Loading summary
Transcript14 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:06]
B
Welcome back, everybody, to what really Matters. I'm Jeremy Stern with you in Los Angeles. I'm here as always with Walter Russell Mead of tablet, the Wall Street Journal, Hudson Institute and the Hamilton center at the University of Florida. Let's start with this week's news. First story of the week, the US Navy is surging eight warships to the Caribbean and Pacific waters near several Central and South American countries, a significant buildup for a region that is rarely such a large presence of U.S. military vessels and a move that has escalated tensions with Venezuela. The ships are part of a, quote, enhanced counter narcotics operation to carry out drug interdiction missions in Latin America, a defense official told the Washington Post. The move comes weeks after Trump administration officials said they are evaluating plans for using military force against drug cartels. The news of a potential buildup of warships in the region has raised suspicions that the US Might take military actions against cartels in Mexico or against Venezuela, a US Adversary whose president Nicolas Maduro is accused by the administration of running a drug cartel. The US this month raised the bounty for Maduro's Capture for the second time this year, doubling it from 25 million to US$50 million. Walter, is this news or foe news?
- [01:23]
A
Well, if your news standard for news is are we going to invade Venezuela tomorrow? My guess is that we're dealing with some foe news here. And just in general, by the way, whenever we're dealing with anything involving the Trump administration, particularly in something that isn't focused on one of the main areas of foreign policy commitment, say Ukraine or China or something like that, you have to understand that we're seeing a kind of a hyper energetic but radically understructured administration at work. So the national security, the, the NSC is not carefully monitoring and getting interagency cooperation, everything lined up. What we're seeing actually is much more of a bunch of freelancers who feel sort of empowered with a great mission of some kind. They're going to make America great again. They know exactly how to do it. And so they've got agendas and these may have, and they're sort of licensed from. The president might be in a meeting, he says, oh, that sounds like a great idea, just sort of off the cuff. And 30 seconds later, he's not thinking about that and nobody else is, but they've got their permission slip. And so you're going to see, I think, a lot of noise in an administration like this. And drugs and the intersection of drug policy, Caribbean regional policy, security policy is such an ill defined space that there's more room than usual for people to really. This can be just a playground for various people. Now, there are probably some limits, like you don't want to start a war. You don't want to have to go into the Boston said, oh, remember that ship you told me I could use? Well, I used it to start a war. That's not what you want to have. But at the same time, there's a sense that thematically and the level of themes and memes is often what matters a lot in this administration. It is really important for American security assets to be dealing with a problem that a lot of Americans would say is more important to their personal security than China. China's capabilities around Taiwan might strike. The average American is much less important than. Than the fact that fentanyl is coming into my kids high school and three of my kids friends have died and I don't feel comfortable about what's going to happen to my kid. All right, I want to see if I'm that family. I likely want to see the government doing something about it. Now, I am not sure that sending a bunch of navy naval warships to the Caribbean is actually going to have a huge impact on this, but at least the administration is trying to look big busy about something that matters to a lot of ordinary people. So there's a level at which it kind. Again, on this kind of conceptual, thematic level, it makes sense. Whether in fact this is part of an articulated, careful policy, I tend to doubt so f news in the sense, you know, is this actually. Are. Are the Marines getting ready to storm ashore in Venezuela? Probably not. But does this show something about an administration trying to redirect American foreign policy? Yes, I think maybe it does.
- [04:52]
B
All right, our second story. Most Americans believe there is a famine in Gaza but hold Hamas responsible, according to a new Harvard Harris poll conducted as reports of the crisis have led news in the United States. The survey found that 69% of respondents believe accusations that there is a famine in Gaza. More Democrats, 78%, believe the accusations than the 65% of Republicans and independents. However, a majority, 61%, held Hamas, not Israel, responsible for the famine. Democrats were split over which side was responsible, while 74% of Republicans and 60% of independents blamed the terror group. A slight majority of younger respondents blamed Israel, and 60% of Americans aged 18 to 24 supported Hamas over Israel in the conflict. Yet 60% of all respondents supported providing both offensive and defensive military aid to Israel. Walter, is this poll news or faux news?
- [05:49]
A
You know, the thing is, you'll look on Twitter and Somebody else has put up a poll showing something very different. I think people are brandishing polls, often paid for by various interest groups, more and more and more as an instrument of argumentation, less and less and less as a test of actual public sentiment. So I find myself just not paying as much attention to polls of any kind, is what I. What I generally find is just about every group I pay attention to will bring out a poll saying, actually, Americans. A large majority of Americans support my foreign policy priorities. You will almost never see AIPAC publishing a poll saying Americans blame Israel for everything happening in Gaza. Nor will you see CARE publish a poll saying American support for is weapons to Israel remains strong. So I think we would all do better to just downgrade the attention to polls and maybe even pay less money to pollsters. Everything we know about polling is that it's getting harder to poll accurately. I know I don't ever respond to people, random strangers calling me up on my cell phone and trying to get my opinions on a bunch of political subjects. And I think a lot of other sensible people don't do that too. Which, and that lends you with the question, who answers these polls then if the sensible people don't. So I think fo news, leave it alone. I think it is true that Americans on the whole think Hamas is to blame for what's happening. That can get overwhelmed at times by just, you know, the sympathy that one naturally feels for victims. And, you know, the majority of Palestinians in Gaza, they didn't vote for Hamas. They don't necessarily support Hamas. They have no method of making their opposition to Hamas known. On the other hand, he would say the same thing about Germans in Nazi Germany and Japanese in Imperial Japan in 1945. Sometimes I wonder if you could take the media sensibilities of today back to these earlier conflicts. How would today's New York Times have covered the war in Europe in the 1940s? Pitiful German refugees, evil American bombers. You know, why is America not feeding the German babies? It would obviously be true that any food that got into Germany would somehow or other find its way to the Wehrmacht, et cetera, et cetera. But this kind of mindless sentimentality, maybe that's a little unfair, mindless, but it is. It's where sympathy has overridden some political judgment. Or think of the Civil War. What is that awful, Mr. Sherman, doing? Those people, some of the people in Georgia that have lost their houses, they didn't even vote for the Confederacy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. War is hell. And in some ways, the US used the suffering of World War II as a deliberate instrument of policy. Franklin Roosevelt was very much of the belief that the reason that Germany was ready to fight World War II was that they did not understand from World War I just how terrible war was, that when World War I ended, German forces were actually, for the most part, still in foreign territory when the armistice was signed. And Roosevelt thought that this, the only way to stop this menace was for every German to know deep in their bones what war was. Now, I'm sure that there is some sentiment like this in the Israeli cabinet and in Israel that the only way to get the Palestinians to give up this fever dream of resistance, as they would call it, is to show how much it costs, how terrible it is, how whatever might tempt you, that is not a road to go down ever again. You know, and it's a grim decision to make. I think In World War II, the Americans had, you know, the ability to carry those measures out and the sort of size of German atrocities and publicity about the Nazi atrocities and the general horrors of the occupation were such that even people whose consciences might have been seared by the firebombing of Dresden or so on were prepared to kind of let this thing roll to its conclusion. It is, you know, the situation in Gaza is somewhat different. I'm not, I, you know, the moral argument over sort of how much suffering does the IDF have a right to impose on Palestinians in order to drive Hamas out of Gaza or to illustrate the futility of the resistance ideology? That's a grave moral question. Smart people will take different sides on it. I think I'm reduced to hoping that the war ends as soon as possible and that for everybody's sake, a Palestinian movement emerges from the war that fully the nihilistic futility of the kind of resistance that Hamas and for that matter, the Iranian government wants to elevate into an ideology.
- [11:47]
B
All right, final story of the week. Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has sued President Trump, seeking to block his move to fire her from the central bank in an unprecedented legal battle testing the president's power over the independent central bank's seven member board. The lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C. federal District Court, alleges Trump violated the law by attempting to remove Cook from her post without a valid reason. In announcing his move to fire Cook, Trump cited allegations that she submitted fraudulent information on mortgage applications. Though Cook has not been charged with any civil or criminal violation. Cook's lawsuit said Trump, quote, concocted a basis for her firing in violation of the Federal Reserve act, which says the president must show cause to remove Fed governors. His move, she alleged, represented an extraordinary attack on the central bank's independence. Walter, you wrote about this a bit last week. Is this news or faux news?
- [12:43]
A
If Trump succeeds in firing member of the board of governors and then ultimately is able to gain control of the Fed board and direct its voting, then it's a big change in the way America works. And when you have a somewhat populist administration running a central bank and the erosion or destruction of central bank independence, then I think those of us who thought that 30 year treasury bonds were a safe investment may have to rethink and probably very quickly. It's not a good sign, but there are two questions here. One is, would it be a good thing if Trump took over the Federal Reserve? And the other thing is, is there legitimate cause to fire Lisa Cook? And there it gets tricky because, you know, if she actually did deliberately sign attest to something that is false under criminal penalties, which, you know, if you've ever signed, and I know you have, Jeremy, signed these mortgage documents, there's a, there's a lot of stuff at the bottom of those that looks kind of intimidating. And 99% of us just kind of like, well, fine, I'll just sign it. But you could make an argument that one qualification for someone who aspires to lead one the country's most important banking institution, should be a scrupulous regard for the, the honesty and transparency of her, his or her declarations. So I, I think it's not wrong that she be held to a higher standard than the average Joe or Mary might be in the country. You know, there are other allegations there that I, I have not honestly looked into enough to, to have a view. So, and then you can argue. All right, well, but, okay, maybe that stuff was lying in some sort of paper, you know, big pile of papers or data somewhere. And so the US Government, the Trump administration, then scurries around looking for incriminating dirt. You know, were her rights protected in that? You know, was this a fishing expedition of the kind that Donald Trump certainly hated when the Democrats pulled it on him, as I think they did. You would like to think that somebody who's been the victim of excessive political prosecution and excessive zeal by demented, legalistic prosecutors out for your blood. We'd like to think that that breeds a sense of charity and restraint, but apparently it does not in all cases. So, you know, this is one of those things where we are unlikely to get a clear answer from the news stories. As exactly what happened here or what it means. And that's the kind of thing, you know, that's why we have a court system. And again, it would be one of the reasons why I hope our court system remains untainted by any kind of executive power grabs. So the news is that Trump is serious. He wants to impress Fed board much more than other presidents have done. I am myself not so sure that that is his wisest course. I might want to advise him that sometimes it's really good to have an independent central bank that you can blame things on. Oh, my good people, I love you so much. If I only had the power, your interest rate would be zero, not zero, minus 10%. The bank would be paying you to have the house. That's what I want. But, oh, alas, my hands are tied. There's nothing I can do. That might be a better political position than actually end up having everybody blaming you for everything that's going on in the economy. But who can say?
- [16:39]
B
All right, that does it for the news this week. Let's have the big conversation. So earlier this week, Walter, Xi Jinping held the largest ever summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Tianjin, China. It included Vladimir Putin and the usual crowd of Central Asian heads of state. But this time it also included India's Modi, Turkey's Erdogan, and leaders from Iran, Pakistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan. You noted that, quote, the Tianjin summit won't be remembered for its achievements, but the meeting was a significant move. China and America are positioning themselves for what Xi and Trump both consider the main event of Trump's second term. Negotiations over the trade relationship between the geopolitically hostile but economically entangled superpowers of the 21st century. Close quote. So, Walter, as those photos and videos of Modi, Xi and Putin smiling together have dominated headlines so far this week, tell us more about what this summit was and wasn't and how it fits into this larger picture of Trump's defining issue in his second term.
- [17:56]
A
Okay, well, I think first of all, let's, let's remember that press coverage in the, sort of most of the establishment papers of these events is by and large an attempt to make Trump look bad. He sometimes does. He does things that deserve sometimes. That is not an inaccurate portrait. I'm not trying to say that here, but the mindset of the press and of the editors are what Trump is doing is so unbearably terrible for the whole world and everything good that at any moment, any event that happens is another example of how Trump's wrecking Ball is destroying everything. So that's sort of the news angle that people are looking for. It's a little bit different from lying to, you know, make people think something is true that you yourself don't think is true. This is more bias than deliberate distortion, I think. I'm sure there is some of, some of both at work and who can say how much, but so they're predisposed. Oh, so Modi goes to the sco. Oh, my goodness. Modi is now a member of the axis of resistance. Modi and China and Putin are all best friends. Everything is fine for them and terrible for us, and it's all Trump's fault. This is a little bit restrained, I think, by the fact that most of the same press people really hate Modi and don't hate him as much as they hate Trump, but they think of Modi as a sort of backward, bad type guy anyway. So that makes it easier to see all the bad guys are getting together, blah, blah, blah, blah. But as I, at least as I looked at the news so far, and something can come out to surprise me that does from time to time happen. Modi doesn't seem to have signed any agreements that commit him to concrete steps. This looks to me much more like a very effective use of, you know, of the power of, of images. Modi, first of all needed to show Indian public opinion that he was not knuckling under to Trump. You know, the Europeans have enough of a sense of their own weakness and enough of kind of a bad conscience about how they've wrecked their place in the world that, that when their leaders come and kneel at Trump's feet, they are, you know, they're a little, like, annoyed and there's a bit of a, you know, blowback. But on the whole, like, well, what do you expect? You know, there's nothing much we can do. Indians do not expect that from their prime minister. They expect a Prime minister who stands for India when it's easy, but also stands up for India when it's hard. And so Modi simply cannot, cannot afford to look in any way, shape or form like Trump's lapdog. Going to this SCO summit and having his picture taken in these animated settings, if nothing else, sends a very powerful message across India that our Prime Minister will not be intimidated. You can't just drive Modi into any concessions that you want. Now, that could be a first sign of deep Indian American estrangement, and this could be a trend that continues. Alternatively, that could be the first thing that he has to do in order to clear the decks, to try to reach some kind of understanding with the Trump administration. And this is a very good diplomatic, you know, when you're in diplomacy, this is the kind of move you want to make. No matter it doesn't commit you either to a course of reconciliation with the United States or of reconciliation to China. Right. But it helps you. And you can still, you have just as much freedom of action, maybe a little bit more now that you've shown some independence. It improves your position, but it doesn't commit you to a course of action you're not sure you want to be committed to. Okay. That's what good diplomacy looks like. That's what, you know, we'll see now. You know, will, will this lead to, you know, I think we'll now have to look and see, you know, what do the Americans come back with? What do the Indians come back with? Who's willing to put what on the table? But at least, as I've seen the press in India, and I can't say I've studied it as much as I should, but there's a kind of an allergy toward India looking dependent on the United States that doesn't flare up as much on other countries, certainly not on Russia, but also even on China. Okay, India might be mad at Trump because Trump gave Pakistan a pat on the back and kind of went sort of made Pakistan look good over the end of the war between India and Pakistan. And that does anger a lot of folks in India. But what's the country that's providing Pakistan with an economic lifeline? What's the country that is really doing the most to keep Pakistan at the forefront militarily, it's obviously China. So if you were simply going, if Pakistan was going to be the only issue you as an Indian would choose between the United States and China on. I think at this, while historically America's hands are dirtier from that Indian perspective, with Pakistani support, in the modern world, China is incomparably more deeply engaged with Pakistan. But again, Indian press is not as worried. It is somewhat worried, but not as worried that an Indian prime minister would sell the farm to China as it is that America would somehow, using our spooky global capitalist Western mind magic, ensnare the Indians into a new form of colonialism. So here we are. I think so far the Indians are dealing with this problem reasonably intelligently. I think the Trump administration is still trying to grapple with what's happened and figure it out. Again, we come back to what we were talking about. In the earlier part of this podcast about the. This isn't an administration where it tries to align everything and have everybody singing from the same hymn book at the same time, same stanza. So you have a lot of people doing different things. Peter Navarro has been in the lead on criticisms of India. That is probably partly about India and sincere policy convictions, partly also maybe moves that Mr. Navarro is making in the internal rivalries inside Trump world that the rest of us have at most a rather dim understanding of. So where all this shakes out, how committed the Americans are to changes in Indian trade and security policy and what changes that really matter to them is still kind of up in the air. So we're going to, we're going to wait and see. But, but I'm certainly going to be watching this carefully.
- [25:31]
B
One final question about the dynamic between China and Russia and Iran right now. When, when we started the podcast a couple of years ago, we often talked about, you know, kind of Iran racking up the most foreign policy victory as compared with its, you know, comparatively limited resources. Vladimir Putin may be the one who is most daring in playing the cards that he had. And China, despite its much larger capabilities, being hemmed in and more constrained than the other two in a lot of ways. So much has changed in the last two years. What's your sense of the dynamic between those three players in that troika of the axis of weevils right now?
- [26:11]
A
Well, I do think that Iran has gone from being the one that has gained the most to the one that has suffered the most defeats. And again, it's amazing that that four years of Biden and what we were told was the responsible, mature policy toward Iran got us nowhere. And Trump has really, you know, obviously, with Israel taking the lead, Iran has just, it's, it's not what it was two years ago. And that's a very sobering lesson. Iran's president was at the SCO summit, but was not maybe speaking with as loud a voice as he would have been a couple of years ago. I think Putin continues to be having a significant amount of success. Even, you know, he has limited cards. His war, the initiation of the war in Ukraine, started a much bloodier and longer war than he ever thought he would have to fight. He's adjusted to that new and unwelcome reality and has done reasonably well. Again, it continues to be very bloody and expensive and so far inconclusive. But I think it's fair to say that the west has taken more damage than Russia has. Not in terms of blood, obviously, but Western Unity, Western prestige. I think Putin is probably rather satisfied now. He is in other ways. I think he is not so satisfied. The longer this war goes on in Ukraine, the more China has a chance to quietly build up its influence in places like Central Asia. So I think we are now moving into a world in which Xi is becoming the kind of residuary beneficiary of more and more of the actions of his partners, and that he's still, you know, he's got some serious economic problems that he doesn't seem to be able to resolve. The purges in the military, if anything, seem to be going deeper yet at the same time, I think he has more power over Putin now than he once did. And he continues, I think, and it's partly because the US still doesn't really have a policy. We've been pivoting to Asia for more than a decade, but haven't completed this pivot yet in any meaningful sense. US Alliances in Asia are in disarray. So right now, it looks to be kind of in terms of the who's doing best in the axis of evil, axis of weevils, it is Xi, but probably still not enough to satisfy Chinese public opinion the way he would like to. Where are the territorial gains? Where is the deference? The Shanghai, the SCO summit showed a lot of deference, but where can he go and really be seen as the leader of a new world order, the kinds of things that a lot of people in China think their country should be able to get? He's still not there.
- [29:18]
B
All right, that does it for the big conversation. Let's end on the tip of the week. Another listener request this week, Walter, this one from Cynthia in Palo Alto. Who wants to know if you have a favorite Fed chair throughout history.
- [29:39]
A
Well, Mariner Echols, just because I like that name, I guess the guy who did the most for me. And hey, you know, end of the day, that's one of the things you care about in a Fed chair was probably Paul Volcker, who, again, a lot of younger people don't realize what a nightmarish economic world the boomers grew up in. And we were complaining about how we couldn't afford houses like our parents did. And now our living standard was going to be lower than our parents interest rate on mortgages, like 21%. And Volker brought that down painfully. But he did bring it down. And I also liked, you know, I got to know him a little bit, and he's an awfully nice guy. But I remember once, too, I was on a call in radio show. Can't remember where it was. Maybe Utah. One of the callers called in and asked if I knew that Paul Volcker was a member of the American Communist Party. And I'm thinking to myself, what answer can I possibly give here? And I said, well, I said, Look, I met Mr. Volker. I don't think of him, hasn't shown any sign to me of actually being a Communist. But. But I will say this. If you are right, okay, then the thing that you should. My advice to you is join the Communist Party now because it's over. You know, if the Communist Party has the chairman of the Federal Board, Federal Reserve. Just try to get a low party number on your card while you still can. You didn't ask a follow up.
- [31:13]
B
All right, there you have it. Thanks to our producers Josh Cross and Quinn Waller and my co host, Walter Russell Mead. I'm Jeremy Stern. We'll see you next week. And until then, please go rate and review us. This helps other people find the show.