Month: December 2019
Stevenson’s army, December 21 and 22
December 22
– Washington awaits North Korean missile test with policy in disarray, NYT says.
– WSJ says Navarro endures on trade issues.
-Former CIA official reflects on Post’s Afghanistan articles. I agree.
-Newly released emails show OMB blocking Ukraine aid 90 minutes after Zelensky phone call.
– NYT compares political situations of Nixon and Trump.
December 21
– The administration forced Congress to back down on a provision in the omnibus spending bill that would have forced early release of military aid to Ukraine.
– NYT can track you by your phone, and they did it on the president.
-WaPo lists the contenders fighting in Libya.
– NYT says there’s vote rigging in Venezuela..
– The fight over control of the world’s financial system.
– FP explains why US and Israel don’t have a formal alliance.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Untied Kingdom
The UK parliament approved Prime Minister Johnson’s Brexit plan today, intended to implement the June 2016 referendum approved by less than 52% of those voting.
Formal withdrawal from the EU will happen on January 31. The immediate economic consequences are not dramatic. The UK will remain part of the European Union’s single market during a transition period that lasts until the end of next year, when Johnson has promised a free trade agreement with the EU will be in place. Ever since the 2016 referendum UK businesses have been adjusting to the prospect of Brexit, with mainly negative consequences for a private sector economy now headed towards recession. The BBC offers a good summary of what happens next.
But that is not where the beef is. Two swords already hang over the Brexit process: one is Scottish, the other is Irish. A third Welsh sword isn’t far behind.
Scotland voted to remain in the EU. Its pro-EU Scottish National Party won the vast majority of Scotland’s seats in the UK election earlier this month. Its leader has promised a new referendum on secession from the UK in 2020. The 2014 Scottish referendum, conducted before Brexit was on the horizon, failed but gathered almost 45% of the vote. The next one is likely to pass.
Northern Ireland also voted to remain in the EU. Johnson’s Brexit plan calls for customs checks between England and Northern Ireland, in order to allow Northern Ireland to avoid border checks with EU member Ireland. The Protestants of Northern Ireland aren’t ready to throw themselves into the arms of Dublin, but they are getting a big push in that direction. Most Catholics need no push. They would be glad to see a reunited Ireland.
Wales voted to leave the EU 52-48, but that was likely due mainly to English voters living in Wales. When the Welsh, who have revived their language in recent decades, begin to understand that their substantial EU benefits are drying up, who knows what will happen.
So the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is at risk. Boris Johnson knows this and is emphasizing that it is the United Kingdom that will leave the EU at the end of January. But he is going to have a hard time blocking the Scots from secession. He would have to offer a massive economic package in order to prevent it, and even then the Scots may decide they are more interested in maintaining their ties to Europe. Will Northern Ireland and Wales be far behind?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 20
– NYT has the tick tock on how Pelosi and Lighthizer got to Yes on the USMCA trade deal with labor support.
– WaPo shows sequence of Trump’s belief in Ukraine interference in 2016. Former Trump officials link it to Putin’s influence.
– There’s still hope: the special House committee on modernization urges specific reforms. There’s their release.
BTW: both Houses have adjourned until January.
– India cracks down with detentions and internet suspension.
– A Tufts prof says cybersecurity experts are being driven out of government.
– One of the most significant unreported [other than FT] stories is this: China is set to open enough new coal-fired plants to equal Europe’s current capacity.
PS: SecState Pompeo has lunch scheduled today with Trump. Will he finally announce his plan to return to Kansas and run for Senate?
And a supplement:
I found several more items worthy of your weekend time.
– Ward Just has died. He was an outstanding WaPo reporter from Vietnam until being wounded. He then turned to fiction, and wrote some of the most realistic Washington novels I’ve ever read. [Only Thomas Mallon comes close.] His political characters are true and complex.
– The Vietnam draft lottery spawned decades of valuable scientific research because it produced truly random samples for later study. Some of the vet/nonvet results are deeply troubling. [FYI, I lucked out: my birthday was 312 in the lottery.]
-CFR has its latest report on what to worry about in 2020. [We’ll read this in the spring course.]
– Reuters says Saudi oil fields attack came from the north, thus likely Iran.
– Atlantic Council has a good new report urging “managed competition” with China, with justifiable heavy emphasis on economic issues like R&D and trade.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 19
– FP says one of the key reasons for a rash of Pentagon departures is the toxic environment created by Under Secretary Rood.
– Peter Feaver says public support for the US military is more fragile than expected.
– A Marine worries that the US is once again de-emphasizing the counter insurgency mission but it will be needed.
– CRS has a new report on intelligence community spending.
– Pay close attention to what Chinese diplomats are doing in their expanded role in UN organizations.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Legitimacy counts
For only the third time in American history, the House of representatives, voting along partisan lines, impeached a president yesterday. President Trump now faces a trial in the Senate, where virtually all of the Republicans are committed to following Majority Leader McConnell’s lead. He has announced himself not impartial, despite the oath he will be required to swear, and is coordinating with the White House on how to proceed.
The debate yesterday was a bore. If someone said something new, it escaped me. Democrats relied mainly on the facts elicited in public hearings that demonstrated the President
- had used his public office to seek and extort illegal Ukrainian help against a political rival, using his private lawyer as his main agent, and
- obstructed Congress’ efforts to obtain testimony and documents relevant to the proceedings.
The Republicans simply asserted that the above facts had not been demonstrated and criticized the process, claiming that parts of it were conducted in secret (even if Republicans were present in the closed-door hearings) and that no witness had testified to the President’s direct involvement (most of the witnesses who could have done so were prevented by the President). One Republican even claimed that Jesus had been given more rights in his trial by Pontius Pilate. This silliness merits no response.
One Republican claim deserves deeper consideration: that the Democrats are trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election. That is literally untrue, since removal of Trump from office by the Senate would bring Vice President Pence to the Oval Office, not Hillary Clinton. But the Republican claim reflects a real concern: Trump, whose 63 million votes (he actually got less than that) the Republicans repeatedly cited yesterday in the House, lost the popular vote to Clinton, who got close to 66 million votes. Trump won only because of the Electoral College, created in the 18th century to share power between more populated states and less populated ones. It gives a voter in Wyoming something like three times the weight of a voter in California or New York.
Trump is unlikely to do better in the popular vote in 2020. California and New York, which voted 62% and 59% for Clinton, both suffered big losses in the Republican tax cuts of 2017. Trump is loathed in both the first and third most populous states in the country. Texas, which Trump won with 52%, is turning increasingly purple, if not blue. It is hard to picture how Trump will make up in the rest of the country for the tilt to the Democrats–any Democrat–in the next election’s popular vote totals.
But these three populous states are arguably the most disadvantaged in the Electoral College. So it is easy to imagine that Trump might win in the Electoral College with, let us guess, 5 million fewer popular votes than the Democratic candidate.
This is a serious problem with no easy solution. It is serious because power in a republic needs to come from the people and the people need to have equal rights. There is no divine right, or right of less populous states, to choose leaders.
It can’t be fixed easily because amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College would require a 2/3 majority in both Houses of Congress as well as approval in 3/4 (38 out of 50) of the states. The Electoral College’s perverse effect on the popular vote can also be undone by a “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” in which the states agree to award their Electoral College votes to the popular vote winner. It would be activated once states with a majority of the electoral votes agree. But that ongoing effort is unlikely to produce results before the 2020 election.
Both Democrats and Republicans know this: Trump did not win the popular vote in 2016 and won’t in 2020. Republicans need to ferociously assert his legitimacy because he lacks the approval of the plurality of voters. Democrats will try in the Senate trial to ensure that he is de-legitimized further.
The trial in the Senate has the potential to make or break Trump. Speaker Pelosi is holding out on formally notifying the Senate of the impeachment until McConnell provides assurance of a serious process, with witnesses, including those prevented from testifying in the House. I don’t really see what leverage she has–the Democratic Senators who are candidates for President will want the trial early in January so they can get back on the campaign trail–but I certainly understand what is at stake. Legitimacy counts.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Impeachment day
The US House of Representatives will impeach President Trump today, or if the debate goes too long maybe tomorrow. The charges are clear: abuse of power and obstructing Congress. The evidence is overwhelming and uncontested: using his personal lawyer, Trump used US government assets to further his personal electoral interests by trying to get Ukraine to investigate a political rival and ordered Administration officials not to cooperate with the impeachment process.
The outcome of the trial in the Senate, where a two-thirds majority is required, is just as clear. Virtually all of the 53 Republicans are so far determined to vote against removing the President from office. It is not even clear that the Senate will permit a serious trial with witnesses. Senate Majority Leader McConnell has announced that he is not impartial, despite Senate rules that require he swear an oath or affirm that
in all things appertaining to the trial of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.
Clearly, McConnell should not be voting on impeachment when it is taken up in the Senate in January, nor should he be deciding what the procedure there will be.
Meanwhile, President Trump has sent what can only be termed a nutty letter to Speaker of the House Pelosi objecting to the impeachment proceedings in stentorian tones. The letter itself could be the basis for an article of impeachment, as it fails to acknowledge the House’s constitutional authority to conduct the impeachment process. It thus confirms that the President is attempting to obstruct Congress in fulfilling its responsibilities.
It is still unclear what the political consequences of this impeachment will be. Those who hoped impeachment would tame Trump have already been proved wrong. But despite the partisan divide, the House has been able to proceed with budget bills containing lots of controversial measures. Those are expected to be approved in the Senate by Friday, when otherwise the US Government will again have to go through the ridiculous process of shutting down.
Both Democrats and Republicans seem concerned that they demonstrate some tangible progress on issues that matter to Americans (family leave, health care, gun research) even while conducting a dialogue of the deaf on impeachment. That is good news on the domestic front, at least for now.
More important is how impeachment, followed by “acquittal” in the Senate, will affect turnout and voting in the November 2020 election, when all of the House, one-third of the Senate, and the White House will be on the ballot. It certainly didn’t help the Democrats when Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 but not removed from office. But those were different times. So far impeachment has done little to damage Trump’s support with those who approve of his performance as President.
How will impeachment affect the President, especially his foreign policy moves? My best guess is that he will become anxious to show some results even if he does not moderate his language or behavior. He has already reached a truce in the trade war with the Chinese, giving Beijing more than he got. He has also ordered a partial withdrawal from Afghanistan, despite the failure to reach an agreement with the Taliban. He will likely also cave to North Korea, which has turned belligerent towards its erstwhile lover. Trump has nothing to show for his erratic Russophilia and his hostility towards friends, allies, and democracies. Making America Grate Again is not, it turns out, a way to serve the national interest.
But the biggest factor affecting Trump’s electoral prospects is the economy. It is already slowing, and Boeing’s 737 Max problems will slow it further. Watch that space: an end to the longest US expansion ever would imperil Trump more than impeachment.
RSS - Posts
