So much for democracy versus autocracy.

On By Karl

Ishaan Tharoor
| Washington Post

For much of his time in office, President Joe Biden has framed the central issue of our time as the struggle between “democracy and autocracy.” The West’s liberal democracies and their like-minded allies were lined up against the threat posed by authoritarian states such as China and Russia, who, according to Biden, were intent on subverting international norms, bending the rules of the road to their advantage and exporting their own countries. politics is elsewhere. The Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine crystallized this vision, and the White House and European partners cast the fight for Ukraine as an existential conflict between ideologies and political futures.

Every year during the Biden presidency, the White House organized a “democracy summit” with the participation of dozens of countries. It has strengthened partnerships with several Asian countries to strengthen deterrence against China, the world’s most powerful one-party state. Biden also had a more delicate reckoning at home following his victory over Donald Trump (and the lies that fueled the January 6, 2021 insurrection).

Caught in the rise of far-right nationalist and populist politics, many Western democracies have faced their own internal dangers. Biden’s much-lauded “foreign policy for the middle class” — focused on embracing industrial policy and massive investments in high-tech and green-tech manufacturing — was an attempt to address inequalities fueled by years of unfettered globalization.

But in the meantime, the light on Biden’s pro-democracy flame has faded, and neither candidate appears ready to fan the flames in next week’s presidential election.

Wary of global oil prices, the Biden administration has reached a compromise with the monarchical Saudi regime that the president had vowed to exclude and would later tie much of its Middle East strategy to closer ties with Riyadh. Whenever strategic interests clashed with liberal political concerns, the former always prevailed; such as the deepening of US relations with India under the influence of an illiberal Hindu nationalist government.

Last year, the war in Gaza following the militant group Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, reshaped Biden’s legacy. The shocking Palestinian death toll and continued destruction of Palestinian territory has increased criticism of the staunch US support for Israel’s war effort.

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

Neither Vice President Kamala Harris nor Trump supports ongoing investigations into genocide and war crimes against Israel at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, and Washington does not recognize the jurisdiction of either. However, the trauma of the war will leave its mark on the region for generations to come and cast a shadow over the next American presidency.

Harris and Trump say they will take different approaches to the Middle East — Trump complained that Biden placed too many restrictions on Israel and aligned with Israel’s far-right during his presidency — but both are willing to co-opt some of the Arab autocracies to their own interests. It will work. Help build a peace that has eluded successive U.S. administrations. More than a decade after the turmoil of the Arab Spring, democracy has fallen off the agenda.

Critics noted the apparent double standard between the United States condemning Russia’s blatant violations of international law and effectively shielding Israel from global condemnation. Following the Israeli parliament’s decision on Tuesday to ban the main UN agency responsible for aiding the Palestinians, UN diplomats said the impunity granted to Israel was a mockery of the UN system and the post-World War II order. (Some argue that this system was already breaking down after Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, invaded Ukraine and faced no consequences in the Assembly.)

It can have profound consequences. “The consequences of allowing the fabric of international law—always fragile but immensely valuable to U.S. efforts to hold notorious actors like Russia and Iran to account—to be rented to so many people in the region and around the world in an alarmingly brazen way,” New York University’s Abu “This could empower authoritarians and rights abusers to commit similar abuses,” said Monica Marks, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at the Dhabi campus.

Kenneth Roth, the former director of Human Rights Watch, reviewed Biden’s recordings and suggested: “Given the great suffering and loss of life in Gaza, anger at Israel’s supposed exemption from the rules-based order is likely to fuel Israel’s greater than your displeasure. Various autocratic exceptions to Biden’s support for democracy.”

Biden once framed the successful defense of Ukraine as a rejection of a world where “might makes right.” But next year, the harsh reality of the conflict could lead to a scenario in which Russia largely gets what it wants. Kyiv forces are desperately trying to hold the line in the east of the country but are losing ground in some areas. Dreams of absolute victory are fading. Western support is also decreasing. “Western industry cannot produce anything like the number of artillery shells that Ukraine needs,” analyst Anatol Lieven said. “The USA cannot provide Israel with adequate air defense systems” And Ukrainian And Save enough money for a possible war with China. And most importantly, NATO cannot produce more soldiers for Ukraine.”

It is becoming easier to envision the possibility of Ukraine reaching a compromise with Russia (giving up territory in exchange for some security guarantees from the West). This would lead to an unhappy peace that would disrupt European politics for years. It seems that Trump prefers such a compromise. His advisors are clear that US strategic assets should be prioritized over China. This is a contest that they do not frame in terms of “democracy” and “autocracy”; instead, it’s an old-fashioned great power rivalry to suit Trump’s broader mote-and-bailey policy.

Harris is a more traditional liberal internationalist, but her administration may also feel compelled to take a more modest stance. He would need to work with nationalist politicians consolidating power in Europe, where rising liberalism could reshape the principles of the European Union. US lawmakers are also aware that American voters are no longer keen on their country’s self-aggrandizement on the world stage.

“The isolationist trend that currently dominates American politics is a warning to the rest of the world, which has become too dependent on the United States as the main guarantor of global security,” says Harsh Pant, vice president of India’s Observer Research Foundation. think tank. “Even if Trump fails to win a second term in the White House, his candidacy reflects deeper trends shaping American politics today and will have a major impact on the outlook for the global order in the future.”

Trump may not be a true isolationist, but his interactionist approach to international politics and apparent association with autocrats reflect a break with Washington’s status quo. Fiona Hill, a Russia expert and former Trump White House employee, said in an interview with Politico that she attributed Trump’s closeness with technology billionaire Elon Musk to the oligarchic circles around the Kremlin and said, “It’s all about power.” “These are men who see themselves in the same class as the rich and powerful, who trade with each other, and the result is the collapse of the international system.”