Foreign Policy

Most Americans have never heard of Edward Miliband. And given this week’s result in the U.K. elections it is very likely they never will. After a crushing defeat he has already resigned as leader of the Labour Party and is poised to return to the Wallace & Gromit animated films from which he seems to have been discovered. His electoral failure and that of his party once again proves the old electoral adage that unappealing leaders and incompetent campaigns often produce bad results.

That’s not to take anything away from David Cameron, whose Conservative Party won a resounding victory that was so surprising that not only has it left Miliband out of a job, but in all likelihood he has taken scores of U.K. pollsters with him. Cameron stunned the pundits to a degree that echoes the recent electoral victory of Bibi Netanyahu in the elections in Israel, the country that along with the U.K. has historically had the greatest claim on having a special relationship with the United States.

Both elections however, suggest on several levels that those special relationships, neither of which has been what it used to be during the past several years, are in for a period of further decline.

In part, the decline in the relationships has been due to historical reasons that have made both countries less important to the United States. The United Kingdom is a shadow of its former self, the sun long ago having defied the old saying and actually having set on the former empire. British school children no longer study maps that show a quarter of the world in red or pink to depict the lands loyal to their monarch. Even Britain’s last great claim on global domination — in the area of TV car shows — suffered a devastating blow this year when “Top Gear,” broadcast in 214 countries with an audience of hundreds of millions, saw its blowhard, politically troglodyte host Jeremy Clarkson unceremoniously booted off the air for behaving like an ass, thus shutting down production.

Perhaps the fact that puts this decline in clearest focus is the steep decline in the size of the British Army. With cuts slated to take it from 102,000 to 82,000 regulars and a recent report suggesting that further cuts could reduce it in size to 50,000 within a few years, we face the prospect that in the not too distant future the military that once conquered the world will be roughly the same size as the New York Police Department. (A promise of Cameron and the Tories was that they would stop such cuts from taking place, but whether Britain’s financial health — more on that later — will permit them to honor that pledge is another matter.)

Similarly, whereas a generation ago Israel was seen as central to U.S. Mideast policy, today, while it is still America’s most important and best-supported ally in the region, events have undercut its importance in practical terms. Once it was key to the U.S. Cold War strategy in the region, but the Cold War ended. Once the Middle East was more important to the United States as a source of energy, but that is clearly less true today than at any time since the Second World War. Once the Israel-Palestine conflict was seen as central to all the problems and geopolitical issues of the region; now that is far from being the case. Indeed, that issue, once number one among U.S. regional priorities, might have a hard time making the top ten today. (Coming in after: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, containing Iran, the Iranian nuclear deal, the spread of extremism, the current crisis in Yemen, the looming crisis in Libya, Egyptian stability, maintaining eroding support among our traditional Arab allies, and a host of other such issues.)

Further, both special relationships are fading in the minds and hearts of Americans as a new generation starts assuming power, one that has few memories of the historical reasons for the founding of Israel or of Britain’s vital partnership with the United States in two world wars.

Part of the deterioration in these two relationships has to do with policy decisions made by the governments that have just won second terms in power. The U.S.-Israel relationship sure doesn’t feel that special when the prime minister of Israel tries to politically body-slam the U.S. president. It is devalued when the prime minister of Israel appears to choose sides in the U.S. political debate, seeming to be willing to save his specialness for his Republican friends. And it is certainly deeply damaged when Israel wages a brutal and unjustifiable campaign against the people of Gaza that violates international norms and offends the sensibilities of all with a hint of conscience, as the Netanyahu government did last year.

Britain has not so much offended as it has simply slinked away from center stage. Perhaps in the wake of British public revulsion at the degree to which Tony Blair was seen to have become George W. Bush’s “poodle,” perhaps due to the degree to which national attention has been drawn to domestic problems, we have seen a reordering of the power landscape of Europe. Britain, once our closest and most important ally, now falls third on that scale behind Germany (more important) and France (more supportive of the United States in recent years). Add in the belligerent, erratic, dangerous Vladimir Putin and a newly aggressive Russia, and Britain is now only the fourth most important power with which the United States regularly deals in Europe.

The fact that Britain’s role in Europe will now be open to question for months to come, thanks to Cameron’s pledge to hold a referendum regarding whether Britain should remain a part of the EU, only makes further deterioration more likely. That is because the doubt the referendum is likely to raise may have deleterious effects on the British economy. It is also because there is a possibility that Britain could choose to leave the EU. This would be economically foolish and would take the country from being an important player in the world’s largest market to being a more marginal independent actor. Further, should Scotland renew the push to breakaway from the United Kingdom, and the election results showed huge strides made by the Scottish National Party, it would clearly make a Not-So-Great Britain more likely.

Given the likelihood of President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal being successfully concluded and the U.S. administration’s commitment to ensuring that is the case, the prospect for further bad relations between Netanyahu and the White House is great. This alienation will have multiple effects, many of which have already manifested themselves to some degree. The Israelis will seek to diversify their international alliances, reaching out to India, China, Russia, and others. And the United States will seek to emphasize and cultivate other ties in the region (whether that means with Iran or with GCC partners is unclear…. Both seem unlikely, but at the same time both may expect greater efforts at outreach from Washington even as Israel sees a further chill.)

None of this is improved upon by some of the behavior and policies of the Obama administration. It doesn’t help, for example, to call the Israeli prime minister “chickenshit,” or to get drawn into petulant exchanges with the Israelis more suited to the schoolyard than to statecraft. Matters have not been helped by America’s shying away from playing the leadership role that is expected of the United States nor by the inconsistent nature of Obama’s personal diplomacy with our friends abroad. And frankly, the likelihood of the Obama team spending much real time repairing these problems during their waning days in office is pretty slim.

Will the next U.S. president aggressively seek to reverse the course of these once-crucial but now-declining relationships cited here? Undoubtedly candidates for that job will certainly promise to do so in the months ahead. But the historical factors and current geopolitical trends cited above will make it very hard for anyone to restore these relationships to the special place they occupied in the past. For Cameron and Netanyahu and their new governments, this is a reality they may wish to deny but that they will find it very difficult to reverse.

BEN STANSALL/AFP/Getty Images

In early 2014, Nigerian-Cameroonian pop singer Dencia launched Whitenicious, a line of skin-care products and lightening creams. She called the products dark-spot removers and argued they were intended not to bleach users’ entire skin tone but to address small dark blemishes that left skin looking uneven.

Her controversial product line is now one of many, including Fair & White and Divine Derrière, that will likely be deemed illegal in Ivory Coast, where the government passed legislation to ban most bleaching creams on Thursday. In addition to their social controversy, the creams have a record of severely burning skin, and medical experts widely consider them to be carcinogenic.

Ivory Coast is not the first country to take action against the products. In South Africa, products with more than 2% hydroquinone — a whitening agent — have been illegal since the 1980s.

Polls published by the World Health Organization found that in some African countries, including Nigeria and Togo, the majority of women use some form of skin-whitening product.

But even if they are increasingly popular, the reaction from Dencia’s fans proved there is a growing movement against the popularity of these products. She faced public backlash after she openly stated that she thinks “white means pure” and went back and forth in interviews on whether she herself had used lightening creams to change her look.

Fans argue that photos prove her skin has become significantly lighter since she first rose to stardom, and many saw the launch of Whitenicious as her using her fame to encourage young women to regard her chemically induced whiteness, not her natural blackness, as beauty.

And the explanation behind the name Whitenicious? Dencia offered her take in an interview with Ebony magazine last year: “When you see Whitenicious, you see the container, you see the product, obviously you’re thinking this is gonna work, right? That’s what you’re thinking.”

In that same Ebony interview, she bragged that another passenger on an international flight complimented her skin and asked if she was Puerto Rican. But when asked if she regarded dark skin to be an obstacle, she said she thought dark was “beautiful.” Her products cost upward of $150 for a small container.

The lightening creams, which in all fairness can also effectively reduce the effects of hyperpigmentation, have become so popular that the industry is now estimated to be worth billions of dollars. In January, Oprah Winfrey’s television network released a documentary about the industry, featuring those who were victims of its harmful side effects.

But ask Dencia about her product’s risk, and she’ll tell you it’s worth it.

“Guess what?” she said.  “The air you breathe outside causes you cancer. Everything in the world causes cancer.”

SIA KAMBOU/AFP/Getty Images

The bipartisan push for passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is akin to epic dramas where competing leaders set aside their quarrels to join forces when the fate of the realm is in the balance. President Barack Obama and Republicans have locked arms to break down barriers that threaten our economic vitality and global leadership. Both the president and congressional leaders must skillfully outmaneuver undermining forces on each of their flanks to achieve victory.

For 75 years, America has heeded past lessons that rejecting the benefits of trade prolongs economic misery. The Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in 1930 sparked retaliatory duties that drove a drastic reduction in U.S. exports that deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. We cannot let their protectionist successors similarly prolong the Great Recession.

President Obama joins an unbroken string of Democratic presidents that have successfully championed trade. Both he and Republicans face hurdles in delivering the votes necessary to extend this record.

Republicans must overcome dissenters in their ranks that are loathe to grant this president any more authority or perceive a hidden plot to open up immigration.

The president must surmount determined opposition within his party. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), fabricates more trade monsters than a Halloween costume factory. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is being bipartisan in his own unique way: opposing Obama with the same zeal that he opposed Republican presidents.

While Republicans will have to carry most of the water on this deal, Democratic votes will be pivotal. President Bill Clinton mustered 102 Democrat votes for the North American Free Trade Agreement. President Obama is no Bill Clinton. Sadly, given her absence from this historic trade debate, neither is Hillary Clinton.

With 432 House seats now filled, 217 votes will be needed in the House. Recent estimates suggest that only 180 to 200 of the 244 Republicans can be counted on for support. Fewer than 20 Democrats in the House have backed TPA so far, leaving its fate in question.

With Reid’s challenges in the Senate, 60 votes will be required to overcome procedural hurdles. If all 54 Republicans stick together against Reid’s challenge, they will need at least six Democrat votes. Even though seven Democrats supported TPA in committee, most are not saying if they will reject Reid’s leadership and vote to allow the bill to proceed to the Senate floor.

With all of that math in mind, it’s essential to remember they key components of assembling for battle on any issue: determining they paramount questions of what, where, who, and how in such a way that your answer is the best conclusion for crucial audiences to draw.

What

Those who define the question at hand win political contests. Answering the other side’s question is playing on their turf. You must establish the supremacy of your question.

Opponents of trade liberalization try to make the question some particular detail of the deal. The recent refrain of Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) is typical, “I tell everybody the same thing: I’m pro-trade, but…” The general rule in politics is to ignore everything before a “but.”

Obama has rightly focused on taking the debate to a higher level, asserting that no matter the imperfections of this deal, the alternative is far worse.

His question from the State of the Union frames the issue well, “as we speak, China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and businesses at a disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We should write those rules. We should level the playing field.”

The president has also rightly kept the focus on how trade benefits America’s workers and the middle class.

Where

Today’s contentiousness requires a strong outside game, speaking out publically about the merits of a deal, and a dedicated inside game through individual meetings with undecided members. This president prefers the former to the latter, but in this instance both are essential.

Who

United States Trade Representative Michael Froman has assured me that regular cabinet huddles are occurring on TPA and the entire administration’s shoulder is pressed to the wheel. That is excellent, but no substitute for presidential leadership.

Clearly Republican leadership and the coalition of groups that have historically advocated for trade must also be fully engaged if the coalition resisting passage is to be overcome.

How

Obama’s bold public statements rejecting determined opposition from within his own party are an essential element of building public support. His discussions with House and Senate members on the fence at the White House reflect this commitment to aggressively build Congressional approval. It must continue.

America’s embrace of trade following World War II drove its rise to global leadership. Continuing to push for trade liberalization is essential to preserving our ability to continue to be the stabilizing force that averts anarchy.

Completing pending trade agreements in both Asia and Europe would strengthen each region’s commitment to the global order and boost our allies’ economic prospects, while boosting opportunities for American workers, our middle class. Not passing these accords would be seen as America raising a white flag. May this epic saga instead have a happy ending!

 Natalie Behring/Getty Images

Vadim Makhorov and Vitaliy Raskalov are two of my favorite lunatics in the world right now. They travel the world and illicitly scale tall buildings, videotaping and photographing their journeys. I’ve written about their adventures before, and the climbing pair have a new video out documenting their climb of what will be China’s tallest building. It’s harrowing and totally amazing.

When completed, the Ping An Finance Center in Shenzhen will be the world’s second-highest skyscraper, behind only the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Makhorov and Raskalov’s climb took place over Chinese New Year, explaining why the construction site was totally deserted at the time of their summit. Presumably, the building’s owners will be none too pleased when they find out that these Russian daredevils made it not only to the building’s roof and then proceeded to climb to the top of the crane being used to build it.

YouTube/on the roofs