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.
Willis Sparks
Will Texas school shooting move the needle on US guns debate?
Another mass shooting has rocked America, leaving 21 dead (19 of them children) at an elementary school in Texas on Tuesday — the second-worst school massacre in US history after Sandy Hook almost a decade ago. “When in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?” President Joe Biden said in a nationwide address. “Why are we willing to live with this carnage? Why do we keep letting this happen?” For one thing, stricter gun laws are vehemently opposed by most Republicans: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz controversially responded to the tragedy by calling for more armed law enforcement at schools. For another, 2nd Amendment die-hards like the National Rifle Association have deep pockets to fight legislation and fund campaigns (Cruz, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, and former President Donald Trump are all slated to speak Friday at the NRA's annual conference in Houston). If a bipartisan gun bill failed to pass in 2013 in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, the odds are even longer now because US politics is even more polarized and we're less than six months out from the November midterms.
Booze might bring down Boris
Will a toast burn down Boris Johnson’s premiership? The British PM has long denied that he broke any of his country’s strict pandemic lockdown rules, but now photos have emerged of a party at his residence on November 13, 2020, in which Johnson is holding up a glass of what looks like booze near a table spread with wine and food. The timing could prove disastrous for Johnson: the photos dropped just a day before the planned release of the Gray Report, an official investigation of the so-called “partygate” scandal. PMs who knowingly mislead Parliament are expected to resign, though there’s no guarantee that Johnson will concede to any wrongdoing of that sort. His supporters say he didn’t knowingly lie. Once Sue Gray publishes her report, Johnson will again address parliament on the matter, Downing Street says.
The West’s lethal weapons arrive in Ukraine
The US and Europe are playing an increasingly active role in Ukraine’s defense against Russia. They’ve imposed historically harsh sanctions against the Russian economy, announced higher spending on defense, and moved to ease trade dependence on Russia. They are also sending increasingly potent weapons to Ukrainian fighters for use against Russian forces. This was the focus of a Monday meeting at the Pentagon of the “Ukraine Contact Group,” a bloc of countries committed to helping Ukraine. After a briefing from Ukraine’s defense minister, more than 20 countries pledged to deliver new “security assistance packages.” The Czech Republic promised attack helicopters, tanks, and rocket systems. Denmark is offering anti-ship Harpoon missiles that might help push back the Russian navy from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, potentially easing the flow of grain exports. Greece, Italy, Norway, Poland, and others are also contributing. There are reports that the US has provided powerful artillery for use in the Donbas, the scene of Ukraine’s fiercest fighting and a place where long-range firepower is invaluable. Ukrainian forces have sustained heavy losses, and it will take weeks to train Ukrainian soldiers to make the best use of these weapons. But as Russia’s Donbas offensive grinds slowly forward, its forces may find additional gains are more costly this summer, and that seized territory may become harder to defend. The Contact Group is scheduled to meet next in Brussels on June 15.
The many faces of China’s human rights abuses
The world has known for years that the Chinese government’s “re-education” and “counter-terrorism” programs in the Xinjiang region involve widespread human rights abuses against the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim ethnic groups who live there. Now we can see the faces of Beijing’s victims — thousands of them. The BBC has published an archive of local police photos taken in 2018. The release of the archive, which was evidently hacked, coincides with a weeklong visit to China by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, the first trip to the country by the UN’s highest-ranking human rights official since 2005. While her visit is an opportunity to place fresh pressure on Beijing, critics worry that China might take the opportunity to whitewash its abuses (history buffs may recall the trick Nazi Germany played on the Red Cross in 1944). The release of the photo archive could also ripple into the US-China relationship, making it harder for US President Joe Biden to move ahead with any plans to lift Trump-era tariffs on certain Chinese goods in order to tamp down inflation.
A family of refugees steps off a boat or arrives at a border. Should they be allowed to enter? This question provokes passionate responses in countries around the world these days.
But there's a second set of questions: if they are admitted, where will they live? How will they learn a new language? How will their children be educated? Will they have access to the training needed to get jobs to help them support themselves?
In short, how can they be integrated into society?
These questions are at the heart of a new report from the EU, which warns of a potential "lost generation" of migrants, people who enter Europe to build better lives but then find little chance of integrating into society.
Between 2015 and 2018, nearly two million people were granted protection within the European Union. Some were refugees. Others were migrants looking for better economic prospects for themselves and their families. About 80 percent of these people were under the age of 34.
To ensure they can be integrated, the report calls on EU member states to:
- speed up asylum procedures
- cut the red tape that delays the reunification of families
- provide proper housing
- improve mental healthcare for refugees under enormous stress
- grant asylum applicants early access to education, vocational training, and jobs to protect them from exploitation of their labor or criminals pushing them toward lives of crime.
This is not charity. EU countries, especially those with fast-aging populations, need an infusion of young people to power their economies and pay for their social safety nets. Immigrants can provide that boost, but only if they're given a real opportunity to contribute.
The report's authors point to good news. They say that the six countries covered in the report (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Sweden) have already taken positive steps on housing and on language programs for children. But there are still dangerous gaps that need to be addressed in all these countries.
This is a global problem. There is nothing uniquely European about this challenge. There are now more than 71 million displaced people around the world. It's a hot political topic in every region of the world, and the forces that have pushed so many from their homes—war, organized crime, the impact of changing weather patterns on agriculture, inequality among nations, and broader public awareness of better conditions elsewhere—continue to intensify.
The bottom-line: Serious thinking about how best to integrate migrants will benefit the countries that choose to welcome them and the migrants themselves. The need will only grow more urgent in coming years.
This week, the process of impeaching President Trump entered the critical phase as the House of Representatives held its first public hearings. The battle lines are now drawn.
The Democrats say that there is compelling evidence that Trump withheld badly needed military to aid to an ally at war to pressure that country's government to provide him with personal political benefit by helping him discredit a political rival.
The Republicans say that the evidence comes mainly from witnesses with little or no direct contact with the president, and that the military aid was delivered to Ukraine without the Ukrainian president taking the actions Trump is alleged to have demanded.
The big picture: In coming days and weeks, there will be much public discussion of new details in the investigation and of unfamiliar characters in this drama. It will be easy to become lost in the weeds.
Here are a few thoughts to keep in mind as we try to separate what matters from what doesn't.
The drama now unfolding on American television is part of a political process, not a legal one. This oft-repeated phrase reminds us that words like extortion, bribery, obstruction, and crimes will be determined not by judges but by lawmakers who answer to voters. The question of whether to remove the president from office will be decided by political calculation of costs and benefits.
Democrats hold a majority in the House of Representatives, and they see political benefit in voting to impeach the president. Republicans control the Senate. They do not see political benefit in removing the president from office. That's why the House remains likely to impeach the president, and the Senate remains highly unlikely to convict him.
Wildcards? Are there developments that could alter this very basic analysis of political reality?
- Some have argued that if the evidence presented by Democrats proves compelling enough to significantly change public attitudes about President Trump, Senate Republicans may abandon him.
- That scenario becomes more likely if Democrats gain access to headline-making new evidence of presidential misconduct. For example, some point to the possibility of access to files of Trump's calls with other world leaders, including Russia's President Vladimir Putin.
- There has even been speculation that Republican Senators might seek political safety by agreeing to vote by secret ballot on whether to remove Trump from the White House.
All these scenarios remain unlikely.
- By historical standards, President Trump's approval ratings have proven remarkably stable. Perhaps that's because conservatives and liberals in the United States get their news from cable channels and websites that align with their political views. Whatever the cause, the dramatic events of the past three years have done little to change public perception of Trump.
- Any damning new evidence, if it exists, is unlikely to surface soon, because the president can pursue legal action to delay its release. Democrats want the impeachment process finished before the 2020 election campaigns move into high gear.
- Republicans know that many voters will see any move to hold a final vote on Trump's fate in secret as an act of political cowardice. They also know the vote wouldn't remain secret for long. Those who vote to support Trump will say so publicly; it won't be difficult to match final vote totals with the number of Republican senators who refuse to say how they voted. Thus, there's no political safety in this strategy.
The bottom line: The fate of Donald Trump will likely remain in the hands of American voters, not their elected officials. And the outcome of the next election is still more likely to be determined by the Democrats' choice of a presidential candidate, the state of the US economy in 2020, and the enthusiasm that each side's voters feel about the election than by anything now happening under the klieg lights in congressional hearing rooms.
After months of machinations by elected leaders and parliamentary strategists, the decisive vote on the future of Brexit may finally fall to the people of the UK.
How did we finally get here? The British parliament has forced Prime Minister Boris Johnson to ask the European Union for a delay in the Brexit deadline from October 31 to January 31. If the EU agrees, a decision that could come later today, Johnson says he'll push for national elections on December 12.
To be clear, national elections are not a second Brexit referendum. But if they're held while the question of Brexit remains undecided, that single issue will surely shape the outcome.
Why would Johnson want a pre-Brexit election? He may calculate that his main rival, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, is a profoundly weak candidate, and that it's best to go to voters before the opposition can replace him with a formidable alternative.
He may also reckon that Labour would enter elections at a big disadvantage since it's more divided over Brexit than other parties. Corbyn would struggle to craft an electoral strategy that unites pro-Brexit Labour voters in the north with pro-Remain Labour voters in London.
Johnson may also believe, not without reason, that an election victory would clear the way for him to finish Brexit on his terms, without more delays from Parliament.
What would Boris have to do to schedule those elections? The simplest way would be for two-thirds of MPs to vote to hold elections. But if the Labour Party won't support that, the Conservatives have a Plan B. If another opposition party that does favor early elections – say, the Scottish National Party – calls for a vote of no confidence in the government, the Conservatives could abstain, allowing the government to fall, precipitating early elections if no other collection of parties can form a government within 14 days.
Who is likely to win the election? For now, the numbers favor Johnson's Conservative Party. An aggregation of four major polls conducted over the past two weeks has the Conservatives at about 37 percent, with Labour at 25 percent, the Liberal Democrats at 18 percent, the Brexit Party at 11 percent, and Greens at 5 percent. Vote percentages don't translate precisely to the number of seats won, but if the results came close to these percentages, Johnson might well claim a mandate to move forward, perhaps in partnership with others, toward a final deal with the EU early next year.
Wouldn't Johnson be taking a huge gamble? Yes, he would. Ask former prime minister Theresa May, who lost the Conservative Party's absolute majority in 2017 by calling elections she mistakenly believed would boost her party's Brexit leverage. No one can be sure how a campaign might play out. Some within his party argue that he should deliver Brexit before going to voters.
Might this election decide the Brexit question? If Johnson's Conservatives were to win a decisive victory, he'd probably have the public mandate he needs to push forward with his current Brexit plan, which would likely become law early next year.
But if voters move toward Labour and the Liberal Democrats in sufficient numbers to push Johnson out of Downing Street, that would likely lead to a considerable delay in negotiations with the EU and a second Brexit referendum in which voters would be presented with new Brexit options to choose from.
There is also the (quite large) risk that the result of the vote is ambiguous. If Conservatives win, but with a reduced majority, the Brexit outlook might well become even more confused, as Johnson's leverage would be weaker.
Yes, you read that right: Brexit could still become even more confusing.
Want to hear some bad news? No, we don't either. But if you're leading a government, you need accurate information about what's happening inside your country and what people think of you—especiallyif it's not what you want to hear. You also need good advice about how to respond to what you hear.
Case in point: After Yuri Andropov became Soviet leader in 1982, he admitted publicly that Soviet economic decision-making had fallen prey in previous years to "elements of separation from reality." His predecessors had spent much more time on propaganda than on rational economic policy. Andropov, and eventual successor Mikhail Gorbachev, also knew that the Kremlin had no idea what Soviet citizens thought about anything.
That's one reason that Russia's Vladimir Putin allows his government to publish credible economic statistics, good or bad. It's why he's allowed the Levada Center, a public polling organization based in Moscow, to publish credible opinion surveys with only occasional political pressure. At least, so far.
Unwillingness to hear bad news and dissenting views made headlines again this month when Donald Trump seemed surprised by the furious response from within his own party following his announcement of a US troop pullback from northern Syria—as if no one had warned him this reaction was inevitable. He also provoked anger and disbelief with a (since aborted) plan to host next year's G7 Summit at a Trump-owned hotel. He faces fresh accusations that he's rid himself of advisors willing to speak truth to power.
At least as worrying is the question of whether China's President Xi Jinping is hearing warnings of trouble inside his country. Tom Mitchell wrote in Monday's Financial Timesthat China's heavily centralized system "may be great at building infrastructure, repressing dissent and censoring the internet, but it is often hopeless when it comes to passing bad news up the chain." We've written before that a future economic or financial crisis inside China will leave investors wondering whether the statistics Beijing publishes are reliable.
Take for example the introduction of a law in Hong Kong earlier this year that would have permitted residents of the territory to be extradited into mainland China's highly politicized court system. If senior Chinese officials knew of this proposal in advance, they were naïve to believe it would be easily accepted. If they didn't know in advance, then the center isn't effectively connected to local administrators, even on crucial questions. Either way, that law sparked protests that have convulsed Hong Kong for three months now.
For now, there are no economic or political problems that Beijing can't manage. But what about the future?
President Xi has repeatedly promised a "new era" in which China will "take center stage in the world." Is there anyone within China's leadership willing to tell him that this expansionist rhetoric might needlessly provoke pushback from foreign leaders, particularly in the United States and Europe? Is there anyone to take aside a man – whose "thought" has been written into the constitution – to offer a frank appraisal of why so many Hong Kongers are so angry?
Even if someone is willing to speak the truth, is Xi Jinping listening?On Friday, we detailed the main arguments for and against President Trump's decision to withdraw US troops from a pocket of northern Syria where their presence had protected Washington's Kurdish allies against an attack from Turkey. We then asked Signal readers to let us know what they thought.
As expected, readers sent us thought-provoking responses. The two points we saw most often:
- Trump inherited an incoherent Syria policy from Barack Obama.
- Whatever the merits of Trump's broader case for pullback, badly coordinated execution has opened the way for a humanitarian catastrophe and damaged US credibility.
But there's a larger question here about the changing US role in the world and the challenges that future presidents will face. Forget about Obama and Trump for a moment to look at that bigger picture.
A few thoughts…
Are US alliances out of date? Washington's current web of alliances (whether with NATO partners, Japan, South Korea or others) was woven largely during the Cold War, when the American public was more likely than now to support expensive, open-ended commitments to conflicts far from home and before the balance of power had shifted away from clear American dominance. Today, no American younger than 34 is old enough to remember the Cold War, and the assumptions many had about "indispensable America" and the nation's "responsibility to lead."
The end of the Cold War promised a "peace dividend" and a commitment from Washington to invest more at home. And while the attacks of 9/11 temporarily persuaded many Americans that a more interventionist foreign policy was necessary, particularly in the Middle East, the long and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq soured public opinion on a long-term US commitment to that region.
Now turn to Asia. In addition to Japan and South Korea, US officials say Taiwan is an important US ally. Washington hasn't formally recognized the self-governing island as an independent nation since 1979, though growing friction with China has some Americans working to change that. In the meantime, Washington continues to provide Taiwan with financial and military aid to protect it against any potential encroachment by China, which considers Taiwan a breakaway province that must be reincorporated.
Chinese President Xi Jinping said on Sunday that, "anyone attempting to split China in any part of the country will end in crushed bodies and shattered bones." He said this chiefly about Hong Kong, where we're now in the third month of large-scale protests against Beijing's rule, but he'd certainly apply this formula to Taiwan, where President Tsai Ing-wen, an outspoken critic of Beijing, is expected to win re-election in January. China may well respond with tough sanctions and even military pressure.
What if China tests Taiwan? There's no sign that China is preparing to invade Taiwan any time soon, if ever. But as China grows stronger and more willing to assert its strength, and as confusion grows over the durability of US commitments to long-time allies, a future US president may be faced with a question much tougher than the one Trump faced in Syria:
Are you prepared to walk away from a decades-long democratic ally under intense pressure from an authoritarian rival? Or will you push back against China and hope that, if push comes to shove, the US public is willing to pay the price of defending Taiwan?
Bottom line: This dilemma is the natural consequence of fidelity to alliances formed at a time when the world's balance of power and public attitudes in the United States were very different than they are today. Trump's Syria decision, consequential though it's been for so many people, pales before the choices that await Trump's successors.
Turkey's ongoing military incursion into Syria began when President Donald Trump ordered the withdrawal of US forces from land in northern Syria held by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
The US has long considered the SDF an important ally in the drive to destroy ISIS. Turkey, by contrast, accuses the SDF of support for Kurdish separatists inside Turkey.
President Erdogan says his country's military will push the SDF and its 40,0000 fighters further from the Turkish border and create a "safe zone" inside Syria to house many of the 3.6 million Syrian refugees now living in camps inside Turkey.
Trump's decision to withdraw US troops cleared the way for Turkey's military to attack the SDF.
This story raises a broader question: What's the proper role for the world's only military superpower in today's world? Is Trump right to withdraw these troops? Or is he making a big mistake?
Here's our take on the most compelling arguments for each side.
Against Trump's withdrawal
- The US president has stabbed a loyal American ally in the back. People who counted on support from Washington are now being killed. Civilian men, women, and children will be among the dead.
- The US needs allies, and Trump's decision to withdraw protection from the SDF, who have fought alongside Americans to defeat ISIS, sends a clear signal to US allies around the world that Washington can't be trusted. The president may promise one thing today and abandon his pledge tomorrow. The next president may refuse to keep promises that the current president makes.
- The SDF holds thousands of ISIS members captive. Attacking the group could free these fighters.
- The US withdrawal will allow ISIS to rebuild and commit new terrorist attacks, possibly on US targets. It will also help Russia and Iran tighten their grip on Syria.
- In ordering this withdrawal, Trump, the only person ever elected US president without ever having served in government or the military, overruled senior military leaders and officials with deep experience of the Middle East. Strong leaders are willing to be guided by experienced advisors.
For Trump's withdrawal
- The Kurds are not "allies" of the United States. They are dependents. Allies come to your aid just as you come to theirs.
- Iran and Russia already control Syria, and military occupation of a foreign country won't eliminate the risk of terrorism at home.
- US soldiers shouldn't be asked to fight over land in the Middle East, occupy its unstable countries, and patrol its streets until the region's powers all become friendly democracies. The American taxpayer shouldn't be asked to pay for endless commitments to the security of others.
- If now is not the moment for withdrawal, then when? US troops have been in Afghanistan for 18 years.
- The first obligation of the US president is to the American people. Candidate Trump promised he would free the US from never-ending wars in the Middle East, and he intends to keep that promise.
The bottom-line: Complicated problems don't come with obvious answers. Tell us what you think.
Not so long ago, you were Volodymyr Zelensky, beloved comedian and star of "Servant of the People," one of Ukraine's most popular TV shows. Then you decided you wanted a new project, a big challenge. Why play Ukraine's president when you could be Ukraine's president?
All you had to do was win an election, your first ever, by knocking off incumbent president Petro Poroshenko and former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko. People knew and loved you. How hard could it be?
You won! Well done. And the political party you created, "Servant of the People," then won a solid majority of seats in parliamentary elections, giving you plenty of friendly lawmakers to help write your vision into law and to fight the endemic corruption that has long blocked your country's path forward.
So… 21 weeks later, how's it going?
For one thing, you now find yourself in the middle of what may become the biggest American political scandal in decades. Members of each major US political party want you to talk about one thing and shut up about another.
Democrats say Trump tried to strong-arm you into giving him dirt on one of his political rivals by withholding money that your country needs to face down challenges from Russia. Republicans, meanwhile, want to know what the son of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was doing to earn $50,000 per month from a Ukrainian natural gas company while his dad was Vice President.
Thanks to your new lead role in an American impeachment battle, some are now calling you Monica Zelensky.
Then there's that war with Russia you inherited, the one triggered by Russian-backed separatists that has killed 13,000 people in the disputed provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk and forced 1.5 million people from their homes. Your new big idea to end this awful conflict is to consider a plan, first proposed by a former German foreign minister, that would allow elections in those two provinces, reincorporate them back into Ukraine with a "special status" that gives them some policy independence, disarm the separatists who've been shooting at your army, and give you back control of the border with Russia.
And for your trouble, Mr. President, protesters in the center of Kyiv have called you a traitor. They say these elections will formally recognize the theft of political power by separatists and prevent Ukrainian patriots from returning to their homes there. They say you have "surrendered" to Vladimir Putin.
Soon talks will begin with the French, Germans, and Russians to see if this deal can be made real. The devil is no doubt hiding in the details.
In the meantime, it's been a tough four and half months, Mr. President. You deserve a bit of comic relief at this point, and we're glad you got to meet Tom Cruise. For now, you're still pretty popular at home. You're known for your sense of humor and ample political talents, and you'll surely need both in months to come.