On election day, reporting for NPR, Yara Bayoumy wrote about the authoritarian and fascist leaders around the world-- from Netanyahu and Viktor Orbán to Putin and Bolsonaro-- who preferred Trump and now have to contend with Biden, a typical dues-paying member of the military industrial complex. Besides Trump's "various torn-up international accords, the retreat of traditional American leadership from the global stage and the cementing of the 'America First' doctrine," he wrote, "there has been perhaps no more glaring consequence of Trump's tenure than his embrace of strongmen who largely eschewed the Western-based human rights and rules of law agenda. By figuring out relatively early how to win favor with Trump, these leaders often leveraged their close relationship with him to cement their own power at home. Some borrowed his rhetoric such as decrying 'fake news' to crack down on dissent, some appealed to his sense of pomp by throwing lavish ceremonies and others adopted his brazenly transactional approach to geopolitical dealmaking." Bayoumy forgot to mention the widespread belief that many of these-- and other-- foreign leaders were bribing Trump and his family personally. Writing before Biden had won, Bayoumy wrote that "None of these Trump 'bromances,' whether forged for pragmatic or ideological reasons, are likely to continue with the same fervor with Biden. The 77-year-old former vice president, who has made clear his distaste for Trump's embrace of strongmen, is nevertheless the product of a traditional Democratic establishment that has also tolerated unsavory rulers in the name of preserving U.S. strategic interests. Still, if Biden wins, we can expect he'll seek to bring human rights and the rule of law as important pillars of U.S. foreign policy.
Putin As candidate, Trump made clear his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin. And throughout his presidency-- the Robert Mueller investigation and the ongoing Russian attempts to interfere with the election notwithstanding-- Trump has mostly refrained from severely criticizing Putin. ..."I think the very fact that Biden was Obama's vice president already makes him not a friendly figure in Russia," says Moscow-based political analyst Masha Lipman. Biden, who repeatedly highlights the importance of preserving NATO, is likely to adopt a tougher line against Russia. The only thing that helps the Kremlin, Lipman says, is more polarization and turmoil in the United States. "Turmoil means the United States [is] weakened," she says. "This is what the Kremlin can actually benefit from, not an improvement in relations." Xi On the campaign trail and throughout his presidency, Trump has railed against China but has also voiced admiration for Chinese leader Xi Jinping as he tried to secure trade deals beneficial to the United States. Who could forget his January tweet praising Xi over his handling of the novel coronavirus? As the virus ravaged the West, Trump changed course, using China as a punching bag and saying his relationship with Xi has since frayed. Putting aside the leaders' relationship, the two countries are probably experiencing the worst ties in years. The Trump administration has sanctioned Chinese officials, targeted Chinese tech companies, arrested alleged Chinese spies and regularly challenges the country's claims in the South China Sea. Biden regularly touts the tough line he took as vice president against Xi. Biden says he would force China to "play by the international rules." He frames the issue as bringing together democracies to counter "abusive economic practices." Tony Blinken, the Democrat's top foreign policy adviser, told NPR that Biden would focus on "our competitiveness, on revitalizing our democracy, on strengthening our alliances and partnerships, on reasserting our values. That's how you engage China from a position of strength." China, for its part, sees the U.S. as a declining power. In its recently revealed five-year plan, Beijing signaled it expects more American-led tariffs on its exports and more sanctions on its tech firms but that it's also confident to meet those challenges. Netanyahu The Israeli prime minister is one of Trump's closest allies. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the U.S. Embassy there-- even though Palestinians seek part of the city for their future capital. He recognized Israeli claims to sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Netanyahu has touted his friendship with Trump in his campaigns. Trump has tweeted his support for Netanyahu and hosted him at the White House. Just a week ago, the Trump administration lifted a ban on U.S. taxpayer funding for Israeli scientific research carried out in Jewish settlements in Israeli-occupied territory. Netanyahu says, "Israel has never had a better friend." Danny Danon, who most recently served as Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, says Biden would also be "good with Israel." Nevertheless, Biden was vice president during Obama and Netanyahu's famously frosty relationship, and it's hard to see the two leaders sharing as close a relationship as Trump and Netanyahu. Mitchell Barak, a pollster in Jerusalem, says that a Biden administration would probably want to take a more evenhanded approach with Israel. Under Trump, ties with the Palestinian leadership broke down. "They're going to start to try and make it a little more evenhanded or to look more evenhanded. And the free lunches that we've been getting up until now-- we're going to have to pay for some of those things," Barak says. "And then Netanyahu does not have the advantage because it's going to be more of an antagonistic relationship." Modi The two leaders have had each other's backs even as they've both faced criticism for discriminating against minorities. When he was pressed to question Prime Minister Narendra Modi about anti-Muslim riots in India, Trump gave him a pass. "And I will say that the prime minister was incredible on what he told me. He wants people to have religious freedom," Trump said during his visit to India earlier this year. A Biden-Harris administration is likely to voice stronger rhetoric on Modi's record on human rights, the environment and Kashmir. Still, India is seen as an important counterweight to China in the region, and Biden will not want to upset that. "Since the George W. Bush administration, the United States has recognized India's potential as a natural balancer to China. It's been a proponent of the U.S.-India relationship due to India's strategic location, its potential as a market," says Akriti Vasudeva at the Stimson Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C. Andrés Manuel López Obrador When he launched his campaign for president in 2015, Trump vilified Mexicans: "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." He also repeatedly threatened tariffs on Mexican exports. But over the years, and especially as he worked to secure the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, Trump and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador's relationship has grown closer. Critics of López Obrador say that he caved in to Trump by adopting harsher policies toward Central American migrants. But analysts say the Mexican leader didn't have much choice, particularly as he faced Trump's threats of tariffs and forcing Mexico to pay for a border wall. ...Every president since Franklin Roosevelt has visited Mexico-- except for Trump. In fact, Biden even visited then-candidate López Obrador in 2012. Biden made more trips just to Guatemala in his two terms as vice president than Trump has made to all of Latin America as president, and would likely look to work with López Obrador on immigration. As vice president, he promoted aid to Central American countries and pressured their leaders to curb corruption. Bolsonaro It's no surprise that the "Trump of the Tropics," as Bolsonaro has come to be known, has a close relationship with the U.S. president. They're both brash nationalists who share similar views on the coronavirus pandemic-- belittling the science, pooh-poohing the need for masks and saying the whole thing is just exaggerated. They both got COVID-19 and recovered. And they both believe shutting down the economy through lockdowns is more harmful than the virus. Bolsonaro's first international trip was to Washington, and he's since visited Trump three more times, including at Mar-a-Lago. "It would be a sort of earthquake," says Rubens Ricupero, a former Brazilian ambassador to the United States. Biden would likely pressure Bolsonaro on the erosion of human rights protections, including for Indigenous people, but it's the Brazilian leader's positions on the Amazon that would really be scrutinized. Biden wants to join forces with other counties to create a $20 billion fund for Brazil as part of an effort to press Bolsonaro to end rising deforestation. Still, Biden would need Brazil's cooperation on Venezuela and containing China, Brazil's biggest trading partner. Recep Tayyip Erdogan The two leaders have had a bumpy relationship, but Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also understood the benefit of a good rapport with Trump and preying on his instincts-- particularly one that has to do with Trump's anathema of having U.S. troops in the "endless wars." With one phone call last year, Erdogan got Trump to move U.S. troops in Syria out of the way so that Turkish soldiers could attack Kurdish forces, which were U.S. allies in the fight against ISIS. Still, though Trump has called Erdogan a "good friend," he also at one point threatened to "totally destroy and obliterate" the Turkish economy. ...Turkey might find it has to rein in the adventurous foreign policy it enjoyed under Trump. Biden would also most likely pressure Turkey on its human rights record-- particularly its jailing of journalists and other critics. Significant issues also divide Ankara and Washington, including Turkey's purchase of Russian missiles. Mohammed bin Salman Breaking with decades of U.S. tradition, Trump chose Saudi Arabia as his first international trip as president. In Riyadh, the Saudi royal family lavished Trump and his family with an extravagant ceremony. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has since been reaping the rewards. The Trump administration has barely pressured him-- over the kingdom's air campaign in Yemen, which has killed thousands of civilians, or his crackdown on dissent. And following the 2018 killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Trump stood by the crown prince's side even as U.S. intelligence agencies assessed that the Saudi royal had approved the killing and as bipartisan lawmakers condemned him. The former vice president has cast the kingdom as a "pariah"-- making it clear Salman would likely have a tougher time making inroads with a potential Biden administration. Biden has also threatened to stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, a top buyer of U.S. weaponry. "So there might be some cuts in terms of particular arms sales. There might be symbolic punishments. But the Biden administration is going to want a good relationship with Saudi Arabia despite the many problems," says Daniel Byman, a Middle East specialist at Georgetown University. Orbán Europe's populists, often shunned by Brussels, have found a natural ally in Trump, who shares their disdain for migrants, the media and dissent. But it's Hungary's prime minister, Orbán, who leads the pack. He was the only EU leader to endorse Trump in 2016. Four years and a White House visit later, Orbán calls Trump a friend and predicts he will win reelection. The populist leaders of Slovenia (Melania Trump's native country) and Serbia have also endorsed the president. Previous U.S. administrations shunned Hungary, and the EU is investigating Hungary and Poland, run by another Trump-friendly government, for rule of law violations. Ivan Krastev, a political scientist who leads the Center for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, Bulgaria, says the two countries have used their alliance with Trump to make it clear "that they have an alternative" to Brussels. Biden mentioned Poland and Hungary when slamming Trump's foreign policy during a town hall last month, adding, "This president embraces all the thugs in the world." The remark angered Hungary's government, but Orbán is already casting Biden as part of the international liberal elite. "We know well American Democratic governments' diplomacy, built on moral imperialism," Orbán wrote in a recent essay in the pro-government newspaper Magyar Nemzet.
Hey! How do you talk about "the thugs of the world" without mentioning Rodrigo Duterte, Kim Jong-un, and Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, 3 more Trump cronies. Way back in late September, Foreign Policy published a piece by Paul Musgrave, a professor of political science, urging the country to confront "the record of wrongdoing left by the Trump administration, both the crimes committed in office and crimes overlooked due to his power. Grappling with the Trump post-presidency will include delicate questions about how to investigate potential criminal and civil wrongdoing committed by the president, his associates, and his family. And there is a chance the country may not be up to this task. There’s one clear precedent for worrying: President Gerald Ford’s pardon of his criminal predecessor (and tax cheat) Richard Nixon, and the subsequent elite embrace of that pardon. That means it’s important to lay out the case for why a potential President Biden should not pardon Trump for offenses committed against the United States. To be sure, Biden has pledged not to do so. Yet there have been signs that he may be going wobbly. Whereas in 2019, Biden emphasized that Trump’s actions merited scrutiny ('This guy does all these things that put us in jeopardy and he gets off?' he said to Radio Iowa), in an August NPR interview he emphasized instead that pursuing criminal charges against a former president would be 'a very, very unusual thing' and 'probably not very-- how can I say it?-- good for democracy.'" Of course Trump was a very, very unusual thing and certainly not good for democracy. No one is calling for him to be executed-- well, almost no one-- the way the Nicolae Ceaușescu was. But he should certainly be investigated and, if found guilty, punished.
The American political system has no tradition of official disgrace or damnatio memoriae. All presidents are honored, even those who were awful or, in the case of President John Tyler, disloyal. Tyler, the tenth president, not only ran a disastrous administration but ended his public life as a congressman in a brief-lived treasonous slave power. And yet even Tyler receives official remembrances, including a presidential dollar coin featuring his image. That coin illustrates the natural arc of American political culture: institutional ignoring of the misdeeds of the powerful in the name of "healing." Yet this norm does not heal; it harms. It makes a mockery of Americans’ belief that they have a government of laws, not of men, if those laws do not apply to the men who enforce the laws. It constitutes a denial of justice and an amnesty granted only to the powerful. Left unchallenged, this norm will protect Trump from the reckoning that the country needs. Consider how the system dealt with Nixon. Time has so effaced the details of Nixon’s malfeasance that he has regained a patina of statesmanship. Thus, Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, could recently tweet a favorable comparison between Nixon and Trump, arguing that that “Nixon, for all his flaws, was a conservative who abided by norms.” Haass’s viral tweet reflects an irony that, in death, Nixon has finally been accepted by the sort of institution whose rejections kindled in him a lifelong resentment of the Eastern Establishment he tried to join. In doing so, it reflects a general amnesia about why Watergate was so bad that illustrates how far elite culture will go to forgive the crimes of the powerful. ...This revisionist history may explain why, in a 2014 CNN survey, only 51 percent of Americans reported considering Watergate a “very serious matter” that revealed unusual corruption in the Nixon White House, while 46 percent reported that the scandal was “just politics-- the kind of thing both parties engage in.” [Alan] Brinkley’s textbook later blandly mentions that President Gerald Ford, Nixon’s successor, suffered political consequences from his decision to offer Nixon a blanket pardon for wrongdoing while in office. Pointedly, Ford had rejected pardoning Nixon during his confirmation hearings as vice president. Once in office, though, a chorus of voices lobbied him to change his mind, claiming that neither the country nor Nixon himself might survive the trial. Ford’s pardoning of Nixon was unpopular at the time, with 53 percent of Americans rejecting it. It has since become conventional wisdom among America’s institutional elite that Ford’s act was merciful and correct. In 2001, a panel of eminences recruited by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation honored Ford’s pardon of Nixon by giving him its Profiles in Courage Award. ...By downplaying the seriousness of Nixon’s crimes, and stopping further consequences, the pardon made it possible to reduce Watergate from the White House horrors to the break-in. It also enabled Nixon’s rehabilitation. When Nixon died, President Bill Clinton ordered the closing of government offices “as a mark of respect for Richard Milhous Nixon.” In a cloying eulogy delivered “on behalf of a grateful nation,” Clinton praised Nixon’s legacy in domestic and foreign policy, without a single reference to Watergate or abuse of power other than the banal acknowledgment that “He made mistakes.” The healing myth has become part of a bipartisan catechism even though its central premise-- that the pardon healed the country-- is unsupportable. In the long run, as [Elizabeth] Holtzman said, “the Nixon pardon has had terrible ramifications.” It set the stage for later pardons related to executive self-interest, including George H.W. Bush’s pardons of many figures involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. If U.S. political culture can congratulate itself for rehabilitating Nixon, then the temptations for a Biden administration to do the same for Trump will be powerful. Doing so will let the administration move on to other priorities, sensible centrists will argue. And the next election is only two years away-- do you really want to have Trump still in the news by then? Advocates of a pardon or other forms of clemency will point to other factors as well. They will argue that, in a polarized country, the specter of politicized prosecutions will raise the possibility that vengeful Republicans will retaliate later. And indeed, it would be disastrous for democracy were each administration to misuse prosecution against its political enemies. Yet given what we already know about the president’s finances and conduct in office, an investigation of the Trump administration is unlikely to be politicized in any meaningful sense. It is only a refusal to prosecute that could be politicized, in the sense of being guided by political calculation rather than a commitment to the rule of law. (That would apply doubly to the idea that a pardon could help ease Trump out of the White House without strife.) More sophisticated observers might caution that even potentially justifiable prosecutions could have deleterious effects on U.S. politics and the country’s standing in the world. The prosecutions of Brazil’s most recent presidents-- Lula, Dilma, and Michel Temer-- did much to clear the way for the election of the country’s disastrous current president, Jair Bolsonaro. Similar concerns have been raised about other prosecutions elsewhere, like Ecuador’s conviction of former president Rafael Correa, which barred him from a return to politics. But it’s strange to argue that democracy depends on not prosecuting those who commit crimes. In France, even a prime minister caught misusing public funds may now go to jail rather than retire to a villa. And although some have criticized South Korea for prosecuting its ex-presidents (over half of whom are now in prison), measures like the Varieties of Democracy index show that Seoul’s record on liberal democracy is stronger than that of the United States. It should not be surprising that democracy and prosecutions of former officials can go together. That is, after all, the entire point of the rule of law. Holding officials to account forms a critical part of strengthening democratic institutions. And the ballot box is only one way to do that. That is why Biden must not waver. If a former president has never been prosecuted in American history, that’s because the last time the country had a chance to do so it was denied that opportunity. Far from being bad for democracy, a sober, lengthy, and deliberative investigation would be good for establishing a record of the rot in the Trump administration. And it would be a major boost for liberal democracy and anti-corruption efforts by demonstrating that in mature democracies, officials face consequences. Having a president who committed crimes is not unprecedented in American history. What would be unprecedented would be to end this long national nightmare by letting them face the same justice that any other American should.
My job at Blue America is to try to figure out what a candidate will be like once he or she gets into Congress. Promises can be one thing; behavior is another. Once I figured out how to do it, we've backed candidates like Ted Lieu, AOC, Pramila Jayapal, Rashida Omar, Bonnie Watson Colemand who have become sterling members of Congress. Biden was the easiest one I ever looked at and I've predicted for decades that if he ever gets into the White House he will be one of the worst presidents in history, not like the decidedly mediocre presidents we've suffered from JFK through Obama, but more in line with the aforementioned Tyler. He won't be as terrible as Trump but...
Source