US President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night was quite upbeat. It was long on domestic affairs and short on foreign policy. It skimmed through the challenges posed by Russia and China and skipped the rest of the world altogether.

It is a first for a US president to reduce the United States’ global role to an afterthought, no less a president who considers himself an authority on foreign policy, or for a commander-in-chief, who has spent so much time, effort and political capital confronting Russia in Ukraine and containing China in Asia. This, therefore, begs the question: Why has Biden chosen to ignore entire continents and countless hot spots where America is directly involved?

According to one theory, Americans are not terribly interested in the rest of the world and foreign policy is an unaffordable luxury at a time of economic hardships and culture wars. Even the elites with greater overseas interests realise that costly investment in foreign policy is becoming a hard sell for the public in the absence of direct national security threats.

Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech skipped foreign policy for a reason.

Biden understands that, which is why when he first took office, he vowed to end the “forever wars” and promised a “foreign policy for the middle class” – one that serves Americans at large.

But that has proven easier said than done, as Washington has channelled billions of dollars to Ukraine to fight a war that may last years amid warnings from populist Republicans about high inflation, the high cost of living, and high national debt.

Hence the president, who seems keen on pursuing a second term, dialled down the costly global bravado in his speech and instead focused on “made in America” growth and prosperity. His call on Congress to tax billionaires and big corporations and lower the costs of drugs – aligning him with the “progressive left” led by Senator Bernie Sanders – may prove more popular among working and middle-class families than, say, restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

According to another theory, however, there is not much to celebrate in US foreign policy, which is why the president decided to skip the subject altogether. The two theories are not mutually exclusive.

Biden may have embraced Senator Sanders’ prescriptions on the economic malaise, but do not expect him to take his approach on foreign policy, no less in the Middle East, where the US has failed miserably. And disgracefully.

The president rejects Sanders’s stance on the Israeli occupation and the racism of its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Worse, he embraces the populist right-wing premier as his best friend, and continues to support his government of fascists and fanatics.

But Israel is only one of several failures.

There has not been a single foreign policy accomplishment anywhere in the greater Middle East, unless one considers the humiliating and disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in favour of the Taliban a success, after 20 years of horrific war.

Truth be told, the Biden administration has helped reach ceasefires or maintain stalemates and status quos from Sudan to Syria, through Iraq, Libya, Palestine and Yemen. But that’s hardly a good thing; in fact, it’s a terrible normalisation of a dreadful situation.

Biden, who promised to put human rights at the centre of his foreign policy, has ignored US clients’ human rights violations and has been supporting strongmen who rule with an iron fist, while the region teeters under violent sectarian and authoritarian regimes.

Washington cannot in good conscience claim to confront Russia and China in the name of democracy, human rights and the preservation of sovereignty, while appeasing colonialism and dictatorship in the Middle East or elsewhere.

It is hypocritical and it is counterproductive.

Half a century after young Senator Biden first visited the Middle East in 1973, the older President Biden seems to view the region through the same prisms he did back then: Israel, oil, and the Cold War with Moscow. But as one exhausted 19th-century saying goes: history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

It is indeed laughable that despite 50 years of costly strategic, diplomatic and military interventions, the US is back to square one, appeasing misbehaving regional clients in the name of a global democracy crusade and getting rejected and humiliated in the process.

Biden began and ended his State of the Union speech with the lofty idea that America is the land of possibilities. It is a nice and catchy slogan, one that allowed the country to dream big and to reach the moon, literally.

America is indeed a mighty nation, but it is not almighty. It must stop its evangelical approach to world affairs as if it is ordained to shape it, police it, and lead it. It is not.

By Marwan Bishara – Senior political analyst at Al Jazeera

L’article US foreign policy reduced to an afterthought est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

L’administration Biden traverse une mauvaise passe, qui se ressent jusqu’aux plus hauts niveaux de l’Etat. L’étoile de la vice-présidente Kamala Harris pâlit. Perçue comme une succession naturelle à Joe Biden il y a un an, elle peine aujourd’hui à convaincre et suscite les critiques.

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on reports VP Kamala Harris’ allies say she is underutilized in her role: “So you don’t feel misused or underused?”

Harris: “No, I don’t.” pic.twitter.com/YmbxJEaJbQ

— The Recount (@therecount) November 18, 2021

“Même si je suis la première à ce poste, je ne serai pas la dernière”, promettait Kamala Harris l’an dernier après son arrivée à la vice-présidente.

Elle a déjà marqué l’histoire en devenant la première femme et la première personne noire et d’origine asiatique à être investie au poste de vice-présidente, qui en fait théoriquement l’héritière de Joe Biden, âgé de 79 ans, lors d’une prochaine élection présidentielle.

Et pourtant, elle traverse une passe difficile politiquement et peine à trouver sa place à la Maison Blanche. Elle y est chargée de missions particulièrement délicates, ayant trait à l’accès des minorités au vote ou aux origines de la crise migratoire. Et pour l’heure, l’immigration atteint des records à la frontière mexicaine.

Rumeurs de tensions et de relations difficiles

Selon plusieurs médias américains, l’équipe de Kamala Harris connaît des tensions internes et entretient des relations difficiles avec les collaboratrices et collaborateurs de Joe Biden. La vice-présidente aurait du mal à exister, souvent confinée à un rôle de figuration, quelques mètres derrière Joe Biden. La presse se demande même s’il n’y aurait pas un “problème Kamala”.

Le secrétaire aux transports, Pete Buttigieg, à la Maison Blanche, le 8 novembre 2021. [Susan Walsh – Keystone/AP Photo]

Rumeurs d’insatisfaction et plongée dans les sondages forcent ainsi la Maison Blanche à réagir. Jen Psaki, porte-parole du gouvernement, a paru embarrassée devant les journalistes: “Je sais que le président s’appuie sur les conseils de la vice-présidente. Elle s’occupe de dossiers difficiles et elle ne cherche pas un rôle pépère”. Et pourtant, il semble bien loin le temps de la complicité entre Barack Obama et Joe Biden.

De surcroît, on prête à Kamala Harris des rivalités au sein de l’administration, notamment avec l’ambitieux secrétaire aux Transports Pete Buttigieg. Ce dernier assure toutefois: “Elle et moi faisons partie d’une équipe disciplinée. Nous ne sommes pas obsédés par les commentateurs, on est trop occupés par le boulot à faire.”

La dauphine idéale?

Reste un malaise derrière les sourires de façade. Celles et ceux qui veulent succéder à Joe Biden devront commencer à se positionner dès l’an prochain. La vice-présidente est sur la défensive. Sur la chaîne de télévision ABC, à la question de savoir si elle a l’impression d’être mal utilisée, elle répond: “Non, je suis très enthousiasmée par le travail que nous avons accompli. Mais je suis aussi absolument consciente qu’il faut en faire plus. Et on va le faire.”

A Washington, commentatrices et commentateurs politiques ont commencé à spéculer ouvertement sur l’avenir politique de la vice-présidente. Un rôle toujours ingrat et elle n’y échappe pas. Et côté démocrate, une interrogation: est-elle vraiment la dauphine idéale? Kamala Harris devra encore batailler ces prochains mois pour trouver sa place.

World Opinions – RTS Info

L’article Analyse. La vice-présidente américaine Kamala Harris dans une passe difficile est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

US President-elect Joe Biden is to undo one of Donald Trump’s last actions in office by blocking his decree lifting Covid travel bans on visitors from much of Europe and Brazil.

Mr Biden’s spokeswoman said now was not the time to be easing travel measures.

Joe Biden will take office at 12:00 (17:00 GMT) on Wednesday. However, much of the spotlight is on Mr Trump’s final moves, including presidential pardons.

Security is intense in Washington DC ahead of the inauguration ceremony.

Thousands of National Guard reserve soldiers have been deployed in the wake of the storming of the Capitol building by a pro-Trump mob on 6 January that left five people dead.

The FBI had earlier warned of possible protests across the nation by right-wing extremists emboldened by the invasion.

What was the Trump decree about?

The US imposed travel restrictions on Europe last March and the Brazilian entry ban was put in place in May, but the White House decreed on Monday that the entry ban would end on 26 January, six days after Mr Biden takes office.

Just minutes later, Mr Biden’s spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said on Twitter: “On the advice of our medical team, the administration does not intend to lift these restrictions on 1/26. In fact, we plan to strengthen public health measures around international travel in order to further mitigate the spread of Covid-19.”

She said that with “more contagious variants emerging around the world, this is not the time to be lifting restrictions on international travel”.

What else might Trump do on his final full day?

Barred from Twitter following the Capitol riots, the president has been uncharacteristically quiet and there have been few details of what he might do on Tuesday.

A statement from the White House press office read simply: “President Trump will work from early in the morning until late in the evening. He will make many calls and have many meetings.”

There has been no invitation to Joe Biden for the traditional pre-inauguration meeting at the White House.

World Opinions News – bbc.com

L’article Biden to block Trump’s Covid rule change on president’s final day in office est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

To understand what’s going on at the Capitol today as the House considers impeaching President Donald Trump for a second time, it’s helpful to look at a bit of recent history.

Throughout much of 2009, progressives watched in deep frustration as President Barack Obama and his allies kept chasing bipartisan buy-in for the massive health care law under consideration in Washington. Democrats, against all realism, thought they might be able to win over some Republican colleagues through the merits of the legislation, the political upsides of getting onboard or even personal affinity.

Democrats included a stunning 188 concessions to Republicans, including allowing small businesses to band together to increase their negotiating power and forcing members of Congress to use it as their provider. White House negotiators spent hours monitoring the bipartisan Gang of Six in the Senate, chasing a way to get Republican buy-in. The genuine friendship between Democratic Senate Finance Chairman Max Bachus and top Republican Chuck Grassley led to some fun conversations about how to structure this part or that to make a deal less toxic to Republicans.

In the end, though, Republicans never got to yes. Grassley started talking about “death panels” and then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell signaled that the future of lawmakers in his chamber hinged on toeing the line on this major vote. In the end, Obamacare became law without any meaningful Republican support.

In Washington, there are few lines as strong as a critique of a bill that “passed without a single vote from the other party.” It means the result was entirely one-sided — and it gives the other party implicit permission to scrap it as soon as it gets a majority. (One GOP House member, after the bill passed, cast his vote in support of Obamacare.) The 2009 economic stimulus package also passed without a single vote in the House, as did the Dodd-Frank financial reform package, which attracted zero GOP yays in the House. Taken together, they all all served to unify Republicans to start to tear down the laws’— and Obama’s — legitimacy.

But there’s another, possibly equal power to be harnessed. Let’s call it the Power of Non-Zero. Even a few votes in support of a piece of opposition-led legislation insulates it from total demonization, for to call it evil incarnate and corrupt at its core implies members of your own tribe betrayed your common sense of values. Want to neutralize your critics? Hire their best friends.

It’s why on questions of national importance, you usually see lawmakers reach across the aisle, even if they have the numbers they need to get something passed. President George W. Bush and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy were about as different as they came, but found common ground on education with No Child Left Behind. A year later, when it came time for Bush to get the greenlight for wars in Afghanistan and, later, Iraq, Bush’s White House lobbied for a bipartisan resolution. In the end, only one member of the House voted against Afghanistan and no Senators joined Rep. Barbara Lee in doing so. When it came to Iraq, roughly 40% of House Democrats backed it, and 60% of Senate Democrats did the same.

If you want to do big, durable things in Washington, you seldom can do it along party lines.

Which brings us to today, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is going to set in motion Trump’s second impeachment. A little more than a year ago, the House voted in favor of his first impeachment in a pretty straight, party-line vote. No Republicans in the House voted for it, and only Sen. Mitt Romney was willing to cross the President. Romney cast his vote to convict only on one of the two charges.

Now, you’re starting to see the floodgates break. Most significantly, Rep. Liz Cheney, a member of her party’s Leadership team, isn’t whipping votes away from Pelosi. She’s calling it a “vote of conscience,” meaning members can do what they think is best, and on Tuesday evening said she would be voting for impeachment. “There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. I will vote to impeach the President,” she said.

In the Senate, Republican lawmakers like Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney have also been urging Trump to resign. It would take a massive flood of GOP defections to convict and remove Trump from office, though it might be possible. The rift between Establishment Republicans and the White House clearly is agape. But getting to the necessary 67 votes required in the upper chamber has always been tough, and purposefully so.

Ultimately, it doesn’t seem that enough Republicans in the Senate will defect, at least not right now. But that may not matter. The measure already has the Power of Not-Zero behind it, which may ultimately be what tells Trump that his career in politics is over next week.

World Opinions News – time.com

L’article Republicans Are Breaking Ranks on Impeachment. That’s Good for Democrats — and Bad for Trump est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Along time ago, in 1883, a future president (Woodrow Wilson, a subject of this year’s reckonings) studied political science at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, in a classroom in which was inscribed the slogan “History is Past Politics, Politics is Present History”, attributed to Sir John Seeley, a Cambridge professor.

That was before the era of the made-for-campaign book.

Politics books in this election year fell into three broad categories. The ordinary, ranging from “meeting-and-tells” to campaign biographies that outlived their relevance. The interesting, those which made tentative starts at history or contained some important revelations. And the significant, those few whose value should live past this year because they actually changed the narrative – or are simply good or important reads.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the books also fell in descending categories numerically. Carlos Lozada of the Washington Post read 150 books on Donald Trump and the Trump era for his own book, What Were We Thinking. Virtually all readers, however, will be content with simply a “non-zero” number, to quote a Trump campaign lawyer.

First, the ephemera and the expected offerings of any election year. Scandals in and out of government; tales of the extended Trump family; attempts at self-justification; books, some entertaining, by correspondents; how-to guides to politics meant to be read and applied before November.

The permutations and penumbras of the 2016 campaign continued to produce new books: Peter Strozk’s Compromised is the story of the origin of the investigation into the Trump campaign from one FBI agent’s perspective, strong stuff and persuasive though omitting facts inconvenient to him. Rick Gates’ Wicked Game contains some new inside scoop, but the real stuff presumably went to the Mueller investigation of which Strzok was briefly a part. Donald Trump Jr’s Liberal Privilege had a double mission: to encourage votes for the father in 2020 and perhaps for the son in 2024. American Crisis, New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s early book on the coronavirus outbreak, highlighted his programmatic vision rather than soaring prose, a choice appropriate for the year but quickly forgotten as the pandemic rages on.

Second come those books that made one sit up a bit to pay attention: a new insight, important facts revealed; “worth a detour”, in the language of the Michelin guides. Psychologist and presidential niece Mary Trump’s Too Much and Never Enough explained the pain of the Trump family over two generations and how that pain has influenced our national life for ill. David Frum was among the first to predict Trump’s authoritarian dangers. This year, Trumpocalpyse, well-written and insightful as always, focused on the attacks on the rule of law and “white ethnic chauvinism” as hallmarks of Trumpism, whether its supporters are poor or elite. Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, Pulitzer-winning Post reporters, chronicled Trump more deeply and successfully than most in A Very Stable Genius. Trump’s anger at the book showed they hit their target.

Stuart Stevens’ It Was All a Lie takes Republican history back a few decades in a punchy mea culpa whose themes will be important in the debate over the future of the GOP. Among the Democrats, a rare good work by a politician, Stacey Abrams’ Our Time Is Now, as well as her triumph in political organizing in Georgia, marks her as an important force.

For quality in financial journalism and the importance of its topic, not least to current and future investigations of Trump and the Trump Organization, Dark Towers by David Enrich on Deutsche Bank offers as full an analysis of the bank and its relation to Trump as is likely to be public absent a further court case in New York.

Andrew Weissmann, a senior prosecutor with the Mueller investigation, wrote Where Law Ends, a strongly-written account in which he regrets his boss not having pursued further, notably in not issuing a subpoena to Trump and then in not making a formal determination as to whether the president would be charged with obstruction of justice. Weissmann’s frustration is understandable, but readers may judge for themselves how fair or not he is to the pressures and formal restrictions on Mueller himself.

By John S Gardner – theguardian.com

L’article From A Very Stable Genius to After Trump: 2020 in US politics books est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

On global issues from climate change, to non-proliferation and human rights, the US under the Trump administration had literally gathered up its papers and pens and left the meeting room. Biden’s election victory and choice of committed internationalists to lead the foreign policy team, means that there will actually be someone sitting in what has been an empty chair.

“There’s a lot of relief that we’re going to have a much more normal US to deal with,” said Richard Gowan, the UN director at the International Crisis Group. “It has been symptomatic of US diplomacy in the last couple of years that other countries have really struggled to get a clear picture of what US policies are at times on issues like Libya or Yemen.”

Gowan said one of the many clear winners on the world stage from Biden’s win is the UN secretary general, António Guterres, who has spent four years straining to make nice with Donald Trump to prevent the outgoing president from pulling the plug altogether on US involvement in, and funding for, UN agencies.

“Now there’s a lot of talk that Guterres is preparing to put out lots of big ideas next year about fighting inequality, speeding up the fight against climate change, and really try to get the UN back into the centre of global conversation.”

How a slogan as all-encompassing as “America is Back” is received around the world will inevitably be a Rorschach test for what is perceived to be the “real America” that has been absent in the past four years.

In the liberal democracies in Europe, the general hope and expectation from Biden’s language and demeanour is that the America being restored includes all the best features from the past – with an added dose of humility.

“‘America is Back’ means something very different than if George W Bush had said it, or even if Obama had said it in the context,” said Constanze Stelzenmüller, a senior fellow at the centre on the US and Europe at the Brookings Institution. “And this means that this is a different kind of America – not a rapacious America First at whatever price, but one that makes a very sober assessment of its options and limitations of power.”

The clear lack of US popular support for adventurism in foreign support – which was effectively channeled by Trump – the failures in Libya, Yemen and Syria, and the loss of relative power and prestige of the past four years, suggest that the country returning to the world stage is a chastened America.

“I think that Obama was still able to assume that America had almost unlimited power, and therefore had sovereign choices to make about international engagement, and about the way it dealt with authoritarian rivals,” Stelzenmüller said. “I think the huge difference with this administration is going to be a distinct understanding of limitations – domestic and foreign. And that puts an entirely new value on allies, and also gives allies a great deal of power.”

Some leaders and governments were clearly quite happy with the America that has been evident in the Trump era – none more than the Gulf monarchs and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. They are now making common cause to try to block a US return to pre-Trump policies, particularly the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

“A lot of these regimes were extremely fond of the Trump administration, for a variety of reasons,” said Khaled Elgindy, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “Obviously the posture towards Iran is one issue, but also the kind of laissez-faire attitude toward human rights and rule of law is another reason I think a lot of these authoritarians especially are going to really miss the Donald Trump era.”

It is not just the world’s autocracies who are apprehensive about the “America is Back” slogan. For some longstanding critics of US foreign policy, the very idea of a golden age to which the next administration can return, is a delusion.

For those sceptics, much will depend on whether the Biden foreign policy team, who are familiar faces from the Obama era, will aspire to a restoration or to a fundamental rethink.

“I think the big question – given that Biden is basically putting the Obama band back together – is did they learn anything from the previous eight years they had in power, which was not a stunning success in lots of respects?” asked Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School.

“Have they acquired a greater sense of realism about what American foreign policy can accomplish and what American power can do?”

By Julian Borger in Washington – theguardian.com

L’article Biden says ‘America is back’ at the head of the table – but is that a good thing? est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

The board of state canvassers, which has two Republicans and two Democrats, confirmed the results on a 3-0 vote with one abstention. Allies of Trump and the losing Republican Senate candidate John James had urged the panel to delay voting for two weeks to audit votes in heavily Democratic Wayne county, home to Detroit.

The move is another setback in Trump’s efforts to use unconventional means to undermine the results of the 3 November election and comes even after he made direct overtures to Republican officials in the state by inviting them to the White House last week.

Under Michigan law, Biden claims all 16 electoral votes. Biden won by 2.8 percentage points – a larger margin than in other states where Trump is contesting the results, including Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Some Trump allies had expressed hope that state lawmakers could intervene in selecting Republican electors in states that do not certify. That long-shot bid is no longer possible in Michigan.

Board of state canvassers confirms 154,000-vote victory in 3-0 vote with one abstention

Trump’s efforts to stave off the inevitable – formal recognition of his defeat – faced increasingly stiff resistance from the courts and fellow Republicans with just three weeks to go until the electoral college meets to certify Biden’s victory. Time and again, Trump’s challenges and baseless allegations of widespread conspiracy and fraud have been met with rejection as states move forward with confirming their results.

“The board’s duty today is very clear,“ said Aaron Van Langevelde, the Republican vice-chair. “We have a duty to certify this election based on these returns. That is very clear. We are limited to these returns. I’m not going to argue that we’re not.”

Mary Ellen Gurewitz, an attorney for the state Democratic party, told the canvassers that attacks on the election results “are part of a racist campaign, directed by soon-to-be-former president Trump, to disparage the cities in this country with large Black populations, including Detroit, Philadelphia and Milwaukee.”

Biden crushed the president by more than 330,000 votes in Wayne county, where two local Republican canvassers who certified the results unsuccessfully tried to reverse course last week after being called by Trump.

World Opinions News – theguardian.com

L’article US Election: Michigan certifies Biden’s victory despite Trump’s efforts to undermine it est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.