The Debt Ceiling and the Ugliness of American Politics

 

I anticipate that sometime this week, the British news media will report that the US government is at serious risk of shut down if the country’s debt ceiling is not raised with the approval of Congress. If this feels like déjà vu, you’d be right. It is a tactic which has twice been employed by Republicans in Congress during Obama’s administration. However, this year’s effort has a twist. The House Republicans are telling the President, “We’ll agree to increase the debt ceiling if you’ll accept the stripping of funding for the Affordable Healthcare Act.” It is a proposal which has no possible chance of success but exposes the Republican Party to scorn and ridicule.

Democracy is a difficult and complex subject, involving principles which are sometimes hard to accept. For example, in seeking election to Congress, a candidate is expected to advocate his and his political party’s views. However, once elected, the successful candidate legislates for all the voters, not just those who voted for him. Therefore, what possible justification is there for a small number of legislators to decide that some forty million American citizens should be denied access to affordable healthcare? If nothing else, it demonstrates the legislators’ lack of appreciation of what it takes to be a good legislator in a democracy.

How can Speaker Boehner say “the American people don’t want Obamacare?” I accept that many of Romney’s 47%, the people he felt would never vote Republican, both want and need the protection of the Affordable Healthcare Act but this does not mean that the remaining 53% don’t want it. The AHA was approved by Congress, where the Republicans lost the argument. The Supreme Court approved the AHA. The Republicans lost the argument again. And last November, the American people were given the opportunity to elect an administration which would repeal the AHA. They voted overwhelmingly for Obama and, by implication the AHA. So, where is your evidence Mr. Boehner? His representatives in the U. S. House are doing the Republican Party no favours by attacking healthcare in this way.

Let’s next look at “government” and see whether these House Republicans are fit to govern. Here in Western Europe, a part of the world that Republicans like Bush (W) and Rumsfeld disrespected following 9/11 and particularly in the UK, which joined the US in the War on Terror despite “our old ways,” there are four pillars of government, principles from which every elected government, Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat does not depart. They are defence of the realm and taking care of the young, the old and the sick. The British government provides a state pension, education and healthcare. However, whilst education and healthcare are free at the point of delivery, they are not free. The cost is paid through taxation. The essential point is that the vast majority of citizens accept collective responsibility for the weaker members of society.

It seems the British concept of government is very distinct from the America standpoint. Many Republicans don’t want to help their fellow citizens, except through a graded taxation where the more you earn, the higher rate you pay. There seems to be no sense of fellow-citizenship. If evidence is required, in his book, Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam spelled out clearly how much the America people have changed in their unwillingness to concern themselves with their neighbours and the wider community.

Finally, let’s look at the politics? The Deficit Bill passed in the House will be defeated in the Senate. Even in the highly unlikely event it is not, President Obama will use his veto. The veto will not be overridden. The Democrats have a majority in the Senate. So where is the gain for the Congressional Republicans in having the federal government shut down? It will hurt middle class employees, people the Republicans would hope to attract as voters in the 2014 mid-terms. It will risk having the country regarded as “a dead-beat nation”, to use the President’s words. It has no worthwhile political upside.

It appears to me that the House Republicans are bent on introducing a form of economic paralysis. If so, they have no interest other than to damage, spoil and destroy anything with a Democrat tag.

I will be very interested to see how the Republicans get themselves out of this political hole. I anticipate they will back down and agree a Continuing Resolution to deal with the debt problem short-term. I suspect Obama will try to get more from them but there will be a political deal to save faces.

 For many months, Obama has been regarded as weak. Whether he is or not is for another blog. For me, Speaker Boehner, whether he thought up the debt ceiling antic or went along with the Republican herd, is the truly weak individual. He should have kicked out the debt ceiling/healthcare idea as soon as he heard of it and kept his Party’s powder dry on healthcare until the 2014 mid-terms.

Space, Syria and Stuff

 

Two events last week caught my eye. The first was the journey of Explorer One, an unmanned space craft launched in 1973 that has now travelled so far it is beyond the solar system. Voyager was constructed in a time when built-in obsolescence was fashionable. It was also built for NASA by the lowest bidder. It is a wonder that it still exists, let alone works.

The second event was the astonishing emergence of President Putin at the G20 Summit as the statesman who will receive the lion’s share of credit for brokering a breakthrough in the Syrian chemical weapons impasse. The deal, which is evidently agreed by USA and approved by the Syrian government, requires the latter to itemise its stock of chemical weapons in a short time space, to be followed by Syria joining the Chemical Weapons Treaty, UN inspections verifying the truthfulness and accuracy of the Syrian weapons manifest and destruction of the chemical weapons by mid 2014. That’s a lot of ground to cover within a tight time-frame.

This weekend I scoured the broadsheets for one missing piece of the jigsaw, the report of UN inspectors on the chemical weapons raids in August. I found nothing. However, when the report was published last night, it was damning in its conclusions that chemical weapons were indeed used on suburbs of Damascus.

The report is silent on the perpetrators. America, UK and France very swiftly pointed the finger at the Syrian government. Last Friday, UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon pretty well accused the Syrian government of a war crime. He said:

“I believe that the report will be an overwhelming, overwhelming report that chemical weapons (were) used even though I cannot publicly say at this time before I receive this report.”

In that speech, Ban Ki-Moon also said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “has committed many crimes against humanity.” However, the broad implication of the statement was that the Syrian government was the perpetrator. Last night, Moon went so far as to call the attack “beyond the pale.” There seems little doubt in Moon’s mind that the Assad regime committed a war crime. If so, will the international community be satisfied that Syria gets a slap on the wrist? At the moment, it would seem so.

I wonder what took so long for the UN report to be published. I fear that those with vested interests may have tried to politicise it. I hope I am wrong because the reputation of the UN is now at risk, not to mention the millions of Syrian lives which remain at stake in this vicious civil war. Furthermore, what will the UN resolution say about sanctions if Syria fails to comply with the deal. I’ll take a large wager that there will be no threat of military action, unless a second UN resolution is passed.

Politically, it cannot hurt President Obama to leave President Putin in the spotlight. The experience of the UN in the Iraq debates thirteen years ago leads me to believe that this saga is just beginning. When I practised as a commercial lawyer, I found that with some cultures a signed agreement was the end of negotiations but with others, it was the prelude. If Mr. Assad is true to form, he will lead the UN a merry dance. What will Putin do then? How will he cope with the opprobrium if his deal falls apart? Obama will be able to point the finger and say “I told you so.” But that would be cold comfort.

Whatever the outcome, the world is now a more dangerous place. Both America and UK look weak on chemical weapons. In the case of the latter, it is because we are weak. In the case of USA, it has elected a president who is a decent man who respects life. He has the world’s biggest and most dangerous arsenal at his disposal but he is reluctant to use it and rightly so. Sadly, his timing may well prove to be wrong. Perpetrators of crimes against humanity need to be opposed and, if possible, deposed. They should not be offered political solutions which costs them next to nothing.

If America is regarded as politically weak, what is there to stop North Korea dropping a nuclear weapon on its neighbour? There are so many danger spots in the world that the threat of American and Russian military action is needed to keep things in check.

How sad that one of America’s great successes in Voyager should happen in the same week as the country’s political weakness is badly exposed.

Syria. What Next? Part II

The late Harold Wilson, Britain’s prime minister in the 1960s and 70s, was fond of saying, “a week is a long time in politics.” From my perspective, the past week has seen a lot of politics but no solutions to the tragic situation in Syria.

Last Thursday, Britain’s prime-minister, David Cameron, recalled Parliament. He sought consent: “To support military action in Syria that is legal, after consultation with the United Nations.” There is no legal requirement under English law for our chief executive to seek Parliament’s support to such action. In 1939, prime-minister Chamberlain declared war on Germany without recourse to Parliament.

However, Cameron, mindful of former PM, Tony Blair and his actions regarding Iraq, decided to seek approval. He laid hardly any ground work, he did not court his own MPs and he produced no hard evidence of the Syrian government’s culpability. Instead, he relied on the circumstantial evidence provided by the Americans. Having no hard evidence was akin to the so-called Dodgy Dossier produced to Parliament by Blair prior to the Iraq debate.

Ed Milliband, leader of the opposition, indicated to Cameron that he would support the motion, thus there was certainty it would pass. However, Cameron was blind-sided. Milliband changed his mind at the last minute. Why did he do this? Despite his high-flown position that it was too early to start military action, he played politics. He saw a chance to embarrass and defeat Cameron’s government. I hope this manoeuvre will come back to haunt him. He played politics with Syrian lives. Mind you, so did many Conservative MPs. Had they voted with their government, the Motion would have passed. The expression, “nest of vipers,” comes to mind.

In the debate, Cameron moved his ground by promising a second parliamentary vote before any final decision to commence military action was taken but this was defeated too. So, instead of having a Falklands moment to augment his government’s “success” for the 2015 General election, Cameron cannot join a coalition led by America to deal with the Syrian problem. Talking heads said the special relationship was damaged. Nonsense! The comment that made me laugh was, “we can no longer stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans.” The only way Cameron can do this is by standing on a four foot ladder!

On Friday, President Obama, realising he was virtually on his own with, possibly, the help of France, announced that any American military action in Syria would be limited and narrow. DC legislators saw the power exerted by Parliament and agitated for similar rights. Obama grabbed the opportunity with both hands. He was not obliged to do so. Under The War Powers Act, a president has the right to commit US forces under given circumstances such as we see in Syria.

However, Congress was giving him an exit. Having boxed himself into a corner with last years’ statement about red lines, Obama has to stick to his aggressive position. Were Congress not to approve military action, Obama would be off the hook. However, the longer action is delayed, the more problematic it becomes.

The Democrats have a majority in the Senate, whereas the House of Representatives is in Republican control. What would happen if each House voted on party lines? I assume, the motion would be defeated and Obama would no longer have the power to use US force. As he has shown little appetite for military intervention, he would be happy. But John Boehner, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has decided to support Obama on this occasion. Of course he does because he has a win, win position. If military action succeeds, the Republicans can claim a healthy slice of the credit. If it fails, Obama will be blamed.

So while the West plays politics, what about Russia? This weekend, G20 meets under the chairmanship of President Putin. The latter wants to be seen as a statesman but his government’s position is out of step with the West. So, he sought to give himself wiggle room by saying that if there was cast iron, incontrovertible evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its people, he would support action sanctioned by a U N resolution.

There is rarely any such thing as “cast iron evidence” in these circumstances. I bet Putin is hoping the U N inspectors will not report on the use of chemical weapons until G 20 is over. Either way, he is playing politics too.

So, we are left with a humanitarian crisis as two million refugees have poured out of Syria to live in circumstances that are indescribable, not to mention potentially de-stabilising the region. We are left with the conundrum that Syria has been the scene of a chemical weapons strike with no proof thus far of who did it, unless you accept what the US President and his Secretary of State are saying.