Monday Memo #85: U.S. Displays Harsh Stance Against China at U.S.-China Alaska Summit
By Noah Howard and Jackson Vachal
Don’t miss your weekly round-up of Stanford related news, brought to you by Stanford Politics.
US-China Alaska Summit: Hoover Fellow Reacts
On March 18 in their first summit of the Biden administration, American and Chinese officials met in Anchorage, Alaska. Officials shared surprisingly pointed remarks at each other, with American Secretary of State Antony Blinken criticizing China’s genocide of its Uyghur minority and its suppression of democratic freedoms in Hong Kong. In response, Security Advisor Yang Jiechi pointed to American hypocrisy concerning civil rights as well as the “little confidence” American people have in their democracy. Both sides decried the other’s divergence from the established international order. However, Mr. Jiechi did this in reference to the “United Nations-centered international system” while Mr. Blinken championed the rules-based international order. Hoover Senior Fellow Elizabeth Economy described this exchange as unsurprising as she viewed this meeting as a chance for the United States to outline its new foreign policy stance towards China under the Biden administration. Moreover, Economy portrays the basic values and global aspirations of these two nations as “fundamentally at odds” and thus does not see either nation as willing to accommodate the other on these issues. However, Economy does not label this meeting as a failure of cooperation but rather as the establishment of the framework within which both nations can work together on areas of mutual concern. Some of these issues include combating climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic as well as curtailing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Rising Politicization of Religion in the Federal Judiciary
Over the past year, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought into focus a trend of increasing partisanship in federal court cases surrounding free exercise of religion. Zalman Rothschild, a fellow at Stanford’s Constitutional Law Center, published a study late last year tracking the correlation between federal judges’ partisan affiliations and their votes in religious freedom cases from 2016-2020. Over these five years, judges appointed by Republican presidents voted in support of religious litigants 49% of the time and of this group, those appointed by president Trump did so 72% of the time. In stark contrast, only 10% of Democrat-appointed judges’ votes were cast in favor of religious litigants. According to Rothschild’s study, this partisan divide was even more extreme for cases involving pandemic-related restrictions on houses of worship. This close correlation between party and judicial opinion is a departure from even recent history. Studies show that, between 1996 and 2015, there was only a very weak relationship between judges’ political affiliations and their voting record on religious exercise. Said Rothschild, “The politicization of religious freedom has infiltrated every level of the federal judiciary.” This politicization extends, in sharply pronounced fashion, to the nation’s highest court. Recent iterations of the Supreme Court have witnessed a steady increase in favorability toward religion, according to a study to be published in the Supreme Court Review. The current Roberts court is the most pro-religion court in recent memory, ruling in favor of the religious party in 81% of orally-argued religious liberty cases. The content of religious exercise cases has evolved in tandem with changes in judicial partisanship. While many historical religious freedom cases have set precedents protecting minority groups, since the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in favor of gay marriage, most religious freedom complaints have been brought by Christian groups in opposition to progressive social policies. With the five most pro-religion justices in the past 70 years sitting on the current Supreme Court, the trend of judicial favorability to religious causes is likely to continue.
Biden and the Taliban
With the May 1st deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan nearing, Biden’s first major foreign policy failure is on the horizon according to Asfandyar Mir, postdoctoral fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). This deadline was established as part of a deal by which the Taliban will limit its operations and disassociate with terror groups in return for a withdrawal of U.S. forces as well as the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners and the lifting of U.N. sanctions. While criticizing the Taliban for failing to comply with its part of the agreement, the Biden administration has not announced whether or not it intends to honor its troop withdrawal deadline. This decision places Biden in a particularly tough dilemma, as an early withdrawal could enable a resurgent Taliban to create a human rights disaster, undermining Biden’s policy of holding states accountable to a “rules based international order.” In fact, former National Security Advisor and present Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution H. R. McMaster cited just this possibility and the requisite U.S. reengagement in Afghanistan that would follow. Instead, McMaster proposes that the Biden administration formulate a new agreement “grounded in four realities,” including that the Taliban has retained its links with other terrorist groups despite pledges to renounce these, and that Pakistan will not cease its support of the Taliban unless the United States makes the costs of doing so more than Pakistan is willing to bear. In addition, McMaster stressed the need for the U.S. to continue strengthening Afghanistan militarily and encouraging broader international support in promoting economic reform and development to ensure a lasting and stable peace in the nation. McMaster further warns that the cost of continuing to support the Afghan government will be far less than another U.S. intervention in the nation stemming from a failed peace.
And in case you missed it…
Stanford Researchers Develop Injectable Gel that Could Enhance Delivery of COVID-19 Vaccine (Nesamoney | Stanford Daily)
China’s Dangerous Double Game in North Korea (Skylar-Mastro | Foreign Affairs)
Hackers leak Social Security numbers, student data in massive data breach (Wu and Catania | Stanford Daily)
Smartphone Location Data Can Leave Out Those Most Hit by Covid-19 (Bhattacharyya | Wall Street Journal)
About the Authors
Noah Howard ’22 is pursuing majors in Economics and International Relations with a minor in Iranian Studies. Living in Washington D.C., he is currently writing a thesis about the role of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard in Iranian Politics.
Jackson Vachal ’22 is pursuing majors in Political Science and Philosophy, with a focus on democratic theory. A San Francisco native, he is interested in social entrepreneurship and nonprofit advocacy work.