Insights, analysis and must reads from CNN's Fareed Zakaria and the Global Public Square team, compiled by Global Briefing editor Chris Good Seeing this newsletter as a forward? Sign up here. July 23, 2024 |
|
|
What Biden's Exit Means for the World |
It was a historic weekend for US politics, as President Joe Biden relinquished his reelection bid and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to face former President Donald Trump in November. But it was a big weekend for the rest of the world, too.
As Fareed heard from former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt on Sunday's GPS, European allies are eyeing the US election nervously. Trump's return to office would reintroduce an isolationist and transactional "America first" foreign policy. His selection of Sen. JD Vance as his running mate bolstered that impression.
In an interview with Foreign Affairs, CNN presidential historian and author Timothy Naftali weighs the impact on other countries. Naftali tells Senior Editor Hugh Eakin: "[T]here is now a better chance that a Democrat will win in November. And so I'd argue that, for the moment at least, foreign leaders have to take seriously the possibility that a member of Biden's team or someone else from the Democratic Party will be leading the United States, meaning that they may be able to count on support for Ukraine, for example. Some of that luster may disappear after the beginning of November. But the fact that the Democrats are no longer likely losers I think will influence the way foreign leaders, particularly American adversaries view the Biden administration. … It's a perilous moment when the national strategy of a great power is so in question that an election could alter the country's, or at least its leadership class's, definition of the national interest. And it's especially perilous for the international system when the country in question is a superpower. This situation introduces an uncertainty into the political calculations of every leader."
It's not yet certain that Harris will become the Democrats' presidential nominee, but key party leaders—including some would-be rivals—immediately rallied behind her. So, what can be said about Harris' own foreign-policy leanings?
Some expect her to be more likely to criticize Israel. Middle East specialist Sanam Vakil of the UK-based international-affairs think tank Chatham House tells the UAE-based daily The National that Harris "has no real track record or relationship in the Middle East, she will continue the US's steadfast support for Israel but could prove to be more sympathetic on the case of Palestine." At Politico Magazine, Eric Bazail-Eimil, Joe Gould, Miles J. Herszenhorn and Phelim Kine note Harris' experience standing in for Biden at the Munich Security Conference and at the 2023 ASEAN summit of Southeast Asian countries and her criticism of Trump for questioning the US commitment to NATO.
At Foreign Policy, Aaron Mannes of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy finds no "grand strategy or worldview" in Harris' foreign-policy record. Mannes does note that Harris recruited more countries to forego anti-satellite missile tests that cause space debris and that she was assigned to help slow the pace of illegal border crossings from Mexico. "Her efforts to evade being tagged with the border issue only heightened her association with it—and her sometimes maladroit communication skills," Mannes writes. "But over time, she built relationships with players in Central America that paid dividends." |
|
|
What Kind of Candidate Is Harris? |
Presidential candidates come in two flavors, The Economist writes: insider and outsider. Harris is the former, the magazine writes, "a creature of institutional politics, not a visionary or an ideologue."
Harris "lacks charisma and time" to make her case against Trump, The Economist writes, and some worry that her speedy elevation has diverted Democrats from the benefits of an abbreviated primary and open convention. "[A]s in boxing," writes The Atlantic's Graeme Wood, "it's better to take one's practice hits from a sparring partner rather than from the defending champ who awaits you on fight night."
At The New York Times, a panel of writers grades Harris as less likely to beat Trump than some other Democrats. In a group discussion among Times opinion columnists, Lydia Polgreen offers: "I think Democrats falling in line behind Harris isn't just closing ranks; it is genuine relief and enthusiasm. For weeks now, we have had a kind of mini-tryout for the top of the ticket, with Harris getting the best opportunity to show what she's made of. There were recent chances for Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania to have a star turn—his response to the Trump assassination attempt—and for [Michigan Gov. Gretchen] Whitmer as well—her book promotion tour. I think Harris has threaded the needle very well." In the same conversation, The Times' David French opines: "It's way too early to say if [rallying around Harris quickly is] a mistake. On the one hand, Democrats are not wrong to remember her disastrous 2019 primary campaign. On the other hand, there would be a real cost to a mini-primary, and any candidate not named Kamala Harris would have to be introduced to the American people in less than 100 days." |
|
|
Netanyahu Comes to Congress |
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has feuded with Biden over the war in Gaza, will address the US Congress tomorrow. As Politico's Anthony Adragna writes, Democrats have been forced to decide whether they'll attend.
Al-Monitor's Elizabeth Hagedorn writes: "David Makovsky, a distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who served on the US negotiating team during the 2013-2014 Israeli-Palestinian talks, expects Netanyahu's much-anticipated trip to focus on the hostages still held by Hamas. … 'There are no signs that he's going to carve out any new ground on some of the issues that are at odds with the administration, like the day after or language on the Palestinians about a Saudi deal,' said Makovsky. Analysts say Netanyahu could be more inclined to make concessions after the Knesset begins its three-month recess on July 28, after which it would be difficult to hold a no-confidence vote against him." |
|
|
Israel's simmering conflict with the Yemeni Houthis is back in the news. Israel said it had intercepted a Houthi missile following Israeli strikes in Yemen, after a deadly Houthi drone attack on Tel Aviv.
At the dovish publication Responsible Statecraft, Daniel Larison writes: "The Israeli response represents a major escalation against the Houthis, who have been launching drones and missiles at Israeli targets without success since shortly after the war in Gaza began. The attacks have taken their toll: Israel's Eilat port is now bankrupt as all shipping has been redirected elsewhere, to safer routes, and the U.S. Navy has spent over $1 billion in resources intercepting the Houthis' far less expensive weapons in the Red Sea. Like the ineffective U.S.-U.K. bombing campaign against the Houthis that began in January, these Israeli strikes play into the hands of the Houthis, the armed militia group and political movement that has been the de facto government of north Yemen for the last ten years. Direct conflict with both the U.S. and Israel is a significant boost for the Houthis' domestic political standing, and their opposition to the war in Gaza has likewise raised their international profile."
At The Jerusalem Post, Seth. J. Frantzman notes the broader context. Concerns persist that the Gaza war could expand to involve Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that is backed by Iran—as the Houthis are. Frantzman writes: "Iran is watching the developments in Yemen closely, but it is also positioning itself in the region to benefit from the fresh Israel-Houthi tensions. Iran had mobilized the Houthis back in October to attack Israel. Now there has been blowback, but Iran is confident in its proxies and their abilities. We can see this confidence in Iranian state media headlines today." |
|
|
The CrowdStrike Mess Could've Been Worse |
What might have been the "largest" IT outage "in history," according to one expert, was caused by a Microsoft Windows software update from the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. Business—including more than 5,000 commercial airline flights—was disrupted to the potential tune of $1 billion, CNN's Chris Isidore writes.
As CNN Business' Allison Morrow points out, the possibility of major cyber-incidents is one more reason to be "anxious about the fragility of the global order." At the Center for European Policy Analysis, Edward Lucas writes: "[I]t could have been far worse. Few users realize that allowing automatic updates means their computers and other devices are, in effect, remote-controlled. In other—nefarious—contexts, we would call the mass hijacking of computers a botnet. … [F]ar worse would be if China, Russia or Iran were able to turn legitimate software updates into a de facto botnet. By exploiting the trust we have in legitimate software companies, their spies and saboteurs could steal our data, scramble it, or make it inaccessible on computers and networks all over the world." |
|
|
| You are receiving this newsletter because you signed up for Fareed's Global Briefing.
To stop receiving this newsletter, unsubscribe or sign up to manage your CNN account | |
® © 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved.
1050 Techwood Drive NW, Atlanta, GA 30318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario