This is why Biden asserts that the war between autocracy and democracy is the bigger issue - GulfToday

This is why Biden asserts that the war between autocracy and democracy is the bigger issue

Joe-Biden

Joe Biden. File

David Zurawik, Tribune News Service

I have never considered President Joe Biden a thinker of big ideas. Former President Barack Obama, sure. Biden, not so much. But in his news conference last week, Biden said something that I have been thinking about since. And the more I chew on it as I try to sort through all the major stories vying for the media and the public’s attention this week, the keener an insight Biden’s words seem to offer.

“I predict to you, your children and grandchildren are going to be doing their doctoral theses on the issue of who succeeded, autocracy or democracy. Because that is what is at stake,” Biden said. “We’ve got to prove democracy works.”

He said it in the context of a question about China and international alliances, but he was talking just as much about us. And the reason he understands the existential importance of this struggle at home when so many bigger thinkers in media and American life don’t is that he’s living it every day at the personal level in an ongoing battle with former President Donald Trump.

Trump, who was cleanly defeated in the general election, just won’t stand down and shut up in his forced retirement. He keeps calling into talk shows, like Jeanine Pirro’s “Justice with Judge Jeanine” on Fox News. Saturday night, he said on her show he would probably visit the southern border because of the mess he claims Biden made there. Isn’t that going to be a circus? Remember during the Obama administration when Fox host Sean Hannity and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry dressed in ersatz commando gear and patrolled the Rio Grande?

But despite the ridiculous posturing and foolishness of these men, that very relationship between Trump and Fox News is what makes the confrontation between autocracy and democracy so deadly, as we saw Jan. 6 at the Capitol. Trump is an autocrat, make no mistake about it. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines autocracy as a “government in which one person possesses unlimited power.” Is that not how Trump behaved in office, as if he had absolute power? And did he not prove himself willing to destroy our democracy by instigating a mob of his followers to try to overturn the results of a presidential election?

There have been other dangerous right-wing politicians throughout history like Republican Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 1950s. But he was only a junior senator from Wisconsin with a serious drinking problem, not president of the United States. And while he had the backing of the Hearst-owned newspaper chain, there was nothing in right-wing media with the reach and power of Fox News. And now Trump also has Newsmax and One America News Network competing with Fox to see which can be more supportive of the former president’s lies and anti-democratic efforts.

Every major story confronting the nation this week connected at the macro level to the autocracy v. democracy paradigm proposed by Biden.

Start with the outrageous efforts of the Republican Party in Georgia and other states to make it harder for citizens, especially Black citizens, to vote. Trump, the autocrat, is all in on that one, while Biden, the Democrat, is looking to make voting easier and more expansive at the federal level.

But Trump is not just an autocrat; fascist is an even better term to describe him. The Merriam-Webster dictionary adds a belief in racism and nationalism to the core definition of an autocrat, and Trump is nothing if not racist with his ugly appeals to white supremacists and uber-nationalistic with his border policies. Much of his support comes from those white people who cannot accept the demographic inevitability of a multicultural America.

The same forces of power and racism can be seen in the Derek Chauvin trial in Minneapolis. The autocrat or fascist enforces absolute rule through the use of police. The death of George Floyd was a graphic representation of how some police continue to illegally use deadly force on Black citizens.

Media, especially cable news, are doing a solid job of covering these stories at the micro level. But Americans need more in this complicated and profoundly troubled era. They need to understand the bigger picture and how much danger our democracy is still in.

Related articles

Majority of US voters support the deal with Iran

US presidential candidate Joe Biden promised to return to the 2015 agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions. Instead, President Biden sticks to the dangerous and destructive policy dictated by Donald Trump who withdrew from the deal in 2018 and slapped 1,500 punitive sanctions on Iran.

Biden hesitates although 54 per cent of registered US voters support a deal while only 20 per cent oppose; among Biden’s Democrats the number is 70 per cent backers and six per cent opponents; among independents 50 per cent support and 30 per cent do not; and 41 per cent of Republicans are in favour against 35 who are not.

Since Biden’s own positive rating is currently a low 41 per cent against 56 per cent negative rating, it would seem it would behove him to re-enter the deal. The main obstacle is Tehran’s insistence that the US must lift Trump’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRG) as a “foreign terrorist organisation,” making the IRG the world’s sole national army to join a host of armed non-state actors.

The text, a somewhat amended version of the original document, has been ready for months and awaits finalisation. Why then is Biden procrastinating and prevaricating? He faces stiff opposition from domestic anti-Iran lobbyists and legislators and Israel where the government rejects the deal. In both countries military and intelligence experts are, however, in favour. They hold, correctly, that Tehran has made great strides in developing both nuclear expertise and output since Trump pulled out, prompting Iran to gradually reduce its adherence in retaliation.

Instead of being limited to 3.67 uranium enrichment Iran has 43 kilograms of 60 per cent enriched uranium: this is a few steps away from the 90 per cent needed for a bomb. Instead of having a 300 kilogram stockpile of 3.67 enriched uranium, Iran has a stock 18 times larger of uranium enriched above the 3.67 per cent level permitted. Instead of carrying out enrichment with old, approved centrifuges, Iran has employed advanced centrifuges.

Instead of abiding by the stringent monitoring regime put in place by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has been slipping surveillance. Until Iran began to breach the regulatory regime, it was the toughest on earth.

Nevertheless, Iran has pledged to revert to the deal once the US re-enters and to halt enrichment above 3.67 per cent, export all but 300 kilogrammes of the permitted 3.67 per cent of material in its stockpile, revert to old centrifuges which have been warehoused, and re-engage fully with the IAEA monitoring effort.

Opponents of the deal argue its “sunset clauses” will expire by 2031, thereby ending restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities. This may be addressed in the new deal.

However, they also contend it fails to curb in Iran’s ballistic missile programme and sup- port for Lebanon’s Hizbollah, Yemeni Houthi rebels, Iraqi Shia militias and the Syrian government.

Since these issues are outside the purview of the 2015 deal, Iran rightly rejects including them in its successor. Tehran has also made it clear that they can be discussed directly with the US once Biden re-joins the deal and sanctions are lifted.

After months of trying to get the external issues incorporated into the nuclear deal, the Biden administration conceded that this is impossible.

On April 29th this year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told lawmakers that the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign had failed and “produced a more dangerous nuclear programme” while Iran stepped up involvement in regional affairs. These post-Ukraine war remarks suggested that the Biden administration was ready to return to the deal.

However, the administration continues to blow hot at one moment and cold another. Last week Washington may have blown up the deal. At the 35-member IAEA board of governors meeting in Vienna the US — along with acolytes Britain, France, and Germany — secured the adoption of a resolution critical of Iran over its inability or refusal to account for traces of nuclear material at three undeclared sites found by IAEA monitors in 2019 and 2020.

The resolution, which received 30 votes in favour — with Iran and Russia voting against and India, China and Libya abstaining — urges Iran to co-operate “without delay” with inspectors after IAEA director Rafael Grossi reported he had not received a “technically credible” explanation for the presence of particles.

Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi pointed out that uranium “contamination” was possible “in a country as vast as Iran.” He also suggested “human sabotage” by Israel which is blamed for repeated attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and assassinations of Iranian scientists.

Iranian officials are suspicious due to the fact that former Israeli Prime Minister Bin- yamin Netanyahu instigated visits by IAEA inspectors to one of the three contaminate sites at the village of Turquzabad near Tehran. IAEA monitors took soil samples and concluded that there were “traces of radioactive material” at the location which may have been used for storage as there were no signs of processing. How did Netanyahu know there were samples at this site?

Although the IAEA still has more than 40 cameras which will continue to operate at Iran’s enrichment facilities, Grossi stated Tehran’s action mounted to a “serious challenge.” He warned that in three or four weeks the agency would be unable to provide “continuity of knowledge” about Iran’s activities. “This could be a fatal blow” to negotiations over the nuclear deal, he stated.

He also warned that Iran is “just a few weeks” away from having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. However, Iran halted work on weaponisation in 2003 and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly stated that Iran will not manufacture nuclear weapons as they are prohibited by Islam.

Kelsey Davenport of the “independent” Washington-based Arms Control Association told the BBC that in ten days or less Iran could transform its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into the 90 per cent required for weapons. She said, however, that manufacturing bombs would require one or two years.

If Biden continues dithering the deal could die, further destabilising an already unstable region.

Michael Jansen, Political Correspondent

12 Jun 2022