Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1NC
Obama has one-shot to secure sanctions against Russia but PC is key
Gvosdev 12/31/16 (Nikolas K. Gvosdev, a contributing editor at the National
Interest, is coauthor of U.S. Foreign Policy and Defense Strategy: The Evolution of an
Incidental Superpower, Russia Sanctions: What Will Congress Do?,
http://nationalinterest.org/print/feature/russia-sanctions-what-will-congress-do18910?page=2)//cmr
Obama
having concluded they possessed sufficient evidence against Russian cyber units to
definitively assign responsibility for hacks undertaken against U.S. political entities during the
recent presidential campaign, decided not to pass the buck to the incoming Trump
administration to decide what steps ought to be taken but instead went ahead with a series of
sanctions imposed against Russian diplomats, companies and agencies. Overriding the
Having assessed the evidence presented to it by the intelligence community, the outgoing
administration,
Kremlin's normal automatic bureaucratic response to immediately respond to Western actions with equivalent "tit
for tat" reactions, Vladimir Putin apparently decided against any public reaction. But while round one may be over,
the story is far from overand what happens in the next three weeks
between New Year's and the Inauguration may determine the fate of Donald
Trump's proposed outreach to Russia even before his administration takes office.
The sanctions imposed this past week are , as with others levied after the annexation of Crimea in
2014, promulgated on the basis of Presidential authority . As executive actions of the President,
they can be reversed by Donald Trump after taking office. Indeed, the mildness of the initial
Russian reaction suggests that some in the Kremlin expect that the new President would simply reverse the
decisions (such as requiring the Russian government to vacate diplomatic properties in Maryland and on Long
Island).
The challenge is now whether Republicans in the Congress who are skeptical both of
Russia's intentions and of the commitment of Trump's announced national security team to be tough on Putin will
join with Democrats and the outgoing administration to lock in Russia
sanctions by legislative action, making it far more difficult for Trump to lift
them by executive fiat. As with the Cuba and Iran sanctions that were written into the U.S. Code by
Congressional action (most notably in 1996) or with previous sanctions such as the Jackson-Vanick amendment,
codifying the existing Crimea, Ukraine and cyber sanctions into U.S. law would limit Trump's freedom of action vis-avis Russia by making it impossible for him to unilaterally lift sanctions without Congressional permission. Moreover,
If Congress locks in new sanctions on Russia , declines to give the President either the ability to
waive them on national security grounds or to determine when the conditions for lifting them has been met, and
it doesn't really
matter what Donald Trump, Rex Tillerson, Michael Flynn or anyone else thinks about
the utility of sanctions or even using the prospect of lifting them as a bargaining chip in
requires that lifting sanctions will occur only on the basis of a new Congressional vote, then
future dealings with the Kremlinbecause the power to do so will not be in their hands but in that of
Congress. The Trump administration would then be fighting a two-front struggle: trying to negotiate deals with
Russia (say, on the future of Ukraine) while at the same time seeing whether such bargains would be supported by
Congress for sanctions to be lifted or at least modified.
Russian foreign policy and defense establishment prepared to counsel Putin to be less accommodating if the U.S.
locks sanctions down in the coming weeks. They will advise against taking steps that would generate support for
removing U.S. sanctions in favor of pushing aheadwhether in Syria, Ukraine or the several critical elections that
will take place in Europe in 2017, especially in France and Germany. Indeed, if, as Ukrainian journalist (and one of
the original inspirations for the Maidan movement) Mustafa Nayyem worries that conditions for a counterrevolution
are building up, and if election results seat much more pro-Russian governments in Berlin and Paris, then by the end
of 2017 Russia could be able to erode the rare case of sustained trans-Atlantic and intra-European solidarity to
maintain sanctions against Russia without having to make significant concessions. Thus, Russia may be prepared, in
the next weeks, to engage in more actions likely to draw the ire of U.S. policymakers in both Congress and the
outgoing administration.
What happens will now depend on several factors. Are enough Republicans in Congress interested in constraining
Would the Kremlin be willing to take concrete steps to demonstrate that it is prepared to make serious compromises
How these
questions are answered in the days ahead will determine whether Trump's
preference for better ties with Russia will be a stillborn hope come
Inauguration Day.
in order to give a Trump administration the maneuverability to improve U.S. relations with Moscow?
consensus which once reigned in Washington over the need to prioritise engagement
with China has disappeared this year. Now, mainstream members of the citys national
security establishment have begun to explicitly call for a more confrontational
approach. The debate in Washington in that respect is now starting to take on a similar tenor to that in Beijing,
where the hawks supportive of a harder line against the US have long dominated the
airwaves. Mr Obama has used China as a bogeyman to support backing in Congress
for an Asia-Pacific trade deal in a Congress which has long been leery of trade liberalatisation. Like most
The broad
occupants of the White House of whatever party, however, Mr Obamas rhetoric towards China is generally
restrained, certainly when compared with the posse of candidates battling to take his place in 2016. Hillary
Clinton has always struck a more hawkish tone on China than Mr Obama, and Beijing is not
thrilled at the prospect of her as president. But she has nothing on the mass of Republicans
competing to become the partys presidential candidate in 2016. Donald Trump has made an art form of
baiting China, even as he passes himself off on the side as somewhat of a scholar on the Middle Kingdom.
Trump suggested the state diner for Xi be replaced with Big Macs. Wisconsin governor Scott Walker went further,
and called for Xis visit to be cancelled altogether. They had nothing on Marco Rubio, the Florida senator who has
taken up the mantle of the partys leading hawk.
said if China pressed illegitimate territorial claimsI will not hesitate to take
action. The rush among Republican candidates to outflank Mrs Clinton, let alone the White House, and pile onto
China, though, is telling.
strength.
sovereignty by providing aid to separatists who attack Ukrainian military positions in Donetsk and Donbass,
resulting in civilian casualties. In a similar vein, Russia continues to support the Syrian Government
through its supply of ammunition and weapons, as well as its efforts to destroy opposition-controlled population
Ukraine Act. The STAND for Ukraine Act would codify the 2014 sanctions levied against Russia through executive
orders into U.S. law, making it more difficult for future administrations to unravel our efforts to deter President
Nuke war
Farmer 15 (Ben Farmer, Defense Correspondent at The Daily Telegraph, citing
General Sir Adrian Bradshaw, Deputy Commander of NATO Forces in Europe, and
former Director of British Special Forces, and Michael Fallon, Secretary of State for
Defence, member of the National Security Council, and Member of Parliament,
United Kingdom and Great Britain and Northern Ireland, NATO general: Russia
tensions could escalate into all-out war, Business Insider, 2-20-2015,
http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-general-russia-tensions-could-escalate-to-war2015-2)
Tensions with Russia could blow up into all-out conflict, posing an existential
threat to our whole being, Britains top general in Nato has warned. Gen Sir Adrian
Bradshaw, deputy commander of Nato forces in Europe, said there was a danger Vladimir
Putin could try to use his armies to invade and seize Nato territory, after calculating
the alliance would be too afraid of escalating violence to respond. His comments follow a clash between
London and Moscow after the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, said there was a "real and present danger" Mr
Putin could try to destabilize the Baltic states with a campaign of subversion and irregular warfare. The Kremlin
called those comments absolutely unacceptable". Sir Adrian told the Royal United Services Institute there was a
danger such a campaign of undercover attacks could paralyze Nato decision making, as members disagreed over
how much Russia was responsible, and how to respond. Nato commanders fear a campaign of skilfully disguised,
irregular military action by Russia, which is carefully designed not to trigger the alliance's mutual defence pact. He
Vladimir Putin there will be more sanctions and "more consequences" for Russia if the ceasefire in Ukraine does not
hold. The Prime Minister vowed that the West would be "staunch" in its response to Russia and was prepared to
maintain pressure on Moscow "for the long term". He rejected the findings of a scathing parliamentary committee
report that the UK found itself "sleep-walking" into the crisis over Ukraine. The EU Committee of the House of Lords
found there had been a "catastrophic misreading" of mood by European diplomats in the run-up to the crisis. Earlier
Mr Fallon said the Russian president might try to test Natos resolve with
the same Kremlin-backed subversion used in Crimea and eastern Ukraine . A murky
this week,
campaign of infiltration, propaganda, undercover forces and cyber attack such as that used in the early stages of
the Ukraine conflict could be used to inflame ethnic tensions in Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia, he said. The military
alliance must be prepared to repel Russian aggression whatever form it takes, Mr Fallon said, as he warned that
tensions between the two were warming up. His comments were dismissed in Moscow. Russia's Foreign Ministry
spokesman said the country does not pose a threat to Baltic countries and accused Mr Fallon of going beyond
diplomatic ethics . Alexander Lukashevich said: "His absolutely unacceptable characteristics of the Russian
Federation remind me of last year's speech of US president Barack Obama before the UN general assembly, in
which he mentioned Russia among the three most serious challenges his country was facing. "I believe we will find
a way to react to Mr Secretary's statements."
Uniquness
Bipartisan support for sanctions now
Politic0 1-1-17
Links
consensus which once reigned in Washington over the need to prioritise engagement
with China has disappeared this year. Now, mainstream members of the citys national
security establishment have begun to explicitly call for a more confrontational
approach. The debate in Washington in that respect is now starting to take on a similar tenor to that in Beijing,
where the hawks supportive of a harder line against the US have long dominated the
airwaves. Mr Obama has used China as a bogeyman to support backing in Congress
for an Asia-Pacific trade deal in a Congress which has long been leery of trade liberalatisation. Like most
The broad
occupants of the White House of whatever party, however, Mr Obamas rhetoric towards China is generally
restrained, certainly when compared with the posse of candidates battling to take his place in 2016. Hillary
Clinton has always struck a more hawkish tone on China than Mr Obama, and Beijing is not
thrilled at the prospect of her as president. But she has nothing on the mass of Republicans
competing to become the partys presidential candidate in 2016. Donald Trump has made an art form of
baiting China, even as he passes himself off on the side as somewhat of a scholar on the Middle Kingdom.
Trump suggested the state diner for Xi be replaced with Big Macs. Wisconsin governor Scott Walker went further,
and called for Xis visit to be cancelled altogether. They had nothing on Marco Rubio, the Florida senator who has
American elites-- politicians, business leaders, journalists, and academics etc -- are deeply divided
over China policy. As China embraced market reforms, many in the US came to romanticize a
business China that was thought to be capitalist just like us and many business leaders
and academics have presented a rosy picture of Chinas, rarely speaking out on controversial issues such as
elite
opinion that seeks to portray China in a positive light . They focus on Chinas booming
cities and growing middle class as evidence that China is becoming more like America and thus should
human rights (Gries 2004). Henry Kissinger and U.S.-China Business Council represent two types of
not be seen as threatening. This group, often referred to as red team, rarely speaks out against sensitive issues
becomes more adept at dealing with foreign correspondents. According to another SJTU survey7 , few journalists
working in China report getting harassed and most of them believe that working in China has become easier over
the years. This effect is compounded by the fact that American media coverage of China has grown tremendously in
towards China while the general public only felt that 45% of Americans held an unfavorable attitude towards China.
By contrast opinion leaders (journalists, public intellectuals, etc.) and business leaders held very similar views as
the public, 58% of both groups held positive attitudes towards China and 59% of the public also held favorable
Congressman to have an accurate appraisal of where the America people they are elected to represent actually
stand on this important issue.
important in the bilateral relationship under George W. Bush who was preoccupied with the US war on terror. In his
first year in office, President Barack Obama was preoccupied with the global financial crisis and political issues with
China were largely set aside. On Capitol Hill, issues such as human rights, political liberalization and Tibet are not as
There are
all sorts of human rights issues in China . One emerging issue is Internet censorship. Rep. Christopher
salient as they used to be. Nevertheless, they are still important issues in Congress's China agenda.
H. Smith, one of the most aggressive human rights activists in Congress and chairman of a House subcommittee on
human rights, has been a vocal critic of China on this particular issue." Notably, Congress appropriated about
China's
involvement in human rights issues in other countries can also be a source of
frictions. As mentioned earlier, Congress has been very critical of Chinese involvement in
Darfur. The salience of political issues is often amplified by interest groups
US$30 million for fiscal year 2010 to continue developing technology to circumvent Internet restrictions."
and Beijing will have to face numerous interest groups lobbying on Capitol
Hill. It is often alleged that Capitol Hill is improperly responsive to "special interests" in
those areas where Congress shows particular concern. Dan Carney noted in 2000 that:
Special interests from business lobbies to labor unions to citizen groups - a cacophony of
diverse and competing voices - developed enormous sway over members through their
ability to raise campaign cash and mount independent campaigns for or against a
candidate. These groups are tougher taskmasters than political party bosses in their
heyday. Their demands for loyalty make it difficult for lawmakers to strike
compromises. The number of US interest groups has increased dramatically. In 1929 a political scientist
counted 500 organizations with direct political interest. "" A study in 1978 found that Congress's 385 standing
committees and subcommittees were "pursued" by more than 1,300 registered lobby groups." By the early 1990s
more than 15,000 groups were represented in Washington." In the 19905 "the most important development" was
the
U.S. policy debate continues to be characterized by the strident dynamics t hat arose in
the mid-1990s, in which American hard-liners (self-described as the Blue Team) are pitted
against those advising cooperation and engagement with China (pejoratively
labeled as the Red Team by the opposing group). Thus, there is little agreement about the degree
of threat or challenge China poses to the United States. In the vocal minority are
those who view China as a growing military menace with malign intent. These
hardliners have been perceived sometimes by others as agitators whose counsel to
treat China as a major threat to U.S. interests is designed to justify huge U.S. military budgets and
is more likely to bring about conflict with China than to deter it. The view that has been pursued more
openly by U.S. Administrations is one that counsels cooperation and engagement
with China as the best way to integrate China into the prevailing global system as a
responsible stakeholdera nation that has a responsibility to strengthen the international system that
has enabled its success. 3 But opponents of this approach typically paint these as the views of
panda-huggers who, seduced by the potential of the China market, are oblivious to PRC hostile intent, cave in
to PRC wishes and demands unnecessarily, and thereby squander U.S. strategic
leverage and compromise U.S. interests. The confrontational and highly-charged
dynamic between these two polar views continues to make elusive the kind
of pragmatic and reasoned policy discourse that could create greater
American consensus on how the United States should position itself to meet the challenges China poses.
an approach of convenience that should be reassessed in the face of Chinas rise. Outside the Administration,
the negative
pressure we saw on U.S. China policy from the neo-cons under George W. Bush will
be multiplied in spades by negative pressures from a far more fragmented, deeply
ideological, and less pragmatic party. This is my reading of the Republican Congress
members performance on China policy and foreign policy in general under Obama and of the
Looking from here to a Republican presidency in 2017, it is not unreasonable to suggest that
attitudes of the Republican Partys support base. I am taking as one reference point for my assumptions about the
extremist elements in the support base the strong showings of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, and Ted
Cruz in opinion polls on likely support for them in a presidential election. In this environment, as much I am opposed
to dynasty politics in democratic societies, whether it be Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Justin Trudeau, or Marine Le Pen, I
am beginning to suspect that the only Republican candidate who can navigate the foreign policy nightmare the
United States and the world now face (thanks to Islamic State, Russia, and the mess in Israel) is Jeb Bush. And he
will do it with a human and compassionate face that his aforementioned competitors appear to lack.
When members have turned their attention to Asia-Pacific issues, it has often been in pursuit of narrow objectives
the administration also failed to convince sceptics that the rebalance was
not an attempt to contain China. In this, the administration shares some blame. The
However,
Pentagon under the Obama administration has occasionally described the rebalance and its increased military
engagement with security partners in the region partnerships that are intended to achieve a broad range of
security goals in terms that suggest it is merely an effort to counter China, rather than a more sophisticated
effort to build partnerships and patterns of interaction with the militaries of the region. As a result, the
rebalance has often been judged by members of the press and members of
Congress by how tough administration officials have been on Beijing. [12] But the
rebalance was never intended to be all about China. Rather, the rebalance was designed to uphold the liberal order
in the region, principally through engagement with the entire region, including China.[13] Moreover, US officials
have been careful not to take any actions that would present countries of the region a stark choice between
Washington and Beijing, a choice Southeast Asian leaders have repeatedly said they do not want to be asked to
make.[14] There has also been a recognition that Chinese actions that disregard international norms and laws are
serious challenges to the regional order, and that the United States must seek to deter those actions. But the
United States has not attempted to prevent Chinas rise, merely those Chinese actions that are inconsistent with
international norms and laws. Despite missteps in communicating the rebalance, it still represents a substantial
increase in engagement with the region which understands the importance of third country sensitivities in USChina
The United States has been held back, not so much by the Obama
administrations inattention or an unwillingness to be tough on China, but by a
Congress so paralysed by partisanship that it can no longer carry out some of its most
basic functions.
competition.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties are internally divided on China, making
for some strange bedfellows in Washington, DC. As the quotes above suggest, liberal human
rights advocates like Nancy Pelosi and Christian conservatives like Christopher Cox often join
together in advocating tougher China policies. Indeed, the Senate and House Taiwan
caucuses, which are not just pro-Taiwan but also generally anti-China, are genuinely
bipartisan, with comparable numbers of Democratic and Republican members.
However, on the pro-China side, business conservatives often join liberal internationalists in advocating more
friendly China policies. For instance, the USChina Business Council, which lobbies on behalf of US companies doing
business with China, works closely not just with Republicans but also with Democrats on Capitol Hill to promote proChina and block anti-China legislation.
According to Emmanuel Puig (Lordre et la menace: analyse critique du discours de la menace chinoise en
courtesy of decades of neglect of the secondary school system . Thus, the knowledge of international issues of the
average American is so poor that even politicians like former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin believe that
the US presence in Iraq was mandated by God, or that Americas main ally in the Korean peninsula isNorth Korea.
the partisans of engaging China, who were in vogue during the nineties,
are currently being replaced by security and foreign policy experts advocating
Chinas containment.
These days,
Chinas robust international engagement since 2000 has caught many by surprise
and has prompted growing American disagreement and debate over PRC
motivations and objectives. The fact that much of this international engagement has expanded while the
United States has been preoccupied with its military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan also is causing a growing
Although some believe that PRC officials appear more comfortable working with undemocratic or authoritarian
PRC outreach also has extended to key U.S. allies or to regions where U.S.
dominance to date has been unparalleled and unquestioned, leading some to
conclude that Beijing ultimately intends a direct challenge to U.S. global power.
governments,
rhetoric of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton adhered to this narrative of protecting individual liberty against
an authoritarian state. Similarly, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, as well as hu man
rights advocates,
decry the lack of political liberties in Chin a. They are joined on the right by religious
conservatives who lament not just godless communism, but the lack of religious and other
political liberties in China. For instance, New Jersey Congressman Christopher Smith, a Christian
conservative, has held dozens of hearings on Capital Hill to deplore Chinas lack of religious freedoms. Chinas
continued repression of religion is among the most despotic in the world, Smith argues. Today, numerous
underground Roman Catholic priests and bishops and Protestant pastors languish in the infamous concentration
camps of China for simply proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.12 This bi-partisan Spirit of 76 drove the
spring 2008 protests against Chinas Tibet policies and the Olympic torch relay. These Americans rallied around the
idea of defending religious freedom, and the idea of liberty in the face of tyranny. This spirit explains the
tremendous sympathy that ordinary Americans feel about the plight of Tibetan Buddhists. One of the most
fundamental Chinese misperceptions of the United States is to view American Spirit of 76ers as anti-China,
when they actually know and care little about China, but are instead anti-state power, in any of its forms, including
if not especially communist. But the Federalist celebration of American nationhood also seems to live on in those
Americans who think not primarily about the symbolic threat that Chinese tyranny presents to American Liberty
1787 in that they all prompted a Federalist fear of national disintegration. It is this fear that generates a willingness
to sacrifice individual liberties for the sake of state power and security. It is hard to imagine a Patriot Act or a
unitary executive theory in an Americaespecially during a Republican controlled Washingtonthat was not
facing the threats of Islamic fundamentalism and Chinas rise.
ignorance is involved, of course, and inquiry into the dynamics of Congressional participation in making China policy
obviously must go behind the Congressional debate that forms the public record. Whatever other factors are at
administration policymakers are "diverted from other tasks. . .Much time is spent dealing with often exaggerated
congressional assertions about negative features of the Chinese government' 5 behavior. . .The congressional critics
are open to a wide range of Americans- some with partisan or other interests - who are prepared to highly in often
graphic terms real or alleged policies and behaviors of the Chinese government in opposition to US interests."
Illinois, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Rob Portman of Ohio, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Richard Burr of North
Carolina and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. It also includes Rep. Joe Heck, who is running for Senate in Nevada for the
seat of retiring Democratic Leader Harry Reid. In the House, Bolton endorsed Reps. Martha McSally of Arizona; Mike
Coffman of Colorado; Bob Dold of Illinois; Lee Zeldin, Elise Stefanik and John Katko of New York; Will Hurd of Texas;
While
there has always been a quasi-isolationist wing of the movement, it has su rged
during the Obama administration with renewed vigor, joining forces with a
long-standing, hawkish skepticism of diplomacys ability to solve real
world problems. Together, the two strains of thought wield considerably more
influence over the conservative center now than at any point in at least
the past decade. One of the more prominent examples of this trend was the 2010
debate surrounding New START, the latest nuclear arms control treaty with Russia. Despite the
support of former cabinet secretaries from every Republican administration since
Richard Nixon and the chiefs of all the armed services, the treaty faced enormous
opposition from a majority of Republican senators. New START essentially continues an arms
so blithely discard the long-cherished legacy of Republican leadership on questions of foreign affairs.
control process begun with the Russians during the Cold War, limiting the number of nuclear warheads and delivery
vehicles to certain levels. A key feature of the treaty, in fact, was the updating and enhancement of the so-called
verification regime, which includes numerous on-site inspections. Some conservatives questioned the efficacy of
the verification procedures, derided the Obama administrations claim that ratification would help relations with
altogether and passed unanimously anyway. Its not just arms control that inspires such skepticism. Libertarians like
the Cato Institutes Ted Galen Carpenter have argued that the United States should withdraw from NATO. On the
occasion of NATOs 60th anniversary he wrote: [NATO] has become a hollow shellfar more a political honor
society than a meaningful security organization. . . . Until the United States changes the incentives by withdrawing
its troops from Europe and phasing out its NATO commitment, the Europeans will happily continue to evade their
Party caucus voted to cut off funding for the war in Libya. A reasonable case against American intervention was
certainly made by an array of foreign policy realists and others, but this is a questionable political tactic. After all,
conservatives lambasted Democrats during the Iraq War for playing politics with funding of ongoing military
operations. Earlier this year, the Republican Study Committee called for defunding the U.S. Agency for International
Development. Conservatives undoubtedly have fair and trenchant criticisms about the efficacy of foreign aid, and
many offer valuable reform ideas to reverse the worst of its follies. But even William Easterly, one of the most
vociferous critics of the development establishment, hasnt called for gutting the agency, which is incidentally
aggressively by the Bush administration, particularly after September 11. With the
combination of a new president and the winding down of the wars overseas, these
voices are now liberated to say that President Obamas world travels are a waste of
fuel, foreign aid is a waste of money, international organizations are a waste of
space, and engagement is a waste of time.
many Republicans, and certainly some Democrats, dont much value diplomacy
or foreign aid. Why is that the case? As it happens, I spent most of the spring interviewing congressional
staffers and analyzing their bosses and their own attitudes toward diplomacy, the Foreign Service, and the
State Department for a recently released study commissioned by the American Foreign Service Association. The
study based on interviews with 28 staffers, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, House and
$10 billion less than the level approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 25 and President Barack
and national security, according to one House Democratic aide, they think that "defense trumps diplomacy."
Despite the Obama administrations forceful arguments that diplomacy and defense
are equally important to U.S. national security, on Capitol Hill, "diplomacy is still the red-headed
stepchild of the American national security apparatus, " in the words of one senior House
Democratic aide. Appreciation for diplomacy breaks down, at least in part, along partisan
lines. As one senior Senate Republican aide noted, "By and large, Republicans are more national
hawks have excessive confidence that military action can solve problems
overseas, and so they dont to impose limits on what the U.S. does in its foreign
wars. They tend to see diplomacy as nothing but appeasement and therefore
something that should be undermined, second-guessed, and sabotaged as much as
possible. Other members of Congress have no strong ideological motivation for this behavior, but
simply want to be able to grandstand on major issues without suffering serious
political consequences. They are glad to avoid having to vote one way or another on
a war, since that potentially could come back to haunt them if the war drags on, if it fails, or if many Americans
are killed. Its safer and easier for them to cheer on a presidents illegal war when its popular and then start griping
about it when it goes badly, and because they never cast a vote one for or against the war they can have it both
are deployed across the region. Some progress has been made. Congress anticipated the need to rebalance when it
encouraged creation of the position of U.S. Ambassador to ASEAN; the State Department has created new
diplomatic and assistance programs in the region, such as the Lower Mekong Initiative and the Asia-Pacific Strategic
Engagement Initiative; the U.S. Government joined the East Asia Summit in 2011; and the U.S. Trade Representative
is pursuing the expansion and completion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership multilateral trade agreement, as well as
Studies
have identified conservative needs for a high level of certainty and order. This is
what made George W. Bush so admired among conservatives when he said, Youre
either for us or against us. Conservatives loved his unambiguous certainty , but in the
ambiguity, and even fear their own country The feds are coming in black helicopters for our guns.
context of invading Iraq, it was simplistic. France and Germany werent against us; they just didnt agree that
As the Obama administration charts its foreign policy, there is increasing unease
about its lack of achievements. The Iraq war lingers, Afghanistan continues to be mired in its endless
cycle of tribal disarray and Islamist resurgence, Guantanamo remains open. Still, Obama has introduced
important changes in both the style and substance of US diplomacy. An honest
dialogue with the international community has at times led the president to
acknowledge our own culpabilities and shortcomings . Even more dramatic has been Obama's
willingness to reach out to America's adversaries and seek negotiated solutions to some of the world's thorniest
test its nuclear weapons and missiles, Cuba spurns America's offers of a greater opening, and the Iranian mullahs
contrive conspiracy theories about how George Soros and the CIA are instigating a velvet revolution in their country.
Having suffered through what one diplomat called the enemy deprivation
syndrome of the 1990s, September 11 gave hard-line conservatives an opportunity
to apply their pre-hatched theories; and from the start they sought to unshackle the
United States from international agreements and to reduce reliance on
diplomatic engagement. When the Bush administration scored a rare recent
diplomatic success, convincing North Korea to open up some of its nuclear records,
Vice President Cheney was so disgusted by his own administrations
pragmatic decision to take Pyongyang off the US terrorist blacklist that he
snapped at reporters, Im not going to be the one to announce this decision. You
need to address your interest in this to the State Department. He then abruptly ended the
press encounter, and left the room. What is striking about Scoblics account of the hard-line conservatives disdain
As they ridicule
Senator Barack Obamas willingness to engage in negotiations with
Americas enemies, they seem unchastened by recent history. In 2003, for instance, when
for diplomacy and pragmatism is the resilience of the central tenets of their ideology.
the reporter Jeffrey Goldberg told Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense, that US troops in Iraq had not been
greeted with flowers, Feith said that the Iraqis had been too spooked by the presence of Saddam supporters to
show their true emotions. But, he said, they had flowers in their minds.
with China on the U.S. economy. These factors gave rise to a resurgence of
confrontationalist administration and legislative attitudes toward China. The 1999
Cox Report represented the first of many warnings from Congressional committees, neoconservatives
and Pentagon officials warning about the potential threat posed by a rising China.
The confrontationalist lobbies of the 1990s evolved and by 2005, included The
American Enterprise Institute (AEI),and the Project for a New American Century
(PNAC) with their advocates including Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Elliot Abrams,
Richard Perle, and Zalmay Khalilzad. Confrontationalists support a strategy of surrounding
China with military bases, supporting Taiwanese independence and working for the
fall of Communist Party oligarchy in China. John Mearsheimers sentiments sum up the
confrontationalist belief that China is a growing threat to U.S. national power: China cannot rise peacefully, and if it
continues its dramatic economic growth over the next few decades, the United States and China are likely to
engage in an intense security competition with considerable potential for war. A number of strategists, legislators,
and business interests take a less aggressive approach to the strategic relationship with China. These
leftward shift among congressional Democrats. The unenviable result of this polarization is that centrists in either
party have increasingly become an endangered species, possibly on their way to extinction. Even though the above
this connection, it is necessary to understand the thought-provoking new research on this topic by David Autor,
David Dorn, Gordon Hanson and Kaveh Majlesi. These researchers ask whether it is possible for negative economic
shocks emanating from international trade with China , mainly in manufactured goods, to
cause voters or their elected legislators to take positions that lean toward political
extremes on either the left or the right. Recall that from the 1950s to the early 1980s, manufacturing jobs in this
country permitted American workers without a college degree to attain a middle-class lifestyle. However, with
U.S. manufacturing
industries exposed to import competition from China have seen a number of
undesirable effects including higher rates of plant exit, larger contractions in
employment and lower lifetime incomes for the affected workers. The researchers analyzed
increased trade competition from China, this state of affairs has largely vanished. In fact,
congressional elections from 2002 and 2010 and show that congressional districts subject to larger increases in
import competition from China in this time period were substantially less likely to elect a moderate legislator in
2010. Put differently,
the United States is as eager as the Chinese leadership to see the Chinese
economy continue to grow. True, the United States is distinctly unhappy about what it
perceives to be an uneven playing field for American business, Beijings dubious
approach to intellectual property rights, and an industrial policy that privileges state
enterprises. Much of the tension in U.S. policy results from conflict between the
administration and Congress. The latter takes a more skeptical view of China, for
instance on the issue of IMF reform, in which Republicans in Congress have opposed
instance,
the administrations efforts to give China, among other countries, greater say in the
financial institution.
Congress will bash the plan to shift blame from domestic policy
Roach 10 (Stephen, chair @ Morgan Stanley, Asia, Stephen Roach on the Next Asia, p. google
books)
China bashing is also emblematic of a deeper problem that grips the U.S. body
politic -an unwillingness to embark on the heavy lifting of education reform and
other investments in human capital that are required to equip American workers to
compete and prosper in a Brave New World. Instead of investing in a hard- pressed
work force, Washington apparently believes in shielding U.S. workers from low-wage
talent pools in the developing world. The doubling of the world's labor supply that
has occurred in the past two decades has evoked a response of fear and
protectionism. Sadly, that puts America at grave risk of becoming more insular and
inward looking. Yet over the long sweep of U.S. economic history, our workers have
actually done best when they are pushed to their limits by a risk-taking,
entrepreneurial, and innovative society. By blaming others for our own shortcomings
-especially on the saving and human capital fronts- America runs the very real risk
of losing its most special edge of all, an indomitable economic spirit, shirking its
responsibility for putting U.S. savings policy on a sound path, Congress is, instead,
now veering toward the slippery slope of protectionism.
China is the scapegoat du jour for all that ails the American middle class. At least
that is the conclusion that can be drawn from spending any time these days in
Washington. Unfortunately, the US body politic has long had a penchant for such
scapegoating when it comes to trade policy. Remember the Japan bashing of the late 1980s? And
just three years ago there was an outcry over India, as it became a lightning rod for concerns about the new threat
U.S. economic engagement with China has benefited both nations. Now that Chinas growing economic power
appears ready to challenge the American capitalist tradition however, many critics of U.S.-China relations have
selected economic issues that in isolation appear to have serious implications for U.S. economic power. The same
issues when examined from the broader perspective of the global economy demonstrate the degree of complexity
decisions can have international and domestic consequences. Some economists have cautioned U.S. policymakers
that in deciding what trade policies make sense for America, the nation's leaders need to objectively research and
analyze the situation so they can determine the wisest course, looking at the long-term consequences of actions
that may bring them short-term praise. A strategic relationship with China in the age of globalization demands our
attention because as President Bush stated our relationship with China is a very complex one and a simplistic
approach should be avoided.
The Schumer bill's success, which has surprised even its sponsor, is
accelerating other measures. Two more senators, Susan Collins and Evan Bayh, are touting the Stopping
well pass the Senate.
Overseas Subsidies Act, which would allow American firms to get countervailing duties to make up for Chinese
China is not currently subject to America's antisubsidy law as it is deemed a non-market economy (which makes it easier for American firms
to file anti-dumping cases against it). But declaring China a market economy for the purposes
of subsidies, and a non-market economy for the purposes of anti-dumping, is
against WTO rules. Nobody in Congress , alas, seems to care about breaking WTO
rules. The aim is to be seen to be bashing China loudly. Mr Bayh is holding up the
subsidies, including a subsidised exchange rate.
confirmation of Rob Portman, the new trade representative, until his bill is voted on. Meanwhile, in the House of
Representatives, Duncan Hunter, a conservative Republican, and Tim Ryan, a Democrat, have cooked up a law that
allows American companies to use exchange-rate manipulation as a reason for demanding protection under
America's trade laws. And the Congressional China Currency Action Coalition has filed a Section 301 petition asking
the Bush administration to file a formal case to the WTO complaining about the yuan. In the 1980s,
a rising
trade deficitat that time with Japanfueled protectionist pressure in Congress . Ronald Reagan
introduced the notorious voluntary export restraints on Japanese steel and cars. The Reagan team also
abandoned its laisser-faire attitude to currency markets and, through the Plaza Agreement, engineered a sharp drop
The current bout of China-bashing is not a replay of the 1980s. Back then,
big business,
which relies heavily on Chinese inputs, is quieter. The shouting comes from smaller
American suppliers. And even the noisier business groups, such as the National Association of
in the dollar.
large American firms, particularly the Detroit car giants, led the clamour for protection. Now
Manufacturers, are relatively nuanced. Though the NAM wants Beijing to revalue the yuan, it does not support the
Schumer bill. Less encouragingly, the political and economic risks are bigger this time round. In the 1980s Japan, for
account deficit was smaller, 3.5% of GDP in 1985 compared with 6.3% today, and its debt stock lower. Today,
America is the world's biggest debtor, with China as an important creditor. A sharp reversal in China's appetite for
American Treasury bonds could send interest rates soaring. For now, the Bush administration seems to be trying to
muddle through. It has increased its rhetoric about the need for China to fix its exchange rate. It said this at the G7
meeting of finance ministers on April 16th, and,
on currencies later this month, it is likely to come close to calling China a currency
manipulatora term last applied to Beijing in 1994. The Bush team hopes to keep this grandstanding to a
minimum. But the China-bashing in Congress presents a danger. At worst, this frenzy could result
in a series of illegal (in WTO terms at least) protectionist bills becoming law. Even if things do not get that far, the
China effect will complicate an already tough struggle to get CAFTA through.
Under the deal, unveiled unexpectedly in Beijing early on Wednesday, China committed for the first time to cap its
output of carbon pollution by 2030. Beijing also promised to increase its use of zero-emission energy sources, such
as wind and solar power, to 20% by 2030. The United States agreed to double the pace of the cuts in its emissions,
reducing them to between 26% and 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. The deal struck between President Barack
Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, provides an important boost to efforts to reach a global deal to fight
climate change at a United Nations meeting in Paris next year. The accord also removes the Republicans main
rationale for blocking Obamas efforts to cut carbon pollution the claim that China is unwilling to undertake similar
cuts. But Republicans in the US Congress reacted strongly against the deal on
Wednesday. The party already held a majority in the House of Representatives, and the midterm elections last week
nothing at all for 16 years while these carbon emissions regulations are creating havoc in my state and around the
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through existing regulations, including the Environmental Protection
Boehner said:
Republicans have consistently passed legislation to rein in the EPA and stop these
harmful policies from taking effect, and we will continue to make this a priority in
the new Congress. Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican and climate denier who is poised to take over
the Senate environment and public works committee in January, said Chinas end of the bargain was
just a ploy to buy time. Its hollow and not believable for China to claim it will shift 20% of
Agencys new rules for power plants, which are the core of Obamas climate agenda. But
its energy to non-fossil fuels by 2030 and a promise to peak its carbon emissions only allows the worlds largest
economy to buy time, he said. As we enter a new Congress I will do everything in my power to rein in and shed
light on the EPAs unchecked regulations. President Obama hailed the deal at a joint press conference with his
Chinese counterpart at the Great Hall of the People. As the worlds largest economies and greatest emitters of
greenhouse gases we have special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change, he said. I am
proud we can announce a historic agreement. I commend President Xi, his team and the Chinese government for
the commitment they are making to slow, peak and then reverse Chinas carbon emissions. President Xi said: We
agreed to make sure international climate change negotiations will reach agreement as scheduled at the Paris
conference in 2015 and agreed to deepen practical cooperation on clean energy, environmental protection and
there could be delays that would weaken regulations put in place by the EPA before they come into force. The US
target looks like its going to be really tough to meet without new laws, Michael Levi, an energy and environment
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in a blog post. The
House, where Mr. Obama has said he will veto them. The Senate approved each measure by an identical margin, 52
to 46, signaling that Republican congressional leaders would not be able to muster the two-thirds majority needed
for an override. This one trend, climate change, affects all trends, President Obama said on Tuesday in Paris. At a
news conference at the climate summit meeting in Paris, Mr. Obama faced repeated questions about whether other
leaders could trust that the United States would be able to fulfill his commitments, even after his term ends in
January 2017, a sentiment that some Republicans reinforced Tuesday .
climate is changing, but about the priority that is being placed on it, said
Representative Edward Whitfield, Republican of Kentucky , in a speech on the House floor.
Why should this president penalize Americans and put us in jeopardy compared to other countries of the world and
require us to do more than other countries are doing, just so he can go to France and claim to be the world leader
and-trade which will kill jobs, increase costs and decrease the reliability of our energy supply the president is
ignoring Americas greatest success story in recent memory, Mr. McCarthy said. Our energy revolution brought on
by fracking is growing our economy and reducing carbon emissions at the same time .
Congressional
Republicans have taken numerous steps in recent weeks to draw clear
distinctions between Mr. Obamas views on environmental protection and
their own policy preferences, which favor increasing energy production in the
United States and further lowering costs for businesses and consumers . As well as voting
on the two resolutions, the House opened floor debate on a major energy bill focused on increasing natural gas
Obama showed no
sign of limiting his lofty goals, though he said he was most immediately focused on
securing a global accord. This one trend, climate change, affects all trends, he said. If we let the world
pipeline development. The bill would also lift a ban on crude oil exports. In Paris, Mr.
keep warming as fast as it is and sea levels rising as fast as they are, and weather patterns keep shifting in more
unexpected ways, then before long we are going to have to devote more and more and more of our economic and
military resources not to growing opportunity for our people, but to adapting to the various consequences of a
changing planet. Mr. Obama added: With respect to climate and whats taking place here, I dont want to get
ahead of ourselves. We still need a Paris agreement. So my main focus is making sure that the United States is a
leader in bringing a successful agreement home here in Paris.
Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the agreement on Wednesday. Under the deal, the U.S. will aim
to cut emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, and China will reach its peak emissions by 2030. This was
heralded as a major breakthrough on the path to a global climate agreement. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the
chambers most vocal climate change denier and the likely new chair of the Environment and Public Works
this is an agreement
thats terrible for the United States and terrific for the Chinese
government and for the politicians there, because it allows China to
continue to raise their emissions over the next 16 years , said Barrasso. Mitchell
for the U.S.; it merely lays out a 2025 target for emissions reductions.) To me,
pushed Barrasso, a medical doctor by training. Youre a man of science, she said, highlighting statement from his
colleague Inhofe that claimed climate change could not be happening because God is in control. Why should
frankly people trust Republicans to be running policy on science when this is what the incoming chairman had to
say about climate change? Barrasso refused to take the bait, sticking to his argument about the potential cost of
new greenhouse gas regulations without offering an alternative. All of us want to make energy as clean as we can
as fast as we can, he said. We want to do it in ways that dont raise the energy costs for American families and
impact their jobs, income, ability to provide for their families. Those are the issues we need to be focusing on. Not
all Republicans joined the chorus of complaints. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) said he spoke briefly to Secretary of
State John Kerry on Wednesday about the pact. He said hes keeping an open mind. Im positive about trying to
progress toward a global agreement that includes major developing nations like China. If U.S. regulations are
blocked, it would collapse the effort to get China and India and other countries to move forward, said David
Doniger, policy director and senior attorney for the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense
Council, in a post-election call with reporters last week. He noted that developing nations participation in an
agreement is something that Republicans have been demanding for years.
Other Republicans joined McConnell and Boehner in trashing the deal. Sen. James M.
Inhofe (R-Okla.), who is widely expected to assume the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee in January, called the pledges by Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping
hollow and not believable, and he suggested that the agreement was tilted in
Chinas interest. The United States will be required to more steeply reduce our
carbon emissions while China wont have to reduce anything , Inhofe said.
forthcoming international climate agreement is submitted to the Senate for its constitutional advice and consent,
37 Republican senators wrote in a letter to Obama on Thursday. The fund, a pool of public and private money, is
meant to help poorer nations prepare for climate change. A Senate appropriations bill cleared the way for the first
portion of American funding earlier this year, but
When it comes to the financing: I know a lot of people over there, the 192 countries,
assume that Americans are going to line up and joyfully pay $3 billion into this fund, said Sen. James Inhofe, the
Republicans
have looked to throw up obstacles in Obamas path toward a climate
accord, but they do not have a clear way to block it. Unless a deal is deemed to be a treaty requiring Senate
ratification, it wont come before lawmakers for a vote. But the climate fund, something developing nations
have long wanted as part of the climate talks, might give Republicans some leverage or at
least allow them to send a signal to the world about their opposition to a final
climate deal. Its important to make clear, I think, to the rest of the world that as these climate talks
approach, that Congress has the power of the purse, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said this week. In his
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. But thats not going to happen.
2016 budget request, Obama asked lawmakers to provide $500 million for the fund,
but House and Senate appropriators have given him nothing. Congress has yet to finalize
its 2016 spending plan, though the deadline to do so Dec. 11 is the last day of the U.N.s climate talks,
symmetry that may give Republicans a chance to complicate the process.
Link Renewables
Climate and renewables action is politically polarizing
Obamas push causes fights
Pyper 16 [Julia Pyper, Senior Writer at Greentech Media, 1-13-2016, "Obama
Wins Praise as a Champion of Clean Energy Despite Political Gridlock," Greentech
Media, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Obama-Wins-Praise-as-aChampion-of-Clean-Energy-in-a-Political-System-Plagu]
President
Obamas legacy on clean energy and climate will be widely considered one of
his greatest achievements -- and one of his most polarizing endeavors. In a recent victory, the
president helped finalize the most ambitious international climate agreement to date. In last nights State of the
Union address, the final one of his two-term presidency,
Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it, he said. Youll be pretty
lonely, because youll be debating our military, most of Americas business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific
community, and 200 nations around the world who agree its a problem and intend to solve it. Putting the science aside, the solutions to climate change
will also bolster the U.S. economy, he said. Why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the
future? While he cant take credit for everything, theres no denying the U.S. advanced energy sector has boomed on Obamas watch. Shortly after taking
office, Obama spearheaded the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which included more than $90 billion in government investment
and tax incentives to boost the clean energy economy. Investments were made in everything from advanced clean-energy manufacturing to efficiency
retrofits to smart meters. Those were serious dollars for clean energy -- an order of magnitude greater than what has been seen before, said Malcolm
Woolf, senior vice president of policy and government affairs at Advanced Energy Economy, who testified on the ARRA bill in 2009 as chair of the National
Association of State Energy Officials. The Recovery Act allocated roughly $3 billion for state energy programs. Obama built on this foundation by enacting
regulations that will double the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks by 2025, as well as issuing the first-ever set of standards for heavy-duty vehicles. His
administration then turned to stationary polluters with the launch of the Clean Power Plan. Last August, the EPA finalized historic carbon regulations on
new and existing power plants that will cut pollution from the power sector by 32 percent by 2030 and spur investments in clean energy. In another major
win for clean energy, the Obama administration helped push through five-year extensions of the Production Tax Credit for wind and the Investment Tax
Credit for solar in the final moments of last year. "Obama got us past the tipping point" One indication that Obamas strategy has worked is that clean
technologies like wind and solar have reached the point where theyre economically viable, said Woolf. Wind power PPAs in the U.S. are now coming in
below 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, while utility-scale solar project prices have hit record lows and the overall solar industry booms. According to GTM
Research, cumulative solar capacity in the U.S. has grown by a factor of 33 over the course of Obamas presidency. At the same time, corporations are
buying more renewable energy than ever before, and a majority of companies have put in place some kind of sustainability plan. Furthermore, grid
operators are now starting to see renewable energy as a way to offer affordable, reliable electricity, rather than as a problem. Obama did not meet his
goal of putting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015, but Woolf still counts the initiative as a win. Arguably, Obamas push for electric vehicles
through research and regulations is responsible for spurring automakers from General Motors to Mercedes to Porsche to bring mainstream electric vehicles
to market. The entire suite of advanced energy technologies has been on an upswing. In 2014, the sector grew a record 14 percent -- five times faster
mature to the point where they reach scale. Were fairly optimistic [going forward], regardless of the result of the
presidential election, because we see the technologies being economically competitive in their own right, so that
were no longer dependent on the president being the cheerleader, he added. Obama
tipping point.
Still earning his legacy While Obama has advocated for clean energy over the past seven
years, climate policy was not his top priority at the outset. The U.S. was supportive of a deal at the 2009
Copenhagen climate conference, but ultimately the talks failed, in part because of U.S. resistance. And in 2010,
Obama chose not to rally behind a Democrat-led climate change bill. Instead, the president focused his political
ground and putting the needs of the people ahead of the polluters. Obama said in his speech that he plans to
push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on
taxpayers and our planet. Environmental groups -- and oil and coal companies -- will surely be eager to learn more.
While U.S. oil and gas production is booming, many people argue that Obama has been a hindrance to the industry
overall. According to Frank Maisano, senior principal at the D.C. law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, Obamas drawn-out
rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline has also opened the door for opponents to block infrastructure projects for
whatever parochial reason -- that goes for pipelines and transmission projects needed for the Clean Power Plan.
The
way Keystone XL played out has made it much more difficult to win support for
all big infrastructure projects -- to build the type of infrastructure projects necessary to have renewable
energy projects built out, said Maisano. Obama has only paid lip service to the need for infrastructure
improvements, said Maisano, which is part of the reason why grid operators have pushed back so strongly against
chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee (who once famously brought a snowball to the Senate floor
as evidence against global warming), firmly believes climate change is a hoax. Donald Trump and several other
interesting to see what might have happened had he not been as engaged. The industry might have lost a market
signal, but we might not have the partisan fights that we now seem to have. Obama actually acknowledged in his
the political divide thats grown over the past seven years -is one of his biggest missteps. Its one of the few regrets of my presidency -- that the
rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better, he
State of the Union address that
on all issues --
said. Obama pledged to try and bridge the divide during his remaining months in office, and called on all Americans
to change the system to reflect our better selves.
Friday. Now it the time for us to lead. The energy bill before the House will finally create a set of incentives that will
spark a clean energy transformation of our economy, said Obama in his brief remarks delivered in the White House
but said his message is to members who are still on the fence. We cannot be afraid of the future, and we cant be
prisoners of the past. Passing this bill, he said, fulfills an obligation to our constituents our children, and to Gods
His remarks stressed the energy independence and green job aspects of the bill, but
climate benefits. There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing
our planet in jeopardy, he said. Whether Obamas call will sway the fence-sitters remains
unclear. But the hope is that throwing his heft behind the bill will help it get the 218
votes needed to pass.
creation.
also
mentioned the
Link Trade
Plan costs capital trade deals are massively unpopular
Davis 16 [Bob Davis (senior editor, covers economics and China issues), 3-92016, "Free Trade Loses Political Favor," WSJ, http://www.wsj.com/articles/free-tradeloses-political-favor-1457571366]
After decades in which successive Republican and Democratic presidents have pushed to open U.S. and global
resentment toward free trade now appears to have the upper hand
in both parties, making passage this year of a sweeping Pacific trade deal far less
likely and clouding the longer-term outlook for international economic exchange. Many Democrats have
long blamed free-trade deals for big job losses and depressed wages, especially in
the industrialized Midwest, which has been battered over the years by competition
from lower-cost manufacturing centers in countries like Japan, Mexico and China. But one big
surprise Tuesday was how loudly trade fears reverberated among Republican voters in the
primary contests in Michigan and Mississippievidence, many observers say, of a widening
undercurrent of skepticism on the right about who reaps the benefits from
loosened trade restrictions. Donald Trump, the leading contender for the Republican presidential
nomination, has expressed fervent opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact and
other trade deals, as has Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side. Democratic front-runner Hillary
Clinton, whose husband signed the North American Free Trade Agreement as president in 1994, now also
opposes the Pacific deal and has increasingly voiced doubts about trade in terms similar
to those of Mr. Sanders. Mr. Trump won the Michigan and Mississippi primaries by wide
margins, and among voters who were trade skeptics, his margin of victory
surpassed his overall margin. Trade jitters also helped propel Mr. Sanders to a
narrow victory in Michigan, where he frequently lambasted Mrs. Clinton for backing Nafta and for being
markets,
late in opposing the unratified TPP pact between a dozen Pacific rim nations. According to Michigan exit polls,
Democratic voters who believed trade deals reduce U.S. jobs backed Mr. Sanders by a 56% to 41% margin. And in
Mississippi, it was Republicans who said trade was a job killer, not Democrats, according to exit polls. Democrats
Tony Fratto, a former official in the George W. Bush administration who now consults with business on trade issues.
In recent years, he said, voters had joined the ranks of Republicans because of opposition to President Barack
Since Congress
approved Nafta, trade has become an increasingly divisive political issue.
Democrats have taken the lead in opposing new deals, saying the U.S. loses
millions of jobs due to imports produced by far cheaper labor in less developed countries.
Democratic support for free trade has declined over the years. Last year, only 28
Democrats in the House voted to give President Obama so-called fast-track
authority to negotiate trade deals, compared with 102 who voted for Nafta. Less
noticed has been faltering support among Republicans. In a June 2015 Wall Street
Obama, rather than a commitment to traditional GOP positions such as favoring free trade.
Journal/NBC news poll, taken shortly after the fast-track vote, overall respondents, by 34% to 29% margin, said free
trade hurt the U.S. But Republicans were far more negative than Democrats. GOP voters, by 38% to 28%, said free
trade harmed the U.S., while Democrats said trade helped by a 35% to 29% edge. Mr. Trump, who regularly argues
that the U.S. has been fleeced in trade negotiations with Mexico, China and Japan, has capitalized and expanded on
that anti-free-trade sentiment, said Patrick Buchanan, a populist Republican who used the trade issue to power his
Tuesday nights results show how difficult it would be in this environment for
congressional Republican leaders to seek passage this year of the TPP , a pact the White
House sees as a linchpin to its commercial and foreign-policy strategy to compete with Chinawhich isnt a party to
the dealin the Pacific region. Republican support helped keep the pact alive last year against heavy opposition
from Democrats, but the GOP backing has weakened sharply in recent months. Rep. Walter
Jones, a North Carolina Republican who generally opposes free-trade deals, said that the primaries would slow any
A vote on
the trade deal would create a campaign issue, he said. If the leadership starts pushing [TPP], it
effort in Congress to consider the TPP, which was finished last year but needs congressional approval.
would be a negative for the trade deal. Last year, Congress approved fast-track trade authority by a 219-to-211
vote. Fast-track approval means Congress can approve or disprove trade pacts but not amend them. Fifty-four
Republicans opposed the bill, which was widely seen as a prelude to a vote on TPP. Mr. Jones estimates that at least
an additional 20 to 25 Republicans would now oppose the deal itself. Proponents of the trade bill have similar
estimates. Rick Manning, president of the conservative Americans for Limited Government, said an anti-free trade
position has become a natural fit for Republicans worried about big government. Thats because the deals benefit
politically connected companies that can get the ear of U.S. negotiators, he argued. Trade deals represent
corporate cronyism at its worst, he said. In a survey of 1,200 people conducted for his group by Caddell
Associates, Republicans by a 59% to 4% margin said trade deals benefited other countries more than the U.S.
Fourteen percent said both sides benefited equally. Among Democrats, the edge was 35% to 12% for other
countries, with 26% saying both sides benefited. For years, trade experts dismissed opponents claims of
widespread harm caused by trade deals. Trade rejiggered jobs so that those laid off would be able to find new work
after a period of retraining, according to many experts. But more recently, there has been a rethinking of the costs,
spurred in part by the work of economists David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David Dorn of
the University of Zurich and Gordon Hanson of the University of California at San Diego. In a 2013 paper called The
China syndrome, the three economists attributed one-fourth of the decline in U.S. manufacturing employment
between 1990 and 2007 to competition from Chinese imports. In a follow-up paper this year, the three found that
employment in the U.S. is remarkably slow to rebound from Chinese import competition with wages and laborforce participation remaining depressed for at least a decade. Mr. Fratto, the former Bush administration official,
Trade legislation in Congress is facing stiff criticism from a vocal quarter of the
GOP and has divided the partys 2016 presidential contendersa surprising split in a party that has
traditionally been a bastion of free-trade advocates. Most Republicans in Congress are expected to vote for fast
Link Taiwan
Taiwan policy is controversial Splits interest groups
Roberts 14 (Guy, PhD Asia Institute, U of Melbourne, US Foreign Policy and China: Bushs First
Term, p. google books)
Many in the USA see Taiwan as a beacon of regional democracy. a harbinger of the region's democratic future, and
which has encouraged an impulse toward that "dc jure" independence that would be intolerable to the mainland
regime. Democratization has allowed different opinions to be publicly expressed - some
call for independence, others fear that Taiwan's nascent democratic tradition might be curbed or suppressed by the
that serve as the basis for US-China- Taiwan relations. These are the three Joint Communiques (of 1972. 1979, and
I982), and the I979 Taiwan Relations Act of the US Congress.
The Taiwan issue will remain a core issue in Beijing's effort to lobby Congress. Michael
Wessel, a member of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, said in 2()()S that although the
Taiwanese influence on Capitol Hill was still clearly stronger than Mainland China's influence, he was not so sure if
However, Taiwan's
influence on Capitol Hill is deep rooted. Since the late 1940s, Taiwan has fostered
good feelings on Capitol Hill and in the US public, which was highlighted by
congressional support for Lee Teng-huis visit to the United States in 1995. It was no exaggeration
to say that in the 1990s Taiwan had "an influential, well-heeled domestic constituency, which
has become an important source of financing for US political campaigns.""' The
Taiwan lobby was considered "one of the most effective lobbies in Washington.'""
Taiwan continued its lobbying efforts after 1995. From 1998 to 2004 the Taiwan Studies
Institute, which is closely' linked to the Taiwanese government, signed contracts
with the largest American public relations firm lnterpublic Group of Companies worth US$6.25
this would be the case five years later.''" That observation served as a warning to Taipei.
million. The institute also paid Cassidy 8: Associates USS7 million from 2000 to July 2003 and another US$1.08
is where American concerns are focused. For example, there was a widely publicized
investigation of an alleged effort by China to influence American domestic politics
prior to and during the Clinton Administration in 1997.
.
Working Group caucus in the House that is broadly open to Chinese views. According to Wikipedia, it has 56
members, 32 of them Democrats. (Those numbers include quite a mixMichele Bachmann is a member. Also, by
the
Congressional China Caucus, the other such grouping for the Middle Kingdom, is mostly
Republican and largely inclined to be watchful of Chinas rise. (This article,
comparison, the Congressional French Caucus, including senators, has 96 members.) Interestingly,
although from 2006, is still basically correct in describing the landscape on Capitol Hill.) Rather tellingly,
Taiwan add further heat to debate, as do others in whose geostrategic perspective China has already
become a threat to American security. Underlying the views of some, echoing the labor unions,
is a commitment to protectionism. One respected Senator suggested during the debates that
latent racism may lurk even deeper. These views cloud debate because they often
caricature a complex society and foster unconstructive moralizing rather
than analysis of the problems that they address. By demonizing China they
obstruct the formulation and maintenance of a coherent American policy toward
China and weaken Congress' contribution to making US policy.
While few members of Congress are interested in Asia-Pacific policy, there are a
number of members, particularly in the House, who are interested in specific countries or
issues in the Asia Pacific. Their interest is often driven by a large immigrant or ethnic
population in their district, or personal background with an issue. These drivers are not unique to the AsiaPacific region. In the absence of concern for the broader regional picture, however, there is the risk that where
members of Congress develop or show an interest in the Asia Pacific, it will be a
narrow interest. For example, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ed Royce, represents
a large number of ethnic Korean constituents in his southern California district. Royce has taken a particular interest
in North Korea issues, and has spoken out in favour of South Koreas claim in its territorial dispute with Japan,
despite longstanding US government policy to never take sides in third-party territorial disputes.[46] When
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited Washington in April 2015, Royce delayed approval for Abes landmark
speech to a joint meeting of Congress over concerns, often expressed by Korean-Americans, about Abes view of
US officials to work to improve the human rights records of all Asian countries as part of a broader regional strategy.
For example, in 2014, 70 per cent of the hearings concerning the Asia Pacific held by the House Foreign Affairs
Committee and its subcommittees focused on issues of human rights and democracy. Only 9 per cent of hearings
on the Middle East and 14 per cent of the hearings on Europe focused on human rights and democracy.[48]
Advocacy for democracy, human rights, and fair labour practices is a long-time feature of US foreign policy, and
of a problem in the Senate, where, for example, Senator McCain has used his considerable credibility, as a victim of
Vietnamese torture when he was a prisoner of war, to argue for an approach that deepens engagement with Hanoi
Chinas declining fortunes have not registered with U.S. elites , let alone the American
Obamas much-hyped "pivot to Asia," announced last November, is premised
on the continuing rise of China; the Pentagon has said that by 2020 roughly 60 percent of the
Navys fleet will be stationed in the Asia-Pacific region. Washington is also considering deploying
seaborne anti-missile systems in East Asia, a move reflecting U.S. worries about
Chinas growing missile capabilities. In the lead-up to the Nov. 6 U.S. presidential election, both
Democrats and Republicans have emphasized perceived Chinese strength
for reasons of both national security and political expediency . Democrats use
Yet
Chinas growing economic might to call for more government investment in education and green technology. In late
August, the Center for American Progress and the Center for the Next Generation, two left-leaning think tanks,
released a report forecasting that China will have 200 million college graduates by 2030. The report (which also
estimates Indias progress in creating human capital) paints a grim picture of U.S. decline and demands decisive
action. Republicans justify increasing defense spending in this era of sky-high deficits in part by citing predictions
The 2012
Republican Party platform, released in late August at the Republican National Convention, says, "In
the face of Chinas accelerated military build-up, the United States and our allies
must maintain appropriate military capabilities to discourage any aggressive or
coercive behavior by China against its neighbors." The disconnect between the
brewing troubles in China and the seemingly unshakable perception of Chinese
strength persists even though the U.S. media accurately cover China, in particular the countrys inner
fragilities. One explanation for this disconnect is that elites and ordinary Americans remain poorly
informed about China and the nature of its economic challenges in the coming
decades. The current economic slowdown in Beijing is neither cyclical nor the result of weak external demand for
that Chinas military capabilities will continue to grow as the countrys economy expands.
Chinese goods. Chinas economic ills are far more deeply rooted: an overbearing state squandering capital and
squeezing out the private sector, systemic inefficiency and lack of innovation, a rapacious ruling elite interested
solely in self-enrichment and the perpetuation of its privileges, a woefully underdeveloped financial sector, and
rivals decline corresponded with intense dissatisfaction with U.S. performance (President Jimmy Carters 1979
Chinese state media and history textbooks have fed the younger generation such a diet of distorted, jingoistic facts,
outright lies, and nationalist myths that it is easy to provoke anti-Western or anti-Japanese sentiments.
Even
The literature on Congress and foreign policy includes no shortage of scholarly works
pointing to legislator ideology as the key determinant for in voting decisions. The
more conservative a legislator is, the more likely he or she is to vote for "hawkish"
policies. I rely on DW-NOMINATE Scores provided by Poole and Rosenthal (1997) to gauge the impact of ideology
on members' voting decisions and changes in such decisions over time.')4 What is also interesting over the
issue of China's NTR extension is the emergence of an "ends-against-the-middle"
voting coalition (McRae I970. 51: Poole and Rosenthal I997, Nokken 2003). Those members of'
Congress with extreme ideological convictions tend to be most vocal against proChina policy on Capitol Hill, thus establishing a strange congressional coalition composed of both liberals and
conservatives. Poole and Rosenthal (1997) illustrate an odd alliance between conservative Senator Jesse Helms of
North Carolina and liberal Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts over foreign policy toward Central America.
Liberals and conservatives have different motivations for their bipartisan voting
coalition against China. Some liberal legislators opposed the granting of NTR to
China on the grounds that the Chinese government should have been punished for
its empty efforts at promoting human rights and improved environmental conditions in China.
Some conservative members voted to revoke China's NTR status because they
believed that they had to press China to protect religious freedom in the most populous
country in the world. A particularly strange partnership of China critics formed in the
Senate, where Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat from New York. teamed up with
Lindsey Graham. a conservative Republican from South Carolina. Together, they co-sponsored
a measure that would impose a 27.5 percent tariff on Chinese imports if China does not
revalue its currency, On March 2006, the Chinese government, even invited these two senators to Beijing to present
their side of the undervalued currency debate.
China has, at best, a weak fan base in Congress, and always has. Fickle, Freeman
calls it. The Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989, the missile-firing flare-up over Taiwan in 1995, the
spate of often flimsy espionage allegations d uring the late Clinton years: All of it left Chinas
image in tatters on Capitol Hill. Then came the loud and rancorous debate in 2000
over whether to bless China with most-favored-nation status in the run-up to Chinas joining
the World Trade Organization. The tempest went on for months in Congress, with pro-China
heavies like the US Chamber of Commerce, the US-China Business Council, and the Business Roundtable
duking it out with the more skeptical labor and human-rights groups. China won in
the end by 40 votes in the House and far more in the Senate, but for a while it looked like a
cliffhanger. So, five years later, does China have a lot more friends in Congress? The
US trade deficit with China, after all, has soared since 2000 from $83 billion to an anticipated $230
billion in 2006. Beijings ambassador to the US, the veteran America hand Zhou Wenzhong, puzzles over that
question for a minute during a chat one morning at the embassy. He rubs his chin. He sips his tea. He shifts in a
formal chair at the far end of a formal Chinese-style reception room. We
Robert Byrd? The curmudgeonly 89-year-old from West Virginia who has voted
against basically every trade deal thats ever come before him, including the pivotal
2000 vote on China? Byrd, who railed against the influx of Chinese goods during
his reelection campaign last fall? Byrd, one of the staunchest protectionists on
Capitol Hill? The Byrd mention is funnyor sadon a couple of levels. China is now Americas fastest-growing
export market and our second-largest supplier of goods after Canada, having summarily shoved aside Japan and
ensures that politicians who want to be reelected will pay careful attention to the international attitudes of their
well.
There is less information available about public opinion and members of Congress
and leaders at other governmental levels. While U.S. Senators and the few at large U.S. Representatives may have
and Destler 1999, Kull and Ramsey 2002, Kull 2004, and Kull et al., 2011).
Although all adult citizens in a politicians area of representation in theory have an equal weight at the ballot box,
constituents, or related to services from the federal government that they bring back to the district (see Mayhew
attorneys, environmentalists, consumers, utilities, veterans, oil and gas, mining, Native Americans, oil and gas
political leaders can maintain that national poll results are not useful for
learning about the relevant opinions of their constituents at some other geographic level.
The freely available polling data in the media or on websites or otherwise publically
available may not have the information about public opinion they most need. This is
particularly true for state and local leaders interested most in state and local issues
whereas the available data cover only national issues and the opinions of national samples. Still, politicians
insistence that my district is different on national issues is contradicted by
research that has shown that on many major issues the geographic variation is small if not trivial (see Kull
Further,
2004).3
Reuters. "If we could move to reciprocal treatment that would match the U.S. list, that would be great," he added.
a general clumsiness on the PR front is still true for China writ large
in Washington. Veteran China hands tell stories on deepest backgroundof Chinas
longstanding penchant for delivering testy formal protest letters over even the
smallest perceived slights. The brouhaha in 2005 over whether Chinese energy company Cnooc Limited
For all the progress,
might gobble up Unocal stirred a flurry of such protests, as have the repeated threats by some in the Senate to
impose stiff tariffs on Chinese imports unless Beijing loosened controls on its currency. The
Chinese
Embassy can be pretty ham-handed at times, says one top Senate staffer, who
claims to have a file stuffed with barbed embassy letters. The Cnooc tiff in the summer of
2005 set off a squall on Capitol Hill and showed how unprepared Beijing was to respond. Lawmakers within days
Chinese officials,
stunned at the backlash, got testy in return, accusing Congress of singling out China
for rough treatment.
were describing Cnoocs $18.5-billion bid to buy Unocal as a threat to US national security.
government, of course, is not stupid. Chinas growing confidence in dealing with the US, and the world in general, is
still matched by a cautious desire to avoid conflict. At strategic moments, the Chinese government is likely to make
tactical concessions whether on Google or the currency in an effort to head off a damaging conflict with the US.
with American business and the American public increasingly restive, the risks of
miscalculation are growing.
But
China,
consistent with the normal practice of international relations, has traditionally engaged the US
political system through the executive branch. In the past decade, however, China has initiated
Since the normalization of relations between the Peoples Republic of China and the United States,
efforts to significantly deepen its relationship with Congress. The intensification of Chinese engagement with
Congress is driven in part by a shift in the nature of economic relations between the two nations as Chinese entities
seek to enter the US market, but is also attributable to a moderation in support from US corporations which have
well.
that same
month finally gave in to local culture and hired its own lobbying outfit, Washington
heavyweight Patton Boggs. Pundits heralded the signing as a sea change, as Beijing for ages had sniffed at
Patton Boggs has served mainly as a writer of letters and an opener of doors on Capitol Hilldoors, some say, that
China could just as easily have opened on its own. Patton Boggs declines to talk about its work. So for the moment,
Chinas leap into the lobbying world looks more like a hop. We are still
experimenting with this, says Ambassador Zhou . He acknowledges that lobbyists can help in
communications and are useful in interpreting the strange ways of American political culture. But hes not
predicting a boom in Chinese spending on lobbyists anytime soon. We are not in a
hurry, he says.
Nathan Wilcox, the Federal Global Warming Program Director for Environment America, one group that lobbied
heavily on comprehensive climate change legislation, told OpenSecrets Blog. The
opposition outspent
Pro-environment
groups poured more than $1.2 million into his campaign , donating to his campaign over
Democratic rival Hillary Clintons by a seven-to-one margin. Oil and gas groups again outspent proenvironmental groups considerably, and with their own partisan slant. With more
than $35.6 million, individuals and political action committees contributed far more,
at a more than six-to-one rate. Seventy-seven percent of contributions from this
industry went to Republicans during the 2008 cycle. Still, it was pro-environmental groups that
backed the winning candidates. And it was pro-environmental groups who carried the political momentum into 2009
and the first legislative battleground in the House of Representatives. Advocacy groups pushed hard for a bill that
would tackle global warming by placing an economy-wide cap on carbon emissions. Major industry players lobbied
heavily in the first half of the year. Established leaders favoring the legislation the Environmental Defense Fund,
the Natural Resource Defense Council, the Sierra Club all lobbied heavily, bringing the industry to more than $4.7
million during the first quarter. In the American Security and Clean Energy Act (H.R. 2454), which passed the House
of Representatives in June 2009, most saw a serious victory. Wesley Warren, director of programs for the Natural
Resources Defense Council, today calls the Houses passage of H.R. 2452 proof that money isnt the final arbiter
in legislative matters. Its not only about the money, he told OpenSecrets Blog. Having money helps, but the
other side will always have more and they dont always win. Far from united on the issue, however, many
environmental activist groups cried foul over perceived carve-outs for special interests, citing massive amounts of
carbon offsets given to energy and coal companies, which would exempt large parts of the industries from a cap on
Greenpeace, a group that is well-known for its environmental activism and which also
lobbied on the bill in 2009, went on record as not supporting the legislation. It called H.R. 2454 a victory
for lobbyists from industries of oil, coal and others. Indeed, looming over the
negotiations throughout the first half of the year was the oil and gas industrys
influential shadow. During the first half of the year, oil and gas groups spent more than
$86.5 million on legislative influence. Some of the largest oil companies in the world
who double as industry spending leaders lobbied heavily on H.R. 2454.
carbon emissions.
ConocoPhillips, Chevron Corp, ExxonMobil and U.S. petroleum conglomerate Koch Industries each individually spent
millions of dollars lobbying Congress that quarter . Each listed H.R. 2454 repeatedly on their federally mandated
lobbying reports in 2009. It was a major job-killer, Bill Bush, a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute,
a trade association that represents oil and gas interests, told OpenSecrets Blog. It wasnt an efficient way to go
about the problem of climate change it would have placed a great burden on those Americans who use and are
Center for Responsive Politics Researcher Matthias Jaime contributed to this report. Negotiations over legislation to
reform the nations health care system had inflamed an already deep partisan divide between Democrats and
Republicans. It was the perfect situation for opponents of climate change legislation: As Democrats wrangled with
the moderate factions of their party over health care, oil and gas groups hammered away in the background. In the
same leading oil and gas interests lobbying on H.R. 2454 also focused on the Senate versions of the legislation
the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733), sponsored by Senators John Kerry (Mass.) and Barbara
is because long-term growth needs technical innovations, which cause creative destruction (structural adjustment)
of existing technologies, which in turn harms the interests of existing elites. If elites are too powerful, they will block
new technologies, so as to keep their powers to extract rents from the rest of society, and the nation will then fail
(to grow sustainably). To apply this idea to world development, I will assume the aim is to sustain growth in
wellbeing, not in GDP; and that uncontrolled carbon (greenhouse gas) emissions will seriously damage wellbeing,
particularly of poor people in developing countries (Mendelsohn et al., 2006). Any reasonable target for carbon
control then needs a climate-technology revolution in the world economy (Barrett, 2009), hence globally inclusive
current, private benefits in return for costs imposed on future generations, especially poor people in developing
countries. So what economic research (interpreted broadly here!) could help make global climate policy
institutions more inclusive? One suggestion is that research should focus less on pure, theoretically welfaremaximizing carbon price mechanisms, which auction all tradable carbon permits or allow no carbon tax thresholds,
and more on politically pragmatic mechanisms that allow free permits or thresholds to be any fraction of controlled
emissions (e.g., Pezzey and Jotzo, 2012). Pure mechanisms, assuming their carbon price is high enough to cut
emissions substantially, are likely to fail politically, at least initially, solely because of lobbying resistance to the
resulting revenue transfers to government (Pezzey and Jotzo, 2013), before even considering resistance to the
creative destruction that would follow any substantial pricing. Most recent literature (e.g., Tietenberg, 2013) broadly
accepts such policy realism, and key papers have highlighted the tight limits needed on free permits or tax
thresholds to avoid the injustice of giving polluters large windfall profits (e.g., Bovenberg and Goulder, 2001; Sijm et
al., 2006), but several authors still study or even recommend pure mechanisms. However, to risk over-generalizing
claims about probable dire effects of carbon pricing are wildly exaggerated, and readily refuted by routine economic
Some of the lobbyists, like those representing the U.S. Chamber, clearly are seeking
to derail any federal effort to mandate a reduction in fossil fuel emissions .
But others have more subtle agendas they seek to blunt the costs, or tailor any new climate
policy to their narrow agendas. Some just want a slice of that revenue stream. Others hope to shape the
rules of the bazaar in the market-based system that the politicians, including Obama, favor for grappling with global
newcomers to the party. They have a kind of Realpolitik rationale: As a practical matter, they believe support will
build among the politicians as more interests like agriculture, financiers, builders, and even forward-looking
manufacturers and power companies see what they could gain in a carbon-reduction regime. Perhaps theyre right.
Maybe the sum of all lobbies, as U.S. energy policy has been famously described, will this time
add up to a positive for the planet. But theres more reason to fear that
climate policy will die at the hands of special interests than there is to
believe that special interests can bring climate policy to life. Look at what happened
to the climate bill sponsored last year by Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman and
Virginia Republican John Warner. With the legislation being debated last spring just as U.S. gasoline prices made
their historic climb to more than $4 a gallon, the Chamber of Commerce and other business opponents focused on
voted against the actual bill all due to their concerns over the price for consumers and business. Remember,
Lieberman estimated his bill only would have imposed $17 billion in costs on the fossil fuel industry in the first year.
Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, the nations sixth-largest power producer, says he wants to see a climate
bill this year. But he has been quick to criticize the Obama approach, because he says a slower transition is needed
to protect consumers of the coal-dependent states in the Midwest and South. Duke and other members of the U.S.
Climate Action Partnership a coalition of businesses and some environmental groups favor the government
giving carbon pollution allowances for free to local electric distribution companies like Duke in the early stages of
the program. Rogers has been critical of the Obama approach, which is expected to require polluters to pay for the
program through a government auction of all carbon dioxide emissions permits. Proponents of auctioning 100
percent of CO2 permits seek to avoid the pitfalls of the European system, which initially gave away many permits to
power producers at no cost, resulting in windfalls for those companies. The U.S. auction would provide revenue for
the federal government to fund programs to offset the increased energy costs to families, as well as to invest in
development of clean energy. Yet another position is being staked out by the Edison Electric Institute a power
industry group to which Duke also belongs which argues that free allowances also should go to the so-called
merchant generators of power, companies that sprung up due to state deregulation and are now responsible for
nearly a third of the power consumed in the United States. The merchants dont serve local populations as oldstyle utilities do but sell their power to the highest bidder in the wholesale market. Local utilities would be
required by state regulators to pass the value of free allowances to their ratepayers, but unregulated merchant
Meanwhile, U.S. CAPs $870,000 in spending on climate lobbying last year paled next to the $9.95 million spent by
the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a group of 48 coal mining, hauling and burning
companies. (Duke, incidentally, is one of several companies that are members of both ACCCE and U.S. CAP. Its hard
to tell the players in the game, even with a scorecard.) ACCCE will undoubtedly be a major player in the battle to
pass climate legislation, and the group advocates a cautious approach that some cap-and-trade advocates say
would delay serious climate legislation for years. While the group claims to support a federal program to curb CO2
emissions, ACCCE opposed the Warner-Lieberman bill and says it will only back legislation that encourages a
robust utilization of coal. Since there's no technology available today that scrubs the carbon out of emissions from
coal-fired power plants, what ACCCE is really seeking is a go-slow approach from Congress while the government
invests in developing that technology. Warner-Lieberman, in ACCCE's view, went too far, too fast.
On the other
end of the spectrum is the fast-growing renewable energy sector , which is fully devoted to
adding the price of carbon pollution to every kilowatt generated from cheap coal competitors. Yet , put
renewable energy interests together with the environmental groups both lobbies have
mushroomed in the past five years and they are still outnumbered 8 to 1 by all other
interests lobbying on climate.
of traction," Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Senate energy committee, told reporters at the
National Press Club a few days after Obama first announced his plan. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), co-author of a
House bill that closely resembles Obama's proposal, nevertheless acknowledges that it has slim chances of passing.
"It will be a challenge to get anything through the House that includes any tax increase for anyone under any
circumstance," he told The Huffington Post. The list goes on: "It's not on my radar," said Frank Maisano, a
spokesman for Bracewell Giuliani, a lobbying firm with several oil and gas industry clients. "It's old news and it's
cutting them in his previous two budgets as well, but the Senate -- where Republicans and consistently pro-oil
Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu had more than enough votes to block any legislation -- never even took a stab at
it.
what our paper sought to offer. Agreeing that presidents strategic options in Congress do indeed depend heavily on
While the first of these is widely recognized and studied, the second is not. By detailing the actual mechanisms of
president-led coalition building on Capitol Hill, ours is a theory that puts positive presidential power on a firmer
centered and agenda-centered strategies is a necessary condition for presidents to have positive influence in
Congress, it certainly is not a sufficient condition. Instead, we find the exact policy return on a particular
presidential lobbying campaign is conditioned by the location of the status quo, and the nature of leading
opponents and pivotal voters preferences. Beyond enjoying ample political capital, then, those presidents who
seek to change far-off status quos and confront pliable leading opponents and/or pivotal voters are expected to
more nuanced conception of presidential power suggests presidential leadership in lawmaking works through
mechanisms different from those recognized previously and is manifested in ways different from those tested
previously. In fact, our theoretical results set forth specific guidelines for properly testing presidents legislative
influence. To conclude, let us briefly delineate these empirical implications of our theoretical model. The first and
Congress responds differently to bills depending on the presidents lobbying, all else
being equal.
of material and non-material of interactions among capital forms making it possible to define political capital and
design an index to measure it based upon previous capital literature. To develop an empirical basis for political
capital, this article first examines the associations it connotes in the popular press today. In contrast, a definition of
a
theory of political capital functions and markets are suggested. Theorizing leads to proposals
for objective means of identification and measurement . To illustrate the market association
political capital based upon capitalization literature and Bourdieus interconvertibility theory is presented. Then,
between capital and politics, an index associated with the resources associated with the candidacy market is
offered. The paper concludes with directions that studying the concept of political capital may take towards theorybuilding and framework creation. Defining Political Capital It is erroneous to refer a body of PC literature when
seeking a definition. Most writers and concerned actors who invoke the term political capital assume that its
meaning is understood. It is inferred to be an entity which political actors possess, build up and spend. 1 However,
a definition of political capital is typically never stated the reader or observer is left to
determine their own definition based upon the politicians or journalists usage of the term (Suellentrop 2004;
judicial), bureaucracy, and in society in general, the concept is meaningless. Defining and utilizing PC as a viable
political variable can evolve from the proliferation of capital theories in various fields of study. Political capital can
and should be associated with a wide variety of previous capital interpretations. The key to explicating political
capital is within capital literatures and how they address materialism, non-materialism, and combining the two
elements.2 The theory of capital is traditionally associated with economics. There is no clear consensus in defining
capital as an ideological function applicable beyond material exchange as expounded in economic capital theory,
however. Yet nonmaterial forms of capital are well established in scholarly literature . Most
of the capital type definitions hover around the meaning and terminology of economic capital. Certain theorists
believe that all capital forms, regardless of their composition or purpose, connect in some way with economic
capital. 3 Pierre Bourdieus work is invaluable in understanding capital as conceptually distinguishable from its
individual aberrations as a material phenomenon. Bourdieu extends the ideas and metaphor of economic interest
(material or physical pursuits) to include non-economic goods and services (symbolic or nonmaterial pursuits).
Within this conceptualization, Bourdieu constructs a science of practices that analyzed all human functions as
oriented towards the maximization of material or symbolic profit. 4 His theory of capital has limitations, however.
He relies on ideal types and lacks the empirical research needed to support much theory. It is impossible to refer to
capital-types and not acknowledge Bourdieus contributions to multiple capital species (Bourdieu1986; Kane 2001;
Putnam 2001; Becker 1993); Fitz-Enz 2000; Davenport 1999; Marr 2005).
administration goals). Beyond these resources, presidents are also able to draw on two other intangible factors that
can and have been significant at many points in the history of the office: deference and crisis. The president is the
beneficiary of deference, usually in foreign policy. Half a century ago, Aaron Wildavsky noted in "The Two
Presidencies" that presidents are more likely to get their way from Congress in foreign affairs than in domestic
policy,10 and that deference continues to apply and appeared throughout our case studies. Even in the midst of
tough times, Congress tended to defer to the chief executive on international issues, even controversial wars. Of
course, this deference was not absoluteas several presidents also foundbut it was a significant resource for the
president. This deference also enhances presidential influence in times of national crisis, when the ordinary pulling
and hauling of politics gives way to consensus and rallying around the nation's leader. This has been the situation in
Cold War crises, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, and in the 2008 financial crisis. Presidential Power
Resources: Personal Skills Presidents are also politicians and possess a variety of personal skills.
These skills are the sorts that Neustadt focused on in his description of presidential power and include the chief
executive. Some presidents, such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, possessed an ability to connect with the public
that helped each man survive a crisis that could have destroyed his presidency (Iran-Contra for Reagan, the
Lewinsky scandal for Clinton); other presidents do not have such a rapport with the public and, like Jimmy Carter
and George H. W. Bush, suffer for it. Finally, the president often has the ability to control timing and surprise to
influence events; for example, Nixon used both to manage the diplomatic opening to China in 1972, thus
contributing to his success in that endeavor. Of course, presidents do not possess all of these personal resources in
equal amount. Also, these personal resources are not uniform even in the same person. Even gifted politicians can
find their personal skills failing them in certain circumstances (as happened to LBJ in the matter of Vietnam),
whereas those who seem politically unskilled in one domain can be successful in another (as happened with Jimmy
I've got is nuclearand I can't use that."11 Whereas the legalistic approach to presidential powers tended to view
the veto, pardons, and treaty power in isolation from the political circumstances in which they are exercised,
presidents must employ their power resources in the real world of politics. That was the insight of LBJ's remark: the
president's leverage is a matter of leverage in context. The first contextual factor that a president must weigh are
the risks of the situation: the risk of inaction, the risk of failure, the risk of a court challenge (especially in cases of
Weighing these
risks is an eminently political decision, and consciousness of them has led chief
executives to proceed with caution (e.g., Lincoln and the timing of the Emancipation Proclamation,
Kennedy and civil rights legislation) or with boldness (e.g., Nixon's opening to China, Reagan's firing of
venture constitutionalism) or other negative reaction, the risk of bad timing, and other risks.
striking air traffic controllers, or Clinton's willingness to shut down the government). A second contextual factor that
presidents must weigh is the obstacles that stand in their way . These include opposition to
the president's goals: who opposes them, how numerous and how powerful the
opposition is, what resources the opposition possesses, and other considerations. Other obstacles include
constitutional and legal barriers to the president's plan and goals, bureaucratic resistance, economic constraints,
and other obstacles imposed by the particular situation. For example, Barack Obama was able to overcome the
obstacles that stood in the way of the health care reform plan (although some remained after the bill's passage that
raised questions about its implementation), whereas Bill Clinton in 1994 was unable to overcome opposition to his
plan and George W. Bush in 2005 could not attract support for his call for Social Security reform.
Obstacles
also include the intensity of opposition to the president's goals , which can make the
president's job even more difficult: in the cases of Truman and MacArthur, Eisenhower and Orville Faubus in Little
Rock, or Kennedy confronting George Wallace at the University of Alabama in 1963, each chief executive had to
contend with a highly motivated adversary. This fact is a key reason why each of these presidents had to rely on
executive power (Neustadt's "command") in order to act as he believed the situation required. Third, specific
situations also present opportunities. These include opportunities to advance the president's policy goals (e.g.,
change environmental policy, support democracy abroad), promote their political goals (such as reelection), meet
their responsibilities (which often motivates forays into venture constitutionalism),12 or seize other opportunities.
a president may believe that the situation requires action, even if the risks are very high and the obstacles to
success are formidable (e.g., the Cuban Missile Crisis). In any situation,
resources, weighed against the risks, obstacles, and opportunities presented by circumstances, are
applied as leverage toward advancing the president's goals . Obviously, the consequent
leverage will not be the same in all circumstances but will vary according to the situation.
Presidents use a wide range of tactics to set policy, including their ability to
influence the legislative agenda and staff vacancies to key independent boards and lower level federal
courts. In terms of influencing the legislative agenda, modern presidents introduce legislation and
define policy alternatives (Covington, Wrighton and Kinney 1995; Eshbaugh-Soha 2005, 2010). The State
of the Union Address and other public speeches are important venues for this activity (Canes-Wrone
2001; Cohen 1995, 1997; Light 1999; Yates and Whitford 2005), but they are not the only means
through which presidents outline their legislative goals. Presidents also add items to the legislative
agenda intermittently in response to issues or events that they believe require attention. This may be
controversy in the presidential success literature. Further, we are interested in both the causes and consequences
theories of party competition in Congress while our analyses on presidential success enable us to fit existing
theories of party politics into the literature on the presidency.
there always will be opposition politicians eager and able to exploit that mindset to
score political points and gain political office, and to frustrate the efforts of those who think
differently. That is a political reality that even the most diligent and cool-headed realist must contend with. Any
president, even in a second term, must constantly worry about how what he or she does on
any one issue will affect the presidents influence and ability to get things done on
other issues. This means compromises inevitably are made. It also means the
president must pick which battles to fight and which not to fight. In that respect a realist presidents
perspective in dealing with conflict in Washington must parallel the perspective applied to conflicts abroad. The
president does, of course, have the ability to use the prominence and prestige of the office to try to educate the
public and to change the public mindset. One is entitled to ask why, as we read the wisdom that President Obama
dispenses in his conversations with Goldberg, we havent been receiving more of a steady diet of such wisdom,
featuring as much candor and directness, in a series of presidential statements from Mr. Obamas first days in
office. Part of the answer lies with this particular presidents strengths and weaknesses and comfort levels; he
acknowledged to Goldberg that there are times when I have not been attentive enough to feelings and emotions
communication-skilled president is less than sometimes assumed to be, and probably less today than it has been in
the past. Particularly given the reach and variety of modern mass media, todays president has a harder time
commanding attention than Theodore Roosevelt with his bully pulpit or Franklin Roosevelt with his fireside chats.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital20130121_1_political-system-party-support-public-opinion/2
Obama prepares to be sworn in for the second time as president of the United States, he faces the stark reality that little of
what he hopes to accomplish in a second term will likely come to pass. Mr. Obama occupies an
office that many assume to be all powerful, but like so many of his recent predecessors, the president knows better. He
faces a political capital problem and a power trap . In the post-1960s American political system, presidents
have found the exercise of effective leadership a difficult task. To lead well, a president needs
support or at least permission from federal courts and Congress; steady allegiance from public opinion and fellow partisans in the electorate; backing from powerful,
entrenched interest groups; and accordance with contemporary public opinion about the proper size and scope of government. This is a long list of requirements. If
presidents fail to satisfy these requirements, they face the prospect of inadequate political support or
political capital to back their power assertions . What was so crucial about the 1960s? We can trace so much of what defines
As Barack
contemporary politics to trends that emerged then. Americans' confidence in government began a precipitous decline as the tumult and tragedies of the 1960s gave way to the scandals
and economic uncertainties of the 1970s. Long-standing party coalitions began to fray as the New Deal coalition, which had elected Franklin Roosevelt to four terms and made
Democrats the indisputable majority party, faded into history. The election of Richard Nixon in 1968 marked the beginning of an unprecedented era of divided government. Finally, the
two parties began ideologically divergent journeys that resulted in intense polarization in Congress,
diminishing the possibility of bipartisan compromise. These changes, combined with the growing influence of money and interest
groups and the steady "thickening" of the federal bureaucracy, introduced significant challenges to presidential
leadership. Political capital can best be understood as a combination of the president's party support in Congress, public approval of his job performance, and the
president's electoral victory margin. The components of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. It is difficult to claim warrants for leadership in an era when job approval,
player in the national political system. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush joined the small ranks of incumbents defeated while seeking a second term. Ronald Reagan was elected in
two landslides, yet his most successful year for domestic policy was his first year in office. Bill Clinton was twice elected by a comfortable margin, but with less than majority support,
and despite a strong economy during his second term, his greatest legislative successes came during his first year with the passage of a controversial but crucial budget bill, the Family
and Medical Leave Act, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. George W. Bush won election in 2000 having lost the popular vote, and though his impact on national security
policy after the Sept. 11 attacks was far reaching, his greatest domestic policy successes came during 2001. Ambitious plans for Social Security reform, following his narrow re-election in
2004, went nowhere. Faced with obstacles to successful leadership, recent presidents have come to rely more on their formal powers. The number of important executive orders has
increased significantly since the 1960s, as have the issuance of presidential signing statements. Both are used by presidents in an attempt to shape and direct policy on their terms.
Presidents have had to rely more on recess appointments as well, appointing individuals to important positions during a congressional recess (even a weekend recess) to avoid delays
and obstruction often encountered in the Senate. Such power assertions typically elicit close media scrutiny and often further erode political capital. Barack Obama's election in 2008
seemed to signal a change. Mr. Obama's popular vote majority was the largest for any president since 1988, and he was the first Democrat to clear the 50 percent mark since Lyndon
Johnson. The president initially enjoyed strong public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative accomplishments during his first
year and early into his second, capped by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But with each legislative battle and success, his political capital waned. His
impressive successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him, evident in the rise of the tea party movement, the collapse in his
approval rating, and the large GOP gains in the 2010 elections, which brought a return to divided government. By mid-2011, Mr. Obama's job approval had slipped well below its initial
levels, and Congress was proving increasingly intransigent. In the face of declining public support and rising congressional opposition, Mr. Obama, like his predecessors, looked to the
energetic use of executive power. In 2012, the president relied on executive discretion and legal ambiguity to allow homeowners to more easily refinance federally backed mortgages, to
help veterans find employment and to make it easier for college graduates to consolidate federal student loan debt. He issued several executive orders effecting change in the nation's
enforcement of existing immigration laws. He used an executive order to authorize the Department of Education to grant states waivers from the requirements of the No Child Left
Behind Act though the enacting legislation makes no accommodation for such waivers. Contrary to the outcry from partisan opponents, Mr. Obama's actions were hardly
unprecedented or imperial. Rather, they represented a rather typical power assertion from a contemporary president. Many looked to the 2012 election as a means to break present
trends. But Barack
Obama's narrow re-election victory, coupled with the re-election of a somewhat-diminished Republican majority House and
hardly signals a grand resurgence of his political capital. The president's recent issuance of
multiple executive orders to deal with the issue of gun violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress, the president must rely
on claims of unilateral power. But such claims are not without limit or cost and will likely further erode his political capital. Only by solving the problem of political capital is a president
times been able to overcome contemporary leadership challenges by adopting as their own issues that the public already supports. Bill Clinton's centrist "triangulation" and George W.
Bush's careful issue selection early in his presidency allowed them to secure important policy changes in Mr. Clinton's case, welfare reform and budget balance, in Mr. Bush's tax cuts
one that will likely weigh heavily on the current president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.
It seems he
just cannot win. But he can, and whether his critics realize it or not, Obama is doing it right
now. To understand this, however, it is important to recognize what motivates this particular president. Some
When he tries to be bipartisan, he is criticized by the Democrats for being weak and a turncoat.
presidents are caretakers. In their view, the best leadership is to make sure that nothing goes terribly wrong and
that the ship remains stable. As long as they do that, they consider themselves successful. But that is not this
This president wants to accomplish something tangible, dramatic, and lasting, and
to institute reform. Reform in healthcare, reform in marriage equality, reform in immigration,
reform in education, reform in campaign finance, and reform in clean energy. In all these areas, Obama sees
the potential for dramatic change and lasting long-term effects, and that is why he is
willing to go to the mat on these issues. On other things, including Social Security and
Medicare, the budget deficit, and even gun control, he sees less room for dramatic
improvement - either because of circumstances or political reality - and so is more willing to
compromise. Is this good or bad? It is neither, really. It is just the nature of this presidency and perhaps
Obama's destiny. Leaders pick and choose their battles based on the nation's circumstances,
unexpected contingencies, and their own instincts. President Obama's instincts led him to fight for
healthcare, so he did - ferociously, and he will do the same for immigration,
education, and clean energy. He is being roundly criticized for proposing a budget that
agrees to cuts in Social Security by tying it to a Chained CPI, and for agreeing to a softer
gun control bill than the one his party promised after Newtown, in order to reach compromise with the
Republicans. But what I believe is really happening is that Obama is making some very
tough choices. Political capital is a finite resource and this president will
use it where he feels it will do the most good. We can disagree with him on his priorities,
president.
that is
but I also see where he is coming from. Preserving Social Security is important but so is getting a budget passed
and reaching some type of compromise to keep the government running. Gun control is urgent but so are
Trumpwillneedtoslowtheaggressive
momentumofthefirstPutinandplayontheanxietyofthesecond.Theremayberoominsucha
relationshipforstrongmantostrongmanshowsofrespect,butMr.Trumpmust
notkidhimself.ThekeytowinningMr.Putinsrespectandtoassuringhis
restraintistoleavenodoubtaboutAmericasmilitary,economicanddiplomaticpower.Itwill
Mr.Putin.InEurope,themarginisastaggeringfivetoone.Mr.
surelysurpriseMr.Trumptohearit,butthepoliciesheinheritsfromtheObamaadministrationprovidetheessentialingredientsforsucha
relationship.
Europeisthecriticalcase.RussianaggressionandconfrontationtherehavenotcrackedtransAtlanticunity.
WesternsupporthasheldUkrainetogetherandconfinedseparatiststotwosmallenclaves.SanctionshavedeepenedRussiaseconomic
AllNATOmembershavepledgedtoincreasemilitaryspending.Andthe
allianceplanstodeploysmallmilitaryunitstonewmembers,creatinganeeded
tripwireagainstRussianpressure.Onlybyunderstandingthisrecord,ratherthandisparagingit,
downturn.
canMr.TrumpachieveandprofitfromchummypersonalrelationswithhisRussian
counterpart.Letsimagine,forexample,thatthesecond,anxiousPutindecidedtoacceptanoutstretchedhandfromWashingtonas
coverforextricatinghimselffromthestalematehehascreatedineasternUkraine.Ifso,PresidentTrumpwouldhaveashotatrevivingthelong
blockedMinsk2agreement,whichobligesRussiatowithdrawwhileUkraineallowssomeformofautonomyfortheeasternseparatists.Mr.
Trumpshouldknowtherisksofthisrespectforretreatstrategy.OnceMr.PutindecideshewantsoutofeasternUkraine,hellfindawaytogo
aheadwiththeMinsk2deal.Buthewontevenconsiderbacktrackingifhethinkshecangetwhathewantsfornothing.Thatswhythenew
presidentmustinsistonarealsolutioninUkraine,notacosmeticone.GivingRussiarelieffromsanctionswithoutacompletewithdrawalwould
onlymakeMr.Trumplooklikeachump.HewouldhavefailedtocheckthefirstPutin,andletthesecondoneoffthehook.RussianAmerican
relationswouldfacenewchallenges.Theywouldbecomelessstable,notmore.IfMr.TrumpplaysthetwoPutinsright,hehasachancetomove
forwardonotherissues.Russianofficialshaveexpressedlittleinterestinnewarmscontroltalks.ButthatwasbeforeRussianmilitaryspending
Havingpromisedhisownbuildup,Mr.Trumpisinapositiontore
engageMr.Putinonthebroadissueofstrategicnuclearstability .(Doingsowillhavewillhave
cameunderpressure.
thefurtherbenefitofmakingiteasierforEuropeangovernmentstomaintainUkrainerelatedsanctions.)
Russias economic difficulties mean that Putin, to achieve relief from Western
sanctions, may enter into a momentary Berlusconi-style bromance with the new
U.S. president. But the honeymoon is unlikely to last because Russias economic
difficulties oblige its government to hunt for enemies, foreign and domestic. Its
likely that Trump will also soon be looking to magnify the role of domestic and
foreign enemies to fend off domestic criticism and explain his inevitable failures.
Past relations resets have failed, must understand Russia as a
threat
Max Boot is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors and a senior fellow at the Council on
Foreign Relations, USA Today, November 18, 2016, Note to Trump: Putin is Not Our Friend: Max
Boot, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/11/18/trump-putin-russia-nato-security-maxboot/94026988/
The only real questions at this point are how far Trump will go in a pro-Russia direction and
how long this rapprochement will last. He is hardly the first American president to come
into office vowing to improve relations with Putin. George W. Bush claimed to
have looked into Putins eyes and seen his soul. Barack Obama pursued a reset of
relations. Both initiatives floundered when Putin launched unprovoked aggression
such as his 2008 invasion of Georgia and his 2014 invasion of Ukraine. Its quite
possible, even likely, that the good feelings between Putin and Trump will similarly give way
to mutual recriminations and suspicions after Putin does something that Trump views as a
personal insult. There will certainly be prominent Republican voices inside and outside the
administration arguing for a tougher policy on Russia. Vice President Mike Pence is a
hardliner and so are most of the people John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani and now Mitt
Romney who are being mentioned for senior national security posts. Just this week, Sen.
John McCain warned Trump not to place any faith in statements made by a former KGB
agent who has plunged his country into tyranny. Trump is too mercurial a figure to
pursue any policy with any consistency, even a pro-Russia policy. We can only hope
that Russia does not succeed in reestablishing its empire and swallowing some of
Americas more vulnerable allies in Eastern Europebefore Trump wakes up to the fact
that Putin is not Americas friend.
One false alarm in a century is one too many, because the consequences could be
catastrophic, could be civilization-ending, says Bruce Blair, a former U.S. intercontinental
missile launch control officer who is now a researcher at Princeton University.
The risks of nuclear war are rising mostly, but not only, because Putin has deployed his
countrys military, including its nuclear forces, with increasing aggression. America and its allies
are responding. And so the cycle continues.
Russias pattern of muscle-flexing is visible across the globe from its proxy invasion of
Ukraine to its buildup of forces in Syria. Russian aircraft and ships are buzzing U.S. and NATO
counterparts virtually every day somewhere around the world, U.S. officials say. The Russians
recently moved nuclear-capable missiles near Poland and Lithuania. They have repeatedly
conducted exercises involving nuclear forces, and America has too. They have broken the 1987
treaty on Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces by developing a new nuclear ground-launched
cruise missile. They tauntingly sailed an aircraft carrier battle group through the English
Channel last month. Russian media reported the nation conducts civil defense drills each
October, the most recent of which was said to involve 40 million people.
Both Russia and the United States are engaging in cyber-espionage and sometimes
cyberattacks, some of which could trigger physical outcomes such as electrical outages
that in turn could be considered an act of war, some experts worry.
Russian military doctrine has blurred the line between conventional and nuclear war. It calls for
using nuclear weapons as a means to essentially frighten an adversary into backing down from
a conventional fight.
- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/nuclear-threats-rise-concert-trumpsascension#sthash.HfjK7HKo.n0UTLdjJ.dpuf
The odds of war with Russia are rising, says Richard Shirreff, a retired British Army four-star
general and a former deputy commander of NATO forces. We must assume, given the way
Russia integrates nuclear into every aspect of military doctrine, that this must include the risk of
nuclear war.
It is not hard to imagine U.S. and Russian aircraft clashing, if only by accident, in the crowded
skies over Syria if not in the Baltics, the Arctic, the North Sea, the Aleutians or elsewhere.
Moscows rhetoric, too, has waxed radioactive. Dimitry Kiselev, a Putin progagandist, recently
warned of nuclear consequences in response to impudent behavior.
All this may be Russia blustering and posturing in ways it sees as serving its interests. But it has
already led to a pattern of escalation between nuclear Russia and nuclear America. For
example, Russian actions in Ukraine were a response to NATO expansion, and those actions led
the U.S. to reassure allies by deploying to the Black Sea warships with Tomahawk missiles that
could put Russian command-and-control, air-defense and early-warning facilities at risk, says
Princetons Blair.
Moscow in turn deployed attack submarines to the Black Sea to shadow U.S. ships, he says.
Then American forces replied by sending P-8 sub-hunting planes.
The current confrontation is steadily escalating, with definite nuclear implications, Blair says.
It could too easily spiral out of control and culminate in a full-throttle nuclear confrontation.