No images? Click here 19 MAYCeasefire showdownWith tensions escalating in the Middle East, President Biden’s “foreign policy for the middle class” is being put to the test. United States Studies Centre (USSC) Research Associate Victoria Cooper and Senior Research Fellow Jared Mondschein provided analysis of Biden’s evolving approach to foreign policy in light of developments in Israel in an op-ed in the Sydney Morning Herald this week. You can read an extract below. Since that was written, President Biden pushed for a ceasefire in calls with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. But this was more a nudge than a demand. Members of the UN Security Council have also revealed that the United States vetoed resolutions to call for a ceasefire twice in the past week. With growing pressure from progressive Democrats to take a firmer stance, the Biden administration’s priority to 'Build Back Better' at home will be put to the test. NEWS WRAPMask up or mask off?
![]() In both calls the President made this weekend, he underscored his strong commitment to a negotiated two-state solution as the best path to reach a just and lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ANALYSISGaza unrest gets in way of Biden’s foreign policy goalVictoria Cooper As Israel conducts the largest offensive operation in Gaza since at least 2014, the words of Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton creep into mind like an uncomfortable oracle: “It’s clear that Biden’s focus – and I don’t disagree with it politically – is domestic ... [but] that will change. Because it always does.” After speaking to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Joe Biden expressed his “expectation and hope that this will be closing down sooner than later”. The lack of American activity in this comment reflects his administration’s eagerness to fight the propulsive draw of crises in the Middle East. Instead, he is trying to maintain a level of stability in the region that will not distract him from his other priorities both at home and in the Indo-Pacific. Unlike past administrations, Biden’s foreign policy team is weighted towards the Indo-Pacific. His National Security Council is now filled with considerably more experts on this region than on the Middle East. And Australian foreign policy watchers have been reassured by Biden’s emphasis on the Indo-Pacific, given an increasingly assertive China. But the escalation of conflict overnight between Israel and Palestine reflects just how difficult it will be for Biden to treat the Middle East like any other region outside of Asia: that is, to not prioritise it. Biden is not the first President to come to the White House with plans to do less overseas. In 1992, Bill Clinton said, “foreign policy is not what I came here to do” until his presidency was earmarked by an unfulfilled peace agreement at Camp David and humiliation in Somalia. In 2000, George W. Bush triumphantly declared that the US foreign policy agenda was freed and “no longer fighting a great enemy” until the September 11 attacks the next year, which would eventually result in the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned on a platform that was critical of US foreign policy overreach and pledged to return US troops home, until he came to the Oval Office and increased the total number of US troops in the region. In 2016, Trump declared that US interventions meant “the legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions will be weakness, confusion and disarray, a mess”, yet as president he never fully withdrew US forces from Afghanistan. Biden has spent the first 100 days of his presidency carefully trying to enact a “foreign policy for the middle class”, one that determines foreign policies from the interests of the average American. For Biden, this includes ending “the forever wars” and peeling back from the Middle East. No single foreign policy accomplishment of the administration’s first 100 days makes this clearer than the announcement on April 14 that the US would withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021. Now, the escalation in conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians presents an all too familiar knee-jerk test. Will Biden’s “foreign policy for the middle class” resist the reflex kick of unilateral overreach as the hammer hits his knee? This is an excerpt from an article by Victoria Cooper and Jared Mondschein DID YOU USSC?THE LATEST FROM USSC EXPERTSARTICLEBitcoin and dogecoin head to the moon. What’s the future of crypto? INTERVIEWRemoving Republican Liz Cheney from her position was brutal politics IN THE NEWSUS will not desert Australia in dispute with China, Blinken says ![]() BY THE NUMBERSLow correlation between minimum wage and unemploymentSarah Hamilton Despite efforts from Democrats to raise the minimum wage to US$15 an hour, the US federal minimum wage of US$7.25 an hour has not increased since 2009. Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia (DC) have taken the lead and raised their minimum wage. Currently the highest amounts are in DC at US$15 an hour and Washington at US$13.50. For states with no set minimum wage or a wage below the federal minimum, like Georgia and Alabama, the federal minimum wage applies. While many critics argue raising a minimum wage increases unemployment, there is no strong correlation between states' current unemployment rate and their minimum wage. In March 2021, the total US unemployment rate stood at 6.1 per cent. Hawaii had the highest unemployment rate at nine per cent and a minimum wage of US$10.10 an hour. Florida and Washington on the other hand, have higher minimum wages than the federal average but currently, lower unemployment rates at just 4.7 and 5.4 per cent each. VIDEO | SOTUS 2021Keynote address by
|