National

Intensifying protests in Hong Kong — continuing weeks after the shelving of a controversial extradition law — have fueled a broader struggle over the city's character and future.

Why it matters: Hong Kong remains an important financial gateway from China to the world, although Shanghai and other mainland cities have taken on part of that role. Above all, the central government in Beijing wants to avoid the precedent of a popular political movement successfully challenging President Xi and the authority of the Communist Party.

Background: Pressure in Hong Kong has been building for some time, as China has slowly but steadily chipped away at its special status, calling into question Beijing's commitment to the “one country, two systems” formula that constituted the foundation of the territory's 1997 handover.

Between the lines: Leaders in Beijing worry that a triumphant protest movement in Hong Kong could embolden calls on the mainland for freedom of expression and the rights to assemble and strike. It would raise similar concern about strengthening Taiwanese demands for independence.

These risks suggest Chinese authorities will use force if needed, although they may first seek to control the protests by applying economic pressure on Hong Kong, sowing disinformation, arresting protest leaders and threatening military escalation.

What to watch: The U.S. response is still taking shape. President Trump has said that “everyone should be calm and safe” and that what happens is between Hong Kong and China “because Hong Kong is a part of China.”

While that may be true, China is obligated to respect Hong Kong's special status until 2047.

The bottom line: What is at issue is China’s willingness to meet its international commitments — in this case, a legally binding treaty with the U.K.

Preserving Hong Kong's autonomy and special character will likely require more direct pressure from the U.S. and its allies, including calls for government restraint and dialogue with the people of Hong Kong.

The U.S. Congress could also threaten to introduce sanctions in response to any use of armed force to crush dissent or further curbing of Hong Kong's autonomy.

Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of "A World in Disarray."

Hong Kong protests assert the freedoms China seeks to constrain

The central government has steadily chipped away at the city's treaty-protected autonomy.

protestors create a barricade of luggage carts at the airport

Pro-democracy protestors at Hong Kong's international airport. Photo: Manan Vatsyayana/AFP/Getty Images

World

Hong Kong

Expert Voices

Intensifying protests in Hong Kong — continuing weeks after the shelving of a controversial extradition law — have fueled a broader struggle over the city&#x27;s character and future.Why it matters: Hong Kong remains an important financial gateway from China to the world, although Shanghai and other mainland cities have taken on part of that role. Above all, the central government in Beijing wants to avoid the precedent of a popular political movement successfully challenging President Xi and the authority of the Communist Party.

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

At his Helsinki summit with President Trump, Vladimir Putin argued for letting bygones be bygones and opening a new era in U.S.–Russia relations, something Trump was happy to embrace. Trump went on to indulge in some unfortunate moral equivalence by stating that both countries bore the blame for the poor state of their relationship.

Why it matters: As was the case in Singapore, Trump exaggerated what had been accomplished at the summit. Indeed, little appeared settled in the way of policy other than perhaps a revival of arms control talks.

Simply by taking place, the summit further normalized Russia’s ties to the outside world, which have atrophied since its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Putin’s call for greater humanitarian help for Syria won the day’s chutzpah award given all that Russia has done to create that humanitarian crisis in the first place.

The most striking feature of what we know — and no one should forget that the length of the leaders' one-on-one meeting means we don’t know what we don’t know — was Trump’s refusal to back the assessments of his own intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Instead, Trump appeared once again to accept Putin's complete denial of Russian wrongdoing in the 2016 election. He even liked Putin’s self-serving suggestion that the two governments form a working group to investigate the matter. The indictments could have been used by Trump to press Putin, but his behavior only served to reinforce questions about why he has been so reluctant to confront Russia from the get-go.

The big picture: Helsinki should not be viewed in a vacuum. It was a worrisome and in many ways objectionable finale to a week that did much to undermine the foundations of U.S. foreign policy — especially NATO and the U.S.–U.K. special relationship — that have contributed so much to U.S. security, prosperity and influence for the better part of a century. Alas, the trip provided nothing that would take their place.

Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of “A World in Disarray.”

At Helsinki summit, Trump defers to Putin at expense of U.S. security

The meeting capped an already unsettling week for American foreign policy.

Trump and Putin shake hands while standing at podiums for press conference

Russia

Politics

At his Helsinki summit with President Trump, Vladimir Putin argued for letting bygones be bygones and opening a new era in U.S.–Russia relations, something Trump was happy to embrace. Trump went on to indulge in some unfortunate moral equivalence by stating that both countries bore the blame for the poor state of their relationship.Why it matters: As was the case in Singapore, Trump exaggerated what had been accomplished at the summit. Indeed, little appeared settled in the way of policy other than perhaps a revival of arms control talks.

China is becoming the most formidable rival America has faced, and the risk of confrontation with Russia, North Korea or Iran still looms. Authoritarians are rising, the chaotic Afghanistan exit revealed the limits of U.S. power, and the pandemic, climate change and other critical challenges continue to pose grave threats.

President Trump's speech at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday morning depicted a United States under siege, finally pushing back after years of unfair trade pacts and free riding among allies. Clear warnings were issued: He rejected the International Criminal Court — echoing John Bolton’s speech two weeks ago — and the new global migration compact; from now on, foreign aid would go only to those the secretary of state deems friends. 

The big picture: President Trump put his America First doctrine forward as a model not just for the United States, but for other countries. He advised them to embrace nationalism over internationalism. The rest of his address hit familiar talking points: boasting about the American economy; praising sovereignty; denouncing globalism, unfair trade, the UN Human Rights Council, OPEC and the Iran nuclear deal; and vilifying China, Iran and Venezuela.

Trump set out patriotism as incompatible with globalism, neglecting the reality that many of the challenges confronting the United States this century, including terrorism and nuclear proliferation, will require collective action. 

Consistent with this oversight, he did not even mention climate change. 

He also rejected global governance, even though it will be essential to establishing rules for cyberspace conduct, which the United States would benefit from.

The principal exception to the dark tone of the speech concerned North Korea’s Kim Jung-un. The president continued to praise him and extoll what their diplomacy has accomplished despite evidence to the contrary. 

The bottom line: At one point during his speech, Trump boasted that “in less than two  years my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country,” a statement that met with laughter. It was more evidence that he has lost his international audience — not just in the UN Assembly Hall today, but  around the world. 

At UN, more evidence that Trump is losing the world

It was more evidence that he has lost his international audience.

President Donald Trump addresses the 73rd United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly on September 25, 2018 in New York City.

President Trump addresses the 73rd UN General Assembly on September 25, 2018, in New York City. Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Donald Trump

President Trump&#x27;s speech at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday morning depicted a United States under siege, finally pushing back after years of unfair trade pacts and free riding among allies. Clear warnings were issued: He rejected the International Criminal Court — echoing John Bolton’s speech two weeks ago — and the new global migration compact; from now on, foreign aid would go only to those the secretary of state deems friends. The big picture: President Trump put his America First doctrine forward as a model not just for the United States, but for other countries. He advised them to embrace nationalism over internationalism. The rest of his address hit familiar talking points: boasting about the American economy; praising sovereignty; denouncing globalism, unfair trade, the UN Human Rights Council, OPEC and the Iran nuclear deal; and vilifying China, Iran and Venezuela.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced Thursday that he will step down, after two difficult years in which he and President Trump were often not on the same page. Mattis underscored their differences in his resignation letter, telling Trump he had the right to a defense secretary with more closely aligned views.

Why it matters: Mattis was a traditionalist who believed in an international order led by the United States, in respecting and supporting its allies, and in keeping its commitments. His departure leaves the administration without an experienced, centrist foreign policy hand.

Disagreements over the U.S. troop presence in Syria and the politically motivated deployment along the U.S.–Mexico border may have been the last straws on a camel's back long close to breaking. Mattis also reportedly opposed the reductions to the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan Trump has sought.

The bottom line: Although Mattis had been relegated to the periphery of Trump's policymaking, he remained a reassuring presence to U.S. allies. Trump would be best served by a successor to Mattis who can make the case for America's active role on the world stage, as tensions in the Middle East, East Asia and beyond are likely to further test his administration.

Mattis exit further destabilizes Trump administration's foreign policy

He was the administration's last experienced, centrist foreign policy hand.

Defense Secretary Mattis at the Pentagon on Nov. 28, 2018. Photo: Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

James Mattis

Afghanistan

Secretary of Defense James Mattis <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="announced" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/defense-secretary-james-mattis-depart-white-house-february-eda7efe3-1c1d-434e-919f-e27dfbec179c.html" data-vars-content-id="7002c9d0-1f02-432f-9767-40a9b63cc817" data-vars-headline="Mattis exit further destabilizes Trump administration&#x27;s foreign policy" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/defense-secretary-james-mattis-depart-white-house-february-eda7efe3-1c1d-434e-919f-e27dfbec179c.html" target="_self">announced</a> Thursday that he will step down, after two difficult years in which he and President Trump were often not on the same page. Mattis underscored their differences in his <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="resignation letter" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/read-james-mattis-resignation-letter-defense-secretary-c04c6d1f-0f5b-48f4-8601-a6d5733f4200.html" data-vars-content-id="7002c9d0-1f02-432f-9767-40a9b63cc817" data-vars-headline="Mattis exit further destabilizes Trump administration&#x27;s foreign policy" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/read-james-mattis-resignation-letter-defense-secretary-c04c6d1f-0f5b-48f4-8601-a6d5733f4200.html" target="_self">resignation letter</a>, telling Trump he had the right to a defense secretary with more closely aligned views.Why it matters: Mattis was a traditionalist who believed in an international order led by the United States, in respecting and supporting its allies, and in keeping its commitments. His departure leaves the administration without an experienced, centrist foreign policy hand.

It was another day of diplomacy in the age of Twitter, with @realDonaldTrump tweeting: "After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!"

Why it matters: The president’s tweet calls for a change in U.S. policy toward the Golan Heights but does not actually declare it. There are many reasons for the president not to turn his tweet into policy.  It would all but eliminate what little chance exists for peace between Israel and either the Palestinians or Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia. 

Coming on the heels of the U.S. decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem, it would eliminate any remaining ability of the Trump administration to act as an honest broker.  

A change in U.S. policy would not change the situation on the ground or improve Israeli security.  Israel already occupies the Golan Heights, and there is no reason for it to give up an inch of it in the absence of a Syrian government prepared to live in peace with Israel. 

The only effect of a new U.S. policy then would be to increase the isolation of both Israel and the U.S.

The president's tweet is presumably meant to bolster his political standing as well as Bibi Netanyahu's in the run-up to the April 9 Israeli elections.

But it would come at a steep cost to Israel, as UN Resolution 242 has been the foundation of at times fruitful efforts to broker peace between Israelis and Arabs for more than half a century. 

The resolution asserts the right of every country in the region to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

This is precisely what Israel and the U.S. have sought since Israel’s creation in 1948.   

Trump's Mideast diplomacy in the age of Twitter

It could harm what little chance exists for piece between Israel and the Palestinians.

Mike Pompeo and the Israeli prime minister shake hands in front of a row of Israel and American flags, standing behind two podiums. 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo meets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his official residence in Jerusalem yesterday. Photo: Amir Cohen/Pool/AFP/Getty Images

Israel

It was another day of diplomacy in the age of Twitter, with @realDonaldTrump <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="tweeting" data-vars-click-url="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1108772952814899200" data-vars-content-id="7df3e780-62fe-4929-93cd-c1a8606bfc74" data-vars-headline="Trump&#x27;s Mideast diplomacy in the age of Twitter" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1108772952814899200" target="_blank">tweeting</a>: &quot;After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!&quot;Why it matters: The president’s tweet calls for a change in U.S. policy toward the Golan Heights but does not actually declare it. There are many reasons for the president not to turn his tweet into policy.  It would all but eliminate what little chance exists for peace between Israel and either the Palestinians or Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia.

Sections

Axios Local

Axios gets you smarter, faster with news & information that matters.

About

Subscribe

Richard Haass

Stories

Hong Kong protests assert the freedoms China seeks to constrain

Trump's Mideast diplomacy in the age of Twitter

Mattis exit further destabilizes Trump administration's foreign policy

At UN, more evidence that Trump is losing the world

At Helsinki summit, Trump defers to Putin at expense of U.S. security