Tag Archives: Paris Accord

This Isn’t Normal And We Can’t Let It Be

In 1830 the United States had a total population of 12,806,702 spread among 24 states. New York City was our largest urban area with 202,589 people, Baltimore was second with 80,620. [Cen]  There was nothing about the American economy, which lurched from crisis to crisis during the 1830s, that would cause European powers to see the US as a power player:

“During this time, English traders could not collect on their sales in America, and many of them went bankrupt. Cotton mills closed in England, and American planters saw their markets disappear. By the summer of 1837, business was paralyzed, and it was not until the early 1840s that a semblance of confidence in business was restored.” [RU.edu]

We’re not, obviously, in the same category as we were 180 years ago, but we aren’t on the trajectory we were following a matter of months ago.   This, for Americans, isn’t normal.  Out of the economic and social debris of the American Civil War came an industrial nation,  fully prepared to compete with European nations, far ahead of some nations in terms of industrialization, financial markets (not that we were free from speculation and its results), and growing into importance as a world leader.  After booms and busts, periods of isolationism and nativism, and two world wars the US emerged as a super-power.  By 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower could say,”Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America.” [NA]

Former General Eisenhower had another line which should resonate with us today: “Now I think, speaking roughly, by leadership we mean the art of getting someone else to do something that you want done because he wants to do it, not because your position of power can compel him to do it, or your position of authority.”  [NA]

A Quick Review 

Other presidents following in this tradition sought to use American leadership in this manner.  President Kennedy’s foreign policy problems were legion, but he did manage to take a step towards arms control in the Limited Test Ban Treaty.  Lyndon Johnson’s presidency is associated with the Vietnam War, however during his tenure the US negotiated the Outer Space Treaty with the Soviet Union and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  President Nixon followed through with the SALT talks and the ABM Treaty.  President Gerald Ford signed the Helsinki Accords.  President Carter is remembered for the Camp David Accords. President Reagan changed the SALT formula to the START format: Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, and the tension evident in 1983 ended with Reagan’s trip to Moscow toward the end of his term in office. President George H.W. Bush managed to steer a steady course when relations with China threatened to implode over Chinese reactions to popular demonstrations, and his careful commentary in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet-era regime in Germany is said to have mitigated the reaction of hardliners in Eastern Europe.  President Bill Clinton pursued what he called his Policy of Enlargement, i.e. a policy based on promoting democracy and human rights abroad.  President George Bush’s foray into Iraq has encumbered the US with several foreign policy challenges, as did Clinton’s failure to deal assertively with Rwanda, however it would be remiss to omit Bush’s initiatives to deal with global HIV/AIDS programs and treatment.  The presidency of Barack Obama included negotiations concerning climate change (Paris Accords) and the limitations on the Iranian weapons program.

However mixed the policies and results of American world leadership since the Eisenhower Administration one aspect has remained fairly constant.  Every president has sought to get someone else to do what we want because they want to do it.  This was normal American foreign policy.  Until now.

America First America Alone

The first speech was a clear signal:

“President Trump’s speech Friday will go down as one of the shorter inaugural addresses, but it will also be remembered for its populist and often dark tone.“From this day forward,” Trump said at one point, “it’s going to be only America first. America first.” Trump appears to have first used the phrase last March in an interview with The New York Times when he denied he was an isolationist. “I’m not isolationist, but I am ‘America First,’” he said. “So I like the expression. I’m ‘America First.’” [Atlantic]

He appears to understand the dark origins of the America First movement, but adds a transactional element to the implied isolationism:

“Not isolationist, but I am America First,” he said. “I like the expression.” He said he was willing to reconsider traditional American alliances if partners were not willing to pay, in cash or troop commitments, for the presence of American forces around the world. “We will not be ripped off anymore,” he said.”[NYT]

He may like the expression, but it is irrevocably associated with the infamous Lindbergh Speech delivered on September 11, 1941:

“The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.  Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.”

Putting America First, Lindbergh rushed past the fact that the British were  blitzed in the Summer and Fall of 1940, and the Jews were the subject of Nazi genocide.  His rationale was that neither the British nor the Jews were “American” and therefore they were promoting their interests at the expense of American interests.  At the time Lindbergh delivered his speech in Des Moines the British weren’t fighting for their empire — they were fighting for their existence; and, the Jews were fighting for their lives.  Given this context, the expression “America First” should have been assigned to the great trash heap of really bad phrases, however in Trumpian terms it’s a banner to be waved in front of our adversaries, and unfortunately our allies as well.  This isn’t normal.

Normal recognizes that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states an attack on one ally means an attack on all — no strings, no demands for payment, no second guessing — as when it was invoked after September 11, 2001 on behalf of the United States.  It is not normal to address a gathering of NATO allies and delete a reference to the article.

Normal recognizes that voluntary accords such as the Paris Climate Agreement aren’t binding, but do express the aspirations of the global community toward adopting policies and practices which do not impinge on the health of our shared planet.  It is not normal to unilaterally discard an agreement most of the changes to which (from the Kyoto version) were made at American insistence.

Normal recognizes that the deployment of U.S. forces around the world is a deterrent to adventurism and the disruption of financial and commercial functions in the global domain.  It is not normal to view these expenses as being “ripped off” by other nations.  It is truly beyond normal to decry these expenses and then advocate for a $700 billion increase in the U.S. military budget.

Normal recognizes that not everyone gets exactly what is wanted from any international agreement, but that small steps can often lead to greater improvements.  The SALT talks begat the START talks and the START talks begat a nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  It is not normal to demand that the treaty with Iran contain precisely what the American government wants when it wants it — without securing international agreement as to the terms of the specific treaty.

Normal recognizes that it is necessary for a nation to be perceived as cooperative and willing to be held to one’s word.  It is not normal to have allies questioning whether or not the U.S. will sustain its support for NATO, cooperate with global initiatives on trade, health, and climate change, and keep its word concerning threats to global peace.

Normal recognizes that the foreign policy of other nations, such as Russia, is not in alignment with American interests.  Normal recognizes that the creation of a “Russian Century” is not in the best interest of the United States.  It is not normal to have an American president deny or try to minimize the significance of a Russian assault on American democratic practices and institutions.   It is not normal to have an American president omit reference to what is occurring in the Crimea, in Ukraine, and along the borders of western Europe.

The United States of America cannot allow the abnormal to become the new normal.

Comments Off on This Isn’t Normal And We Can’t Let It Be

Filed under Defense spending, energy policy, Foreign Policy, Politics

America Last

The first law of negotiation:  It is impossible to be part of any bi-lateral or collective agreement if an agency is not at the table.

And thus, the Rose Garden Jazz Concert and International Default Announcement last week violated the First Law, by a noted (albeit self-described) deal maker.  Green lit public buildings around the nation and globe notwithstanding, the Grand Announcement was more theater than substance.  There’s a pattern herein.  First, the administration announces its announcements.  “On Wednesday, June ___, at 12:05 pm the White House will ____”  This sets up our cable news “panels” for almost interminable displays of speculation, multiplying the publicity.  Thence comes The Announcement, which may or may not be substantive.  Witness the now infamous Rick-Rolling “announcement” by the administration about President Obama’s birth certificate authenticity.  Notice there was never any apology issued for the Birtherism, and attendant racist cant, just an “announcement” made in conjunction with the opening of a family business hotel.

In reality, the first time the U.S. can withdraw from the Paris Accord comes after the next presidential election.  In reality, the accord is entirely voluntary, and has been noted in several commentaries, can’t be both draconian and voluntary at the same time.  In reality, the rest of the nations aren’t about to allow the US to “renegotiate” the terms, especially since the Paris agreement was framed to answer US objections to the Kyoto version to which the US would not agree.  In reality, the world witnessed a statement expressing the narrow vision of the current administration, violating the First Law of Negotiation.

In short, reality has precious little to do with the Rose Garden Jazz Concert Announcement.  Nor does reality square with the Trumpian bluster that the Deal Maker can get America a better deal in the foreseeable future.  At the risk of redundancy, in order to get a deal an agent must be at the table.  The question then becomes does the administration even want a seat at that table?

One theme among the pundits is that the current administration sees international agreements in zero sum terms, that is, every multi-national treaty or protocol is a link in the shackles restraining American sovereignty.  The problem, of course, is that each American retreat also comes with an obverse side — leadership abhors a vacuum, and others will step in where the US fears to tread.  Isolationism brings with it the specter of Splendid Exile.

A related theme is a theory of executive management in which Dear Leader sits atop the pyramid, in a well appointed corner office, issuing edicts which others are expected to follow without dissent.  This, however, is also a formula for a toxic corporate culture:

“Companies hire people because the managers can’t do everything themselves. It stands to reason that we should trust the people we hire to do their jobs, but some fearful managers can’t give up control.

They have to make all the decisions and call all the shots. A rule-driven, command-and-control culture is a toxic culture that will drive talented people away.”  [Forbes]

It will also drive away those who want to cooperate in major projects and programs — like environmental improvement.  Applying a “toxic” corporate culture model to the management of major governmental projects and processes is counterproductive.

It is equally toxic to consider that an increase in cooperative engagements means that gains by some necessarily means someone must lose.  It’s easy to see the world in terms of Winners and Losers, but this perspective excludes the possibility that if everyone gives a little then the prospects for mutual gains are improved.  This philosophy also denigrates the idea that improvement is always possible, holding instead that destruction is the best option.  One of the first regional trade agreements in the modern era, NAFTA, has problems (which may be feeding discontent with other agreements), however, this doesn’t mean that the benefits of freer movement of goods and capital need to be obliterated in the interests of “removing the shackles.”

The idea that the US can effectively lead by abandoning the field (or the bargaining table) is inherently false, as are the promises extrapolated therefrom.

The second law of bargaining says “never negotiate with yourself.”  Pronouncements concerning unilateral actions — as being preferable to mutually agreed upon items of interest — rarely lead to positive outcomes. It’s essentially bargaining with yourself.  For example,  the United States under the current terms of the Paris Accord can set its own carbon emission standards and goals.  Operating in mutual terms, the US could modify its goals and simply inform global partners of the changes and rationale.  The isolationist response assumes that xenophobia is a positive feature of national policy, and no other nation is deserving of notice of our intentions and reasoning.  This is tantamount to that isolated corporate executive in the corner office who sees no benefit in having his or her board actually question directives.

When other voices are ignored those directives and policies coming from the top floor are more likely to be the produce of interior monologues than of well crafted discussion, in other words the CEO/President is negotiating with himself.

Violating the first two essential rules of negotiation aren’t exactly the way to cement one’s reputation as a deal maker.

Comments Off on America Last

Filed under ecology, Economy, Politics

Disinformation Dismay

Perhaps Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) would like to apply his talent for taking simple GOP talking points and putting them through the Amodei X600 Syntax Degenerator to the Trumpian version of why it was necessary to take the US out of a VOLUNTARY climate improvement agreement? Vox explains the 5 biggest bits of disinformation in the Rose Garden jazz concert and diplomatic disaster. Want more fact checking? Politifact provides more.

And, we hear that Senator Dean (Moderate in Name Only) Heller (R-NV) wants to get to “yes” on replacing the Affordable Care Act with some GOP approved insurance scheme that actually replaces affordable health insurance with a major tax cut for those who enjoy an income level in the top 2%.  How do we get to “yes” with this scenario?

“However, under the AHCA, currently under consideration in the Senate, the tax credit will be a flat rate based on age. Korbulic said a 40-year-old making $30,000 a year could see a more than $400 increase in premiums because of the flat rate, but a person over the age of of 60 making the same amount could see a $6,000 jump in premium costs.”

“I think you’re looking at a scenario where consumers are going to have less affordable access, and so that will likely mean they’re going to be priced out of the market,” Korbulic said. “

Meanwhile, the Trump Chicken put in an appearance at Senator Heller’s Las Vegas office. Senator Heller has a relatively predictable pattern. (1) Publicly announce “concern” or “trouble” with Republican legislation.  (2) Receive some nebulous assurance that the result of the Republican legislation won’t be the obvious. (3) Revert to standard GOP platitudes and clichés like “free market,” “freedom,” “personal choice,” and “individual responsibility,” and then (4) Vote right along with the GOP leadership as he had intended to all along.  (Examples?  SCHIP votes.  Financial Reform.)  There’s no particular reason to believe his performance on this matter will be any different.

Representative Amodei emerged from hiding to explain his chances for a statewide office are slim to none.   There is no indication yet in these parts that the tag team of Heller and Amodei will conduct town hall meetings with constituents in any populated area of the Silver State with lights, cameras, and real questions.

 

Comments Off on Disinformation Dismay

Filed under Amodei, ecology, Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Politics