Foreign policy

Subterms

    More stories

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the US election and foreign policy: the world can’t afford Trump again | Editorial

      by

      This spring Josep Borrell, the EU foreign affairs chief, warned bluntly that Europe should prepare itself for potential war: “Maybe, depending on who is ruling in Washington, we cannot rely on the American support and on the American capacity to protect us,” he said. Weeks earlier, Donald Trump had remarked that he would encourage Russia to attack Nato countries who paid too little.Japanese defence spending has soared. In South Korea, there are growing calls for an independent nuclear deterrent. America’s allies are nervous as they contemplate next month’s election. Autocrats, upon whom Mr Trump lavishes praise, are hopeful. The votes of tens of thousands of Americans in battleground states are likely to prove profoundly consequential for the rest of the world.The assumption is that a Trump victory would be felt first and hardest by Ukraine. Whatever his precise relationship with Vladimir Putin, with its cosy phone calls, the former president’s sympathies are clear. He blamed Volodymyr Zelenskyy for starting the war with Russia. Mr Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, has urged an immediate end to assistance.On the Middle East, Kamala Harris has been more sympathetic to Palestinians and critical of Israel than Joe Biden, but there is no sign yet that she differs on policy. The dramatic erosion of Arab American support does not appear to have prompted a long‑overdue reconsideration of arms shipments to Israel. Yet Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is thought to eagerly anticipate the return of a president who rewarded and encouraged the Israeli right. Mr Trump pulled out of the Iranian nuclear deal, with which Tehran was complying – though at least his aversion to “endless wars” held him back from a strike on Iran. Would that hold now?Mr Trump’s presidency made the world more dangerous. Since his blustering mishandling of Kim Jong-un, North Korea has accelerated its nuclear programme and moved closer to China and Russia.The Biden administration did not reject all aspects of Mr Trump’s tenure. Hawkishness on China is one of the few bipartisan issues left. But the White House’s targeted approach is in contrast to Mr Trump’s crude economic nationalism – threatening 60% tariffs on Chinese products and up to 20% on all imports – which could spark a global trade war. He initially wooed Taiwan, but now says it should pay the US for its defence. That reflects a nakedly short-termist, transactional approach to foreign policy – with domestic political needs the priority.The Democrats – and Ms Harris – have tacked right on immigration, but Mr Trump has snatched infants from their parents and now promises mass deportations. His fascistic language about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of America legitimised and spread racism. He has emboldened misogynists, the far right and strongmen internationally.Ms Harris is not thought to be as emotionally attached to Israel or Europe as her boss, nor to share his vision of a civilisational clash between democracies and their foes. She says she would “stand strong” with Ukraine, but might be somewhat more inclined than Mr Biden to push for a deal with Russia. While most expect there would be broad continuity, it is impossible to predict exactly what a candidate will do once in office.We can be sure, however, that while Ms Harris would not always get it right on foreign policy, she would bring stability, responsibility and dedication – in contrast to Mr Trump’s reckless, erratic, fact-free and narcissistic approach. And while climate action under her would still fall short of what is needed, her rival would deliberately wreck existing global accords. For all these reasons, the world cannot afford a second Trump administration. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Taiwan and trade: how China sees its future with the US after the election

      by

      Deciphering the obscure machinations of elite politics is a pursuit that western China-watchers are all too familiar with. But as the US election approaches, it is analysts in China who are struggling to read the tea leaves on what differentiates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump when it comes to their stance on the US’s biggest geopolitical rival.Commentators are calling it the vibes election. For Beijing, despite the cheers and whoops of Harris’s campaign, her vibes are largely similar to Trump’s.“Harris will continue Biden’s policies” on China, says Wang Yiwei, a professor of international studies at Renmin University in Beijing. What are Biden’s policies? He is a “Trumpist without the Trump”, says Wang.Harris has done little to dispel the belief that her stance on China will be largely the same as Biden’s, should she win the election in November. In her headline speech at the Democratic national convention on 22 August, China was mentioned just once: she promised to ensure that “America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century”.Harris has little foreign policy record to be judged on. But in an economic policy speech on 16 August, she emphasised her goal of “building up our middle class”, a vision that Biden has used to justify placing high tariffs on Chinese imports, extending Donald Trump’s trade war.Beijing fundamentally does not see there being much difference between a Democratic- or Republican-controlled White House. Indeed, hawkishness on China has become one of the few bipartisan issues in US politics.In a recent piece for Foreign Affairs, leading foreign policy commentators Wang Jisi, Hu Ran and Zhao Jianwei wrote that “Chinese strategists hold few illusions that US policy toward China might change course over the next decade … they assume that whoever is elected in November 2024 will continue to prioritise strategic competition and even containment in Washington’s approach to Beijing.” The authors predicted that although Harris’s policymaking would likely be more “organised and predictable” than Trump’s, both would be “strategically consistent”.Jude Blanchette, a China expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, also says that US-China relations would remain strained, no matter who was in the White House. “The US-China relationship is trending negative irrespective of who assumes office next January, but a Trump 2.0 would likely bring significantly more economic friction owing to an almost certain trade war,” Blanchette said.Even in areas where US-China co-operation used to be more fruitful, such as climate policies, there are concerns that such exchanges are on thin ice. In a recent briefing, Kate Logan, associate director of climate at the Asia Society Policy Institute, noted that China “seems to be placing a greater emphasis on subnational cooperation”: provincial- or state-level dialogues rather than negotiations between Washington and Beijing. This is partly driven by a concern that should Trump be re-elected, national-level climate diplomacy could be in jeopardy.Harris’s nomination of Tim Walz, the governor of Minnestoa, has also been a curveball for China’s America-watchers. Having taught in China in 1989 and 1990, and travelled there extensively in the years since, Walz has more China experience than anyone on a presidential ticket since George HW Bush. But other than Walz’s sustained support of human rights in China, it is unclear how he could or would shape the White House’s China policy if Harris were to win in November.More impactful would be the national security team that Harris assembles. Her current national security adviser, Philip Gordon, is a likely pick. In 2019, Gordon signed an open letter cautioning against treating China as “an enemy” of the US. Some analysts have speculated that his more recent experience inside the White House may have pushed him in a hawkish direction. But in a recent conversation with the Council on Foreign Relations, a thinktank in New York, Gordon refrained from describing China as an enemy or a threat. Instead, he repeatedly referred to the “challenge” from China – one that the US should be worried about, but that could be managed.High on China’s own agenda is Taiwan, which in January elected Lai Ching-te, who is detested by Beijing, as president. Lai is from the pro-sovereignty Democratic Progressive party. For Beijing, a red line in its US relations is Washington’s support for “separatist forces”, and it see Lai as an agent of these forces.Beijing puts adherence to its version of the “one China” principle – the notion that Taiwan is part of the People’s Republic of China’s rightful territory – at the centre of its international diplomacy. In China’s official readout of President Xi Jinping’s meeting with Biden in November, the Taiwan issue was described as “the most important and sensitive issue in Sino-US relations”.Certain members of the Chinese foreign policy establishment welcome the idea of a second Trump term, because they see Trump as a business-minded actor who would not be inclined to provide US resources or moral support to the cause of Taiwanese sovereignty. Wang, the Renmin University professor, says that Trump has less respect for the international alliance system than Biden, which works in China’s favour. “His allies don’t trust him very much … Taiwan is more worried about Trump,” Wang said.

      Don’t miss important US election coverage. Get our free app and sign up for election alerts
      But Trump is also unpredictable. In the event of a Trump presidency, Blanchette notes, “he will be surrounded by advisers who are hawkish on China and very likely pro-Taiwan. That won’t determine his decisions, but it will shape them.”Early in his presidential term, Trump was actually quite popular in Taiwan because of his tough stance on China. But opinions have cooled, especially after his recent comments suggesting Taiwan should pay the US to defend it. Local headlines likened him to a mobster running a protection racket.Those same outlets have latched on to Walz, focusing on his time spent in both China and Taiwan, and his support of Tibet and Hong Kong. Some describe him as the friendly “neighbourhood uncle”.According to a recent Brookings Institution poll, 55% of people in Taiwan think that the US will aid Taiwan’s defence, regardless of who is in the White House.Among analysts and diplomats, there’s tentative agreement, with some saying that while the rhetoric would be very different under Trump, actual policies wouldn’t change so much.“Obviously, the personalities are dramatically different, but US national interests are not,” said Drew Thompson, a senior fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew school of public policy.“Either administration is going to come in and recognise Taiwan’s innate value to the US as a democratic partner in a tough neighbourhood, as a major security partner, major trading partner, and critical supplier of ICT [information and communication technology] goods.”Contingencies are being prepared in Taipei, but in reality, US support for Taiwan is hard-baked into laws like the Taiwan Relations Act and – deliberately – quite hard for a single administration to change on a whim.But improving cross-strait relations probably aren’t high on Trump’s agenda, and he is unlikely to expend political capital on Taiwan.“I think the bigger US interest, if Trump were going to expend political capital to engage Xi Jinping, would be the US economy, not to broker cross-strait peace,” said Thompson.Experts think that a similar, America-first case could be made to Trump regarding tensions in the South China Sea: the US and the Philippines have a mutual defence treaty and the US formally recognises the Philippines’ claims to waters and islets disputed with China (as did an international tribunal in 2016). But, although there are fears about Trump’s fickle attitude towards international alliances, the previous Trump administration’s stance on the dispute was largely in line with the Biden administration’s, and the fact that about 60% of global maritime trade passes through the contested waterway makes stability there important to the US economy.For normal people in Taiwan, the election feels like an event that could shape their futures, despite the fact that they have no say in it. Zhang Zhi-yu, a 71-year-old shopkeeper in Hualien, a city on Taiwan’s east coast, says that Trump is “crazy and irresponsible”.But, she concludes, “It’s no use worrying about war … we’re just ordinary people. If a foreign country wants to rescue Taiwan, people like us won’t be rescued first”. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump vows to impose tariffs as experts warn of price hikes and angry allies

      by

      Donald Trump doubled down on his promise to levy tariffs on all imports in a bid to boost American manufacturing, a proposal that economists say would probably mean higher prices for consumers while angering US allies.“To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is ‘tariffs’,” Trump said in an often-combative conversation with John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, at the Economic Club of Chicago on Tuesday. “It’s my favorite word.”Trump was grilled on the potential impacts of tariffs, and often dodged questions about the tangible impacts of the levies on inflation and geopolitics. Trump is proposing an at least 10% blanket tariff on all imports, with tariffs as high as 60% on goods from China.“You see these empty, old, beautiful steel mills and factories that are empty and falling down,” Trump said. “We’re going to bring the companies back. We’re going to lower taxes for companies that are going to make their products in the USA. And we’re going to protect those companies with strong tariffs.”

      Don’t miss important US election coverage. Get our free app and sign up for election alerts
      Though speaking in Chicago, Trump repeated many of the claims he made at the Detroit Economic Club last week. At the time, Trump bashed the city, saying it has a high crime rate and few job opportunities.“We’re a developing nation, too,” he said on Tuesday. “Take a look at Detroit.”Trump centered the auto industry, claiming that tariffs would encourage car manufacturers to build plants in the US – an assertion some economists have suggested amounts to wishful thinking.“The higher the tariff, the more you’re going to put on the value of those goods, the higher people are going to have to pay,” Micklethwait told Trump.“The higher the tariff, the more likely it is that the company will come into the United States and build a factory,” Trump said in response, to applause from the audience.Micklethwait pointed out that economists have estimated Trump’s economic proposals would add $7.5tn to the US deficit, twice the amount as Kamala Harris’s proposals. He also pointed out that the tariffs would also be targeting American allies.“Our allies have taken advantage of us, more so than our enemies,” Trump said.When asked whether he had talked to Vladimir Putin after the end of his presidency, Trump said that he doesn’t “comment on that, but I will tell you that if I did, it’s a smart thing”.“If I’m friendly with people, if I can have a relationship with people, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing,” he said.Trump was also asked about his stance on the Federal Reserve, specifically on comments he has made against Fed chair Jerome Powell, whom Trump first appointed in 2018.“I think if you’re a very good president with good sense, you should at least get to talk to [the Fed],” Trump said. “I think I have the right to say, as a very good businessman … I think you should go up or down a little bit.“I don’t think I should be allowed to order it, but I think I have the right to put in comments as to whether or not interest rates should go up or down.”Even a recommendation from the White House as to what the Fed should do with interest rates would amount to a significant step away from the central bank’s long-established independence.Trump frequently made personal jabs at Micklethwait, saying “I know you’re an anti-tariff guy” and at one point: “This is a man who has not been a big Trump fan.” More

    • 250 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Whether it’s Trump or Harris in office, Starmer will need an incredible US ambassador. Here’s my vote | Martin Kettle

      by

      The widening of the Middle East war has a multiplicity of woeful causes and grim consequences. Many have the potential to become even more intractable in the weeks to come. Fresh human suffering in Israel, Lebanon and beyond is only the start of it. Donald Trump is wrong to claim we are on the brink of a third world war. But these events have global implications. Remember what happened after 9/11.The latest bombings and missile attacks mark a historic failure for politics and diplomacy. This is not the first such failure in the Middle East. But wishing that diplomacy could prevail will not make it happen, and even fragile ceasefires are a long way off right now. As angry populations rally behind the respective combatants the prospects for desperately needed political solutions are almost negligible. You can’t stop a war if those on all sides are determined to fight.On the global scale, the implications for Britain and for Keir Starmer’s government come a long way down the list of the escalation’s most important consequences. In domestic terms, however, they still matter very much indeed. The Gaza war has already made a powerful impact on British politics. Israel’s latest conflict with Iran and its proxies is likely to do the same. The shadow of the Iraq war is a lasting one, more than 20 years on.Yet Britain is not some touchline observer of events in the Middle East. British listening stations in Cyprus monitor the Middle East 24/7. British jets, based in Cyprus, fly over Syria and Iraq almost daily. Those same British jets flew missions to help protect Israel in April, and did so again this week in response to Iran’s missile attacks. Like it or not, Britain also has a history in the region.All of which underscores the high seriousness of the strategic choices that Starmer faces in foreign policy. Like all European nations, Britain now exists in an unstable world shaped by Chinese power, the threat from Russia, US political uncertainty and climate change. It has expelled itself from the European Union. Starmer was in Brussels today to try to make the best of these volatile realities.No one should kid themselves that this is not a difficult hand to play. The difficulty lies behind the escapist and trivialising foreign policy solutions in which Boris Johnson and Liz Truss took refuge, in office and afterwards. Starmer’s seriousness offers a quite different response to theirs but it brings another sort of danger. It puts him at risk of not challenging some inherited orthodoxies of British foreign policy at a newly unstable time for which they are no longer adequate. Dean Acheson’s 1962 comment that Britain had lost an empire but not yet found a role still echoes.Starmer himself has little background in foreign policy. He gets day-to-day advice from his national security adviser, Tim Barrow, and his foreign policy adviser, Ailsa Terry. It is hard to say from the outside if they are the ideal team for the biggest foreign policy call he faces as prime minister. That call is not, though, over the Middle East war, or the defence of Ukraine. It is not even over the relationship with the EU. It is over the relationship with the US.British foreign policy always seeks to hug America close. But a month from now, the US reaches a fork in the road. Trump and Kamala Harris offer radically different approaches to the country’s global role. These differences will shape Washington’s approach to every important global issue – including Ukraine, the Middle East, China, climate, and digital regulation – for the coming four years. They will be reflected, too, in the way the US operates towards international bodies including the United Nations, Nato, the International Monetary Fund and the international criminal court.The outcome will shape British foreign policy too. A Harris victory would permit something like business as usual. But a Trump win would not. Trying to hug Trump close risks being unsuccessful, dangerous and damaging. Even trying to influence him would require a very special skill set, notably the ability to catch Trump’s attention on Fox News. And Harris would be operating in a more volatile world, too, in which constrained US power might not give priority to British and European interests.That is why, for Starmer, there is an umbilical link between the pressures of a massive event such as the Middle East war and an otherwise relatively niche decision, like who should be the next UK ambassador to the US. Seen through the global lens, the imminent appointment of Karen Pierce’s successor in Washington is relatively minor. Seen through the UK lens, however, it is one of the hinges on which the success or failure of Starmer’s government will depend.Unsurprisingly, No 10 has said the Washington job – the special relationship’s most special post – will only be allocated after the US election. But it will be a defining moment all the same. Politicians including David Miliband, Catherine Ashton and Peter Mandelson have been mentioned. So have current ambassadors, including Menna Rawlings (now in Paris) and Barbara Woodward (now at the UN). Whitehall veterans such as Tom Scholar (former head of the Treasury) and Vijay Rangarajan (now head of the Electoral Commission) may be in the frame too.It’s a job that Labour, nowadays full of West Wing wannabes, has always taken especially seriously. Peter Jay, who died last month, was appointed to the ambassador’s luxurious Massachusetts Avenue residence by his Labour prime ministerial father-in-law, James Callaghan, in 1977. “We want you to get up the arse of the White House and stay there,” were the instructions from New Labour in 1997, when the late Christopher Meyer was despatched to be Tony Blair’s man in Washington.The appointment rests very personally with Starmer. He has surely now learned that the global agenda will also determine Labour’s future, whether Trump or Harris wins. The appointee therefore needs to be someone with the ear of the president but with the ear of the prime minister as well. That’s why, in the end, my prediction is that the job will go to a man who, untypically, did not reply to my inquiries on the subject this week.A generation ago, as Blair’s chief of staff, it was he who gave Meyer those robust instructions. It was also he who played a key role in the hard-won peace process in Northern Ireland. At a time when another peace process is again so urgent, it is hard to think of a stronger candidate than Jonathan Powell.

      Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      David Lammy faces a world in turmoil: five key concerns for foreign secretary

      by

      UkraineMore than two years after Russia invaded Ukraine, the conflict drags on. Ukrainian forces are depleted and they need foreign weapons. Support for Ukraine crosses most party lines in Europe, but if Donald Trump wins the US election and cuts or limits the flow of arms, Europe may struggle to fill the gap. Lammy will want to shore up public support, bolster European collaboration, and map out what resources the continent can collectively offer Ukraine if the US steps back.GazaLabour’s stance on Gaza cost it several seats, and Lammy will face scrutiny on issues including arms sales to Israel. Labour is committed to recognising Palestinian statehood “as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution”, but has not given a timeline. Starmer is unlikely to want to risk alienating the Biden administration by making unilateral moves in the run-up to the election.US presidential electionView image in fullscreenOne of the UK’s main diplomatic roles has been as Washington’s ally in forums like the UN, and an interlocutor between the US and Europe. But US politics are in turmoil, with Joe Biden’s bid for a second term hanging in the balance. Lammy will have to prepare for the possibility of working with a Trump administration.EuropeStarmer say he wants to keep Brexit out of politics but his commitment to growth means forming an economic relationship with the UK’s biggest trading partner. Ties to Europe will be particularly important if Trump win. A meeting of the European Political Community, held at Blenheim Palace later this month, will be a key first step to building a shared vision for the continent.Climate changeDespite heavy criticism for watering down commitments to clean energy, Labour has laid out ambitious plans to lead global efforts on climate change, building on British diplomatic reach and technological expertise. The potential loss of progressive allies in France or the US could make a British role important globally. But as the impact of a warming world become increasingly evident, Labour may open itself up to charges of hypocrisy if domestic policies don’t measure up. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Labour and Brexit: a subtle but important strategic pivot | Editorial

      by

      For most of the period since the decision was taken to leave the EU, British politicians have overestimated how much thought the continent gives to Brexit. Once shock at the referendum result receded, relations with the UK came to be seen as a technical problem to be solved by hard-headed negotiation.At critical moments, when deadlines neared, Brexit leapt up the agenda. After the treaties were signed, they dropped right down, overtaken by the other issues facing a large bloc with many borders and problems. That represents a perverse kind of victory for Boris Johnson and his chief negotiator, David Frost. The deal they signed was so skewed against British interests that Brussels has little incentive to reopen the settlement.This is a problem for those who think Brexit has gone badly – comfortably a majority opinion, according to polls. The road out was hard, but it was also a unilateral choice. The way back, even to a much looser association, means persuading EU governments and institutions that Britain has something unique to offer and, crucially, that it can be relied on to stay the course.The difficulty with that process is as much a limitation on Labour’s policy as the more commonly recognised domestic electoral taboos against upsetting leave voters. David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, understands this, which is why he and Sir Keir Starmer are proposing a new UK-EU security pact as the main instrument for improving the cross-Channel relationship. This is a field where Britain, as one of Europe’s top two military powers (alongside France), has capabilities and expertise that open doors in Brussels. A security partnership could be wide-ranging, covering energy and climate cooperation, without relitigating the terms of trade and regulatory alignment that inhibit discussions of enhanced economic intimacy.The economic cost of Brexit will still one day need to be addressed. On that front, the options are limited for as long as Labour refuses to countenance talk of a customs union or meaningful reintegration into the single market. This may be overcautious, but general public negativity about the way Brexit has worked out isn’t the same as eagerness to go through the whole gruelling exit process in reverse. And the old terms – the opt-outs and budget rebate – would no longer be available. Mr Johnson’s unpalatable cake cannot simply be unbaked.Even the keenest pro-Europeans – and Sir Keir was once counted in their ranks – must see the many complex practical implications of recognising that Brexit is a fait accompli, for Brussels no less than Britain. The starting point for a new and mutually beneficial relationship is an acknowledgment of geopolitical forces compelling the two sides to work together. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine makes that point compellingly. The prospect that Donald Trump could return to the White House next year doubles the urgency. The former US president, if restored to the Oval Office, would be an unreliable ally to Europe’s democracies and a wilful saboteur of international institutions.The Eurosceptic vision of Britain thriving without its home continent was always a delusion. In the current international context it is unsustainably perilous. The Conservative party’s choice to ignore these facts is as predictable as it is dangerous. Labour’s Brexit policy is still marked by caution, but on the need for a strategic pivot back to Europe, thankfully the silence is breaking. More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Cameron: Aukus and Nato must be in ‘best possible shape’ before potential Trump win – video

      by

      The UK foreign secretary, David Cameron, has suggested the Aukus pact and Nato alliance must get into the best possible shape to increase their chances of surviving Donald Trump’s potential return to the White House. Speaking after high-level talks in Australia, Cameron was careful to avoid criticising the former US president and presumptive Republican nominee for 2024, saying it was ‘up to America who they choose as their president’. The comments were in response to a question about whether the election of Trump in November would affect the Aukus agreement that was sealed with the Biden administration in March last year More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      US Congress averts shutdown but the deadlock remains over Ukraine aid

      by

      Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress managed to ward off a damaging federal government shutdown with a last-minute compromise reached this week – but remain deadlocked over approving further military assistance for Ukraine and Israel, and tightening immigration laws.Congress was up against a Friday midnight deadline to reauthorize government spending or see a chunk of the federal departments cease much of their operations.On Wednesday, top lawmakers including Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader, and Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, announced they “are in agreement that Congress must work in a bipartisan manner to fund our government”, and the following day lawmakers passed a short-term spending measure that Joe Biden signed on Friday.But similar agreement has proven elusive when it comes to funding both the continuation of Ukraine’s grinding defense against Russia’s invasion and Israel’s assault on Gaza.Last month, a bipartisan Senate agreement that would have paired the latest tranche of military aid with measures to limit the number of undocumented people and asylum seekers crossing into the country from Mexico was killed by Republicans – reportedly so Donald Trump, who is on the cusp of winning the Republican presidential nomination, could campaign on his own hardline approach to immigration reform.The Senate then approved a $95bn bill that would authorize aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan without changing policy at the border, but Johnson has refused to put it to a vote in the House. Meanwhile, the government funding saga isn’t quite over. This week’s agreement pushed the funding deadlines for the two bills authorizing spending to 8 and 22 March. In their joint statement, the House and Senate leaders said lawmakers would vote on the 12 separate appropriations bills funding federal departments before these dates.As Russia’s invasion enters its third year, enthusiasm for Kyiv’s cause has cooled among the American right. While it still has high-profile champions among the GOP, including the party’s top senator, Mitch McConnell, it is Democrats who have been loudest in sounding the alarm over the holdup of aid as Russia advances in the country.“Every day that House Republicans refuse to hold a vote on the bipartisan National Security Supplemental, the consequences for Ukraine grow more severe,” Biden said on Thursday.And though Biden’s administration faces intense criticism from some of his allies for his support for Israel – on Tuesday, a write-in campaign to protest his Middle East policy picked up 100,000 votes in vital swing state Michigan’s Democratic primary – the president insisted the aid would help both Israel’s fight against Hamas and the needs of Gaza’s civilians.“This bill will help ensure that Israel can defend itself against Hamas and other threats. And it will provide critical humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people and those impacted by conflicts around the world. Because the truth is, the aid flowing into Gaza is nowhere near enough, and nowhere fast enough. Innocent lives are on the line,” he said.The biggest obstacle at this point appears to be Johnson, a rightwing lawmaker and Trump ally elevated to the speaker’s job in October after an unusual intraparty revolt cast Kevin McCarthy from the post. On Wednesday, a coalition of parliamentary leaders from European countries including France, Spain, Finland and Ukraine sent an open letter to Johnson asking him to allow a vote on Ukraine aid.“While Speaker Johnson believes we must confront Putin, and is exploring steps to effectively do so, as he said at the White House, his immediate priority is funding America’s government and avoiding a shutdown,” the speaker’s office replied.Centrist lawmakers in Congress’s lower chamber, which the GOP controls by a meager two seats, are reportedly planning to circulate a discharge petition, which, if signed by a majority of members, could force Johnson to put Ukraine aid up for a floor vote. Asked about that at a press conference, the Democratic House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, was not ready to endorse the idea.“The most effective way to secure aid for our democratic allies, including, but not limited to, Ukraine, is to take the bipartisan bill that is pending before the House right now and put it on the floor,” Jeffries said, adding: “All legislative options remain on the table.” More