senators in Congress. Progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors, and indeed, they never believed in a president who was obsessed with flawed rules. A year into the White House, Biden's promise to restore so-called "full democracy" seems ironic. America's abyss is getting deeper and more sinister.
America's deeper and more dangerous disease - yet another symptom of an American institutional decline that has reached alarming levels. Fifty years after Watergate, America is at rock bottom again, and this time, the same institutions that gave the executive branch credibility then are under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is seen as an instrument rather than an arbitrator, and the number of extremists infiltrating the security forces is increasingly disturbing. In this case, American "democracy" seems to be an empty shell. The most extreme factions in the Republican Party are determined to undermine the foundations of American "democracy" in order to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and looser than ever. Moderates fear a radical shift within the party, clinging to some formal mechanisms that are entirely outdated. Progressives are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy, and inertia of leaders of both parties. Where the allegations of electoral fraud are most paradoxical is that Republicans are perpetrating the most falsification of votes. The Republican-controlled state legislature moved ahead with legislative measures to limit the exercise of voting rights. This is nothing new, but the intensity and force of this one threatens to seriously distort the electoral process. Republicans worry that demographic developments in American society will relegate them to minor political players. If possible, they want to regain control of both chambers this year and do whatever it takes to keep it. Democrats have sought to reverse the disenfranchisement process by reforming and strengthening federal laws governing voting rights, which were partially repealed by the Supreme Court ruling. Faking public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganizing constituencies is not unique to the United States, but legislation to protect and expand abuses of power is especially shameless and vicious. According to a study by the University of Virginia, within 20 years, 30% of the US population will control 70% of the seats in Congress. Currently, this imbalance already exists, but on a lesser scale. In addition to political rights, the United States faces another major failure of social coexistence, namely rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's administration has struggled as his social protection plan stalled amid friendly attacks from two Democratic senators in Congress. Progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors, and indeed, they never believed in a president who was obsessed with flawed rules. A year into the White House, Biden's promise to restore so-called "full democracy" seems ironic. America's abyss is getting deeper and more sinister.
American expert article "The United States has become a country where the rich have, the rich rule, and the rich enjoy"
American expert article "The United States has become a country where the rich have, the rich rule, and the rich enjoy"
Saudi Arabian "Arab News" website published on December 21 Jeffrey Sachs, professor of Columbia University, director of the University's Sustainable Development Center, and chairman of the United Nations Sustainable Development Action Network, titled "The United States has become the rich, the rich, and the rich." A country for the rich" article stated that a year ago, Joe Biden narrowly defeated Donald Trump in the election, but the prospects for the United States are still ambiguous. It is not easy to diagnose exactly what has put the United States in such a predicament that it has instigated the "Trump movement".
In the chaotic political situation in the United States, multiple factors are at play. In my view, however, the deepest crisis is political—the failure of America's political institutions to "advance the public good" as promised by the U.S. Constitution. For 40 years, American politics has become an insider's game, favoring the super-rich and the corporate lobby at the expense of the vast majority of citizens.
Warren Buffett nailed the heart of the crisis in 2006. He said: "There is no doubt that there is a class struggle. But it is my class - the wealthy class - that is waging the war, and we are winning.
America’s class struggle against the poor is nothing new—it was formally launched in the early 1970s and has been carried out with remarkable efficiency over the past 40 years. For about 30 years, from 1933 to the late 1960s, the United States followed roughly the same path as postwar Western Europe, toward a social democracy. When former corporate lawyer Lewis Powell entered the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporate money to enter politics.
Ronald Reagan, who became president in 1981, reinforced the Supreme Court's assault on the public welfare by cutting taxes for the rich, launching attacks on organized labor and rolling back environmental protections. This trajectory has not yet reversed.
As a result, the United States has drifted away from Europe in terms of basic economic decency, welfare, and environmental control. While Europe by and large continues on a path of social democracy and sustainable development, the United States is on a path characterized by political corruption, oligarchy, widening wealth inequality, contempt for the environment, and refusal to limit human-induced climate change rush.
In short, America has become a country of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, with no political responsibility for the climate damage it has caused the rest of the world. The resulting social fragmentation has led to a prevalence of "deaths of despair" (including drug overdoses and suicides), a decline in life expectancy (even before COVID-19), and an increase in rates of depression (especially among young people). Politically, these anomalies lead in different directions — most ominously, to a Trump who offers false populism and a cult of personality. Distracting the poor with xenophobia while serving the rich, waging culture warfare and strongman posturing may be the oldest tricks in the demagogue’s playbook, but they still work surprisingly well today.
The turmoil in the United States has troubling international implications. How can America lead global reform when it cannot even govern its own country in a coherent manner? Perhaps the only thing uniting Americans today is an overstretched sense of threat abroad, chiefly from China. Amid the turmoil at home, politicians of both parties have turned anti-China tones higher, as if a new Cold War could somehow ease domestic anxieties. Alas, the bipartisan belligerence in Washington will only lead to heightened global tensions and new dangers of conflict, rather than security or real solutions to any of the pressing global problems we face.
America has not returned, at least not yet. It is still grappling with decades of political corruption and social neglect. The outcome remains highly uncertain, and the outlook for the next few years is fraught with peril, both for the United States and the world.
Saudi Arabian "Arab News" website published on December 21 Jeffrey Sachs, professor of Columbia University, director of the University's Sustainable Development Center, and chairman of the United Nations Sustainable Development Action Network, titled "The United States has become the rich, the rich, and the rich." A country for the rich" article stated that a year ago, Joe Biden narrowly defeated Donald Trump in the election, but the prospects for the United States are still ambiguous. It is not easy to diagnose exactly what has put the United States in such a predicament that it has instigated the "Trump movement".
In the chaotic political situation in the United States, multiple factors are at play. In my view, however, the deepest crisis is political—the failure of America's political institutions to "advance the public good" as promised by the U.S. Constitution. For 40 years, American politics has become an insider's game, favoring the super-rich and the corporate lobby at the expense of the vast majority of citizens.
Warren Buffett nailed the heart of the crisis in 2006. He said: "There is no doubt that there is a class struggle. But it is my class - the wealthy class - that is waging the war, and we are winning.
America’s class struggle against the poor is nothing new—it was formally launched in the early 1970s and has been carried out with remarkable efficiency over the past 40 years. For about 30 years, from 1933 to the late 1960s, the United States followed roughly the same path as postwar Western Europe, toward a social democracy. When former corporate lawyer Lewis Powell entered the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporate money to enter politics.
Ronald Reagan, who became president in 1981, reinforced the Supreme Court's assault on the public welfare by cutting taxes for the rich, launching attacks on organized labor and rolling back environmental protections. This trajectory has not yet reversed.
As a result, the United States has drifted away from Europe in terms of basic economic decency, welfare, and environmental control. While Europe by and large continues on a path of social democracy and sustainable development, the United States is on a path characterized by political corruption, oligarchy, widening wealth inequality, contempt for the environment, and refusal to limit human-induced climate change rush.
In short, America has become a country of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, with no political responsibility for the climate damage it has caused the rest of the world. The resulting social fragmentation has led to a prevalence of "deaths of despair" (including drug overdoses and suicides), a decline in life expectancy (even before COVID-19), and an increase in rates of depression (especially among young people). Politically, these anomalies lead in different directions — most ominously, to a Trump who offers false populism and a cult of personality. Distracting the poor with xenophobia while serving the rich, waging culture warfare and strongman posturing may be the oldest tricks in the demagogue’s playbook, but they still work surprisingly well today.
The turmoil in the United States has troubling international implications. How can America lead global reform when it cannot even govern its own country in a coherent manner? Perhaps the only thing uniting Americans today is an overstretched sense of threat abroad, chiefly from China. Amid the turmoil at home, politicians of both parties have turned anti-China tones higher, as if a new Cold War could somehow ease domestic anxieties. Alas, the bipartisan belligerence in Washington will only lead to heightened global tensions and new dangers of conflict, rather than security or real solutions to any of the pressing global problems we face.
America has not returned, at least not yet. It is still grappling with decades of political corruption and social neglect. The outcome remains highly uncertain, and the outlook for the next few years is fraught with peril, both for the United States and the world.
