More stories

  • in

    Elecciones presidenciales en Honduras: ¿qué está en juego?

    Los hondureños van a las urnas el domingo; la violencia política generalizada durante la campaña y los resultados cuestionados de 2017 ensombrecen el panorama.En las que podrían ser las elecciones más significativas del país en más de una década, los hondureños acudirán el domingo a votar para elegir un nuevo presidente. La contienda política ha sido manchada por la violencia y será seguida con mucha atención en Washington.Elecciones en Honduras: actualizaciones en vivo aquíLos candidatos ven la carrera como una forma de transformar el destino del país, en el que temas como los crímenes violentos y la pobreza obligan a una cantidad cada vez mayor de huir al norte.Pero los analistas políticos dicen que, dado que la corrupción parece incrustada en los más altos niveles del poder, las posibilidades de un cambio realmente transformador son muy pocas.Sin embargo, a pesar de sus muchas dificultades, una elección libre y justa en Honduras sería clave para Centroamérica y le ofrecería un remanso a una región que ha virado hacia el autoritarismo. Y el resultado podría tener consecuencias para la gestión de Joe Biden.Los sondeos muestran que la carrera será cerrada. Pero si la oposición triunfa, Honduras elegirá a su primera presidenta mujer.Aquí están las claves de la elección presidencial de Honduras.¿Qué está en juego para Honduras y para Estados Unidos?Personas cruzan la frontera entre México y Estados Unidos cerca de Del Río, Texas. El presidente Biden ha visto frustrados hasta ahora sus esfuerzos por controlar la migración desde Centroamérica y combatir la corrupción en la región.Verónica G. Cárdenas para The New York TimesDado que la pobreza y la violencia siguen azotando la vida cotidiana de la mayoría de hondureños, miles de los cuales se han ido a Estados Unidos, muchos en el país esperan desesperadamente un cambio.Después de casi ocho años de mandato del presidente Juan Orlando Hernández, cuya gestión ha sido afectada por denuncias de corrupción, los dos principales partidos prometen que cortarán por lo sano.Para la oposición, las elecciones del domingo son una oportunidad de recuperar el poder por primera vez desde 2009, cuando el presidente Manuel Zelaya fue depuesto por un golpe de Estado. La coalición izquierdista ha prometido detener el deterioro de las normas democráticas que ha sucedido en el mandato de Hernández.Para el gobernante Partido Nacional, las elecciones son una oportunidad para recuperar algo de legitimidad luego de años de gobernanza corrupta y de las irregularidades generalizadas de la última votación.Las elecciones podrían tener repercusiones de gran alcance en Washington, donde el presidente Biden hasta ahora ha visto obstaculizadas dos de sus prioridades de política exterior: controlar la migración procedente de Centroamérica y combatir la corrupción en la región.Una elección libre y justa podría crear un pequeño faro de esperanza democrática en la región, que vive bajo la sombra del autoritarismo en países como Nicaragua y El Salvador.¿Quiénes son los candidatos?La contienda del domingo enfrenta a un carismático alcalde de la capital, Tegucigalpa, con la esposa de un expresidente que aspira a convertirse en la primera mujer jefa de Estado del país.Gustavo Amador/EPA vía ShutterstockLa contienda del domingo enfrenta a un carismático alcalde de la capital, Tegucigalpa, con la esposa de un expresidente que compite para ser la primera jefa de Estado del país.Nasry Asfura, de 63 años, más popularmente conocido como Papi, es un ex empresario que ha gobernado Tegucigalpa desde 2014. También ha sido legislador por el Partido Nacional en el Congreso Nacional de Honduras.Bajo el lema “Papi es diferente”, Asfura intenta distanciarse del presidente Hernández, miembro de su partido. Pero Asfura también enfrentaba acusaciones de corrupción y ha sido denunciado por malversación de fondos públicos. Los cargos, que Asfura niega, se han atorado en los juzgados.Asfura ha prometido crear nuevos empleos y mejorar la agobiada economía hondureña y su partido acusa a la oposición de comunismo y de querer transformar radicalmente al país.Su oponente es Xiomara Castro, que está casada con Manuel Zelaya, el expresidente izquierdista que en 2009 fue retirado del cargo por un golpe militar. Castro, de 62 años, lideró un movimiento de protesta después del golpe y se convirtió en la principal candidata de oposición luego de que en octubre varios partidos políticos la respaldaron en una coalición.Castro ha prometido establecer relaciones diplomáticas con China, flexibilizar las restrictivas leyes de aborto de Honduras y mejorar la economía hondureña a través de, entre otras medidas, un mejor manejo de la deuda nacional, que asciende a 13.000 millones de dólares.A pesar de los esfuerzos del partido gobernante de presentarla como una comunista fervorosa, Castro ha conseguido el apoyo del sector empresarial hondureño al integrar a su equipo económico a tecnócratas respetados y al mismo tiempo apelar a los partidarios más de izquierda de Zelaya.¿Por qué ha sido tan mortífera la campaña?Un homenaje en Tegucigalpa, Honduras, para las víctimas de la violencia política, este mes. Los ataques mortales contra candidatos y sus partidarios se han duplicado en 2021 en comparación con hace cuatro años, según las Naciones Unidas.Orlando Sierra/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesLa violencia política ha sido durante mucho tiempo un elemento básico de las elecciones hondureñas, pero este año ha sido particularmente sangriento, con casi 30 candidatos, activistas y sus familiares asesinados en las semanas previas a las votaciones del domingo.Los ataques mortales a candidatos y sus seguidores han aumentado en más del doble en 2021, en comparación con el periodo electoral anterior hace cuatro años, según Naciones Unidas. De acuerdo con la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, se han registrado más de 60 casos de violencia política este año. En un ejemplo particularmente atroz, varios hombres ingresaron a la casa de la congresista Olivia Marcela Zúniga Cáceres en octubre e intentaron asfixiarla, según reportaron los medios de comunicación locales.Los expertos en violencia electoral dicen que la proliferación de grupos de delincuencia organizada, la falta de acceso a la justicia y los ataques a rivales políticos durante el gobierno de Hernández son en parte culpables de la situación.Y aunque ninguno de los bandos políticos se ha librado de la violencia, los activistas dicen que es más probable que los ataques beneficien al partido en el poder al crear un clima de miedo que podría mantener a los votantes en casa.¿Participarán los hondureños en el extranjero?Impresión de papeletas electorales en Tegucigalpa este mes. Algunos hondureños que viven en Estados Unidos se han quejado de que los nuevos documentos de identidad exigidos por el gobierno hondureño para votar han sido difíciles de conseguir.Fredy Rodriguez/ReutersLos hondureños que viven en el exterior, de los cuales unos 740.000 residen en Estados Unidos, seguirán muy de cerca una elección cuyo resultado muy probablemente afecte a sus amigos y parientes en casa.Los hondureños en Estados Unidos son una fuerza económica importante, al enviar miles de millones de dólares en remesas que representan alrededor del 20 por ciento de la economía de Honduras. Muchos de los que viven en Estados Unidos culpan al gobierno actual de fomentar la violencia, la corrupción y el desempleo que ha obligado a miles a marcharse.Si bien los hondureños que viven en el extranjero son elegibles para votar, algunos en Estados Unidos se han quejado de que las nuevas tarjetas de identidad requeridas para votar por el gobierno hondureño han sido difíciles de conseguir.En Honduras también hay alrededor de 300.000 personas que aún no reclaman su nuevo documento de identidad, según informes de la prensa local.En Estados Unidos, menos de 13.000 hondureños se registraron para recibir el documento, que debía entregarse la semana pasada según un activista que habló con el Times. El embajador hondureño en Estados Unidos reconoció fallos en el proceso, pero negó cualquier sesgo político.¿Qué puede esperarse el domingo?Soldados patrullan Cantarranas, Honduras, el sábado. Con los recuerdos de la violencia durante las elecciones de 2017 aún frescos en la mente de muchos hondureños, existe un temor generalizado de que las elecciones del domingo traigan consigo disturbios.Moises Castillo/Associated PressLa votación empezó a las 7 a. m. y termina a las 5 p. m. El consejo electoral deberá anunciar resultados preliminares tres horas después del cierre de las mesas de votación, incluido un estimado de los resultados finales.En la mente de muchos hondureños están aún frescos los recuerdos de la violencia y las protestas políticas durante las elecciones de 2017 y existe un temor generalizado de disturbios y una mayor inestabilidad política después de las elecciones. Muchas empresas cerrarán este fin de semana.Las encuestas han mostrado que la contienda se fue cerrando y ambos bandos están seguros de que triunfarán. Eso hace poco probable que alguno de los candidatos conceda la victoria a hora temprana lo que azuza aún más los temores de violencia. El voto de 2017 también estuvo afectado por inconsistencias y los resultados siguen siendo muy ampliamente cuestionados.Desde aquella ocasión, el país llevó a cabo varias reformas electorales, pero los críticos dicen que los cambios han sido insuficientes. More

  • in

    Honduras Election: What's at Stake

    Hondurans head to the polls on Sunday, but widespread political violence during the campaign and questionable results from 2017 are looming large.In what may be their country’s most significant elections in more than a decade, Hondurans will head to the polls on Sunday to choose a new president, a political contest that has been marred by violence and is being closely watched in Washington.With issues like violent crime and poverty forcing an ever-increasing number of Hondurans to flee north, candidates are billing the race as a chance to alter the country’s destiny.But with corruption seemingly ingrained in the highest levels of power, political analysts say the chances of truly transformative change are slim.Still, a free and fair election in Honduras, despite its many problems, would be significant for Central America, offering a respite from the region’s antidemocratic turn. And the outcome could be consequential for the Biden administration.Polls are showing a tight race. But if the opposition triumphs, Honduras would elect its first female president.Here’s what else you need to know about Honduras’s presidential elections.What’s at stake for Honduras, and the United States?People crossing between Mexico an the United States near Del Rio, Texas. President Biden has so far been stymied in his efforts to control migration from Central America and combat corruption there.Verónica G. Cárdenas for The New York TimesWith poverty and violence continuing to plague daily life for most Hondurans, thousands of whom have fled to the United States, many in the country are desperate for change.After nearly eight years under President Juan Orlando Hernández, whose administration has been marred by corruption allegations, the country’s two major parties are both pledging a clean break.For the opposition, Sunday’s elections are a chance to regain power for the first time since 2009, when President Manuel Zelaya was ousted in a coup. The left-leaning coalition has vowed to halt the erosion of democratic norms under Mr. Hernández.For the governing National Party, the elections represent a chance to re-establish some legitimacy following years of corrupt governance and widespread irregularities during the last election. The elections could have far-reaching repercussions in Washington, where President Biden has so far been stymied in two of his most important foreign policy priorities: controlling migration from Central America and combating corruption there.With the shadow of authoritarianism hanging over neighboring countries, including Nicaragua and El Salvador, a free and fair election could create a small beacon of democratic hope in the region. Who is running?Sunday’s contest pits a charismatic mayor from the capital, Tegucigalpa, against the wife of a former president who is running to become the country’s first female head of state.Gustavo Amador/EPA, via ShutterstockSunday’s contest pits a charismatic mayor from the capital, Tegucigalpa, against the wife of a former president who is running to become the country’s first female head of state.Nasry Asfura, 63, more popularly known as Papi, which means “Daddy” in Spanish, is a former businessman who has been mayor of Tegucigalpa since 2014. He has also served in Honduras’s National Congress, representing the National Party.Running under the slogan “Daddy Is Different,” Mr. Asfura is trying to set himself apart from President Hernández, a member of his party. But Mr. Asfura has also faced corruption allegations and been accused of embezzling public funds. The charges, which Mr. Asfura denies, have stalled in court.Mr. Asfura has promised to create new jobs and improve the crippled Honduran economy, and his party accuses the opposition of being communists intent on radically transforming the country.His opponent is Xiomara Castro, who is married to Manuel Zelaya, the former leftist president who was deposed in a 2009 military coup. In the wake of the ousting, Ms. Castro led a sustained protest movement. Ms. Castro, 62, became the leading opposition candidate after a number of political parties coalesced behind her in October.Ms. Castro has promised to establish diplomatic relations with China, loosen Honduras’s restrictive abortion laws and improve the Honduran economy through, among other things, better managing the nation’s $13 billion debt.Despite the governing party’s efforts to paint her as an ardent communist, Ms. Castro has won the endorsement of the Honduran business sector by bringing respected technocrats into her economic team, while also appealing to Mr. Zelaya’s more leftist supporters.Why has this campaign been so deadly?A memorial in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, this month to victims of political violence. Deadly attacks on candidates and their supporters have more than doubled in 2021 compared with four years ago, according to the United Nations.Orlando Sierra/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesPolitical violence has long been a staple of Honduran elections, but this year has been particularly bloody, with almost 30 candidates, activists and their relatives killed in the weeks leading up to Sunday’s election.Deadly attacks on candidates and their supporters more than doubled in 2021 compared with the previous campaign period four years ago, according to the United Nations. According to the National Autonomous University of Honduras, there have been more than 60 cases of political violence this year. In one particularly egregious example, several men entered the home of Olivia Marcela Zúniga Cáceres, a congresswoman, in October and tried to asphyxiate her, the local news media reported.Experts on electoral violence say that the proliferation of organized criminal groups, the lack of access to justice and the attacks on political rivals under the government of Mr. Hernández are partly to blame.And while neither side of the political divide has been spared the violence, activists say that the attacks are more likely to benefit the incumbent party by creating a climate of fear that could keep voters at home.Are Hondurans abroad participating?Electoral ballots being printed in Tegucigalpa this month. Some Hondurans living in the United States have complained that new identity cards required by the Honduran government to vote have been difficult to obtain.Fredy Rodriguez/ReutersHondurans abroad, some 740,000 of whom live in the United States, will be watching the election closely, with the outcome likely to affect friends and family at home.Hondurans in the United States are an important economic force back home, with billions of dollars in remittances accounting for some 20 percent of the Honduran economy. Many of those in the United States blame the current government for fomenting the violence, corruption and unemployment that has forced thousands to flee.While Hondurans living overseas are eligible to vote, some in the United States have complained that the new identity cards required to vote by the Honduran government have been difficult to obtain.In Honduras, too, some 300,000 people have yet to claim their new ID cards, according to local news media reports.Fewer than 13,000 Hondurans in the United States registered for the IDs, which were supposed to have been delivered last week, according to a Honduran activist who spoke with The Times. The Honduran ambassador to the United States acknowledged flaws in the process but denied any political bias.What can we expect on Sunday?Soldiers patrolling Cantarranas on Saturday. With memories of violence during the 2017 elections still fresh for many Hondurans, there is widespread fear that Sunday’s election will bring unrest.Moises Castillo/Associated PressVoting begins at 7 a.m. and ends at 5 p.m. The electoral council is set to announce preliminary results three hours after the polls close, including an estimate of the final results. With memories of violence and political protests during the 2017 elections still fresh in the minds of many Hondurans, there is widespread fear of unrest and further political instability after the election, and many businesses are shutting down this weekend.Polls have shown the race growing increasingly tight, with both sides certain of victory. That makes it unlikely that either will concede early, further stoking fears of violence. The 2017 vote was also marred by inconsistencies, and the results remain widely questioned.The country has since enacted several electoral reforms, but critics say the changes have been insufficient. More

  • in

    Los aliados de EE. UU. impulsan el declive de la democracia en el mundo, afirma un nuevo estudio

    Los países alineados con Washington retroceden casi el doble que los no aliados, según las cifras, lo que complica las viejas suposiciones sobre la influencia estadounidense en el establecimiento de modelos democráticos.Según un nuevo análisis, Estados Unidos y sus aliados representaron una parte considerablemente grande del retroceso democrático global experimentado en la última década.Los aliados de Estados Unidos siguen siendo, en promedio, más democráticos que el resto del mundo. Pero casi todos han sufrido algún grado de erosión democrática desde 2010, lo que significa que elementos centrales como elecciones justas o independencia judicial se han debilitado, y a un ritmo que supera con creces los declives promedio entre otros países.Con pocas excepciones, los países alineados con Estados Unidos no experimentaron casi ningún crecimiento democrático en ese periodo, aunque muchos de los que están lejos de la órbita de Washington sí lo hicieron.Los hallazgos son extraídos de los datos registrados por V-Dem, una organización sin fines de lucro con sede en Suecia que rastrea el nivel de democracia de los países a través de una serie de indicadores, y fueron analizados por The New York Times.Las revelaciones dejan en claro las penurias de la democracia, una tendencia característica de la era actual. Sugieren que gran parte del retroceso del mundo no es impuesto a las democracias por potencias extranjeras, sino que es una podredumbre que está creciendo dentro de la red más poderosa de alianzas mayoritariamente democráticas del mundo.En muchos casos, las democracias como Francia o Eslovenia vieron cómo se degradaron sus instituciones, aunque solo ligeramente, en medio de políticas de desconfianza y críticas adversas. En otros, dictaduras como la de Baréin restringieron libertades que de por sí no eran plenas. Pero con frecuencia, la tendencia fue impulsada por un giro hacia la democracia no liberal.En esa forma de gobierno, los líderes elegidos se comportan como caudillos y las instituciones políticas son más débiles, pero los derechos personales permanecen en su mayoría (excepto, casi siempre, para las minorías).De manera frecuente, los aliados de Estados Unidos lideraron esta tendencia. Turquía, Hungría, Israel y Filipinas son ejemplos de eso. Varias democracias más establecidas también han dado pasos pequeños en esa dirección, incluido Estados Unidos, donde los derechos electorales, la politización de los tribunales y otros factores son motivo de preocupación para muchos estudiosos de la democracia.Los hallazgos también socavaron las suposiciones estadounidenses, ampliamente compartidas por ambos partidos, de que Estados Unidos es, por naturaleza, una fuerza democratizadora en el mundo.Desde hace mucho tiempo, Washington se ha vendido como un defensor mundial de la democracia. La realidad siempre ha sido más complicada. Sin embargo, a través de los años, una cantidad suficiente de sus aliados se ha movido hacia ese sistema como para crear la impresión de que la influencia del país genera libertades al estilo estadounidense. Estas tendencias actuales sugieren que eso quizás ya no es cierto, si es que alguna vez lo fue.“Sería demasiado fácil afirmar que todo esto puede ser explicado por la existencia de Trump”, advirtió Seva Gunitsky, politólogo de la Universidad de Toronto que estudia cómo las grandes potencias influyen en las democracias. Los datos indican que la tendencia se aceleró durante la presidencia de Donald Trump, pero es anterior a ella.En cambio, los académicos afirman que lo más probable es que este cambio esté impulsado por fuerzas a más largo plazo. Por ejemplo, la disminución de la creencia en Estados Unidos como un modelo al cual aspirar; la disminución de la creencia en la propia democracia, cuya imagen se ha visto empañada por una serie de conmociones del siglo XXI; décadas de política estadounidense en la que solo se les dio prioridad a temas a corto plazo como el antiterrorismo; y un creciente entusiasmo por la política no liberal.Debido a que el mundo alineado con Estados Unidos lidera en la actualidad el declive de un sistema que alguna vez se comprometió a promover, “el consenso internacional sobre la democratización ha cambiado”, dijo Gunitsky.Reclusos en una cárcel superpoblada en 2016 en Ciudad Quezón, en Filipinas. El presidente Rodrigo Duterte supervisó una brutal represión contra los consumidores de drogas.Daniel Berehulak para The New York TimesUna crisis globalDesde el final de la Guerra Fría, los países alineados con Estados Unidos se habían movido muy lentamente hacia la democracia pero, hasta la década de 2010, la mayoría había evitado tener retrocesos.En la década de 1990, por ejemplo, 19 aliados se volvieron más democráticos, incluidos Turquía y Corea del Sur. Solo seis, como el caso de Jordania, se volvieron más autocráticos, pero todos por márgenes muy pequeños.Eso es lo que indica el índice de democracia liberal de V-Dem, que considera decenas de métricas en una puntuación de 0 a 1. Su metodología es transparente y se considera muy rigurosa. El índice de Corea del Sur, por ejemplo, aumentó de 0,517 a 0,768 en esa década, gracias a una transición a un gobierno civil pleno. La mayoría de los cambios son más pequeños y reflejan, por ejemplo, un avance gradual en la libertad de prensa o un ligero retroceso en la independencia judicial.Durante la década de 1990, Estados Unidos y sus aliados representaron el nueve por ciento de los incrementos generales en los puntajes de democracia en todo el mundo, según las cifras del índice. En otras palabras, fueron responsables del nueve por ciento del crecimiento democrático global. Esto es mejor de lo que suena: muchos ya eran altamente democráticos.También durante esa década, los países aliados solo representaron el cinco por ciento de las reducciones globales, es decir, retrocedieron muy poco.Esas cifras empeoraron un poco en la década de 2000. Luego, en la década de 2010, cayeron a niveles desastrosos. Estados Unidos y sus aliados representaron solo el cinco por ciento de los aumentos mundiales de la democracia. Pero un impactante 36 por ciento de los retrocesos ocurrieron en países alineados con Estados Unidos.En promedio, los países aliados vieron disminuir la calidad de sus democracias casi el doble que los no aliados, según las cifras de V-Dem.El análisis define “aliado” como un país con el que Estados Unidos tiene un compromiso formal o implícito de defensa mutua, de los cuales hay 41. Aunque el término “aliado” podría definirse de varias maneras, todas ellas arrojan resultados muy similares.Este cambio se produce en medio de un periodo de agitación para la democracia, que se está reduciendo en todo el mundo.Los datos contradicen las suposiciones de Washington de que esta tendencia está impulsada por Rusia y China, cuyos vecinos y socios han visto cambiar muy poco sus puntuaciones, o por Trump, que asumió el cargo cuando el cambio estaba muy avanzado.Más bien, el retroceso es endémico en las democracias emergentes e incluso en las establecidas, dijo Staffan I. Lindberg, un politólogo de la Universidad de Gotemburgo que ayuda a supervisar el índice V-Dem. Y estos países suelen estar alineados con Estados Unidos.Esto no significa que Washington sea exactamente la causa de su retracción, subrayó Lindberg. Pero tampoco es irrelevante.Una bandera estadounidense usada para una fotografía de los presidentes Joe Biden y Recep Tayyip Erdogan en la cumbre del Grupo de los 20 celebrada en Roma el mes pasado.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesLa influencia estadounidense, para bien o para malA pesar de décadas de narrativa de la Guerra Fría en la que se consideraba a las alianzas estadounidenses como una fuerza para la democratización, esto nunca ha sido realmente cierto, afirmó Thomas Carothers, quien estudia la promoción de la democracia en el Fondo Carnegie para la Paz Internacional.Si bien Washington alentó la democracia en Europa occidental como contrapeso ideológico de la Unión Soviética, suprimió su propagación en gran parte del resto del mundo.Estados Unidos apoyó o instaló dictadores, alentó la represión violenta de elementos de izquierda, y patrocinó grupos armados antidemocráticos. A menudo, esto se realizó en países aliados, con cooperación del gobierno local. Los soviéticos hicieron lo mismo.Como resultado, cuando terminó la Guerra Fría en 1989 y disminuyó la intromisión de las grandes potencias, las sociedades tuvieron más libertad para democratizarse, y así lo hicieron, en grandes cantidades.“Muchas personas alcanzaron la mayoría de edad en esos años y pensaron que eso era lo normal”, ya que confundieron la oleada de los años noventa como el estado natural de las cosas y como algo que había logrado Estados Unidos (debido a su hegemonía mundial), dijo Carothers.“Pero entonces llegó la guerra contra el terrorismo en 2001”, explicó, y Washington nuevamente presionó para establecer autócratas dóciles y frenos a la democratización, esta vez en sociedades donde el islam es predominante.El resultado han sido décadas de debilitamiento de los cimientos de la democracia en los países aliados. Al mismo tiempo, las presiones lideradas por Estados Unidos en favor de la democracia han comenzado a desvanecerse.“La hegemonía democrática es buena para la democratización, pero no a través de los mecanismos en los que la gente suele pensar, como la promoción de la democracia”, dijo Gunitsky, estudioso de la política de las grandes potencias.En vez de alianzas o presidentes que exijan a los dictadores que se liberalicen, ninguno de los cuales tiene un gran historial, dijo, “la influencia de Estados Unidos, donde es más fuerte, es una influencia indirecta, como un ejemplo a emular”.Su investigación ha descubierto que Estados Unidos estimula la democratización cuando los líderes de otros países, los ciudadanos o ambos ven que el gobierno de estilo estadounidense promete beneficios como la prosperidad o la libertad. Algunos pueden considerar que adoptarlo, aunque sea superficialmente, es una forma de ganarse el apoyo estadounidense.Sin embargo, las impresiones de la democracia estadounidense, que solían ser positivas, se han ido deteriorando rápidamente.“Muy pocos de los encuestados piensan que la democracia estadounidense es un buen ejemplo a seguir para otros países”, reveló un estudio reciente del Centro de Investigaciones Pew. En promedio, solo el 17 por ciento de las personas en los países encuestados dijo que la democracia en Estados Unidos era digna de ser emulada, mientras que el 23 por ciento afirmó que nunca había sido un buen ejemplo.Es posible que la prosperidad estadounidense ya no parezca tan atractiva, debido a problemas cada vez mayores como la desigualdad, así como el surgimiento de China como modelo económico alternativo.Además, el conocimiento de los problemas internos de Estados Unidos —tiroteos masivos, polarización, injusticia racial— ha afectado enormemente las percepciones.Podría ser más acertado pensar que la situación actual se debe más al surgimiento de la democracia no liberal como modelo alternativo. Ese sistema parece ser cada vez más popular, mientras que ya no lo es tanto la democracia más plena, con sus protecciones para las minorías y su dependencia de las instituciones establecidas.Pero incluso las personas que quieren una democracia no liberal para su país tienden a considerarla poco atractiva en otros, gracias a sus tendencias nacionalistas. A medida que se degradan las opiniones sobre la democracia estadounidense como modelo global, también lo hace la propia democracia.“Gran parte del atractivo de la democracia en todo el mundo está vinculado al atractivo de Estados Unidos como modelo de régimen”, dijo Gunitsky. “Cuando una de esas cosas decae, hará decaer la otra”.Max Fisher es reportero y columnista de temas internacionales con sede en Nueva York. Ha reportado sobre conflictos, diplomacia y cambio social desde cinco continentes. Es autor de The Interpreter, una columna que explora las ideas y el contexto detrás de los principales eventos mundiales de actualidad. @Max_Fisher — Facebook More

  • in

    U.S. Allies Drive Much of World’s Democratic Decline, Data Shows

    Washington-aligned countries backslid at nearly double the rate of non-allies, data shows, complicating long-held assumptions about American influence.The United States and its allies accounted for a significantly outsize share of global democratic backsliding in the last decade, according to a new analysis.American allies remain, on average, more democratic than the rest of the world. But nearly all have suffered a degree of democratic erosion since 2010, meaning that core elements like election fairness or judicial independence have weakened, and at rates far outpacing average declines among other countries.With few exceptions, U.S.-aligned countries saw almost no democratic growth in that period, even as many beyond Washington’s orbit did.The findings are reflected in data recorded by V-Dem, a Sweden-based nonprofit that tracks countries’ level of democracy across a host of indicators, and analyzed by The New York Times.The revelations cast democracy’s travails, a defining trend of the current era, in a sharp light. They suggest that much of the world’s backsliding is not imposed on democracies by foreign powers, but rather is a rot rising within the world’s most powerful network of mostly democratic alliances.In many cases, democracies like France or Slovenia saw institutions degrade, if only slightly, amid politics of backlash and distrust. In others, dictatorships like Bahrain curtailed already-modest freedoms. But, often, the trend was driven by a shift toward illiberal democracy.In that form of government, elected leaders behave more like strongmen and political institutions are eroded, but personal rights mostly remain (except, often, for minorities).U.S. allies often led this trend. Turkey, Hungary, Israel and the Philippines are all examples. A number of more established democracies have taken half-steps in their direction, too, including the United States, where voting rights, the politicization of courts, and other factors are considered cause for concern by many democracy scholars.The findings also undercut American assumptions, widely held in both parties, that U.S. power is an innately democratizing force in the world.Washington has long sold itself as a global champion for democracy. The reality has always been more complicated. But enough of its allies have moved toward that system to create an impression that American influence brings about American-style freedoms. These trends suggest that may no longer be true — if it ever was.“It would be too easy to say this can all be explained by Trump,” cautioned Seva Gunitsky, a University of Toronto political scientist who studies how great powers influence democracies. Data indicates that the trend accelerated during his presidency but predated it.Rather, scholars say this change is likely driven by longer-term forces. Declining faith in the United States as a model to aspire to. Declining faith in democracy itself, whose image has been tarnished by a series of 21st century shocks. Decades of American policy prioritizing near-term issues like counterterrorism. And growing enthusiasm for illiberal politics.With the American-aligned world now a leader in the decline of a system it once pledged to promote, Dr. Gunitsky said, “The international consensus for democratization has shifted.”Inmates in an overcrowded jail in 2016 in Quezon City, in the Philippines. President Rodrigo Duterte oversaw a brutal crackdown on drug users.Daniel Berehulak for The New York TimesA Global CrisisSince the Cold War’s end, American-aligned countries have shifted toward democracy only slowly but, until the 2010s, mostly avoided backsliding.In the 1990s, for instance, 19 allies grew more democratic, including Turkey and South Korea. Only six, like Jordan, became more autocratic, but all by very small amounts.That’s according to V-Dem’s liberal democracy index, which factors dozens of metrics into a score from 0 to 1. Its methodology is transparent and considered highly rigorous. South Korea’s, for example, rose from 0.517 to 0.768 in that decade, amid a transition to full civilian rule. Most shifts are smaller, reflecting, say, an incremental advance in press freedom or slight step back in judicial independence.During the 1990s, the United States and its allies accounted for 9 percent of the overall increases in democracy scores worldwide, according to the figures. In other words, they were responsible for 9 percent of global democratic growth. This is better than it sounds: Many were already highly democratic.Also that decade, allied countries accounted for only 5 percent of global decreases — they backslid very little.Those numbers worsened a little in the 2000s. Then, in the 2010s, they became disastrous. The U.S. and its allies accounted for only 5 percent of worldwide increases in democracy. But a staggering 36 percent of all backsliding occurred in U.S.-aligned countries.On average, allied countries saw the quality of their democracies decline by nearly double the rate of non-allies, according to V-Dem’s figures.The analysis defines “ally” as a country with which the United States has a formal or implied mutual defense commitment, of which there are 41. While “ally” could be plausibly defined in several different ways, all produce largely similar results.This shift comes amid a period of turmoil for democracy, which is retrenching worldwide.The data contradicts assumptions in Washington that this trend is driven by Russia and China, whose neighbors and partners have seen their scores change very little, or by Mr. Trump, who entered office when the shift was well underway.Rather, backsliding is endemic across emerging and even established democracies, said Staffan I. Lindberg, a University of Gothenburg political scientist who helps oversee V-Dem. And such countries tend to be American-aligned.This does not mean Washington is exactly causing their retrenchment, Dr. Lindberg stressed. But it isn’t irrelevant, either.An American flag used for a photo-op between President Biden and Mr. Erdogan at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Rome last month.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesAmerican Influence, for Better or WorseDespite decades of Cold War messaging calling American alliances a force for democratization, this has never really been true, said Thomas Carothers, who studies democracy promotion at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.While Washington encouraged democracy in Western Europe as an ideological counterweight to the Soviet Union, it suppressed its spread in much of the rest of the world.It backed or installed dictators, encouraged violent repression of left-wing elements, and sponsored anti-democratic armed groups. Often, this was conducted in allied countries in cooperation with the local government. The Soviets did the same.As a result, when the Cold War ended in 1989 and great power meddling receded, societies became freer to democratize and, in large numbers, they did.“A lot of people came of age in those years and thought that was normal,” Mr. Carothers said, mistaking the 1990s wave as both the natural state of things and, because the United States was global hegemon, America’s doing.“But then the war on terror hit in 2001,” he said, and Washington again pressed for pliant autocrats and curbs on democratization, this time in societies where Islam is predominant.The result has been decades of weakening the foundations of democracy in allied countries. At the same time, American-led pressures in favor of democracy have begun falling away.“Democratic hegemony is good for democratization, but not through the mechanisms that people usually think about, like democracy promotion,” said Dr. Gunitsky, the scholar of great power politics.Rather than alliances or presidents demanding that dictators liberalize, neither of which have much of a track record, he said, “The U.S. influence, where it’s strongest, is an indirect influence, as an example to emulate.”His research has found that the United States spurs democratization when other countries’ leaders, citizens or both see American-style governance as promising benefits like prosperity or freedom. Some may see adopting it, even superficially, as a way to win American support.But once-positive impressions of American democracy have been rapidly declining.“Very few in any public surveyed think American democracy is a good example for other countries to follow,” a recent Pew Research Center study found. On average, only 17 percent of people in surveyed countries called U.S. democracy worth emulating, while 23 percent said it had never offered a good example.American prosperity may no longer look so appealing either, because of growing problems, like inequality, as well as the rise of China as an alternate economic model.And awareness of the United States’ domestic problems — mass shootings, polarization, racial injustice — has greatly affected perceptions.It may be more precise to think of what’s happening now as the rise of illiberal democracy as an alternate model. That system appears to be increasingly popular. Fuller democracy, with its protections for minorities and reliance on establishment institutions, is becoming less so. But even people who want illiberal democracy for their country tend to find it unappealing in others, thanks to its nationalist tendencies. As impressions of U.S. democracy as a global model degrade, so does democracy itself.“A lot of the appeal of democracy around the world is tied to appeal of the U.S. as a regime type,” Dr. Gunitsky said. “When one of those things decline, the other will decline.” More

  • in

    After Iraqi Election, a Shiite Leader Emerges as an Unlikely U.S. Ally

    The U.S. once threatened to kill Muqtada al-Sadr as his militia battled occupying forces. Now, the powerful cleric is helping Washington by keeping Iran at bay.BAGHDAD — Standing at a podium with an Iraqi flag by his side, the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr looked the part of a statesman as he read a postelection address.In the 18 years since he formed the Mahdi Army militia to battle occupying U.S. forces, the onetime firebrand has refined his delivery. His formal Arabic is more proficient, and his voice more assured. Looking up to address the camera, he raised a finger in emphasis in remarks carefully crafted to send messages to both the United States and Iran after his party picked up seats in last week’s parliamentary election.In 2004, as Mr. al-Sadr’s fighters took on U.S. forces with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades in Baghdad and across the southern provinces, the United States pledged to kill or capture the Shiite cleric.Next to Al Qaeda, he posed the biggest threat to the American occupation in Iraq, miring U.S. troops in fighting in the streets and alleys of Iraqi cities as the military fought both Sunni and Shiite-based insurgencies.A member of Mr. al-Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army,  firing a rocket-propelled grenade toward American tanks in Sadr City in 2004.Joao Silva for The New York TimesAlthough still unpredictable, the cleric is consistently an Iraqi nationalist and now seems to be emerging as an arm’s-length American ally, helping the United States by preventing Iraq from tilting further into Iran’s axis.“All embassies are welcome, as long as they do not interfere in Iraqi affairs and government formation,” Mr. al-Sadr said in a reference aimed at the United States, whose embassy was stormed two years ago by what were believed to be members of Kitaib Hezbollah, one of the biggest Iranian-backed Iraqi militias. “Iraq is for Iraqis only.”In preliminary results from last Sunday’s elections, the Sadrist Movement gained roughly 20 seats, giving it up to 73 seats in the 329-member parliament. That leaves Mr. al-Sadr with the biggest single bloc in Parliament and a decisive voice in choosing the next Iraqi prime minister.In his remarks, the cleric made a pointed reference to Iranian-backed militias, some of which have grown more powerful than Iraq’s official security forces and pose a threat to the United States in Iraq.“From now on, arms must be restricted in the hands of the state,” he said in the address, broadcast on Iraqi state television. “The use of weapons shall be prevented outside of the state’s framework.” Even for those claiming to be the “resistance” to the U.S. presence, he said, “it is time for the people to live in peace, without occupation, terrorism, militias, kidnapping and fear.”The self-styled resistance groups are the same Iranian-backed militias that launched drone and rocket attacks on the American Embassy and U.S. military bases after the U.S. killing of a leading Iranian commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, and a senior Iraqi security official in Baghdad last year.An aide to the Shiite cleric said disarming groups that are not under government control would also apply to Mr. al-Sadr’s own militia forces.“No country wants forces that are stronger than its army,” said Dhia al-Assadi, a former top official in the cleric’s political movement. He said Mr. al-Sadr would leave it to the incoming government to decide whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq.The United States has agreed to withdraw all combat troops from the country by Dec. 31, although Washington does not consider its troops there currently to be on a combat mission. Under that agreement, the number of U.S. forces — about 2,000 in Iraq at Baghdad’s invitation — is expected to remain the same.American troops fought the Mahdi Army in Najaf in 2004 on a mission to capture or kill the cleric. Then U.S. officials changed their minds. Tyler Hicks/The New York Times“That is labeling or classifying the troops as trainers and not fighters,” said Mr. al-Assadi, who served as the head of Mr. al-Sadr’s former Ahrar political bloc. “The decision should be revisited again and decided by Parliament and the government.”Mr. al-Assadi said he does not foresee any change in an existing ban on senior officials of the Sadrist Movement from meeting with U.S. or British officials.Once a fierce sectarian defender of Iraq’s Shiite majority, Mr. al-Sadr has expanded his reach in recent years, reaching out to Sunnis, Christians and other minorities. After telling his followers to protect Christians, young men from Mr. Sadr’s stronghold in the mostly Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad’s Sadr City began wearing large crosses around their necks in a sign of solidarity. In a previous election, the Sadrists formed an alliance with the Communist Party, which is officially atheist.Externally, he has fostered relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates at a time when those countries’ Sunni Arab rulers were hostile to Iraq’s Shiite-led government. Domestically, one of his main demands is to clean up Iraq’s dysfunctional and deeply corrupt political system, which appoints people to senior government posts on the basis of party loyalty rather than competence.“He has grown and evolved,” said Nabeel Khoury, a former U.S. State Department official who served in Iraq in 2003. “But I think to some extent we underestimated him in the very beginning.”Mr. Khoury said that he was approached in 2003 by Mr. al-Sadr’s aides as Iraq’s first governing council was being decided.“We had coffee, we talked and they said Sadr was interested in playing a political role,” said Mr. Khoury, a fellow at the Atlantic Council. But Iraqi political figures who had returned from exile did not want Mr. al-Sadr involved, Mr. Khoury said, and the United States followed their counsel.A few months later, the cleric formed his Mahdi Army militia to fight occupying troops.When U.S. forces had an opportunity to kill Mr. al-Sadr during a battle in Najaf, Washington told them to stand down, also on the advice of the Iraqi expatriate politicians, said Mr. Khoury, adding: “They knew if Sadr was killed it would become a big problem for them.”Mr. al-Sadr, 47, is the youngest son of a revered cleric, Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, who was assassinated by Saddam Hussein in 1999 after demanding religious freedom for Iraq’s Shiites. The Sadr family commands the loyalty of millions, many of them poor and disposed, most of whom believe his election win was ordained by God.Mr. al-Sadr at the podium. Once a firebrand enemy of the U.S., he has adopted a more conciliatory stance, emerging as an arm’s-length ally of Washington and one of the country’s major political players.Alaa Al-Marjani/ReutersIn Sadr City, the Sadrist organization provides food, support for orphans and widows and many other services the Iraqi government fails to deliver.“He would like to achieve certain objectives, and the main objective is social justice,” said Mr. al-Assadi of the cleric’s aims. He likened Mr. al-Sadr’s goals to those of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Ghandi.But unlike the Black civil rights leader or India’s pacifist icon, Mr. al-Sadr has overseen an armed militia that has waxed and waned but never entirely gone away.The Mahdi Army has been blamed for fueling Iraq’s past sectarian violence. As it battled with Sunni fighters of Al Qaeda for supremacy in Iraq between 2006 and 2008, Mr. al-Sadr’s fighters were accused of running death squads and conducting sectarian cleansings of Baghdad neighborhoods.Mr. al-Sadr has said that not all the fighters were under his control.In 2008, after losing a fight with Iraqi government forces for control of Basra, Mr. al-Sadr — who lacks the religious credentials of his father — abruptly left for Iran to pursue his theological studies.Yet he has long had an uneasy relationship with Tehran, and while he cannot afford to antagonize its leaders, he advocates an Iraq free of both Iranian and American influence.“I think he has his own space in which he walks, and his base is not dictated by any country, especially not the Iranians,” said Elie Abouaoun, a director at the United States Institute of Peace, a U.S. government-funded think tank. “I think that he is much less sectarian than many, many others because he has a nationalist vision of Iraq.” More

  • in

    Israel’s Spy Agency Snubbed the U.S. Can Trust Be Restored?

    Israel’s new prime minister, Naftali Bennett, heads to Washington promising better relations and seeking support for covert attacks on Iran’s nuclear program.WASHINGTON — The cable sent this year by the outgoing C.I.A. officer in charge of building spy networks in Iran reverberated throughout the intelligence agency’s Langley headquarters, officials say: America’s network of informers had largely been lost to Tehran’s brutally efficient counterintelligence operations, which has stymied efforts to rebuild it.Israel has helped fill the breach, officials say, its robust operations in Iran providing the United States with streams of reliable intelligence on Iran’s nuclear activities, missile programs and on its support for militias around the region.The two countries’ intelligence services have a long history of cooperation and operated in virtual lock step during the Trump administration, which approved or was party to many Israeli operations in its shadow war against Iran.That changed after the election of President Biden, who promised to restore the nuclear agreement with Iran that Israel so vigorously opposed. In the spring, Benjamin Netanyahu, then Israel’s prime minister, even curtailed intelligence sharing with the United States because he did not trust the Biden administration.The challenge for the two countries — as Israel’s new prime minister, Naftali Bennett, meets with Mr. Biden at the White House on Thursday — will be whether they can rebuild that trust even as they pursue contradictory agendas on Iran. The Biden administration favors a diplomatic approach, reviving and building on the 2015 nuclear agreement, while Israeli officials say that only force can stop Iran from building an atomic bomb.A key goal for Mr. Bennett will be to determine whether the Biden administration will continue to support Israel’s covert operations against Iran’s nuclear program, senior Israeli officials said.Israeli officials hope that any new deal with Iran will not limit such operations, which in the past have included sabotage of Iranian nuclear facilities and the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.The White House meeting comes just weeks after William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director, traveled to Israel to meet his counterpart, David Barnea, as well as Mr. Bennett, a sign of the importance of intelligence cooperation to the bilateral relationship.“The sharing of intelligence and operational activity between Israel and the United States is one of the most important subjects on the agenda for the meeting,” said Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi Farkash, a former director of Israeli military intelligence. “Israel has developed unique capabilities for intelligence collection in a number of enemy countries, capabilities that the United States was not able to grow on its own and without which its national security would be vulnerable. ”William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director, second from left, recently met with his counterpart in Israel. The two agencies are trying to rebuild trust as their countries pursue contradictory agendas on Iran.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesIn his meeting with Mr. Biden, Mr. Bennett’s hand will be strengthened by the fact that the United States has become more dependent on Israel for information on Iran. The United States has other sources of information, including electronic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency, but it lacks the in-country spy network Israel has..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}The risk of such dependence became clear in April when Israel set off explosives at Iran’s Natanz nuclear plant.Mr. Netanyahu had ordered his national security officials to reduce the information that they conveyed to the United States about planned operations in Iran, American and Israeli officials said.And on the day of the attack, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad, gave the United States less than two hours’ notice, according to American and Israeli officials, far too short a time for the United States to assess the operation or ask Israel to call it off.Israeli and American officials interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified operations.Israeli officials said they took the precautions because Americans had leaked information about some Israeli operations, a charge U.S. officials deny. Other Israeli officials say the Biden administration had been inattentive to their security concerns, too focused on reviving the Iran nuclear agreement that President Donald J. Trump had pulled out of.A satellite photo showing the Natanz nuclear facility in April 2021. Days earlier, Israeli operatives set off a large explosion inside the plant. Planet Labs Inc., via Associated PressIn Washington, many American officials said they believed that Mr. Netanyahu was just resuming the grudge he had held against the Obama administration, which negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran.The last-minute notification of the Natanz operation was the starkest example that Israel had changed its procedures since the Trump presidency.Senior Biden administration officials said that the Israelis, at least in spirit, had violated a longstanding, unwritten agreement to at least advise the United States of covert operations, giving Washington a chance to object.Mr. Burns called his counterpart, Yossi Cohen, the Mossad chief, expressing concern over the snub, according to people briefed on the call.Mr. Cohen said that the belated notification was the result of operational constraints and uncertainty about when the Natanz operation would take place.For the American-Israeli intelligence relationship, it was another a sharp turnabout.Relations had soured during the Obama era.The Obama White House, concerned that Israel was leaking information, kept the existence of the negotiations with Iran secret from Israel, a former Obama administration official said. Israeli intelligence learned of the meetings from its own sources.Mr. Netanyahu was also convinced that American spy agencies were keeping him under surveillance, according to a former Israeli official.During the Trump administration, cooperation reached new highs.In the spring, Benjamin Netanyahu, then Israel’s prime minister, curtailed intelligence sharing with the United States because he did not trust the Biden administration.Dan Balilty for The New York TimesWhen the Mossad stole Iran’s nuclear archive in 2018, the only foreign officials briefed in advance were Mr. Trump and his C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo.Israeli officials used the documents to convince Mr. Trump that Iran had an active nuclear weapons program, and Mr. Trump cited them when he withdrew from the nuclear agreement months later, a major victory for Mr. Netanyahu.“This was clever use of intelligence,” Mr. Netanyahu told The New York Times in 2019.Iran has denied that it seeks a nuclear weapon, but the archives showed that Iran had a nuclear weapons program as recently as 2003. According to American intelligence officials, no evidence has emerged that the program continued.During meetings with senior Trump administration officials in late 2019 and early 2020, Mr. Cohen presented a new Iran strategy, arguing for aggressive covert operations to sabotage Iran’s nuclear facilities and killing key personnel to force Iran to accept a stricter agreement.Israel began a wave of covert operations, keeping the Trump administration in the loop on a series of cyber and bombing attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities and on the assassination of Iran’s chief nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, in November 2020, after the American election but before Mr. Biden took office.The two countries also cooperated on two operations in 2020: a U.S. operation to kill the leader of Iran’s paramilitary Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, and an Israeli operation to kill a Qaeda leader who had taken refuge in Tehran.Mr. Pompeo, who later served as secretary of state, said that there was no relationship more important during his four years in the Trump administration than the one that the C.I.A. had with the Mossad.“The two organizations really had a moment, an important moment in history,” he said in an interview in June.In January 2020, an American drone strike killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani as he was leaving the Baghdad airport. The strike was aided by Israeli intelligence.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesBut the warmth of the Trump years quickly gave way to chillier relations this year. The Biden administration’s announcement of its plan to return to the Iran nuclear deal and repeated delays of visits by Israeli intelligence officials to Washington deepened skepticism of the new administration in Israel.Mr. Cohen sought to repair the relationship with the United States during his final months as Mossad chief, a senior Israeli official said.On his final visit to Washington in April, a little more than two weeks after the Natanz bombing, he met with C.I.A. officials and Mr. Biden, promising a more transparent intelligence relationship. Mr. Burns gave him a warm reception, and an award for fostering the close partnership between the Mossad and the C.I.A.“You have people within both intelligence organizations that have had relationships for a very long time,” said Will Hurd, a former C.I.A. officer and former member of the House Intelligence Committee. “There is a closeness and an ability to potentially smooth out some of the problems that may manifest from the leaders.”Arguably as important in rebooting the relations between the two spy shops was the departure of Mr. Netanyahu from the prime minister’s office.Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who meets with President Biden on Thursday, said he would use the meeting with Mr. Biden to try to reset the tone of Israel’s relationship with the United States.Amit Elkayam for The New York TimesMr. Bennett says he wants to open a new chapter in relations with the White House, and has promised a more constructive approach.But the Mossad is already planning more secret operations in Iran. The question for the Biden administration is which are acceptable and when, General Zeevi Farkash said.“The U.S. and Israel must jointly identify the red lines so that if Iran crosses them, Israel can act to prevent it from achieving military nuclear capacity,” he said.Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman reported from Washington, and Ronen Bergman from Tel Aviv. Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington. More

  • in

    Jan. 6: A Failed Coup Plot but, Yes, a Coup Plot

    More from our inbox:What Trump WroughtBard College, Banned by RussiaThe Truth About CondosLooking at Pictures at the Library  Illustration by The New York Times; Photographs, via alexandr6868, OLIVIER DOULIERY/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “What if There Wasn’t a Coup Plot?,” by Christopher Caldwell (Opinion guest essay, Sunday Review, Aug. 1):I think Mr. Caldwell and I must have very different definitions of the word “coup.” He argues that the “day’s events are ambiguous.”Let us review them: President Donald Trump, having lost a legitimate election, gathers a crowd of supporters, then he and his closest allies harangue them with stories about how he really won the election. The crowd is encouraged to assault the Capitol in order to disrupt the certification of the election — they must “stop the steal.”As a result, an angry mob descends upon the Capitol, overwhelms the police and breaks into the building, seeking to harm elected representatives while Mr. Trump cheerfully watches the unfolding events on TV.If that’s not a coup, please tell me what it is. Does Mr. Caldwell believe that, had his mob been successful, had the certification process been perverted under the threat of violence, Mr. Trump would not have eagerly grasped the opportunity to stay in office?The events of Jan. 6 were not just a “political protest that got out of control,” but a deliberate attempt to undermine a peaceful and legitimate transfer of power. That Mr. Trump’s coup failed is not evidence of the absence of a plot, but testimony to the incompetence that characterized the former president’s entire term in office — incompetence for which we must be, in this one instance, profoundly grateful.Stephen McLaughlinRichmond, Calif.To the Editor:Christopher Caldwell could not be more wrong in describing the Jan. 6 insurrection as “something familiar: a political protest that got out of control.” A “political protest” is when people gather to shout slogans, wave signs, listen to speeches and otherwise voice their opinions.In contrast, many of those who invaded the Capitol after listening to Donald Trump were armed with weapons such as stun guns and bear spray. As Mr. Caldwell himself acknowledges, they called for the hanging of Vice President Mike Pence. In short, they were prepared not for protest, but for violently assaulting, and possibly murdering, elected officials and the people protecting them.Mr. Caldwell writes that “the stability of the republic never truly seemed at risk.” If so, it was far closer to being at risk than I’ve witnessed in my lifetime — or ever hope to again.Jeffrey BendixCleveland Heights, OhioTo the Editor:Christopher Caldwell asserts that “without the Covid-era advantage of expanded mail-in voting, Democrats might well have lost more elections at every level, including the presidential.” He goes on to suggest that Democrats, including members of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, deliberately sought to provide an advantage to Democratic candidates by expanding access to absentee voting.Contrary to Mr. Caldwell’s assertions, there is no evidence that expanded absentee voting benefited Democratic candidates in the 2020 election. These findings are consistent with those of earlier studies that found no effect of absentee voting rules on partisan outcomes.Alan AbramowitzAtlantaThe writer is a professor of political science at Emory University.To the Editor:I stopped reading this article when I came to this sentence: “The most dramatic and disruptive episode of Mr. Trump’s resistance to the election was Jan. 6, and that day’s events are ambiguous.”Mr. Caldwell’s opinion on anything is in question if he thinks the events of Jan. 6 are “ambiguous.”Ann Marie JoyceBraintree, Mass.What Trump Wrought Al Drago/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re ​ “Biden’s​ Climate Plans Hobbled After an Exodus Under Trump​” ​(​front page​, Aug. 2):After the terrible destruction wrought by the Trump presidency, we are all finding that it’s easy to tear down but hard to rebuild. Sadly, many Americans mistrust our government to such an extent that they enthusiastically support ​Donald ​Trump’s celebration of the worst and his corresponding suppression of the best.This is most noticeable in the loss of American prestige abroad, but ​Mr. ​Trump’s influence was such that it permeates every aspect of our government. It will take years to rebuild what ​he​ was able smash in a single term.Let’s hope that ​Mr. ​Trump never makes it back to the White House. If he does, he will quickly undo all the rebuilding done by the current administration​ ​and continue his destruction of the American government. ​ It will be a destruction of such a scale and degree that future administrations and future generations will be hard pressed to reverse it.Tim ShawCambridge​, M​ass.Bard College, Banned by RussiaBard had embraced its Russian connection, hosting Russian students at its campus in Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y. Richard Beaven for The New York TimesTo the Editor:“In Banning Bard College, Russia Sends a Message” (news article, Aug. 6) understates the problem posed by Russia’s designation of Bard College as an “undesirable” organization. Even for Bard College itself, the designation affects much more than its existing and planned programs in Russia.The law, aimed at all foreign NGOs, has real teeth and it imposes criminal and administrative penalties, including substantial fines and serious prison time, for being a member of or a financial contributor to an undesirable organization.That now includes all of Bard College faculty members who may wish to visit Russia for any reason, such as scientific collaboration with their Russian colleagues (who would also be placed in legal jeopardy), as well as Bard College alumni contributing to Bard and other Bard donors.In July 2022 Russia will host the International Congress of Mathematicians in St. Petersburg. It remains to be seen how this new designation of Bard College will affect that meeting.Ilya KapovichNew YorkThe Truth About CondosThe remaining condos at Champlain Towers South being demolished with a controlled explosion in Surfside, Fla., on July 4.Giorgio Viera/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “I Know All About Condo Living. Let’s Fix It​.​” (Opinion guest essay, July 31​)​:As a former member of a condominium board in a small New England city, I appreciated reading David B. Habe​r​’s blunt piece about the perils of condominiums.It is true that some residents refuse to support needed capital repair projects because the related costs hit them directly in the purse. Evidently, they believe ​that ​condos relieve them of the responsibility to, figuratively speaking, maintain the roof over their head.Real estate agents who boast of a condo’s “low fees” are a serious part of the problem. They have created the impression that low fees represent prudent financial management. Nothing could be further from the truth.If real estate agents helped potential condominium buyers investigate deeper into a building’s long​-​term maintenance plans, and the appropriate budgets to realize those plans, we’d have far fewer crises.Charles T​.​ ClarkStonington, C​onn.Looking at Pictures at the LibraryA librarian at the Picture Collection at the New York Public Library examines the “Rear Views” file.Gus Powell for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “The Treasures in the Stacks” (Arts pages, Aug. 4):I was deeply concerned to read about the New York Public Library’s plan to remove the invaluable Picture Collection from circulation.As a media historian who has been studying the collection for years, and as a professor who uses the collection as a teaching tool for visual culture classes, I have frequently quoted the longtime head of the Picture Collection, Romana Javitz, in my work, and her words are as true today as in 1936:“There is so exhilarating a continuity in the usefulness of this type of library service that both the organization of the material and its development is never static. It keeps both staff and public alert and arouses a lively stream of cooperative reports from the public from whom we receive an amazing percentage of constructive and understanding suggestion, always in the spirit of keeping the collection one of live preservation and availability.”I know of no other collection that treats pictures in this way. Rather than any individual picture, what is crucial to preserve is the model it represents of a picture collection as an alive and available physical site.Diana KaminMaplewood, N.J. More