The Dive - 4/1/21
Your monthly compilation of what's what on global politics, American society, and an assortment of odds and ends
Quote of the Month
“…when you consider what dangers you may be in for from other people, you should also be thinking about people’s responsibilities to one another. Keep an eye on one person to avoid being hurt by him, on another to avoid hurting him. You should show pleasure at everyone’s successes, feel for them when their affairs go wrong, remembering when you should be forthcoming and when you should be wary instead.”
- Seneca, Letters on Ethics, 103.3
My recent scribblings:
1. Why progressives ignore accountability overseas at their own peril
Why you should read it: Journalist Kim Ghattas argues in The Atlantic that American progressives ignore demands for accountability and justice overseas in their eagerness to engage reactionary militant groups like Hezbollah and the Taliban - and do so in stark contrast to their emphasis on the same for the perpetrators of the January 6 insurrection.
“Progressives in the U.S. often warn about American overreach and imperialism, advocating humility overseas as they hold up a mirror to their country to highlight its failings. They view the U.S. from the outside to understand what living on the receiving end of American power looks like… But when American progressives advocate empathy for those who have grievances against the U.S., they look not only at people living under the thumb of American-backed autocrats, such as Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, but also at anti-American rulers or groups, such as Hezbollah, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, or Iran. Progressives see such anti-American forces abroad as aggrieved but also as more representative of their respective societies, because they are not funded, or supported, by Washington. A serious problem arises when progressives counsel engagement or power-sharing agreements with such players while overlooking the violence or abuse they mete out.”
“Sitting in Beirut, one could argue that Trumpism and MAGA represent the real America. But would Democrats advocate working with the Proud Boys, or offer them a seat at the table, for the sake of unity? If not, then why should the Lebanese who oppose Hezbollah, the Syrians who oppose Assad, or the Afghans who oppose the Taliban be expected to compromise or share power, rather than being afforded the same standards of justice and accountability Americans today are demanding?”
Why it matters: “American values and American interests will never fully align, and the U.S. will always be accused of hypocrisy as it upholds human rights. But after the events of January 6, Americans must, more than ever, understand that unearned forgiveness and a lack of accountability can perpetuate the rot in the system, erode norms, and undermine long-term stability and governance, at home and abroad… In countries that are not democracies, the division is between those who are fighting for human rights, the rule of law, and transparency, and those who have a monopoly on power and violence, which allows them to evade accountability. This is not to say that the U.S. can or should go around the world administering accountability, or that it should stop engaging with its foes. But it also shouldn’t smother accountability, or favor stability over justice. The events of January 6 should remind Americans that although accountability is divisive, without it, there is no justice and no governance—anywhere.”
2. How Germany became a “laughing stock” on COVID policy response
Why you should read it: In the Financial Times, Berlin bureau chief Guy Chazan details how the German political leaders bungled their nation’s coronavirus response.
“Germans have been grumbling about the slow pace of inoculations for weeks now: so far, only 11 per cent of the population have received at least one dose… But in recent days the frustration has grown into something worse: alarm at the increasingly chaotic feel of government policy and a creeping loss of confidence in Germany’s institutions…The list of [COVID policy] U-turns is indeed striking. A plan to roll out free antibody tests by March 1 was scrapped because it turned out to be impossible to implement in time. Authorities initially declared the AstraZeneca jab unfit for use on people over 65, then okayed it for everyone. The AZ shot was withdrawn completely over fears it could cause blood clots: four days later it was reinstated after the European Medicines Agency insisted it was safe. Then on Tuesday authorities decided it should only be given to the over-60s… Part of the anger can be ascribed to shutdown fatigue: restaurants, theatres and gyms have been closed since November, and most shops since December, and the rapid spread of the highly infectious B.1.1.7 variant first discovered in the UK has stymied hopes that the restrictions might soon be lifted. Jens Spahn, health minister, warned last week that if the situation doesn’t improve, Germany’s health system might reach ‘breaking point’ next month as intensive care units fill up with Covid-19 patients.”
“Meanwhile, vaccinations are progressing too slowly to offer much of a silver lining. Germans are incredulous that so few have received a jab more than three months after a vaccine developed by a German start-up, BioNTech, became the first in the world to receive approval… Germans mostly blame the EU for the shortage of doses: the European Commission stands accused of ordering too little vaccine, too late. But they also fail to understand why the authorities in Germany have been so slow to administer the doses they have. Only around 262,000 people received a jab on Monday, according to the Robert Koch Institute, Germany’s main public health authority — down from a peak of 306,000 on March 12… The inoculation campaign has exposed a system of government that is slow and, at times, overly bureaucratic. That is particularly the case with appointments for jabs: booking websites routinely crash and hotlines are badly understaffed.”
Why it matters: “Germans have been horrified to discover that other EU member countries they long derided as dysfunctional, such as Greece, have outpaced them on inoculations. ‘We look around and discover that we’re no longer one of the leading countries, we’re average at best,' says the [Free Democratic Party] MP [Alexander Graf] Lambsdorff. “That does not fit the Germans’ self-image, not at all.’”
3. How illiberal regimes take advantage of global governance
Why you should read it: International relations scholars Alexander Cooley and Daniel Nexon write in Foreign Affairs that illiberal regimes are increasingly using international institutions and multilateral organizations to shape international order to their own benefit.
“…liberal intergovernmentalism remains a crucial element of contemporary international order. The last 20 years have seen a striking increase in the number of regional organizations, although not in the way that liberal triumphalists envisioned. These organizations and forums do not generally involve advanced industrialized democracies. Led by China and Russia, they mimic the form of Western counterparts but embody illiberal and autocratic norms and promote their authoritarian founders’ regional agendas. In some cases, such as the BRICS (founded in 2009 by Brazil, Russia, India, and China—with South Africa joining in 2010), new organizations explicitly claim to represent important powers once excluded from the existing system of global governance… Other new international organizations challenge the existing multilateral system by governing similar issues or creating new geographic groupings that cut against the authority of liberal institutions. Many of these new groups are actively recognizing and networking with one another, in the process altering the balance between liberal and more illiberal international bodies. In short, the global intergovernmental fabric in 2021 looks increasingly multipolar and politically illiberal compared with the one that existed two decades before.”
“Emerging powers also sought to promote new norms to counter the appeal of political liberalism. One of these, ‘civilizational diversity,’ frequently informs China’s bilateral relations and engagement with international and regional organizations. The concept’s emphasis on cultural relativism, sovereign noninterference, and respect for civilizational differences aims to undercut political liberalism. A different set of ‘counternorms,’ most often championed by Russia, emphasizes “traditional values.’ These update the venerable tradition of associating liberalism with decadence and decline. The Russian government has promoted, with support from some Middle Eastern states, the idea that state-organized religion should play a more prominent role in political life…Indeed, in the 1990s, so-called transnational advocacy networks were overwhelmingly associated with liberal causes such as human rights, gender equality, and environmental protections. Now, illiberal regimes utilize transnational actors for their own ends. Consider, for instance, the success of the World Congress of Families, a network that ties right-wing Christian organizations in the United States together with pro-family groups, religious representatives, and Russian oligarch patrons… Although the WCF may or may not expand in influence, it showcases how transnational advocacy has become a far more contested arena than it was in the 1990s, with illiberal actors and movements often on the offensive.”
Why it matters: “If current trends continue, the emerging international order will likely still contain liberal characteristics. Liberal intergovernmentalism—in the form of multilateral organizations and interstate relations—will remain a major force in world politics. But this will be, to adapt a cliché, intergovernmentalism with autocratic characteristics. Authoritarian states will continue to chip away at political liberalism in older international institutions while constructing illiberal alternatives. Transnational civil society will likely remain a site of continuing ideological contention, with a variety of reactionary, populist, and pro-autocratic actors competing with liberal groups and one another. Such a world will more closely resemble that of the 1920s than the Cold War… The success of efforts to develop an illiberal order does not mean that liberal powers lack opportunities to shape norms and institutions. No international order is homogeneous. There is nothing unusual about variations in arrangements and values across different regions or policy domains. Some aspects of contemporary liberal order, however, particularly in the economic domain, require reform lest they continue to undermine the viability of domestic liberal democratic institutions.”
4. Why the U.S.-China rumble in Alaska augurs a healthier bilateral relationship
Why you should read it: Brookings Institution scholar Thomas Wright contends in The Atlantic that the “very public dustup” between top American and China foreign policy officials in Alaska will actually prove beneficial for the bilateral relationship.
“For an astonished press, witnessing the exchange was like being present at the dawn of a new cold war and seemed to sum up just how bad the U.S.-China relationship had become… But this view misunderstands what is needed in U.S.-China diplomacy right now. The meeting would have been a failure if it had resulted in general declarations to cooperate while minimizing competition, a common U.S. strategy when China’s intentions were not as clear. Organizing the relationship around cooperation is theoretically desirable as an end goal but will be unattainable for the foreseeable future, given the unfolding reality of an assertive, repressive China and a defiant America.”
“Last year, as it anticipated a win for Joe Biden in the U.S. election and then during the transition, China signaled that it wanted to effectively reset the relationship regarding cooperation on climate change and the pandemic. The Biden team saw these overtures for what they were: a trap to get the U.S. to pull back from competing with China in exchange for cooperation that would never really materialize… Had the Biden administration embraced China’s offer, any agreement would have collapsed beneath the weight of Beijing’s actual behavior, as well as opposition in Washington. Biden would have been forced to adjust course and take a more competitive approach anyway, under less favorable conditions, including nervous allies and an emboldened China.”
Why it matters: “The Biden administration understands that a more assertive U.S. approach is jarring to many in the American foreign-policy establishment, which is accustomed to decades of cautious and cooperative engagement in high-level meetings. But friction is necessary, given China’s play for dominance over the past several years… The truth is that the United States does pose a threat to the Chinese Communist Party’s interests (although not necessarily those of the Chinese people), while the CCP surely poses a threat to liberal democracy and U.S. interests. Ultimately, Washington and Beijing will have to acknowledge this to each other. That will be difficult for the Biden administration, which is accustomed to assuming that American interests are not a threat to any other government, but broadly benefit all major world powers. It will be even harder for Beijing, which goes to great lengths to conceal its revisionism behind a shield of insincere platitudes.”
5. How Biden’s COVID relief package shakes up political economy and buttresses democracy
Why you should read it: Columbia economic historian Adam Tooze praises the American Recovery Plan Act in Foreign Policy, contending that it marks a new era in the political economy of the United States - and a shot in the arm for democracy around the world.
"There is a lot of debate right now about the meaning of U.S. democratic leadership on the world stage. In light of recent events, any pretension to that role on President Joe Biden’s part can easily seem hollow… But democratic leadership requires not just the rule of law and the observance of constitutional propriety. It requires more than just reasonable behavior on the part of all the major parties. It also needs to be demonstrated, simply put, by enacting popular policies when they are needed. Democracy is measured by how rapidly and forcefully it responds to crisis, particularly when that crisis hits those with the least security and the least influence. The urgency of those who are most hard up must be visibly felt within the political system. There are moments when democracy consists precisely in ensuring that obfuscation and procedure do not stand in the way.”
“Opinions differ about how far below its trend rate of growth the U.S. economy currently is. But it is clear the Biden stimulus is comfortably larger than any of the credible estimates of the output gap. This means the stimulus is designed to deliberately generate a high-pressure economy… For more than a generation, all the way back to 1993 and the Clinton administration, the bias of technocratic judgement has been the other way. In both fiscal and monetary policy, the preference has been for erring on the side of caution, for penny-pinching when it came to stimulus, and for raising interest rates preemptively. That has left millions of people unemployed when they might have found jobs. It has undercut the bargaining position of working people when they might have been able to demand better pay and conditions. It has made it harder for organized labor to mobilize. It has undercut the case for minimum wages to be raised to a decent level. It has provided little incentive to prioritize investment in increasing labor productivity.”
Why it matters: “Spending money now to achieve the most rapid recovery possible is the imperative of the moment. It is good for the economy in the long run. And it is the essential prerequisite for a policy orientated toward social justice and racial justice in particular… The twin stimulus packages planned by the Biden administration in 2021 are a vigorous and well-conceived bid to break the desperate cycle of Democratic presidential victories and midterm defeats. A repeat of 1994 or 2010 would be a disaster. In light of the crisis that rocked the United States’ democracy in 2020, the stakes could not be higher.”
6. How “influencer culture” has become a substitute for religion among younger American women
Why you should read it: Novelist Leigh Stein observes in the New York Times that Instagram “influencers” like Glennon Doyle have become a substitute for religion among young women.
“By replacing the rigid dogma of religion with the confessional lingua franca of social media, Ms. Doyle has become a charismatic preacher for women — like me — who aren’t even religious… Many millennials who have turned their backs on religious tradition because it isn’t sufficiently diverse or inclusive have found alternative scripture online. Our new belief system is a blend of left-wing political orthodoxy, intersectional feminism, self-optimization, therapy, wellness, astrology and Dolly Parton.”
"Ms. Doyle and other quasi-spiritual influencers are the latest iteration of an American institution that has been around since the second half of the 20th century: the televangelist… An original televangelist, Oral Roberts, began television broadcasts of his services in 1954. Millions of Americans were captivated by his dramatic onscreen healings and his message that positive thinking (and donations to his ministry) would lead to prosperity. Instavangelists like Gabrielle Bernstein (916,000 followers on Instagram) have rebranded the prosperity gospel as manifesting abundance, and she, Ms. Doyle (1.5 million followers), Brené Brown (3.3 million followers) and Gwyneth Paltrow (7.5 million followers) have become the neo-religious leaders of our era.”
Why it matters: “Left-wing secular millennials may follow politics devoutly. But the women we’ve chosen as our moral leaders aren’t challenging us to ask the fundamental questions that leaders of faith have been wrestling with for thousands of years: Why are we here? Why do we suffer? What should we believe in beyond the limits of our puny selfhood?… There is a chasm between the vast scope of our needs and what influencers can provide. We’re looking for guidance in the wrong places. Instead of helping us to engage with our most important questions, our screens might be distracting us from them… Contrary to what you might have seen on Instagram, our purpose is not to optimize our one wild and precious life. It’s time to search for meaning beyond the electric church that keeps us addicted to our phones and alienated from our closest kin.”
7. How Russia keeps Syrians starving
Why you should read it: Long-time Syria watcher Charles Lister and former UN and State Department official Jeffrey Feltman describe in Politico how Vladimir Putin’s Russia uses its leverage at the UN to block humanitarian assistance from reaching desperate Syrians.
“When the UN originally started sending cross-border aid in 2014, it had access to four crossings that ran through Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. By January 2020, only two remained open. And since last July, there has been just one: Bab al-Hawa, which has strained at the seams as the demand for humanitarian aid has intensified while COVID-19 spreads… The aid flows to regions held by Syrian opposition forces, which are being systematically starved out by dictatorial president Bashar al-Assad. Russia considers Assad an ally, and so any aid—even for humanitarian reasons—is an affront to his rule. Accordingly, last January, during negotiations scheduled to determine the extension of aid access, Russia forced the closure of a crossing from northern Iraq and another from Jordan. Both had been providing a lifeline to northeastern and eastern Syria. Then last July, Russia used the same tactic to shut down the Bab al-Salam crossing from Turkey into northern Aleppo.”
“The warfare component of the Syrian fight has been well documented, but Russia’s exploitation of its diplomatic clout in the UN to further a siege-and-starve strategy is less well known. By cutting millions of people off from vitally needed aid, Russia seeks only one goal: to force populations to surrender to a regime that has shot, shelled, bombed and gassed them for a decade… With Syria in an internal standoff, Russia began pursuing a different strategy to help Assad: using diplomatic levers to incrementally sever aid access to regions still opposed to Syria’s regime. Even areas violently retaken by the regime no longer receive cross-border aid, while being all but abandoned by the bankrupt government in Damascus. In southern Syria, for example, which was administered by the opposition until mid-2018, living conditions are dire and communities have been forced to call upon relatives abroad to pool money together to rebuild things like water pipes and electricity lines.”
Why it matters: “…if the U.S. and allies are to stand any chance of preventing Russia and China’s intended vetoes, they will need to act at the highest levels. Commendable efforts are underway within the UN and across parts of the U.S. and allied governments to avoid the seemingly inevitable, by maneuvering diplomatically to counter Russia’s intentions while preparing contingency plans for non-UN mandated aid supplies. However, these efforts are unlikely to be enough. To change Russia’s calculus, President Biden will have to take on this file himself, along with Blinken and Power – and not just interject once, but consistently in the lead-up to the July vote… Beyond all the politics, this is a matter of humanitarian principles – with stakes that amount literally to millions of human lives. If we fail to prevent Russia this time, a truly terrible precedent will have been set, from which the world could well struggle to ever reverse.”
8. Why the United States should aim to contain, not ostracize, MBS
Why you should read it: In Foreign Affairs, long-time Gulf scholar F. Gregory Gause makes the case that the United States should use its influence in Saudi Arabia to contain - not isolate - Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and his reckless behavior.
“Human rights defenders, journalists, and even some prominent former U.S. officials have criticized Biden for not sanctioning MBS directly. Such arguments are largely couched in terms of the need to sanction human rights abusers (with journalists particularly incensed that Biden gave the killer of one of their own a pass). But some critics have further implied that Biden has the power to force King Salman and the rest of the Saudi royal family to replace MBS with a new leader… What these critics miss is that MBS is now an entrenched and most likely immovable pillar of the Saudi decision-making structure. With the support of his father, King Salman, MBS has ruthlessly and effectively consolidated power in his own hands, leaving the United States as one of the few, if not the only, effective checks on his authority. Attempting to isolate MBS would not force his removal from power but rather eliminate Washington’s ability to restrain his behavior abroad and, to a lesser degree, at home.”
“Having consolidated almost total control of the Saudi government and kept familial opposition at bay, MBS faces only one practical check on his freedom of action: the United States. MBS’s ambitious plans for economic change depend on international investment, with American investors taking a leading role. He cannot be a player in the world financial system if Washington stands against him. The United States is still Saudi Arabia’s most important international partner and ultimate security guarantor. No Saudi ruler wants to put that relationship at risk… Any effort to turf MBS out of his central position in the current Saudi system would amount to something very close to regime change, which has not worked out well for the United States in the Middle East. The last thing that the Biden administration should do is get involved in this kind of spy-novel skullduggery. The idea that it can dislodge MBS is not just wishful but dangerous thinking, a repeat of the hubris that has led the United States astray in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere.”
Why it matters: “Isolating MBS might provide some short-term emotional satisfaction, but for an administration looking to contain Middle East crises and avoid new conflicts, dealing with Saudi Arabia is a necessity. And that means dealing with MBS.”
9. How the growing elite obsession with race is rife with danger for the United States
Why you should read it: Financial Times U.S. national editor Ed Luce notes that elites on both right and left in the United States have come to interpret events primarily - if not solely - through the lens of group identity, with detrimental consequences for the nation as a whole.
“Ideologically, conservatives and liberals live in different worlds. Both, however, increasingly view it through the lens of group identity… The danger is that US politics will deteriorate into a series of feuds, in which ancestral crimes can never be atoned. Where the grievance is a political currency, the incentive to present your group as victims is overwhelming. In some cases, such as Americans descended from slaves or native Americans, the crimes against them were vast and their legacy endures. Other identity groupings, including Asian-Americans and Hispanics, are too broad to be as meaningful.”
“America’s most potent ethnic group, meanwhile, remains whites, whose supposed grievances are increasingly the glue that keeps the Republican party together. Since they still make up a majority, Republicans have an interest in inventing resentments. Democrats, meanwhile, rightly condemn the Republican party’s increasingly overt racial incitements. Most of the leading Republican populists, such as Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ron DeSantis of Florida are Ivy League graduates. The same educational background applies to much of the Fortune 500-led diversity industry, whose focus on the optics of senior appointments is matched only by uninterest in how much their janitors are paid.”
Why it matters: “It is possible that decades from now, Americans will look back on today as a period of acute social paranoia before the US finally embraced a calmer politics within its multi-ethnic reality… No side ever wins in an endless feud. The only beneficiaries are the elites directing events, far away from most people’s reality."
Odds and Ends
How LBJ and Hubert Humphrey beat the filibuster to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964…
Why lasers could help future astronauts communicate more efficiently back to Earth…
How “Israel’s mini-Pompeii” helps archaeologists uncover the end of the Bronze Age…
Why NASA included a mini-helicopter named Ingenuity on the Mars rover Perseverance…
How tugboats, dredgers, and the tides dislodged the gigantic container ship Ever Given from the Suez Canal…
Music of the Month
“Witches Burn,” a track from the recently-released album Death by Rock and Roll from the heavy metal band The Pretty Reckless.
“We Rock,” the opener to Dio’s 1985 album The Last In Line.
“La, La, La, He, He, Hee (Highly Explosive),” a ten-minute version of the “Sign O’ The Times” B-side released on the 2020 remaster of the Sign O’ The Times album.