The Great American Divide – Analysis

 May 4, 2024  

By Observer Research Foundation

By Vivek Mishra

University campuses across the country are ablaze with protests, reminiscent of the anti-war demonstrations during the Vietnam War era. The scenes emerging from America’s leading universities, and increasingly from smaller institutions nationwide, reflect a profound ideological and political chasm that permeates American society across educational, business, trade, political, and even entertainment spheres.

However, a notable distinction arises between the sentiments stirred during the Vietnam War and those in the current context of the Gaza conflict. The former sought a disengagement of the United States (US) from the war, while the latter seeks a change in the US’s approach to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and the use of its financial and political clout to bring the war to a halt. 

Arguably the most significant difference lies in the generational gap between older Americans, particularly those born in the 1960s, and their relatively younger counterparts, specifically Millennials and GenZ. Today’s younger American populace finds itself distanced from the complexities of Israel’s challenges in its region, often viewing it solely as an ‘occupier’ of Palestinian land. Conversely, the older generation, including President Biden’s cohort, holds a different perspective on Israel, shaped by America’s historical commitments to safeguarding a homeland for persecuted Jewish people. They are deeply influenced by the foundational assurances America provided to Israel, pledging to prevent the recurrence of historical injustices against the Jewish community. This contrast underscores a fundamental divergence in how different generations perceive and relate to the ongoing conflicts involving Israel, reflecting broader societal shifts and historical contexts.

The political and ideological currents sweeping across the US, including its premier universities, signal a notable shift in the nation’s sociocultural landscape. There has been a resurgence of the American New Left, propelled by new wars and changes in the country’s demographic makeup. This transformation is largely fuelled by nearly continuous waves of migration since the turn of the century, with a pronounced surge in the last decade. While America has a long history of immigration, the past decade has witnessed an unprecedented increase in illegal migration, driven primarily by factors such as conflict, climate change, and economic and democratic aspirations.

These changes unfolding in the American political landscape have at least two significant implications. The first is the political divide. The Biden administration and the broader Democratic party perceive immigration as both an opportunity and a challenge. However, in recent years, there has been a disproportionate emphasis on the challenges, exacerbated by the influx of approximately 7.2 million illegal immigrants during the Biden administration. This presents an opportunity for Republicans to exert pressure on Democrats regarding immigration, potentially making it a central issue in the upcoming November 2024 presidential election.

On the conservative end of the political spectrum, immigration has served as a catalyst for the “rise of the right” worldwide, and America is no exception to this. If anything, it is representative of the apex of that shift. Indeed, anti-immigration sentiments in the West first, and then the economic downturn during the COVID-19 pandemic, have contributed to the sustained popularity of Donald Trump and the Republican party in the US. 

The second issue is geopolitical in nature and revolves around the level of political support the US should extend to Israel amid the ongoing Gaza counteroffensive led by the Netanyahu government. The pressure on the Biden administration is multi-pronged: providing military and financial support to Israel, extending aid to Gaza, preventing Israel from going ahead with the Rafah offensive, ensuring freedom of speech back home and perhaps most importantly, achieving a ceasefire in Gaza. If any of these constraints go out of the orbit for the US, the repercussions could significantly impact the political fortunes of the Biden administration. Enmeshed in a spiralling maze of tunnel networks in Gaza, Israel has been unable to find closure to a war that is now in its sixth month with mounting civilian death tolls. Biden faces opposition to his Gaza policy and support for Israel by his own party members such as those on the progressive end.

Biden’s dilemma regarding Israel has been exacerbated by a growing blurred distinction between peace movements and antisemitism within the country. The constitutional mandate of ‘freedom of speech’ in the US sometimes fails to fully consider the complexities of the Middle East and appears discordant with regional realities on the ground, when nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt have themselves suppressed pro-Palestinian protests domestically.

The US is inevitably encountering situations where its liberal principles clash with a conservative coalition that now unites several countries globally, particularly notable in the Global South. The expansion of democratic rights stemming from the American Constitution now encompasses a population with a higher representation from the Middle East than ever before. Consequently, the complex regional politics of the Middle East are finding expressions within the US. 

Internationally, these tensions are evident in the efforts of the Democratic Biden administration to manage or restrain politically conservative governments whose policies frequently diverge from theirs. The global rise of the political right, mirrored in governments worldwide and shifting demographics, has consistently presented challenges for the Biden administration, which finds itself positioned on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Handling Israel under the leadership of a deeply conservative Netanyahu government represents the ultimate test for the Biden administration’s ability to navigate competing interests at home, many of which converge in the Middle East. 

Worldwide, the spectrum of democracies may have broadened; however, America remains steadfast in its adherence to and implementation of democratic ideals, often leading to discord with other democratic nations. Canada, originally modelled on the ideals established by the American constitution, now finds itself potentially influencing a trend reversal, wherein America risks mirroring Canada’s role as a platform for global discontent. Consequently, elite American universities today serve as mere microcosms of the broader American society. It is probable that in the next decade, the shifting demographic landscape of America will deepen divisions not only within the electorate but also across cultures, traditions, and norms.

---

• About the author: Vivek Mishra is a Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.
• Source: This article was published by the Observer Research Foundation.Facebook

Twitter

Observer Research Foundation

ORF was established on 5 September 1990 as a private, not for profit, ’think tank’ to influence public policy formulation. The Foundation brought together, for the first time, leading Indian economists and policymakers to present An Agenda for Economic Reforms in India. The idea was to help develop a consensus in favour of economic reforms.

 

Strategic Use Of Migration: The View From Cuba, Nicaragua, And Venezuela – Analysis

 May 4, 2024  

By Geopolitical Monitor

By Giacomo Mattei and Luis Campos

Countries can strategically employ emigration as a means to economic development, political stability, and geopolitical leverage. However, such strategies can carry risks and prove unsustainable. The United States should tailor its regional policies to the considerations of sending countries to maximize regional cooperation on migration management.

Emigration as Economic Alleviation

Some countries actively encourage emigration as a strategy for development. Migrant laborers send back a portion of their earnings – remittances – which can have multiplier effects on the home economy.

For many countries, remittances make up a larger portion of gross domestic product (GDP) than foreign direct investment (FDI). The World Bank’s data shows that Nicaragua’s 2022 GDP was over 20% remittances and just over 8% FDI. In 2023, remittances to Nicaragua were nearly 50% higher than the year before, standing at $4.24 billion, an estimated 28% of GDP.

Venezuela, on the other hand, has consistently received fewer remittances and very little FDI between 2000-2022 (both remaining largely below 2% of GDP according to World Bank data), though the Inter-American Dialogue estimates that remittances reached 5% of GDP in 2023. Interesting hypotheses can be considered to explain this behavior, such as the migration of entire family households, and/or a lack of confidence in the country’s future as a destination for personal and family investment.

While there is not sufficient data about the amount of remittances and their weight in Cuba’s economy, indirect evidence suggests that the chronic economic crisis was aggravated further after an estimated decrease of 3.31% in remittances since 2022, despite an amendment to the limit approved by the US government. Thus, in Cuba, migration appears to be an asset for political stability rather than a path for economic alleviation, given other structural factors that exert a more significant effect on the national economy.

However, the inherent risk is that overreliance on remittances does not constitute a sustainable economic development model. Remittances present an “easy” lifeline for governments, which may disincentivize diversification and state-sponsored investment in the economy. As Manuel Orozco observes in Nicaragua, remittances are unsustainably shouldering the responsibility of supporting private investment, providing access to credit, and reducing debt. Nicaragua taxes the added income from remittances, which supports the regime. Nicaragua is not reinvesting such taxes in the country.

Overreliance on remittances can also increase the vulnerability of governments antagonistic to the United States. For example, as Nicaragua increasingly relies on remittances, future policy pressure from Washington may significantly tamper growth and increase the prospect for new civil unrest crises. This is also echoed in previous debates in the U.S. about using the Patriot Act antiterrorism law to cut off remittances to hostile governments.

Emigration as a Political Stabilizer

Allowing or encouraging emigration can politically stabilize countries with high labor surplus or political dissatisfaction. Emigration reduces unemployment, which can reduce economic grievances, known as the “safety valve” effect. Relatedly, the emigration of political dissidents or economically dissatisfied citizens leaves only the more satisfied, passively dissatisfied, and regime-supporting citizens in the country, which translates to reduced risks of political violence and protest.

This safety valve effect was well understood by Fidel Castro. Over his decades-long rule, he repeatedly allowed political dissidents or economically disaffected Cubans to emigrate to the United States, with the most salient example being the 1980 Mariel Boatlift. Cuba continued to use the emigration safety valve while the US’ “wet foot, dry foot” policy was in place.

In Cuba, after the mass protests of July 11, 2021 the regime developed major legal disincentives for future protests. The penal code approved in September 2022 included more severe penalties for individuals who commit acts against the socialist constitutional order. Similarly, Nicaragua and Venezuela have approved legislation such as Nicaragua’s 977, 1042, and 1055 laws, and Venezuela’s laws against organized crime and financing of terrorism, and against hate, for peaceful coexistence and tolerance. These new pieces of legislation along with high discretionary application deter many from further engaging in domestic political life and incentivize greater emigration.

Emigration, however, also creates chances for the potential formation of external diaspora opposition or internal opposition groups supported by diasporas. For example, diasporas can “remit” democratic values and opposition back home. In Venezuela, the diaspora has represented opportunities for increased engagement from the opposition with international organizations, foreign governments, and even the formation of a contending parallel government (as in the appointment of Juan Guaidó as interim president and a series of congress members in exile). For this reason, some diasporas have faced measures to restrict the entry of funding into the home country. For example, Nicaragua has approved a foreign agent law, increased monitoring and restriction of remittances, awardsfrom abroad, and cryptocurrency transactions.

Emigration for Geopolitical Leverage

Internationally, countries can leverage emigration crises to destabilize or extract concessions from neighboring countries. This is a form of “reputational blackmail” often directed at more liberal destination countries, which highlights liberal countries’ inconsistent commitments to championing life and liberty while simultaneously attempting to keep asylum seekers out.

The central historical example of this strategy is Cuba’s 1980 Mariel Boatlift, when Castro sent thousands of “socially undesirable” migrants to the U.S., turning up the political heat on President Jimmy Carter in the hope of reducing criticism of the Castro regime.

Migration, not only from but also through Nicaragua, has allegedly been used as an attempt by the Ortega-Murillo regime to exert geopolitical leverage by increasing the weight of migration on the U.S., presumably in exchange for sanction relief. Charter and scheduled flights from several migration origins have been reported to arrive in Managua as part of global migrant trafficking networks, as Nicaragua represents an attractive “shortcut” to alternatives like the Darien Gap. Flights with Cuban, Haitian, Indian, Moroccan, and Senegalese migrants among several others, have been reported to arrive regularly in Managua, from where migrants travel by land to the U.S.

Similarly, in 2024, facing the prospect of US sanctions on Venezuelan oil, Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez told the United States: “If they carry out the false step of intensifying economic aggression against Venezuela, at the request of extremist lackeys in the country, from Feb. 13 the repatriation flights of Venezuelan migrants will be immediately revoked.” The logic behind these strategies is to threaten Washington with more migrants (or to be stuck with migrants presently on US territory) to deter the US government from levying sanctions.

However, this strategy can invite retaliation. For example, Washington imposed sanctions on “flight operators facilitating irregular migration” from Nicaragua in November 2023, February 2024, and March 2024, which have been also addressed by the governments of Haiti and Belize.

Policy Recommendations for the United States

The diversity of strategic interests related to migration in the surveyed Latin American countries highlights the necessity of tailor-made policies rather than one-size approaches to migration from Latin America. The US government should reward more cooperation with more economic support.

In terms of carrots, along with developmental aid, the United States should implement incentives for governments in the region to cooperate with the enforcement of regular migration, thus creating a buffer zone that distributes the weight of temporary migrant assistance across several countries. This assistance is something Washington should be directly involved in.

The U.S. should also consider the implementation of incentives for local companies to nearshore business processes to disincentivize economic emigration. This is the underlying motivation for the 2021 “Root Causes Strategy,” which the U.S. should continue and also expand to include the countries discussed above.

To address political emigration, the United States has often promoted democracy and good governance. While the long-term impact of such policies may reduce emigration by political dissidents, democratizing pressures may antagonize autocratic governments, which may then weaponize migration against the U.S. An alternative is to build countries’ migration management capacity, but this effectively strengthens autocratic governments’ repressive apparatus. Short-term emigration may decline at the cost of greater future political emigration.

In addressing both root causes, the United States could expand its avenues for “regular” migration, while investing in its processing capacity to ensure its own security. Increased opportunities for safe and regular migration would disincentivize irregular crossings, while simultaneously allowing the U.S. to vet incoming migrants. Allowing vetted migrants would help the U.S. address its own labor shortages and help Latin American countries reduce unemployment and increase remittances.

In terms of sticks, Washington can use economic and selective sanctions against countries being actively uncooperative on (i.e. weaponizing) migration. This has been the response to Nicaragua. The U.S. should mitigate any expected backlash by increasing regional multilateral efforts at migration management.

Overall, the United States must match its policies to the emigration countries’ motivations, crafting a holistic approach that acknowledges the interrelated impacts of diplomatic, security, economic, and migration management policies.

About the authors:

• Giacomo Mattei is a PhD student at The George Washington University studying migration geopolitics and security.
• Luis Campos is chief analyst and editor for the Americas at Horizon Intelligence and author of Puentes y Cercos: La Geopolítica de la Integración Centroamericana published by Glasstree Academic Publishing.

Source: This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

Geopolitical Monitor

Geopoliticalmonitor.com is an open-source intelligence collection and forecasting service, providing research, analysis and up to date coverage on situations and events that have a substantive impact on political, military and economic affairs.

No, Mr Biden! You're Wrong to Say That Japan is 'Xenophobic'

The clumsy remarks made by President Biden were incorrect and unhelpful. Japan is welcoming more immigrants than ever, a trend the government wants to continue.

May 4, 2024
By Duncan Bartlett, Diplomatic Correspondent

US President Joe Biden delivers brief remarks in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington on May 2, 2024. (©Reuters/Nathan Howard)

It was an astonishing diplomatic faux pas by United States President Joe Biden to describe Japan as "xenophobic." He even bundled the country together with Russia and India as being anti-immigrant.

Such injudicious comments are inaccurate. This has the potential to cause serious damage to the US-Japan relationship.

It is particularly disappointing that the President uttered such crass comments just a few weeks after hosting Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and Japanese business leaders at a grand state dinner in Washington.

Asakusa, Tokyo, is bustling with foreign visitors to Japan in August 2023. (© Sankei by Masahiro Sakai)

International Presence

Has Mr Biden realized that there are around 63,000 American citizens who are registered as foreign residents of Japan? Surely, if he had consulted members of this thriving community, he would have realized that most of them greatly appreciate the hospitality of the Japanese.

Unfortunately, Joe Biden did not do any research before speaking out. The US leader has become notorious for his loose talk. This has left some people wondering if he has lost the ability to appraise the impact of his words, perhaps as a result of his advanced age.

The president's gaffe was made at a fundraising event. Mr Biden argued that Japan, along with India, Russia, and China, would perform better economically if the countries embraced more immigration.

"You know, one of the reasons why our economy is growing is because of you and many others. Why? Because we welcome immigrants. We look to – the reason – look, think about it. Why is China stalling so badly economically? [And] why is Japan having trouble? Why is Russia? [And] India? Because they're xenophobic. They don't want immigrants," Mr Biden said, according to CNN.

Lawmakers added nine new fields to the category of Specified Skilled Worker (ii) on June 9, 2023 (© Kyodo)

Welcoming Skilled Immigrants

In reality, the Japanese government is not opposed to immigration. It actively encourages qualified people from other countries to take up permanent residency in Japan. For those eligible, it also offers homes to their families.

There were about 600,000 high-level foreign professionals with specialized skills living in Japan in October 2023, according to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. That is more than double the 270,000 in 2018.

The Cabinet Office has appointed a special task force with the aim of attracting skilled tech workers from Southeast Asia and India. Some companies have asked their Japanese managers to ensure that the new arrivals find life easy to navigate - even if they don't speak much Japanese.

Alongside this, a scheme offering entrepreneur visas to people who want to establish businesses in Japan is thriving. It is proving particularly popular with people from Hong Kong.

Plans are also afoot to encourage thousands more immigrants to work in industries where there are currently skills shortages. This could mean opportunities for bus and taxi drivers. Immigrants may also wish to head into the woods, as the timber industry is crying out for help.

A simultaneous safety patrol of Japanese police and immigrant leaders, including community leaders such as Waqas Chikan representing the Japan Kurdish Cultural Association. November 4, 2023. (© Sankei by Kanata Iwasaki)

Charges of Racism

What about the idea that Japan is "xenophobic"?

It would have been wise for Joe Biden to have paused before using such a strong word. If he'd looked in a dictionary, he would have realized that xenophobia suggests a fear and contempt of foreigners, perhaps even a hatred of their customs.

The Encyclopedia Britannica notes that xenophobia derives from the ancient Greek words xenos, meaning stranger, and phobos, meaning fear.



A xenophobic country would be hostile to foreigners and see them as a threat. This is not the case in modern Japan.

In a post on the Quora Forum, Paul Newman, a Pole who has lived in Osaka since 2015, strongly rebuked a suggestion that Japan is xenophobic.

"I have never encountered this Japanese racism that Westerners keep talking about," wrote Newman.

"The worst I've ever experienced was a waitress ignoring me and instead addressing my Japanese girlfriend, asking her "Does this person need a fork?" while talking about me."

Newman says that this encounter was probably due to his poor command of the Japanese language at the time. He maintains that he's never heard anyone treating him in a racist way. Neither does he think he's ever been denied work due to being a foreigner.

"There's literally nothing I can complain about when it comes to Japanese manners and attitude. If they're saying bad things about me behind my back, then I've never heard it, and it never affected me in any noticeable way," says Newman, who has 172,000 followers on Quora.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre speaks during the daily press briefing in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington on May 1, 2024. (© Reuters)
Press Headache

In Washington, it was down to Joe Biden's long-suffering press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre to try to prevent the President's remarks from causing too much of a furor.

She said her boss was attempting to make a larger point when he described Japan and India as "xenophobic."

"He was saying that when it comes to who we are as a nation, we are a nation of immigrants, that is in our DNA," she told reporters on board Air Force One.

It is not in the interest of Japan or India to stir up too much of a fuss about an off-the-cuff remark made by the President at a Democratic Party fundraiser.

Nevertheless, it would be appreciated if the US leader would show Japan an appropriate level of respect. That would include taking into consideration the respectful attitude of the Japanese towards foreigners.

Author: Duncan Bartlett, Diplomatic Correspondent
Mr Bartlett is the Diplomatic Correspondent for JAPAN Forward and a Research Associate at the SOAS China Institute. Read his other articles and essays.