USA: Domestic political gridlock

by Leon Gerleit

[This article published on 4/6/2022 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.heise.de/tp/features/USA-Innenpolitischer-Stillstand-6664242.html?seite=all.]

On the power of U.S. presidents in times of crisis and Biden's impotence vis-à-vis his party

Joe Biden's reign so far has been rich in crises large and small. But the Democratic administration is hardly to blame for the widespread Corona pandemic, since the decision to wear a mask and get vaccinated had already degenerated into purely political-symbolic acts under Trump.

It is also hard to reproach Biden for using the retreat of the U.S. hegemonic power to his advantage with the help of the Chinese. But these crises could also create political opportunities for the U.S. president. Does he intend to take advantage of opportunities?

The question arises because so far all attempts by the "Commander and Chief" to push through social and economic reforms have been torpedoed. By political opponents from the Republican Party, but also from within his own ranks, from the Democratic Party.

This poses some problems, because the Democratic Party under Biden must at least give the appearance of some ability to govern before the midterm elections on November 6, 2022.

Blockades

So far, so-called moderate Democrats, most notably Senator Joe Manchin, have refused to support the White House-drafted Build Back Better budget framework and its reincarnation, the Building a Better America plan. Most recently, Manchin boycotted the president's plan to fund such projects in part through a billionaire's tax.

And because Biden lacks the authority to bring his own party in line, the country has so far been in a kind of domestic gridlock. Whether disagreeable party members will give up their blockade by the midterm elections is questionable.

The White House has ways of governing past the Senate. The U.S. presidential system offers the president a rare option in crisis situations to actually use and, if necessary, expand the power of the federal government.

For example, the energy crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine could give the otherwise toothless administration an opportunity to intervene in the nation's production and economy by means of the Defense Action Act, or Defense Production Act.

The Defense Production Act

That's exactly what the White House is considering, according to the Intercept: they are working on an Executive Presidential Order there "that invokes the Defense Production Act to address shortages of key minerals needed for clean energy storage technology." Perhaps it is a signal of the administration's desire to use the power of the executive branch "to achieve progressive policy goals."

Primarily, the administration is responding to an official request from Democratic politicians to use the power of the presidency to secure supply chains, at least for technologies "that reduce fossil fuel demand and fuel costs."

As early as March, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the left wing of the Democratic Party, had crafted an agenda that, with Biden's signature, would elevate investment in and support of renewable energy to a state issue.

Oil and gas industry representatives have objected to such an outright change of course. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon presented his own version of the "Marshall Plan" in a meeting between oil and gas industry lobbyists with the White House a few weeks ago. The proposal resembles a bizarre reversal of the Green New Deal.

Expanding liquefied natural gas facilities in Europe

It proposes to make the Western gas industry independent of Russia by expanding liquefied natural gas facilities in Europe. Despite this masterpiece of U.S. lobbying, both the president and his energy secretary seem convinced of the need for energy reform in favor of renewable energy.

The comparison with the "Marshall Plan" is no coincidence. Even if such a direct form of government seems undemocratic at first glance and an encroaching federal government is decried as un-American, such "executive orders" are common and have historically been used by presidents of both political camps.

Crisis and War Policy

President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) used the Military Defense Act to place nearly the entire U.S. economy under the government's control, a kind of wartime planned economy, including the expropriation of 64 companies that threatened the war effort.

Even soda producers could not escape these directives. Later President General Dwight D. Eisenhower secretly ordered on June 29, 1943, "three million bottles of Coca-Cola (filled)," ten bottling plants, and "enough syrup and corks for six million refills." A request that the otherwise powerful Coca-Cola Company had to comply with.

Similarly, more current presidents have used their official powers, Obama thus enforcing his Affordable Care Act, and Trump using, among other things, the Defense Productive Act to bring Covid vaccine production under government control. In part, such direct executive orders seem the only way to govern.

Student Debt: U.S. education policy

Perhaps this is why progressive politicians in the Democratic Party see the current domestic problems as an opportunity to use the president to push their policy agenda past their more conservative party members.

Another matter close to the heart of progressive Democrats, the cancellation of all student loans, has gained urgency in recent days.

Trump's moratorium on servicing those same education loans ends on May First. Some Democratic lawmakers are going further, simply calling for the cancellation of all such debt. Perhaps there is hope.

Last year, the White House said it had requested a memo from Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to determine whether he had the authority to unilaterally cancel student loans. Now progressive forces within the party are pushing to make those findings public, so far without success.

Such behavior is already more in line with traditional Democratic Party political maneuvering. Joe Biden has repeatedly shown himself opportunistic enough to incorporate some progressive policy goals into his rhetoric. In this case, he was even willing to postpone the education debt moratorium several times.

But when it comes to real reform, it is preferable not to play with one's cards close to one's chest; imagine if the memo requested by the White House confirmed the president's right to implement a sweeping cancellation of education debt. The president and his party could not continue to hide behind alleged political impotence, but would have to actually govern.

Unlike the Republicans, who may confine themselves exclusively to chanting down conservative and right-wing talking points, the Democrats are required by their electorate to show some governing ability now and then.

Another Republican administration under Trump represents a disaster in the eyes of many. But the midterm elections next November are more primarily about maintaining the current president's ability to govern, and that is only worthwhile for the electorate if the president is willing to use it.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Much of the world is ambivalent about the Ukraine war. And rightly so

by Radha Stirling.

[This article published on 4/5/2022 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Ein-Grossteil-der-Welt-steht-ambivalent-zum-Ukrainekrieg-Und-das-zu-Recht-6662735.html?seite=all.]

Russia-Africa summit in Sochi in October 2019. Photo: Mikhail Metzel, Tass

In Asia, Africa, and the Arab world, the prevailing view is that Europe is heading for disaster - and that the international order is falling apart

In much of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, the reaction to the war in Ukraine has so far been restrained. It is a resounding silence.

In the United Nations, 52 member states have either abstained or simply not voted on the UN resolution condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Their silence should not be interpreted as acquiescence to the invasion or hostility toward the West, but as a sign of ambivalence toward the emerging new world order. This ambivalence found expression in the outcome of the vote.

Radha Stirling is founder of the UK-based human rights organization Detained in Dubai. She is a columnist for the English-language online newspaper Times of Israel, where this commentary first appeared.

For the Arab world, it is safe to say that the collective outrage in the West over the invasion of a weaker country by a stronger one is seen as strikingly inconsistent.

After all, U.S. troops have traveled more than 6,000 miles (about 9,656 km) to invade Iraq because of a nonexistent threat, while Russia has invaded a neighboring country that has been upgraded and that has considered joining a military alliance perceived as hostile.

The irony in this matter is well perceived by the Arab public.

Further, the assumption here is that the impact of economic sanctions against Russia will have their effect in the developing world in predictably devastating ways. U.S. President Joe Biden, however, has merely reiterated that his main concern is to ensure that U.S. citizens are protected from the negative consequences - mainly at the gas pump.

About 30 percent of the world's wheat supply could disappear from the market, causing prices for essential food to rise to dangerously high levels.

The last time bread prices rose this much, it prompted the outbreak of the Arab Spring. Russia and Ukraine together are largely responsible for feeding the Middle East. Therefore, no one in the region has an interest in promoting a warlike conflict.

Global South does not want to take risks for Ukraine

This is because any prolongation of the conflict will undoubtedly lead to catastrophic food insecurity, instability and political unrest. This might have suited some at another time. But after a two-year pandemic, no one is willing to expose themselves to a wave of economic problems and uncertainty just so Ukraine can join NATO.

Over the past decade, Russia has become a major trade and investment partner for Africa and Asia in areas such as security, defense, resource extraction, and energy. The West's eagerness to punish and isolate Russia will therefore have a lasting impact on countries in the Global South, which, as noted above, are far from convinced of the moral imperative to defend Ukraine's sovereignty.

OPEC countries, particularly in the Gulf, have now been urged to increase oil production and exports to Europe in order to free the continent from dependence on Russian energy and bring down the skyrocketing price of oil.

But they see that the U.S. is not taking steps to do so. So they no doubt wonder why they should be expected to do more than those who are fueling the drive for sanctions, and why they should be in the business of subsidizing Europe's campaign against Russia.

Destruction in the Ukraine war

Bombed-out tramway in Kharkiv. Image: mvs.gov.ua / CC-BY-4.0

The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, reportedly two of the United States' closest allies in the Gulf, have been particularly reticent about Russian sanctions and Washington's demands for energy cooperation.

Both countries have refused to take calls from the U.S. president during the crisis, but appear to be in regular communication with Moscow.

The UAE has reiterated its opposition by flaunting its power over the global oil market.

Arab oil states see themselves in new position of power

When oil prices fell 13 percent in the middle of the second week of March on the prospect of a local official saying the country was ready to increase production, the UAE energy minister promptly intervened. He revised the announcement, citing an existing OPEC agreement on production quotas. The price of oil immediately rose again.

The UAE clearly feels strengthened in the current situation. I have been warning for years about the Western reluctance to deal with the Emirates. This has built up a dangerous rival masquerading as an ally.

The UAE has repeatedly tested U.S. tolerance. And they have learned that they will never be held accountable. Both Dubai and Abu Dhabi have developed their relationships with Russia and China over the past decade while being able to rely on U.S. protection. They believe they are now too powerful to have to accept Western demands.

It is no secret that Saudi Arabia and the Emirates object to U.S. negotiations with Iran and have sought Russian political support in their war against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

When both countries suffered drone attacks by the Houthis and wanted the group designated a terrorist organization, Russia complied, but the U.S. rowed back; Biden called Abu Dhabi only three weeks after the UAE was targeted in attacks.

Mohammed bin Zayed, the de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates, sees his country not only as a regional power but also as a global player. He is pursuing strategic partnerships - including with Israel - and most recently is trying to improve relations with Turkey again.

No doubt he sees his country's cooperation with Russia as a key element in his plans for expanded influence.

Asia, Africa and Arab states see global order in disarray

There is a growing sense in Asia, Africa and the Arab world that Europe is being dragged into a catastrophe with an eye on Ukraine, and that the international order itself is in decay. As Western nations plunge headlong into the crisis, countries in the Middle East, Asia-Pacific, and Africa are busy assessing the implications for their own peoples as well as the fate that a deglobalized future holds for them.

While Western unity on the Ukraine issue appears at first glance to be a sign of strength, the rest of the world sees it as a profound self-sabotage that may well lead to continental chaos in the years ahead, including U.S. withdrawal as the leading organizing power after World War II.

Ukraine's ten largest cities

Many observers in the Global South see the Russia sanctions and their inevitable destructive effects in Europe as part of the long-discussed U.S. shift in perspective to Asia. Everyone is currently trying to assess what this new global dynamic will look like and how to define their own role in it.

There is talk of reviving the Cold War-era Non-Aligned Movement, which is still present in the minds of developing countries. Countries from the Gulf to the Far East, however, also assume that without Western hegemony they will have to fend for themselves and forge new economic as well as political alliances.

The war in Ukraine is a turning point for many actors in the Global South, and they feel more than ever that they must choose their friends carefully. In this, they will be proven right.