So much for democracy versus autocracy. – Carswellfamilyfoundation

Ishaan Tharoor
| Washington Post

For much of his time in office, President Joe Biden has framed the central issue of our time as a struggle between “democracy and autocracy.” Liberal democracies in the West and their like-minded allies stood up to the threat posed by authoritarian states such as China and Russia, which Biden said were seeking to destroy international norms, bend the rules of the road in their favor and export their policies elsewhere. The Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine crystallized this vision, and the White House and European partners framed the fight for Ukraine as an existential clash between ideologies and political futures.

Each year of Biden’s presidency, the White House convened a “democracy summit” that included dozens of countries. He has strengthened partnerships with many Asian countries in an attempt to bolster deterrence against China, the world’s most powerful one-party state. Then there were Biden’s more subtle calculations at home, fresh from his victory over Donald Trump (and the lies that sparked the insurrection on January 6, 2021).

Many Western democracies, gripped by the rise of far-right nationalist and populist politics, have faced their own internal dangers. Biden’s much-touted “foreign policy for the middle class,” based on industrial policies and massive investments in high-tech and green manufacturing, was an attempt to address the inequalities caused by years of unfettered globalization.

But over time, Biden’s pro-democracy fire has dimmed – and neither candidate in next week’s presidential election appears intent on fanning the flame.

Fearing global oil prices, the Biden administration compromised with the monarchical Saudi regime, which the president had vowed to make a pariah, and later tied much of its Middle East strategy to closer ties with Riyadh. Whenever strategic interests conflicted with liberal political interests, the former always prevailed, as in the case of deepening US relations with India, which was under the influence of an illiberal Hindu nationalist government.

Last year, the war in Gaza, which followed the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, changed Biden’s legacy. The shocking death toll of Palestinians and the ongoing devastation of Palestinian territory have heightened criticism of the United States’ ironclad support for Israel’s war effort.

Outside the West, this has led to increased cynicism about Washington’s insistence on being the guardian of the international “liberal order.” Human rights groups have documented alleged Israeli war crimes, and even internal assessments by US agencies have concluded that Israel has blocked the flow of humanitarian aid to civilians. However, the United States has not enacted its own laws conditioning military support for Israel.

Neither Vice President Kamala Harris nor Trump supports Israel’s ongoing investigations into genocide and war crimes at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, and Washington does not recognize the jurisdiction of either. But the trauma of war will leave its mark on the region for generations to come and will cloud the future of the US president.

Harris and Trump indicate they will take different approaches to the Middle East (Trump complained that Biden placed too many restrictions on Israel and allied himself with the Israeli far right during his presidency), but both will work to attract the group Arab autocracies to help forge a peace that has eluded subsequent US administrations. More than a decade after the turmoil of the Arab Spring, democracy has disappeared from the agenda.

Critics point to an apparent double standard: The United States condemns Russia’s egregious violations of international law while effectively shielding Israel from global censure. Following the Israeli parliament’s decision on Tuesday to ban the main UN agency responsible for aid to the Palestinians, UN diplomats said the impunity granted to Israel made a mockery of the UN system and the post-World War II order. (Some argue that this system was already crumbling after Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, invaded Ukraine and faced no consequences in the House of Representatives.)

There could be profound consequences. “The implications that the fabric of international law—always fragile, but extremely valuable in U.S. efforts to hold notoriously abusive actors like Russia and Iran to account—could be torn apart in such a frighteningly brazen manner for so many people across the region and the world could an opportunity for authoritarian regimes and rights violators to commit similar abuses,” Monica Marks, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University’s Abu Dhabi campus, told me.

Reviewing Biden’s record, Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, suggested: “Given the widespread suffering and loss of life in Gaza, outrage over Israel’s liberation from the so-called rules-based order is likely stronger than outrage over various authoritarian regimes.” exceptions to Biden’s democracy promotion.”

Biden once called the successful defense of Ukraine a rejection of a world “where might makes right.” But by next year, the grim reality of the conflict could lead to a scenario in which Russia largely gets its way. Kyiv forces are desperately trying to hold the line in the east of the country, but are losing ground in some areas. Visions of absolute victory are fading. Western support is also weakening. “Western industry cannot produce anything of the quantity of artillery shells that Ukraine needs,” said analyst Anatol Lieven. “The United States cannot provide Israel with a sufficient number of air defense systems And Ukraine And save enough for a possible war with China. And above all, NATO cannot produce more soldiers for Ukraine.”

The prospect of Ukraine compromising with Russia – ceding territory in exchange for some Western security guarantees – is becoming increasingly easier to imagine. This will lead to an unhappy world that will haunt European politics for years to come. Trump appears to approve of the arrangement. His advisers have been vocal about the need to prioritize U.S. strategic assets against China. They do not see this competition as “democracy” versus “autocracy,” but rather as an old-fashioned great power competition consistent with Trump’s broader policies.

Harris is a more traditional liberal internationalist, but her administration may also feel forced to adopt a more modest posture. She will have to work with nationalist politicians consolidating power in Europe, where rising illiberalism could change the principles of the European Union. American lawmakers also recognize that American voters in general are no longer interested in over-asserting their country on the world stage.

“The isolationist trend that now dominates American politics is a warning to the rest of the world, which has become too dependent on the United States as a key guarantor of global security,” said Harsh Pant, vice president of the Observer Research Foundation, an Indian think tank. “Even if Trump does not win a second term in the White House, his candidacy reflects deeper trends that are shaping American politics today and will have a major impact on the shape of the global order in the future.”

Trump may not be a true isolationist, but his transactional approach to international politics and prominent relationships with autocrats reflect a departure from the Washington status quo.. “It’s all about power,” Fiona Hill, a Russia expert and former Trump White House official, said in an interview with Politico in which she linked Trump’s friendship with tech billionaire Elon Musk to oligarchic circles around the Kremlin. “These are guys who think they are the same as the rich and powerful who make deals with each other and the result is a breakdown of the international system.”