Securing Democracy Dispatch
Last week’s visit to Beijing by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has generated a flurry of reactions, not least from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) itself. In a series of pointed critiques, PRC diplomats and state-controlled media outlets have taken a stance, clearly indicating the strained nature of US-China relations. Before Blinken’s arrival, PRC leader Xi Jinping made a public call, stressing the bilateral responsibility of both nations towards ensuring global peace. However, Xi was also quick to highlight that cooperation between the two superpowers must be reciprocal—a “two-way street.”
In a direct rebuttal to US concerns over the PRC’s economic policies, particularly those related to overcapacity, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs delivered a pithy response, suggesting the real problem lay with a “US overcapacity of anxiety”. This remark underscores the deep-seated tensions and differing perspectives defining the current US-China relationship.
On the home front, the security of US elections has become a paramount concern, drawing attention from both the public and election officials alike. A comprehensive survey conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice explored the landscape of election security, consulting 928 local election officials on the measures taken since the tumultuous 2020 elections. The findings are striking: 92% of the offices surveyed reported significant strides in bolstering election security and the safety of election staff. This exhaustive endeavor spans implementing advanced cybersecurity protocols, updating critical election equipment, and fortifying the physical security parameters of voting locations.
Despite these efforts, concerns linger. The specter of threats and harassment against election workers remains, coupled with a prevailing sense of unease regarding the adequacy of resources for addressing both routine administrative tasks and specialized security challenges. David Levine, a Senior Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, voices a sobering perspective on the situation: “US election officials continue to do their part to ensure a successful 2024 election.” Levine points out the notable rise in protective measures encompassing cybersecurity defences for election technology, heightened security at election offices and polling places, and stronger ties with law enforcement agencies to secure election personnel and voters.
However, Levine emphasizes a critical gap in the current setup: public engagement and support. To guarantee that votes in the forthcoming 2024 election are counted and secured against threats—whether they originate from within the country or from external adversaries—it is imperative for the American populace to play a more active role. This means rallying behind the very individuals tasked with counting those votes, ensuring their safety and operational capacity in the face of malfeasance from any quarter.
The core message emerging from these developments is clear. While diplomatic frictions and the quest for election integrity may appear as distinct issues, they both underscore the complex challenges faced by democracies today. In the arena of international politics or the domain of domestic governance, the underlying theme is the pursuit of stability, security, and mutual respect. As the US navigates its diplomatic tensions with China and strives to fortify its electoral processes, the road ahead demands vigilance, cooperation, and a shared commitment to safeguarding the principles of democracy.
