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.
{{ subpage.title }}
And the (geopolitical) Oscar goes to …
It's the 95th Academy Awards on Sunday, and we all know that the Oscars often get political. You can expect speeches to reference Russia's war in Ukraine and, of course, US culture-war issues like identity politics. But in this era of political hyper-polarization in America and beyond, we’ve got our own awards to give out.
Here are our picks for a few of the best performances of the past 12 months.
Best Documentary Feature: "The Little Short," by El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele, based on his get-rich-quick bestseller "Bukele's Guide to Wealth and Fame in Crypto Markets."
Best Cameo/Actress in a Limited TV Miniseries:Liz Truss as British PM.
Lifetime Achievement: Former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for "My Trip to Taipei," a tour de force in DNGAF about the geopolitical consequences of my actions.
Best Costume Design: US Rep. (and alleged serial liar) George Santos (R-NY) as a drag queen in Brazil.
Best Editing: Xi Jinping for ending zero-COVID in China — and all references to it too.
Best Special Effects: The US/Russia/pro-Ukrainian group/we'll-never-know-who for the Nord Stream pipeline explosion.
Best Sound Editing in Parliament/Exit From the Party: Former New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern.
Best Screenplay/Cinematography: C-SPAN for "The House Speaker Fight," an unexpectedly riveting story of failed votes, failed fistfights, and failed leadership in the US Congress.
Best Remake: Jair Bolsonaro, director of the 8 de Janeiro reboot of January 6.
Best Picture: "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Balloon," a Kubrick-esque Cold War 2.0 satire featuring Joe Biden, Xi Jinping, and a floating weapon of mass puns.
Romney: "We're not as militarily ready as we would like" in the Pacific
As the US military bolsters its presence in the Pacific with a new military base – its first in 70 years – on the island of Guam, Utah Senator Mitt Romney gets candid with Ian Bremmer in an exclusive GZERO World interview.
"We have to be careful not to provoke China at a time when Taiwan is not as militarily ready as we might like to see," Romney tells Ian from his Senate office in Washington.
"And frankly, we're not as militarily ready as we would like to see in the Pacific. Our Navy is smaller than it should be. Some of our systems are not up to date."
Catch the full interview in this week's episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television. Check local listings.
Five concessions McCarthy made to become House speaker
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC shares his perspective on US politics:
What did Kevin McCarthy have to promise to become the Speaker of the House?
Now Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy survived a modern record of 15 votes to become speaker of the House earlier this week. He had to make some compromises to get there. Here are the top five changes to House rules that Kevin McCarthy agreed to in order to win the speakership.
Number one, a return of the motion to vacate the chair. Probably the biggest concession given by McCarthy was lowering the threshold for any individual member to bring a motion that would force a vote on a speakership. Under Pelosi, this would've required half majority. McCarthy wanted it to require five people, but conservatives insisted that it be done with only one person, allowing any individual member to set up a vote at any time on McCarthy's fate, potentially setting up another painful week of votes later this year if they decide to take him out.
Number two, no new taxes. It wasn't really necessary to put this in the rules since there's almost no chance Republicans are going to raise taxes, but they restored a rule that would've required a three-fifths house majority in order to raise tax rates this year. This gives them some flexibility to do what's called base broadening or closing loopholes, but I would be shocked to see that too. Don't expect any new spending bills or any big tax bills moved in this Congress.
Number three, more transparency. A big complaint for rank-and-file members is that they have no say in what bills get to the floor and very little say in what gets in them. A new rule would require a 72-hour holdover period before a vote, mandate single subject bills to prevent so-called Christmas trees where a lot of things get jammed into a bill at the last minute and give rank and file members and particularly conservatives who now have seats in the rules committee, more say in what bills get to the floor and guarantee amendment votes. We'll see how well this process holds up later this year when Democrats want Republicans to take politically challenging votes and members have to pass complicated must pass bills to deliver for their constituents.
Number four, bring back the Holman rule. This rule allows Congress to amend spending bills to cut specific programs or reduce the salaries of specific federal government employees. This idea was set to be weaponized against Biden health advisor, Anthony Fauci, but he retired, but it could be used against specific employees Republicans think are not doing their job, say, guarding the border. But it would have to become law first, which brings up a huge problem for much of the Republican agenda, the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats who are not going to agree to anything that Republicans want to do this year.
And finally, number five, big cuts in discretionary spending. This measure wasn't actually written into the rules, but was part of a rumored side agreement with specific members to cut discretionary spending levels back to the levels they were at last year in FY22. The parts of the federal government that Congress controls annually have grown about nearly 30% since the beginning of the pandemic and conservatives want to see cuts to the budget. The only problem is that some of that spending, particularly on defense, is broadly supported by a huge swath of Republicans. And to achieve the cuts they have in mind, which would include balancing the budget within 10 years, there would have to be cuts as big as 10% to the defense budget and then trillions of dollars taken out of federal health programs and social support budget.
None of this is going to happen, but conservatives have set up very high hopes for the year, and if they are disappointed, they have the ability to make sure that Kevin McCarthy's speakership, which he worked so hard to get, does not last that long.
- Bruised McCarthy finally sworn in as House speaker ›
- What We’re Watching: Capitol Hill chaos, Putin’s biceps, Myanmar’s ‘vote’ ›
- What We’re Watching: McCarthy in trouble, Lula 2.0, global recession fears ›
- Rinse, repeat: Republicans fail to agree on the House speaker ›
- GOP partisanship could trigger first-ever US default - GZERO Media ›
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wields the gavel as she presides over the first impeachment of President Donald Trump.
What We’re Watching: Pelosi’s farewell, #RIPTwitter, Malaysian vote, Iranian rage, UK austerity
Pelosi takes a final bow
Nancy Pelosi is standing down as leader of the Democratic Party in the US House, but she’ll remain in Congress as a representative of San Francisco. She was both the first woman to serve in the ultra-powerful role of House Speaker and a hate figure for many on the right. Pelosi’s personal toughness, Herculean fundraising prowess, and ability to hold together the typically fractious Democratic Party in the House will remain her legacy for Democrats. For Republicans, seeing her pass the gavel to one of their own in January will mark a moment of triumph in an otherwise disappointing midterm performance. In announcing her plans, Pelosi noted that “the hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic caucus.” At a moment when both parties are led by politicians of advancing age, that’s a big step – and a trend we’ll be watching closely as a new Congress takes shape and the next race for the White House begins. Eurasia Group US Managing Director Jon Lieber says his bet is on 52-year-old Hakeem Jeffries taking the Democratic reins. If Jeffries gets the job, he'll make history as the first Black politician to lead a party in Congress.
The fate of an endangered bluebird
Are these possibly the final hours for Twitter? Will the social media company, recently purchased and immediately upended by Elon Musk, survive longer than the proverbial head of lettuce? No one really knows now, after the company announced late Thursday that its offices would be closed until Monday as it deals with mass resignations. The wave of departures was triggered by Musk’s hardass demand earlier this week that employees agree to a “hardcore” work environment or take three months of severance and be gone. Hundreds, if not thousands, evidently took option two. Taken alongside an earlier wave of Musk’s planned layoffs, some estimates say as many as three-quarters of the company’s workers could be gone now. Will Musk take the L and backtrack on his “hardcore” demand, or will he double down and try to run the company with a skeleton crew? Regardless, just weeks into the era of Musk, Twitter is looking less like the free speech “town square” that he envisioned and more like the town circus.
Malaysia’s election head-scratcher
Malaysians go to the polls Sunday to vote in their first national election since 2018, when the opposition Patakan Harapan Party ended the Barisan Nasional coalition's 60-year stranglehold on power after then-PM Najib Razak got busted in the billion-dollar 1MDB corruption scandal. Since then, though, Patakan has lost its mojo due to infighting and defections to Najib's own UMNO party, which — we kid you not — is now part of the coalition government. Further complicating things is that Patakan's new leader is Najib's old mentor, former PM Mahathir Mohamad, who's running for a seat in parliament — and perhaps the premiership for the third time — at the ripe young age of ... 97. Meanwhile, Najib is behind bars. Malaysian politics take complicated to a whole new level, but the gist of it is this: It's unlikely any party will get an outright majority, so the most likely outcome is a hung parliament that'll result in another shaky coalition or a fresh election.
Rage fuels Iran protests
“We’ll fight! We’ll die! We’ll take back Iran!” protesters are chanting in Tehran these days. And indeed, many have fought and died. At least 15 were reportedly killed on Wednesday night, including a 9-year-old boy, amid widespread demonstrations against Iran’s repressive regime and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The country has been rocked by protests since mid-September, when 22-year-old Mahsa Amini was beaten to death by cops for wearing her hijab “improperly.” The last couple of days have seen commemorative demonstrations to mark the deadly Nov. 2019 protests that erupted over fuel prices. The Islamic Republic is reportedly growing concerned by the increasing violence involved in demonstrations, with government rhetoric referring to “armed” protesters as “separatists” and even “terrorists.” Thousands have been arrested, and at least four protesters have been sentenced to death. We’ll be watching this weekend with concern for how heated and deadly things get.
Britain braces for economic hardship
2022 has been tough for Brits — and the next 18 months will be even worse. On Thursday, Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt finally unveiled his much-awaited fiscal plan, the first under PM Rishi Sunak, warning families that their living standards could fall by as much as 7% until at least mid-2024. Nixing almost all of the tax-cutting yet free-spending "mini-budget" that cost Liz Truss her premiership a month ago, Hunt confirmed big tax hikes and spending cuts that Downing St. cannot avoid in order to keep the UK's finances in check amid a deep economic crisis and energy crunch. The chancellor's message was dark: Brits will need to tighten their belts to get through this rough patch. Still, how the people cope with austerity could determine Sunak’s political fate. The newly minted PM is not required to call a new election until the end of 2024, but he might not have a choice if voters blame him for their dire straits. And that's just what the opposition Labour Party — now leading the polls by more than 40 points, its biggest margin ever — is waiting for.This was featured in Signal, the daily politics newsletter of GZERO Media. For smart coverage of global affairs that normal people can understand, subscribe here.
Will a GOP House speaker be able to control an unruly caucus?
The US Senate race could go either way, but most pundits and polls point to the House of Representatives turning red after Tuesday’s midterm elections.
Republicans need a net gain of just five seats to flip that chamber, and they are on track to do just that, and then some. Indeed, most polls suggest a double-digit gain for the GOP – not a red wave per se but still a sizable win.
Noise: Much attention has been focused on the impending political fortunes of Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the Republican from California who is all but assured to become House speaker next year. In this role, McCarthy will be the leader of all proceedings in the lower chamber, where important business gets done, including government appropriations and impeachment proceedings.
Signal: After four years in opposition, Kevin McCarthy will be eager to take the gavel from current Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But Republicans are a divided tribe, and McCarthy will have his work cut out for him in keeping his caucus together.
This discord is in large part due to ongoing agitation from the Freedom Caucus, the most conservative bloc within the House GOP formed seven years ago in hopes of pushing the party further to the right. The bloc — currently made up of around 35 members — has already tried to alter House rules to give individual lawmakers more power.
Exactly how much power the caucus wields will depend on the size of the GOP majority, but McCarthy has already made clear that he’ll have to acquiesce to at least some of their demands. For example, while the Californian has been a proponent of aid to Ukraine, he has suggested that maintaining the current level of support may not be possible because “they just won’t do it.”
The two most recent Republican House speakers — John Boehner and Paul Ryan — were forced into early retirement due to ugly internal party politics. Will McCarthy be next?
Who cares if Elon Musk bought Twitter?
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Might Congress take actions against members of Congress who play down threats for political reasons?
I suspect not. Obviously very disturbing that we are so tribal, we are so polarized that when you see political violence against people like Nancy Pelosi, the Paul Pelosi thing, knocked unconscious by a hammer, a guy goes into his house... And Gabby Giffords and Steve Scalise. This is getting normalized in the United States, and it should never be normalized. And in part it is because if it doesn't happen to your side, you don't pay attention to it. It's not such a big deal. That's not where the country needs to be, but it is where we are presently given just how dysfunctional this feeling of, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy," politically inside the United States. This is a natural impact of that occurring.
How long can China continue its zero-COVID policy?
Well, right now, zero-COVID is a bigger deal for disrupting the Chinese economy than it was before the Party Congress. I'm not in any way surprised by that and their vaccines are not effective. They still haven't vaccinated the over-eighties to a significant degree. They believe, and they're probably right, that their hospitals would be overwhelmed even in major second-tier cities if they were to just let the virus rip. And as a consequence of that, that means, I mean, right through 2023, as we see, you're still going to see stop, start in zero-COVID. But now they can make it more targeted, which means through surveillance, they can have a very quick reaction in lockdowns. And it doesn't have to be an entire city, it can be more of apartment complexes and neighborhoods and the rest. So less of an impact over time on the whole Chinese economy, but still, because of how transmissible this disease is, zero-COVID is going to be a very significant drag on Chinese growth.
Elon officially owns Twitter. How is it sinking in?
Ah, I see what you did there because he brought a sink, right? Brought a sink actually into Twitter. Who cares? I don't think it's as big of a deal as many do. Because yes, you're going to see more hate speech on Twitter, but I suspect that when that happens, a whole bunch of economic interests are going to kick in. Companies will say, "No, this is not something we're willing to support." They'll put pressure on and it's going to be run like a corporation focusing on profitability. There is a question of what happens if Elon fires a whole bunch of people and there's no longer any content moderation, their capabilities have been reduced. But again, on balance, I suspect that, as much as this is a hobby for Elon personally, in terms of being on Twitter, it is less of that in terms of how this runs as a significant business going forward. I wouldn't have recommended that he buy it because I think it's a big geopolitical headache for a guy that has too many of them. But I suspect that ultimately Twitter either doesn't change that much or becomes less important. If that's true it would be because of competition, not because he's running it. That's it for me. I'll talk to y'all soon.
- The Graphic Truth: Twitter doesn't rule the social world - GZERO Media ›
- What is China's zero COVID policy? - GZERO Media ›
- US political violence increases; Democrats seek Jan 6 ... ›
- Hard Numbers: South Korean tragedy, US political violence, deadly ... ›
- Twitter's scent of Musk - GZERO Media ›
- How long can China's zero-COVID policy last? - GZERO Media ›
Biden’s “new” Taiwan policy: strategic clarity or confusion?
China on Monday blasted the US for egging on Taiwan “separatists” after President Joe Biden vowed that the US would defend the self-ruled island from a Chinese invasion. Okay, nothing new here, right? Not exactly.
First, unlike current US support for Ukraine against Russia, which is limited to cash and weapons, Biden said that he’d send American troops to fight China. Second, the US president weighed in on American policy toward Taiwan for the first time since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi kicked a hornet’s nest in Beijing by visiting Taipei six weeks ago.
More importantly, Biden’s remarks follow a recent flurry of political smoke signals from Washington that aim to deter China from making a play for Taiwan. The US has responded to Beijing's military shows of force near the island after Pelosi's trip by announcing trade talks with Taipei, greenlighting its first big arms sale to the island, and leaking a threat of unspecified preemptive sanctions.
Biden has also signed into law the so-called CHIPS Act, which offers Taiwanese semiconductor makers subsidies to churn out more chips on US soil (thus leaving China with a smaller slice of the global pie). And less than a week ago, a Senate panel advanced a bill that would for the first time provide direct US military aid to Taiwan.
America’s message to China: If you move on Taiwan, we'll double down on making it a porcupine you won't want to touch.
Strategic what? Since 1979, US policy toward the island has been governed by the Taiwan Relations Act, which among other things mandates selling Taiwan arms to defend itself from a Chinese invasion. The law is intentionally vague about what the US would actually do in the event of an attack — a loophole often referred to as “strategic ambiguity.”
Yet, as China hawks push Biden to move toward “strategic clarity,” so far the president's rhetoric has instead produced "strategic confusion," says Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund in Washington, DC.
For Glaser, recent actions and statements by US officials and lawmakers — later walked back by the White House — have led many to question what the US position on Taiwan really is. That’s a slippery slope with China, becoming irritated at what it perceives to be American doublespeak.
“I don't think that this helps strengthen deterrence [or] is going to make war in the Taiwan Strait less likely,” she adds.
So, why is Biden doing this? Perhaps he truly believes he's reaffirming longstanding US policy when discussing self-determination for the island, which Glaser finds “worrisome.”
There's also a US politics angle. Since being "tough” on China is pretty much the only thing Democrats and Republicans can agree on these days, poking Beijing is hardly a tough sell for Biden.
It won't get him any decisive votes in Wisconsin, but if the Dems pick up Senate seats in the midterms and ditch the filibuster, any bill overhauling US policy on Taiwan faces better odds of passing — even if the administration formally opposes it. That, in turn, would give Biden political cover to tell Xi Jinping his hands are tied with a coequal branch of government (the same way the president likely did with Pelosi’s trip).
China, for its part, sees all this as Washington trying to hollow out its own Taiwan policy. For Glaser, Biden didn’t get the memo that Beijing will never, ever allow Taiwan to become independent: “Going forward, if the US is not learning the lesson that China is trying to teach us, then they will continue to find ways to drive that lesson home.”
On the one hand, the more the US triggers China with Taiwan microaggressions, the harder Beijing will hit back in the Taiwan Strait. And if both sides keep dialing up the tension, that raises the risk of miscalculation on either side that might cross a red line into uncharted territory.
On the other hand, Glaser believes the situation is still “manageable.” Although Xi likes to talk up Taiwan reunification, he's already got enough on his plate with the sputtering economy and zero-COVID, while the “deadline” is ... 2049.
At the Beijing shore, China’s leaders muse Taiwan
This week, the crème de la crème of China’s ruling Communist Party wrapped up its annual summer retreat at the coastal resort town of Beidaihe, east of Beijing. The closed-door, low-key gathering was this year supposed to be just another milestone before the 20th Party Congress in the fall, when Xi Jinping is expected to secure a norm-defying third term as CCP secretary-general.
The Beidaihe conclave is considered the biggest unofficial event on China's political calendar. Media are kept far away to keep deliberations frank and veryprivate. Good clues of an ongoing meeting are CCP senior officials suddenly vanishing from TV or security being stepped up in Beidaihe. (This year, the town briefly banned Teslas, presumably to prevent the high-tech EVs from collecting data on the party elite.)
We know the 2022 edition is now over because Xi finally reappeared Wednesday after two weeks out of the limelight.
Xi needed a break in part because China has so far had an awful 2022.Zero-COVID is killing the economy; businesses can’t keep the lights on due to an energy crunch; the real estate sector is drowning in debt; and China’s refusal to condemn Russia’s war in Ukraine has made getting along with the US and its allies even harder.
Hardly a rosy outlook for Xi amid rumors of being in some trouble himself earlier this year.
Still, the CCP thought it had all its ducks in a row … until US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crashed the party by going to Taiwan right as the CCP bigwigs were doing shots of Maotai by the beach.
How did her visit factor into the Beidaihe talks about China’s plans for the self-governing island that Beijing claims as its 23rd province? And how might it affect Xi's party standing in the lead-up to the 20th congress?
Much ado about Taiwan. Chinese leaders have publicly interpreted Pelosi's visit as the US meddling in China's internal affairs. Privately, though, they might feel that whatever America does, Beijing is running out of non-military options to take control of the island before the target date of Oct.1, 2049, the 100th anniversary of the People's Republic.
The odds of a peaceful reunification under Hong Kong’s (now-doomed) ‘one country, two systems’ model “are declining to nearly zero," says Lynette Ong, a University of Toronto professor and author of the recent bookOutsourcing Repression: Everyday State Power in Contemporary China.
China will pay a steep price for annexing Taiwan against its will. US sanctions on tech exports to China have made Beijing more reliant than ever on Taiwan's semiconductors — and China can't fill the gap in the short or even medium term. Still, Ong believes that Pelosi's visit "has hardened the resolve among Chinese leaders that something needs to be done."
Also, the events of the past two weeks have made the party more uneasy about what external players might do next. That has likely “reinforced Xi's view that China's strategic environment is becoming more complex," says Neil Thomas, a senior China analyst at Eurasia Group.
Expect the CCP to be more forceful from now on in pushing back with bigger shows of force around Taiwan’s skies and waters if the US does anything to alter the status quo — like holding trade talks with Taipei or Congress passing a bipartisan bill that aims to end America's 1979 policy of "strategic ambiguity" about defending the island.
Escalating on Taiwan is a double-edged sword for Xi. On the one hand, it might fan nationalist flames — and divert public attention away from the economic slowdown, which started in late 2021 (and has nothing to do with the island).
"China's growth troubles [stem] from policy decisions over many decades that have contributed to declining demographics, lagging productivity, and mounting debt," Thomas explains. "Xi is trying to innovate China out of this predicament, but his bet is not turning out as well as he hoped."
On the other hand, a miscalculation — or going too far on the military muscle-flexing — could trigger an armed conflict with America, which China's leader would be foolish to start.
Xi has a lot to lose from picking a fight with the US over Taiwan, which would be “inherently unpredictable and risk undermining his authority before the 20th Party Congress," says Thomas. Since the secretary-general already dominates the CCP, he doesn't need to do anything rash to prove his nationalist street cred.
"Firm responses and measured escalation are enough.”