Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1NC
States want prior binding implementation consultation
and cooperation from the USFG
Dunlop 5
Becky Norton, Vice President of External Relations at the Heritage foundation, specializing in Federalism,
environmental regulation, and property rights, Improve the Environment Leave it to the states and the people,
speech given 4/20/05, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Improve-Environment.cfm, accessed 6/28/09
What are some of the environmental challenges that we are looking at today and what do we see
happening in Washington D.C.? One of the good things is that the EPA has devolved more
authority to the states on environmental issues. They have recognized the fact that there is no
race to the bottom of the environmental barrel in the states. In every state, people want to
have clean air and clean water. So EPA has turned over increasing amounts of authority to
state officials. There is another side to the devolution coin, however. Oftentimes, EPA is simply
making state officials administrative agents of the federal government. The job of state
environmental officials is to look out for their own citizens, to improve the quality of the
environment for their particular state or locality. You dont want them to become the agent
of some other entity, which has a point of view with which they disagree. So there are two
sides to that coin of sending more responsibility to the states. We need to keep working to
make certain that Congress takes action to return not only more enforcement responsibility
but also more program authority.
The court began its analysis by stating that courts are traditionally reluctant to exercise
federal preemption of a state law, and that such action is to be considered "strong
medicine." n283 In passing, the court also mentioned that this is even more true when the
federal program is one of "cooperative federalism," where " "coordinated state and federal
efforts exist within a complementary ... framework.' " n284 Though the court delved no
further into the idea of "cooperative federalism," the United States Supreme Court case of New
York Department of Social Services v. Dublino n285 offers interesting parallels to the
Concannon case. In Dublino, a group of public assistance recipients filed suit against New
York's welfare department, challenging the constitutionality of a New York Social Welfare
Law under the Supremacy Clause. n286 The plaintiffs claimed that the federal law
(encompassed within the work incentive program provisions of the 1967 amendments to the
Social Security Act) preempted the New York statute. n287 Both statutes benefits provisions for
families with dependent children, provided that the parents were employable. n288 The New York
law, however, had more stringent work requirements than the federal law, providing the impetus
for the lawsuit. n289 [*1160] Under the terms of the federal law, states were given broad
discretion in dispersing their Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) resources. n290
As in the federal Medicaid program, the states were expected to set their own eligibility
requirements and to determine the different levels of benefits. n291 Despite this discretion
granted to the states, the plaintiffs argued that New York had nonetheless stepped beyond the
boundaries of the federal statute. n292 The Court held that in this sort of "cooperative
federalism" relationship between the state and federal government, the standard for a facial
challenge to a statute is a high one. n293 According to the Court, "Congress "has given the
States broad discretion' [under the AFDC program] ... and "(s)o long as the State's actions are not
in violation of any specific provision of the Constitution or the Social Security Act,' the courts
may not void them." n294 The Court also stated that "[it] has repeatedly refused to void state
statutory programs, absent congressional intent to pre-empt them." n295 It took special note of
the fact that New York's intentions were admirable, and that the state was attempting to
correct the major societal problems of rampant unemployment and need. n296 The Court
stated that "the problems confronting our society in these areas are severe, and state
governments, in cooperation with the Federal Government, must be allowed considerable
latitude in attempting their resolution." n297
compromise with Russia, but as a proposal that conforms with the European Charter of Local
Self Government. And this Charter accords with at least one of the Russian demands: It calls for
localities to have the ability to elect "councils or assemblies composed of members freely elected
by secret ballot on the basis of direct, equal, universal suffrage." While the devil will be in the
details of Ukrainian federalization, there does seem to be some room for negotiation on this point.
As to the nationalist fear that Federalism means national disintegration: this is not true.
Federalism would only mean national disintegration if the Ukrainian government in Kiev
continued to demonstrate to the world that it is incompetent and incapable of governing. If
the Kiev government cannot govern, if Ukraine is indeed so splintered and barbaric as to be
incapable of self-government, if we continue to see Ukrainians on the streets beating one
another, Ukrainian members of parliament beating one another, oligarchs vying for power
and attempting to suck Europe, Russia and America into a wider conflict to serve their own
interests, then I humbly submit that perhaps Federalism would offer the only peaceful
resolution of the inevitable disintegration of Ukraine which is possible . Then, Kiev and Lvov
can vote to return to Poland (and thus the EU) while Eastern and Southern cities can vote to
return to Russia. If there are true Ukrainian patriots in the country committed to peaceful
existence rather than brawling in the streets, they can have they own nation state as well. So
long as people vote in a peaceful election, so long as order and liberty are respected, why is
territorial integrity a priority? Why not make peace and freedom a priority instead? It is another
matter altogether whether Europe and Russia can even manage to absorb such a fractured country
and calm its nascent violent factions. Of course, no matter what the political remedy
undertaken, none will work unless there is a concerted effort by Russia, America and
Europe to deflate the crisis for the common good, rather than escalate it by playing Ukrainians
off of one another, inciting faction and violence and pursuing narrow policies which serve narrow
and short term interests. To my mind, this is the present policy of the West: they work towards
the easy task of inciting revolution and then naively hope another election will miraculously
resolve the problems they created. Russia, by proposing Federalism for Ukraine, is making a
serious attempt at a settlement. President Putin has demonstrated himself to be extremely well
educated and predictable as a Statesman. We would assume an American President would
know enough about the benefits of Federalism to at least consider it and perhaps
recommend it to the Ukrainian revolutionaries who now reach out to American taxpayers
for billions of dollars. Then again, we would assume President Obama would understand the
recent history of Kosovo, or have advisors who understood it. Ignorance, it seems, is the prelude
to crisis and war. Alas, the XX century seems to continue. When Isaac Asimov said that the XXI
century would be guided by one ideano more XXth centuries! he was apparently engaging in
wishful thinking. Time will tell.
Seth Baum is Executive Director of the think tank Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. He recently
completed a Ph.D. in Geography at Pennsylvania State University and a Post-Doctoral
Fellowship with the Columbia University Center for Research on Environmental Decisions.
Based in New York City, Baum's research covers a variety of topics including ethics, economics,
climate change, nuclear war, and life in the universe.
No one yet knows how the Ukraine crisis will play out. Indeed, the whole story is a lesson in the
perils of prediction. Already we have a classic: "Putin's Bluff? U.S. Spies Say Russia Won't
Invade Ukraine," published February 27, just as Russian troops were entering Crimea. But
considering the best and worst cases highlights some important opportunities to make the most of
the situation. Here's the short version: The best case scenario has the Ukraine crisis being
resolved diplomatically through increased Russia-Europe cooperation, which would be a big
step towards world peace . The worst case scenario has the crisis escalating into nuclear war
between the U nited S tates and Russia, causing human extinction. Let's start with the worst
case scenario, nuclear war involving the American and Russian arsenals. How bad would that be?
Put it this way: Recent analysis finds that a "limited" India-Pakistan nuclear war could kill two
billion people via agricultural declines from nuclear winter. This "limited" war involves just 100
nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Russia combine to possess about 16,700 nuclear weapons.
Humanity may not survive the aftermath of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war. It seems rather unlikely
that the U.S. and Russia would end up in nuclear war over Ukraine. Sure, they have opposing
positions, but neither side has anywhere near enough at stake to justify such extraordinary
measures. Instead, it seems a lot more likely that the whole crisis will get resolved with a
minimum of deaths. However, the story has already taken some surprising plot twists. We
cannot rule out the possibility of it ending in direct nuclear war. A nuclear war could also
occur inadvertently, i.e. when a false alarm is misinterpreted as real, and nuclear weapons are
launched in what is believed to be a counterattack. There have been several alarmingly close calls
of inadvertent U.S.-Russia nuclear war over the years. Perhaps the most relevant is the 1995
Norwegian rocket incident. A rocket carrying scientific equipment was launched off northern
Norway. Russia detected the rocket on its radar and interpreted it as a nuclear attack. Its own
nuclear forces were put on alert and Boris Yeltsin was presented the question of whether to launch
Russia's nuclear weapons in response. Fortunately, Yeltsin and the Russian General Staff
apparently sensed it was a false alarm and declined to launch. Still, the disturbing lesson from this
incident is that nuclear war could begin even during periods of calm. With the Ukraine crisis,
the situation today is not calm. It is even more tense than last year , when the United States
was considering military intervention in Syria.
**Gen
Consulting K2 Solvency
Consulting The States key to Cooperative Federalism.
Nash 5/30
Jonathan R. Nash. "Keeping Cooperation in Cooperative Federalism."TheHill. N.p., 30 May 2014. Web. 30 June 2014.
<http://g.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/207683-keeping-cooperation-in-cooperative-federalism>.
Nash is professor of law at Emory University School of Law. He specializes in the study of courts and judges, federal
courts and federal jurisdiction, legislation and regulation, and environmental law
Some regulatory regimes are "cooperative federalism" regimes, under which the federal and
state governments work together to achieve federal regulatory goals. Cooperative federalism
regimes offer two substantial benefits: They improve federal-state relations by empowering
states to act under federal law, and they allow society to reap the benefit of state innovation
instead of having one federal law preempt the field. In short, cooperative federalism regimes
are invaluable when they work well. Yet, in a part of the opinion that hasn't garnered much
attention, the Supreme Court's April decision in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer
City Generation sheds light on a design flaw in the statute that most prominently features
cooperative federalism the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act may be structured,
counterintuitively and unhelpfully, to discourage state participation. The Clean Air Act divides
responsibility for implementation between the federal and state governments. In general, the
federal government sets goals (both through statute and regulation), and the states are free
to choose a regulatory approach so long as those goals are attained. If a state fails to submit a
state implementation plan (SIP) that is designed to meet those goals, then the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) can call for appropriate amendments, and if such amendments
do not materialize after a two-year period institute its own federal implementation plan
(FIP). The FIP option displaces state freedom of choice, and arises only where the state fails to
fulfill its obligations on its own within the two-year period. One application of cooperative
federalism under the Clean Air Act is the implementation of the act's "good neighbor provision,"
under which "upwind" states that are producers of pollution are required to develop SIPs that
protect "downwind" states from that pollution. In the years leading up to Homer, the EPA had
found upwind states' SIPs inadequate, only to have the courts reject the EPA's proposed
interpretation of the good neighbor provision. Then, in 2011, the EPA promulgated a new
regulatory approach and simultaneously issued FIPs to implement that approach. The upwind
states argued and Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent agreed that it was unfair for the EPA
to issue a FIP at the very same time that it announced its revised interpretation of the
relevant statute. Shouldn't the state be given an opportunity to comply with the newly
announced federal interpretation before a FIP is issued? However, Justice Ruth Ginsburg's
opinion for the court flatly held that EPA was within its rights. One might think that the EPA
correctly assessed that the upwind states in the Homer case had had a long time to come into
compliance with the Clean Air Act's good neighbor provision, and the years of recalcitrance
balanced the loss of a final opportunity to do what the act directed. However, the Supreme Court's
holding goes beyond that: Since more than two years had elapsed since the original finding
that the upwind states' SIPs were inadequate, the EPA was obligated to issue FIPs. After
Homer, then, it seems that the Clean Air Act affords the EPA no discretion to give states that have
acted in good faith a window within which to comply with a newly announced federal standard
when the original finding that the states were out of compliance is more than two years old. This
makes little sense. While it seems logical to give the federal government the leeway not to
provide a window for state compliance with a new standard where the federal government
adjudges that a state has not acted in good faith, it nevertheless seems that the federal
government should have the leeway to provide such a window where a state has acted in
good faith and realistically could not guess what standard the federal government would in
the end promulgate. Cooperative federalism should reward cooperative behavior, not punish
it. Cooperative federalism regimes rest on governmental cooperation. States won't waste the
time to draft their own proposals if they expect the federal government to do what it wants in
the end anyway. That's to no one's benefit: States lose a little sovereignty, while we all lose out on
the benefits of state regulatory innovation. Cooperative federalism regimes should be designed to
foster cooperation, not discourage it. Congress should amend the Clean Air Act to remedy this
problem, and should consider the importance of fostering cooperation when it designs new
cooperative federalism regimes.
As one senator has stated, without effective enforcement, environmental protection lacks
meaning, lacks truth, lacks reality.13 Indeed, environmental statutes are only effective to
the extent that they are enforced. Any standard set by statute or regulation, if not
enforced, acts merely as a recommendation. To facilitate the massive task of ensuring
compliance with environmental laws, Congress created a parallel enforcement regime
consisting of both agency and citizen enforcement.14 Congress hoped that citizen suits
would supplement government action at times when a lack of resources or political
considerations would prevent agencies from detecting violations or enforcing the law.15 In fact,
citizen suit provisions have been called sustenance to a starving agency16 and the
essential backbone of environmental regulation.17 Congress intended that
environmental laws would be enforced through a dual regime consisting of both
government and citizen enforcement.18 This part will explain these two components and the
theories supporting each, first by discussing the cooperative federalist approach to regulation
and enforcement, and later by examining the structure and purpose of citizen suit
provisions.
appeal to a degree of dual federalism. The failure of President Bill Clinton's national health care
initiatives is a perfect example of an area of politics that the people feel is best held more closely,
in spite of some of the benefits of a national system.
budget of the Corps have significant impact on maritime trade: Construction The President's budget requests $1.48 billion for the Construction account.
This is $210 million less than the FY 2011 annualized Continuing Resolution of
$1.69 billion. These funds are used for the construction of river and harbor,
flood damage reduction, shore protection, environmental restoration, and
related projects specifically authorized or made available for selection by law.
Almost half of this budget request is for flood damage reduction projects.
However, more alarming is that approximately $470 million are for ecosystem
restoration projects that provide Rule or no economic benefits, while
navigation projects would only receive $280 million. Operation and
Maintenance - The President's budget also requests $2.314 billion for
expenses necessary for the preservation, operation, maintenance, and care
of existing river and harbor, flood control and related projects. This is $47
million less than the FY 2011 annualized Continuing Resolution of $2.361
billion. The budget would use only $691 million from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund resulting in an increase in the estimated balance from $6.12 billion
to $6.93 billion at the end of FY 2012. In addition, while proposing paltry
amounts be appropriated from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the
President's budget proposes to expand the authorized purposes of the fund
for activities not typically associated with the Corps of Engineers
maintenance of navigation channels. Among the persistent barriers to trade,
legislation that would support maritime trade would allow non-federal project
sponsors to supply more capital to navigation projects without having to wait
on the appropriations process. Re-authorizations, permanent policy
South Carolina leaders have announced that state funding of maintenance dredging for the
Port of Georgetown has been approved as part of its $18 million budget. The total cost of the
project, which will increase the depth of the channel to 27 feet, is $33.5 million and the balance
of the funding will come from federal and local funds, as well as the states Ports Authority.
Sen. Yancey McGill, speaking on behalf of Sen. Ray Cleary, Rep. Carl Anderson, and Rep.
Stephen Goldfinch, announced June 16 that the states Fiscal Year 2015 budget included $5
million for the dredging project and promises $2.6 million in each of the next five years. He
added that the dredging project will take four years and port renovations are being planned as
well. McGill said, I want to express my appreciation for their cooperation and assistance to
the Georgetown County Council, the City of Georgetown, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Tim
Scott, Rep. Jim Clyburn, Rep. Tom Rice, Sen. Hugh Leatherman, Jim Newsome and the South
Carolina Ports Authority, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources,
and Tim Tilley, Vida Miller, [Georgetown County Administrator] Sel Hemingway, Jim Jerow and
Mayor [Jack] Scoville of the Georgetown Dredging Task Force. To secure new capital
investment and job creation, we must grow and invest in our economy. This project will
promote both commerce and tourism in our state. Finally, the Charleston and Georgetown
state ports are moving forward for dredging. Tilley, chair of the Task Force, said he is proud of
the local legislative delegation and the General Assembly for taking this big step toward making
the dredging project a reality. This is a step in the process required for us to obtain complete
funding for the port dredging, Tilley said. Im very excited that the state, through our
local delegation, has shown their willingness to protect this state asset. He said the next
steps in the process involve obtaining federal funding and local funding. Earlier this month,
the federal government passed the Water Resources Reform and Development Act
(WRRDA) with language that will make it easier for small ports like Georgetown to receive
funding. Rice, who was instrumental in the passing of the WRRDA, said he applauds state
leaders for their hard work on South Carolinas budget and recognizing the economic potential of
the Georgetown Port. This port is key to maintaining our states competitiveness. By
funding the dredging of this canal, South Carolina has sent a clear signal to our federal
appropriators the Palmetto State is serious about deepening the Georgetown Port and
furthering its competitive edge, Rice said. For the local portion of the project funding,
Georgetown County leaders have appointed a commission to develop a referendum question
for a one-cent Capital Projects Sales Tax. One of the five projects for the sales tax funds will
be the $6 million local portion of the dredging project funding. Hemingway, who has been
leading the Capital Sales Tax Commission, said the state approving funding for the project is very
good news. We want to thank our local delegation for their efforts in making this
appropriation possible, he said. We look forward to having similar results from the
federal delegation so we can move the project forward and complete dredging as soon as
possible. Hemingway pointed out that the local contribution, which could be handled by the
one-cent sales tax over four years, is necessary for everything to fall in place for dredging. Tilley
urged voters to say yes to the one-cent sales tax in November. In my opinion, the sales tax
mechanism becomes a very attractive option for us since the revenue stream is from sales tax and
visitors to the area will help pay for it, Tilley said. I believe it is a wise choice to fund port
dredging through the capital projects referendum.
http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2012/05/25/usa-miami-port-dredging-plan-gets-final-environmental-ok/)MSD
dire need of dredging and will soon be unusable. The Port of Port Orford,
located in Port Orford, Oregon, is unique in that it has no harbor so it is
directly exposed to the Pacific Ocean. It is also the only port on West Coast
that uses a dolly dock to retrieve boats out of the water once they enter the
Port. According to the Port, it hosts 60 commercial fishing vessels that employ
120 individuals. Their catch value was $5 million last year. The Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon State University have also based
research operations at this port to study the new Redfish Rocks Marine
Reserve. As early as 1873, the USACE began developing plans to construct
and build a breakwater at Port Orford to protect it from waves. By 1935, a
breakwater was built by "local interests" to protect a pier, but it was not
completely effective. The USACE then built a 550 foot extension of the
breakwater in 1968, but that extension caused the Port to infill with sand.
Emergency dredging took place in 1970, but the problem of sand infiltration
did not abate. A 1981 USACE study of shoaling at this Port noted that
breakwaters are a good tool to protect against waves. However, if such
structures are constructed on "a shoreline with a substantial littoral sediment
transport," and "no other measures are taken," sediment deposition will begin
to accumulate and infill the channel. This is the case at the Port of Port
Orford, in part because of the lengthened breakwater. We have each have
worked diligently during our tenures in Congress to secure federal funds to
dredge small ports along Oregon's south coast. Administration after
administration, regardless of party, has failed to budget needed funds for
even the most modest of dredging projects in this area despite having
research in-hand that clearly demonstrates its own past construction work
exacerbates the need for ongoing dredging. We have had to fight nearly
every year to secure funds in the congressional budget process for this work.
These federal funds are essential to keep our ports open and safe, and to
ensure Oregon's coastal communities are able to thrive. Last January, the
USACE did not allocate a portion of its $30 million in the FY 2012 Energy and
Water Appropriations bill for shallow draft ports to the Port of Port Orford for
dredging. The USACE Portland District has since scheduled the hopper
dredge, YAQUINA, to dredge several ports along Oregon's coast. Even if the
USACE Portland District had the financial resources to dredge Port Orford, it is
too shallow for the YAQUINA to enter. It requires a clamshell or a similar
dredge to get in and do the work. We have recently learned that the USACE
Portland District will be letting an emergency contract to have a private
clamshell dredge areas of the Checto River in Oregon. This work is part of an
emergency clean-up effort from last year's tsunami. The USACE Portland
District says it will cost an extra $800,000 to include dredging at the Port of
Port Orford in this contract. A stand-alone contract would cost an additional
$400,000. We respectfully request you consider allocating any unused USACE
funds to include the Port of Port Orford in this dredging contract. We are well
aware that USACE budgets have been underfunded for too many years
leaving many worthy projects short of needed maintenance funds. However,
we are convinced this request deserves additional consideration. The Port is
the community's lifeline. Failing to dredge a port that experiences rapid sand
infiltration as direct a result of a past USACE construction project seems
unreasonable. We also request you view this video made by community
residents about current conditions at the Port. It highlights the need for this
the United States and Australia has been mixed, at best. Some recently constructed Australian
plants are flourishing while others stand idle some of the time. In this country, technological
missteps, delays and bankruptcies dogged the first big plant, which finally opened in Tampa in
2007.
AT: Perm
Binding consulation to critical solvencyineffective
federal implementation crushes the plan and permutation
but the counterplan boosts cooperative federalism
Weiser 01.
Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law,
Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act.
lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf
The local tailoring ability of cooperative federalism regimes facilitates ambitious regulatory ventures
like the Telecom Acts attempt to open up local telephone markets to competition. A cooperative
federalism approach recognizes that many regulatory problems are so complex that they cannot be
resolved by one level of government acting alone; rather, they require cooperation among all
levels.24 Economists repeatedly have praised this aspect of federalism.25 Professor Richard Stewart
calls it a reconstitutive approach to regulatory pro- grams, a strategy which can afford flexibility to
accommodate diverse subsystem conditions and values, broaden decisional responsibility, and
reduce costly and dysfunctional centralized decisionmaking.26 The federal government simply does
not have the know-how and resources to tailor broad standards to local circumstances.27 As an
important case in point, modern environmental regulation convincingly demonstrates how [t]he need
to tailor environmental policy to local conditions and the even more important need to use state
technical and personnel resources compel Congress to share some of its au- thority.28 Notably, when
the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in for the state of Idaho to administer its air
quality regulatory program, it clearly was not up to the task, reportedly spending almost five times as much
as the state would have spent to do the same job.29 As a result of this need for cooperation, both the
states and the federal government are well aware that they are tied together in their ability to
administer cooperative federalism programs.30 The resulting interdependence gives each important
influence over the other.
one approach in detail because of its relevance as a way of maximizing federal-state cooperation
to develop nationwide telecommunications policies. Two policies that follow the cooperative
approach are the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) n8 and the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT). n9 The proposition presented in this article is that the PURPA
approach is directly transferable to telecommunications reform legislation. PURPA's improved
energy policies, designed and implemented for electric and natural gas utilities, demonstrate that
federal and state governments can cooperate in high stakes regulatory arenas. n10 II.
PREEMPTION MODEL OF FEDERALISM The Constitution confers specific, broad, and
unstated (or implied) powers to the federal government which include the power to declare war,
coin money, and regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states. n11 State
governments retain the right to regulate commerce within a state, ensure public health and safety,
and exert powers that the Constitution neither delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited
the states from using. n12 Both the states and the federal government share other powers, such as
the authority to establish courts and expend funds for the general welfare. In a preemptive model,
the federal government implements policy that effectively limits the state's [*74] role in a
particular area, even where both the states and the federal government share the power to control
that area. In a preemptive mode, the federal government does not necessarily overstep its
authority, rather it acts within its power to mandate compliance, delegate responsibility, promote
negotiation, or obtain services from the states. A prominent example of the preemptive mode is
this nation's long history of desegregation, integration, and civil rights. One problem related
to preemption is what some have called "mandate madness." n13 This term is
used to describe the federal government's attempt to mandate that a state or
local government comply with or act affirmatively to adopt or implement a
federal policy or piece of legislation. n14 The federal government allocates
generous sums of money to state and local governments which cannot afford
to lose the money by not complying with these "unfunded mandates." n15 A
classic example of linking policies to mandates is granting highway construction monies to states
that implement a fifty-five mile per hour speed limit. n16 Dependant upon federal highway funds,
a state's autonomy is effectively preempted inasmuch as these mandates
provide the state with a program it cannot maintain without federal
assistance. n17
**India
Now Key
India Pushing for cooperative federalism
IANS 3/14
Indo Asian News Service. "Punjab Seeks 'cooperative Federalism' for Inter-state Disputes."Yahoo Maktoob
News. N.p., 3 Mar. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. <https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/punjab-seekscooperative-federalism-inter-state-disputes-123906167.html>.
Chandigarh,March3(IANS)Calling
Highlighting the severe water crisis being faced by Punjab, the Punjab government
sought the expeditious implementation of the 'riparian principle' on water-sharing with
other states."Punjabalreadyfacesseverewatercrisiswithgroundwaterlevelgoingalarminglydownbecauseofexcessive
relianceofourfarmersontubewellirrigation.Keepinginview,thisproblemneedstoberesolvedexpeditiously,whichhas
unfortunatelynotbeendonesofar,"saidPatil.Justifying
The most hopeful prospect for the USA, should the decentralization impulse prove
irresistible, is for Americans to draw on their natural inventiveness and democratic
tradition by patenting a formula for getting the job done in a gradual and cooperative
way. In so doing, geopolitical history, and perhaps even a path for others,
might be made, for the problem of bigness vexes political leviathans
everywhere. In India, with its 1.2 billion people, there is an active discussion of
whether things might work better if the nation-state was chopped up into 10
or so large city-states with broad writs of autonomy from New Delhi. Devolution
may likewise be the future for the European continentthink Cataloniaand for
the British Isles. Scotland, a leading source of Enlightenment ideas for Americas founding
fathers, now has its own flourishing independence movement. Even China, held together by an
aging autocracy, may not be able to resist the drift towards the smaller.
Just as important as these strategic and technical measures, however, will be energetic diplomatic
attempts to ameliorate ongoing territorial disputes. Such efforts can help to reduce a key incentive
for aggression by new nuclear states, thereby lowering the potential costs of future nuclear
proliferation. In the South Asian case, international political and economic support for the
Musharraf government's recent efforts to rein in the Kashmir insurgency, and to forge a more
cooperative relationship with India, could be useful. While such support cannot ensure increased
regional stability, it can help to reduce the Pakistan government's desire to alter the Kashmiri
status quo, and thus may lower the likelihood of Indo-Pakistani conflict despite their nuclear
weapons' potentially destabilizing effects. An important means of avoiding nuclear danger may
thus have more to do with diplomacy than with nuclear weapons themselves.
**Ukraine
told me that when he advised his seniors than a Palestinian proposal was something they could
live with; the Palestinians immediately withdrew it because they thought the Israelis' acceptance
of the proposal meant there was something wrong with it. Ukraine's new leaders should not be
as immature. I welcome their recent signals to open debate on constitutional reform. In the
hope of constructively aiding this debate here are 3 quick reasons why federations won't cause an
evil giant Shubin (a Ukrainian mythological spirit) to run rampant across the Donbass.
The potential solution to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, consistently put forward by the
government of the Russian Federation, has been routinely characterized by various European
politicians as the equivalent to the lunatic ravings of madmen. To American conservatives and
lovers of ordered liberty, this should come as grim news. Since when was political Federalism
in the spirit of Madisons Federalist #10 equivalent to lunacy? Since when was it lunacy for
popular sovereignty within diverse territories to determine the political destiny of native peoples?
If we shut out the stereotypes whereby all things Russian are eternally evil, and simply examine
the content of the Russian governments proposals, we shall discover it to beat the very least
deserving of serious consideration. There are those who may claim, with the current
revolutionary government of Ukraine, that Russia has no business making proposals about
the kind of political system Ukraine ought to adopt. This is a salient point because civilized
men and women agree that the sovereignty of nations should be respected. Nevertheless, the
geopolitical reality of Europe is such that when any nation fails at peaceful, orderly selfgovernment, its instability creates a general European crisis for its neighbors. Long standing
European tradition has been to resolve such situations through a concerted effort of European
nation states, particularly neighboring states. At times, these solutions were unjust, violent
conquests organized by stronger parties against weaker parties. Many times, thankfully, these
solutions were peaceful, political measures agreed by all after reflection and deliberation.
Incidentally, Ukraine itself is now demanding billions of American and European dollars, as
well as demanding that Russia give away its gas at below market prices. If Ukraine can
make such demands of the world, perhaps the world can make a suggestion as to the type of
political remedies Ukraine might consider for bettering its condition? It is folly to deny the
Russian interest and right to be concerned for the stability and proper development of its neighbor
Ukraine. Poland, the Baltic Stateseven far away America claims such a right; surely
Russia may do so as well. If a political solution is to be found, reflection and deliberation
behoove us to take all proposals that are peaceful seriously. We should also hope for
proposals that are serious and bold. The European Union and United States have, sadly,
refrained from serious political proposals, preferring platitudes about freedom and
democracy. President Obamas recent speech only revealed his ignorance of recent European
history when he erred in describing how Kosovo gained independence as well as being full of
mere platitudes about territorial integrity and democracy. If Americas Founders gave such
speeches at the Constitutional convention, the United States would not exist. What is required
here is serious political thought, not public relations slogans worthy of the childish and deceiving
I am a Ukrainian video. We need a political solution that acknowledges the reality of the
Maidan as a violent coup and the Crimean referendum as a legitimate popular movement. Let us
then, in this spirit, turn to the Russian proposal.
U.S Modeled
Ukrain constitutional reformations following U.S
Influence.
Sasse & Hughes 3/19
GWENDOLYN SASSE AND JAMES HUGHES. "Building a Federal Ukraine?" Washington Post. The Washington
Post, 19 Mar. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkeycage/wp/2014/03/19/building-a-federal-ukraine/>. The following is a guest post from Oxford University political
scientist Gwendolyn Sasse and London School of Economics political scientist James Hughes.
The idea of a remaking of Ukraines constitutional order along federal lines is beginning to
gain traction. On March 18, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk reached out to
Russophones in the eastern and southern regions, announcing that new measures linked to
decentralization of power will be reflected in a new constitution. Senior U.S.
administration officials have encouraged the Ukrainian leadership to consider
constitutional reform along federal lines. On March 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry
proposed the establishment of an international support group to manage the crisis. The list of
items that Russia wants to be the basis for negotiation in Ukraine includes a new federal
structure for Ukraine and the recognition of Russian as a second language. Until recently the
federal idea was an anathema among the greater part of Ukraines political elite. As a
constitutional form it was largely rejected in the 1990s, partly as a negative reaction to the
experience of Soviet federalism, and partly from fear of its centrifugal potential for splitting the
country along ethnolinguistic fault lines. The negative view of federalism as a destabilizing
constitutional order in ethnically divided places was one that was not only perceived by
elites as a lived experience in former communist federations, such as the Soviet Union
successor states Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, but was also prevalent among scholars studying
the collapse of communism. Federalism, or ethnofederalism as it was usually termed by
political scientists, came to be seen as part of the problem of mismanaging ethnically
diverse countries, not part of the solution. The turmoil in Ukraine suggests that now is a
good time to reassess the potential for federalism, ethno- or otherwise, for managing
divided places like Ukraine.
In Kyiv, federalism has become a dirty word, reports the International New York Times
(April 17, 2014). In the view of the Yatsenyuk Government, federalism will tear the country
apart, and Ukraine will never escape Russias grasp. The Ukrainian parliament is so
convinced of this, in fact, that it has adopted a resolution barring diplomats from negotiating
constitutional revisions at the latest Geneva talks. There is little doubt that the current
circumstances where Ukraine is being threatened by a powerful neighbouring state are not
ideal for considering major institutional change. At the same time, it seems reasonably clear
that the current unitary structure is unlikely to placate Russian-identifiers in the east, or to
get Crimea back. In fact, instead of threatening Ukraines unity, a properly designed
federalism may be the best, indeed the only, way to keep Ukraine together over the long
term..What would a proper federal design look like? Providing they can be agreed upon by
genuinely representative elites, the most stable federations are those with more federal units
rather than a few. Fifty (the United States) is much better than two (the old Czechoslovakia).
It would not be good, in other words, if the Ukrainians agreed, or felt bound, to divide their
state into west (the pro-EU part) and east (the more Russophile part, and base of former
President Yanukovychs Regions Party). Every divisive issue would then pit these two parts
against each other, and break-up would be only a matter of time. Multi-federal regions, by
contrast, would allow floating alliances, which would not always pitch Russophiles against
Europhiles; furthermore, they would also create paradoxically useful feasibility and coordination
problems that would stand in the way of secessionist tendencies. The key to success will also lie
in combining decentralisation with power-sharing at the level of the federal authorities in
Kyiv. At least some of the current problems Ukraine is facing, have resulted from the
extraordinarily foolish decision of the pro-Western parliament, flush with the success of the
Maidan protests, to rescind measures that promoted Russian as an official language in certain
regions. Even if we blame Russia for Ukraines problems, it was this prior step (subsequently
dropped) that gave Russia its casus belli. To prevent a recurrence of anything similar, or of the
traditional recent pattern in which the central government represents either the east or the west,
but not both, Ukraines federal government would have to be formally set up on powersharing grounds. This would ensure that the government would be fully representative of
Ukraines complex different ethnic, linguistic and religious identities. There are different
power-sharing models available; for example, under the Belgian constitution, half of the cabinet
must be French-speakers, and the other half Flemish-speakers. If the Ukrainians did not want
to engage in these sorts of corporate or ethnic quotas, for fears that they might entrench
divisions rather than alleviate them, they could instead consider liberal power-sharing. It
would be possible, for example, to have constitutional provisions, which simply specify that any
party with a certain percentage of votes would get a cabinet ministry. Such percentages have been
set at 5% in South Africa (1994), 10% in Fiji (1997) and Burundi (2001). As long as there is no
ethnic requirement favouring any particular group, this could be a fair, negotiable and liberal
arrangement.
There was a turn against ethnofederalism in the 1990s that is ripe for a reassessment. Prior to
the collapse of communism, there was a dominant paradigm that federalism as self rule
and shared rule has positive win-win effects on promoting stable politics, and indeed, that
it was the constitutional order (following the U.S. example) that was most conducive to
democracy. Federalism was also seen as an essential constitutional design for the politics of
accommodation in deeply divided or plural societies. From the early 1990s this
paradigm was shaken by critiques which argued that federalism and autonomy more
generally were highly destabilizing in ethnically divided states where the federal administrative
architecture and boundaries were drawn to reflect ethnic divisions. The three socialist
ethnofederations (USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) were used as cases to demonstrate this
thesis. The argument is that the mode of socialist federalism, which while it was intrinsically
a sham in terms of power distribution given that real power resided in communist parties,
was flawed because of its ethnic structure leading to a mismanagement of nationalism.
Consequently, a major cause of the collapse was the fact that the previously disempowered
federal architecture became a platform for ethnonational mobilization. Socialist-era federal
structures were essentially subversive institutions. The negative thesis was developed further in
perspectives on the frozen conflicts to include even the prospect of autonomy and
decentralization. In the Caucasus region, autonomy was seen as a root cause of conflict and a
driver for secession. The causal link between ethnically defined federalism and state
instability appears to be misdirected. In reality, it was precisely the de-institutionalization
of autonomy by titular nationalities in the successor states that often provoked ethnic
conflict. The Russian Federation is partially divided into ethnic units, and only Chechnya posed a
serious threat to its territorial integrity. If one analyzes the case of Tatarstan and other ethnic
republics of the Russian Federation the fact is that the asymmetric federalism and autonomy in
key areas relating to self-rule, culture and, to some extent, economic power, was sufficient to
quash secessionist demands and maintain state stability. That stability has persisted even when
Putin recentralized powers from the ethnic republics to create his power vertical (see this recent
Monkey Cage post). A similar argument holds with regard to conflict-prevention in Crimea in the
1990s (see the recent Monkey Cage post). The Ukraine crisis offers an opportune moment to
reassess the value of autonomy and federalism to peacefully manage conflict and enhance
state stability. It is of note that the federal concept is now central to how policymakers see
the way forward not just in Ukraine but in other places of conflict in the post-communist
space, and beyond (for example, Iraq, Syria, and Libya).
The Globe and Mail. "Choose Federalism to Keep Ukraine Together." The Globe and Mail. N.p., 15 May 2014. Web.
30 June 2014. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/choose-federalism-to-keep-ukrainetogether/article18706295/>.
Under the present system, the central government appoints provincial governors. For
example, in March, the acting president, Oleksandr Turchynov, appointed as governor of the
Donetsk province Serhiy Taruta, a billionaire whose fortune was made in the coal and steel
industry of Donetsk. But as the governor sent by the new Kiev authorities who are distrusted
by many in the east, and with a civil war fomented by Russia effectively under way, he has
had difficulty establishing his authority. The country would be much better off if, instead of
appointed governors, it had the equivalent of Canadian provincial premiers and
legislatures, with all their imperfections. It would be best if those opposing the new
government in Kiev were encouraged to take the argument off the streets and into elected bodies.
Those favouring greater regional autonomy, and even closer ties with Russia, might win
some local elections. That would be far better than their winning gun battles. Meanwhile, as Ms.
Merkel urges, the presidential election of May 25 should proceed on schedule. If need be, it
should go to a second round. No doubt, voting will be disrupted in some localities in a few of
Ukraines 24 provinces. But it is better to establish a democratic mandate first, so that there
can be negotiations to modify the Ukrainian Constitution. Would Russia favour a federal
Ukraine? Yes. Would some of the splittists in Eastern Ukraine support it? Surely. That is no
reason for Kiev to be opposed. Federalism does not mean debilitating decentralization. It
means the possibility of stopping violence and restarting politics. And its the most plausible
way of keeping Ukraine intact.
As to the nationalist fear that Federalism means national disintegration: this is not true.
Federalism would only mean national disintegration if the Ukrainian government in Kiev
continued to demonstrate to the world that it is incompetent and incapable of governing. If
the Kiev government cannot govern, if Ukraine is indeed so splintered and barbaric as to be
incapable of self-government, if we continue to see Ukrainians on the streets beating one
another, Ukrainian members of parliament beating one another, oligarchs vying for power
and attempting to suck Europe, Russia and America into a wider conflict to serve their own
interests, then I humbly submit that perhaps Federalism would offer the only peaceful
resolution of the inevitable disintegration of Ukraine which is possible . Then, Kiev and Lvov
can vote to return to Poland (and thus the EU) while Eastern and Southern cities can vote to
return to Russia. If there are true Ukrainian patriots in the country committed to peaceful
existence rather than brawling in the streets, they can have they own nation state as well. So
long as people vote in a peaceful election, so long as order and liberty are respected, why is
territorial integrity a priority? Why not make peace and freedom a priority instead? It is another
matter altogether whether Europe and Russia can even manage to absorb such a fractured country
and calm its nascent violent factions. Of course, no matter what the political remedy
undertaken, none will work unless there is a concerted effort by Russia, America and
Europe to deflate the crisis for the common good, rather than escalate it by playing Ukrainians
off of one another, inciting faction and violence and pursuing narrow policies which serve narrow
and short term interests. To my mind, this is the present policy of the West: they work towards
the easy task of inciting revolution and then naively hope another election will miraculously
resolve the problems they created. Russia, by proposing Federalism for Ukraine, is making a
serious attempt at a settlement. President Putin has demonstrated himself to be extremely well
educated and predictable as a Statesman. We would assume an American President would
know enough about the benefits of Federalism to at least consider it and perhaps
recommend it to the Ukrainian revolutionaries who now reach out to American taxpayers
for billions of dollars. Then again, we would assume President Obama would understand the
recent history of Kosovo, or have advisors who understood it. Ignorance, it seems, is the prelude
to crisis and war. Alas, the XX century seems to continue. When Isaac Asimov said that the XXI
century would be guided by one ideano more XXth centuries! he was apparently engaging in
wishful thinking. Time will tell.
Prolif
Failure to protect Ukraine causes global prolif cascade by
invalidating Budapest Memorandum japan, Taiwan,
Saudi Arabia
Boyes 3/6/14
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-lesson-hang-on-to-your-nukes-if-putins-on-theprowl/story-fnb64oi6-1226846228761#
Editorial writer, the Times
Twenty years ago Ukraine had the third-largest strategic nuclear weapons stock in the world after
the US and Russia, having inherited its share of the Soviet arsenal. It gave up those stocks in
return for Western cash and a piece of paper, the 1994 Budapest memorandum that was meant
to guarantee its territorial integrity. Today, it seems that Kiev made a bad deal. The
agreement, signed by the US, Britain and Russia, has done nothing to shield Ukrainians. Had
Ukraine stayed nuclear Russia would have thought twice about snatching Crimea. The invasion
is thus not just about the regional manipulation of power and Russian President Vladimir Putins
effective threat to foment a European civil war unless Ukraine stays in his orbit. It is about the
new international order and about nuclear securitys role in it. How safe do non-nuclear
Japan and Taiwan feel at the moment? How much are their security agreements with the US
worth if Washington is powerless to deter a Russian land-grab in a country that borders four
NATO members? How credible as world policemen are the five leading nuclear powers - the US,
Russia, China, Britain and France - as the permanent members of the UN Security Council? In
the 1990s it was briefly possible to believe in the merits of unilateral disarmament and the dream
of global non-proliferation. South Africa admitted to having had secret nuclear plans and
promptly dropped them. The threat of Soviet encroachment had evaporated. So, too, had the
Soviet Union. Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus had more pressing economic problems than
keeping their nukes in working order. Ukraine in 1991 boasted inter-continental ballistic missiles,
almost two dozen strategic bombers, more than 1000 long-range cruise missiles and several
hundred tactical nuclear weapons. To turn that into a purely Ukrainian force, to target it on
Moscow rather than NATO, would have meant an investment of $US30 billion to replace
Russian-owned early warning systems and communication centres. Some in Kiev argue it would
have been worth the effort. If we had hung on to even a fraction of that force it would have been
like hanging a gun on the wall of your living room, said one Ukrainian politician. Maybe the
gun has no bullets but when the neighbour comes round for dinner, hes afraid of it. Neither the
West nor Russia bought into the idea of a Ukrainian deterrent. The US did not trust the 90s
Ukrainian leadership to keep tight control of the weapons. It paid Ukrainians to load their nuclear
kit on to 100 trains and send it to Russia. In 1996 Ukraine officially became a non-nuclear nation
- and soon afterwards the Kremlin piled pressure on Kiev to pay more for its gas. Unilateral
disarmament doesnt pay. It only results in nuclear weapons becoming the sole property of those
nations that do not renounce them. The quest for nuclear advantage can poison the politics of
the whole region . Iran is pushing its nuclear program not only to balance Israels undeclared
weapons but also to win a pivotal role in the Middle East. That prods Saudi Arabia towards
getting its own atomic deterrent, perhaps with the help of Pakistan - an enormous challenge to
non-proliferation efforts.
Hegemony
Ukraine is the litmus test of US primacy
Kanat 3/17/14
http://setav.org/en/the-ukrainian-crisis-as-a-new-chessboard-of-global-geopolitics/opinion/14586
Kilic Bugra Kanat is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Penn State University, Erie and
a Research Fellow at the SETA Foundation at Washington, D.C. He received his doctoral degree
in Political Science from Syracuse University. He holds a masters degree in Political Science
from Syracuse University and a masters in International Affairs from Marquette University. He
completed his undergraduate education in the International Relations Department of the Middle
East Technical University. Dr. Kanat also holds a Certificate of Advanced Studies in Middle
Eastern Affairs and Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study in Conflict Resolution. His research
interests include foreign policy decision-making, foreign policy change, and domestic politics and
foreign policy interaction. Dr. Kanats writings have appeared in Foreign Policy, Insight Turkey,
Middle East Policy, Arab Studies Quarterly, Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies,
and Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. He also regularly contributes op-eds to Star, Sabah,
Today's Zaman, Zaman Daily, Radikal Daily, and Hurriyet Daily News. He is also co-editor of an
edited volume History, Politics and Foreign Policy in Turkey published by the SETA
Foundation.
Halford Mackinder, one of the founding fathers of geopolitics, once wrote "Who rules East
Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules
the World-Island controls the world." Ukraine was one of the integral parts of the Heartland that
he stated. Now, the crisis in Ukraine is becoming an arena for a major geopolitical
confrontation. The problem in Ukraine that has been overshadowed in recent days with the
mysterious loss of the Malaysian Airlines plane is quickly being transformed into a global
problem instead of a regional challenge for countries in Eastern Europe. The crisis not only
brought Western powers and Russia face to face in Crimea but is becoming a global chessboard
in which global powers have stakes . The most significant centers of gravity in international
relations, namely the United States and China and their positions and diplomatic steps
regarding the crisis will be very important for the future of the conflict in Crimea, their
bilateral relations, as well as the international system . The crisis and its outcomes will be a
major determinant of future global geopolitics. The crisis in Ukraine is yet another serious
test of U.S. leadership in terms of its international alliances, guarantees and assurances.
The world is watching the reaction of the U.S. after Russia's invasion of Crimea.
Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged Friday to "respect' the outcome of Ukraine's
presidential election on Sunday, but his conciliatory words were received with skepticism by
Washington analysts. The Russian leader, speaking at an investment forum in St. Petersburg,
slammed the West over its involvement in Ukraine and its economic sanctions against
Moscow but said Russia is ready to work with the new leadership in Kiev. "We understand
that the people of Ukraine want their country to emerge from this crisis. We will treat their
choice with respect," he said. "It would have been better to hold a referendum and adopt a new
constitution," Putin added. "Under the current constitution (Viktor) Yanukovych is still in
power." Putin on Monday announced that Russian troops were ordered to withdraw from near
Ukraine's eastern border, which NATO says has yet to happen. He also called for a decrease in
violence by pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, while violence there has increased,
said economist Anders Aslund of the Peterson Institute of International Economics in
Washington. What Putin is really saying is "we will cause as much trouble as we can without
fully investing ourselves," Aslund said. "If the elections work out then we will try something
else." Putin will try to have it both ways, says Damon Wilson, an adviser on Russia and European
affairs in the administrations of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, now at the Atlantic Council, a
Washington think tank. He may "respect" Ukrainian elections because of their inevitability,
meaning he will recognize Ukraine as a sovereign nation represented by a legitimate
government. Wilson said. "At the same time, it's disingenuous to think he'll not try to
influence what's happening inside Ukraine." Putin will continue to push for federalization, a
concept all Ukrainian presidential candidates have endorsed for improved efficiency, but that
Putin seeks to reduce the central government's ability to function, Wilson said. He will
continue to use energy and economics as a leverage of influence, and to try to buy members of
parliament like he's done in the past, Wilson said. And Putin will keep in the wings both his
forces across the border and special forces "able to manipulate and wreak havoc inside
Ukraine," Wilson said. "That remains as a coercive thing over the head of Ukraine."
Putin's statement is timed to forestall a next round of sanctions prepared by U.S. and
European Union officials that would target broad sectors of Russia's banking and energy
sectors that will be ready to implement as early as Monday, Wilson said, citing private
conversations with U.S. officials.
**Aff Answers
No India Modelling
India not modelling US federalism
The Hindu 1
Federalism at a crossroads? July 17
The essay on India's federal order examines the institutional and structural arrangements in detail
and concludes that ``a dictatorial marshalling of the regions was never envisaged by the
Constitution makers. The Article which allows a highly interventionist role to the Centre should
be reinterpreted in order to allow the spirit of cooperative federalism to emerge.'' In India,
federalism increasingly engages the attention of scholars on the use and abuse of Article 356 of
the Constitution. Indian scholars have the tendency to always compare Indian
federal system with the federal practices in the U.S., and other such federal systems.
There is no such thing as an ideal federation for any country to emulate.
Neither the U.S. nor Switzerland could be a model for others to follow
because each federation has a different history and socio-political and socioeconomic diversity. It was the centripetal forces which brought forth the U.S.
whereas the centrifugal forces beget the Union of States in India.
Will Say No
Some states will say no, thats a solvency deficit
Washington Post 8
December 2, 2008
One voice of dissent in the Philadelphia meeting will likely come from Gov.
Mark Sanford (R-S.C.). "We're just putting off the day of reckoning," he said
in an interview. "A problem created as a consequence of too much debt
probably will not be solved by issuing more debt."
Fed key
AAPA 2011
(Getting Back to Basics, March, http://aapa.files.cmsplus.com/PDFs/Transportation%20and%20the%20Constitution1.pdf, DOA: 713-12)
passed the first Rivers and Harbors Act and provided funds to the Corps
to make specific navigation improvements to the Ohio, Mississippi, and
Missouri Rivers. Congress has continued to appropriate funds for specific
navigation projects and the Corps has played a dual role by assessing, as
well as implementing, needed projects in federal navigation channels. In
1899, Congress enacted the Rivers and Harbors Act, which
percentage of mileage with pavement deficiencies when compared to noninterstate NHS routes according to a study conducted by USDOT. States and
MPOs have traditionally assigned freight-focused projects a low priority when
compared with passenger-related improvements. Due to their freight-focused
nature, NHS connectors generally do not fare well in project selection within
the State and MPO planning processes. This critical infrastructure is more
important than ever as our nation rebuilds the economy and creates jobs by
expanding commerce through free trade agreements and increasing
Americas exports and international competitiveness. These roads are key
pieces of our connection to the world marketplace. In addition to their
national economic importance, NHS Intermodal connectors are vital to
defense mobilization and national security. With the military's increasing
reliance on strategic ports and commercial trucking for mobility, intermodal
connectors are critical to national defense planning. Given the reliance
**India
No India Modelling
India not modelling US federalism
The Hindu 1
Federalism at a crossroads? July 17
The essay on India's federal order examines the institutional and structural arrangements in detail
and concludes that ``a dictatorial marshalling of the regions was never envisaged by the
Constitution makers. The Article which allows a highly interventionist role to the Centre should
be reinterpreted in order to allow the spirit of cooperative federalism to emerge.'' In India,
federalism increasingly engages the attention of scholars on the use and abuse of Article 356 of
the Constitution. Indian scholars have the tendency to always compare Indian
federal system with the federal practices in the U.S., and other such federal systems.
There is no such thing as an ideal federation for any country to emulate.
Neither the U.S. nor Switzerland could be a model for others to follow
because each federation has a different history and socio-political and socioeconomic diversity. It was the centripetal forces which brought forth the U.S.
whereas the centrifugal forces beget the Union of States in India.
No Indo-Pak War
No Indo-Pak War
Wright 13 (Thomas Wright is a fellow at the Brookings Institution in the Managing Global
Order project. Previously, he was executive director of studies at the Chicago Council on Global
Affairs, a lecturer at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, and senior
researcher for the Princeton Project on National Security, "Dont Expect Worsening of India,
Pakistan Ties," http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/01/16/dont-expect-worsening-of-indiapakistan-ties/, January 16, 2013)
Theres no end for now to the hostile rhetoric between India and Pakistan. But that
doesnt necessarily presage anything more drastic. Pakistan claims another of its soldiers died Tuesday
night in firing across the Line of Control in Kashmir, the divided Himalayan region claimed by both nations. Indian army
chief, Gen. Bikram Singh, on Wednesday, said Pakistan had opened fire and India retaliated. If any of their people have
died, it would have been in retaliation to their firing, Gen. Singh said. When they fire, we also fire. It was the latest
in tit-for-tat recriminations over deaths in Kashmir that began last week. Pakistan claimed
one of its soldiers died on Jan. 6. Two days later, India said Pakistani forces killed two of its soldiers and mutilated the
bodies. Tuesday night, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the mutilations meant it could not be business as usual
between the countries. That has worried some that peace talks, which have been in train for
two years, could be about to break down. Mr. Singhs comments built on a drumbeat of anger from India.
Gen. Singh, Monday called the mutilations unpardonable and said India withheld the right to retaliate to Pakistan
aggression when and where it chooses. Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, who is in the U.S., Tuesday termed the
Indian army chiefs comments as very hostile. There are some other worrying signs. India said Tuesday it was delaying the
start of a visa-on-arrival program meant to make it easier for some Indians and Pakistanis to visit each others countries. The
visa program, like talks on opening up bilateral trade, is supposed to pave the way toward broader peace talks that would
encompass thornier issues, like how to solve the Kashmir problem. Also Tuesday, nine Pakistani hockey players who had
come to participate in a tournament in India were sent home due to fears of protests and violence against them. Still,
theres little benefit for either side to escalate what is now still sporadic firing over
the Line of Control, the de facto border in Kashmir. Pakistan is embroiled in its own
political meltdown sparked by the Supreme Courts decision Tuesday to order the arrest of Prime Minister Raja
Pervez Ashraf on allegations of corruption. Tens of thousands of protesters Tuesday took to the streets in Islamabad, and
remain there today, demanding immediate elections and a greater role for the army and Supreme Court in politics.
so far on visas, trade and other issues. Even Gen. Singh, Indias army chief, Monday
said he did not believe the latest flare-up would lead to a broader escalation in
violence and an official end to a 2003 ceasefire agreement in Kashmir. The clashes so far, he noted, have been
limited to specific areas of the Line of Control.
neighbours .
Khan, who has been accused of selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and Syria, wrote in Newsweek
weapons in both countries had prevented war for the last 40 years.
"India doesn't need more than five weapons to hurt us badly, and we wouldn't need
more than 10 to return the favour," he said. "That is why there has been no war
between us for the past 40 years ." "India and Pakistan understand the old
principle that ensured peace in the Cold War: mutually assured destruction ," he said.
"The two (India and Pakistan) can't afford a nuclear war, and despite our sabre rattling,
there is no chance of a nuclear war that would send us both back to the Stone Age," he
said. He claimed that Pakistan had to invest in a nuclear programme "to ward off nuclear blackmail from India". "I would
like to make it clear that it was an Indian nuclear explosion in May 1974 that prompted our nuclear program, motivating me
to return to Pakistan to help create a credible nuclear deterrent and save my country from Indian nuclear blackmail," he said.
"We are forced to maintain this deterrence until our differences with India are
resolved. That would lead to a new era of peace for both countries ," Khan wrote. "I hope I live
to see Pakistan and India living harmoniously in the same way as the once bitter enemies Germany and France live today," he
said. Khan blasted various governments in Pakistan as well as "successive incompetent and ignorant rulers" for not engaging
in basic development of the country, and raising the people's standard of living. "We are far worse off now than
we were 20, or even 40, years ago when we were subjected to embargoes ," he said.
**Ukraine
In American political history, we are accustomed to the idea that Federalism goes hand in hand
with nationalism. From Hamilton to Clay, the vision of the American system is a vision
made possible by a strong, effective Federal government. We sometimes misunderstand the
term strong Federal government and think it means a strong or big central government. It
does not. A strong Federal government is, as the name implies, Federal in character. It
performs its enumerated Constitutional role with energy and dedication for the common
good, leaving to the States and the people the performance of those things not enumerated in the
Constitution as Federal powers and understood as the local good. American industrial might,
American self-government, and American associations are Federalisms historical results.
American national pride is bound to the idea and practice of Federalism. Americas XXth and
XXIst century departures from Federalism in favor of elements of unitary national government
and the administrative state rather than self-rule have led to much woe and contribute always to a
feeling of national malaise. For Americans, nationalism and Federalism are interwoven:
American nationalism would not be possible without American Federalism. This fact may make
it difficult for Americans to understand why Ukrainian nationalists (whether extreme or
moderate), as well as Polish nationalists, oppose Federalism and favor the unitary nation state
with such vehemence. If, the American mind reasons, Federalism allows for the respect for
local rule and custom while also expanding general cooperation for the general good, how
can this be detrimental to national pride or national welfare? Russian nationalists, who, like
Americans, inhabit a Federated republic, may be presumed to think likewisethus their
governments proposal: why not Federalism for Ukraine? The problem with Federalism for
Poles and Ukrainians is this: for Polish and Ukrainian nationalists, nationalism is ethnic, racial,
linguistic and cultural. A nation, connected in a natural political body by these things, constitutes
a state to govern the territory it inhabits. To create a Federal government is to invite a
factionalism, which had never been there in the first placeor so the theory goes.
Federalism, in this view, is the beginning of national disintegration. Polish nationalists fear,
for example, that introducing Federalism in Poland would lead to greater autonomy for certain
German minorities and, possibly, an ultimate secession and return to German rule, or the
establishment of a Silesian republic. Given the Polish historical phobia stemming from its
partition and from the German invasion in 1939, the mere possibility of regional autonomy under
the guise of Federalism is treated by Polish nationalists as treason. Ukrainian nationalists likely
reason in a similar fashion. If Ukraine were to adopt a Federal system and grant greater
autonomy to its various regions, what (asks the Ukrainian nationalist mind) would stop these
regions from opting to secede or coming under the influence of Russia? To the Ukrainian
nationalist, Federalism means national partition and possibly the end of Ukraine as a
political entity, or at least its diminishment.
but if any conflict about Arctic natural resources were to arise, it will most
likely con- cern complicated business relationships between the Russian state and foreign oil and gas companies wanting to
get a share of Russias vast hydrocarbon base to satisfy especially high European demand. In this respect, Russia is
confronted with a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, it aims to protect its resources by declaring them stra- tegic and
thus strongly limiting non-Russian involvement in any development activi- ties. On the other hand, Russias economy is
highly dependent on the continued expansion of its oil and gas production, which will be impossible to achieve in the future
without foreign expertise and capital. This precarious situation is exacerbated by the overall risky and unpredictable Russian
investment climate. It remains to be seen how joint exploration and exploitation agreements between Russian (state) firms
and foreign companies will work out. After the failed RosneftBP agreement, the new deal between Rosneft and Exxon to
explore and exploit fields in the Kara Sea offers a new chance of observing the development of such a joint venture (Kramer,
2011b; Washington, 2011; Werdigier, 2011). The empirical conclusions suggest, first and foremost,
that it is of utmost importance to start the analysis of the political state of a region by
critically examining the actual stakes and interests involved, rather than arriving at
premature conclusions based on underlying assumptions. Closer empirical scrutiny
indicates that neorealist expectations of a geopolitical rush for Arctic resources are
unrealistic, while the addition of construc- tivist variables in empirical analysis can supplement rational materialist
accounts of actors interests. While the overall interest-based approach is useful to unpack the
black box of Arctic interests, the constitution of these interests cannot be solely
understood in rationalist terms but has to include identity, cultural and historical
considerations of the importance of the Arctic region to the respective countries.
No escalation
Zero risk of Ukraine escalation
Peck 3/5/14
'm a defense writer, avid gamer and history buff. I'm currently a contributing editor for Foreign
Policy Magazine, a writer for the War is Boring defense blog and of course a contributor at
Forbes. My work has also appeared in the Washingon Post,Slate, Defense News, USA Today, the
Philadelphia Inquirer and other fine publications.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/03/05/7-reasons-why-america-will-never-go-towar-over-ukraine/
7 Reasons why America Will Never Go To War Over Ukraine
America is the mightiest military power in the world. And that fact means absolutely nothing for
the Ukraine crisis. Regardless of whether Russia continues to occupy the Crimea region of
Ukraine, or decides to occupy all of Ukraine, the U.S. is not going to get into a shooting war
with Russia. This has nothing to do with whether Obama is strong or weak. Jimmy Carter or
Ronald Reagan would face the same constraints. The U.S. may threaten to impose economic
sanctions, but here is why America will never smack Russia with a big stick: Russia is a
nuclear superpower. Russia has an estimated 4,500 active nuclear warheads, according to the
Federation of American Scientists. Unlike North Korea or perhaps Iran, whose nuclear arsenals
couldnt inflict substantial damage, Russia could totally devastate the U.S. as well as the rest of
the planet. U.S. missile defenses, assuming they even work, are not designed to stop a massive
Russian strike. For the 46 years of the Cold War, America and Russia were deadly rivals. But they
never fought. Their proxies fought: Koreans, Vietnamese, Central Americans, Israelis and Arabs.
The one time that U.S. and Soviet forces almost went to war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Neither Obama nor Putin is crazy enough to want to repeat that. U.S. Marine Corps vehicle
during amphibious assault exercise. U.S. Marine Corps vehicle during amphibious assault
exercise. Russia has a powerful army. While the Russian military is a shadow of its Soviet glory
days, it is still a formidable force. The Russian army has about 300,000 men and 2,500 tanks
(with another 18,000 tanks in storage), according to the Military Balance 2014 from the
International Institute for Strategic Studies. Its air force has almost 1,400 aircraft, and its navy
171 ships, including 25 in the Black Sea Fleet off Ukraines coast. U.S. forces are more capable
than Russian forces, which did not perform impressively during the 2008 Russo-Georgia War.
American troops would enjoy better training, communications, drones, sensors and possibly
better weapons (though the latest Russian fighter jets, such as the T-50, could be trouble for U.S.
pilots). However, better is not good enough. The Russian military is not composed of lightly
armed insurgents like the Taliban, or a hapless army like the Iraqis in 2003. With advanced
weapons like T-80 tanks, supersonic AT-15 Springer anti-tank missiles, BM-30 Smerch multiple
rocket launchers and S-400 Growler anti-aircraft missiles, Russian forces pack enough firepower
to inflict significant American losses. Ukraine is closer to Russia. The distance between Kiev
and Moscow is 500 miles. The distance between Kiev and New York is 5,000 miles. Its much
easier for Russia to send troops and supplies by land than for the U.S. to send them by sea or air.
The U.S. military is tired. After nearly 13 years of war, Americas armed forces need a breather.
Equipment is worn out from long service in Iraq and Afghanistan, personnel are worn out from
repeated deployments overseas, and there are still about 40,000 troops still fighting in
Afghanistan. The U.S. doesnt have many troops to send. The U.S. could easily dispatch air
power to Ukraine if its NATO allies allow use of their airbases, and the aircraft carrier George H.
W. Bush and its hundred aircraft are patrolling the Mediterranean. But for a ground war to
liberate Crimea or defend Ukraine, there is just the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy, the 22nd
Marine Expeditionary Unit sailing off Spain, the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment in Germany and
the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. While the paratroopers could drop into
the combat zone, the Marines would have sail past Russian defenses in the Black Sea, and the
Stryker brigade would probably have to travel overland through Poland into Ukraine. Otherwise,
bringing in mechanized combat brigades from the U.S. would be logistically difficult, and more
important, could take months to organize. The American people are tired. Pity the poor
politician who tries to sell the American public on yet another war, especially some complex
conflict in a distant Eastern Europe nation. Neville Chamberlains words during the 1938
Czechoslovakia crisis come to mind: How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be
digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between
people of whom we know nothing. Americas allies are tired. NATO sent troops to support the
American campaign in Afghanistan, and has little to show for it. Britain sent troops to Iraq and
Afghanistan, and has little to show for it. It is almost inconceivable to imagine the Western
European public marching in the streets to demand the liberation of Crimea, especially
considering the regions sputtering economy, which might be snuffed out should Russia stop
exporting natural gas. As for military capabilities, the Europeans couldnt evict Libyan dictator
Muammar Gaddafi without American help. And Germans fighting Russians again? Lets not even
go there.
Russian oligarchsare resisting any sort of confrontation over Ukraine: The British seem
inclined to argue, Well, theres a lot of Russian money in our banks. The bankers doubtless
have a lot of influence, particularly in political systems in which money is increasingly the
mechanism that oils the democratic process. Earlier, the BBC had reported that a document
carried by a top British official read: The U.K. should not support for now trade sanctions or
close Londons financial center to Russians. The New York Times, in a long March 7 piece
analyzing US and European business interests in Russia and their effect on the politics of the
situation, quoted several executives with Western firms who clearly want to cool the crisis talk:
European businesses have no interests in any deterioration of the current international
situation linked to Ukraine, Frank Schauff, the chief executive of the Association of European
Businesses in Russia, said on Friday. We call upon all parties to engage in a constructive
dialogue, which will secure stability, welfare and economic growth on the European Continent.
Among American companies cited in the Times are Pepsi, Ford and John Deere. The Times
quoted Ken Golden, director of global public relations for Deere, in its piece: While Russia
represents less than 5 percent of Deeres total equipment sales, the company recently cited Russia
as being key to its future growth. We urge political leaders to solve this issue without violence
and in accord with international agreements, Mr. Golden said. Please support our journalism.
Get a digital subscription for just $9.50! It even extends to the defense industry. According to
Defense News, in a piece titled Amid Ukraine Crisis, EU Plays It Safe, various European arms
manufacturers, including in Sweden, value current and potential sales to Russia. France is
apparently insisting that it will continue to sell arms to Russia, including a $1.7 billion deal for
two Mistral-class helicopter carriers. Said one expert quoted in the piece: It looks like the
Europeans are extremely keen to do everything except anything that hurts their commercial
interests. There is zero appetite to hurt business interests, and arms sales fit into that category.