We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
News
Pro-Palestinian protesters clash with law enforcement as officials clear demonstrator encampments on UCLA's campus on May 2, 2024 in Los Angeles, CA.
Early today, police in riot gear moved against protest encampments at UCLA, taking down tents, arresting people, and removing demonstrators from campus. This came after similar actions on campuses ranging from Columbia to Dartmouth.
Where is this headed?
What started as a reaction to the Hamas-orchestrated massacre of Oct. 7 and the extent of the deadly counteroffensive by the Israeli military has now grown to encompass wider, more amorphous issues. These include everything from the validity of Zionism to the viability of a two-state solution and now, depending on where you go, climate justice, over-militarized policing, and even capitalism itself.
In the military, this would be called mission creep. That’s when a mission starts with a specific goal, but over time the scope widens so much that the initial objective is lost and the new goals become too complex to be attainable. This usually ends in failure.
“Mission creep” was coined by a Washington Post columnist in 1993 to describe the disastrous American-supported UN intervention in Somalia — the famous Black Hawk Down incident in which 18 Marines were killed. It became more prominent after 9/11 when the initial objective of wiping out al-Qaida spread into overthrowing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, which morphed again into the idea of setting up stable democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mission creep is a trap, setting impossible goals that erase the possibility of an exit strategy.
This is starting to happen with the campus protests as well. It’s not mission creep exactly. Call it protest creep – where the scope of subjects now being debated is so vast that it is starting to undermine the very real issues the demonstrators wanted to bring to light.
Whatever position you hold, the right to ask uncomfortable questions about Hamas’s attack or about Israel’s response is what a democracy is all about. Is the Israeli invasion of Gaza a justified response to a terror group’s massacre, as some say, or has it morphed into a genocidal war on Palestinians, as others argue?
Should universities boycott, sanction, and divest from any company doing business with Israel or support the defeat of a genocidal terror group like Hamas? These questions rightly evoke passionate responses and make some people feel uncomfortable. Of course they do. But democracies are not built to protect people from feeling uncomfortable; they are built to protect individual and collective civil liberties. Being exposed to and living with ideas you disagree with is the foundation of an open society – and frankly, one of the purposes of going to university in the first place.
That doesn’t mean there should be no red lines. For example, the space between support for the people of Gaza and criticism of Israel’s response has moved into a full debate about Zionism itself – and whether anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism. On April 26, the office of the president of Columbia University issued a letter acknowledging “the antisemitism being expressed by some individuals,” going on to say, “Chants, signs, taunts, and social media posts from our own students that mock and threaten to ‘kill’ Jewish people are totally unacceptable, and Columbia students who are involved in such incidents will be held accountable.”
Some students have pushed back, arguing that most demonstrations are not antisemitic and that their views are being willfully mischaracterized by some politicians who are cherry-picking bad moments to justify a heavy-handed police response to peaceful protests about the Palestinian people.
It’s naïve to pretend that political manipulation is not a factor here, and much of this is also being filtered by the US presidential campaign. But it’s also naive to suggest that there’s not a disturbing element of dynamics like anti-semitism as well. But that’s not what protest creep is about.
As Jeremy Peters wrote in the New York Times, many student demonstrators are not only motivated by the events in Gaza, but have linked those to “policing, mistreatment of Indigenous people, discrimination toward Black Americans, and the impact of global warming.”
It’s not surprising to see acts of solidarity among groups, but is it helpful? What about when the protests veer into issues like Zionism itself? If the debate is now so wide that it includes asking if Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state–and that is common–should there be debates around the right of Muslim countries, theocracies, or kingdoms to exist? Will there be debates about Jordan’s right to exist, a country carved out of the British mandate in 1946, two years before Israel and founded? What about countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or others whose lines were randomly drawn on a map by Western governments after the war?
These are interesting questions, but are they helpful for the current crisis? At best, they force an endless regression into debates about settlers and nationalism – questions that have no simple answers. At worst, they suggest a double standard of morality and accountability.
Canada, the US, and Australia, for example, all struggle to find answers to painful and real questions about Indigenous rights and land claims, but outside of some basic sense of solidarity, is blending these with the crisis in Gaza useful? Do these debates bring clarity, or is the chaos today being used opportunistically by some radical elements to amplify any cause?
Finally, who is responsible for protest creep? Part of it lies with the media for using loose terms to lump disparate groups together and blurring messages so nuanced distinctions get lost. Part of it lies with the protesters, who are caught in their own momentum and are losing control of the narrative. And lastly, part lies with the politicians and the authorities, who label groups and torque up fears to bolster their agendas. It’s a mess, and it looks like there is no way out.
No way out.
That’s always the problem with mission creep – and now with protest creep. There’s no exist strategy. The aims become so big, so endless, that the whole idea of a peaceful, practical solution is lost. The fight itself has become the whole point.
Mark Carney set the cat among the pigeons last week with a speech that gently criticized the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and tore a strip off of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
Carney, the former governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, wants to be Canada’s prime minister, so he is letting it be known that he might do a better job than Trudeau while warning against the alternative.
Carney said Trudeau is spending too much money and is insufficiently focused on productivity — something most business people and economists think — but compared the prospect of a Poilievre victory to Brexit, which turned out to be the disaster he warned against.
“Brexiters promised that they were going to create Singapore on the Thames,” he said. “The … government actually delivered Argentina on the Channel.”
After the speech went live, a Liberal close to Trudeau messaged me a clip in which Carney used a series of catchphrases you’d expect to hear at Harvard Business School: “Hinge moment; dynamism; mission-oriented capitalism; combining resilience and purpose; mission institutions; seize the advantages.”
“These are all things Mark Carney said in 30 seconds or so,” the Liberal wrote. “That speech Carney gave is stuffed with more $5 bills than a vendor’s bag at the Jays game. Pierre will cream him.”
A threat from within
Some around Trudeau are uneasy about Carney’s high-profile outings. Liberals outside Trudeau’s circle are starting to think it might be nice if the prime minister spent more time with his family, because Canadians are so tired of him. He has been trailing Poilievre in the polls since Poilievre became leader in 2022. Trudeau just rolled out a CA$53 billion budget that so far has not moved the polls — an indication that Canadians have tuned him out. Some Liberal insiders hope Carney will take over and save them from the drubbing that Poilievre is getting ready to deliver in the next election.
But this is not what Trudeau’s people want. They point out that Carney has no experience in retail politics and may think Canada should be run like a central bank, where remote technocrats with degrees from elite universities make wise decisions without worrying about the grubby business of building political support. They are worried that the banker will lead the party to an electoral disaster.
Savior in the wings
Trudeau is not likely to be ousted, Liz Truss-style, since he single-handedly built the modern Liberal Party, and there is no rival in his caucus. But if Carney looks like a savior waiting in the wings, pressure will mount for Trudeau to hit the lecture circuit. Over the years, there has repeatedly been talk about Carney joining Trudeau’s team, but insiders say Trudeau — who may not have wanted to share the spotlight — would not promise Carney a role on the front bench. So now he is outside, loitering, waiting for a chance to run Canada, and Canadians are interested in what he is saying.
Carney’s video attack on Poilievre got three million views online, which is pretty good for a Canadian political video. The Conservatives responded by demanding Carney be summoned to testify at the Commons finance committee. “Canadians deserve to know how much Carney will increase Trudeau’s carbon tax, how much more debt he will add, and whether he would destroy Canada’s energy sector,” the party said.
When MPs from other parties sensibly declined to summon Carney, a private citizen, to the committee to be berated, Conservatives made a show of being furious. It was a stunt, meant to show Conservative contempt for the man who might replace Trudeau and lead the Liberals into the next election. But it also reflected real fear and loathing.
A threat to Poilievre
“The biggest thing that I think keeps Pierre Poilievre up at night right now is the thought that Justin Trudeau might leave,” a Conservative insider told me. “That scares him because he thinks it's an easy win right now. Canadians right now are thirsty, hungry, dying for change. A new leader of the Liberal Party is change. So that is a huge, huge threat to Poilievre.”
Poilievre is a fearsome political attack dog. On Tuesday, the Speaker threw him out of Parliament for calling Trudeau a “wacko.” He is happy to use populist rhetoric against Carney, portraying him as a “Davos elite” and accusing him of hypocritically imposing the cost of climate policy on ordinary Canadians while personally profiting from pipelines through his role as chair of Brookfield Asset Management, where he is in charge of environmental, social, and governance investing. Since 2020, Carney has been UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, working to make financial markets move the world toward a net-zero energy system — which is not popular with some folks in the oil patch.
Poilievre’s people say confidently that they would love to run against Carney, that he would be a perfect symbol of the regime they wish to replace, but they are behaving like they are worried, and for good reason. Carney is an astonishingly successful person, a smooth and thoughtful public speaker with decades of experience at the highest level of economic management. If he takes over, he could jettison unpopular Trudeau policies and present a fresh face to the electorate, offering safe hands.
Or … he could be a disaster, brittle, smug, and inclined to lecture, presenting himself as a potential CEO, not a leader. We can’t know unless or until he runs.
But he is becoming the obvious Liberal alternative to Trudeau, and the Conservatives, by attacking him, will help make that clear not just to their supporters but also to progressives thinking about who should replace Trudeau.
Westridge Marine Terminal, the terminus of the Canadian government-owned Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project is seen in Burnaby, from Cates park in North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada May 1, 2024.
12: Let the oil flow. After 12 years of construction, political wrangling, cost overruns and other delays, the Trans Mountain pipeline has started operating. The project, which cost some $25 billion (CA$34 billion), will nearly triple the amount of crude shipped from Alberta to the Pacific coast, expanding access to the lucrative Asia Pacific market and boosting GDP Canada, the world’s fourth largest oil-producer.
1.8: This feels … unproductive. Canada’s labor productivity – a measure, loosely speaking, of how efficiently an economy produces goods and services – fell by 1.8% last year, the third consecutive year of decline. Analysts blamed lagging investment in infrastructure, research, and technology as companies enjoyed an influx of comparatively inexpensive migrant labor. Falling productivity could open Canada up to stiffer competition from Mexico, which is seeing a massive influx of foreign investment as US companies look to cut their dependence on production facilities in China.
3: New job openings in the US fell to their lowest point in three years last month, according to official stats released Wednesday. Employers had 8.5 million positions open in March, a decline of 325,000 from February. That’s good news if you want to see the Fed start to cut rates. Why? Because, the thinking goes, fewer job openings mean employers are less likely to boost salary offerings to entice workers. That, in turn, lowers inflationary pressures, since higher wages are a component of overall price growth.
0: Under a new law, the US will import zero Russian uranium, which is used to power nuclear reactors. The bill, approved by the House of Representatives in December, passed the Senate unanimously this week. The measure aims to choke off another stream of revenue for the Kremlin’s war machine and to boost the domestic uranium industry, particular in the state of Wyoming. In 2022, US power plants imported about 12% of its uranium from Russia.
Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks as Parliament's Question Period resumes in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada May 1, 2024.
When Finance Minister Chrystia Freelandtabled a bill Tuesday to implement financial measures from the Canadian budget she presented last month, one thing was missing: a mechanism to increase the amount of taxable income on capital gains. The move is expected to raise $19 billion over five years, mostly at the expense of the wealthy.
Freeland will introduce the tax policy in a separate bill, allowing the Liberals to force a stand-alone vote and pinning down opposition MPs. Polling shows that most Canadians like the idea of taking more from those well enough off to need to use the capital gains exemption, which shelters some income from the sale of a business or vacation home from the taxman. Tech entrepreneurs have objected to the move, complaining it could discourage investment, but Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who takes pains to portray himself as on the side of the little guy, has not taken a position.
Freeland’s budget was aimed at young voters who voted for Liberals in previous elections but have now moved their support to Poilievre, who has succeeded in blaming Trudeau for the housing crisis that is making rent unaffordable and putting the prospect of home ownership out of reach. The polls, so far, do not show that the budget has helped win those voters back to the Liberal fold. But Freeland hopes they will take notice of the tax measure that will help pay for housing affordability measures in the budget.
Leader of Canada's Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, speaks during a 'Spike the Hike - Axe the Tax' rally in Edmonton, on March 27, 2024, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Speaking of performative legislative moves, Canadian Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievrewas ejected from the House of Commons on Tuesday for calling Justin Trudeau a “wacko” and refusing to withdraw his remark when asked to do so by Speaker Greg Fergus.
The disruption left commentators shaking their heads at the poor state of decorum while partisans on both sides used the occasion to attack one another. Poilievre used the incident in a fundraising pitch.
He has been under unusually heavy fire from progressives the past few weeks. Just before he was ejected from the House, Trudeau had been pressing him to denounce extremists he visited at an anti-tax protest on April 24. This week, Poilievre told a police union that he would use “whatever tools the Constitution allows” to get tough on crime. The implication: That he would use the “notwithstanding clause” of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which allows governments to suspend constitutional protections – a move that would be strongly opposed by civil libertarians.
Centrist and progressive commentators tut-tut about Poilievre’s increasingly incendiary politics, but polling so far shows Canadians like what they see, the result of fatigue with Trudeau and a cost-of-living crunch. Unless the polls show that Canadians think he is going too far, he will likely stick with his take-no-prisoners approach.
On Wednesday, Poilievre’s Conservative buddies called on Speaker Fergus to step down for having ejected their leader.
GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene offers remarks on the future of the House Speakership during a press conference at the US Capitol in Washington, DC.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., plans to force a vote to try to oust Speaker Mike Johnson next week, but Democrats say they will come to his rescue. Greene is among the most incendiary lawmakers on the GOP's far right in the House, which was angered by Johnson’s deal-making with the left that led to a bipartisan vote for $95 billion in wartime aid for Ukraine, Israel, and other US allies.
Greene’s vote will likely fail, which could undermine her influence on Capitol Hill while bolstering her image with anti-establishment supporters.
“Greene overshot her mark within the conference, and now that Dems have proactively confirmed they will save Johnson, her threats are hollow,” says Clayton Allen, US director for Eurasia Group.
“She’s cemented the far right as being relatively non-influential this year, but that may not be so bad for them, since they primarily want an issue (or two) to complain about.”
Former U.S. President Donald Trump walks at New York State Supreme Court in New York, New York, U.S., 30 April 2024.
Gaza is politically jamming Joe Biden while his opponent deals with personal business in a New York courtroom. This week, it looked like former President Donald Trump might even end up in jail.
On Tuesday, Judge Juan Merchanruled Trump in contempt of court for nine gag order violations, fining him $9,000 and warning that he could be jailed “if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.” Trump violated the gag order with social media posts about witnesses and comments about jurors in his ongoing trial on charges of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Trump, who has been regularly falling asleep in the courtroom, is said to be furious with the situation when he is awake, sharing his anger on social media, and with his lawyers. Can he control himself and stop posting furious diatribes on social, or is he headed for the clink?
Trump is using the spectacle of the trial to argue that he is the victim of a political witch hunt, and so far his supporters seem to be on board. His polling numbers have not moved despite the trial dominating the headlines, and polling is unclear about how his supporters would react if he is convicted, although Democrats can take heart from polling that shows independents would be less likely to support him if he is convicted.
Latest
From mission creep to political creep
Who’s afraid of Mark Carney?
Liberals aim to wedge on capital gains measure
Speaker ejects Poilievre from Parliament
Taylor Greene gets sidelined – for now
Could Trump campaign from jail?
